finncullen: (Default)



Before Gauguin brought his work in Tahiti to a close, he shifted from his symbolist pictorial agenda in order to focus on the beauty and serene virtues of the native women. In this painting, he depended on sculpturally modeled forms, gesture, and facial expression to vivify the sentiments he had used to describe the "Tahitian Eve": "very subtle, very knowing in her naïveté" and at the same time "still capable of walking around naked without shame."

Source: Paul Gauguin: Two Tahitian Women (49.58.1) | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Well they may have thought they were without shame.. and Gaugin may have thought they were without shame.. but Susan Burns a 53 year old from the state of Virginia in the former colonies decided otherwise.    She attacked the painting, thankfully unsuccessfully, in an attempt to destroy it because:

"I feel that Gauguin is evil...He has nudity and is bad for the children. He has two women in the painting and it's very homosexual."

Lackwitted old trollop.

finncullen: (Default)
One lying politician caught in his words.

Gordon Brown - incumbent Prime Minister - a week before the General Election - was faced by a 66 year old working class woman who asked him some reasonable questions about the national debt, pensions, inflation, immigration and education.   He handled things very well and she left happy.

He then got into his car - with his radio mic still on - and said

"That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..."

Asked what she had said, he is heard to reply: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous. I don't know why Sue brought her up towards me."

(they then played the tape to Gordon live on TV.   His body language was joyous to behold, it looked like he was trying to piss out a pineapple)

So now everyone knows that his public face and private face are different (no surprise to Finn about any politician, but there still seems to be some tribal nonsense going on that makes people believe that politicians are somehow noble creatures) and more importantly they know that anyone who shares the same concerns as this woman will not have those concerns addressed by the Labour party.

I'm not Partisan, and would happily crucify the leader of any political party with nails carved from the femurs of the leaders of the others, but it is such a joy to see the curtain pulled aside to see the filthy unswept crap backstage.

finncullen: (Default)
I am not seeking this stuff out, just tripping over it.

RICHMOND — State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.

He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood.

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican.

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."


Well may I humbly suggest something that you could try the next time you are alone?  Involving a corkscrew and your cornea.  

These fucking inbred god-botherers actually have power?   In any civilised country they'd be exhibited for the amusement of the lower classes.
finncullen: (Default)
 A new law is being pushed forward in Utah, in the Western Theocratic Realm, that will hold women criminally liable for homicide charges if they suffer a miscarriage and it can be proved that they were in some way 'reckless' or 'negligent' about their safety and that of their unborn child.

Glass of wine?  Negligent.
Fell down the stairs?   Knew the carpet needed mending?  Negligent.
Staying with an abusive partner?  Negligent.
Not wearing a safety belt?   Negligent.

This nonsensical and cruel abomination of a putative law proposes sentences of up to life imprisonment for the woman who has lost her child.

My outrage knows no bounds on this matter and I can only hope that the law is not passed.   That it has got so far along in the process only confirms my scornful opinion of the people who run the Theocracy and their ridiculous superstitious agenda.   The simple idea that it may be right to punish a woman who has suffered the loss of a baby makes me want to break the necks of these morons and crunch through their vertebrae with my teeth.

The following is a comment from the page linked below.  The comment expresses perfectly the same viewpoint I hold toward this pathetic initiative:

Hey Utah, Fuck you. Yes, I say that for every woman who has has a miscarriage. You think it's easy to miscarry a baby - whether the child is wanted or not? Fuck you. It's not. If your body miscarries, it hurts like fucking hell. If your baby dies in your womb without you knowing you have to have an operation to take him out. So fuck you. Take your stupid bill and shove it up your fat asses, because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

To threaten to prosecute women for this is ridiculous. What's next, prosecuting women whose children end up having psychological problems? Because they must have done SOMETHING to make them that way? You want to prosecute parents who vaccinate their kids, because Jenny McCarthy says that vaccinations cause autism?

You want to prosecute mothers who drink in their first month or two, regardless of the fact that their pregnancy test came back negative - because this happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME? Because pregnancy tests are not infallible!

So dear, dear Utah. Please go fuck yourself.

Sincerely, A pro-choice woman who still mourns the loss of her child, who had to be scraped out of her womb. If you want to prosecute me because I ate a deli sandwich while pregnant (OMG LISTERIA!) you can go fuck yourself.

P.S. This is only directed at the people in Utah who are assholes. The rest of you are cool
Brava, madam, you express it perfectly.   The link below has more information.
finncullen: (Default)
 I've ranted enough individually about this, but reasoned that what else is LiveJournal for if not for braindumping this sort of thing?   I'm also slightly reluctant because enough other people are ranting in similar ways and being part of a crowd never appeals to me, heh.

But enough of such self-analysis!   Here is the rant as promised.

I've always - since I can remember - been interested in the story 'The Phantom of the Opera' - this is no surprise to anyone who knows me.   The story concept is a fascinating one with a potential that I think has never been fully realised (including, bizarrely, in the original novel.. it is as though the potential was slightly beyond the grasp even of the original author who produced a strangely unsatisfying mish mash of a work that was not quite detective story, not quite thriller and not quite romance).    Each retelling of it focusses on a particular aspect, usually to the detriment of other aspects.

Moving on...

The most famous recent incarnation of the Phantom's story has been the musical version created by Andrew Lloyd Weber (now Lord Weber of Toad Hall).   This was bastardised into a 2004 talkie version which played up the gooey romance to the detriment of the other aspects, making the disfigured loon into a tall, strapping, tanned heart-throb with a slight skin irritation.   Frankly if I'd paid to see him exhibited in a freak show as the backstory has it, I'd have asked for my money back and a free goldfish.  

Perhaps bolstered by the attention this Silhouette-Romance Phantom garnered from the general mass of swooning illiterates as well as by his insatiable desire to grind his once proud reputation into the stinking dust of mediocrity which he has been indulging for the last several years, the squishy faced ALW has made good on his intention to produce a sequel to his musical.

This festering pile of pus is called "Love Never Dies" and does more damage to the original concept and characters than all the fanfiction produced by hormonal illiterates over the past ten years.    All the worst cliches of fanfiction are there, and embellished by lyrics of such triteness they would embarass William McGonagall.

At the end of the Phantom musical, the Phantom himself has a moment of clarity and performs the first selfless act of his life, releasing the object of his adoration to a loving life with another man, the heroic young aristocrat Raoul De Chagny.   This redemptive act is the dramatic climax of a life of isolation and bitterness.

So where does the sequel go from here?    To a funfair in America where the Phantom has opened an amusement park.   He's still obsessed with Christine, so that redemptive climax was obviously a short lived thing of no consequence.   Meanwhile since the creators of this faecal golem need to shoe-horn a romance between Christine and the Phantom back into things, her marriage to the heroic Raoul is in the way... hmm... Easy!  Make him a drunken abusive husband with no genitals (result of a duel) who has no time for his child (more later) or for Christine's singing.

Of course!   Dramatic tension in making a difficult choice may be difficult to write for Christine's character... so let's make it easy for her.  I'm surprised they didn't make Raoul radioactive too to make it even more impossible for her to stay with him.

Oh the child isn't Raoul's of course, it's the Phantom's.   Apparently on the night before her wedding to Raoul, sweet Christine sneaked off back to Erik's lair to make the beast with two backs and little Gustave was the result.    Do I need to point out how out of character it would have been for Christine to do that?   Even Erik at that point - after his redemptive clarity - would I think have refused any offer of that kind.

Anyway, back to "Love Never Dies" (or "Shit Never Flushes" as one critic described it on Twitter) - Christine and family (phamily?) come across to Erik's funland paradise and Erik wants her to sing for him again.   This annoys Meg Giry (Christine's former best friend who is now hoping to be a star of the light musical cabarets Erik is now hosting, when he is not working as a bartender) and of course it annoys Raoul.

Erik finds out he has a son and takes him to his WHACKED OUT LAIR with giant robot monkeys and singing chandeliers.   Christine is then asked to choose between the two men  in her life.    It's not a hard choice, as Erik is now a wimpy, romantic, harmless suitor who adores her while Raoul is a brandy-sodden, violent, bad tempered eunuch (note to the author:  Removing all tension from the choice does not make good drama).


She chooses Erik of course.   Frankly not a surprise.  Raoul leaves, presumably to found a support group for alcoholic eunuchs back in Paris and bide his time before turning up as an old man in the prologue to the original musical.

Meg gets jealous, kidnaps Phantom's Child.   Phantom talks her out of it then patronises her horribly ("After all not everyone can be Christine") and her gun goes off in time honoured fashion, killing Christine.

Cue long drawn out mournful scene.  Phantom forgives Meg in a moment of surpassing wtf.  Christine's death may have been an accident, but this is the fricking Phantom of the Opera for goodness sake (or the Barman of the Funfair) and surely if he was allowed a moment of in-character grumpiness it would have been appropriate to string up the murdering trollop at least a little.

Why?  Other than his desire to make more money, why would Lord Hamster-Cheeks think this is in any way an appropriate continuation of the story that has been his biggest success so far?    

What next?   A sequel to Les Miserables in which it transpires that Jean Valjean faked his own death in order to pursue a career as a cat-burglar?

There are no answers I'm afraid, and I shall rant to myself (or in the company of other like minded devotees) and dream wistfully of falling chandeliers.
finncullen: (Default)
Does that need elaborating on?

This is the grinning puppet who put a false case for war before the British public in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction and their complicity in the 9/11 atrocities made it inevitable..

Except that the weapons didn't exist (as all his intelligence advisors told him) and Iraq was nothing to do with 9/11. But Bush II had always wanted to take out Iraq and this was a great opportunity to do so. Blair could not wait to get down on all fours and back Bush II up to the hilt (preferably with his tongue) - after all it was not he or his children that would be fighting and dying in the deserts and cities of Iraq would it?
finncullen: (Default)

Although the ad was filmed as a parody the interviews were genuine... truth is a greater parody than fiction sometimes.


These people would support a political candidate completely.. while being happy not to know what their policies were. At all.

And my favourite comment:

"When you're right, you don't have to compromise. Compromise is for people who are wrong."
finncullen: (plague)
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
-Karl Marx

The intent behind this is of course laudable – the idea that society will provide for individuals according to their needs.
However on closer inspection surely it falls apart? Unless the human race is suddenly replaced by a species of entirely altruistic individuals willing to subvert their own desires then they will soon reach the following conclusions:

No matter how great my abilities and effort I will not benefit more than those with less ability or inclination to excel.. therefore why make the effort?
2. The greater my need (or perceived need) the more I will benefit from society’s largesse.

So the natural, logical and human response would be to:

a) Stop striving to excel – effort without reward is pointless
b) Emphasise need and dependency in order to gain more of what you want

What sort of society would that build? Whiners, dependents and the demise of the talented at the expense of the mediocre.

Look around...

The Plague

Nov. 12th, 2009 01:01 pm
finncullen: (plague)
Patriotism has become a filthy word these days and what was once considered a noble sentiment has now been twisted by the lies of the powerful to their own ends, so that anyone who claims it for themself is instantly suspect.

I am a patriot.  I love my country and what it should be.

The lying weasels in the government tell me that means I should support their foolish and illegal foreign wars, and that to fail to do so is akin to spitting upon our troops who daily bleed and die on far flung shores.

No.  No, a thousand times no.   The lives of our soldiers are too precious a thing to throw away on this cause.   Why should they put themselves in harms way for the sake of the wealthy making themselves wealthier?   My country was thrown into war on a pretext of lies and deceit - provably so - and once we were in the war the cowardly elite hid behind the flak jackets of our military saying that if we criticise the cause, we are disloyal to those who are making real sacrifices.   Not so, palpably not so, but the dodge is such an old and well worn one because it always works.

My country is being torn apart by a thousand lies being told each day by a thousand well-fed politicians lining their own pockets at our expense.  It's gone on too long, far too long, and they think they are immune to the effects of change.

They are assuredly not.   All things change, and everything has its allotted time.  I only hope that common sense prevails and restarts this country of mine on the road to sanity once more before the pendulum swings too far into extremism and destruction. 
finncullen: (Default)
Finn likes words, and enjoys seeing them used well.

Sometimes -increasingly often though- their use is sickening.

THIS LINK is to a sickening story in which a 15 year old thug left in charge of a two year old girl beat her viciously and killed her.  Don't read the details unless you have a strong stomach.

Psychiatrist Dr Lengua, called by the defense said:

"the boy suffered from an unsocialised conduct disorder and had a "below normal" IQ.

He said it was clear there were "disharmonious relationships between the parental figures in this boy's life" and family dynamics were crucial to understanding the development of his conduct disorder."

I understand the words - they are English words I recognise.. but ..   it staggers me that such tripe can be burbled forth to try to explain this act of demented violence.

An "unsocialised conduct disorder" - means he is an antisocial little bastard that can't act properly to save his life
A "Below normal IQ" hardly correlates with violence
"Disharmonious relationships between the parental figures" - ok, his mother and father (or their stand ins) are equally vile.
"Family dynamics were crucial to understanding the development of his conduct disorder" - his vile parental figures have let him get away with whatever he likes.

And a two year old girl is beaten to death by verbiage.

I think experts talk like that because if they simply said "this is a foul violent little bastard" then people would have to face up to the need to do something about it.


finncullen: (Default)

Conservative MPs are to pay back another £125,000 in expenses as a result of the party's scrutiny panel's review of claims, the BBC understands.


Read more... )
finncullen: (Default)
The revelations continue day by day of the corruption and venal dishonesty of the members of the British Parliament.   The leaking of their expense claims to the press has led to weeks of anger as the extent of their shameless thefts have been made known.  The expenses system is in place so that those who desire to serve their country in a political role should  not be out of pocket for doing so.  

Read more... )

The Rot.

May. 22nd, 2009 08:56 am
finncullen: (Default)

The UK is currently enjoying watching a new Westminster farce.  The details of the expenses claimed by members of Parliament were leaked to a national newspaper and to say that there are some red faces is rather an understatement.

Many MPs claim that they have 'stayed within the rules' (the rules that they themselves devised) to allow them to claim expenses for mortgage payments and maintenance on second houses, gardens, expensive furnishings and so on.

Many others are being exposed as outright frauds by claiming for expenses that never actually existing.

One married couple, both MPs, played the system beautifully.  They had two houses.  The husband claimed one house as a primary property (thus claiming as expenses the mortgage payments on the second), the wife claimed the other....

The whole lot are corrupt self serving criminals and ought to be removed from office forthwith.

Anyway, as an example, in his own words, of why it is nearly time for piano wire and meat-hooks, above is the 'defense' offered by an MP who was asked by the party leader to retire based on his extravagant claims (including £6000 for a floating "duck island" in his garden pond).  All paid for by the tax-payer of course.

My favourite points are

"This government has mucked things up by bringing in the freedom of information act." - well, yes.


"What right does the general public have to meddle in my private life?" - the bits we pay for?  Quite a lot.

It is time that this corrupt band of self serving, pocket lining timewasters was removed from office.
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 09:56 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios