I was at the cinema in Garston earlier and an Edward Monkton advert for the Harlequin was shown- the one where the frock tells the lady that it will make her a "beautiful and whole and complete human being" if she buys it. "They're not being subtle," my friend commented, laughing. But then, nothing ever is these days. More and more advertising companies, realising that these days people are tuned in to a lot of the psychological tricks they could play on us, instead use irony and the obvious, tongue-in-cheek. Are they trying to say, "Hey consumer, I respect that you're intelligent and worldly and I can't fool you, but please buy this stuff"? The idea of trying to send subliminial messages in advertising is becoming a joke to be exploited, which maybe isn't such a bad thing, but maybe just leads to something even more subtle.
I have to say, there wasn't a great choice of films, especially as the movie of the moment, The Orphanage, is not being shown in Watford's Vue cinema. This happened last time there was a really worthwhile film on, Little Miss Sunshine- Watford didn't get it. The Orphanage is apparently not being shown in Vue cinemas, for reasons beyond my ken, probably to do with it being a foreign film, whereas Little Miss Sunshine- well, there wasn't really a reason. We want good movies!!
There were a few appealing options and we settled on Step Up 2 The Streets, about a street dancing girl who goes to a performing arts school and causes a stir with her alternative style. It was a bit of Fame, a bit of Billy Elliot, a bit of Save the Last Dance, life affirming, visually impressive etc. Very entertaining but hardly original. There was a trailer for a new rom com, where two strangers get married by accident in Vegas, then end up with each trying to get the other to end the "marriage" as there's £3000,000 at stake. I wasn't really inspired to see it. Not because it doesn't look good (though again, a bit of a patchwork of several other movies), but because the trailer told me pretty much what happens from start to finish. At least leave something to surprise the audience.
On a more serious note, I've been meaning to write something about this Embryo Bill business. I was pleased to see the PM's decided to allow MPs to vote with their consciences. I find the idea of whipping slightly odd in a democratic society. The interests of the constituents should come before those of the party. The only reason any MP is in a job is because they were put there by their constituents.
To be honest, this bill worries me. Religious beliefs aside, there is something exceedingly disturbing about the idea of interfering with life at its most vulnerable stage: creating one human being for the sole purpose of treating another, not for the sake of creating a new life in its own right; creating animal/human "hybrids"- that part is just weird (seriously, why??).
The part which will prevent fertility clinics turning away lesbians and single women makes more sense: I'm not a fan of IVF, but as long as there's fertility treatment available, it is absurd to insist that it can only be used to help create nuclear families. The "need for a father" is rubbish- the presence of a father does not ensure security for a child. There are plenty of women, straight and gay, who raise children without a father present. "Supportive parenting", as it is phrased in this bill, is much more sensible.
However, what I've seen of this bill just makes me feel deeply uneasy and I think it at least requires a lot more thought.
[quote]I was pleased to see the PM's decided to allow MPs to vote with their consciences.[/quote]
Any display of conscience by the Archbishop of Westminster is to be welcomed.
[quote]I find the idea of whipping slightly odd in a democratic society.[/quote]
But without it there would be anarchy. As Jim Hacker ones said: "I dont want to know what I'm voting on, I just want to know which door to go through"!
[quote]The interests of the constituents should come before those of the party. The only reason any MP is in a job is because they were put there by their constituents.[/quote]
Rare Words Brave World. MPs are also elected on a manifesto and constituents often represent lobby groups (mentioning no names).
Some people think it's bad form that a Roman cardinal shaould be able to dictate government policy.
[quote]Religious beliefs aside, there is something exceedingly disturbing about the idea of interfering with life at its most vulnerable stage: creating one human being for the sole purpose of treating another, not for the sake of creating a new life in its own right; creating animal/human "hybrids"- that part is just weird (seriously, why??).[/quote]
It's only disturbing if you buy into creationism. As Terry Pratchett would say, we are upwardly mobile apes, not downwardly mobile angels. Mention of Terry Pratchett reminds me that he is one of those poor unfortunates destined to suffer if the RC Church ever managed to block this important piece of legislation.
The part which will prevent fertility clinics turning away lesbians and single women makes more sense: I'm not a fan of IVF, but as long as there's fertility treatment available, it is absurd to insist that it can only be used to help create nuclear families. The "need for a father" is rubbish- the presence of a father does not ensure security for a child. There are plenty of women, straight and gay, who raise children without a father present. "Supportive parenting", as it is phrased in this bill, is much more sensible.
Isn't that a little bit like having your cake and eating it? You're against the Embryo Bill but IVF is okay if it makes fathers redundant? According to the late Robin Skinner the presence of some kind of father figure is essential if a child is to develop properly.
And there are still many in the Catholic Church who regard homosexuality as an abomination.
I was pleased to see the PM's decided to allow MPs to vote with their consciences.
Any display of conscience by the Archbishop of Westminster is to be welcomed.
I find the idea of whipping slightly odd in a democratic society.
But without it there would be anarchy. As Jim Hacker ones said: "I dont want to know what I'm voting on, I just want to know which door to go through"!
The interests of the constituents should come before those of the party. The only reason any MP is in a job is because they were put there by their constituents.
Rare Words Brave World. MPs are also elected on a manifesto and constituents often represent lobby groups (mentioning no names).
Some people think it's bad form that a Roman cardinal shaould be able to dictate government policy.
Religious beliefs aside, there is something exceedingly disturbing about the idea of interfering with life at its most vulnerable stage: creating one human being for the sole purpose of treating another, not for the sake of creating a new life in its own right; creating animal/human "hybrids"- that part is just weird (seriously, why??).
It's only disturbing if you buy into creationism. As Terry Pratchett would say, we are upwardly mobile apes, not downwardly mobile angels. Mention of Terry Pratchett reminds me that he is one of those poor unfortunates destined to suffer if the RC Church ever managed to block this important piece of legislation.
<quote>The part which will prevent fertility clinics turning away lesbians and single women makes more sense: I'm not a fan of IVF, but as long as there's fertility treatment available, it is absurd to insist that it can only be used to help create nuclear families. The "need for a father" is rubbish- the presence of a father does not ensure security for a child. There are plenty of women, straight and gay, who raise children without a father present. "Supportive parenting", as it is phrased in this bill, is much more sensible.
</quote>
Isn't that a little bit like having your cake and eating it? You're against the Embryo Bill but IVF is okay if it makes fathers redundant? According to the late Robin Skinner the presence of some kind of father figure is essential if a child is to develop properly.
And there are still many in the Catholic Church who regard homosexuality as an abomination.
