I saw a rare and wonderful atmospheric display yesterday: a sun dog. If you are unfamiliar with the term, allow me to explain. Sun dogs are caused by the refraction of light through ice crystals in the high atmosphere. These crystals have to be hexagonal in shape in order to work their magic. But if they form, and when they do it is generally in high, thin sheets of cirrus cloud, a bright, rainbow like spot appears 22 degrees out from the sun- about a stretched hand away. Unlike rainbows, which experience a double internal reflection before the light from the raindrops reaches our eyes, in sun dogs they are refracted only once, hence they are much brighter and the red is on the inside, the opposite to a rainbow. Because they are sun-ward, unlike rainbows which of course are opposite the sun, they can be difficult to see, but if you shade your eyes from the direct glare of the sun you will sometimes find them if there is wispy cirrus about. As it was yesterday.
And it was more than just a blob. It was a broad strip, stretching up towards the zenith, where an entire halo was beginning to form. And directly above the sun an even more unusual phenomenon had formed: a "Parry's arc" which requires the ice crystals be aligned at a very specific angle to our eyes. A little wedge of brilliant light sat there, forming part of the whole wonderful display.
I was visiting my Mum at the time, and pointed it out to her. Her eyes are, even at the age of 92, are at least as good as mine, and she could see it clearly. She loved it, though with her dementia, it is unlikely she retained the memory for more than a minute.
Sun dogs are a sign of change. They often indicate a weather front is on its way, usually a cold one. Approaching cool air pushes under warmer air, forcing it upwards where the water droplets freeze, sometimes into the magic hexagonal shape. But I have noticed that when I see them it signals some sort of change in my life, and sometimes a good one. It can't signal a good change for my Mum: her life is on an inevitable downward spiral, but it might just indicate a favourable turn for me- God knows I need one.
Thursday, 24 November 2016
Saturday, 19 November 2016
Dead means dead: get used to it
Last week it was revealed a dying 14 year old girl was granted her dying wish to be cryogenically preserved until such time as 1. A cure could be found for her fatal brain tumour and 2. A way could be found to bring the dead back to life. Good luck with that girlie. And good luck to the thousands of others, mainly Americans, who have gone down the same road.
The technology for this technique is pretty simple. After death the body is essentially freeze-dried, reducing its bulk by 90%, as 90% of us is water. The remainder is then kept as -196 degrees Celsius, the temperature of liquid nitrogen. Then we wait.
Of course this isn't cheap, in a variety of ways. It cost the girl's parents a one-off fee of $37,000. But then, the costs of keeping something in a very deep freeze should be accounted for. It's an energy-expensive process to do this, especially as they will have to keep doing it for hundreds, thousands of years, or even, if my suspicions are correct, forever.
At the moment we can freeze cells, embryos, say, or sperm. But that's it. It would be tremendously valuable if we could freeze whole organs, like kidneys or hearts, but we can't. In fact we are a long way off achieving it. As for whole human bodies (or heads: I understand some people in the US are freezing only their heads, waiting for a time when they can be a) be re-vivified and b) be attached to some sort of android body), that lies a long way into the future.
Next, bring the dead back to life. Tricky. Impossible at present, ands to be honest, I believe it always will be. A proponent of the freezing industry recently said that we are constantly re-defining what death actually means. CPR, defibrillation and so on has changed the game for everyone, and that's a recent invention. People who have died of hypothermia can be brought back as long as an hour after their heart has stopped. True. But all that means is that they didn't actually die. Death has a very clear definition attached to it, and once a line is crossed, the human body can't go back. And I think we'd all be a lot better off getting our heads round that and concentrating on the important bits, i.e. Living, instead of hoping against hope we can find some sort of escape clause. Dead means dead, folks, and there's no way round it. No matter how rich we are.
The technology for this technique is pretty simple. After death the body is essentially freeze-dried, reducing its bulk by 90%, as 90% of us is water. The remainder is then kept as -196 degrees Celsius, the temperature of liquid nitrogen. Then we wait.
Of course this isn't cheap, in a variety of ways. It cost the girl's parents a one-off fee of $37,000. But then, the costs of keeping something in a very deep freeze should be accounted for. It's an energy-expensive process to do this, especially as they will have to keep doing it for hundreds, thousands of years, or even, if my suspicions are correct, forever.
At the moment we can freeze cells, embryos, say, or sperm. But that's it. It would be tremendously valuable if we could freeze whole organs, like kidneys or hearts, but we can't. In fact we are a long way off achieving it. As for whole human bodies (or heads: I understand some people in the US are freezing only their heads, waiting for a time when they can be a) be re-vivified and b) be attached to some sort of android body), that lies a long way into the future.
Next, bring the dead back to life. Tricky. Impossible at present, ands to be honest, I believe it always will be. A proponent of the freezing industry recently said that we are constantly re-defining what death actually means. CPR, defibrillation and so on has changed the game for everyone, and that's a recent invention. People who have died of hypothermia can be brought back as long as an hour after their heart has stopped. True. But all that means is that they didn't actually die. Death has a very clear definition attached to it, and once a line is crossed, the human body can't go back. And I think we'd all be a lot better off getting our heads round that and concentrating on the important bits, i.e. Living, instead of hoping against hope we can find some sort of escape clause. Dead means dead, folks, and there's no way round it. No matter how rich we are.
Sunday, 13 November 2016
Brexit stole my Toblerone, or Hilary trumped
Have you seen the new Toblerone? Now, and it's down to Brexit, apparently, it resembles not so much the Alps as the South Downs. I imagine there'll soon be a thriving black market trade in the "classic" design ("Oi, mate, wanna old-style Toblerone? I'll need paying in euros, mind")
Poor old Hilary, huh? Who'd have thought one of the most unpopular women in America could ever lose an election? That one of the least inspiring orators with a husband whose past is every bit as shady as Donald's, who offered nothing more exciting for the future than more of the same old same old, could fail to inspire an American electorate already feeling abandoned by an elite who cares more for globalisation than the problems in Ohio or Michigan? Well, there you go.
I hesitate to come over all I told you so, but on Tuesday morning last I said to the guy in the corner shop I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Donald win, even that I was expecting it, what with the lurch to the right the entire world has been experiencing for at least the past year. Us lefties are rapidly becoming an endangered species; here, in the U.S., where I understand Donald is even thinking of bringing that formidable political analyst Sarah Palin into his administration, in France, where I'm told Marine LePen stands a very good chance of becoming their next president next year. I tell you people, we're screwed!
Or are we? I cannot bring myself to believe Donald will do all those terrible things he was elected on the strength of promising. He'll soon see how life works in the Washington machine, with his advisors whispering in his ear ("I'm sorry Mr President, you can't do that") and in the event very little changing at a fundamental level. I fucking hope so, anyway.
Poor old Hilary, huh? Who'd have thought one of the most unpopular women in America could ever lose an election? That one of the least inspiring orators with a husband whose past is every bit as shady as Donald's, who offered nothing more exciting for the future than more of the same old same old, could fail to inspire an American electorate already feeling abandoned by an elite who cares more for globalisation than the problems in Ohio or Michigan? Well, there you go.
I hesitate to come over all I told you so, but on Tuesday morning last I said to the guy in the corner shop I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Donald win, even that I was expecting it, what with the lurch to the right the entire world has been experiencing for at least the past year. Us lefties are rapidly becoming an endangered species; here, in the U.S., where I understand Donald is even thinking of bringing that formidable political analyst Sarah Palin into his administration, in France, where I'm told Marine LePen stands a very good chance of becoming their next president next year. I tell you people, we're screwed!
Or are we? I cannot bring myself to believe Donald will do all those terrible things he was elected on the strength of promising. He'll soon see how life works in the Washington machine, with his advisors whispering in his ear ("I'm sorry Mr President, you can't do that") and in the event very little changing at a fundamental level. I fucking hope so, anyway.
Friday, 4 November 2016
Enemies of the people?
That's how the Daily Mail described (minus the question mark) the high court judges who said the government has to take the Brexit deal to Parliament before it is ratified. Enemies of the editor and owner of the Daily Mail more like. They of course want the hard Brexit so they can practice unfettered capitalism without any annoying restraints laid on it by the EU. Yet these hard Brexiteers were the ones saying it was all about preserving our great British Constitution when they appealed to us to vote leave. Now it's actually worked they don't like it. How dare they? How dare they insult these judges, people who aren't interested in Brexit one way or the other but were simply carrying out the task they're paid for?
Now parliament will (hopefully) get a say in how these negotiations are handled and make sure Britain doesn't deteriorate into some Eastern European, third rate economy where only the already wealthy will flourish.
Well done British judiciary! I for one trust you to do a good job. Even if the Daily Mail doesn't.
Now parliament will (hopefully) get a say in how these negotiations are handled and make sure Britain doesn't deteriorate into some Eastern European, third rate economy where only the already wealthy will flourish.
Well done British judiciary! I for one trust you to do a good job. Even if the Daily Mail doesn't.
Monday, 31 October 2016
October 2016 film review, continued
FILMS, CONTINUED.
SECOND CHANCE (1953) D- Rudolph Mate. Robert Mitchum kills a guy in the ring and travels to deepest Mexico to reboot his life. He comes across gorgeous Linda Darnell, on the run from her gangland boss who will do anything to avoid her testifying at his upcoming trial, up to and including sending evil Jack Palance to find her and silence her for good.
What follows is nicely made noir, even though it's made in glowing technicolor. Unusual in its time for being shot almost entirely on location south of the border, it features an unforgettable climax on a cable car, precariously suspended over a yawning chasm. All the players are excellent, especially Mitchum as the tough guy made all gooey by love, and Jack Palance demonstrating some of the most brooding menace ever seen on film.
BRIDGE OF SPIES (2015) D- Steven Spielberg. In 1957, at the height of the Cold War, pilot Gary Powers is shot down in his spy plane while overflying the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, in the U.S., a Rusky spy is caught passing notes to his handler. Both sides are embarrassed by the revelations, and would seek out a way of exchanging the two with a minimum of fuss. Enter civil lawyer Tom Hanks, brought in because is independent of government, and therefore maybe capable of brokering some sort of deal.
The Spielberg/Hanks machine has been rolling for quite some time now, and seem to be able to put together a highly professional product with seemingly little effort. Especially when they've got a script by John Le Carre to work with. The result here is highly watchable, human and, with the added skills of Mark Rylance to call upon, a sure-fire hit.
THE SALT OF THE EARTH (2014) D- Wim Wenders.
Being the life and times of Sebastiao Salgado, possibly the greatest photographer alive today. For decade after decade, Salgado has been travelling to the world's trouble spots, wars, famines, sweat shops, open-cast mines, and come back with images of stunning clarity and vision. Even the pictures which depict horror are somehow beautiful, like the scenes from the first Gulf War when Saddam set the oil wells on fire, while some are so powerful they will etch themselves into your memory for ever. There's one he took in Rwanda, after the men with the machetes had visited a school. We see a classroom, the floor literally covered in the corpses of children to the point where not a single inch of floor can be seen. Wenders's presence is scarcely noticed (which illustrates just what a great pro he is) as he lets Salgado and his photos tell the story.
Sometimes Salgado, perhaps sickened by what he has seen and recorded, turns his camera on nature, photographing landscapes and wildlife, and again capturing images of breath-taking beauty. There is one I remember, of the fore-claw of a marine iguana in the Galapagos, covered in scales and bearing an uncanny resemblance to the the hand of a medieval knight encased in chain-mail.
And Salvado doesn't confine his activities to photography. He has bought 5000 acres of land in Brazil which was cleared of its rainforest to grow trees to extract palm-oil. He has removed those trees and is in the process of planting indigenous tress and other plants which will one day see the rainforest return. What a guy!
SECOND CHANCE (1953) D- Rudolph Mate. Robert Mitchum kills a guy in the ring and travels to deepest Mexico to reboot his life. He comes across gorgeous Linda Darnell, on the run from her gangland boss who will do anything to avoid her testifying at his upcoming trial, up to and including sending evil Jack Palance to find her and silence her for good.
What follows is nicely made noir, even though it's made in glowing technicolor. Unusual in its time for being shot almost entirely on location south of the border, it features an unforgettable climax on a cable car, precariously suspended over a yawning chasm. All the players are excellent, especially Mitchum as the tough guy made all gooey by love, and Jack Palance demonstrating some of the most brooding menace ever seen on film.
BRIDGE OF SPIES (2015) D- Steven Spielberg. In 1957, at the height of the Cold War, pilot Gary Powers is shot down in his spy plane while overflying the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, in the U.S., a Rusky spy is caught passing notes to his handler. Both sides are embarrassed by the revelations, and would seek out a way of exchanging the two with a minimum of fuss. Enter civil lawyer Tom Hanks, brought in because is independent of government, and therefore maybe capable of brokering some sort of deal.
The Spielberg/Hanks machine has been rolling for quite some time now, and seem to be able to put together a highly professional product with seemingly little effort. Especially when they've got a script by John Le Carre to work with. The result here is highly watchable, human and, with the added skills of Mark Rylance to call upon, a sure-fire hit.
THE SALT OF THE EARTH (2014) D- Wim Wenders.
Being the life and times of Sebastiao Salgado, possibly the greatest photographer alive today. For decade after decade, Salgado has been travelling to the world's trouble spots, wars, famines, sweat shops, open-cast mines, and come back with images of stunning clarity and vision. Even the pictures which depict horror are somehow beautiful, like the scenes from the first Gulf War when Saddam set the oil wells on fire, while some are so powerful they will etch themselves into your memory for ever. There's one he took in Rwanda, after the men with the machetes had visited a school. We see a classroom, the floor literally covered in the corpses of children to the point where not a single inch of floor can be seen. Wenders's presence is scarcely noticed (which illustrates just what a great pro he is) as he lets Salgado and his photos tell the story.
Sometimes Salgado, perhaps sickened by what he has seen and recorded, turns his camera on nature, photographing landscapes and wildlife, and again capturing images of breath-taking beauty. There is one I remember, of the fore-claw of a marine iguana in the Galapagos, covered in scales and bearing an uncanny resemblance to the the hand of a medieval knight encased in chain-mail.
And Salvado doesn't confine his activities to photography. He has bought 5000 acres of land in Brazil which was cleared of its rainforest to grow trees to extract palm-oil. He has removed those trees and is in the process of planting indigenous tress and other plants which will one day see the rainforest return. What a guy!
October 2016 book and film review
BOOKS
FIRST WE READ, THEN WE WRITE, by Robert Patterson
Being a brief biography of Ralph Waldo Emerson, 19th century American writer and philosopher. They don't have many, so they're particularly proud of him. Most famous for his sayings "HItch your wagon to a star" and "Make a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door", Emerson wrote a number of highly influential essays which are full of useful advice to aspiring writers. Take your inspiration form nature, he urged, and put pen to paper. If you want to be a writer, then write, Goddamit. If not get out into nature and observe, take notes then go home and allow your pen to move across the page. I shall use extracts from this book in my essay on the creative processs which we must complete by next January. But first I have to learn how to write an academic essay...
WHY I WRITE, by George Orwell.
I've admired Orwell since I read Animal Farm in the 60s, and his essays are every bit as good as his fiction. Indeed, he is one of those people whose style I would most like to emulate. This book of essays includes the brilliant A Hanging, an account of an execution Orwell witnessed during his colonial days in Burma in the 1930s. But I read this because of the title essay, which addresses the issue which comes before the issue of how to write.
Orwell admits that he wants to inject some politics, some socio-political insight, into everything he writes, because, essentially, he wants to change the world. But he reminds us that all writing, including political pamphleting, must be clear, concise and easy to read. His message is, never use a long word when a short one will do, and never use complex sentence design just to show how erudite you are. Put another way, he's saying: cut the bullshit.
FILMS
THE YELLOW SEA (2010) (S. Korea) W/D- Na Hong-jin.
About 800,000 Koreans live in China. Technically they are illegal immigrants, though the Chinese authorities tolerate them because they are good for the economy. They can, however, deport them any time they like. A man has run up gambling debts and his bookie tells him he'll get him deported unless he travels back into South Korea and murders a rival. Sounds like a plan, but our man soon runs into difficulties. What follows is a skillfully made blood-fest which demonstrates that the "hero" of the tale is resourceful, determined, and so tough he makes the Bruce Willis of the Diehard movies look like a bit of a cissy.
If you like your movies rugged and uncompromising in their portrayal of violence, you'll love this. Also, in Korea there aren't that many guns, but plenty of knives. Big, sharp, terrible knives...
LO AND BEHOLD (2016) D- Werner Herzog.
In California in 1971 the internet was born. The first message was supposed to read: LOG ON NOW, but the network (which at the time comprised only 500 people, most of whom knew each other) crashed after the first two letters were tapped in. Therefore, the first message ever sent on the internet read: "LO".
Rather appropriate, concludes our Werner, perhaps the world's most interesting film maker. What has happened since, he believes, is the biggest revolution in human culture since we changed from being hunter- gatherers to settling down in towns and villages and started growing crops. A third of the world is online, three million emails are sent every second, and society has reached the point where, if it ever broke down for any reason, it would fall apart. We'd have no food, no water, no safety, none of the essentials we take for granted in the modern world. Then there are the casualties, the twitter hate campaigns, revenge porn and so on. Herzog interviewed one family, where a daughter was decapitated in a car crash and was photographed by an attending paramedic who I then posted the pictures online. Their agony was so acute it was almost impossible to bear.
I love Werner Herzog. He can't stop making films that make you think, make you wonder and make you shiver. You go, mein Herr.
FIRST WE READ, THEN WE WRITE, by Robert Patterson
Being a brief biography of Ralph Waldo Emerson, 19th century American writer and philosopher. They don't have many, so they're particularly proud of him. Most famous for his sayings "HItch your wagon to a star" and "Make a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door", Emerson wrote a number of highly influential essays which are full of useful advice to aspiring writers. Take your inspiration form nature, he urged, and put pen to paper. If you want to be a writer, then write, Goddamit. If not get out into nature and observe, take notes then go home and allow your pen to move across the page. I shall use extracts from this book in my essay on the creative processs which we must complete by next January. But first I have to learn how to write an academic essay...
WHY I WRITE, by George Orwell.
I've admired Orwell since I read Animal Farm in the 60s, and his essays are every bit as good as his fiction. Indeed, he is one of those people whose style I would most like to emulate. This book of essays includes the brilliant A Hanging, an account of an execution Orwell witnessed during his colonial days in Burma in the 1930s. But I read this because of the title essay, which addresses the issue which comes before the issue of how to write.
Orwell admits that he wants to inject some politics, some socio-political insight, into everything he writes, because, essentially, he wants to change the world. But he reminds us that all writing, including political pamphleting, must be clear, concise and easy to read. His message is, never use a long word when a short one will do, and never use complex sentence design just to show how erudite you are. Put another way, he's saying: cut the bullshit.
FILMS
THE YELLOW SEA (2010) (S. Korea) W/D- Na Hong-jin.
About 800,000 Koreans live in China. Technically they are illegal immigrants, though the Chinese authorities tolerate them because they are good for the economy. They can, however, deport them any time they like. A man has run up gambling debts and his bookie tells him he'll get him deported unless he travels back into South Korea and murders a rival. Sounds like a plan, but our man soon runs into difficulties. What follows is a skillfully made blood-fest which demonstrates that the "hero" of the tale is resourceful, determined, and so tough he makes the Bruce Willis of the Diehard movies look like a bit of a cissy.
If you like your movies rugged and uncompromising in their portrayal of violence, you'll love this. Also, in Korea there aren't that many guns, but plenty of knives. Big, sharp, terrible knives...
LO AND BEHOLD (2016) D- Werner Herzog.
In California in 1971 the internet was born. The first message was supposed to read: LOG ON NOW, but the network (which at the time comprised only 500 people, most of whom knew each other) crashed after the first two letters were tapped in. Therefore, the first message ever sent on the internet read: "LO".
Rather appropriate, concludes our Werner, perhaps the world's most interesting film maker. What has happened since, he believes, is the biggest revolution in human culture since we changed from being hunter- gatherers to settling down in towns and villages and started growing crops. A third of the world is online, three million emails are sent every second, and society has reached the point where, if it ever broke down for any reason, it would fall apart. We'd have no food, no water, no safety, none of the essentials we take for granted in the modern world. Then there are the casualties, the twitter hate campaigns, revenge porn and so on. Herzog interviewed one family, where a daughter was decapitated in a car crash and was photographed by an attending paramedic who I then posted the pictures online. Their agony was so acute it was almost impossible to bear.
I love Werner Herzog. He can't stop making films that make you think, make you wonder and make you shiver. You go, mein Herr.
Friday, 28 October 2016
I'm an insurgent, me
You too, maybe, if you voted remain. That's what Tony Blair, peace be upon him, has said. We should be allowed a second vote if we don't like the look of the negotiated deal they come up with, and I couldn't agree more. Naturally Downing Street has poured scorn on his comments, "The British Public has had its say" type of thing. So, are we never allowed to repeal a law that in retrospect doesn't suit our purposes in the cold light of day? Looks like a pretty big change in the British constitution from where I'm standing.
For once I agree with the Wealthy One, and that has happened only marginally more often than it did with Margaret Thatcher. We shouldn't forget, of course, that he was actually responsible for part of the mess we're in right now. In the economic booms of the mid noughties he was falling over backwards to invite over every foreign worker he could lay his hands on. The embassy in Bucharest was told to accept every application for a work visa to Britain, that's right, every application (I'm referring to the time before Romania joined the EU of course). Which opened the door to hundreds if not thousands of ATM fraudsters and various other crims to get over here and do their thing, because the embassy staff were told not to vet anyone at all. We're reaping that little whirlwind right now.
Little by little I'm beginning to realise why the far right was so keen on Brexit. They wanted all the constraints on capitalism lifted, every environmental check, every piece of human rights legislation, every brake on surging, laissez faire capitalism. That's what they always wanted, and pretty soon they're going to get it. They want to smash any vestige of union power Thatch didn't get rid of, so we can get back to the 1880s, when the workers did what they were told or they'd be out of a job. No wonder they don't want a second vote...
For once I agree with the Wealthy One, and that has happened only marginally more often than it did with Margaret Thatcher. We shouldn't forget, of course, that he was actually responsible for part of the mess we're in right now. In the economic booms of the mid noughties he was falling over backwards to invite over every foreign worker he could lay his hands on. The embassy in Bucharest was told to accept every application for a work visa to Britain, that's right, every application (I'm referring to the time before Romania joined the EU of course). Which opened the door to hundreds if not thousands of ATM fraudsters and various other crims to get over here and do their thing, because the embassy staff were told not to vet anyone at all. We're reaping that little whirlwind right now.
Little by little I'm beginning to realise why the far right was so keen on Brexit. They wanted all the constraints on capitalism lifted, every environmental check, every piece of human rights legislation, every brake on surging, laissez faire capitalism. That's what they always wanted, and pretty soon they're going to get it. They want to smash any vestige of union power Thatch didn't get rid of, so we can get back to the 1880s, when the workers did what they were told or they'd be out of a job. No wonder they don't want a second vote...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)