Surely, some people are just too stupid to run for government?

I am of course directing my blog this week at the Missouri Representative for Senate Todd Aiken. If you don’t know who this guy is, he is the Republican who this week raised two highly contentious issues that one can only guess Mitt Romney didn’t want to have bought up with only a few months to go before the November 6 2012 elections. On top of this he also did this whilst setting his statements against the most ludicrous and ill-founded science known to man.

Sometimes, I find it hard to believe that so many in the land of the free are opposed to abortion. To me a women’s right to choose is a fundamental freedom, and so I often find myself bemused by the controversy that this causes in the States.

This blog however is not about the prolife argument. I am not a politician, nor do I wish to be one. I am also not an American. This blog is about the absurdity of Todd Aiken, and his comments, and about how he can possibly be taken seriously as a Representative for Senate following on from what he’s said.

I like to think that the PM and MPs in this country are relatively intelligent, after all they have important decisions to make – you know, like what to spend their expenses on! Similarly I like to think that Congressmen and Senators in the US are intelligent, again they have important roles to fill – I’ve watched the West Wing, and also that debt ceiling isn’t getting any lower.

So you’d think, that when voting in a Representative for Senate or Congress the State doing the voting will want to choose a candidate that they feel will surely not only represent them well but who can also do the job. I’m not persuaded that I’d vote for a man who clearly has no idea how basic biology works, in fact I might want to see a transcript from his high school days. Did he even go to high school, and if so did take biology?

Todd Aiken said – with a certainty that despite his back pedalling has made it hard to retract from; that a woman’s body would shut down and prevent a pregnancy from happening in the case of a legitimate rape. Now aside from all the certified doctors, pharmacists, health practitioners, nurses, biology teachers, and anyone with common sense in every country around the world suddenly and collectively saying “huh!” You also heard the same thing from voodoo doctors, witch doctors, and the whole cast of the TV series Doctors!

I honestly didn’t still think that it was possible that people still thought this kind of thing, much less said it out loud. Yet for some of prominence to say it, for someone seeking a position of responsibility and leadership to say it, well I was astounded and incensed. Not only was what he said biological balderdash, but I can only assume that it was also unimaginably hurtful to any woman that has found herself pregnant as a result of the horrific ordeal of rape

Let’s not forget though, Todd Aiken made another faux par. He also used the word legitimate when determining when a women’s body would shut down or not during the course of a rape.

I’m just thinking about our judicial system now, and I can’t help thinking that the courts have been a bit slow over the years. In fact what have they been doing? Why have they been trying to struggle with evidence, and all the difficulties of he said she said. Judges and Lawyers have obviously never realised that Mother Nature, has already resolved this highly contentious issue for them. Who needs CSI? All you need to know according to Aiken is; is the rape victim pregnant?

I shouldn’t be flippant about this in all seriousness though, because what Todd Aiken has said is detrimental to all the work that prosecutors, counsellors working with victims of rape, and anyone who works with victims of rape going to court, do on an everyday basis to put the people who commit this atrocity behind bars. Yet I have read that apparently that Representative Aiken is in meltdown. I wonder if that’s the body’s natural response for when the mouth has made a legitimately stupid comment.

The title of my blog was; surely, some people are just too stupid to run for government? I don’t know the man, and I honestly wouldn’t wish to, but there is a chance that he isn’t stupid at all. It’s possible that he is instead simply ignorant, but regardless. Stupid or ignorant, I feel it matters none. To my mind, neither of these seem like the qualities that you’d want to vote for if you were selecting a representative for Senate for your State. 

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

It’s a good job Accurist weren’t the sponsors of the closing ceremony!

Now according to my television planner, last night’s closing ceremony was supposed to be done and dusted by 11.30pm. Yet at 12.10am the fireworks hadn’t even started – oops!

I have to say by 11.30 I’d honestly had enough, but I’d felt that I’d already invested two and half hours of my life so I was adamant that I was going to see it through. I also did really want to see Take That, and I was eventually disappointed that they only did one song. Although possibly for the best – was Jason Orange feeling okay? He seemed to acting very odd and not in line with what the other three were doing. Or maybe he was just doing a little bit of show boating, a quip there for anyone who was tuned into channel four for the evening and was watching the Wedding Crashers!

Okay, so the closing ceremony. This morning I’m trying to be objective. I’ve had the night to sleep on it and this morning I’m trying to evaluate it fairly.

Overall I think it was fun, a little weird in places, too long, and once again quintessentially British. Although I was absolutely dumbfounded when McCartney wasn’t rolled out at the end, isn’t that what we do? Perhaps not, perhaps Queen were wrong and the show can’t always go! At some point it does have to come to an end, and perhaps Seb Coe was worried that if the closing ceremony went on any longer Boris Johnson would pull the plug siting the boroughs noise restriction hours.

A couple of my favourite parts of the closing ceremony came from two of our musical best who are no longer with us; the great John Lennon and the brilliant Freddy Mercury. How awesome (please when you read the word awesome can you imagine David Hasselhoff – aka the Hoff, on America’s Got Talent saying awesome, as American’s just say it so much better than us Brits,) was it when the audience participated with the recordings of Freddy Mercury?

I personally thought it was amazing! Actually, I thought it was even better than that. The man was truly something else and is a legend. Brian May and Roger Taylor were also pretty cool, but I don’t think they needed Jesse J. We will Rock You is so iconic that I thought she brought nothing to the stage, apart from in my opinion a huge fashion faux par.

I thought that The Who did well closing out the closing ceremony, but I can’t help feeling the McCartney will be feeling disgruntled about that! I thought that the Spice Girls were okay, although I feared a little for their safety when their taxi’s started belting them around the stadium. I mean come on fellas, these ladies are now in their late thirties early forties and most of them are mums! Yet credit where it’s due, I thought Victoria Beckham looked very good. As for that matter did Kate Moss. In fact Kate Moss has now looked that good since, well, actually pretty much since I can remember and I’m starting to find that annoying in a ‘does she have special genes’ kind of way?

What else? Oh, the Pet Shop Boys! That part of the evening mixed in with Madness’s performance made me feel like that moment when you wake up and you can hear your alarm going off but you can’t quite place where you are! That goes in my ‘a little weird in places’ category, as does Annie Lennox’s performance, but I doubt that will surprise many people reading this. One Direction made me want to vomit. They are just so sickly sweet it actually hurts my teeth, but in fairness I suppose that might be how my age group felt when Take That were big the first time around!

George Michael, Fat Boy Slim, Eric Idle, and Russell Brand I’m putting into quintessentially British, with a slight cross over into a little weird. Ray Davies though, I’m not sure what to say. I love the Kinks, but I think his day as lead vocalist may have come and gone.

So that’s it on my summary and opinion of the closing ceremony. It was not all bad, but not all good. I’m so British! And on that I’ll just quickly add that at least it didn’t rain, but it is awfully close today that I think we could do with a shower.

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Who knew that that mascot and muse for the British opening ceremony was Jimmy Saville!

Madames et Messiuers, bienvenue ...... No hold on a second, aren’t the 2012 Olympics in London?

Okay, so last night the greatest show on earth – we’re told (but hold on I can now feel all London commuters rolling their eyes at me), arrived in London last night. At 9pm – past the watershed (I wasn’t sure whether to expect nudity or bad language!) the opening ceremony began and the 2012 Olympics commenced.

I thought that overall the ceremony went well. Was it on the same scale and spectacle as Beijing four years ago? Well no, I can’t say that in my opinion that I thought it was. Was it uniquely British? Well let me see, it had Bond, Bean, and as always we rolled out the McCartney to bash out some Beatle classics. So with the three B’s present, and the Queen and the royals in attendance; yes – you’d have to say that it was as British as we’ve come to expect – especially following the recent Jubilee!

However I have to say that as much as I loved the Bond and Bean segments of the opening ceremony, I did feel that there were certain things missing. Now I know that this may be slightly controversial given that the comments on twitter and facebook seem to be glowing with how brilliant the opening ceremony was – but why did Danny Boyle decide to start our history with the rise of the industrial revolution?

I appreciate that we’re hosting the Olympics as the United Kingdom, but I sort of felt that a good 1600, 1700 years of our history – and by our I don’t just mean England, was written off, forgotten, ignored, swept under the carpet – you get my gist! I don’t feel any homage was paid to the history or cultures of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, or yes England. However, everyone with origins in pastures, the black country, or miner towns must feel well represented.

I reckon that if we made everyone play a game of family fortunes – with the question being; name one thing most commonly associated with the United Kingdom? Surely, the top the answer would be the Queen? No, is this just me? Yet Danny Boyle made no reference to our history of Kings and Queens. No worries though, as Bevan sleeps soundly as Boyle chose to celebrate the NHS for a good ten minutes!

Again, back to family fortunes you’d hope that someone would also answer Shakespeare – no? I’d like to feel that that’s when you’d hear waharah waharah (where the contestant also wins a mystery prize – probably a trip to Stratford upon Avon in keeping with their answer you’d guess) but was any reference made to our literary greats? No. Boyle made no reference to the phenomenal literary history that we have. Although he did celebrate Lord Voldemort, and anyone watching at home will have heard the BBC commentators say JK Rowling was the greatest writer to come out of the UK ever!

This comment however, sort of seems reflective of the whole opening ceremony. Boyle seemed to concentrate only on the new, or not very old. The music focused on the past sixty plus years, we celebrated the inventor of the world wide web, and the medium of social networking. But our history, our long and industrious history, was ignored.

I feel that with a country as old as ours, we should have celebrated a whole lot more. If we’re looking at music why couldn’t we have included bagpipes, to be representative of Scottish heritage? We are the United Kingdom, and I kind of thought that the opening ceremony would have reflected the heritage of the whole of the United Kingdom. I wonder how heavily involved the political correctness police were, and how high the rug stands – where they managed to sweep the 1700 years of our history!

Finally as you might have guessed from my opening line, I was a bit confused as to why all the announcements and introductions were being given in French before English. I can only assume that this is because the Olympic Committee and Chairman of the Olympic Committee or Committee Olympic is French. But still – if we’re paying to host the event and we’re hosting the event, they could at least let us have the announcements in English first!

As I sit on the train writing this blog, in a carriage filled with passengers here for the Olympics, I know that I should be feeling happy that we’ve got this amazing event. Yet sat listening to two American tourists talking about how there is nothing to see in the UK – makes me want to scream at them and send them back home with Mitt Romney. Yet, what can I expect? According to Boyle all we once had was pastures and then industrial cities! Don’t worry about Snowdonia, Stone Henge, Edinburgh Castle and the Giant’s causeway, to name but a few of the wonderful spectacles that can be visited!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

I’ll have what she’s having!!

Screenwriter Nora Ephron has died this week aged at 71, and as such I felt that I had to blog about her greatest screenwriting triumph – When Harry met Sally.

Ephron was without doubt the Queen of the romcom and When Harry met Sally is for me a classic of this genre, and a truly great film to boot. It is so good in fact, that I am always genuinely shocked when people haven’t seen it. Yet for all those who haven’t seen it, this is one of those films where everyone knows what it’s about.

Whether you’ve watched it or not, everyone knows that it stars Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal, and everyone knows that it contains a scene in which Meg Ryan’s character; Sally, fakes an orgasm in the middle of a crowded diner.

This scene is a highlight of the entire genre alone. The look of shock that registers on Billy Crystal’s face is classic, and I wonder how many men – who over the years have chosen to watch this film or been forced to endure it by their other halves, have been astounded and unnerved at Meg’s accurate portrayal.

I always think that while woman watching this scene are secretly laughing to themselves, the men sat next to them, are clearly, despite their sexual arrogance and what they’d admit to their mate, sitting more uncomfortably than they were only moments before.

I wonder how many women have been asked in the hours or days that have followed the climax of the film if they’ve ever faked anything, and better yet I wonder how many women have faked their answer. My bet would be a lot, and most with; “yes, but never with you!”

In a film that is tit for tat between a man and a woman throughout, a man and a woman who are both friends and then not friends, this scene is delightful and comedy gold. It also gives the scene over entirely to the female character. Sally holds all the cards over Harry in that moment, and her character has the power. Ephron makes Sally’s character bold and strong and she does it without any action, violence, sci-fi, magic, or foul language.

The other notorious moment in the film, and the one that for years left me in a quandary and almost unhappy with the film, is when Harry makes his quip about men and women not being able to be friends. He says; "You realise of course that we could never be friends... men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.”

When I first watched this film I’m honestly not sure I was old enough to appreciate this statement, and I also have a lot of female friends now who de-cry that this is untrue. However, I don’t have any male friends who disagree with Harry’s sentiment.

Personally I don’t agree with the notion entirely, and I have a lot of male friends. I think that you can be friends with the opposite sex, and that the true warning of the film is actually that if you involve sex the friendship will be marred by it. Once sex is a factor you are usually going to either end up a couple, or as two people who were once friends!

I believe that it’s more than likely that if you’ve had a long standing friendship with someone of the opposite sex, over the years and at some point in time even if it’s just for the briefest of moment, one of the two people in the friendship will have harboured more than just platonic feelings. My male friends tell me that it can be as simple and as innocent as absent-mindedly wondering what you’d look like naked or be like in bed, and some of my female friends say that they have wondered what it would be like to kiss a certain male friend or potentially had a rogue dream or too.

Men and women can obviously be friends, and anyone who says otherwise needs to widen their horizons and get some more friends, and I think that a lot of relationships can stay purely platonic and that will be all that either people will ever want. Yet I think that drink, sex, and both of you being in bad emotional places at the same time, can cause issues with the friendship that same gender relationships perhaps can’t.

So maybe – just maybe, Harry wasn’t too far off the mark? Regardless, he does give pause for thought. It has also made a great conversation topic, and cause for many a heated argument between a mixed group of male and female friends since the film was released in 1989.

Thanks Nora Ephron for the film, for the ingenious scenes, and for the tantalising mischievous debate. When Harry Met Sally is a masterpiece, and a timeless romcom classic. 

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Shades of Grey

Despite the Evening Standard and other newspapers making waves over the rise in the popularity of erotic literature this week, my blog is not actually about Fifty Shades of Grey. Although, as I have made reference to it, I will say that I don’t understand what all the fuss is about!

Erotic literature has been around for eons. If you wish to Wikipedia the topic you will see that the interest in this type of literature dates all the way back to Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

The only thing I find slightly fascinating about the whole “re-vamp” or “re-popularisation” of the genre is that it seems to have flowed from the publication of Fifty Shades of Grey, which I have yet to find a good review of. It seems that a blend of poorly written prose combined with a storyline that lifts heavily from teenage fiction (Twilight and the characters of Edward Cullen and Bella Swann) doesn’t do much for the critics – I can’t imagine why!

Yet as I say, the subject of erotic literature and Fifty Shades of Grey is not what this blog is about. In The Telegraph on Friday I came across this article; Woman who wants to die must be force-fed. The article is about the decision that has just been made regarding the life of an un-named 32 year old woman who suffers from anorexia.

 

From here on in, everything that I am likely to write is bound to be marred in some form of controversy and that is because this subject is sure to bring highly conflicting opinions.

 

My personal opinion on this case and article is that I don’t think that the right decision was made. Yet I must underlie this statement by saying that given the complexities of anorexia – which is so much more than just a physical illness, I appreciate that what a person wishes when suffering with this illness must often be ignored.

 

I do not therefore condone that every person suffering from anorexia who would rather die than be force-fed should be allowed to. In my opinion that would be nonsensical, and it would seem that in the vast majority of these cases that is the illness or disease of anorexia talking and these sufferers / patients should be treated by professionals and given a chance to get their lives back and learn to try and see the line between their own sense of mortality and that of the dark demon of “Ana”.

 

The reason I feel so differently in regards to the woman in The Telegraph article is because of all of the facts that surround both her illness and her desire not to be force-fed.

 

It is reported that she was physically abused between the ages of 4 and 12, and then began suffering from eating disorders. At 15 she was admitted to an adolescent eating disorder unit for treatment. The woman is now 32 and according to her barrister and family is completely aware of the decision she is making in regards to her own life, and in fact twice last year signed forms to say that she did not wish to be treated. In addition, at this point it is reported that she would be required to be force-fed for at least a year and at the end of this time she would still only have a 20% chance of survival. Her family are reported as saying that they wish to support her decision to refuse treatment.

 

Whether this case is completely unique or not, I do not know. I do know though that this topic and this type of case will never be a black and white subject.

I truly feel for the family and the woman, and I cannot agree with the decision that has been made by the judge. I accept that his must have been a horrendous job, and that whatever the outcome he would have had his critics and his advocates. Yet to my mind, this woman has suffered enough.

 

Force-feeding someone takes away their control, and will to my mind only cause further fear and pain to a woman who one can only assume is already deeply emotionally and physically scarred. When terminally ill patients no longer wish to accept treatments, such as chemotherapy for cancer patients, they make choices to refuse further treatment. It is a decision that they must make, and only they can know the rationale behind their decisions and I cannot see the difference in regards to this 32 year old woman.

 

I can already hear the cries as I type of “it is different!” But is it I ask back? Yes a terminal patient faces death anyway, but doesn’t this woman? A 20% chance of survival is not high, and I think it is probably clear that her will to live is much less than that. Should that not also be factored in here? Is it really fair to impose a year of force-feeding on her, because there is a belief that she will survive the year and at some point in the future she will be able to control her demons??

 

As I say, this is not a black and white subject and the area of grey seems to have no boundary here. So I will conclude by saying that surely if she is considered to be of sound mind, and her family are not against her wishes, this is a personal decision. 

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

With Ricky Martin winning the Apprentice, is Lord Sugar living la vida loca?

It has been written and it will continue to be written for a while I feel sure, that yesterday the UK (or London more specifically) witnessed an event that has not been seen in many a long year. And an event that has never been seen on prime time television before!

No, I am not talking about the 1000 boat strong flotilla that graced the Thames yesterday for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, but instead the fact that Claude Littner (the best interviewer on the series the Apprentice) did not tear one of the candidates to shreds!

Interview week is without doubt my favourite week of the Apprentice series. It is great to finally see the candidates, who have over the course of 10 / 11 weeks made themselves look like idiots by acting less mature than primary school children in the boardroom (I really do always expect to see tears and not just from the girls), come under fire for their own self importance and arrogance.

If you’re not sure that the candidates always act immature, you must though agree that they certainly say some absolutely ludicrous and cringe worthy things. My two favourite quotes from the series have to be from Duane Bryan and Jenna Whittingham. Duane told another of this year’s candidates that; “you must never look a gift horse in the eye.”

Honestly this doesn’t even need a satirical remark from me as this mis-quote speaks for itself. But really, why oh why would you ever use a saying that you weren’t sure you had right. Though maybe I’m doing him a favour by thinking he mis-spoke, perhaps he genuinely didn’t know that that wasn’t the saying. Yet this either makes him a fool or forgetful, neither great traits when trying to become Lord Sugar’s business partner one wouldn’t have thought. If anyone who knows Duane is reading this, its mouth by the way and not eye! “Never look a gift horse in the mouth!”

In fairness to Duane though, his quote was nothing in comparison to Jenna’s blunder. Jenna during one of the tasks and on route to Edinburgh (where the task was set), asked fellow candidate and Scot Laura Hogg if she’d be able to understand and talk to the people if they spoke in Scottish. If you didn’t see this episode, find a clip and watch it because Jenna was being deadly serious!

I have to say when I was watching this episode and that comment was made, I was ready to pull out a vuvuzela from somewhere and blow it. That comment should have been an instant fireable offence on the grounds of stupidity!!

Anyway, back to topic – Interview week.

This is the week where Lord Alan Sugar brings in his most trusted advisors and lets them rip on his remaining candidates. As television goes, I always find this to be comedy and entertainment gold. Although I do wonder if any of these candidates have ever had interviews before? Yes, I appreciate that the advisors are possibly told to go OTT, and there is the extra pressure on the candidates because they know it’s televised, but still! If you apply for the Apprentice (and by this I mean the newer version of the Apprentice where it’s not for a job but to be Sugar’s business partner), then why can’t you answer basic questions on your business plan!

Aside from my issue with the candidates being occasionally open for ridicule, the entertainment gold comes from the interviewers. Who needs to watch a David Attenborough program on nature, when interview week is on? It is just like watching predators stalk their prey in the Serengeti, and they all have that give away look where you know they are about to pounce on the candidate, from Margaret Mountford’s eyebrow (love it!) to Claude Littner’s lean (brilliant!)

Yet yesterday I felt a little robbed. Claude Littner who has always provided the very best of the best entertainment from interview week – his best line ever being when he was interviewing Stuart Braggs – the Brand! The Brand (as he called himself) claimed that he was a big fish in a small pond. Littner’s response was; “you’re not even a fish!” It came after the end of a long drilling at which point Braggs looked like he was about to cry. I know I shouldn’t find someone else’s misery and pain entertaining, but isn’t that what reality television is all about!

But, imagine my disappointment yesterday when Littner didn’t attack yet more cajole Ricky Martin (winner of the Apprentice). I found it highly disheartening when he told him he thought he had a good business plan – that’s not entertainment gold, that’s like watching the good kid in the class’s parent evening! Dull! Thankfully though, Littner still made excellent attacks on the other three candidates, so I wasn’t left feeling totally short changed on my viewing amusement.

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

What a state of affairs?

Okay so the big news of the week is that Facebook floated on the stock exchange yesterday, and that David Cameron and his fellow coalition colleagues announced a new way to waste tax payer’s money and molly coddle the population.

It seems that Facebook is watching, and the nanny state has arrived. It’s George Orwell’s worst nightmare! It is 1984 meets Animal Farm.

I wonder how it is though that we have all become so dependent on Facebook. I was going to say that I might be the exception to that statement, but that would be a blatant lie! I advertise on Facebook, have a Facebook account, and will – as soon as I have finished writing this, put a link to my blog on Facebook! Ooops, perhaps I am more dependent on the giant of a social media site than I had first realised.

It’s strange – now, to think that a decade ago Facebook was only a sparkle in Zuckerberg’s eye. Especially given that yesterday the floatation of the company made him a billionaire (reports putting his estimated wealth at $20.9 billion).

I blogged only a few weeks ago about the ever growing reliance on emoticons, and my notion that we were as a 21^st century society moving away from the written word and back to hieroglyphics. In relation to that thought, I can’t help pondering whether or not our reliance on social media sites (the likes of Facebook) have assisted with this.

Life now seems to be represented in two ways on social media sites; photos and status updates. A life in pictures is definitely a step away from the written word, and I’m not sure how to categorise status updates.

All I know is that we have all become obsessed with them. In fact I know a number of people that update what they are doing almost hourly. I’ve never personally found the need to do this and I can’t decide if that’s because I’m too lazy (yes I appreciate there is little effort involved – especially given that most people have facebook on their phones these days), or that I simply don’t want anyone to get a sense of how average my average day is!

Anyway, while Facebook and our growing reliance on social media and status updating on those sites and BBM etc is will continue to defy me. I am sure that anyone who profited nicely from the flotation of Facebook yesterday, or who has already acquired shares in the company, won’t care. So now to the nanny state!

I cannot believe the proposals that were announced yesterday. The government has decided to invest time, thought (although I’m not sure how much thought), resources, and oodles (no doubt) of tax payer money into a scheme to help parents become better parents.

The government are going to offer £100 parenting vouchers so that you can train how to become a parent!

This has to, without doubt, be one of the stupidest proposals ever! I’m not against it because I don’t have children so will get no benefit from it, but I’m against it because I think there are a hundred different ways to help parents parent without teaching them to suck eggs!

 The biggest problem a number of parent’s face (whether they are single mothers, single fathers, or both working parents) is childcare. The cost of childcare is crippling to most parents. It’s so expensive in fact, that a number of couples that I know have had to decide whether there is any benefit in “mum” (occasionally “dad”) returning to work.

On top of this there are a number of other ways in which parents need help with their children, and the majority of them are financial. Yet it seems that the government wants to show that its caring and understanding by saying that it won’t throw money at the problem, (which if it had done would probably have a greater and more positive impact on a number of children’s lives), but that it will stick its oar in and instead teach.

I don’t believe that it’s the government’s job, or role in society, to teach or meddle or anything else in its citizen’s lives. David Cameron and his cronies should stick to looking at tax credits, benefits, childcare maintenance payments etc, and things that directly concern the government as they apportion the funds that pay these various things.

Government should in my opinion govern and nothing more and it certainly shouldn’t try to act like an omnipotent social worker. It could be though that after the terrible results in the local elections two weeks ago, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are looking for new careers!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Elections equal Apathy, but not so much if you’re French!

On Sunday the second round of the French Presidential elections will take place, and if the voter turnout is anywhere near as high as in the first round, or of that in the Presidential elections of 2007 – it won’t be a surprise to hear that the percentage of voters that turnout to cast a vote will be up in the 80s.

80%! This is absolutely extraordinary. You have only got to take a quick look at other European countries to see that the turnout in France is really quite special. Alternatively you could even just take a quick look at the UK elections in 2010, where you will see that voter turnout was at 66%. If you look at the breakdown of that figure, you can see that it would have been a lot lower had the over 50s and 60s not been out in force. 

I often feel that I am quite apathetic towards politics, but it is not that I do not care about what is happening in the country. I do! It’s just that I often feel apathetic because I consider that no matter who I vote for nothing really will change!

Britain seems to be entrenched in a system of party politics, so in certain areas of the country it doesn't really matter who you want to vote for, as the MP from one particular party is sure to dominate. This hardly incentivises people to make the effort! Well if it does, it certainly doesn’t incentivise me! Yet I do not believe that I am alone in this thinking, as Britain is also not the only country that struggles when it comes to getting its younger generation to the ballot boxes.

In November in the States, the Presidential candidates will be begging the country to come out and vote. In 2008 their voter turnout was just shy of 58% - even lower than ours, but what does this really tell you? It tells you that almost half of the country didn’t vote, and you have to wonder why? Is it apathy or is there a deeper cause?

I wonder if we have taken the ability to vote for granted! As a woman I often feel guilty that over a century ago I wouldn’t even been allowed to vote, and these days I sometimes choose not to. I don’t think the Pankhurst’s would be particularly appreciative about my apathy! Yet in my own defence I do always vote in general elections, but I can honestly say that I did not vote in yesterday’s mayoral election in London!

In my opinion having the choice to pick between either Ken Livingston or Boris Johnson (the only two candidates with a chance of winning), was like been told to choose between the lesser of two (unnecessary to my mind) evils. Given their campaign methods, shambles on the radio – where they acted like children, and general nay saying of one another, I simply could not be bothered to vote.

It also seemed to me that both candidates during the election campaign were far more 

interested in their own egos, and in getting one over on the other, than really helping out the city. So I honestly couldn't find a compelling reason to bother voting? I’m also not entirely sure I know what the mayor does, or does for me – so perhaps I'm less apathetic and more uneducated as to mayoral responsibilities. Yet I wonder if I am alone?

In the last mayoral election only 45% of people voted. In this year’s mayoral election 38% voted. So what does this tell us? It tells us that in both elections less than half of the city gave a damn as to who our mayor was going to be or was! Given that this year is an Olympic year, an Olympic year in which the Olympics are in London, I find myself wondering how mayoral candidates are ever going to make the voters care enough to vote? If they can’t motivate us enough to take an interest this year, I highly doubt that there is a year in which they can!

Over the weekend and at the start of next week, a lot will be made of the elections and the fact that a number of councils have swung in favour of labour. Yet I wonder how much attention will be paid to the voter turnout!

Swings are important – well for politicians, and obviously if you discount genuine concerns like starvation, genocide, and a multitude of other worldwide problems. Yet they hardly focus on the bigger issue which is more and more people are becoming apathetic towards politics in this country!

Now back to France, the French obviously do not share the same level of apathy as us and I don’t think that it can be put down purely to the fact that theirs is a presidential race. I say this having already alluded to the fact that the American Presidential race in November is highly unlikely to see a voter turnout up in the 80s. So could it, I wonder, have something to do with their culture or the fact that they hold the elections on a Sunday? Or that they have two rounds of elections, which allows them to narrow the field for the future President?

It is hard to say, and I know that there has been much debate over his subject. Yet perhaps there needs to be even more. If Britain and other countries are already reliant on the older generations to vote, in my opinion this leads to two worrying concerns.

One; Politician’s policies are going to try and be vote wining (this is clearly stating the obvious), but if it is only the older generations that bother to vote, then the policy promises will be directed at them. This is not only going to be detrimental to the younger generations, but  I also feel that it is sure to make them more apathetic – if possible!

Two, the younger generation are (whether apathetic or not) the future! If they don’t vote now and are given no incentives (i.e. policy promises), or reason to vote, then one day you have to wonder how low voter turnout might be. So, perhaps we should consider more closely why the French manage to appeal to nearly 80% of their population who are eligible to vote and we managed only 38%! 

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

The weather and the rich list – how depressing!

Okay so I know that April is supposed to be the month of showers, but really! Since April started has the rain stopped? In this past week alone it feels like every day has been the same; constant downpours, intermittent drizzle, and dark and depressing skies overhead. Each morning, the weather manages to give you the doldrums before you’ve even had a chance to get your cup of morning coffee! I’d hazard a guess that we’ve been having weather so glum that it could even make the most upbeat of people (i.e. Pollyanna) want to say bah hum bug!

Although, as truly rubbish as the weather has been, I’m sure I’m not the only one that finds it slightly amusing that in March we were all being told that there would have to be water bans because we’d had so little rain throughout the year.

I wonder if Thames Water, or perhaps all those that love their gardens dearly, have been doing rain dances like the Native Americans used to. If so, I do wonder if they could stop now!!! Surely we’ve had sufficient rain for one month, and I’m sure we can expect some more later in the year – probably about the time that Wimbledon starts I would hazard a guess!

On top of a week’s worth of horrific British weather, added to which the weather reports are advising of more rain next week and possible flooding, today they announced the rich list! I find this has put me in an even worse mood than I was in before, and even if you try to avoid seeing it I can still guarantee that it gets talked about on some news report or radio station. So unfortunately it’s about as hard to avoid as the constant rain of the month!

Yet, the subject of the rich list did start me wondering about the idea of luck! Now the word luck seems to create a lot of controversy among different people. Many people who are deeply religious for example do not believe in luck, or if they do they believe that it is a blessing from God. Others however, believe that luck is all part of fate, and the notion that certain people are just destined to be lucky, or wealthy (and on the rich list), or famous, or beautiful etc.

Now regardless as to the origins and people’s belief about the word, and regardless as to whether luck really exists or not. I find that can’t help feeling at times that the only kind of luck you ever get is bad luck. I also tend to find that my luck is weather related.

I can guarantee the day that I’m not running late, I haven’t just blow dried and straightened my hair, and it isn’t p***ing it down with the rain, well then that’s the day that I walk outside just as the bus that I want arrives. However, the day that I am running late, I have just straightened my hair, and it’s bucketing down (also usually a Monday), well then that’s the day that I walk outside just as the bus that I want is pulling away!

I understand that some will say this is just coincidence, or perhaps sods law! Yet you’ve got to wonder if they aren’t all one in the same thing! Coincidence, chance, sods law, probability (oops – I can now hear mathematicians around the world going crazy), luck, fate, etc.

According to Roman mythology, Fortuna was the goddess of fortune and was the personification of luck. Yet she was also said to be the goddess of fate.

Now fate, luck, however you wish to look at it, suggests in some way that we are all dependent on some kind of higher force making opportunities for us. Yet in a strange sort of a way some I believe may find this comforting, except what if your lot in life is not to be fortunate or lucky!

There are also those who want to believe that we make our own luck in life. Yet I’m not entirely sure I buy this notion either, and I refer back to the rich list to which this year Cheryl Cole features on it!!

To me, it seems that some people are just lucky in life (granted Cheryl Cole may not have felt all that lucky when the papers where covered with stories of Ashley Cole’s infidelity and her being kicked of the US X-factor), but some would say she’s also had a lot of luck to become a household name in the first place!

Yet to be fair it’s not just Cheryl Cole, its lots of people. And this started me wondering if the advent of reality television has made it easier to find your good fortune, or make your own luck!

In the past decade our TV’s are filled with reality TV programmes, and the everyday people that go onto these shows seem to go on to fame and fortune! It’s also no longer just about talent as you have the likes of TOWIE and Made in Chelsea, which are really just fly on the wall documentary’s. Yet they have certainly sky-rocketed their casts into the public eye, but was that luck, good fortune, or were they all destined to earn easy money and become household names?

Who knows, but I reckon it would still be nice to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Be the child of someone in the top ten of the rich list, that way you don’t ever need luck, or chance, or good fortune etc. You’ve got mummy or daddy’s Visa or MasterCard at hand instead!

And just for all those thinking that money doesn’t always make you happy, I bet those on this year’s rich list would disagree!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

The folly of men – are they nuts or just naïve?

This week I came across two stories that made me laugh, but also made me question the sense of men – in a humorous rather than a judgmental way!

The first story was actually a review on Amazon that has been doing the rounds on e-mail, and facebook, and for very good reason. It’s hilarious.

The review is on the product Veet for men, and the “loose cannon” as he describes himself was just fool enough to ignore the warning labels on the product and apply the cream to his private areas! The consequences of his action were pretty predictable, and whilst I’m sure he regrets his decision I feel fairly certain that all the readers of his review don’t. I also reckon that all the other men out their contemplating the same course of action don’t either, and I bet they’ll now think twice before doing the same thing!

Honestly though, men! It’s not like there weren’t warnings that the product was not suitable for that area, and also you’ve got to wonder why he felt the need to remove all the hair in that general area! Additionally it’s got to be said that this guy didn’t just not read the warning, but he also ignored the general advice given on the back of these sorts of creams that suggest that you test a sample area first.

Regardless of his reasoning or lack of caution, his review has made for excellent amusement for many a bored office worker this week and is to be saluted.

Yet just when you think that the folly of men couldn’t be exemplified any better than this, you come across another example of the age old classic. A man writing something on e-mail, or attaching something to an e-mail that he shouldn’t, and then sending it to probably one of the only few people that shouldn’t be privy to it.

This week’s folly was made by a 28 year old Manhattan resident, who had been keeping a spreadsheet on the twelve women that he’d been dating.  Aside from the obvious first thought, which is why would you do this? The next thought is always why would you attach it onto any e-mail, least of all onto one to a woman who features on the spreadsheet!

His logic is that he’s busy, and twelve women’s attributes and weaknesses are a lot to remember. He could surely just be more ruthless in his dating, and therefore save himself the hassle of having to try to remember twelve different women and all the things that he liked and disliked about each one. Or he could just maybe given the women a better chance of having anything more than just a one or two date “thing” with him.

Yet you’ve got to sort of admire his organisational skills, and I think that it would be hilarious in a competency based interview if he used this as an example of a time when he was able to organise efficiently and deal with competing demands on his time!

Both men have clearly been a little senseless, and as a woman I’ve found both stories brilliant in terms of comedy value. Yet I wonder? Was Loose Cannon nuts or just desperate to be bald, and was Mr Spreadsheet insensitive and stupid or just a little naïve and careless?

I think both can be put down to the folly of men, and you’ve got to wonder how men have managed to rule both the world and the boardroom for so long! Yet I do wonder if they rule the boardroom at the headquarters of Veet? A part of me can’t help imagining a room full of women, laughing and knowing that there would be men out there that would ignore the warnings and apply the cream to their....!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Forget oh what a night in late December back in ’63, and think oh what a week in early April 2012!

Granted this week’s blog title might not be the zippiest that I’ve ever come up with, and it’s certainly not going to win any awards, but quite frankly I’m feeling in a little bit of a daze! This week has to have been one of the most bizarre weeks that I’ve experienced in a very long time, and I’m not even talking personal experiences here. There was the storm on twitter on beauty – I’ll get to that in a second, and then there the man in the Thames ruining the Boat race!!

Okay, so firstly this week’s bizarreness began with Samantha Brick! Now I have to preface my next run of thoughts on this, by saying that that I’m not entirely sure if I’ve missed the intention behind this headline story. Was her initial article a spoof, and if so did the editors at the Daily Mail forget to run it on 1^st April?? Also, did they forget that spoofs are supposed to be in some way amusing?? Brick’s article was more bemusing than amusing!

Also, the thing I’ve struggled with since the story was published and the uproar began, was the fact that I’m not sure if I care. Yet I can’t decide if this just makes me simply apathetic, or I’m just very cynical! You just know that she’s coining in it in and she’ll have got a book deal out of this, which is a travesty in both senses. Not that she’ll care because she’ll be minted, and as they say all publicity is good publicity. Added to the fact that all her publicity right now is also coming to her free!!  

However, now that I’ve forced myself to come down from my cynical / apathetic post, I would just like to point out though that I had a few issues with the whole Brick article and Brick rebuttal. None of my issues though are to do with whether she’s beautiful (which I just don’t care about as it’s totally subjective), or whether women hate her for this (which I can only think is a sweeping generalisation as I doubt she’s done polls on this).

One of my issues was that I didn’t like the fact that as a woman, I was given a collective voice. I’m not against this at times when it comes to women’s issues for example, but in an article that lacks any credence or gravitas I mostly found it irritating. I can’t agree with my mates on what take away to order, or which film to watch at the cinema. The notion therefore that we’d see one woman and have the exact same opinion defies belief. Although I think it’s likely that we might’ve all inferred that she seems to come across as conceited and Narcissus – esque! (Yes that’s not a word – but Narcissus was the beautiful boy who drowned in his own reflection!) Yet I feel I may have reached this conclusion without ever seeing her photo, and just reading her article.

Yet my major problem with the articles was the simple fact that they were very poorly written. Aside from the fact that she can spell –although we shouldn’t rule out some editor involvement here, I had issues with both the perspective that she took and the credibility of the article. On This Morning she claimed that the piece that she’d started out writing / had intended to write was on the sisterhood and how we don’t band together, and then she also threw in how women don’t like her around their husbands and boyfriends.

Now – this is where I find it gets quite interesting! As I think that a writer with an ounce of skill could put together a great article on this. I think most women will accept that we do on occasion moan and b*tch about other women, but do we really impinge each other’s careers and does that mean we hate beautiful women? Well I’m sure that people who’ve done research and studies on this are well placed to tell us, yet I don’t get the feeling that Samantha Bick is one of these people. Also an ode to oneself generally isn’t going to be that reflective of a societal issue I find!

Anyway, onto bizarre story number 2! I love the boat race and watch it year in year out. This year though, like for the thousands and thousands of other spectators, boat race day was ruined. The race started and then had to be stopped due to a man being in the river! Then when it did start again there seemed to be a little bit of confusion, and then it all went horribly wrong; broken oar, easy Cambridge victory, and one of the Oxford oarsmen collapsing.

It is such a shame that the race ended this way especially as it looked set to be a nail biter, and my sympathies go out to both teams who would’ve worked for months upon months to prepare for one day and one race that was ruined by one foolish man!

It is reported that the man in the river was protesting against elitism, but quite frankly there has to have been a better way for him to have got his point across. He could have got hurt, he could have injured others, and he’s ruined what is a traditionally exciting day of sport on the British calendar. Quite frankly – shame on him!

Yet between him and Brick, what a random week it has been! Although the only highlight of the week has to be that we’ve all now got a catchy song for when we’ve lost our keys, or lost our phone!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk