Let there be light
And more
That is all
It's a sing-a-long!
The Annual International Humiliation Contest is getting closer again. Finland has been doing particular well there, coming in last or almost last for as long as anyone can remember. And considering the dreadful songs ("Yamma Yamma" from 1992... Sometimes I still wake up screaming....) we have kept on sending there, it's no surprise. Year after year we have sent a dime-a-dozen song, and every single year the media goes crazy saying "THIS year we will do well!". And then we'll end up being last. And it's pretty strange, considering that Finland does have quite a few excellent singers/bands. It's propably due to the fact that voters are usually 50+ years old, and they send their favourites to the contest.
This year it seems that Finns in general are fed up with the contest. A collective "fuck it" was heard all across the land as they voted in Lordi to represent Finland this year. We might still come in last, but at least we will lose with style. No more Mr. "I'll do my best, and let's see how far it takes me". This time it's fire and brimstone, axes, monsters and "if you don't give me points, I'll fucking crush your skull". One thing Finland has going for them this year is the fact that there are several boring pop-songs, and in middle of them all there is a hard-rock musical extravaganza straight from the pits of hell. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Some people feel that this will be an embarrasment for Finland, and that we are destined to lose this year. And that's different from previous years.... how, exactly? And, as it happens, religious fundamentalists are appalled by this, and they are demanding a presidential intervention to prevent Lordi from appearing on the contest. "Concerned citizens" are complaining that Lordi is turning the contest from family-friendly show in to something that will corrupt and destroy the moral backbone of our children (even though our previous entries in the contest have done exceedingly well in eternally scarring the mental well-being of the viewers).
I'm loving every moment of this.
This year it seems that Finns in general are fed up with the contest. A collective "fuck it" was heard all across the land as they voted in Lordi to represent Finland this year. We might still come in last, but at least we will lose with style. No more Mr. "I'll do my best, and let's see how far it takes me". This time it's fire and brimstone, axes, monsters and "if you don't give me points, I'll fucking crush your skull". One thing Finland has going for them this year is the fact that there are several boring pop-songs, and in middle of them all there is a hard-rock musical extravaganza straight from the pits of hell. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Some people feel that this will be an embarrasment for Finland, and that we are destined to lose this year. And that's different from previous years.... how, exactly? And, as it happens, religious fundamentalists are appalled by this, and they are demanding a presidential intervention to prevent Lordi from appearing on the contest. "Concerned citizens" are complaining that Lordi is turning the contest from family-friendly show in to something that will corrupt and destroy the moral backbone of our children (even though our previous entries in the contest have done exceedingly well in eternally scarring the mental well-being of the viewers).
I'm loving every moment of this.
Death Listens
For few days now I have found myself thinking about two paintings by Hugo Simberg: "The Garden of Death" and "Death Listens". I think those two paintings are my two favourites. I like them because of their symbolism and because they make us re-think things that we have taken for granted.
In the western societies, we find death to be something scary and sad. And why not, we lose someone we love. But I like how in those two paintings, Simberg shows Death to be compassionate and caring.
In "Garden of Death", we have Death gently taking care of the souls. The souls are on their way to their final destination (heaven or hell), but while Death is taking care of them, they'll be fine. I like how Death gently embraces one of the souls. It looks like it's very precious to him and he wouldn't want to let go of it.
In "Death Listens", we have Death on his way to "collect" someone from this world. But on his way, Death has stopped to listen a boy play his violin. It's quite obvious that the woman in the background (maybe the boys mother or grandmother) is the one who is about to die. But Death decided to let the boy finish his music first, possibly because Death enjoys the music and because he know that the music will cheer up the dying woman. Death silently listens as the boy plays the violin, his last act of kindness to a dying member of the family. There's no need to interrupt that beautiful moment, so Death waits, and listens.
Morbid? Maybe. But it's still beautiful and thought-provoking.
In the western societies, we find death to be something scary and sad. And why not, we lose someone we love. But I like how in those two paintings, Simberg shows Death to be compassionate and caring.
In "Garden of Death", we have Death gently taking care of the souls. The souls are on their way to their final destination (heaven or hell), but while Death is taking care of them, they'll be fine. I like how Death gently embraces one of the souls. It looks like it's very precious to him and he wouldn't want to let go of it.
In "Death Listens", we have Death on his way to "collect" someone from this world. But on his way, Death has stopped to listen a boy play his violin. It's quite obvious that the woman in the background (maybe the boys mother or grandmother) is the one who is about to die. But Death decided to let the boy finish his music first, possibly because Death enjoys the music and because he know that the music will cheer up the dying woman. Death silently listens as the boy plays the violin, his last act of kindness to a dying member of the family. There's no need to interrupt that beautiful moment, so Death waits, and listens.
Morbid? Maybe. But it's still beautiful and thought-provoking.
There's nothing on the silver-screen these days....
Few months ago I won a bunch of free tmovie-tickets. So life is good, right? I can go to the movies, and not spend a dime doing so? It has been several months since I got those tickets, and I haven't used any of them. Not one.
Yes, I can be pretty picky when it comes to movies, but it's extra hard when you are married and you have to find a movies that both parties will enjoy. And in the lasts few months, it has been exceedingly difficult to find movies that would satisfy just one. Last movie I saw was the "Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy", and it has been downhill ever since. There has been SOME movies that would have been worth watching, but not many.
What options have there been recently, as far as movies are concerned (in no particular order)?
King Kong: Yes, I'm a fan of Peter Jackson, have been since "Bad Taste". But King Kong just didn't interest me. Official score: Meh
Chronicles of Narnia: This might have interested me. But Soili wasn't that keen, mainly due to she has already seen the tv-series, so there's nothing new that this movie brings to the table (apart from better special effects). Oh well.
Brokeback Mountain: The idea behind this move is interesting, and everyone is praising it. But once I told Soili about it her reaction was "I don't like westerns". I tried telling her that it's not a traditional western, and she said "Gay cowboys? I don't think so". I tried telling her that people whose judgement I trust have praised the movie, and it's nominated for several Oscars, but no go. Bummer
Memoirs of a Geisha: Now we're talking! The movie seems like a really beautiful piece of filmmaking. But.... This might fall in to the trap Soili dislikes: People who are supposed to be non-English speaking (in this case, Japanese), still speak English, but with a suitable accent. Maybe it's for convenience's sake but still. I'm still working on this one
Äideistä Parhain: A Finnish movie. This was high on my list to watch, and Soili would have been pretty interested on it as well, due to the subject-matter being pretty close to her heart. But for one reason or the other, we never got around to watch it. Damn.
Pride and Prejudice: The new version. Now, this is propably a good movie, a definite "Soili-movie" :). But there is just one problem.... We already have the 1995 mini-series, and if we go watch the new version, we will end up comparing it to the previous version. And I'm 99% sure that the new version would fall short of it's predecessor (yes, the mini-series is that good). So we would end up being disappointed.
There is hope still: The Tiger and The Snow. This movie was Soili's suggestion. She likes Roberto Benigni (and I like Jean Reno) , and I'm willing to go watch whatever she wants to go see. She was a bit put off when she found out that the movie takes place during the invasion of Iraq (she's not to keen on war-movies). But since the point of the movie is not the war, she might still be willing to go see it :).
Yes, I can be pretty picky when it comes to movies, but it's extra hard when you are married and you have to find a movies that both parties will enjoy. And in the lasts few months, it has been exceedingly difficult to find movies that would satisfy just one. Last movie I saw was the "Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy", and it has been downhill ever since. There has been SOME movies that would have been worth watching, but not many.
What options have there been recently, as far as movies are concerned (in no particular order)?
King Kong: Yes, I'm a fan of Peter Jackson, have been since "Bad Taste". But King Kong just didn't interest me. Official score: Meh
Chronicles of Narnia: This might have interested me. But Soili wasn't that keen, mainly due to she has already seen the tv-series, so there's nothing new that this movie brings to the table (apart from better special effects). Oh well.
Brokeback Mountain: The idea behind this move is interesting, and everyone is praising it. But once I told Soili about it her reaction was "I don't like westerns". I tried telling her that it's not a traditional western, and she said "Gay cowboys? I don't think so". I tried telling her that people whose judgement I trust have praised the movie, and it's nominated for several Oscars, but no go. Bummer
Memoirs of a Geisha: Now we're talking! The movie seems like a really beautiful piece of filmmaking. But.... This might fall in to the trap Soili dislikes: People who are supposed to be non-English speaking (in this case, Japanese), still speak English, but with a suitable accent. Maybe it's for convenience's sake but still. I'm still working on this one
Äideistä Parhain: A Finnish movie. This was high on my list to watch, and Soili would have been pretty interested on it as well, due to the subject-matter being pretty close to her heart. But for one reason or the other, we never got around to watch it. Damn.
Pride and Prejudice: The new version. Now, this is propably a good movie, a definite "Soili-movie" :). But there is just one problem.... We already have the 1995 mini-series, and if we go watch the new version, we will end up comparing it to the previous version. And I'm 99% sure that the new version would fall short of it's predecessor (yes, the mini-series is that good). So we would end up being disappointed.
There is hope still: The Tiger and The Snow. This movie was Soili's suggestion. She likes Roberto Benigni (and I like Jean Reno) , and I'm willing to go watch whatever she wants to go see. She was a bit put off when she found out that the movie takes place during the invasion of Iraq (she's not to keen on war-movies). But since the point of the movie is not the war, she might still be willing to go see it :).
New madness is sweeping Finland....
Curling! I kid you not. Finland's curling-team has managed to make their ways to the Olympic-finals, and the captain of the team, Markku Uusipaavalniemi (M-15 for short) has become an instant celebrity.
Hockey is still propably still the #1 sport, but everyone is talking about curling. The semifinal match between Finland and UK was watched by over 1 million people! Jesus! And I must admit: I have been watching as well. I actually got interested in the early games when I just happened to glance at TV, and I found myself half an hour later still watching the game.
If Finland only gets one gold-medal from the games, and they get it from curling, then it really means that hell has frozen over. And it's frozen so that Uusipaavalniemi can do some curling.
Hockey is still propably still the #1 sport, but everyone is talking about curling. The semifinal match between Finland and UK was watched by over 1 million people! Jesus! And I must admit: I have been watching as well. I actually got interested in the early games when I just happened to glance at TV, and I found myself half an hour later still watching the game.
If Finland only gets one gold-medal from the games, and they get it from curling, then it really means that hell has frozen over. And it's frozen so that Uusipaavalniemi can do some curling.
The darkest hour of free speech....
First things first: Link
Anyone whot claims that Holocaust did not happen, is a f*cking moron, period. And David Irving is an grade-A asshat. That said, throwing people in jail because they dispute the Holocaust is STUPID. I really fail to see how Europe can claim to support free speech (the Muhammad-drawings), and then say nothing when someone is thrown in to jail (in Europe even!) for holding an opinion that is not kosher.
Like I said before: free speech means that you have to accept comments and viewpoints that you might not agree with and that are downright stupid. If such comments are not allowed, then we do not have free speech. Here we have a textbook example of this "pseudo-free speech", where "you are free to talk about anything you wish. But not about this. Or this. Or this. Or this". Either we have free speech, and tolerate viewpoints that differ from ours, or we don't have free speech, in which case we should just stop pretending that we do. They should just come out and say "you are free to discuss anything you like as long as it's acceptable to the powers-at-be. Don't confuse this system with free speech, however".
What next? they start throwing people to prison because they believe in Santa Claus? or that Earth is flat? Hell, most people believe in God, a being that can't be proven and that relies on blind faith. Should those people be thrown to jail, because believing in such a creature is dumb?
Maybe Irving has some "evidence" to back up his claims. To be honest, I have no idea. But either he has some evidence, or he relies on blind faith. Why is he being sent to jail, but the millions of people who rely on blind faith in their belief of God (or Santa) are not in jail? because God is a "Good Thing" (tm), whereas Holocaust was a very, very bad thing? Hell, maybe they start carting atheists in to prison in the future. I mean: what is the difference, really? David Irving doesn't believe that something happened. Atheists don't believe in God. Is the difference that David Irving is disputing the existence of a terrible period in human history, whereas atheists are disputing the existence of a "Good Thing"?
Holding a viewpoint that differs from the mainstream is not something that should be punished. The viewpoint might be stupid and wrong, but they have the right to their viewpoint. Who decides what viewpoints are acceptable and what are not? The politicians? Corporations? The teeming horde of ignorant masses?
Anyone whot claims that Holocaust did not happen, is a f*cking moron, period. And David Irving is an grade-A asshat. That said, throwing people in jail because they dispute the Holocaust is STUPID. I really fail to see how Europe can claim to support free speech (the Muhammad-drawings), and then say nothing when someone is thrown in to jail (in Europe even!) for holding an opinion that is not kosher.
Like I said before: free speech means that you have to accept comments and viewpoints that you might not agree with and that are downright stupid. If such comments are not allowed, then we do not have free speech. Here we have a textbook example of this "pseudo-free speech", where "you are free to talk about anything you wish. But not about this. Or this. Or this. Or this". Either we have free speech, and tolerate viewpoints that differ from ours, or we don't have free speech, in which case we should just stop pretending that we do. They should just come out and say "you are free to discuss anything you like as long as it's acceptable to the powers-at-be. Don't confuse this system with free speech, however".
What next? they start throwing people to prison because they believe in Santa Claus? or that Earth is flat? Hell, most people believe in God, a being that can't be proven and that relies on blind faith. Should those people be thrown to jail, because believing in such a creature is dumb?
Maybe Irving has some "evidence" to back up his claims. To be honest, I have no idea. But either he has some evidence, or he relies on blind faith. Why is he being sent to jail, but the millions of people who rely on blind faith in their belief of God (or Santa) are not in jail? because God is a "Good Thing" (tm), whereas Holocaust was a very, very bad thing? Hell, maybe they start carting atheists in to prison in the future. I mean: what is the difference, really? David Irving doesn't believe that something happened. Atheists don't believe in God. Is the difference that David Irving is disputing the existence of a terrible period in human history, whereas atheists are disputing the existence of a "Good Thing"?
Holding a viewpoint that differs from the mainstream is not something that should be punished. The viewpoint might be stupid and wrong, but they have the right to their viewpoint. Who decides what viewpoints are acceptable and what are not? The politicians? Corporations? The teeming horde of ignorant masses?
*Applause*
Mr. Birch: if you ever decide to come to Helsinki, drop me a line and I'll buy you a pizza.