'On 12 February, a Son, Charles'

I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection.

The greatest mind that has so far graced our species came into the world on February 12th, 1809, in Shrewsbury, England.

Charles Robert Darwin, 1809-1882.

What we owe to him cannot be overestimated.

Google's celebrating too, lookee! :-)

Best Darwin resource on the net? Try this.

Discrimination It Ain't

I watched RedaksjonEN last night - it's a live broadcast political debate program which I don't often watch because ... it's so annoying. People hit each other over the head with their various arguments and the guy who's supposed to be running things just sits there like an idiot and watches it. But I watched it yesterday - started watching and actually wanted to hear the arguments for once. The topic was the proposed alterations to the Norwegian police uniform so that Muslim women can wear hijabs with it. On which issue my opinion is, unsurprisingly, fuck that shit.

What's wrong with our government? First they screw up so royally with the revision of paragraph 185 (which has now been withdrawn, so yay) and now this, which I guarantee that the Norwegian people is equally opposed to. Not that that's a good indication as to the right course of action, but if this is supposed to be a democracy, then the right course of action isn't really the number one priority. There's an election coming up this fall - a parliamentary election. Labor would do better to remember that and not let their coalition partners - first the Center Party on paragraph 185, now the Socialist Left on this stupid hijab thing - push them around like this and make them look ridiculous. First the Department of Justice announces that the hijab will be permitted as part of the uniform, then the government discovers that Parliament and the people - and the cops, for Pete's sake!! - are against this, and then the information is pulled off the Department website and now we suddenly need more discussion. This vacillating is making the government look so ridiculous that I really cannot comprehend how they can possibly let it happen in an election year.

As for the Socialist Left, unsurprisingly one of their semi-bigwigs has been at the forefront of the usual gang of idiots ... ie the group that favors the milder uniform restrictions. Yes, Akhtar Chaudry proves yet again why I have so little respect for him as a politician and why he will never really be a force to be reckoned with in national politics. Actually, 'respect' ... I have to say that my feelings are so far from respect, I almost rather feel disgust for his attempts to enforce newspeak and stop us all from using the word 'hijab'. Seriously. He doesn't want us to call it 'hijab', he wants people to say 'kerchief'. Fuck that shit. It isn't a kerchief, a kerchief is something completely different. It's a hijab, Chaudry, we all know what it is. STFU.

On RedaksjonEN last night there was a pretty young thing who is the head of the Muslim Students Assocation at the U of Oslo campus. They've picked a woman as leader, quel surprise. (Oh, I am such a cold-hearted cynic!!) She made such idiotic arguments that I couldn't help but think to myself, Here's my blogpost for tomorrow. >:-) And now Kari Vogt, who's an authority in the field of history of religion in this country (but still a tremendous idiot IMO) says that she 'doesn't understand why we can't just try'. Stupid cow. Here's why:

It's a slippery slope. I know, I hate that argument too, but it's actually true in this case. If we allow the hijab, then we must also allow the turban and the kippah. And then what's next? Crucifixes and crosses, stars of David? How do you define a religious symbol and who decides on that definition? It's either nothing or it's everything. The nothing approach has worked fine so far. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

The whole debate is just completely screwed up IMO. The arguments people are using are so off target it's ridiculous. They're doing it in Britain and in Sweden, so that makes it harder to argue against it in Norway? WTF? Let's try another version of that argument: It's legal to slap your kids around in Britain, so that makes it harder to argue in favor of the strict child abuse laws we have in this country? No, fuck that shit!! The fact that others are screwing up should really only inspire us to do better here.

It's 'discriminatory' to not allow the hijab. This was one of the arguments the students ass. president used. That is such BS, I can't understand how people have the gall to use it. I hate it when I hear immigrants using that argument. They whine about being discriminated against, and then they go right ahead and prove that they don't even understand what discrimination is. The Norwegian police force does not discriminate in its uniform regulations. It does exactly the opposite. One set of rules applies to everybody, absolutely everybody, every last person on the force. The same rules apply to everybody. That is not discrimination. That is the very opposite of discrimination. Being treated the same as everyone else doesn't make you a 'second-class citizen'. Gag me with a spoon.

And in any case, all this whining about the hijab being banned on the force has no truth to it anyway. The hijab isn't banned. No headgear and no clothes whatsoever are banned on the force. The uniform regulations aren't about anything not being permitted. They are about something being mandatory. Can you spot the difference? Allah hasn't told anyone to wear the hijab, even though some people think so. Choosing to wear it is just that - a choice. By making that choice, you also choose to not become a police officer. WTF is so difficult to understand about that??

If you can't show yourself out of doors without having your hair 'decently' covered, can you manhandle a strange man? Be alone and unchaperoned in a room with a strange man, talking about literally anything, perhaps something entirely indecent? Ooh, sinful ... !! Smite away, Allah ... !! If anyone's discriminating against anyone here, it's rather these Muslim women who are doing it to themselves by refusing to accept the rules that apply to literally everyone else. Get over yourselves, girls. If you can so happily break the rules against working, against going to school, against associating with men you're not related to, against protecting unbelievers and all the other stupid rules in that outdated pile of claptrap you call a holy book, you can break this rule too. That god of yours obviously isn't paying attention anyway.

Not to even mention the fact that the whole hijab thing these days is ridiculous anyway, in itself. Don't they wear it to show their modesty and not make spectacles of themselves? Umm ... so what's with the wearing of the hijab/tight jeans combo that I see all over town? And all the fancy hijabs you can get ... it isn't longer ago than tonight that I saw some woman with a hijab made out of some eyecatching silvery sparkly material. Hard to miss. Doesn't this completely defeat the purpose of the hijab, thus making the wearer a hypocrite and rendering the whole exercise pointless? Hm.

Back to the point: The Norwegian police force is intended to be wholly neutral, its officers to represent the state and only the state. They may not display any signs of religious affiliation or any other loyalties. That is such a good thing. If someone appreciates our police force enough to want to join it, why do they want to change this wonderful quality?? Those who are already on the force do not want this change in the regulations (the Muslim officers included). They think it would impact negatively on police officers nationwide. Who would know this better than they??

Fuck that shit. If you want to express your religious beliefs, you can do that on your own time.

Saul Dibb: The Duchess

I saw this movie with Findabair on Saturday; it was a free preview screening at Klingenberg. The movie opens in this country on February 13th; ie, this Friday. IMDb listing here.

One thing I really don't get is how Keira Knightley has established herself as so eminently suitable for period films set in the 18th century. The Pirates movies (don't think anyone's really sure exactly when those are set, but still >:-), Pride & Prejudice, and now this ... and other periods too, both earlier (King Arthur) and later (Doctor Zhivago). It's a symptom of Hollywood's deep-seated inability to see anything but our own time and its standards as truly valid. Keira Knightley looks like she has TB ... and sure, in our time, that's considered beautiful. But in pretty much every other time period she would just have looked like she had TB. So, say, Elizabeth Bennet being a celebrated beauty is impossible to believe when she is played by Knightley. I don't get it. And the main problem with The Duchess is exactly the same. She is a good actress, as far as that goes, but she looks so wrong for this part. (IMO, her talent curve peaked with Bend It Like Beckham. Kind of sad actually.) Hayley Atwell, who plays the title character's main rival, is by 18th-century standards clearly by far the most beautiful. Yet we're supposed to buy Knightley as being considered her superior. Be prepared to work at that a bit. ;-)

But apart from that this is a really good movie for its genre. Some great performances, I'd say by Ralph Fiennes especially as the title character's husband, William Cavendish, the fifth Duke of Devonshire. He is quite an obnoxious character, I loved the way Fiennes played him. The movie relates the life of Cavendish's wife Lady Georgiana Spencer from shortly before her marriage and for a decade or so afterwards. She was a celebrated aristocrat and set the tone in society in many ways; she was a fashion queen and she was also quite active politically. She was also the target of a lot of criticism, but the movie doesn't touch much on that. It's a straightforward retelling, not a lot of frills ... just this woman's apparently quite eventful and quite sad life. The story made both Findabair and me rather happy that society has moved forward a bit since the Duchess lived. There's a bit of insight into the political scene of the time, but mostly it's about her private life ... her failure to produce the son her husband requires of her, her sadness at his infidelities and her inappropriate romance with the up-and-coming Whig star Charles Fox. Which of course ends badly, but what do you expect.

This movie is based on a book by Amanda Foreman, a historical biography that became a bestseller. Which in itself makes it interesting ... and after seeing the movie, I definitely want to read the book. And/or others about Duchess Georgiana; the movie quite piqued my interest. Seeing it really made me want to know more about this historical person ... and that means, I'd say, that the movie definitely accomplished something. :-)

If you like period movies and historical biopics, then I definitely recommend this movie. (Otherwise not, no.) The costumes are fantastic, the makeup, the hair ... all the details like that. Absolutely fantastic. The period has been recreated beautifully; the interiors are especially wonderful. There aren't that many exterior scenes, actually. But it's all very beautiful. The story is ... gripping on the surface, perhaps not something you'll remember for very long, but rather moving then & there. A good movie although not a great one. Costume freaks should definitely see it (yes, Anéa, I'm looking at you ;-). Certainly, at the price we paid, it was unmissable. ;-)

Keanupic and no excuse

Yawn.

OK, I've been at work for twelve hours today, it took me almost an hour to get home, and I have no energy to do anything but eat some fruit and watch a movie I've seen ten times already. So today's post will just be a pretty picture and not much more. Rose, I hope you'll like this, even though it'll probably be Tuesday for you by the time you see it. I'm sending a virtual hug your way. {{{Rose & family}}} :-)

This picture was taken on Oscar night 2006. That's Sandra Bullock in the background to the right, they went together. Their movie The Lake House was scheduled for release about three months later so they had to do some promoting ... Keanu had agreed to present one of the awards, that's the type of thing he never does voluntarily, only when he has a project to plug. ;-)

I like this picture a lot ... not sure I can tell you why. It's the look on his face, the way he looks at the photographer. I'd love to know what he was thinking just then. :-)

I hope you all have had a good Monday. More fun than mine. :-)

UNITED KINGDOM 2009: Jade Ewen - My Time

Jade Ewen will perform for the UK in Moscow. The entry was chosen on January 31st in the final of the talent show Eurovision - Your Country Needs You! on BBC One.

Ah, the eternal second. Although, if truth be told, they haven't come anywhere near to deserving that title for years and years now. Unfortunately. The British have gotten themselves stuck in a vicious circle when it comes to the ESC - it's gotten a bad rep in the UK as being ridiculous and not worth the bother for serious performers (thanks for that, Terry Wogan) and so the real talent steer clear of it. So they send shitty songs and do very badly and that enhances the contest's negative reputation. And around and around we go. This year they're trying to change that, though - the preternaturally talented gnome king of the musical world has tried his hand at writing an ESC entry and the British people (or TV audience, whichever; I suspect the two may be largely interchangeable these days ;-) have picked a singer for him. So where will they end up this year??

The UK, being one of the Big Four, is assured a place in the final, so we will of course see this song there. Will it do well? I think, depending of course on the competition, which still is not quite clear, that it might. Apart from her unfortunate appearance in the lip area, Jade is a pretty girl ... and maybe the balloon lips will work in her favor as they may help her stick in viewers' memories. ;-) She has a very good voice. The BBC are clearly not afraid to dress her up in spectacular gowns. The song has sincerity, which will be in its favor if she can communicate it in her performance. The lyrics are sadly predictable, but as most of the audience won't understand English anyway, it will hardly matter. ;-) I like this song, but I am a huge Lloyd Webber fan, so that's not surprising. This isn't his best effort though, the song isn't a standout like some of his other work. But it's certainly quality craftsmanship, although not overly original. Trying to put my personal opinion aside ;-) I think that this is the best entry the UK has sent for years, and it has the potential to do quite well. It's not the winner though, that would surprise me very much. But it can do well, but that depends on the competition as well. This year though I do honestly wish the UK the best of luck. :-)

So, this is Jade Ewen performing My Time, written & composed by Diane Warren and Andrew Lloyd Webber who will be competing for the United Kingdom.



You can find the lyrics here.

Quote of the Week

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
Isaac Asimov

ESC 2009: Norway, third quarter-final

Third round, starting now. I'm at home, Anne Ida's here and we've just finished dissing Wenche Myhre over a delicious dinner ... so we're ready to, ahem, 'rock'. *cough*

Song #1: Mats Lie Skåre: Left Right, performed by Sichelle. Umm ... she's been singing in Norwegian up till now, but this song is in English ... and I'll just say it like this, she should have stuck to Norwegian. Awful dress. It looks like something thrown together at the last minute just so she'd have something to wear (and then stuck together with electrical tape). Bad color too - hot pink. Oh noes. As for the song ... I can't really get a handle on the song. It's sort of ... choppy, if that makes sense. A choppy rhythm. I can't really catch the rhythm of this song. It doesn't sound quite finished. I don't like it, I don't think it will get anywhere. She does put her heart into it - there just isn't a lot here to put any heart into.

Song #2: The Rebelettes: Soul Train, performed by the Rebelettes. OK, serious improvement. This is a much better song. The problem is that it doesn't have a lot of originality. I'm sure we've all heard this umpteen times before. I'm also not sure that it's the kind of thing that goes down well in this contest ... but then again, genre-wise the ESC has been blown wide open in recent years, so who knows. :-) These girls are more professional than Sichelle and their song is a better product, so they should do better. But it's anything but original, so I'm not sure if people will really remember it. And they look totally wrong. The band's outfits don't match, and the singer's outfit is like ... WTF? The song is called Soul Train and she's wearing something that wouldn't look out of place in a lawyer's office. Seriously bad wardrobe decision. But that can be fixed. Her voice is good. Professional performance. Anne Ida says she wouldn't mind seeing these girls again in the semi. Maybe we will. :-)

Song #3: Simone Larsen and Simen Eriksrud: Seven Seconds, performed by Ovi. This guy's been in the ESC before ... in 2007 I think. In our national contest, obviously. :-) I really like the song he had then. Here's hoping this will be as good ... but it's not, really. Alas. This song is a mainstream pop song, totally standard, nothing special about it either way. Perfectly acceptable and quickly forgotten. Pretty stupid lyrics, but I expect nothing else from Simone Larsen. We wouldn't disgrace ourselves in Moscow with this song, but no one would remember it either. Not a problem though since there's no way this song will be going to Moscow. ;-)

Song #4: Jane Helen: Shuffled, performed by Jane Helen. Alright! This'll wake you up. :-) Anne Ida thinks that this band is named after an 80s brand of hair care products ... ? She may be on to something, although I can't really put my finger on it. Anyone? This is a fun entry - rock'n'roll! :-D - a real band with, I guess, real talent. Kind of harmless wannabe punk music. Their performance is eye-catching - pyrotechnics and all - and I like their style, it's really different in this setting, and I like that. Not sure about the song though - it's too staccato, there isn't anything of the melodious about it, and I'm not sure if there is any hook here that people will remember. But it would be fun to send this song just for the hell of it ... fishnet stockings included. :-D

Song #5: Hanne Sørvaag and Harry Sommerdahl: Do It Again, performed by Foxy. Two blonde teen girls performing a pop song - not too original this entry either. But these girls are more professional than you'd expect of a 17- and an 18-year-old. It's a good performance with a lot of energy ... and I like the intro there with the screens and the silhouettes, that's something people may remember. A little different. They sing well and the performance is good, but the song is a little too standard ... and although the chorus is catchy, the verses aren't, so much. I don't think I will remember this song for long. It's perfectly alright but nothing really special.

Song #6: Solgunn Ivana and Hans Petter Aaserud: Carrie, performed by Solgunn Ivana calling herself Sunny. When I just saw the hat this singer was wearing, I was about to say that she had a nice outfit. But then I saw the rest of it, and discovered that no, it is an awful outfit!! WTF have they been thinking?! Hooker boots, hotpants, a ... I hardly know what to call it, a frilly bustier? And a 1930s style hat with a bow and a veil. WTF? But! A bad costume can be fixed, and this is a really cool song. Very catchy, a great melody, and an energetic performance. She doesn't sing it very well, that's true ... but again, that's something that can potentially be fixed. She may be nervous, and she can practice. So far, totally my favorite. I'm gonna vote for this. Good song, me like!!

Song #7: Alexander Rybak: Fairytale, performed by Alexander Rybak. They always save the best for last!! The last song in the last quarter-final, and this is definitely the best song. Hands down. Harding fiddle, three guys dancing something halling-like in the background ... a very catchy song, good melody, good lyrics, a professional performance by a charming & good-looking young man ... he plays the fiddle himself and dances a little ... he wrote the song himself. He sings much better than 'Sunny'. Great stage presence. Original, unusual melody. This is a really good song and it ought to be the obvious winner. I hope this will be the Norwegian entry this year. No doubt in my mind. The one thing I don't like about it is that it's in English. But I guess you can't have everything. :-( This song will definitely get my vote tonight. :-)

I voted five times for Fairytale (or maybe six, I kind of lost track) and, because of the semifinal, three times for Carrie (although I really don't understand the title of that song). My duty is done. Now let's see.

Semifinalists:
Sunny - Carrie
Jane Helen - Shuffled

Finalists:
Alexander Rybak - Fairytale
Ovi - Seven Seconds

OK, pretty obvious results mostly, but Ovi got through?? With that bland ballad?? Color me surprised. I would have expected the Foxy girls or the Rebelettes - I was sure that this song didn't stand a chance. And I didn't want it to, especially since the song he competed with last time was better, which shouldn't matter but kind of does anyway. It's a pretty good song while I'm listening to it, but so forgettable. Why did people vote for this?? Oh well, it doesn't matter anyway, because Fairytale will win the whole thing. I bet. ;-)

Will update with Youtube links etc.