Top 5 “Classic” Christmas film Countdown!

There’s only 29 days until Christmas! Have you done your shopping yet? (If not, I have some brilliant hints for you here: http://hazny182.blogspot.com/2011/11/top-ten-tips-for-christmas-shopping.html)

Anyway, to get you into that Christmas spirit, I thought I’d run down my personal top 5 Christmas films, some classics some… well, you’ll see. I may, at a later date, do a list of my least favourite too (because there are some truly awful Christmas films out there… and some that should be awful but are in fact ruddy marvellous)

I would like to remind you now that all this is my own opinion and that I haven’t been sponsored or anything like that (for a start, I’m nowhere near famous enough to be influential…)

So, in the words of a very famous, fictional, Italian plumber – Here we go!

5.       The Santa Clause (1995) – the Christmas film that puts the laughter in manslaughter… fairly sure they didn’t put that on any of the promotional material, but it’s true. Scott Calvin (Tim Allen) accidently kills Santa and gets more than he bargains for when he dons the suite himself. I think what made the film for me is the brilliantly dry and sarcastic elf Bernard (David Krumholtz). The second film (The Santa Clause 2) is also good however “Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause” I found to be a bit of a let-down, possibly because of the severe lack of Bernard but mostly due to the annoyingly cheesy ending.

4.       Die Hard (1988) – It’s set at Christmas, so it counts. Fact. Bruce Willis (who still has hair at this point) plays New York cop John McClane who ends up stuck in a sky scraper that’s been over-run by terrorists and is the only one who can save the hostages from the building’s Christmas party – including his wife. It’s full of brilliant stunts, violence and explosions and McClane’s humour is the icing on the Christmas cake. The other 3 films in the series are also excellent, but sadly only the first and second films have any relevance to Christmas… but, hey, that’s two films for you guys to argue with your partners about watching!

3.       Home Alone (1990) – a brilliant, if terribly unrealistic, film full of comedy to suite the whole family. 8-year-old Kevin McCallister is left behind by his family when they go to Paris for the holidays and comes up with various ingenious ways to stop two dim-witted burglars from breaking into his house. The idea of a young child out-smarting two fully grown men is funny in itself, but McCallister’s witty lines and the copious amounts of slap-stick add to the hilarity and make it suitable for all ages.

2.       The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992) – It’s a Charles Dickens’ classic with the Muppets and Michael Caine in it… what else could you possibly want? Essentially a re-telling of the traditional story where Scrooge (Michael Caine) is visited by three ghosts that just so happen to be puppets… The whole thing is narrated by Gonzo the Great and Rizzo the Rat, whose relationship adds an extra layer of hilarity to an already funny film.

1.       Scrooged (1988) – Bill. Murray. That is all…

Frank Cross (Murray), a cynical and selfish TV executive, is visited by 3 ghosts on Christmas Eve whilst he tries to put on a live performance of Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” which, as I’m sure you can imagine, has hilarious consequences. The modern twist this film put on the Dickens classic makes it both more relevant and funnier and Bill Murray is excellent, as usual.

You will never understand how hard it was to narrow it down to just 5 films… Some other brilliant films that didn’t quite make the cut (but possibly would have if I had made this list a few days ago or a few days from now) include:

·         Gremlins (1984)

·         Miracle on 34^th Street (1994)

·         Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)

And, arguably not a Christmas film, but there’s snow so I think it counts:

·         Edward Scissorhands (1990)

So, there you are. If that’s not enough to get your Christmas juices flowing, you should probably start practising saying “Bah-humbug!”

Until next time, merry 29 days ‘til Christmas!

Some Flood, Some Food and Science Fiction

Today I’m feeling opinionated which, as any proper journalist knows, isn’t good if you’re trying to write news stories. After all, it’s hard to be totally objective when you’re having one of those days when everything goes wrong; you wake up early, you fall asleep listening to the Today program yet again, your shower floods your bathroom 20 minutes before you’re meant to be in lectures, you can’t find your bottle opener – that kind of jazz. Seriously though, there was about an inch of water on the floor- anti-fun times! Today was not my day…

So, as I’m not allowed to have an opinion writing news, I thought I’d do something where my opinion is valid and do some reviewing! I’d like to do travel writing, but I’m a poor uni student so I don’t have the means… (Free holiday, anyone? Please?)

I’ll start with a restaurant review, I think, and then review the last 4 series of Red Dwarf (i.e. series 5-8). I’ve never written a restaurant review before, so constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated! Though quickly, before I do, just want to ask if it’s acceptable for a man to wear a t-shirt with the neck cut so low that his boobs were almost falling out and jeans so low his boxer-clad bum overhangs the top… it’s not is it? Though, what’s probably worse was that this guy was a waiter (at a totally different restaurant, I hasten to add) and every time he went to serve the customers outside he appeared to me smoking! I mean jeez, surely you can wait for your break before you light up…

Anyway, reviewing... I would like to point out that all opinions are indeed my own and that everything was paid for by myself and not someone trying to make me write nice things about their stuff (because even if I do get free things, I refuse to say nice things about them if I didn’t think they deserved it… please give me a free holiday please?)

Today I ate at the Slug and Lettuce in Winchester for the first time. The front of the restaurant made it look quiet and unassuming and the décor, upon entry, was nothing of particular significance. The wooden floor gave it a slight rustic feel and reminded me of my friends & my favourite pub from back home. We were seated in the restaurant very quickly by our incredibly friendly and helpful waitress. Our order was taken and filled quickly too, which was nice. The food itself was good; the tuna melt was well toasted without becoming too crispy and the ratio of tuna to cheese was about right, however I personally found that the sautéed red onions inside were a little over done and felt they should have been cut smaller too. My friend Emma (whose blog can be found here: http://emmahblog.blogspot.com) enjoyed her food too, having opted for sausage and mash but changing the mash to chips, which they were very accommodating of. In fact, we ate there at her recommendation as she said: “I’m never disappointed when I go there.” The food seemed relatively reasonable in terms of pricing too, though it’s not somewhere I could afford to eat out at too regularly as a student.

Over all, I’d give it four out of 5 stars (see, right here: * * * * … ta-dah) which, technically means nothing because I have no background in food, apart from living off of it for the last 19 years of my life like the rest of humanity. That and the fact that I have nothing to go by star-wise and you have nothing else starred by myself to compare it to.

Moving on to Red Dwarf! (I’ve lost my professional/hoity-toity voice for now, I’m sure you’ll be glad to know). Warning: SPOILERS!

Having thoroughly enjoyed every episode of series 1-4, despite the continuation errors, I found myself feeling a little disappointed towards the end of watching series 5-8. Series 5 followed on relatively well from series 4 and ended with one of my favourite episodes (though I could say that about a lot of the series). However, Series 6 begins with the crew in pursuit of Red Dwarf in one of the smaller ships but it is never explained how they lost it. At the end of series 7 we discover that Kryten’s nanobots (which live inside him to repair him) have somehow shrunk the ship and are flying around Lister’s laundry basket but it’s never established when they managed to do this or where the crew and Starbug were when this took place. Perhaps I’ve missed something somewhere whilst I’ve been too busy laughing.

Anyway, I begin to lose some of my love for the series after losing Rimmer mid-series 7. Although the scripting is still good and the plots interesting and funny, I feel the novelty of him being gone and replaced my Lister’s love interest, Kristine Kochanski, rather wears off after the first two or three episodes. He returns in series 8 after the nanobots recreate both Red Dwarf and its entire crew but the show doesn’t feel the same; the set is completely different and although the additional characters may make for a greater number of possibilities in terms of plots and scripts, they change the shows entire dynamic. And don’t even get me started on the ending of series 8! Leaving Rimmer trapped on Red Dwarf as it completely corrodes and the ending with the words “The End” changing into “The smeg it is” is both thoroughly unimaginative and incredibly annoying. After all, what happens after that? And how does that link to the latest special episodes in “Back to Earth”? I think when I watch Red Dwarf next I’ll just make sure I don’t bother with Series 8, at least not the second half of it anyway.

So, there you have it; my reviews of various things.

Until next time, thanks and keep reading!

Asdfhgqeirkfndjk!!!!!

OhmyGodI'msohappyIthinkImighthaveforgottenhowtousethespacebar!!!!

Oh, I remember now... Sorry, but I am rather excited right now; words can not describe... however, as I'm in the business of words, I'm going to have to try and use them...

So, my aim in life for this month was to double the number of views for November compared to October and I've only gone and actually succeeded! For, like, the first time in my life ever! I'm exaggerating a lot, but as I have mentioned on about 105 separate occasion (still exaggerating... sorry), I'm a stats-addict - curse you, Alexa! The ranking system... not a person...

Anyway, to prove my super-special-awesome achievement is a fact and not something I've made up, here is the evidence:

It's amazing, isn't it?! And here, just because I've broken the 2000000 mark, is my Alexa ranking:

I'm so happy for me! Though that may be the M&Ms talking...

So, yeah... Thank you all so much for all your support and reading and repeatedly clicking on links to keep me happy/sane; I'd be nothing without you! I really appreciate knowing people are reading this and I love getting comments over facebook, on twitter, at the bottom of my blogs and when people come up and tell me in person (especially that last one if it involves also getting a hug off a friend - I love hugs).

However, this means I'm now rather lacking in a short-term goal... ideas anyone?

Anyway, until next time!

Guess Who's Back

Back again!

Hazny’s back!

I’ll stop there… Though you should tell a friend; just saying.

Anyway, sorry I haven’t blogged much over the past several days, though this does in fact make my 3^rd this week, so I’ve kept my promise – yay, reliability! This short hiatus is due to the work that seems to have piled up suddenly. That and I keep going home. Two weekends in a row now; was only meant to be going shopping in London Saturday, and that was only to stop my mum and sister getting lost. Never mind; I got enough peanut m&ms to last a life time out of it, so it was certainly worth the train journey. That, and it was a really funny day out.

What else was I going to say… I can’t remember; it’s late and I’m tired. I’m also cold, though I don’t think temperature affects memory. That sounds like a potential experiment, right there…

Seriously, physics has, quite clearly, ruined my brain.

Well, anyway, there was definitely something else I wanted to write, but it’s gone now; hopefully it wasn’t important. If it was, I might remember in the morning and tell you then… with a bit of luck, at least…

Anyway, until next time!

Alterations in my Understanding (AKA Seminar aftermath (AKA Physics ruined my brain))

Before I start talking about any of the important/useful/factual stuff, I’d just like to say that that could have gone infinitely better – curse my inability to speak publically and crippling fear of being wrong. I think the fact that I haven’t slept in about 30 hours probably also didn’t help, nor did the ridiculous amount of coffees and sugar-based snack items I have consumed/been living off of in this time.

Things I should add:

·         Descartes refutes the ideas that other people might not exist as 1) God is good so would not allow us to be tricked by ‘the evil demon’ that others exist when they do not and 2) he had a strong intuition that they also existed.

·         Everything discussed is of a Continental Rationalism; the opposite of this is Anglo-Saxon Empiricism which we look at later.

·         Wax – observed by sense before and after it is burnt; perception of the wax changes so ideas from the senses cannot be relied upon, can only know that the wax takes up space (not available to the senses).

·         Things to think about: Can objects exist without observation/perception? And how can you possibly know?

·         Films that steal ideas from philosophy about the universe and existence: The Matrix, Inception, Men In Black (a little bit right at the end), The Grinch (again, a little bit, not really though)

·         Space is a concept of the mind; it does not exist

·         The universe is infinite and therefore has no direction – direction is added by you to help you try to understand/comprehend it

·         Time is not observable, only events

·         God exists in rational theory to, essentially, fill the gaps

·         Solipsism – where you believe only you exist as you can only know that you can think and that everyone and everything else is an illusion of some sort.

And:

·         Paradise is where you never stub your toe (or fall in a pot hole)

The issue I’m having with a lot of this, like objects not existing when unobserved or that space does not exist and the like, is that it goes against a lot of things I learnt in physics which is proving to be yet another reason that none of this makes sense. Okay, that’s not quite true; I get a lot (or at least a fair few bits) of it, and the idea that the universe is infinite is fairly easy for me to understand thanks to physics, but, still. I think I’m starting to sort of understand things a little bit more though. I hope.

Anyway, until next time!

Seminar Paper – Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz

René Descartes (1596-1650)

Descartes is often considered the founder of modern philosophy; he was the first philosopher whose work was affected by the new scientific breakthroughs, in physics and astronomy, of the time.

Having travelled across Europe, enlisting in various armies to try and gain insight into life through action, he settled in Holland in 1629 where the right to freedom of speculation allowed him, as well as Hobbes, Locke and Spinoza, to think, write and publish work freely and without persecution.

In 1637, he published “Essais Philosophiques” which looked at geometry and optics and in 1644 he published a book setting forth most of his scientific theories: “Principia Philosophiae”. He also wrote “De la formation du foetus” in which it is regarded that the bodies of men and animals are machines. Whilst animals are “automata” and governed by physics, devoid of feelings, men have souls (residing in the pineal gland in the brain). According to Descartes, this soul comes into contact with ‘the vital spirits’ and, through this, there is interaction between soul and body. This theory was abandoned by his schools as the conservation of momentum disproved this – as the total momentum in all direction must remain equal, it is not possible for the mind or soul to physically interact with the body without altering this, therefore mind and body must be separate.

His books “Discourse on Method” (1637) and “Meditations” (1642) are purely philosophical yet largely overlap, according to Bertrand Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy”. From these, we get ‘Cartesian doubt’ – “I think, therefore I am” or “Cogito ergo sum.” According to this, everything can be doubted to exist except some form of yourself; as you can doubt your own existence or the existence of other things, you must exist so that you can doubt it - even if you only exist in the mind of someone/something else, you still exist in some form. Therefore knowledge can only come from the mind, not the senses as what is observed can be doubted as it could be imaginary. So, when something is not being observed, does it exist? In my mind, physics states it must as everything is made of fundamental particles which cannot be called in and out of existence at will. However, as particles are only known as they observed, they cannot be considered to be known, so theoretically may not exist, though Descartes states that geometry and physics can be known, which, to me, creates a paradox.

Also, if there are two different ideas of something, “the one which comes directly from experience must be the less like it of the two” and in the example there is the example of the Sun “as it appears to the senses and the sun in which astronomers believe” but, as the ‘knowledge’ that astronomers believe about the sun has come from observation (a sensory experience) it too can be doubted, which makes me wonder if there is any difference in the two ideas’ closeness to the truth.

Baruch Spinoza (1632-77)

Spinoza’s family moved from either Spain or Portugal to avoid the inquisition. He was excommunicated by the Jews and abhorred equally by the Christians. He was offered 1000 florins to conceal his doubts but refused (much like Socrates, who refused to stop teaching philosophy so, instead, took the death penalty). After he refused to conceal his doubts, there was an attempt to assassinate Spinoza and, when this failed, he was cursed to be attacked and killed by a she-bear, which never came true.

The political theory in his books “Tractatus Theologico-Politicus” and “Tractatus Politicus” is, in some respects, derived from or in agreement with Hobbes in that both agree:

1)      The state of nature contains no right or wrong as there is no law to disobey

2)      That the State is to stop beliefs being forced upon citizens (i.e. religion is subordinate to state)

Spinoza argues, in his book “Ethics” that there is just one substance – God or Nature (unlike Descartes’ idea that there are three – God, mind and matter) as thought and extension are attributes of God, who has an infinite number of attributes. This is known as Spinoza’s monism, which is to say that the one fundamental substance is neither mind nor matter but is capable of becoming either. He says that substance is that which:

1)      Is a cause of itself

2)      Can be conceived of by itself (i.e. “I think, therefore I am”)

3)      That which need only itself on order to exist

These principles mean that substance must be intelligible without relations to other things and so must exist in order to be independent and therefore must exist alongside everything else which exists and be part of one thing, i.e. God/nature.

Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)

Leibniz was born two years before the end of the Thirty Years’ War and his father was a professor of Moral philosophy. In 1666, Leibnitz gained a Doctor’s degree in Law.

His theory of ‘monads’ can be found in “Monadology” and “Principles of Nature and Grace”. Monads “are to the physical world what atoms are to the physical/phenomenal” – they are the ultimate elements of the Universe. They are “substantial forms of being” that are:

1)      Eternal

2)      Indecomposable

3)      Individual

4)      Subject to their own laws

5)      Un-interacting

6)      Reflecting the universe in “pre-established harmony”

These ideas had been developed from Descartes. They suggested that it was a centre of force or that “substance is a force whilst space, matter and motion are phenomenal”. This means that monads have no special or physical characteristics, unlike atoms, therefore they do not have to be small. Also unlike atoms, monads follow “instructions” so only appear to interact; God wills the pre-established harmony which these monads follow. This creates a problem with free will. However, Leibniz’s “principle of sufficient reason” states that, as nothing happens without a reason, the reason for a “free agent’s” actions are “without necessitating” which means that whilst these actions have motive and reason, they do not need to have a logical necessity.

From this, there can be 4 arguments in which metaphysics can ‘prove’ God:

1)      Ontological – whilst “essence” (personal qualities) do not imply the existence of humans, it does imply the existence of God, as the most perfect Being as, if he does not exist, he cannot be the best possible Being.

2)      Cosmological (first cause) – everything finite has a cause, which itself has a cause, which itself had a cause, and so on. This chain cannot be infinite, so the first thing must not have a cause and therefore, must be God.

The world/universe is ‘contingent’ and logically possible not to exist and, even if it always existed, there is nothing to show why. As everything must have sufficient reason, it must be outside the universe and therefore it must be God.

3)      Eternal truths – some statements are always true (e.g. 2 +2 = 4) As all truths are part of a mind, an eternal truth must be a part of an eternal mind, i.e. God

As there must be a reason for the contingent world, and this reason cannot be contingent but sought from eternal truths, a reason for what exists must exist, therefore external truths must, in some way, exist and can only exist as thoughts on the mind of God.

4)      Pre-established harmony/design – everything in the world cannot have been created by chance and therefore was designed for a purpose by God

Easily amused, easily distracted, easily bored

I don’t know if it’s a genetic or environmental, age or gender, hormone or nervous sort of a thing, but I am incredibly easily amused, distracted and driven to boredom. It’s not just me, I don’t think; I know plenty of other people who also appear to fit this description. However, it’s becoming more and more of an issue of late.

For example, I finished lectures and was home by about midday today, sat down to use this extra time to get some work done and, instead have sat here painting my nails whilst listening to music… for four hours… Don’t think it’s pure laziness (although it is a little - doing work is effort, especially as I barely slept last night); on several occasions I have attempted to start and then either gotten distracted by something – things that need tidying or cleaning or deciding I’m thirsty even though I’m not – or been completely unable to concentrate. I’ve decided it’d be more constructive to hit my head on the desk a couple of times…

It’s not just this slight inability to focus that hinders me; I get bored stupidly easily. I can be talking to someone online, writing a blog or notes on something and watching a film and still get bored. I’m beginning to wonder if this is one of the side effects being part of generation Xbox. People my age (which makes me sound old… I’m 19, I shouldn’t be able to say things like that) are so used to technology and the instant gratifications that come with it that we seem to be less capable of concentrating on things, particularly if the rewards for doing them are ones that will be seen in the long-term rather than instantaneously.

Saying all this, I’m also really easily amused. Simple objects like keys or paperclips or those little metal puzzles you sometimes get in Christmas crackers can entertain me for fairly long periods of time… it’s not healthy, is it? Makes me sound about 5 years old…

Bringing this back to some kind of journalism related theme (because I should really try to more often), the thing that has been getting me rather over-excited recently is my blog stats. Yeah, I’m still a little addicted… I am currently on 931 views, which I’m quite proud of. However, what’s amused me most is seeing that people have found my blog by googling things! It’s so amazing, I might explode! I mean, I’m on page 2 of google! Look:

So amazing!

Anyway, as I’m going home for the weekend, this is probably the last time I will have successfully completed the blog-a-day promise I made 7 posts ago, although I will try and write something over the weekend.

So, yeah… I will leave it there – until next time!