ChezGiven

Not that mobile and gets knocked down easily?

I like him. Will we get to see it? It premieres on sunday.

Been a fan of Banksy's work for a long time, the true original was Blek le Rat though. Banksy has been working with him recently and is quite open about him as his influence. Banksy is more political but the original was Blek. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle4066727.ece

Comparing Burns to Shakespeare is like comparing Stephen Caldwell to Bobby Moore. Difficult to compare a playwrite to a poet though shirley? Shakespeare can in some ways be viewed as a propagandist for the post reformation monarchy. Canny writer,no doubt about it, but as a man basically bought and paid for. MacBeth is a character assination of the last truly "Celtic" (and obviously Roman Catholic) king of Scotland, written to curry favour with Henry VIII's Protestant descendants. Burns lived in different and less turbulent times, but was his own man.His works were more observational, less contrived and without any real agenda. You may prefer Shakespere's works to Burns, fair play. But theres always for me been an unpleasant whiff of kissing the ruling elite's arse about Shakespere's stuff. I dont know Burn's work to argue but i'll take your word on that. Might not be wholly fair on the bard though/ Shadowplay by Clare Asquith is a very scholarly account of the hidden political messages in Shakespeare's work. The church of England and the Queen were his political overlords, yet his work has many elements of catholic sympathy (if you buy her argument). These sympathies are coded into the text and Asquith argues that these codes, whilst a bit obscure to us, would have been much more obvious to those with sympathies on the losing side of the religious divide. Yeah....Shakesperes time was a strange one, the country was virtually a police state if you were a catholic, and its strongly rumoured that a lot of Shakesperes family were. I've not read the account you mention but I'm aware of his alleged religious sympathies, which makes his attitude to the crown and c of e a bit hyporcritical if you ask me. Hyopcritical? Or sensible? Marlowe was killed because of his beliefs. yeah...as I say for anyone with catholic sympathies it was an horrific time. But why suck from the royal teet if you had a completely different agenda? He couldve sat in Warwickshire and made gloves with his old man and took mass from a priest coming out of his priest hole once a week if he wanted to be true to himself. Political subversion is so much more fun though!

Good point Rob.

Comparing Burns to Shakespeare is like comparing Stephen Caldwell to Bobby Moore. Difficult to compare a playwrite to a poet though shirley? Shakespeare can in some ways be viewed as a propagandist for the post reformation monarchy. Canny writer,no doubt about it, but as a man basically bought and paid for. MacBeth is a character assination of the last truly "Celtic" (and obviously Roman Catholic) king of Scotland, written to curry favour with Henry VIII's Protestant descendants. Burns lived in different and less turbulent times, but was his own man.His works were more observational, less contrived and without any real agenda. You may prefer Shakespere's works to Burns, fair play. But theres always for me been an unpleasant whiff of kissing the ruling elite's arse about Shakespere's stuff. I dont know Burn's work to argue but i'll take your word on that. Might not be wholly fair on the bard though/ Shadowplay by Clare Asquith is a very scholarly account of the hidden political messages in Shakespeare's work. The church of England and the Queen were his political overlords, yet his work has many elements of catholic sympathy (if you buy her argument). These sympathies are coded into the text and Asquith argues that these codes, whilst a bit obscure to us, would have been much more obvious to those with sympathies on the losing side of the religious divide. Yeah....Shakesperes time was a strange one, the country was virtually a police state if you were a catholic, and its strongly rumoured that a lot of Shakesperes family were. I've not read the account you mention but I'm aware of his alleged religious sympathies, which makes his attitude to the crown and c of e a bit hyporcritical if you ask me. Hyopcritical? Or sensible? Marlowe was killed because of his beliefs.

This, basically, is why I will not take *loads* of valium. I got offered beta blockers when I first went to the doctors about it but didn't like the sound of them for the reasons CT mentioned above. They dont have oxygen masks so you can breathe better, its so you remain calm and chill out. If i was about to experience a plane crash, i'd prefer to be calm than be in a panic. In fact i'd be hoping to experience that shit in slow motion. 20mg of Val Doonicans ftw.

Comparing Burns to Shakespeare is like comparing Stephen Caldwell to Bobby Moore. Difficult to compare a playwrite to a poet though shirley? Shakespeare can in some ways be viewed as a propagandist for the post reformation monarchy. Canny writer,no doubt about it, but as a man basically bought and paid for. MacBeth is a character assination of the last truly "Celtic" (and obviously Roman Catholic) king of Scotland, written to curry favour with Henry VIII's Protestant descendants. Burns lived in different and less turbulent times, but was his own man.His works were more observational, less contrived and without any real agenda. You may prefer Shakespere's works to Burns, fair play. But theres always for me been an unpleasant whiff of kissing the ruling elite's arse about Shakespere's stuff. I dont know Burn's work to argue but i'll take your word on that. Might not be wholly fair on the bard though/ Shadowplay by Clare Asquith is a very scholarly account of the hidden political messages in Shakespeare's work. The church of England and the Queen were his political overlords, yet his work has many elements of catholic sympathy (if you buy her argument). These sympathies are coded into the text and Asquith argues that these codes, whilst a bit obscure to us, would have been much more obvious to those with sympathies on the losing side of the religious divide.

He was a good poster, was wondering why i'd not seen him for a while.

Maybe the people of Massachussets are more clever than i gave them credit for.

Fuckin hell, very astute you actually don't know what a good call that is, but I believe what I said. You might have a point about the new world order or whatever it is, they might well just be right. In that American Stonehenge thing i posted the other week it has something about 600,000 being the sustainable number of people on the planet.

Hell & Christian Prommer - Freak it Martinez - Skywalker Four Tet - Love Cry (Joy Orbison mix)

Blatantly been on the cowies all weekend.

Green with envy here. Does the 380 have a proper bar you can walk to if you're business class? I would love, just the once, not to be cramped in cattle class with some twat reclining in front of me for 10 hours. Best transatlantic I've had was with American Airlines on a 777. A lot of leg room even in economy. Think you were only allowed two drinks though! At the end of the upstairs cabin, there was a huge staircase going down to Premier class (9 beds with a Rob W per passenger). Just next to the staircase, was an open space with a big round sofa/bench thing.They served you drinks there directly. Not a bar but the internal specs are different for each airline, apparently the Singapore Airline 380s are the plushest. In flight entertainment on a 20 inch screen with OSX powering it. Camera on the tail fin in HD for take off and landing.

He may well be right though.

How that Armagnac btw alex? Was a bit too fucked to appreciate it when we tried it (was ill for days afterwards so was coming down with the flu at the time too). Went to a concert on weds night, one of the pumps at the bar had 'Claudia Schiffer 5.0% ' written on it. Turns out the fucker was Grolsch. Had a 1985 Chambertin Clos de Bèze the other day, was spiritual. Thats a Burgundy Grand Cru, pinot noir obviously. I know

Flew back from NY on the A380 last week, in Business too. Was lersh. [show off]

I really need to sort out my spelling.

I have no problem with the state expressing its disapproval and it shouldn't let extremist responses stop it from opening the debate which I think is worthy. However I think the principle of the right to individuality in terms of choice of clothes is pretty "sacred" as well. I know there is an argument which says the law has no problem dictating against nudity but I think that's different. I would also say that in democracies even though we talk about laws "imposed" by government, most if not all of the laws are pretty aggreeable by the majority in principle, leaving the obvious ones aside, many people might think speeding laws are anti-freedom but they'd still have to admit they are "right" - I don't think imposing dresscodes in any sphere of public life could be "by consent" no matter how worthy the idea behiond them to "liberate" the women. Then i'd suggest your understanding of your rights as a citizen are more based on the UK's constitution, not the French one. Liberty is place alonside equality and fraternity, none outweighing the other.

your insults do you no favours. As I said, you know nothing about me and aren't going to find out. My views are based on life experience and not by reading a book by an out of touch "intellectual" Have you ever actually met a Muslim? Even one? I'd say my experience of Muslims, Islam and Islamic society trumps yours, Leazes, by virtue of me being one and working, living, playing and just generally associating with probably thousands of them over my lifetime. I didn't need any books, "intellectual" or otherwise, to tell me your ridiculous views on an entire society of people are wrong. So unless you're about to tell me you're actually an Islamic scholar and world traveller (two l's just for you!) whose theories are backed by years of research and proof, I'm holding to the view of "you don't know what you're talking about." Getting back to the OP, the ironic thing is that I don't even support burqas or really anything but the simplest of hijab. The burqa isn't part of Islam - in fact, and many people don't know this, when Muslims make the pilgrimage to Mecca, completing the most significant event in the religion, they are expressly forbidden to have their faces covered. Burqas and other restrictive coverings are born of two things that feed off each other - the remnants of tribal culture and civilisation, and the radicalisation of areas that still hold to those views. The reasoning goes "well, if Muslim women are meant to have their heads covered, and that's sunna (permitted and encouraged), then covering more of them must be even more sunna." Places like those have assigned low value to women for thousands of years, well before the advent of Islam, which changed little. I'm thoroughly against that kind of enslavement of women as most sensible people are. The trouble is that some honestly do choose - whether due to pressures familial or cultural, or a misguided desire to adhere to their religion faithfully - to wear such things, and I don't feel it's the state's right to dictate whether they can or not. And I also feel that if it were, let's say, Hindus or Jews that had to wear facial coverings as part of their religion rather than Muslims, then we wouldn't hear a word against it. Nice post but diasagree with you. Its is absolutely the state's right to dictate on this issue, as it is the state's right to impose Sharia law in a majority Islamic country. (the issues of state's rights boiled down simply to majority in this instance). France has a highly secular government and society, all religions are tolerated well but NONE are more important than the right of the Republic to uphold its secular roots.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8472315.stm Looking forward to seeing what Obama says/does about this. Has he learned his lesson? He has outlined a new levy aiming to recover $117bn from financial institutions, and criticised banks for "massive profits and obscene bonuses

Are you quoting those figures to show you agree or am I interpreting them differently? 53% of Obama voters who didn't turn out this week think the reform is too diluted. In the October poll I posted over half were in favor of reform (when a public option was an option). In your poll only 32%-34% of DEMOCRATS are in favor of the reform as it is (as a corporate blow job). Just being objective and posting up the exit poll. I think it does show there are issues about the reform proposals which supports your point. I also think that the conversation inside a voter's head isnt that complicated and that the vociferous criticism from the left has undermined Obama when people need re-assurance about him. They need to be re-assured about the economy, one way to sort that out is to stop the current healthcare expenditure trajectory that will see 1 in every 3 US dollars spent on healthcare by 2020. The other is to sort the economy which means a tough call on how to address Wall Street, since although it may be just, it may not be prudent to fuck them over. Arriana Huffington has an interesting take on it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...r_b_430678.html

http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html 95% of voters said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote. 53% of Obama voters who voted for Brown and 56% of Obama voters who did not vote in the Massachusetts election said that Democrats enacting tighter restrictions on Wall Street would make them more likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 elections. 51% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 but Brown in 2010 said that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street. Nearly half (49%) of Obama voters who voted for Brown support the Senate health care bill or think it does not go far enough. Only 11% think the legislation goes too far.

smart as you are you are gullible and stupid as fuck, your only saving grace is you are not the only one. As I said, my opinions are based on experience, not reading a book or articles in left wing dooder newspapers by idealistic out of touch "intellectuals" Happy Face is a dooder.

Equivocal results with no insight into respondents's understanding of the proposals or whether they are views based on media output. It also wasnt clear in October, when that poll was taken, what would be in the reform proposals since they weren't written. Opposition to the proposals could therefore be counted as republican opposition. Also, if support for the public option was running at 57% in Massachussets this week, how come the Republicans got voted in. Either the US electorate is so collectively clever they are scuppering healthcare reform because its isnt health economically sound and is actually inequitable OR..... they have heard vitriolic criticism from all quarters and voted against him on some basic media consumption? Having just spent 4 days in New York discussing healthcare reform and watching their news, i'm going for the latter and that poll only needing a 5% error to be about equal back before we knew what was happening.