Opinion Column - Political Manifesto by The People's Party

Can the manifesto published quite recently by The People’s Party be classified as a decent manifesto? Or should it rather be called a foolish sequence of grand declarations? Take your pick.

Take some of the first lines: “We stand for equal rights for everyone. We want the world to be a better place.” Really? I mean, seriously? Yes. Because that obviously quite heavily distinguishes this party from the gross of other contenders for the country’s power. Of course, everything is clearer now. The only thing we need to do is make the world a better place. Such a shame no one has ever thought of this before! And this party is going to make it all possible. I already feel the People’s Party is doing a fair job at convincing me to vote for them.

But lo! It gets even better. First, the goals to be achieved in the period of reign are mentioned. Nothing much wrong with them, save a few points based on opinion, such as the racism part (which I find myself agreeing on) and the reducing of bureaucracy to save money. That’s what they’re going to be saving money on?
I mean, not that it’s a bad idea, per se, it’s just that this system of government seems to be working pretty well, and to change it so drastically is going to be a big risk to take. Also, just for a second, hold this up to earlier claims, would you? Weren’t we just talking about making The World a better place? Nice job with the continuity, so far.

Then, onto the climax of the story. What follows is to be the prestige to the magician’s trick, the grand solution of things. And honestly we’re lucky no ancient Babylonian kings are involved, because if this conclusion, this grand (or not-so-grand) unveiling of the methods to secure such a perfect world were to be weighed in the balance, it would definitely have been found wanting.

There are so many holes in the bucket, it’s a wonder water still remains inside. One of the most important faults in this plan is the large amounts of money seeming to magically appear out of nowhere. Because even with the cuts on bureaucracy, there is no way to just accomplish this.
“More government money has to be available to invest in improving our education. Improving education methods, the training of teachers, etc.” Granted. This in itself would be fine, I even agree with this point they’re making. The problem comes along with the subsequent statements: “Improving the public transport by building more railways instead of highways and reduce prices of public transport.”, “Reduce the amount of regulations and the number of civil servants in order to save money on the government structure” and then “Stimulating multicultural activities and found more public schools.”

Aside from the apparent lack of grammatical cohesion, which although regrettable is not something I will be addressing here, the pure impossibility in the combination of these statements just strikes me.
Honestly. Building railways costs money, even aside from the fact that people are already antsy about conserving nature. Not building anymore highways does nothing to erase the number of highways that already exist and let me remind you – removing those would cost money as well. Then the reduced fees for public transport – without compensation, those are going to cost the government even more money.

Then, the reduction of civil servants to save money. A fine point, be it I personally don’t really agree. The statement that accompanies it, though, leaves me worried. How is reducing the amount of regulations in any way going to save money on the government structure? It seems to me more like a lawless, kind of anarchical situation will be the result. This in itself does not seem like it will promote a better world, if you ask me.

And lastly, the stimulation of multicultural activities and the founding of more public schools. Because obviously it’s a good idea to found even more schools when it has already become clear that for the situation that is in place now, it is a necessity to invest more in education. Because founding new schools doesn’t in any way mean needing to hire more teachers, buy more furniture and necessities, etc. Not even wasting time on explaining the fact that the stimulation of multicultural activities in itself does little to fight racism. Can people really actually be this dense?

 I suppose the results of the elections will give the answer.

Written Response to Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet"

One of the first things I noticed about the movie was the fact that while the scene that’s set is a modern version of that of Shakespeare’s famed play, the lines have been left nigh unaltered. While usually I find the original text quite charming, in this case it was one of the things that bugged me the most. In my opinion, in this modern setting, it just doesn’t work very well at all. All it really does for the overall atmosphere of the movie and the characters in specific is lessen the credibility. The same thing goes for the hugely annoying fast-forwarding that is used as a medium to speed up the action. Honestly it only really makes me think of something put together by a grade-schooler who thinks what he’s doing is “so totally awesome!” No, but seriously, I was more and more annoyed every time that happened. Then there’s also the even more annoying (and mercifully less frequently used) screaming-at-the-top-of-your-lungs-while-swaying-heavily-from-side-to-side thing that the Nurse did whenever she felt she was in a tight spot. It’s all just so… childish.

On the other hand, I thought the casting of especially Romeo, Juliet and Friar Lawrence was really good. For Friar Lawrence and Romeo I don’t really have any brilliant, conclusive arguments but the fact that I just felt the actors suited their respective characters very well, or were at least quite capable of portraying them as such. Juliet was wonderful, mainly because she’s got this whole ‘sweet and innocent’ thing going for her. Obviously the Juliet in the original play was the same.

I did find the joke with the guns pretty humorous. It was quite inventive to name them after the swords that get mentioned along the way, so as to not have to change those things in the text.

And, of course, no matter the rest of the movie or the fact that by now I’m pretty intimately familiar with the whole story, every time I see or read a version in its entirety (giving me time to get attached to the characters) I find myself hoping profusely – and, of course, in vain – that maybe, just maybe, this time they won’t die. Especially in the moment itself, when Juliet woke up while Romeo hadn’t yet ingested the poison, I was watching tensely, avidly. But alas, it is the very moment Romeo realizes Juliet is not dead that spells his demise, because of which the horrified bride-turned-widow puts a gun to her head. For some reason that was one of the details which inspired the most perturbation from my part, though not for the obvious reasons. The picture was so pretty, ethereal almost, with the pair of lovers on a bed, surrounded by innumerable burning candles, that it would be a shame for Juliet to meet such a violent end – “Like fire and powder, which as they kiss, consume” – though I’m sure they didn’t mean that quite so literally. And then she pulled the trigger, and she collapsed back onto the bed, next to Romeo, who by that point had splatters of her blood on his face. How’s that for ruining the perfection?

L, Did you know..

Why hello there.

If you're looking at this particular blog you are most probably already aware of its purpose.
For those who are ignorant as to the greater purpose of me securing myself a place on the internet to just kind of unceremoniously dump my deepest darkest thoughts - you should know that I won't.
This blog was created with a significant goal. That is, more than usually, I guess.

Anyway, the point is for me to post my completed assignments for the IB program we're following.
So yeah.

Supposedly the point is for us to "Personalize our writing assignments for IB and keep track of our language development". Also to give teachers (and fellow students, apparently) easy access to our writing and critical thinking.

So that means no talking about personal secrets or day-to-day affairs. You must be so disappointed.

Make sense?

Thought so.

- Sabine