I've been reading more manga this week.
Both of my renaissances of anime and scanning seem to have fallen by the wayside for some reason. It's not a conscious decision, I've just found myself constantly in the situation where I just haven't had the time.
Next week is my last week before I take a weeks holiday and I'm hoping I'll get a bit of anime watching and scanning done then. However, I was compiling one of my 'to do' list and it's got a hell of a lot of stuff on it. See, the problem is I really want to get rid of a load of crap.
I've discovered there's a council recycling place just down the road and I believe they'll take loads of the big stuff I've been reticent to throw away because it would just end up in landfill. The council collections are shot where I am - they take virtually nothing and you get nasty notes and threats of fines if you get it wrong.
So yeah, I'm hoping to clear that stuff, plus I want to finally get a load of stuff from my childhood on e-bay. I'm pretty certain it won't sell, but at least I'll have put it on there and then I'll know for definite it can go in the bin.
Trouble is of course both of those things will just eat my time and on top of that I'm going to visit my Dad and there's all the regular crap I do.
Anyway, the point today is I have been reading some new manga. Specifically I've started back reading Oh My Goddess.
OMG was one of the first manga I ever read. Indeed, I think it was one of the first manga ever released in America. Back in those days it was 'flopped' - printed back to front, which probably seems a bizarre thing to do in the modern era.
Anyway, the point is because it's such a long series (it's still ongoing in Japan!) there came a point with OMG where the fashion had very much shifted to printing manga in the original right-to-left way and Dark Horse where still playing catch up. That meant they decided with volume 21 to revert to the original format.
But also, it turned out Dark Horse had played silly buggers with the earlier volumes, skipping out and reordering some chapters. So they therefore released several of the earlier volumes in with the correct chapter order. But then they also announced that they would re-issue all of the already released volumes in unflopped format.
And that's why I think I stopped reading - I got very, very confused.
But now, many years later, I thought it was about time I caught up, so I bought loads of volumes and have started ploughing my way through.
I've gotta say I still like OMG. I was a little worried my tastes might have changed, but it still pretty much works. I will say I'm still a little frustrated with it - Keichi and Bell's relationship still remains weirdly non-intimate and stagnant, but the stories are sufficiently full of other goings on that it kinda gets around that issue.
Still, it would be nice for it to at least start to explore the implications of a man and goddess pairing, and who knows maybe it does in the volumes I need to catch up, but I kinda doubt it.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Thursday, 22 April 2010
expenses
The other day my polling card turned up.
It's not long until polling day - the 6th of May. Weirdly, I'm actually on holiday that week. I'm not going anywhere exotic or anything, so I've not really got much of an excuse to avoid voting.
The media seems to be quite interested in the election this year. It's probably because this is the first time in a good while that it's not been guaranteed that Labour will get in. I'm not entirely sure that the general public is quite as interested.
Indeed, I think the whole expenses scandal could lead to lower numbers of voters than in most years. Well, I did think that until the whole TV debate thing. I didn't personally watch the debate myself, but obviously I've heard all about how Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems have had a surge in popularity since.
I'm not sure that will translate into an increase in their share of the votes. Certainly I doubt it would result in a sufficient change to give them power. Instead, it makes a coalition government more likely.
Traditionally coalition governments are inherently weak affairs, which sometimes pull in different directions to such an extent that they collapse. And there's always the risk of effectively giving power to a minority. Also it's always assumed that the Lib Dems would form a coalition with Labour as they tend to have similar views on things.
Anyway - the upswing of interest by the media means that there's been a lot more talk from the political parties getting air time. Which has also mean there's been quite a lot of things with the public questioning MPs, especially the heads of the parties.
One of the things these people naturally want to talk about is the expenses 'scandal' and I've found it fascinating.
Not for interest in the scandal itself, but because it's clear that people are angry, but many of them don't really know what they're angry about.
I mean, the impression I've been getting from some of the questions is that many people seem to be fundamentally opposed to MPs claiming any sort of expenses at all. Also, they don't seem to grasp that the vast majority of them were simply acting within the rules that had been established.
The first of those is bizarre. Part of my job often involves me travelling to places and therefore I claim that money back as expenses. Also, sometimes I need lunch or have to stay overnight or whatever, so I claim that as well.
That's what expenses mean - they're an expense you incurred in order to do your job. So when an MP does similar, in my opinion there's fundamentally no problem with them claiming the same. And yet people just seem to be angry that they claimed anything, which is bizarre.
The aspect that represents the real area of controversy is this issue of being able to claim for a second home and the costs of upkeeping said home. This is where things get a bit tricky, because an MP's job has a split personality.
All MPs obviously need to attend Parliament, which is in London. But an MP's job is also in his constituency, which could literally be anywhere in the country. Most people don't have a job where half the time you need to be in London and the other half you need to be somewhere else.
And the point is that your job requires this - it's not simply a lifestyle choice. And for some MPs we're talking hundreds of miles of separation - Cornwall or Scotland spring to mind as being rather distant locations.
The problem I guess is while I think rationally you could therefore justify the claiming of the travel costs, being able to claim for your second home is a might trickier. Especially when you add in all the dodginess of nominating which is your second home and that it's a house they're buying for themselves - once they stop being an MP they could sell it keep the money.
Plus on top of that they were able to claim for the upkeep costs, which is where you got all the stuff about duck ponds about. And of course it's a blanket system - MPs in London and close by were able to claim in the same way as MPs up north, or wherever.
But as I say, it's a trickier problem for me - on some level I don't totally disagree with them being able to claim for something to compensate for this issue of having to work in two places, it's just they set up a system where tacking the piss was the norm. I mean, if your job required that of you, you'd want some way of it not affecting your standard of living, right?
And it's that I don't think people have really grasped. The only thing they really did wrong was set themselves up with a bad system. It's a little unfair to judge them for what they actually claimed within that system.
And let's be frank - the amount of money we're talking about was actually pretty small. And only a tiny minority have been accused of anything like embezzling it.
Anyway, my real point here is that people just don't understand things. It's scary sometimes how they grasp the wrong end of the stick. And then they get to vote.
It's not long until polling day - the 6th of May. Weirdly, I'm actually on holiday that week. I'm not going anywhere exotic or anything, so I've not really got much of an excuse to avoid voting.
The media seems to be quite interested in the election this year. It's probably because this is the first time in a good while that it's not been guaranteed that Labour will get in. I'm not entirely sure that the general public is quite as interested.
Indeed, I think the whole expenses scandal could lead to lower numbers of voters than in most years. Well, I did think that until the whole TV debate thing. I didn't personally watch the debate myself, but obviously I've heard all about how Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems have had a surge in popularity since.
I'm not sure that will translate into an increase in their share of the votes. Certainly I doubt it would result in a sufficient change to give them power. Instead, it makes a coalition government more likely.
Traditionally coalition governments are inherently weak affairs, which sometimes pull in different directions to such an extent that they collapse. And there's always the risk of effectively giving power to a minority. Also it's always assumed that the Lib Dems would form a coalition with Labour as they tend to have similar views on things.
Anyway - the upswing of interest by the media means that there's been a lot more talk from the political parties getting air time. Which has also mean there's been quite a lot of things with the public questioning MPs, especially the heads of the parties.
One of the things these people naturally want to talk about is the expenses 'scandal' and I've found it fascinating.
Not for interest in the scandal itself, but because it's clear that people are angry, but many of them don't really know what they're angry about.
I mean, the impression I've been getting from some of the questions is that many people seem to be fundamentally opposed to MPs claiming any sort of expenses at all. Also, they don't seem to grasp that the vast majority of them were simply acting within the rules that had been established.
The first of those is bizarre. Part of my job often involves me travelling to places and therefore I claim that money back as expenses. Also, sometimes I need lunch or have to stay overnight or whatever, so I claim that as well.
That's what expenses mean - they're an expense you incurred in order to do your job. So when an MP does similar, in my opinion there's fundamentally no problem with them claiming the same. And yet people just seem to be angry that they claimed anything, which is bizarre.
The aspect that represents the real area of controversy is this issue of being able to claim for a second home and the costs of upkeeping said home. This is where things get a bit tricky, because an MP's job has a split personality.
All MPs obviously need to attend Parliament, which is in London. But an MP's job is also in his constituency, which could literally be anywhere in the country. Most people don't have a job where half the time you need to be in London and the other half you need to be somewhere else.
And the point is that your job requires this - it's not simply a lifestyle choice. And for some MPs we're talking hundreds of miles of separation - Cornwall or Scotland spring to mind as being rather distant locations.
The problem I guess is while I think rationally you could therefore justify the claiming of the travel costs, being able to claim for your second home is a might trickier. Especially when you add in all the dodginess of nominating which is your second home and that it's a house they're buying for themselves - once they stop being an MP they could sell it keep the money.
Plus on top of that they were able to claim for the upkeep costs, which is where you got all the stuff about duck ponds about. And of course it's a blanket system - MPs in London and close by were able to claim in the same way as MPs up north, or wherever.
But as I say, it's a trickier problem for me - on some level I don't totally disagree with them being able to claim for something to compensate for this issue of having to work in two places, it's just they set up a system where tacking the piss was the norm. I mean, if your job required that of you, you'd want some way of it not affecting your standard of living, right?
And it's that I don't think people have really grasped. The only thing they really did wrong was set themselves up with a bad system. It's a little unfair to judge them for what they actually claimed within that system.
And let's be frank - the amount of money we're talking about was actually pretty small. And only a tiny minority have been accused of anything like embezzling it.
Anyway, my real point here is that people just don't understand things. It's scary sometimes how they grasp the wrong end of the stick. And then they get to vote.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
transporter 3
Oh dear.
If ever there was a franchise that epitomised the 'law of diminishing returns' then it's transporter.
I quite liked the first one. It was a bit silly, but it was also very Luc Besson and the plot pretty much worked.
The second one was not quite as good. There was a confusing angle in terms of the mother and her not being a love interest, but being presented in that way, and the silliness got a bit sillier, but again, the plot basically worked. I mean, there were a few clunky bits and oddities, but it basically hung together.
The third one doesn't even manage to get have a plot that makes sense.
The basic idea seems to be that some Ukrainian politician's daughter is being held hostage in order that he'll sign a contract with a big nasty corporation. The big nasty corporation (boo, hiss) wants to use his country as a dumping ground for toxic waste.
I mean, that doesn't even make sense as a summary. Okay, evil corporations are nothing new, but evil corporations with utterly dumb plans is pretty... unique. Why, for example, can't they simply find another country who'll probably jump at the chance for the money? A corrupt third world regime, for example.
Or if they're so big and evil, why not just dump it in the middle of the ocean? Or simply ship it in disguised as something else and then dump it in a big hole in the ground and bugger off?
And what's with that plan? Kidnap the dude's daughter to make him sign? How stupid are they?
If he signs and gets his daughter back, he just has to hold a big press conference and tell everyone what happened. A contract signed under such a situation would never be legally binding.
So what - they kill her instead? Well he just does the same thing. Or they keep her hostage permanently? How does that work?
No - plain truth is it's daft and non-sensicle. Much like the rest of the film.
Where the silliness was kinda endearing in the previous films, especially in terms of the stunts and action, here it just doesn't help.
I mean, there's a bit where there's a car chase and it's clearly been speeded up. Now this is something of a common thing in Besson films, but here it's like the speeding up machine got stuck in some high gear, because they speed it up to such a degree that it just looks like Benny Hill should run across the road halfway through.
Plus, when they aren't taking daftness to a new level, the chases, fights and stunts come across as being a bit uninspired and dull, tbh.
And don't me started on the girl. She's just about the most annoying woman committed to celluloid.
She starts of petulant (no reason is given) and rapidly reveals herself to be selfish, self-centred and stupid. And then she gets really annoying.
But worst of all we're supposed to believe Statham's character falls in love with her? I mean if he'd had a history of falling for women like her, then maybe it'd be okay, but the girls in the other films weren't like her at all.
It was just plain rubbish.
If ever there was a franchise that epitomised the 'law of diminishing returns' then it's transporter.
I quite liked the first one. It was a bit silly, but it was also very Luc Besson and the plot pretty much worked.
The second one was not quite as good. There was a confusing angle in terms of the mother and her not being a love interest, but being presented in that way, and the silliness got a bit sillier, but again, the plot basically worked. I mean, there were a few clunky bits and oddities, but it basically hung together.
The third one doesn't even manage to get have a plot that makes sense.
The basic idea seems to be that some Ukrainian politician's daughter is being held hostage in order that he'll sign a contract with a big nasty corporation. The big nasty corporation (boo, hiss) wants to use his country as a dumping ground for toxic waste.
I mean, that doesn't even make sense as a summary. Okay, evil corporations are nothing new, but evil corporations with utterly dumb plans is pretty... unique. Why, for example, can't they simply find another country who'll probably jump at the chance for the money? A corrupt third world regime, for example.
Or if they're so big and evil, why not just dump it in the middle of the ocean? Or simply ship it in disguised as something else and then dump it in a big hole in the ground and bugger off?
And what's with that plan? Kidnap the dude's daughter to make him sign? How stupid are they?
If he signs and gets his daughter back, he just has to hold a big press conference and tell everyone what happened. A contract signed under such a situation would never be legally binding.
So what - they kill her instead? Well he just does the same thing. Or they keep her hostage permanently? How does that work?
No - plain truth is it's daft and non-sensicle. Much like the rest of the film.
Where the silliness was kinda endearing in the previous films, especially in terms of the stunts and action, here it just doesn't help.
I mean, there's a bit where there's a car chase and it's clearly been speeded up. Now this is something of a common thing in Besson films, but here it's like the speeding up machine got stuck in some high gear, because they speed it up to such a degree that it just looks like Benny Hill should run across the road halfway through.
Plus, when they aren't taking daftness to a new level, the chases, fights and stunts come across as being a bit uninspired and dull, tbh.
And don't me started on the girl. She's just about the most annoying woman committed to celluloid.
She starts of petulant (no reason is given) and rapidly reveals herself to be selfish, self-centred and stupid. And then she gets really annoying.
But worst of all we're supposed to believe Statham's character falls in love with her? I mean if he'd had a history of falling for women like her, then maybe it'd be okay, but the girls in the other films weren't like her at all.
It was just plain rubbish.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
doctorb who
The b is for 'bargain'.
Here's something I haven't blogged about - there's a new Doctor Who. And not only is there a new Doctor Who, there's a new head writer in charge of the show.
At first I was a little unsure about the revamped Who. David Tennant is a pretty hard act to follow and Russell T Davies didn't exactly do a bad job with the whole writing and show running thing.
But then Steven Moffet, the new writer, is responsible for some of the best episodes of the new version of Who. He did the one with the kid in the gas mark and the angels that only move when you aren't watching them, for example.
I feel like I'm rambling a bit here, so I'll skip straight to my verdict. Overall, I like the new Who.
I have to say that the first episode was a bit of a gentle introduction. It didn't really have an epic feel or anything - we weren't instantly into a Daleks destroying the Earth story or anything. But it kinda worked, because it had a lot of new stuff to introduce, and a predominantly character driven story allowed it all to bed in.
The second one was a good one, and even managed to have a bit of a moral dilemma in it. And the third was a story by Mark Gatiss that featured the Daleks and Churchill at the height of World War 2. It also featured the Dalek's being a bit sneaky and clever, which was nice to see.
The Dalek episode also introduced new versions of the Daleks, which were bigger and a bit 'fatter'. I wasn't entirely sure about the new designs, as they had a bit of a plasticy look to them, but the episode itself was good. I especially liked that the Daleks properly escaped at the end.
Normally in the Dalek stories they get utterly destroyed, but then the next time you see them there's always "one ship/Dalek that escaped" or similar. In this one, all the new Daleks escaped intact, so it gives them lots more possibilities.
So yeah, overall I'm liking the new Who.
Here's something I haven't blogged about - there's a new Doctor Who. And not only is there a new Doctor Who, there's a new head writer in charge of the show.
At first I was a little unsure about the revamped Who. David Tennant is a pretty hard act to follow and Russell T Davies didn't exactly do a bad job with the whole writing and show running thing.
But then Steven Moffet, the new writer, is responsible for some of the best episodes of the new version of Who. He did the one with the kid in the gas mark and the angels that only move when you aren't watching them, for example.
I feel like I'm rambling a bit here, so I'll skip straight to my verdict. Overall, I like the new Who.
I have to say that the first episode was a bit of a gentle introduction. It didn't really have an epic feel or anything - we weren't instantly into a Daleks destroying the Earth story or anything. But it kinda worked, because it had a lot of new stuff to introduce, and a predominantly character driven story allowed it all to bed in.
The second one was a good one, and even managed to have a bit of a moral dilemma in it. And the third was a story by Mark Gatiss that featured the Daleks and Churchill at the height of World War 2. It also featured the Dalek's being a bit sneaky and clever, which was nice to see.
The Dalek episode also introduced new versions of the Daleks, which were bigger and a bit 'fatter'. I wasn't entirely sure about the new designs, as they had a bit of a plasticy look to them, but the episode itself was good. I especially liked that the Daleks properly escaped at the end.
Normally in the Dalek stories they get utterly destroyed, but then the next time you see them there's always "one ship/Dalek that escaped" or similar. In this one, all the new Daleks escaped intact, so it gives them lots more possibilities.
So yeah, overall I'm liking the new Who.
Monday, 19 April 2010
oh look, there's some more telly to watch
It was on some levels a slightly depressing weekend.
I've ended up the situation where I've got tonnes of stuff recorded on my PVR and this last weekend was the first time I've had to actually knuckle down and watch some of it. The PVR had got so full that it was almost a case of watching stuff to make room for new stuff. Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but I could imagine it getting that way fairly soon.
The problem was, this weekend was the Chinese Grand Prix and I also had a few bits and pieces to do. The BBC's coverage of the Grand Prix is, to be frank, excellent. They show all of the practice sessions, as well as the qualifying and the race itself. Plus there's lots of punditry and other stuff to. I'd say all in all I end up watching about 8 hours of stuff on a grand Prix weekend.
So you can see the problem - the only way for me to watch all the GP stuff and make a dent in my recorded stuff was for me basically to watch television constantly. And to be frank, it got a bit depressing. Especially given that this was the firs really good spring weekend we've had.
For example, I would have really like to keep going with my new walking habit on Sunday, but guess what? I had yet more television to watch. (Well, also, my right foot has been giving me some gyp after the huge walk into Farnham for the wedding, so I though maybe resting it wouldn't be a bad idea anyway.)
I also would have loved to give my car a bit of a wash. I dunno if it's the whole volcanic ash thing, but my car is filthy. But no, I had telly to watch.
Not that I didn't enjoy the telly watching, it's just you know - it would have been nice if it wasn't so necessary and I could have done some other stuff.
Anyway, it was a good Grand Prix.
Even the practice had a really dramatic moment with Sebastien Buemi's whole front end basically exploding as the uprights on his suspension failed. I've honestly never seen anything like that before. It was like something out of a film - as if there was a bomb in it or something.
The race itself was very good too. It was a wet one, which always spices up the action. And Button made another wise decision regarding tyres that effectively won him the race, like he did in Malaysia.
I've ended up the situation where I've got tonnes of stuff recorded on my PVR and this last weekend was the first time I've had to actually knuckle down and watch some of it. The PVR had got so full that it was almost a case of watching stuff to make room for new stuff. Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but I could imagine it getting that way fairly soon.
The problem was, this weekend was the Chinese Grand Prix and I also had a few bits and pieces to do. The BBC's coverage of the Grand Prix is, to be frank, excellent. They show all of the practice sessions, as well as the qualifying and the race itself. Plus there's lots of punditry and other stuff to. I'd say all in all I end up watching about 8 hours of stuff on a grand Prix weekend.
So you can see the problem - the only way for me to watch all the GP stuff and make a dent in my recorded stuff was for me basically to watch television constantly. And to be frank, it got a bit depressing. Especially given that this was the firs really good spring weekend we've had.
For example, I would have really like to keep going with my new walking habit on Sunday, but guess what? I had yet more television to watch. (Well, also, my right foot has been giving me some gyp after the huge walk into Farnham for the wedding, so I though maybe resting it wouldn't be a bad idea anyway.)
I also would have loved to give my car a bit of a wash. I dunno if it's the whole volcanic ash thing, but my car is filthy. But no, I had telly to watch.
Not that I didn't enjoy the telly watching, it's just you know - it would have been nice if it wasn't so necessary and I could have done some other stuff.
Anyway, it was a good Grand Prix.
Even the practice had a really dramatic moment with Sebastien Buemi's whole front end basically exploding as the uprights on his suspension failed. I've honestly never seen anything like that before. It was like something out of a film - as if there was a bomb in it or something.
The race itself was very good too. It was a wet one, which always spices up the action. And Button made another wise decision regarding tyres that effectively won him the race, like he did in Malaysia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)