Russell Brand on celebrity

I'm not a huge fan of Russell Brand, but I have to say, when he's in thoughtful mood he can actually be very insightful. In this interview with Jeremy Paxman I think he's very perceptive concerning the replacement of serious ideology in our society with vacuous celebrity and the desire for a narrative. Also very interesting is his assessment of the total emptiness of fame and the need for something deeper.

It's worth sticking to the end as he reveals the conclusion that we need a god. I don't know the nature of what Brand believes, but it is interesting that someone of his publicised nature should come to that conclusion.

My Tourist Year so far

Walking around Gardens by the Bay on Tuesday evening, Denise and I realised that we've done loads of Singapore's major tourist attractions this year. Normally this would work out very expensive, but there are advantages of having a friend in the civil service who can occasionally get passes and tickets for the Zoo, the Flyer, the Gardens...
So, in not particular, but roughly chronological, order, here's a quick rundown of some of the things we've done:

Sentosa Beaches

Actually, we did the Sentosa beaches twice, once the day we got engaged, and once when Jon Lee came to visit. They're manmade, and there is something a bit artificial about them, but they are attractive nonetheless, and for someone whose only visit to the 'English Riviera' was in a torrentially raining October half term, any beach with palm trees is exotic...

                  

 

Sentosa Cable Car

Unfortunately none of my photos from this came out at all well, it being night. We rode the cable car out to Sentosa before I proposed on the beach, and I think it's worth doing once. The cars are much smaller than on the Singapore Flyer, only large enough for a max of four people, I think. In a way this was nicer though, because you felt less isolated from the view. A view which is worth seeing, by the way.

Universal Studios

Perhaps unsurprisingly, my three locations so far have centred around Sentosa Island. The biggest attraction there is Universal Studios. In the first part of the year we were both students and so could go on a weekday during term time. It makes a big difference. We had been before, but Battlestar Galactica was shut, Transformers hadn't opened yet, and we didn't know about half the non-ride attractions. We definitely got more out of the second visit, riding each half of Battlestar Galactica 6 times (my first coaster with inversions), Transformers about 3 times (best use of 3D I've seen, combined with the physical movement, but works best when other people are there screaming), the Mummy a couple of times (tamer than BG, but has a much scarier atmosphere to compensate), watched the Waterworld show (it's quite an impressive live stunt show) and various sundry other things. Worth looking up what times things happen before you go to make the most of it. Universal is one of the most expensive attractions here, but on a non-busy day, you can really get your money's worth.

Marina Barrage

Not strictly a tourist destination I guess, the Marina Barrage is a barrier that controls access of seawater into the marina, and is controlled by a large pump building - which has a grass roof that makes a great location for picnics, and offers a spectacular view of the Marina Bay area.

   

Harry Potter Exhibition

Not really any photos from this, we weren't allowed to take them inside. The exhibition was on at the Art Science Museum next to MBS, and contained just about all the movie props I could think of, in mockups of the movie sets, it was pretty cool. If you're into Harry Potter of course. Some behind the scenes material might have been nice, but as a props collection, it was pretty comprehensive. I'd love to see the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings ones though.

Wicked

Back in March, we watched the musical Wicked, performed at the Grand Theater at Marina Bay Sands. I love the mall at MBS. I'd never actually shop there, it's all Prada and Armani and all that, but it makes for a very shiny, posh-looking mall, and it's nicely designed. I'm easily impressed by shiny buildings, and funky architecture, I like Orchard Road for the same reason (for English readers, read Oxford Street). The show was great, and despite being on the very back row, it was completely audible and the view was unobstructed. You couldn't see facial detail, but I think you'd have to pay a lot more for a noticeably better seat.

Sentosa Attractions

Sentosa Island also has some other activities, of which we sampled some. Desperados is a 3D attraction where you sit on saddles and use a gun to shoot bandits on the screen. The 3D seemed slightly blurred, but it was quite fun to do once. The Extreme Log Ride was a '4D' ride where you sit in a pod and watch a 3D screen - in this case imagining that you are a log going through an implausibly risky log flume in the jungle. It was quite good, but having also experienced the excellent Transformers ride recently, which is similar, it felt less impressive. The Luge and Skyride were fun though, the Skyride is a ski-lift that takes you from the bottom of the hill high above the trees to the top, where you can then get on the Luge (which is kinda like a toboggan that you can steer and brake) and go back down. You could get up to a good speed on the Luge (fast enough to crash, as Denise discovered...), and it would be fun to do that one again.

Singapore Flyer

The Flyer is distinguished amongst ferris wheels as being the tallest in the world (slightly bigger than the London Eye). It is essentially a clone of the London Eye concept, and the view of the city and Marina Bay area from the top is great, I'd say sunset into dark is the best time to go, as the city lights are really rather nice. It's not as high as the Skypark on the top of MBS, but in some ways is better, as you have a 360 degree view, and the view include MBS. I have to say, they have done a brilliant job with the Marina Bay area, it is definitely a nice place to be.

         

Zoo and Night Safari

Singapore Zoo is great, cheap to get in even if you don't have a friend with a pass, and it has nearly all the animals you would expect. Definitely worth going if you're here. Just expect to sweat a lot. The Night Safari is also great, with a fun show and the tour is good. If you want photos, make sure you had a good camera though, as you can't use your flash.

        

        

East Coast Park Cycling

I haven't cycled in a long time, but East Coast Park is a really nice spot. It's a strip of land by the sea that has been landscaped and laid with a road that you can rent bikes and ride along. Apart from several wobbly moments, this was a really nice way to spend an afternoon, it was a sunny day, but the trees provided loads of shade.

Gardens by the Bay

Only recently opened, the Gardens fill a patch next to MBS to help complete the Marina Bay area. Similar to the Eden Project in the UK it has two domes of non-native environment plants as well as a large outdoor garden and a short walkway suspended from artificial supertrees that give you a view of the Gardens and the general area. Like many places in Singapore, this place works well both in the day and night. My recommendation would be: outside during daylight, also the Flower Dome during daylight (it's not well enough lit at nigh), then as the sun is going down, go into the Cloud Forest Dome and wander round there until dark, enjoy the lighting and views of the city, then try the OCBC Skyway, which offers a spectacular panorama of the whole area. People have said some negative things about the Gardens, possibly about the cost of entering the domes, we got free tickets so didn't have to worry about that :P It's very tidy and sanitized for Singapore, but it really is a lovely spot. Just don't pay $20SGD for chicken rice, I've had the stuff from Mandarin Orchard and I'm afraid that you can't tell that much difference. It's chicken and rice after all.

       

       

       

So there you have it, not a bad collection for 7 months. One day I'll save up for a better camera than Instagram and go round them again. There really are some beautiful spots in Singapore, and some really cool architecture.

USA Dream Team 1992: the little I know

I'll be frank, my knowledge of basketball is incredibly limited. I didn't start even remotely following it until moving to Asia, where I found that everyone follows the NBA. That and the Premier League. I've never been that good at meeting people, but one thing I can do is learn about things that other people like so I can hold up a conversation, so I did some reading up.

I have to say though, that despite being a thoroughly bizarre sport in which teams regularly score over 100 yet only win by a margin of a few points, it also has its appeals. Sure, the first three quarters of a match seem fairly pointless to a layman like me, but the athleticism of the players is genuinely impressive. There's nothing in sport quite like seeing a player bung the ball half the length of the court to see a guy leap in the air, catch the ball, and dunk it emphatically (this is called an alley-oop for those of you who are uneducated).

So it is, with London 2012 approaching, that attention has turned to the current crop of USA players and their standing in history. They are undeniably talented - Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook aren't mugs - but Bryant can't help opening his big mouth and claim they are better than the Dream Team of the '92 Olympics.

This claim has been widely rubbished, as that team is generally regarded as being the greatest ever. If you're not familiar with this team, that's the one with Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Scottie Pippen, Clyde Drexler etc. (seriously, I'm on thin ice here, I'm not entirely sure, looking at the roster, who I should list after Jordan and Johnson...). I guess it's a bit like having a football team that included players like Pele, Messi, Maradonna, Zidane, Cantona etc. Even the Barackness Monster has stated a firm opinion that the Dream Team were better, and watching their old matches, I have to agree.

So here are some videos from happy times, when the NBA was a team sport:

And as a little bonus, here's 'Air' Jordan dunking from the free throw line. If you've ever tried to dunk, you'll know this is seriously impressive - I can't dunk from right under the hoop, and I'm not exactly short:

The Piano Guys: Excellent and clever cover songs

Recently on YouTube I discovered a group of musicians called the Piano Guys. Their general approach is to combine a piano (that travels more than most people get to!), a cello (in varying numbers through secret cloning techniques) and fantastic locations to produce cover songs and mashups that are often better than the originals. They have loads of videos online, but here are some of my favourites:

And some of their more lighthearted and inventive efforts:

Thoughts on the John Terry racism saga

With the not guilty verdict rendered in the John Terry/Anton Ferdinand racism case, it is important that the right conclusions are drawn, and the correct future actions taken. So, in no particular order, here are some of my thoughts on the issue - feel free to add your own opinion in the comments.

1. Football has issues - I think it is fair to say that the way footballers speak to each other on the pitch is pretty appalling. Sledging takes place in many sports (it is a time-honoured tradition in cricket), but only in football is it so utterly foul-mouthed. Much has been made in the newspapers of what they like to refer to as 'industrial' language. Having had a fair bit of experience working in an 'industrial' context, I can testify that such language is common, but it is very rarely used in such an aggressive and directly abusive way - football stands apart on that. For all their 'Respect' campaign and handshakes, the FA have clearly failed to engender a sense of basic human decency in players - oh for more of the Iker Casillas spirit, who on seeing Italy suffering at 4-0 at the end of the Euro final, urged the goal-line official to tell the referee to end the match out of respect. No wonder neither Terry or Ferdinand wanted this in court - neither have appeared in a favourable light. Even if Terry was not racist, neither player has demonstrated themselves to be a paragon of virtue.
2. This shouldn't have gone to court - This decision puzzles me. Why, of all the offences committed on a football pitch, was this one picked for trial? Why was the Suarez case not considered serious enough, and yet this one was? (Why is Terry not similarly up for assault after the second leg against Barcelona?) The FA should have dealt with this quickly, like the Suarez affair, recognising that as a sporting body, the burden of proof is not so heavy (the ICC had handed out its own spot-fixing sanctions long before the corresponding criminal trial had started). With the evidence available, it was never going to be established beyond reasonable doubt that Terry had racially abused Ferdinand - so why? All we have achieved is an undedifying opportunity for the * to compete with the letter e for 'most commonly used character'.
3. Other victims will be more reluctant now - possibly the most serious of the repercussions from this case is that players who are already reluctant to come forward will now be even more reticent. The judge commended Ferdinand for his bravery in testifying, which is a fair comment, considering the appalling hounding he has had from members of the public. As with the Liverpool fans in the Suarez affair, people side with their team rather than wanting justice and condemning racism as they should. The FA could have dealt with this, handed Terry a sanction that he cares about (a ban to a footballer is much worse than a measly fine in this financial era) and demonstrated that racism is not to be tolerated. Out of fairness the criminal justice system requires greater proof, and therefore it was inevitable that they could not convict. It essentially boiled down to one man's word against another - and that is not enough to overturn the legal presumption of innocence (this is as it should be, but poses difficulties in cases like this). Will other players come forward knowing that they may not even see justice done?
4. Terry's story did hang together - a lot of people came to their own conclusions before the trial on the basis of YouTube footage. Having read Terry's defence and watched the footage, it does actually make sense to me. His body language as he speaks can be interpreted as a sarcastic dismissal of an alleged accusation. Personally, I find it slightly more believable than the judge did. It is worth noting that the judge concludes that Terry did not change his story and was consistent throughout - whether it is true or not, there was not enough evidence to contradict him. People have compared this case to OJ Simpson's trial, but I don't think it's that clear-cut. I think Terry's explanation is legitimately plausible, whether it is true or not.
5. The FA has work to do - the difficult of the FA waiting until after the trial to carry out their own work is that it may become harder to act contrary to the legal verdict. This season has made it clear that racism is not dead in football, or in the wider country - it is good in one sense that such an issue is made of this, because we do not want a return to the late 70s and early 80s. They must make sure that racism is not tolerated, but they need to go further. Football has long been worse than other sports for language used, both between players and towards officials. Perhaps miking up the ref might help - in rugby it ensures players talk to the ref in an acceptable manner. Football should enforce these things more - players can learn pretty fast when they have to!
6. Where does this leave freedom of speech? - this is more a question than a comment. Should this even be a legal issue? Let me be clear, I think it is perfectly acceptable for the FA to forbid racist language around football grounds - every employer and professional organisation reserves the right to make codes of conduct, and I think that is right for the FA to do so. However, as a firm believer in freedom of speech, should the law of the land adjudicate on this matter? Let us assume that Terry was guilty of a racial slur - should he be legally prevented from saying it? Why has he been singled out? He was not inciting violent behaviour, he was not encouraging people to assault or discriminate against black people - it was an insult. Where is the line drawn at legally acceptable language? Should ginger hair-based insults be illegal? What about sexuality-related insults? I do not condone it by any means, but part of me is disturbed that this can become an issue for a criminal trial. As Voltaire said: 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'. Thoughts? Are there things that it should not be acceptable to say? Should all things be sayable? If we legally forbid people saying things that are commonly agreed as wrong, does it open up the way to more severe censorship?

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to chip in, especially with your opinions on the last point.

Jeeves & Wooster songs

Hugh Laurie is famous for playing House, but his greatest work was undoubtedly on the excellent Jeeves & Wooster TV adaptation with Stephen Fry. Probably the funniest parts of the show are actually the new elements that show off Hugh Laurie's piano skills, as Bertie attempts to wrestle with the deeper meanings of the what he plays, whilst Jeeves attempts to be polite yet not complimentary about music he clearly disdains.

Bertie: Do you know what I look for in a song Jeeves?
Jeeves:  Er, not precisely sir, no. I have often speculated.

As an extra bonus, here are a couple of clips with Bertie & Jeeves playing together, and an excerpt of Hugh Laurie on Jools Holland playing a song from his album.

The Trinitarian God Part 5: Our mind-blowing salvation

This is the last post on my series on the Trinity, although I hope it is not my last on this subject!


In the last post I talked about the wrath of God being the response of His love to evil. I also started to talk about how out of His abounding love God does not leave us in the mess we've made, but has made a way out. He paid the price of our sin, bore the consequences, and offers us salvation freely. This is the Gospel - good news. However, a lot of people might be able to regurgitate the idea that Jesus died for our sins, to forgive us. So let's go a bit deeper into what's going on - the Trinity reveals something truly amazing.

First, consider what happens when Jesus comes to earth. He is God, He has been part of the intimacy and security of the Father-Son-Spirit loving family for all eternity, yet He 'contracts Himself to a span' and becomes one of His created beings - that's so mind-stretching, I can't really think of a great way to describe it. The idea of the one who created the world (see John 1) becoming a suffering, limited human being is beyond words.
But more than that, He came, the immortal, eternal, God the Son to die. He knew why He came, He knew the purpose of His coming - He came to do what no other 'god' has ever done willingly - to die. All His life, He lived, knowing His fate, and He chose it.

Our sins nailed Him to the Cross - but it is at the Cross that He won our salvation. Source here.

Now think about what happens at the Cross. The Father and the Son have been defined by their love for one another for eternity, and yet at this one point in our history, the relationship is broken, the Father turns His love away, and treats the Son, not as His obedient Son, but as an enemy - as one of those who has ruined everything - think how that must feel. I guess the closest you can get is to imagine how you would feel if the person who showed you the must love throughout your life, who had loved you unconditionally for the 70 years of your life, who you had also acted towards with nothing but selflessness and kindness turned on you and attacked you and insulted you and treated you like you had ruined their life - only much much worse. And yet that was the plan, the Son who had done nothing but obey the Father was treated like an enemy, in the exact moment He was being most obedient. And that is what it took to bring us back to God - that is what it required to make us clean and new and good. That's what your God did for you.
But it gets better than that. It's not just the extraordinary act of sacrifice to forgive us, it is the fact that now the Bible says we have been adopted into God's family. We are children of God. You know how God the Son is called God the Son? Well, the Bible says we are in God's family, 'in Christ' - which means that through Christ, we are also in the Trinity. We are no longer enemies, but we have been invited into the overflowing love of the Trinity through Jesus - we are a part of that now. Ever wonder how much God loves you? That's how much. That's also how secure you are, Christian. You are bound as tightly to God as the persons of God are to each other - God will never let you go.

No other belief in the world offers you such a God - a God who created you to love you, who is so selfless that He comes to save you, forgives you, suffers for you, does it all for you, and then invites you to share in the relationship that is part of His very being. That is why the god that philosophy and popular culture thinks of is not the God of the Bible at all. Only this God is worth worshipping, worth following, and boy does He give us a million reasons to. Wow, just wow.


Well, thank you for following this series, I hope it was encouraging. If you want more of that, phrased more eloquently than my splurging, read Denise's transcripts of or (even better) listen to these talks on the Trinity by Mike Reeves. If you read nothing else ever, outside the Bible, read these, please. I'll even beg if it helps:
The Heart-Winning God
The Loving Father
The Beautiful Son
The Heart-Melting Spirit