The State of Student Politics: The NUS

Following on from my previous article where I pinned the blame on the sorry state of student politics on Student Unions, It's now come to my attention that there's another major factor in the shitty atmosphere surrounding university campuses. I still hold a lot of the blame on the individual Student Unions, who still have power over students and convince themselves there pathetic actions are for the benefit of the majority, but in reality they have thankfully very little power in comparison to the NUS. I have since felt a little sympathy for the Student Unions when the example they are given by the universal student political group is arguably even worse. Head of the whole thing is the controversial Malia Bouattia, who is the prime age to speak for the feelings of students at 29 years old. Somehow this supposed inclusive and left wing political movement in 21st century Britain managed to elect somebody who claimed that Birmingham, which has a declining Jewish population of just 0.21%, is supposedly a 'zionist led outpost'. As you can see from that outrageously biased piece of shit she called journalism this woman who's almost in her 30's seems to think everything is a conspiracy from people she calls 'zionists'. She even goes as far as to call for violence against Israel, which is a disgusting attitude to be shoving down students throats when the NUS are supposedly based around the idea of inclusivity. Hypocrisy seems to be the agenda for the NUS, and not surprisingly the effects of this have been ludicrous.

 
Politics I know is a complex matter, but this is an organisation supposing to aid all students. How then do they find it acceptable to discriminate and actively repeal certain members of society that are seen to disagree with their left wing ideology? This banning culture has become so bad that now everything that's seen as offensive or disagreeable is instantly censored without even a second thought of whether to debate the issue like open minded adults. There appears to be no logic behind this banning culture, only apparently to silence any rational arguments that might actually open student minds. As a result of this one sided and oppressive system students, despite technically being adults in an advanced institute of academic achievement, are now not allowed to clap their hands during conferences because it's triggering anxiety. I mean why draw the line there? Fuck it, ban talking or how about just people full stop, as they also have the risk of triggering anxiety. It's clear that nobody has drawn the line here, and not surprisingly this idiocy has cascaded into individual universities who have banned cross dressing, which is amazing since I thought student politicians were all over the idea that possessions shouldn't be gendered. Sombreros have also been banned at one university, as has the social media app 'Yik Yak', poledancing, and most bizarrely raising your hands.

But here's the one in my opinion that honestly defies all logic and understanding. For some reason the Bradford branch of the NUS put forward the motion that Britain should abolish prisons. No seriously, they did. First of all how much fucking power do you think the NUS has that they think they can take on the British legal system? And secondly why the fuck are student political movements making issues out of this absurd idea? One of the reasons why prisons should be abolished is apparently "because prisons are sexist and racist". There is no explanation or evidence provided for this very generalised point, just raw statistics, with such moronic conclusions that prisons don't work because 59% of people reoffend. I would argue that that is proof that prisons do work considering the 59% statistic is far more appealing than the 100% of people reoffending if you don't punish crimes. Do the NUS offer any viable alternatives to address this huge gap in the legal system? No of course not, they just love banning things that offend their childish feelings. The rash accusation that prisons are racist is also unfounded considering that the black population in Britain is disproportionate to the number of black criminals, so really they've got no causative evidence to conclude that prisons are racist in practise. I don't know what the message is meant to be here, but I'm getting a whiff of 'we're desperate to prove we're the oppressed class'. I hate that instead of trying to campaign for better conditions in prisons they instead decide that the radical solution of plainly banning them would be more effective, and to be honest that's the pattern we've been seeing from every NUS affiliate. When the fuck will these morons learn than banning everything will never get you anywhere, only serving to taint the reputation of many level headed student politicians who just want a fairer world for the student population. The NUS have already banned anything remotely sexual towards women on campus, yet we're repeatedly told that university campuses are hotbeds for rape and sexual assault, which is obviously proof that this isn't working on any level. and to be honest there's I've got no explanation for this moronic behaviour.

So yeah fuck the NUS. This banning epidemic symbolises everything wrong with student politics at the moment, with political movements parading around like tyrants drunk on power and electing morons into positions that they clearly shouldn't be anywhere near. There's no evidence that this radical censorship is working considering the NUS have already banned anything remotely sexual towards women on campuses, yet we're repeatedly told that university campuses are hotbeds for rape and sexual assault, so really is this system working on any level? As a student myself I have no explanation for the moronic actions that have been displayed throughout this article, and in reality this system makes a mockery of the brilliant concept of democracy, and the quicker there's a change from this oppressive and discriminatory regime the better university campuses will be for the majority of students.

Morons of the Internet: The Tab (12/06/16)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the Internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we have some of the usual crap spewed out by those phony journalists at 'The Tab'. For once it's on the subject of animals and zoos, which I at least have some prior knowledge on. So trust me, this is a terrible, terrible article that only highlights what an ignorant writer we have here.
_______________________________________________________________________
http://thetab.com/2016/06/01/harambes-blood-hands-everyone-whos-zoo-91903?utm_source=nationalxpost&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=pages
_______________________________________________________________________

Oh here we go again. Another person on a little crusade against zoos because they value feelings over facts. This time though we have a writer who's putting the blame on everyone who's ever been to a zoo, which really isn't taking the tragic issue of a gorilla being shot out of context is it? Apparently everyone who visits zoos is at fault here, even innocent babies now have blood on their hands thanks to being taken by their own mother, and this somehow means they're responsible for the killing of two gorillas. This line of argument is a bit like saying that Formula One fans are responsible for the death of a racing driver because they support a sport with a history of poor driver safety. In any case I'm sure we're going to get a full list of the horrors that animals face in captivity; none of course backed up by any evidence, just simply anecdotal comments. But let's give this guy a chance anyway.

Bollocks, just absolute bollocks. If we're going to be making arguments revolving around feelings then let me add mine. As a zoology student who became fascinated with animals thanks in no small part to my local zoo, which does have animals at the forefront of the zoological experience and thus drives the business. I have little time to be patronised by a man who's giving definitions to words he found out about two minutes before writing the article. Your lack of knowledge on the management of zoos is clear, and this is reflected by your straw man argument that takes a singular case and applies it to a worldwide generalisation. There is actually some statistics provided to back up the arguments, albeit taken completely out of context. What you fail to mention is that the majority of animals live longer than their wild counterparts thanks to living in a controlled environment free from pressures of the natural world. Elephants are one example that still live shorter lives than their wild counterparts, but that's a trend that isn't predicted to stay true for long, as zoo conditions thankfully improve over time. Contrary to your belief zoological parks don't want to make their animals suffer, and in fact the majority of the employees are renowned professionals; unlike yourself.

When the argument finally gets round to the issue of gorillas it's just pure stupidity. You genuinely think that gorillas in a controlled environment are more likely to become diseased than their wild counterparts. You didn't even provide a source to refute that common biological knowledge; and that's because what you're saying is bollocks. What diseases are we talking about here anyway?  How can you be sure that the gorillas won't pick up a resistance to these diseases? The lack of any comprehension continues with yet another point that isn't sourced revolving around surplus killings, which surely would have been easy to source considering it's apparently a common occurrence. First of all they're surplus individuals, so why the hell would it matter? Surplus animals in the wild are also killed off, that's how populations reach equilibrium. Also why would a strictly herbivorous animal kill off others? Are you referring to intraspecific competition? Active predation? And you still haven't explained why this is an activity that is caused by the animals being captive? I think it's quite clear by the sketchy nature of your points that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh I didn't realise this was written by Dr. Doolittle. I must find the secret to how this guy can possibly tell that the animals in question are bored, stressed and agitated, because amazingly he's just torn straight through the highly debatable subject of animal behaviour with purely anecdotal evidence. Flawless. His argument gets better as well because it turns out the only reason this guy brought up the tragic event were a gorilla was shot is to bring up his own gap year; the self centred asshat. I'm fucking glad you have the finances to go to one of the ten, and not countless, national parks in Uganda. You haven't quite cottoned on to the fact that you can get your family into a zoo to have an incredibly high chance of seeing many amazing animals from all over the world for under a hundred pounds, where as you can't even get a plane to Uganda for that price, and then you might not even get to see the damn things anyway. You only saw gorillas on your gap yah, which not that many people do, so please tell me again how the gap yah is a better conservation method that educates the paying public. You have the audacity to generalise all zoos into a 'bad' category based on one case, and then generalise all national parks into a 'good' category despite having been to only one. The final point is conclusive evidence that you're living on a different fucking planet. The one thing animals are not doing best at the moment is surviving. In actual fact they need all the help they can get, but your argument is that they should only be helped by privileged pieces of ignorant shit like yourself.

Oh for fuck sake, save this captivating tale for your fucking autobiography mate. I'm reading this article for a critical analysis, not a fucking vanity project. It shows you how much you give a shit about conservation as a whole when it has to revolve around you first. If it's not you it's about these fucking national parks, which really aren't as sustainable as you're making them out to be. I do agree with you that national parks are an often vital way to conserve wildlife, but does that instantly mean all zoos should be shut down? I've already written a post about the conservation efforts of zoos, so can't really be bothered to source through the various conservation efforts and actual purpose of the modern zoo, but I can assure you that at least my piece isn't hopelessly detracted from the real issue.
What irritates me the most about your piece is how you criticised zoos for promoting an anthropocentric attitude, yet that's exactly your whole argument revolves around. What a moronic hypocrite you are when you only look at animal behaviour from your own perspective, which by your own words is very much 'judging everything according to human values'. You actually think the animals in your care, which interestingly weren't specified despite brain structure being hugely varied across the animal kingdom, actually have the mental capacity of self worth. Just like throughout the rest of this article there is absolutely zero evidence provided to jump to such an unbelievably generalised conclusion like that.

Wait, how did we get to this conclusion when all you've done is talk about yourself for most of the article? Where's the evidence to show that zoo conservation is a ploy? I haven't seen any presented in this article, and the only evidence for animals being exploited comes from your shitty assumptive anecdotes. How fucking helpful are you in this situation? A tragic situation has occurred where a child nearly lost his life and a gorilla did, and your only solution is that the gorilla shouldn't even be there in the first place. Well guess what? That gorilla was being held in captivity, and so your retrospective analysis adds nothing to this argument; especially when that analysis revolves around unbelievable generalisations. Thanks for your worthless opinion; I honestly don't know why you bothered.

Top 10 Movie Trilogies

The power of the trilogy is often overlooked in cinema, and over the years franchises have been made and ruined in the course of just three films. As we're about to discover making three consistently top notch films is often a hard task to master, and these are the best examples of when those films did manage that almost ultimate achievement.

Honorable Mentions:
Pirates of the Caribbean: A powerhouse of a franchise that gradually got worse as it went along.
Jurassic Park: Only gets a mention because of the first film. In all honesty the next two films would only ever ruin the legacy of the first.
Jason Borne Trilogy: All the films in this one were decent. Nothing special, but a good trilogy of films.
The Matrix: Another trilogy celebrated solely for the first film. The other two films do little to add on a very one sided trilogy that could only ever improve on the special effects of the original.
Alien: Sorry, the third one ruined it with its shockingly bad execution. The first two were so fucking good as well.

#10 Back to the Future (1985-1990)

 Films: Back to the Future (9/10) Back to the Future Part II (7/10) Back to the Future Part III (7/10)

Ah yes, who can forget these charming classics. The 'Back to the Future' series turned the already cool concept of time travel and made it into one of the most entertaining film franchises to date. All three of the films were more than just solely entertaining, managing to be engaging to the viewers despite being incredibly silly at the same time. The whole charm of the film came from its lighthearted approach to everything, and a lot of that stemmed from the quirky performances of Marty McFly and Doc Brown, who both had such great chemistry together.

The characterisation was arguably the star of the show in these films, with even the DeLorean car being given a personality of its own, and has become a legend in cinema ever since. The plot too is now something of legend, and a good example of how such a good idea can be taken to that next level if executed well. Every little detail about the future is so well drawn out that the plot is still believable despite being so ridiculous and exaggerated in every aspect. It's no surprise that this series has been a big hit for pop culture, and last October there was even a special 'Back to the Future Day', which was the same date for the future segments in the original film.


#9 Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012)

Films: Batman Begins (7/10) The Dark Knight (9/10) The Dark Knight Rises (6/10)

This trilogy is how you make superheroes relevant to a modern audience. Gone where the old days of cheesy cliches, because now there was a new darker edge to the superhero genre, making a lasting impact that almost made the Batman films of old obsolete, looking wimpy and pathetic in comparison. These new films eclipsed the old in terms of popularity, earning in total almost 2.5 billion dollars worldwide, and giving superheroes a new dynamic that now transcended through far more than simply punching bad guys in the face. Christian Bale was such a breath of fresh air in his role as Batman, and although I'm not a huge fan of his portrayal of the caped crusader, I will admit that he was a great choice for a grittier hero.

Arguably it was the villains that were allowed to prosper the most in Christopher Nolan's trilogy, exemplified by the extraordinary performance of Heath Ledger as The Joker. There's been some good villanous performances over the years in the Batman franchise, but Ledger's role in 'The Dark Knight' was a cut above the rest. Trust me, I hate superhero films, and this trilogy still has many scenes of just pointless violence and stupid plot points, but there's also segments that are actually very meaningful, taking comic books to realistic places that people gave a shit about. The ending of the franchise left me on a very sour note, and in fact 'The Dark Knight Rises' almost ruined it for me by just being completely stupid, but overall this trilogy was fun whilst it lasted, and is certainly the standard which any superhero film has to aspire to be.


#8 Die Hard (1988-1995)

Films: Die Hard (9/10) Die Hard 2 (6/10) Die Hard with a Vengeance (7/10)

'Die Hard' was a huge trilogy for the action genre, telling the tale of one New York Police officer who for some fortuitous reason always ends up in the middle of some serious shit. All three films are full of explosive sequences and over the top plot points that audiences had never seen anything in the same league as before. This fast paced style cemented Bruce Willis as an action hero legend, and paved the way for many other plots revolving things blowing up. The 'Die Hard' franchise may now have reverted to a very cut and stick formula, but the original trilogy really blew away the margins of what makes an exhilarating film, providing a suspenseful and climactic experience that very few action films replicate.

Aside from the first film, which was by far the high point of the franchise, the others in the trilogy just proved that nothing was out of bounds for police officers to blow up in style. It's not all about Willis, as he gets some help from some greatly worked in villains, and I'm specifically referring to those in the first film, who gave the narrative a gritty edge that fitted in nicely with the rest of the full on testosterone fest. Unfortunately past the original trilogy the rest of the 'Die Hard' films are just absolute crap that has no brains or logic behind it, but for a taste of what the tales of detective John McLane are all about then the original trilogy is a must for any action flick fan.


#7 Toy Story (1995-2010)

Films: Toy Story (9/10) Toy Story 2 (8/10) Toy Story 3 (10/10)

Often overlooked as a trilogy, and that's a shame considering the 'Toy Story' films all have the distinction of being brilliant films in their own right. This is as good as animated films get, and although this set the standard for many more great animated flicks, there would never be another franchise that could compete with these now legendary tales. The material used for all three films is simply sublime, and is one of the few trilogies that never relies on anything else other than that raw material to carry the franchise. The original 'Toy Story' was the first ever fully 3D animated feature film, so not only was it a milestone for film in general, but also one for storytellingdue to its wide appeal.

The stars of the show all throughout the trilogy are the range of characters we get. They're all brilliant and so lovingly put to life. Their various relationships are so well explored that we actually care about the grand adventure happening before our eyes, and it's rare to say that about every single film in a trilogy. The craziest thing about these films was that they were for children, yet were so well made that anyone can enjoy them. It's no surprise that they ended up grossing a total of almost 2 billion dollars when the storylines are so simplistically fun that they call to the big kid in all of us, and then simultaneously reduce us all to tears; and yes that was a reference to how the trilogy ended. Holy fuck that was some ending. I still haven't recovered.


#6 Dollars Trilogy (1964-1966)

Films: A Fistful of Dollars (8/10) For a Few Dollars More (7/10) The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (9/10)

If you're a fan of westerns then this is the gold standard of any trilogy. Even though all three films received mixed reviews when originally released they have since become classics, and the perfect example of how to turn an oversaturated genre on its head. The trilogy is arguably most famous for the role of Clint Eastwood who's just brilliant in his now iconic lead role as 'The man with no name'. Eastwood's role just fits the film's narrative so perfectly that he's almost the perfect poster boy for the western genre. Just look at that expression in the picture above. With acting and cinematography like that you almost don't need any dialogue to tell a good story. It's for these reasons that it became clear you didn't need John Wayne to carry a western anymore, because here was a reinvigorated western formula that has since become the standard.

The thing about these classics was that the formula was based on Japanese samurai films of old, told through the eyes of an Italian director in an order that isn't even chronological, which somehow just works in an American style film. The prime example of this is 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly', which is the real highlight of the trilogy. Just a perfectly paced and atmospheric narrative that masterfully encapsulates the feelings of the American West, adding a bit of stimulated drama for full effect. It's such a great sendoff for a series that created the spaghetti western genre, which isn't a bad legacy to leave at all.


#5 Terminator (1984-2003)

Films: The Terminator (9/10) Terminator 2: Judgment Day (9/10) Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (7/10)

'The Terminator' franchise is based around Arnold Schwarzenegger at his iconic best blowing shit up in an ultimate battle between men and machine. Sounds bloody good to me. In reality it sounded good to a lot of people, as this franchise is what created the legends that are now Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron, which isn't surprising considering the effect this film had on pop culture. The first two films were in my opinion some of the best the action genre has to offer. They both looked ridiculously good, had great fast paced plots, and just felt properly epic.

The second film in particular is a personal favorite of mine, flipping the foundations set by the first film but still keeping the same style. There's quotable lines everywhere, some mesmerising sequences, and one hell of a battle between two Terminators to top it all off. I'm amazed at how the heroes and villains could be so interchangeable, but the basis behind this film's quality is the high standard of characters. There's plans for a new trilogy for this long lived franchise, although after how 'Genisys' turned out I can't say I'm too hopeful that it's going to be any better than these classics.


#4 Indiana Jones (1981-1989)

Films: Raiders of the Lost Ark (9/10) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (8/10) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (8/10)

Please just don't mention the fourth film. I can see what they were trying to do with that one, but the execution was just shocking, and that film ended up tarnishing the reputation of this classic trilogy. The original three films were just perfect for the eighties, all being great in their own special way. All three films are full of charm and charisma, that's just great fun to watch. The second film has even got some mature themes going on, which at least made up for the less than satisfying plot, but I'm glad there was some variety in the trilogy that went against the feel good nature of the other two. However what all three films love to do is give viewers a fantastic adventure, never taking the subject too seriously despite the high magnitude plots.

It's an almost magical formula for any adventure film, and was always destined to be instant classics. Watching the three films now is like a ball of pleasing nostalgia. It's such a great way to open your mind about diverse places in the world, even if those places rely on being heavily eccentric. But even when you ignore the grand adventures there is still a great cast to fall back on, and it's always great seeing Harrison Ford at his best. This trilogy proved that Indiana Jones was the perfect role for the man, and he owns the film in every damn scene. He even got some help from Sean Connery in the third film, but even then Ford was the charismatic main man, and director Steven Spielberg never lets us forget that. And as for that score. Well, is there a more famous score in cinema history? It certainly has the ability to put a smile on your, but then just about everything does in this brilliant trilogy.


#3 Lord of the Rings (2001- 2003)

Films: The Fellowship of the Ring (9/10) The Two Towers (9/10) The Return of the King (8/10)

In terms of epic trilogies this might be the greatest of them all. The sheer scale of this whole project is just mindblowing. Just how Peter Jackson managed to get the complex world of Tolkien onto the screen in just three films is quite some achievement, and when you consider that the whole trilogy took eight years to complete and needed seven full teams for back to back filming is just astonishing. The finished product was six million feet of film that showcased three films that are each an example of forward thinking and ambitious cinema at its best, bringing to life one of the most diverse landscapes fiction has ever seen. Each character is masterfully portrayed, and although these films might not manage to be faithful to the Tolkien literature at all times, they still give the world a renewed sense of magic and mystery that even the books couldn't conjure.

Each new film in the franchise managed the unthinkable task of improving on the last one, despite the previous installment being as good as anyone could ever imagine. The third one decided to milk that a bit and never end, which isn't a positive thing when the extended cut already goes on for sixteen million years. It's no surprise that the final film received the most academy awards of any film in one evening and helped the franchise make a total of almost 3 billion dollars worldwide, making it the highest grossing trilogy unadjusted for inflation. In reality this franchise deserved every single one of the many awards it went onto win, even if the Tolkien estate actually rejected the idea of the film, as did many Tolkien purists who hated the themes presented. Obviously anyone who shits over these three films doesn't value the art of film making, because let's face it, is there any trilogy as well made as this one. Having watched many trilogies I can safely say that none can match the ambition and execution of this one.


#2 The Godfather (1972-1990)

Films: The Godfather (10/10) The Godfather Part II (10/10) The Godfather Part III (7/10)

How can you not include a trilogy that contains two of the greatest films ever created? The third film almost lets the whole trilogy down by not being up to par with the other two, but the truth is that the third isn't a bad film at all. I personally find the tales of the Corleone family so utterly amazing that words can't really describe just how epic these films are. The first two films in particular are made with such care and precision, beautifully pieced together and stupendously executed. The range of characters we find in the franchise is another incredible highlight. The first film in particular is just the pinnacle of characterisation with Pacino, Caan, Brando and Duvall all producing incredible performances that will go down as ones for the ages.

Even past the characters and directing you get the most striking cinematography in these film that like everything else is just so superbly executed. Many of the scenes have now become iconic and standards for modern cinema as has the writing and directing which again is just perfect in every single way and never misses a beat, creating momentum in a way cinema had never reached before. The music as well is something that all three films got just right. The musical composition creates such a stunning atmosphere. That's what this franchise is all about; atmosphere. 'The Godfather' trilogy showcased what it means to create the perfect film, becoming an example where cinema and pure art mould into one beautiful creation that no amount of superlatives can accurately describe. Yes, if it wasn't for that letdown of a third film we could have ourselves a perfect trilogy, but in all honesty I don't care when the first two are as mesmerising as they are.


#1 Star Wars Original (1977-1983)

Films: A New Hope (10/10) The Empire Strikes Back (10/10) Return of the Jedi (7/10)

I don't think there can be any argument that when we're taking into consideration the impacts that film trilogies have on society then the original 'Star Wars' trilogy has to be number one. The 'Star Wars' franchise itself is now estimated to be worth over 30 billion dollars, and that was all kick-started by these three films. The prequel trilogy certainly brought 'Star Wars' to a younger generation, but in terms of quality it was nowhere near the level of these genre defining space operas. The original three 'Star Wars' films are each the gold standard of blockbuster that's never really been beaten in scale. What these three films did for pop culture means they have to be at number one, even if in terms of cinematic quality this space opera might not technically be the best trilogy out there.

What this trilogy did do however is introduce us to such an overwhelmingly complex and imaginative galaxy that somehow is all layered out to perfection in each of the three films. It's just such an engrossing and exciting narrative to be a part of, especially the original film which is now so famous because of just how well its played out. The first two films had some of the most iconic plot points in recent memory, that even to this day have such a great impact on audiences of any age. And as for the characters. Well I'm sure everyone knows the eclectic cast of various life forms that grace the original series, including some of the most amazing figures such as Darth Vader and Han Solo, who have an unbelievable screen presence that I don't think has ever been surpassed. But then the original 'Star Wars' trilogy does have the knack of going far above any other trilogy since in terms of scale.