A day in the life of the life in my garden

The main message that i wish to portray is a day in the life of the life of my garden, is through the decaying of nature and how that decay is still as picturesque as fresh nature. In my photographs i wish to show great contrast between the rotting and the fresh, and how, albeit opposites, they create a matrimony of visual pleasure. I wanted to highlight this in my photos because i believe nature is one of the only true constants that exist. What i mean is, eventhough aspects of nature decay and rot, it is still a continuous act of nature. Even after a plant decomposes it puts something back into a natural ecosystem which is used to create new natural organisms. In brief, the circle of life. A stangnant or rotten pond will always be a home to another kind of life form. The contrats of the rotting against the fresh is similar to the contrast between light and dark. They are two opposing moods that need each other to have a reason to exist. The same is similar with fresh life and decomposing life, they oppose each other, yet they need each other. I hope that the photographs being presented will represent these views and are as entertaining as you may wish them to be.

A weathered gnome smiling in the fresh morning light.

A proud and powerful bird full of energy, enthroned upon a weak and withering tree.

A hellish, decomposing flower glows with a fiery aura, standing against the chilling afternoon breeze.

You will always find life in the darkest of places.

The apple never rots far from the tree...

Darkness envelopes the restless living, soothing it to sleep.

Keynes has been hailed as both the saviour and destroyer of the capitalist system. Why?

Taking into account the present economic conditioin of our country, the history of economic disasters such as "The Great Depression" and the world economy, John Keynes' theories on the "Multiplyer Effect" and the "Circulation Theory", can help to determine why he has been hailed as both the saviour and the destroyer of the capitalist system.

To start, we can analyse the battle between Keynesian and Monetarism ideas and why the clash of the two can highlight reasons that Keynes' theories may have saved or destroyed the capitalist system. Monetarism, a selection of theories put forward by Milton Friedman, suggests that the goverment should have little say in any kind of buissness. During Margaret Thatcher's reign as PM (Prime Minister) in the 1980's, she used this idea duirng her term.

Althought part of monetarism was successful during Thatchers term, Keynes had to step in with his theories to sort out the 80's recession. His main theory used was a term known as "stagflation". It starts off with increasing government spending which, in turn, gave people more jobs or "government waste" jobs which people would always be needed for. The idea that you should "pay people to dig holes and fill them up again" is a prime example of this. People get jobs, the money they earn is used to perchases, which in term sorts out the recession.

On the negative side of things, people earning more money means that prices in shops increase. This happens when employment rises. The rise in employment rises the Aggregate demand, leading to higher prices in shops. This then means that people cannot afford things anymore. Wages will rise, people will get paid more to do their jobs more "government waste" jobs become available which pay more than normal. These jobs were prominent during the US "Great Depression" and lead to the forthcoming problem. Overshooting or undershooting the aggregate demand will lead to inflation, where the pound becomes almost worthless. Unemployment and inflation rise which is where the term "stagflation" eventually comes into play. This Keynesian theory suggests that inflation will never be low, suggesting that this destruction to a countries economy makes Keynes a probably destroyer of the capitalist system.

An idea that made Kenynes a temporary saviour for the capitalist system was the "stimulus package". In times of economic downfall, the government would print money to give to people to spend. To give a practical example for this we can use the USA. Let's say that george bush decided to give everyone in the country $200 to spend at their will. There is a man named Dave that runs a television retail service. With this spare $200 people go and buy his televisions as they have the money to do so. This is good for Dave as he has made a massive profit and the money that he has earned, he is able to spend in other places. So to make himself more money, he uses the "stimulus packages" that people gave him for televisions, to buy a larger number of better televisions. This money he has spent has now gone to someone else which also helps the economy. This is a reason why Keynes may be hailed as the saviour of the capitalist system, as it
leads to a higher Gross Domestic Products, increasing consumerism, which eventually leads to an economy boost. The boost is a good thing and because of this Keynes can be hailed as a saviour of the capitalist system as this theory allows a countries economy to grow.

However, with every action comes a reaction and the boost that the economy gets because of the "stimulus package" is only temporary. The money which Dave spent on his new televisions, has now gone to waste because people no longer have the available cash to spend. Dave is forced to sell the televisions at less than he paid for them, leading to his eventual bankrupsy, lack of money and finally unemployment. This completely disrupts the natural market, and will lead to a fall in the economy, clarifying the fact that even thought Keynes could be seen as a saviour of the capitalist system, it is not permanent. In this light, Keynes can be seen as the destroyer of the capitalist system.

The "Paradox of Thrift" is a term which can help to understand why Keynes may be seen as the destroyer of capitalist society. This is a reaction to the "circulation theory", another of Keynes' ideas. This can also be a result of the "stimulus package" mentioned in the previous lines. The money from the "stimulus package" gets put into buisnesses which then spend money on other companies etc. The money is then spent the same way, going back into "circulation" as is to say. This does make Keynes a saviour of capitalist society, but that is without possible complications which i will now explain. Where the "Paradox of Thrift" comes into play is where rather than spending money, people will save it. The money which could have been spent on a buisness, is not spent which leads to the recievers also having to save money because of a lack of income. This does benefit the people saving, but the money is not going back into the economy, once again decreasing the GDP, the AD and increasing unemployment because buisnesses may save money by sacking employees. This increase in unemployment once again makes Keynes the destroyer of capitalist society.

To conclude, Keyens can be hailed as both the saviour and destroyer of capitalist system. While Keynes' ideas are exceptional on a temporary basis, like the "stimulus package", the after effects of his theories create astoundingly negative effects on the economy as a whole. The "circulation effect" cannot be wholly successful, especially when the results show increases in everything bad for the economy. Keynes can be hailed as the middle man of the capitalist system, his theories provide a good basis to becoming a saviour of economic growth, but some of the concequences or reactions to his theories could destroy the capitalist system.

Writing assignment: Gonzo Journalism

He was outside wokingham train station at about midday. He had a firm handshake and a relatively trusting voice as he said his greetings. He was dressed in a greay suit with a stripey gray tie. It looked a little cheap. He was also carrying a black case with a silver handle that looked rather old. He led me from the station down the road. While passing, the 12:31 to Reading had just pulled in. An idiot decided it would be a good idea to psuedo-heroically get across the level crossing while a train was at the station. Luckily for him it went the other way.

Walking from the station i asked mark about the current day. He had not been up to alot. He mentioned he had just released his manifesto on his website. Lots of people had apparently commented on it. "Some comments were good and some were bad" said Mark. "However, as a new politician that is expected." Another train went the other direction. It was the 12:36 to London Waterloo. The train had excessive graffiti on it. One drawing stated "cunt". It dictated a feel of anger and oppression. Mark commented that it was "disgusting".

Upon walking into town, he was harrassed by passers by. They were mainly women in their middle thirties. They said that his attempt at politics was futile. MArk ignored them but looked at the with a degree of sinicism and hate. He walked proud with his head held high. His steps were jagged, as if stumbling. The stony road was not the most even of things. It looked more like a crevis than a pathway. He crossed the road infront of a blue ford fiesta. It was one of those boy-racer types that cost about five pence to make. It had loud drum and base projecting out of the window.

He waved me into Cafe Nero. Lots of people recognised him. Some of the people were young kids that did not know who he was. He waved at them, and they nervously waved back. They seemed friendly. There was an old couple sat in the corner who also waved. Their wave included a happy smile which Mark reciprocated. He approached the counter. They employee asked what he would like. He was obviously a fan. They discussed the current political standings and asked what Mark thought the election outcome would be. Mark was certain it would be a hung parliament. The employee looked confused. He must not have had enough political intelligence to understand what was happening. MArk ordered a black coffee like it was all that he drunk in there. Lo and behold, it was his first ever visit to Cafe Nero. He said "it is important for a politician to be comfortable in all situations and surroundings". Another customer overheard and snarlled. Mark sat down in the middle of the room. Mark seemed to sink into the soft leather sofa as he gently sipped his coffee. He spoke of his current standings and his excitement for the election. He was sure he would not win a majority in wokingham, but he was confident in gaining some votes. His hand gestures were just as he spoke, conveying a positive and confident attitude towards anyone who took interest in his views.

About half way through his coffee, he was approached by another human. A tall man also dressed in a suit, but alot more groomed than Mark was. They spoke professionally about current affairs. However, there was a sense of tention between the two. The smartly dressed man turned out to be John Redwood. Wokinghams conservative representative. They continued to speak between themselves until Redwood departed with a sompetative handshake. Mark continued to sip at his coffee still discussing wokinghams future. He spoke of the development of a shopping centre and how he thought it would destroy the towns pub-managed economy. He said that getting rid of a pub in wokingham is like taking away steering from a car. It will go all over the place.

MArk finished his coffee with a refreshing breath. He left the premises and strolled into the heart of town. Outside the town hall he spoke to the mayor. The MAyor wished him good luck in his future endevour and parted with a firm handshake. He walked around the back of Iceland. He spoke of the day and said he had buisness to attend to. He enetered his car. It was quite a nice car for a politician, however he also owns a large company known as Trademark Windows. He drove a jet black Lexus which was highly polished.

He drove off with vigilance around the corner and left view. Walking home there were people talking about Mark.Mainly elderly ladies that mentionned that they saw him. When asked, they said that they wont vote for him because it would be a waste. He is not one of the main parties so it would be a waste. MArk was pleasant but lacked reality in what he was doing. He was not convinced that he wouldnt succeed. Still, His courage has led him to become a well known figure in Wokingham's society. It is a local town therefore everyone knows everyone. He was a pleasant man.

New journalism

In brief, New journalism was the introduction of literary techniques in reporting. Punny headlines we are so used to now are a result of Tom Wolfe's journalism. It brings flare and with certain linguistic techniques can also influence you.

Using onomatopoeia, like in Wolfe's book "The electric kool-aid acid test", can become catchy to a reader, cause imagery and make readers imagine things that they might not wish to, subconciously giving them ideas and views.

Headlines are not the only thing. Even in the reports themselves tom wolfe would use linguistic techniques such as alliteration, to grab the readers and make them read on. Readers subconciously submit to linguistic techniques without knowing which allows journalists to subliminally influence people, hence the great success of the Journalistic media nowadays.

Background of the Sexual Revolution

The sexual revolution was profoundly involved with the hippie culture of "free love" in the 60's - 70's. They believed that sex was a biological phenomenon and thus, lots of stonned orgies occured. Its background can go as far back as The Enlightenment (marquis de sade) and can even be traced back to the victorian era. You could look at it with the jacobean period also with the uprise of the Radical, diggers and levellers.

It is definately not a "holy thing" seeing as it the sexual revolution was at the time of the disregarding of christian power.

The mass media helped a great deal. Most americans now had television and decent radio, so the popularity of the "free love" culture was broadcasted world wide so people all over the world could be influenced by what they see and hear. The fact that few people owned these media outlets, meant that their views could be put into place (similar to the political swings of newspapers noweadays).

The introduction of the pill made contraception easy, so people were increasingly able to have free unprotected sex without the consequences of bastard children. Condoms were also mass produced.

And here comes frued!! Hearts for phycoanalysis. The whole oedipus complex arrose with children apparently wanting to shag their parents. The oedipus complex describes this. Oedipus's father gained a prophecy that his son would eventually kill him and marry his mother. After Oedipus was left in the forest to die, he returned, killed his father (which he didnt know) and married his mother. O dear.

William riech was also important to this. Mysteries of the organism was a revolutionary film and invoked the breaking down of "body armor" to cause "orgasm reflex" which linking to frued, braught back happy childhood memories, maybe causing desire for their parents.

All is prevalent to the sexual revolution as sex was seen as a way to break away from the boundries of society and power and was a leading factor for the 60's and 70's "free love"

The Assent

A great Existentialist film. I will only write a short para on it as most people watched it in the lecture last week.

AS we said the week before some existentialist films are pretty weird, and the assent was no exeption. Angles watching how we live from above is a strange concept to think of and to think about how they would percieve us is intersting. These Angles have no idea about anything we do or the reasons for doing so. The existentialist part comes in where one angel talks about he doesnt feel like he exists because all he does is watch people. He is envious on how people on the world can feel and experience emotions and tasks, as it means they have a history.

Overall it was a good film. If anyone didnt watch it i would recommend it to see a good tke of an existentialist film.

Existentialism

Existentialism is a strange philosophy to examine. If we take the main idea of it i.e, not caring about anything, or having no reason for doing things, it can take quite a strange route in the way we look at ourselves. Some people will say they dont care about something, at least once in their lives. But, normally it turns out they do. Is this Existential? The way people see reactions of uncaring people on their outer shells? It might not be as they may be doing it for a reason.

The idea that History stops you thinking that your nothing is quite an important one also. The only way we can clarify our existence is through historical things we have done in the past. As was said in the lecture, existence comes before essence, as our essence is determined by our existance.

There are a couple of films which are interesting to watch, and i do recommend watching them so you can see existentialism in a different light. Equilibrium is one them. It describes how humans greatest need is to feel like they exist, and the only way they do exist is be their history. The industry in the film believed that feelings and emotions took away your essence as sometimes you may become depressed, hyperactive etc. This would in tern change your essence and make it seem like something that can be played with. Everyone in the world of Equilibrium has no emotion, no feelings. This makes them Existential. An example of this would be the industries slaughtering of dogs. In a non existential world that would be an outrage because people care for a look after dogs. In the world of Equilibrium, this is not the case. The dogs were slaughtered because they changed peoples emotions, or essence.

The Matrix also encompasses some ideas of existentialism. People trapped inside the matrix are technically not using any of their true emotions because everything in the matrix does not exist, they are just computer programmes. Outside the matrix, in the real world, people who have been free'd can have a history, allowiing them to exist and have true emotions.

If anyone would like to add anything to this please comment.