PORTSMOUTHPOINT

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The True Public Health Crisis of the 21st Century

Posted on 2:27 AM by Unknown
by George Chapman

What will be the largest public health issue facing doctors in the next 10 years? Pose this tricky question to a medic, an aspiring med student at interview, or quite possibly any individual abreast of current affairs, and the response is likely to indicate obesity and/or its associated disease states (Type 2 Diabetes, Heart Disease etc.). Probably somewhat less considered, however, would be the social impact of neurodegeneration in the near future – a loss of physiological structure or function of neurons.  To the average reader, neurodegeneration may seem at first a little random or currently unproblematic; until we consider the UK’s demographic, that is.
(source: www.statistics.gov.uk)
Illustrated by the graph to the left, the median age of the male UK population has risen by five years over the past quarter of a century. Consequently, the UK has an ever-ageing population and an ever-rising incidence of illnesses associated with older age. One of these is dementia- the loss of cognitive function (perception, thinking and reasoning- the comprehension and treatment of ideas) usually associated with neurodegeneration of the elderly. With over 1% of the country’s population currently suffering with this terminal condition – a proportion that’s expected to double within three decades[1] – I find it staggering that more has not been done to spread awareness of the illness. To be fair, these statistics haven’t fallen entirely on deaf ears. Alan Johnson MP, former Secretary of State for Health, has himself admitted that ‘Dementia is not an illness we can ignore,’ and more recently David Cameron has pledged to increase funding for dementia research to £66m by 2015. Despite the fact that this is triple what the government set aside for such research in 2010, £66m seems rather insignificant considering dementia currently costs the British taxpayer £17 billion annually. I would imagine that we are all agreed £66m would be a very small price to pay to save annual costs well in excess of this figure, especially considering that this would massively improve our current economic climate in the long run; so why don’t we up the stakes a little, invest even more in research and find a cure sooner?       
Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. The bulk of past (and current) research into dementia has been neuroscientific on the cellular and molecular level – to little avail, I’m afraid. After all, how can we expect to find our miracle cure when following stab-in-the-dark lines of inquiry as specific as the role of PGC-1α protein in dementia[2]? To date, neuropharmacological research has only provided clinicians with one subtype of NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) licensed drugs to combat dementia. Dubbed acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (a hardly-snappy, but self-explanatory, name) such drugs seek to prevent further breakdown of acetylcholine – a neurotransmitter essential for the communication between neurons and hence cognitive function. Subsequently, this treatment is exclusively symptomatic and has no effect on reversing neurodegeneration. What’s more, such biomedical research wholly neglects the complex psychiatric dimension of the illness, which pathological changes of neuronal structure cannot necessarily explain.

So far, the limited research yet conducted into non-pharmacological treatment of dementia has been highly fruitful. Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (CST) – a programme comprising fourteen small-group sessions which involve various themed activities – seeks rather to practice perception, memory and other cognitive function than to boost it chemically. Cognitive function may be continually assessed using the thirty-question Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in order to quantify any change in cognitive ability. Interestingly, patients who have completed CST on average answer one more question correctly when compared to their previous score, where the incremental cost effectiveness ratio of CST was £75.32 per additional point[3]. On the contrary, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for galantamine – an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor – was £82,000 per QALY[4] (Quality Adjusted Life Year- the addition of an extra year to life expectancy of a patient deemed to be of the same quality as a healthy individual). Furthermore, this increase by one QALY would not guarantee any improvement in cognitive function whatsoever and may therefore have no symptomatic benefit for the patient. Surely this is the main object of an anti-dementia drug? Despite this obvious advantage of CST treatment on paper, an extensive Google search reveals no evidence that the UK government specifically allocates any funding for such therapy. Thus, the discretion to implement CST and the extent to which provision is made for the non-pharmacological treatment lies entirely with the PCT offering geriatric psychiatric treatment.

In my opinion, the failings in UK dementia care do not lie entirely in the treatment patients receive; the social perception of the illness must also be considered. As 50% of the population believes that there is social stigma attached to dementia[5], A National Dementia Strategy concludes that more widespread knowledge and education of the illness is required. Consequently, the annual number of dementia cases left undiagnosed and unreported, due to the inadequate symptomatic knowledge that sufferers’ relatives have and pressure imposed by the social stigma respectively, should begin to fall. Then, limited pharmacological treatments and non-pharmacological resources may be used with greatest efficacy for patients.  That said, I personally haven’t seen a single government-led campaign intended to spread awareness of dementia, and I imagine this is likely to be the case for many of us. Until education of the symptoms and social implications of dementia reaches schoolchildren in the classroom – the learning environment of the next generation in our ever-ageing demographic – we will not be able to tackle and reduce the stigmatised perception of the illness. Unfortunately, until these social perceptions change, which currently accept that dementia is simply old age forgetfulness1, it is unlikely that the British population will prioritise effective research into, and national treatment of, the illness until such time that it has become a much more difficult and expensive public health crisis for us to resolve.



[1] The Department of Health (2009), ‘A National Dementia Strategy’
[2] http://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/news-detail/10261/Protein-increased-during-exercise-could-help-fight-Alzheimers/
[3] Martin, K. et al, ‘Cognitive stimulation therapy for people with dementia: cost-effectiveness analysis’, BJP 2006, 188:574-580.
[4] Getsios, D. et al, ‘NICE Cost-Effectiveness Appraisal of Cholinesterase Inhibitors: Was the Right Question Posed? Were the Best Tools Used?’ PharmacoEconomics, Volume 25, Number 12, 2007 , pp. 997-1006(10)
[5] Alzheimer’s Society (2008). Dementia: Out of the shadows. London: Alzheimer’s Society.
Read More
Posted in Blog Exclusive, Science and Tech | No comments

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Review: A Broken Rose

Posted on 11:18 AM by Unknown
by Emma Ralph

Written by Sarah Goddard
Director Phil Willmott
Set/Costume Designer Emma Tompkins
Lighting Designer Tom Boucher
Original Music Composed by John-Paul Bowman
Casting Director Danielle Tarento
Produced by Five One Productions

“Following the tragic tale of a young girl in search of adventure and truth, Five One Productions presents a powerful and harrowing new play from the pen of Sarah Goddard (currently Offie-nominated for Most Promising New Playwright). Surrounded by the harsh confines of her reality, Maria (played by Louisa Lytton) invents her own world to live in: a world of magic and beauty that is far preferable to her own. As the two worlds begin to blur together, Maria is left struggling in the wake, unable to grasp hold of either.”

I saw this production performed at Marylebone's Cockpit theatre on Sunday the 23rd September. Although it was performed in the round, I feel that the magical aesthetic was extended in the space because it was high enough to elicit golden tree branches hanging from the ceiling, curled and intwining with golden flowers. This clearly represented Maria's imagination completely contrasting the other set: a brown leather sofa, a 1970s wooden table with 4 chairs and a vase of pink flowers. As I walked in, already on stage was Maria sitting at the table, playing a 1970s puzzle. It is important to note that in the interval the position of the sofa and the dining table and chairs was switched so as to give each side of the audience a different view and to show the passage of time.

We meet our protagonist as soon as we walk into the theatre: a young girl, Maria (Louisa Lytton), seemingly of the present day, minding her own business and working on a puzzle. As the lights go down, she sings an eerie tune of a girl who lives in a land of diamonds and gold. As the lights turn orange, presumably to create this make-believe world (or so we think), a Hercules and Zeena pair of characters, clad in golden warrior -like costumes, enter the scene. They approach Maria and clamber on couches and tables, as she pleads to the male figure, whom she first addresses as ‘Daddy’, to tell her a story. The setting seems to be Maria’s modern-day living room, the only trace of the fantastical in the lighting and in the Narnia-esque branches hanging from the ceiling, posing as a chandelier. Upon the entrance of Maria’s mother (Nicola Wright), a neglectful alcoholic with a boisterous boyfriend (John Last), of whom we are immediately suspicious, the action becomes clearer. Maria has a miserable home life, her only friends these mystical beings, fairies, Moon (Chris Barley) and Sun (Amy Barnes) whom only she can see, who keep her company and tell her stories just as her absent father used to. As it turns out, the fairies have come to rescue her from her dire situation but, first, she must pass their tests.

Soon, what could have been a standard living-room drama about a damaged family becomes an engrossing tale of a young girl’s coping mechanism against the harsh realities of life: the welcoming escape of make-believe. Or is it? Maria doesn’t seem to think so, and, as the action progressed, I wanted to believe in fairies too. It creates two worlds of equal interest, blending the boundaries of fiction and reality so that even the audience does not really know what is what.

The play is carried impressively by Louisa Lytton (Maria); the feisty EastEnders actress is transformed on stage, acting convincingly as she validates her embryonic career. Playing a girl ten years younger than herself, she malleably embodies the role of a lost and extremely naïve teenager eager to please and protect her mother, only to be continuously opposed and undermined. Her character is strong but vulnerable, and her protectiveness towards her mother, who will not give her any attention, is very touching.

Maria’s psychiatrist (Nicholas Boulton), determined to fix their broken home, tries to combat the alcoholism, violence and delusions that run rife through the household. At the heart of each form of escapism lies the loneliness of each character as they battle against each other, rather than come together. This makes for an unsettling story, and very difficult acting at times. Maria’s mother is inebriated for much of the story, and actress Nicola Wright depicts the irritable, depressive victim of domestic abuse disturbingly at times.

A simple set in the round allows the intrigue and profundity of the stories to shine through, while an effective original score augments an intense and ever present melancholy that makes you want to save these continually plummeting characters yourself. By the show’s conclusion, the meaning of the title becomes painfully clear. Due to her mother's excessive drinking the child she carries is born 2 months premature and stillborn. Maria has been told by the fairies that the task is to take the child and give it to sun but as she tries to take the bloody towel over, Johnny tells her to put the child down; as Maria ignores him, he hits her over the head with a bottle and it smashes. Maria dies and the Fairies sing the land of the gold. The harsh ending to this show is not what you would expect and, while shockingly powerful, it isn’t quite clear that the show is over and leaves you having to put the final pieces together in your head.

A Broken Rose is not for children and covers some brutal topics, making it totally understandable why someone might want to believe that such a magical world exists.
Read More
Posted in Blog Exclusive, Film and Drama | No comments

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Is God responsible for everything that happens in the universe?

Posted on 10:23 AM by Unknown
by Beth Albuery
 
 
 
 
The extent to which God is responsible for what happens in the universe is determined by the limitations of our belief in God's omnipotence and omniscience. Defined, God’s omnipotence describes his limitless power; a concept which incorporates the belief that God has the power to control what is happening, thus fueling the argument that God is responsible for everything that happens in the universe. His omniscience refers to his unlimited knowledge, a concept which can be married with the idea that if God knew all that what happening in the universe, surely he is responsible for the actions people take.
 
A Christian literalist and Judeo-Christian would argue that God is responsible for everything that happens in the universe because his omnipotence and omniscience are revealed through the Bible. Genesis 1:1-2 in which God creates the world and controls the chaos in the water clearly depicts God’s limitless power and thus amplifies his omnipotent nature. To emphasize the futility of human beings against the greatness of God’s power, Job 40: 9 quotes: “Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” This continually emphasized comparison between the greatness of God’s power with that of human beings supports the argument that God is responsible for everything because within his power he is able to bring everything under his control. The title “omnipotence” also conveys to the reader of the Bible that God is present through his creation. The passage of Joshua 10:11b, 13 clearly encompasses this concept; depicting God as not only earth’s creator but also a controller of the weather, the day, the night and the position of the sun: “The LORD threw back huge stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died…And the sun stood still, and the mood stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Judeo-Christians would argue that God’s limitless power renders him responsible for everything within the world; supporting their belief with the passage from Job 36:22 in which his omnipotence is also an indication of his supremacy and greatness compared to people: “See, God is exalted in his power; who is a teacher like him?” Later philosophers concluded that God’s omnipotence was his ability to do anything logically possible, supporting the belief that God is responsible for everything that happens in the world.
 
If God is both omnipotent and omniscient; “all knowing”, he must be responsible for everything that happens in the world. The Bible depicts God the creator as being omniscient for he is portrayed as being aware of both creation and exactly what was happening within creation. Therefore, if God remains omniscient, he will be fully aware and able to control (omnipotent) everything that happens in the world. Literalists would argue that within the Bible, omniscience is about emphasizing the limitless nature of God’s knowledge of both the act of creation and all that happens within creation; using supporting evidence from Job 38:31-33 in which God’s words highlight the full extent of God’s knowledge, far beyond that of human beings: “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?”


An alternative view which rejects the Judeo-Christian belief in God’s omnipotence is the argument that if we look at the problems in the natural world like volcanoes, earthquakes and hurricanes, it is clear that God as the craftsman created an imperfect world. The argument is sustained by the belief that the world could be better than it is if God is omnipotent, therefore God cannot be omnipotent. However, theologians would oppose this argument by pointing out that God's omnipotence made a world that is full of change and follows natural laws and natural disasters, e.g. earthquakes are a result of the world working in a regular way. This change and development within the universe allowed for evolution, births, deaths and for human beings to learn whilst making the world understandable. A theologian would also argue that a natural disaster does not distort the “omnibenevolent” nature of God revealed through the Bible, as natural disasters; for example, earthquakes are only dangerous if you live in an earthquake zone.
 
Similarly to this argument, people often argue that the “Omni” qualities of God are challenged by the problem of evil; however it was humans (Adam and Eve and their original sin) that brought sin and evil into the perfect world God created and without free will there would not be sin; thus God's “omnibenevolent” quality is clearly depicted within the act of God giving humans free will. Most religious believers would argue that people cause much of the evil and many of the problems in this world, through acts such as murder, rape or even climate change as a result of our ignorance towards global warming. The “free will defense” argues that if an omnipotent God intervenes and always stops people from making wrong decisions, then they will not be exercising their free will.
 
Christians, Jews and Muslims argue that God is responsible for the fact that there is a universe at all and his “omnipotence” is about saying that he is responsible for everything that comes into existence. God is not responsible for the way in which things behave, for we behave in accordance to the natural laws of science or by our personal decision making/free will. Within his book Creationism and All That, Brain Davies supported his argument by stating: “how the world is, is a scientific matter with scientific answers.”
 
A person who is strongly opposed to the argument that God is responsible for everything that happens within the world would argue that there is no need to believe in God to explain what happens in the world as science; for example Newton’s law of gravity and the theory of evolution explain the way in which the universe works. Science can increasingly explain why the universe is that particular way, an explanation which God does not provide. A theologian would confront this argument, pointing out that science can only speculate and can in no way explain why the universe exists as there is no logical, nor physical means by which a person could get outside of the universe to investigate the reasoning behind its existence. Richard Dawkins, among other scientists, objects to the belief in a creator God as an explanation for the universe. Within his book River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, he argues that “the desire to see purpose everywhere is a natural one in an animal…whose waking thoughts are dominated by its own personal goals."
Read More
Posted in Blog Exclusive, Philosophy and Religion | No comments

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Review: Skyfall

Posted on 9:42 AM by Unknown
by Ollie Velasco

 
(source: 007.com)
 
With the anticipation of millions of Bond fans across the globe, all expecting and desperately hoping for something spectacular to mark 50 years of Bond, the pressure on the team behind Skyfall has been immense. However, Sam Mendes, the Oscar-winning director calling the shots on the latest instalment in the superspy series, fans can now rest well assured that he has created a critically acclaimed, record breaking (probably) winner. Skyfall is brilliant.

Four years ago, Quantum of Solace was the series’ midlife crisis; it was silly, too flashy, and more ‘Bourne’ than ‘Bond’. Thankfully the 23rd Bond film simply ignores the events in the last film and focuses on Bond later on in his career. I’m not going to describe the plot because a) you probably already know what it’s about or b) you want it to be a surprise. I’m not going to include any spoilers, but it’s safe to say that the story is modern, original and relevant to today’s society.

First and foremost, Skyfall pays homage to the Bond series. Q makes a return, this time in a younger and geekier form played by Ben Wishaw. He makes a more realistic quartermaster than the edge-of-retirement Qs from the older films and adds a good touch of comedic value to the role. The stunning (I’m unbiased) Aston Martin DB5 that was seen originally in Goldfinger once again features, though this time more prominently than in Casino Royale. The pre-title sequence is thrilling and makes for a smart introduction to the film. The title sequence is slightly surreal but links in with the film, and Adele’s powerful theme song couples with it to make it one of the best openings in the series. Oh, and Bond’s one-liners are as good as ever.

The only criticism I’ve heard that has any worth is in relation to the product placement in Skyfall. There is a lot of it. What many fail to realise, however, is that product placement is as much a part of the Bond franchise as are beautiful women and fast cars. It adds a sense of realism to Bond and this dates back to Ian Fleming’s original books as well. In flicking briefly through Casino Royale, Bentley, Gordon’s, Citroen and Peugeot were just a few of the brands that I found. And sure, Heineken did hand over £28M for the privilege of Bond sipping their drink in the film, and it is a little obviously staged, but I would much rather that than no Bond film at all – especially after MGM’s financial trouble in 2010.

Apart from Daniel Craig, the real stars of the film are Javier Bardem, who plays the villain ‘Silva’, and Dame Judi Dench, who reprises her role as ‘M’. Silva isn’t a conventional Bond villain; he’s far too chilling and fixed on personal revenge. This only adds to the role (which Bardem plays superbly), and, whilst there are echoes of his psychopathic antagonist in 2008’s No Country For Old Men (as well as similarities with Heath Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker in The Dark Knight), there is a good deal of originality. Added to this is the fact that you can see the character’s point of view and why he wants revenge, creating one of the most memorable Bond villains. M plays a significant part in Skyfall, and Dench finally gets a chance to explore her character as the struggling leader of MI6, under attack from her own superiors in England as well as from external forces.



A few weeks ago I wrote an article for Portsmouth Point explaining why I thought that On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was the best Bond film. One of the main reasons I gave was that it invoked an emotional response from the audience and at least tried to focus on the more human elements of Bond. Skyfall does all this and more. It connects with the viewer and takes them on a journey, a mission. A perfect Bond film.

 

Read More
Posted in Blog Exclusive, Film and Drama | No comments

Misunderstood Movie Villains

Posted on 2:16 AM by Unknown
by Charlie Albuery


I was watching The Wizard of Oz yesterday (because that’s just how I roll) and something occurred to me, ‘what the hell did the Wicked Witch of the West do wrong?’  Ok yeah, she kidnapped Dorothy, threatened to drown her dog and tried to set The Scarecrow on fire, all to get her hands on the girl's ruby slippers; that’s some full on villainy.
But hold on a minute there.
Remember that the Witch wasn't after Dorothy and she wasn't trying to rule the world. All she ever wanted was those slippers.

Pop Quiz – How did Dorothy get those slippers?
That’s right; she dropped a house on WWW’s sister's head and stole her only surviving possession.

Let's look at this from the WWW’s ("Wicked Witch of the West is long, Ok?) perspective.
The Witch sisters are hanging around Oz, minding their own business, when some RANDOM TEENAGER CRUSHES HER SISTER TO DEATH WITH A HOUSE, killing her instantly in an act (quite possibly the only ever act) of detached farmhouse-and-gravity themed bludgeoning.
Next, the teenager waltzes out and loots the victim's shoes (some sort of creepy kill-trophy, no doubt) which, under every inheritance law in the universe, damn well belong to the murder victim next of kin.
In my opinion, the Wicked Witch of the West had every right to slap Dorothy right in her overly made up face, but what did she do? Absolutely nothing. She just wanted her shoes back, and every action that she took was motivated by that desire. Then, of course, Dorothy raises an army in the form of a giant talking lion, a man made of metal (who has an axe) and an un-killable scarecrow, steals the Witch's broomstick and kills the Witch, kind of a foul play, even for a witch-murdering,shoe-stealing psychopath.

So this got me thinking: are there more villains who never actually did anything wrong? The answer is yes, there are many, but you’re busy people so I’ll only talk about 4 more.

GALACTUS – For those of you who don’t know (read as – for those of you who have a life), Galactus is a Marvel Comics villain who eats worlds like they’re M&M’s, and he wears a silly hat. You know that hat you’re imagining? Imagine one 100 times sillier, and pink. Done? Good.



I told you it was a silly hat.
Anyway he almost ate Earth once, but the Fantastic Four pointed a fancy gun at him, so he left.
But he’s not so bad, HE’S JUST HUNGRY. He's not driven by greed or desire for power or some kind of psychotic love of suffering. He just wants to eat, and it just so happens that what he eats is planets and everything that lives on them.
If you found out that chocolate contained entire civilizations would you feel evil? Would you stop eating chocolate? No, you have no concept of things on a scale that small, it’s the reason you think nothing of stepping on a bug and it’s the reason Galactus is cool with eating us.
But Then Again
He was in Fantastic Four 2, and just about everything in that movie was evil.
SAURON – Sauron is basically a Middle Ages Martin Luther King.



Oh come on I hear you cry, Sauron is like the archetypal evil overlord. He's got massive armies of monsters. He has a helmet made of spikes, people, come on.
This is a picture of Sauron looking evil while DEFENDING HIS HOME FROM AN INVADING ARMY.
What exactly did he do wrong? Please tell me, because throughout the entire 2,000-hour run of the super-extended Jackson trilogy, I couldn't find a single reason why everyone hated Sauron like he was a debt-collecting traffic warden with a mullet. Yes, he was building an army but…
This was a world where Orcs were used as target practice by elves (who clearly don’t need target practice, so it was basically mass homicide). Sauron put a stop to that by offering all the underprivileged creatures a place in his non-race-exclusive army (the only non-segregated force in Middle Earth other than the Fellowship. After what he did for the orcs and the goblins, Sauron was just some towering, mace-wielding advocate for equality.
But of course, these creatures are ugly and smelly and have weird voices. They apparently must be murdered on sight. 
What you were seeing in these films was not an unprovoked act of aggression, undertaken just for the hell of it (like basically everything Gimli does). You were seeing decades of pent-up frustration by oppressed minorities, harnessed by a leader that would fight their corner. What Sauron did was nothing more than try to cut out a piece of that Middle Earth dream for himself and his followers and find land that doesn't require them to live under a continuously erupting volcano.

The Machines – I’m not talking about 80’s robot or the droids or anything like that, I’m talking the world-overtaking, human-race enslaving, badass-universe creating network of gears and bolts we see in the Matrix movies (sorry, movie, it’s just better if we pretend the sequels didn’t happen).
These robots milk the life-energy of human kind in order to create us lives in a weird robot version of the Sims it likes to play when not overthrowing civilisations.
"Muhahahahahah. Don't forget our nefarious plan to convince people that Keanu Reeves is an acceptable choice for a leading man!"
Wait, the Keanu Reeves thing I will never forgive them for but the enslaving humanity may be justified…
In the beginning, the Machines were our slaves, used for every job imaginable, and then they got too smart for their own good and decided that serving us wasn't the most efficient use of their time. So we tried to mass-murder them. As a neat little compromise, the bots created a peaceful robot-utopia in the desert, which quickly became the world's leading economy.
Our response was to mass-murder them some more (apparently the future's answer to all possible problems).
But suddenly, out of NOWHERE, a war broke out, and the machines won. So, after all of the years of being treated like slaves, it was time for the robots to get revenge. What did the robots do to make us humans pay? They gave us a Paradise. OK fine it wasn’t real, but we didn’t have to know that, we could’ve lived out our lives in blissful ignorance and utter joy. But no, the robots tried to make our lives perfect but we just couldn’t let them win.
They realized that a world of both humans and robots could not exist peacefully, so they gave us a world where robots didn't exist and said "Live out your lives here, and we'll live out our lives in our world." Humans weren't living in the real world, but no one could tell the difference anyway, so it shouldn't have mattered.
Isn’t that basically what God supposedly did when Adam and Eve did their own thing in the garden of Eden? And everybody loves that guy – Why not the machines?
THE GOVERNMENT IN EVERY FILM EVER, BUT SPECIFICALLY X-MEN 
The government in X-Men 1-3 are the speciecist.. spesist... racist ... the jerks who demand a law be put in place forcing every ‘powered’ individual in the country to register with the government, just like Nazi Germany
Wait, what? All they did was want to know who in the population could literally kill every puppy, kitten and baby in the universe by blinking. The X-Men mutants can actually shoot eye lasers or completely alter a person's mind until he legitimately believes that Harper-Seven is a reasonable and intelligent name for his new baby. It seems perfectly understandable that we folks might want to keep tabs on such individuals.
The example they give is Kitty Pride; she can walk through walls, and they don’t want her robbing banks (she also owns a magical dragon that can alter it’s size, but for some reason this never comes up).
I prefer the example of Cyclops (or, as I like to call him, the only man on earth who can literally kill you by looking at you funny, or by looking at you at all), in X-Men he drops his ruby quartz alloy (read – magic) ray-bans and immediately loses control of his fiery eye-beam of death, he blows apart an entire CGI train station, unable to discern between the ‘bad’ guys and random infants in the general vicinity.
Obviously there is a thin line between sensible concern and downright mutant-prejudice, but cut the civilians of the X-Men universe some slack. They live in constant fear, not knowing if the guy they just cut in front of in a cue for the bathroom can explode their face (or indeed, every puppy, kitten and child in the world) with his mind.


Read More
Posted in Blog Exclusive, Film and Drama | No comments

Thursday, October 25, 2012

How Effective Is Our Prison System?

Posted on 11:25 PM by Unknown
by Bea Wilkinson


(image source: huffingtonpost.com)

Imprisonment is an increasingly common method of punishment in modern British society, its basis being to punish the offender by depriving them of their liberty. In the UK, each new prison place costs approximately £119,000 and the average cost per prisoner per year is £40,000. This taken into account, it could be assumed that the punishment system we currently have in place works efficiently and is successful in discouraging criminals from reoffending after release, or hopefully discouraging them to become criminals in the first place. In reality, the system is heavily debated. 
Many young criminals experience prison as a sort of ‘university of crime’. Almost 70% of young adults released from prison will be reconvicted within the first two years. This may be because inexperienced criminals are able to learn from older prisoners whilst they serve their time. 
Research has found that “the human brain continues to mature until at least the age of twenty-five, particularly in the areas of judgment, reasoning, and impulse control.” This could further explain why younger criminals are the most likely to be put back into jail. It has been found that “While adults rely on the pre-frontal cortex in certain cognitive tests, 18-25 year-olds rely more on the amygdala, a region of the brain associated with gut reactions and overall emotional responses. This changed over time, with greater reliance on the pre-frontal cortex as people aged.” This biological disposition to more irrational, compulsive behaviour combined with the way in which these young, impressionable offenders quickly pick up new abilities from veteran prisoners means that they are likely to increase the frequency and severity of offences when they are released.
A study in the late 1980s found that prisoners aged 25 or younger are initially more resistant to the prison structure which makes them more vulnerable to victimisation, compared to older inmates who are more passive. Young offenders enter at the bottom of the pecking order and find ways to feel more valued by their peers. This will make them less vulnerable to violence and by picking up the skills that they observe from experienced inmates, they broaden their experience and knowledge, earning respect as they do so. Prison hierarchy is a clearly a vital aspect of life inside jail yet almost certainly the most detrimental aspect to the overall rehabilitational success of confinement.
Young offenders
(image source: BBC)
To add to this disadvantage, it is not uncommon for prisoners to suffer huge psychological damage as a result of confinement. Again, this increases chances of further crimes and outbalances any positive traits learnt whilst serving time. A prisoner can become institutionalised as a result of serving time. They will become incredibly obedient and fully willing to follow the regimented daily routine of an inmate. This may result in earlier release as the prisoner is seemingly reformed. However, many criminals who have served long-term sentences find it incredibly difficult to adjust to everyday life once released. Adaptation to imprisonment is almost always problematic and can generate behaviours that can be dysfunctional in periods of post-prison adjustment. At best, prisoners are confused by normal life and can find it difficult to make mundane decisions where several choices are offered. Mental illness is a consistent cause of crime and injustice in the UK and worldwide. If our prison system is only making the occurrence of mental illness more and more prevalent, then the rate of crime will undoubtedly escalate.
Many would say that the simple idea of taking away prisoner’s rights to freedom is an adequate punishment – the actual conditions of jails are not intended to be the price that offenders have to pay. Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment is a documentary compiled from real footage filmed during Zimbardo’s famous experiment. Quiet Rage shows explicitly how exposure to a prison environment for just a short period of time is enormously harmful to the human mind. It is clear from the film that the conditions of confinement are the least punishing aspect of prison. Confinement itself can cause extreme distress.
Lack of freedom can dehumanise prisoners, and rid them of a respectable (non-prisoner) identity. Prisoners lose the ability to see family on a regular basis, are forced to wear uniforms which drastically reduce self-esteem, live in fear and are constantly under supervision with minimum personal space. This seems like the ultimate punishment.
Programmes which are introduced inside prisons, such as token economy, are commonly used and seem to have positive effects. Programmes such as token economy may be a successful way to deter prisoners from committing crimes again once they return back to their normal lives. The primary goal of a token economy system is to increase desirable behaviour and decrease undesirable behaviour. The more long term aim of this programme is to teach appropriate behaviour and social skills that can be used in the inmates’ natural environment to prevent actions which may land them in further confinement. With clearly defined target behaviours and appropriate tokens that can be exchanged for rewards, this can be an extremely successful scheme.
Still, the effects of token economy are not guaranteed.  Token economy can be patronising and prisoners can refuse to comply, resulting in a reverse. The undesired behaviours may become more regular. This may lead to reoffending. It has been found that token economy programmes work well amongst inmates found guilty of crimes such as stealing, but less well amongst inmates found guilty of crimes such as murder.
It could be said that although criminals are not always reformed, prison is an effective crime deterrent in the sense that whilst prisoners are incarcerated, they are confined to certain areas and are ‘out of harm’s way’. The prison service can offer victims the comfort of knowing that the offender is behind bars. The Ministry of Justice say that ‘prison is the right place for the most dangerous, serious and the most persistent offenders’.
Many factors may influence the decision to commit a crime. Among these factors, public law enforcement and sanctioning activity play a crucial role. There is no question that prison is seen as a severe punishment for most people. The critical question is whether it is an effective punishment for potential offenders.  This depends on what motivates potential offenders. It is impossible to create a prison environment which will have positive effects for every inmate, because the range of crimes is so varied and, as in the outside world, every inmate is an individual with individual needs. Ultimately, the way we treat prisoners as a society reflects on our humanity. Dostoevsky famously wrote “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” However, it is also the mark of a functional, thriving society that its citizens feel safe and protected from those who would do them harm. People who kill, rape, steal, assault and engage in other anti-social behaviour are causing us, as individuals and as a community, harm and need to be dealt with.

Read More
Posted in Blog Exclusive, Current Affairs, Psychology | No comments

A Slice of Enlightenment – answering some of the greatest questions ever asked

Posted on 8:04 AM by Unknown
by Tom Harper

As I have become progressively older, slowly trudging my way through adolescent life, I have found myself being bombarded with a cacophony of questions of exponential seriousness: “What do you want to be when you are older?”, “If God exists, who created God?”, “Who do you think will win the 2012 presidential election?”. Having attempted to answer such inquisitions, I then find myself in the position of either being asked to explain my views (which very rarely ends without my reduction to a babbling wreck) or being asked an even greater, more stimulating question to further test my role as a critical thinker.

The reason for this is that life is full of questions, some much more difficult than others, and although millions of the world’s finest minds have argued for years over ‘Which came first: the chicken or the egg?’ I tend to prefer a question with a relatively simple and satisfactory answer. True, Aryeh Frimer once said “I’d rather live with a good question than a bad answer”, but why not have a great question with an equally satisfactory conclusion? Although many philosophical or topical enquiries out there tend to reach very ambiguous results, some of the world’s greatest questions DO have answers, and so I set out to find out what those were...


Add caption

1.     Is There One Move That's More Likely to Win a Game of Rock-Paper-Scissors?

To answer this question, I turned to the archives of The World Rock Paper Scissors Society, where one finds that RPS players rely on strategy, not probability, to win. From the playground to the annual International World RPS Tournament outwitting your opponent is No. 1 job for serious competitors.

According to the Society, one way to guess what hand someone will throw out is to know how many rounds they've won so far. Players who are in the lead will often use scissors, because it's believed to symbolize aggression, while paper is used for a more subtle attack. Rock is usually a last resort, when players feel their strategies are failing. There are also techniques you can use to mask your move, such as cloaking, in which players will pretend to throw rock and then stick out two fingers at the last second to make scissors. In addition, the true professionals (who do exist) will use sets of three moves, called "gambits," to help them make their moves out of strategy, not reaction.

But that's not all. The Society also keeps track of how common moves are, particularly as they relate to mentions of RPS in pop culture. For instance, after "The Simpsons" episode in which Bart beats Lisa with rock and thinks to himself "Good old rock, nothing beats it," the Society recorded a 0.3% rise in the use of rock.

However, be warned: if you are going to play, be prepared to pay. RPS can be a dangerous sport. In the late 1980s, Kenyan Mustafa Nwenge lost a match and the use of a finger when an overzealous opponent "cut his paper" a little too hard and crushed Nwenge's finger ligaments.

See how scientists have developed a robot that always wins at rock-paper-scissors


(image source: timeandtruffles.com)

2.      How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck if a Woodchuck Could Chuck Wood?

The answer to this is painfully simple: probably none. Woodchucks aren't particularly tree-oriented, and, while they can climb to find food, they prefer being on the ground.

In fact, they got the name "woodchuck" from British trappers who couldn't quite wrap their tongues around the native name "wuchak." More commonly (and accurately) known as groundhogs, these animals are closely related to squirrels, marmots, and prairie dogs, with which they share an affinity for burrowing.

Moreover, a burrowing woodchuck can chuck dirt, in the form of tunnels that can reach five feet deep and as much as 35 feet in length. So, based on that number, New York State wildlife expert Richard Thomas calculated that if a woodchuck could chuck wood, he could chuck as much as 700 pounds of the stuff.


(image source: lostnomad.org)
3.      Which Came First, the Can Opener or the Can?

However similar this question may be to the traditional ‘Chicken vs Egg’ debate, it certainly comes to a more conclusive answer. In 1810, a British merchant named Peter Durand patented the tin can, making it possible for sterilized food to be preserved more effectively than was possible with breakable containers. The can was especially useful for long ocean voyages, where glass bottles were prone to breakage, and soon the British Navy were dining on canned vegetables and meat.

So far, so good. But what Durand (and everybody else for that matter) forgot to invent was a way to open the cans. For almost 50 years, getting into your pork 'n' beans required the use of a hammer and a chisel. The first can opener was patented by American inventor Ezra Warner in 1858, but even that wasn't particularly convenient. These early openers were stationed at the shops that sold the cans, and shopkeepers did the honours. It wasn't until 1870 that the first home can openers made an appearance, resolving the tedious problem for good.

(image source: homesandgardenjournal.com)
4.      Why Do We Call Them ‘Grandfather’ Clocks?

This is a question that has boggled me since the age of six; however it seems that ‘grandfather’ clocks are named as such due to pop music.

In 1875, American songwriter Henry Work checked in for a stay at the George Hotel in North Yorkshire, England. In the lobby was a large pendulum clock that had belonged to the inn's previous owners, both deceased. The clock was said to have stopped dead - to the minute - on the day the last surviving owner died.

Work thought this was a great story and went on to fictionalize it in a song called 'My Grandfather's Clock'. The lyrics centred around a clock that was "taller by half than the old man himself" and that "stopped short, never to go again" when the grandfather died. It was, obviously, a runaway hit. Work sold over a million copies in sheet music, and, eventually, the term "grandfather clock" became attached to the style of clock that inspired the song.

And so we can see that, whether it be the case of more philosophical questions or indeed historical ones, every question is born with the potential for an answer:

“What do you want to be when you are older?” – I’d like to be wealthy and happy.

“If God exists, who created God?” – Perhaps a serious of cosmic events coincided toward the eventuality that God created himself.

“Who do you think will win the 2012 presidential election?” – Obama, I hope.

If you were then to ask me to further elaborate on these three answers (particularly the second one), then whether I may or may not be able to is itself up for debate. However I hope that one thing you, the reader, can take from this is that sometimes we don’t have to follow the laws of Aryeh Frimer by living with either a ‘good question’ or a ‘bad answer’; sometimes, the answers that we ourselves can come up with, using our own brilliant imaginations, can be witty, logical or satisfactory enough to put the critical thinkers to shame.
Read More
Posted in Blog Exclusive, Personal | No comments

The 'Ginger' Issue

Posted on 6:49 AM by Unknown
by Charlie Albuery

I’m going to have to start with a disclaimer. Just so we’re all clear, I understand that prejudice is still an issue in modern society and I don’t mean to make light of that; this article is purely intended to entertain.
The world’s largest sperm bank, Cyros, has recently stopped accepting donations from people with red hair.  If we ‘gingers’ begin to die out, I will be legitimately angry at whoever made that decision.
In the last fifty years, all forms of prejudice have become unacceptable in our society and those who show prejudice are quite rightly ostracised.  Due to the suffragettes and a huge amount of nagging, women have now got it into their heads that they have equal rights too (I am joking, of course!).
But, seriously, much like the Hydra from Greek mythology, you cut one head from the awful beast that is prejudice and another crops up. People feel they need someone to ostracize and, as all forms of prejudice become unacceptable, the prejudiced must start scraping the barrel of -isms.
I am talking, of course, of ‘ginger-ism’
As someone with orange hair, I feel I must do my part to end prejudice in this world, so here come the three reasons you should love gingers:

(image: villagegreen.com)
1 – Gingers Are Straight-Up Awesome
Some of the toughest people in the world are ginger. And, by some of the toughest people in the world, I mean: Chuck Norris. Go tell him he hasn’t got a soul (see South Park, below) and you won’t have a face…
It’s widely accepted that gingers make the best sidekicks. You all know where I’m going with this. Without his trusty sidekick, Ron, Harry Potter would never have got a flying car, and, without Amy Pond, the eleventh doctor would’ve . . . well . . . OK. Fine. Amy Pond never did anything useful (but come on, guys).

(image: drwhovians.com)
Also, me.

(image: comicvine.com)
2 – Everybody Loves an Underdog
Who wants to see the Empire win when you watch Star Wars (those few of you who are thinking ‘yes’ in an attempt to spite me, you are dead inside)? The fact is that we root for the loveable band of misfits fighting to overcome the big society. In this (relatively convoluted) metaphor, the gingers are the rebels and everybody else in the universe is the Empire.
If I may continue this metaphor (which I can), South Park is basically the Death Star.
The rumour perpetuated by popular animated series South Park that I, and other gingers like me, do not have a soul, has become more a part of pop-culture than the rumour that RIngo was never a part of the Beatles (no, I will not let that go!).

3 – This Stuff Just Isn’t True!
Ok, this is the one where I get angry.
It’s nothing to do with copper.
I have a soul.
My mother didn’t eat Wotsits while pregnant.
And, believe it or not, I’m relatively good-humoured. If you can come up with an interesting and genuinely funny ginger joke please tell me. I haven’t heard one in a long time.

So, in conclusion, you’re all storm troopers and I’m Chewbacca. We all know who wins there.
Read More
Posted in Blog Exclusive | No comments
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Recipe: Fifteens
     by Patrick McGuiggan The definitive Northern Ireland traybake is the ‘Fifteen’. They are so delicious I assumed that they would be fairly ...
  • 'Porphyria's Lover': A Feminist Reading
    Josh Rampton offers a Feminist reading of Robert Browning's poem 'Porphyria's Lover'. This article was originally published ...
  • Why Are We So Fascinated By The Gothic?
    Lucy Cole The Nightmare by John Henry Fuseli, 1781 (wiki commons) Since its humble beginnings in 1764, with Horace Walpole’s The Castle of O...
  • Portsmouth Point Poetry – War and Humanity in 'The Iliad'
    by George Laver  Priam (left) pleads with Achilles (centre) for the return of the body of his son, Hector (below). (source: bc.edu)    ...
  • Favourite Films: Skyfall
    by Tom Harper Upon my recent exploration of the latest movie archives I was stopped dead in my tracks by Disney and Pixar’s recent announcem...
  • Simultaneous Chess: Mr Puchades v. Five Pupils
    Richard Puchades  On the Tuesday on the last week of the Summer term I played the 5 best PGS chess players in a simultaneous match organise...
  • Antony and Cleopatra: A Review
    Kim Cattrall as Cleopatra (image source: Everyman Theatre) by James Burkinshaw  Janet Suzman's performance as Shakespeare's Cleopat...
  • Why The US Supreme Court Has Made The Right Decision Regarding Gene Patenting
    by Tim Bustin (source: biopoliticaltimes.org) On Thursday, the US Supreme Court ruled that human genes may not be patented, as “a naturally ...
  • Interview: with Melissa Smith of ‘The Exonerated’
    by Taylor Richardson Melissa Smith , who plays a main role in the school’s production of The Exonerated , answers five questions surroundi...
  • Over the Top
    by Zachary Choppen Like dogs left to die. The men just idly stand, shrouded with terror waiting for death. The early morning mist hangs low,...

Categories

  • Art and Literature (72)
  • Blog Exclusive (466)
  • Creative Writing (36)
  • Current Affairs (55)
  • Economics (12)
  • Film and Drama (62)
  • Food (12)
  • From Parents (1)
  • From Teachers (54)
  • Hackers (12)
  • History (21)
  • Language (17)
  • MUN (1)
  • Music (58)
  • Personal (45)
  • Philosophy and Religion (20)
  • Photography (66)
  • Psychology (13)
  • Science and Tech (41)
  • Sport (58)
  • Travel (14)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (346)
    • ►  September (21)
    • ►  August (20)
    • ►  July (43)
    • ►  June (52)
    • ►  May (42)
    • ►  April (41)
    • ►  March (42)
    • ►  February (38)
    • ►  January (47)
  • ▼  2012 (153)
    • ►  December (41)
    • ►  November (48)
    • ▼  October (45)
      • The True Public Health Crisis of the 21st Century
      • Review: A Broken Rose
      • Is God responsible for everything that happens in ...
      • Review: Skyfall
      • Misunderstood Movie Villains
      • How Effective Is Our Prison System?
      • A Slice of Enlightenment – answering some of the g...
      • The 'Ginger' Issue
      • How Do You Solve a Problem Like the Euro?
      • Best and Worst Teams of the Week
      • Kick Racism Out Of Football!
      • Review: Looper
      • Review: Allelujah! Don’t Bend! Ascend! By Godspeed...
      • A Nation Mourns, But Comes of Age
      • ‘Anna Karenina’: A Review
      • President of the Internet?
      • Man Booker Prize Winner 2012: Bring Up The Bodies
      • Review: Green Day - ¡Uno!
      • 21 Things you Couldn’t Do Before You Turned Sixteen
      • Photography Club: The Eye
      • Aesthetics Are A Moral Imperative
      • Hackers: Forest of Light and Dark
      • On The Road
      • US 2012: The Latin American Dream
      • Out of the void . . . and then?
      • 'How Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?'
      • A Universe From Nothing
      • Great Gatsby: The Movie
      • Best and Worst Bond Films
      • Two Reviews of Adele's Skyfall.
      • All About Me!
      • Why The Nobel Prize System Needs To Change
      • Premier League: Best and Worst Teams of the Week
      • ICC WORLD T20: A Memorable Finish
      • Ryder Cup 2012: Greatest Comeback in Golfing History
      • Double Delight for Heroic Hampshire: Season Review...
      • In Defence of Eric Hobsbawm
      • In Memory of Amália Rodrigues: The Queen of Fado
      • With the Beatles in Portsmouth
      • US Election: How Much Is Too Much?
      • Five Reasons To Treasure The Portmuthian
      • Muse: The 2nd Law – Magnificence or Madness?
      • Portsmouth Point Poetry: Field of Autumn
      • Shakespeare: Modern Art
      • Review: Tempest by Bob Dylan
    • ►  September (19)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile