I sometimes listen to Radio 2 Morning on CBC in the morning commute. It’s the most entertaining radio show I have ever heard, both musically and in prose. The songs are pure, simple, subtle, and sincere, both musically and lyrically, not overly sugary, forced, or over-the-top as I find some American music to be.
Prose is frequently entertaining. Yesterday, radio host Tom Allen told about a scientific study, conducted by English scientists from the prestigious University of Oxford, which cost British taxpayers 300,000 pounds. The study aimed to ascertain whether ducks preferred water in troughs, ponds, or rain. The study pointed out that ducks preferred rain.
Many farmers in England, as you might imagine, have a difficult time with so much British taxpayer money being appropriated for such a silly purpose. English farmers have known, colloquially, that ducks love the rain, for hundreds of years. They did not need 300,000 pounds to tell them this. They are understandably frustrated.
This is a silly story which brings up some important questions which are never discussed, but which should be:
Is it just to appropriate taxpayer money for scientific research? Where in the U.S. Constitution is such explicity justified? Did our Founding Fathers support such spending? Why do taxpayers not have a say in where their money goes and how it gets spent?
May 18, 2009
Movie Review: Last Chance Harvey
I enjoyed “Last Chance Harvey.” It’s a lightweight romantic film with some comedic elements.
The relationship is pretty virtuous: no sex and no super passionate kisses. No ridiculous compression of a healthy romantic relationship from months/years to hours. Profanity is limited. It’s a very lightweight PG-13 film.
It’s more of a drama about the power of human relationships than it is about romance. Roughly thirty minutes into the film, the two main characters feel at rock bottom. Both are incredibly lonely. One tries to find solace in hard alcoholic beverages. The other, in novels. Neither of these routes result in fulfillment. However, despite their disparate and isolated circumstances, these two forge a personal connection which results in a simple yet profound fulfillment, not crude and crass, nor transient and lustful.
In short, the film is a statement about the power of human relationships to heal, to change, to reconcile, and to bless. At least that is how I see it through my own paleoconservative eyes.
Others may view it differently.
1 Comment
Filed under Paleoconservatism, Personal, Social Commentary