I have decided I want to try and start writing on here again. I don’t know about what, or why, but quite possibly about medieval history and my general thoughts. Which was always the intention anyway!
Author Archives: bigfozziebear
GlaMUN: A brief history
Hello all! What follows is a copy of the brief history of Glasgow University’s Model United Nations society as it is now documented in the University Archives. I felt it may be interesting to some of you, and maybe useful to others who may have an interest in the society.
If you want to get onto the facebook then go to http://www.facebook.com/Glamun , and if you want to email the society exec then send all inquiries to mun.glasgow@gmail.com .
Happy reading! 🙂
A brief society history (until c. June 2011)
Founded in 2009, the Glasgow University Model United Nations (GlaMUN) is a relatively new society, aimed at those who are interested in international-style debate. Bringing the UN experience to students, the society meets and debates current world issues in a strict UN format and delegates, through role-play and discussion as world nations, try to build a Resolution acceptable to all in order to rectify and amend certain situations. Along with the fortnightly meetings, GlaMUN often sends delegates to represent Glasgow University at international conferences across the world. From WorldMUN in The Hague in March 2009, to London International MUN in March 2010, delegates play a key role in more intense and structured debate with students from around the world. There is also, of course, the social aspect, with boundless fun to be had.
The society was first conceived by Isolde Boyd and Alisa (“George”) Dewan who noted in their first year the absence of such a society at the University. Isolde and George then worked to set up a working society for all of the students of the University of Glasgow, and in this they both succeeded. GlaMUN started well with many members attending meetings held in the common room of the Murano Street Halls of Residence. Various issues were debated and the concept of the Model UN experience was gradually enshrined in the minds of those participating.
In March 2009, six delegates attended the WorldMUN conference inthe Hague in the Netherlands. For Isolde Boyd, Michael Svensson, Ahmad Sultan, Anthony Lynam, Thomas Kesek and Andrew Foster this was a stimulating and thoroughly enjoyable.
During the next year GlaMUN grew and became stronger. Regular members attended all the meetings; a website, email and facebook page were setup and important documents, such as the constitution, were written and ratified. The executive committee was comprised of Isolde Boyd as President, George Dewan as Vice-President, Michael Svensson as Treasurer and Andrew Foster as Secretary. Together they worked towards more fully establishing the society.
A delegation comprising Isolde, Michael, Andrew, Euan Loarridge, Saad Basir and Pratik Goel, was sent to London International Model United Nations in March 2010. Sadly the trip was not as successful as had been hoped, due to various issues including the lack of organisation by the LiMUN executive. However, the experience was a useful one, and did not deter the members from their desire to drive the society forward.
Towards the end of the academic year, however, unfortunate circumstances led to disagreement within the executive committee. This resulted initially in the resignation of George Dewan and culminated in the eventual election of Andrew Foster, Euan Loarridge and Anthony Lynam as the new executive body. Their narrow victory marked a turning point in the society’s development and ideology and ushered in a new period of enthusiasm and effort.
While the next year saw a dip in membership and lack of conference attendance, the new executive worked hard to establish a stronger framework for the society as a whole. Documents, such as the constitution, were revised and re-written; the rules of procedure and a glossary of terms were produced to make debate and learning easier for the members; official documents, such as executive minutes, were made more readily available and now exist almost in their entirety. The ground was laid for a new drive forward.
At the time of writing, the society is under the leadership of James Livingstone, Euan Loarridge, Anthony Lynam and Andrius Rudeičiukas. Andrew Foster left to focus on another project, but still acts as an advisor to the new president.
Written and signed by Andrew Foster (Former President, Secretary and current longest standing member) and counter- signed by James Livingstone (Current President) on Tuesday 5th July 2011.
Transformers! … of a better sort!
This is a further and more detailed discussion of something I’ve already put on facebook.
Above is basically what I believe Transformers is really about. To be honest, I’m more than willing to admit that this is because I was too young for the original Transformers. Thus we find: BEAST WARS!
This is where the shit is at really. Michael Bay can take his movies and shove them where they can gather dust on a shelf. Which, funnily enough, is where I think he should go and stop annoying me with his movies which are generally not worth it. Armageddon and Pearl Harbour were good, Bad Boys was cool. But what seems to follow is a bunch of very dubious films and pointless horror remakes.
He said, according to IMBb, “I love it when people get really mean and call you a ‘hack’. It’s like, don’t they see how well these movies are doing? They make an impression around the world. I met this guy in Bali who lives in a hut with a TV, and he loved The Rock. That means something, doesn’t it?” Yes, it means something. You are good at making films that are successful. Doesn’t mean you make films that were good!!!
But enough of my dislike of Michael Bay, maybe one day he will prove himself to me, but I doubt it. The POINT is that Beast Wars was really pretty awesome. I mean, yeah, the animation is terrible. The voice acting is horrendous. What’s it got going for it right?! About as much as a Michael Bay movie, I’d say… By which I mean, its worth a lot, but really shit. Difference is, this is good shit.
The Maximals have Rattrap with his really bad new-york accent who is adorable. Cheetor is fun and friendly, if very impulsive. Optimus Primal is the architypal “good-guy leader” – “I wouldn’t send anyone to do something that I wouldn’t do myself!” How wonderfully noble!
Meanwhile, my personal favourites, the Predicons, contain badass guys like Scorpinock and Tarantulus. Normally I’m a good-guy sort of person, but in this I just love the badassness of those two. Not to mention a T-Rex Megatron! What’s not to love!?
Thus I propose drafting Pete Jackson or Guillermo del Toro or someone similar to make a film of this, often forgotten, Transformers saga. True, it would take about 25 bajillion years for them to make (read: criticism about the Hobbit). But the finished product would smash the current ones down to the ground. And there would be so much to play with!
Petition anyone? Or, more vitally, petition to make sure Michael Bay doesn’t get his money-grabbing-smug-ass-paws on it and ruin it!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot… It also has a really bad bad bad BAD video game which was pretty much impossible and was generally slated. But could totally be redone and made awesome. And with that I say goodnight for now!
(If you like this post, or else simply want to give me a nice wee confidence boost, please feel free to subscribe or add it to your RSS or somesuch. Nothing to lose really, don’t write much here at the moment tbh…)
A 12 (well… 11) string of a story…
Here’s a story for you,
I bought a Eko Ranger 12 for £15. Got it at the Ruthven Mews place on Ruthven lane off Byres Rd. I’m pretty chuffed with getting it at that price, but its in a pretty bad condition. Supposedly worth £200+ when new, original issue (i.e. the one I’ve got I think) was from the 70s, but there is also a reissue now of the same guitars, which makes me feel even better that I got this one! 🙂 I bought it because it was cheap, and I thought it would be a fun project to keep me occupied. I also really wanted to get a 12 String. So, go figure!
It actually plays well enough, despite needing some things done. I love it. But its pretty hard to play when not used to it! I’ll get there though. And one thing I will say is that going from playing it back to playing my 6 String… The 6 feels like a Uke!!! Which is awesome, because it also feels easier to play, so I can’t complain.
Anyway!
In general, all it really needs is new machine-heads, a new saddle and a general clean up. I’ve already discovered that the machine-heads are awkward due to their 118mm spacing! I must say here that the spacing being like that is damned weird. The standard is 125mm, which seems reasonable, but this is such an odd measurement to have chosen. I said to the guy I was emailing about it on Ebay that they must have done it knowing that it would cause folks like me problems 30-40 years on! But anyway, I know of somewhere I can get it for £30, but if anyone knows where I can get them cheaper…?
I’m kinda tempted to stick a Henry nozzle down in the body and just hope for the best as far as cleaning is concerned. I have polish etc, which makes the rest easy. But cleaning inside, not so fun!
Its really the bridge and saddle that I’m having trouble with… The current one is functional, but very worn. The result is that some of the strings, especially the high and low Es, slip out of place every so often. So I want to change the saddle, but not the whole bridge.. I have a blank saddle to put in, but I don’t quite know how, given the mechanism on the Ranger 12 bridge. So I’ve asked on a forum: Do I need to buy something specific, or will an everyday 12 string one do? How do I properly fit it in? More especially, do I need to file grooves for the strings in order to keep them in place, and if so then how best do I do that? Basically any advice or help I can get I would very much appreciate!
Someone has asked for pictures, so I thought I’d kill two birds with one stone by putting a blog entry here, and publishing photos here too. Not of the whole guitar, sadly, but that will come once I’ve got it fixed up! haha So, hopefully this will work! But I’m not entirely sure. Theoretically there should be pictures of the bits that need done here, but we’ll see if that works!
That’s all for now, but rest assured: This excites me!!!
A note from heaven… I mean my brain!
I can’t help but feel a little bad for Harold Camping. As an 89 year old, life is tough, especially for an evangelical :- not least because of the imminence of real death and passage into whatever waits beyond. Thus, it is perhaps reasonable that he has a compulsion to go out with a bang.
The problem is, of course, that it didn’t happen. We stayed put, and we are still alive and well with everyone we know still with us – at least as far as I can tell. Personally, I’m kinda glad. It would have been a bit of a faff trying to fight off hell demons, or endure torture for several months before I finally died. To be honest, I’ve probably got enough of that waiting for me when I finally die – most likely of cancer or heart-disease. So the longer I can put it off the better. Its not that I fear death particularly, I just have too much to do – and a lot to look forward to over summer, and from September! So if I died, or if the apocalypse ever did happen then I’d be kinda annoyed.
Camping, perhaps, is just plain mental. Or maybe misunderstood. Yet it seems that his family was equally skeptical of his theory, and, no doubt, mostly just went about their daily lives. To be honest, though, he’s managed to get more than his fifteen minutes of fame, so fair play to him! Its just a shame that he was wrong.
There was no earthquake, no cataclysmic disasters or anything coming close. What there was was pretty much a monsoon in Glasgow! Does that count I wonder? Rain = Earthquake…? I’m not convinced. Not least because it belittles genuine natural disasters which have killed thousands. I am kinda glad that no-one believed Camping not least because the scale of earthquakes, tsunamis etc that we’ve had has been bad enough, and to hold a threat of another one – but bigger – is a little out of taste. But then maybe that’s just me.
One question I must propose though: Does all of this really justify the reactions of some of the more extreme atheists (more especially in America)? Parties to celebrate the non-ending of the world? At first glance, this seems perfectly reasonable, I guess. I mean, I think most of us probably have a small part of us which kinda goes “I’m glad it didn’t happen after all”, no matter how convinced we were that it never was going to. So to celebrate is fine!
However, the reasons behind these Rapture Parties leaves a somewhat bitter taste in my mouth. They seem to pretty much be designed much more as a direct and almost un-precedented ridicule of those who did believe, whilst also having undertones of “look what your god HASN’T done, we win again”. I don’t like this. I get annoyed enough at some of my atheist friends who can occasionally stray into being quite insulting when it comes to religion – not, I must note, deliberately on the whole. So this takes it a little bit too far for me to accept.
As a very accepting person, I’m of the distinct view that everyone can do and say as they will – so long as it doesn’t hurt or infringe upon the rights of others, especially children. This didn’t really harm anyone as such (though I did hear of a woman who suffered a fit of madness and jumped out of a moving car and died). Thus, to ridicule someone/some people for their, no doubt very devout and genuine, belief is just distasteful.
I don’t really have a particular point, nor conclusion to this discussion I don’t think other than to say this: I do feel some genuine sympathy with Camping for various reasons. I don’t approve of the “radical” or extreme atheists who are really quite insulting (note: very different from rampant, rational or apathetic atheists).
Most of all, though: I’M GLAD THE WORLD DIDN’T END! Bring on 2012!!!
Ken Clarke and the Rape issue…
Firstly, for context: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13436429
In essence, Conservative Justice Secretary in the UK Ken Clarke has raised into the public sphere the issue of rape and the consequences and punishment of it. Now, far be it from me to defend a conservative, and certainly to try and rationalise an issue which I know is very emotive and that everyone has an opinion on. Yet, I feel that it is suiting for a first substantive post to express some considerations on the topic.
My main knowledge of it, I must admit, came from an invite to this group on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=211799282176456 . Upon reading the description, there were several issues to which I had an issue. Not least that it is a group entirely based upon emotional feeling, and ignoring the genuine legal implications of rape.
Joining a discussion from someone else who had commented on the real and impartial situation, several points came to mind concerning trial, punishment and the role of a judge. The problem with the entire issue is the conflation between the moral-social-emotional implications and crime, with the definitions and requirements of the law.
The thing is, rape cases are notoriously difficult to truly convict due to a usual lack of sufficient evidence. Now, in Scotland, there exists a “not-proven” verdict, one of the best things about Scot’s law, which basically allows a jury to acknowledge that a crime was committed, even if they can’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt. In this, moral dignity is upheld, where the legal part fails. However, most legal systems don’t have this, and this there is a very simple black and white, guilty-non-guilty decision. Thus many rapists go off completely free and there is no justice or feeling of support for the victim at all. There is, then, a theory that a “deal” situation is better than nothing, even if the punishment ends up being less. Thus the emotional side is helped to at least some extent, while the legal also proves satisfied. To use the creator’s argument style (which, for the record, I dislike in general even though I do use it), ask a victim if they prefer to have someone walk free or to have a reduced sentence, they are most definitely going to prefer the reduced sentence than for nothing.
This leads to consideration of the fact that to adequately punish rape is very difficult, not least because of the impossibility and/or impracticality of judging a sentence by the amount of emotional damage done to a victim. The point of the law is to remain neutral as far as that is concerned, and thus certain things must remain clearly set out and have procedures and methods in place. A court judge is not an agent of personal vendetta based upon how damaging a crime was, but is an agent of the laws of the country and must make impartial judgements and decisions based upon the verdict provided by a jury. They are allowed to comment on a crime but not to let their views colour their judgement.
As for the idea of different degrees of seriousness, again, legally, there is a difference between a drug-rape, a violent-rape, and a “mistaken-consent” rape (which does happen, though it is usually rejected). While all the victims will fell the same sense of violation, the levels of assault, physical damage etc does vary. And in this, the law does need to accommodate the varying degrees of seriousness to a crime. Similar to the difference between a particularly violent murder, a less violent, and then a culpable homicide. In the end, the victim is dead in all three cases, and the family is equally distraught, and the crime is just as much a crime. Yet the three vary in terms of sentence and punishment.
Sadly, this is a situation which does exist. And the same goes for the laws etc regarding many things such as peadophilia – another issue that I feel is greatly under-defined by the law. Yet I do understand the problems with law vs morality/ethics vs the will of people (which is often NOT the correct way.) Its a very difficult issue for precisely this reason, and whatever the law stipulates, and whatever people’s views, there is always going to be argument and disagreement.
The truth is, if justice was left to the people then there would be a most definite situation where the mistaken concepts of “an eye for an eye” would lead to a widespead situation of excessive and extreme punishments which may satisfy the hunger for retributive justice, but does not stand as a reasonable model for the law. In the end, laws and regulations, no matter how inadequate they are, no matter how much we may disagree with them in certain cases etc, must exist for a society to function. Otherwise there would be a situation of anarchy which, far from the idealised vision of anarchy groups, would in fact create a very destructive and impossible situation.
Then again, who am I to say.
I wish, at this point to extend my sympathy to anyone who has suffered either personally or by association from rape or any other crime. It is most abhorrent, and intolerable. It is a terrible thing in our so-called “developed” society. Though I argue with the points raised by this group and others etc, I by no means belittle the crime and mean no offence in any way to anyone. I’m just trying to be as rational about the issue as is humanly possible.
**Disclaimer: I may very well be wrong, and by no means believe that I have the fully correct and true ideas. I’m open to criticism and comment. I also wish to say that I’m as much expressing general thoughts and ideas as I am my feelings. I am not laying out a complete model of my beliefs.
A Thought of the Blues 