The importance of being sexy

It probably should not be this way but I actually already knew that people who are attractive have better chances in live. It is just the way most people respond to the person next to them. Pretty people get more smiles and more free drinks. I do not know if I think this is right or wrong it is just the way it works, and luckily most of us also still think something of wisdom and working hard, so it is not that the world is going to be taken over by dumb playmates. A bit of humor and more than on braincell can be very erotically attractive too.

Lianne

The importance of being sexy

When a new socio-economic concept was launched the media got pretty worked up. This theory was about being successful in modern society, and no, people are not going to get there by being hard working, well educated and blessed with good people skills. No you need to have erotic capital. Which actually means that people are instantly sexually atracted to you. A peson who has a lot of erotic capital gets the best marriages, jobs and makes the most money. Best examples are movie stars and famous singers, but also in most other areas of expertise erotic capital does its job. So if you are not among the irredeemably ugly you should aspire to have some erotic capital.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/18/erotic-capital-success-angelina-jolie

The Queen also has to take care of swans now

I found this article rather amusing. It really is kind of ridiculous that the queen needs to be asked for the removal of a swan. You would not think she really cares about that swan and maybe it is better to just ask a environmental organisation. On the other hand this is something that could also happen in the Netherlands I think, the silliness of it is lovely. Also the swan will probably be staying there for a considerable time until all the paperwork is done and it is ready to be removed. Maybe it will not even matter anymore by then because the breeding season is over. I do hope so, just a little.

Lianne

The Queen also has to take care of swans now

The Queen was asked to do her job and give permission to remove a swan. The bird which received the nickname "Mr Asbo", is attacking rowers and students from Cambridge University who use the river where the swan lives and has its nest. The Queen cannot just give permission for removing the swan. The Crown needs to claim the bird for ownership and after that the licence needs to be collected from Natural England. This is not the first year that the swan is attacking the rowers and students. The same thing happened last year.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-asked-to-help-tackle-asbo-swan-1949168.html

A surprising victory for Clegg

Although I did not see the debate on TV I did read things about it. Because I did not see it though, I do not really know what to say about it. The article more or less already tells you how the debate went. One thing I did thought about was the fact that how much an appearance on TV could change the view of the voters. It is funny to see how voters react on a better performance in the limelight an change their usual visions. I do not know who I would vote for, but that is because I do not really know their party visions, and as said I did not see the actual debate yet.

Lianne

A surprising victory for Clegg

Friday night the 16th of April Britain’s first campain debate on TV transformed the elections. This debate had a very surprising outcome. Not one of the leaders of the two biggest parties won - Gordon Brown for Labour and David Cameron for Tory. In fact a Populus Poll for The Times gave a stunning victory to the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg who took the limeligth to convince the audience of his visions. While the Prime Minister and his usual opponent David Cameron struggled without landing a blow Mr Clegg played the calm outsider who turned out to be the true winner of this debate.

source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7099159.ece

Retailers accused of sexualisation young children

I can only say that I agree with consumer focus on this topic. As far as my imagination goes I am literally disgusted by the image of young children in push-up bras doing a pole dancing routine. I get that little children want to look older, hence stealing your mother’s make-up when you were young, but I do not get the parents that let it go any further than that. Why are they not afraid about child molesters who will probably get very aroused by these articles? There must be parents who do not have the same opinion as I do though, why else would stores sell these items if they would not make any money with it.

Lianne

Retailers accused of sexualisation young children

Primark withdrew a padded bikini top aimed at young girls from its shelves today after allegations were made that the products were encouraging the sexualisation of young children.
Primark is not the first high street chain facing allegations. In 2006 supermarket giant Tesco had to remove a pole dancing kit from the toys and games section of its website and another supermarket chain – Asda - tried to sell push-up bras and sexy lingerie for children. Consumer focus was happy with the withdrawal of these items that are bombarding children’s lives with adult sexuality and shortening their childhood.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/retailers-accused-of-sexualising-children-1944729.html

Good education for everyone...?

Good education for everyone...?

My own opinion about this subject is not too surprising actually. I do, of course, feel that every child should get the same opportunities in live and a good education is one of them. We are not living in the middle ages anymore so the segregation in society should be reduced to the minimum. If that means a ballot system has to be introduced then I suppose it should be.
Another point that came to my mind was the fact pupils have to wear school uniforms at most of the secondary schools in the UK. One reason is that peers are not able to see the difference between rich and poor. If this is the case the number of rich and poor children at school should be better balanced.

Lianne

Good education for everyone...?

Good education for everyone...?

Top comprehensive schools in England are more socially exclusive than remaining grammar schools, according to study published the 11th of april 2010. Not enough 'poor' children are getting into these comprehensive schools.
Researchers found that only 9.2% of the children at the 164 top comprehensives come from income deprived homes against 13,5% 164 remaining grammar schools.
It is said the problem is letting the parents choose which school they want their children to attend which leads to oversubscription at the ‘best schools’.
One improvement may be to impose selection criteria such as which families live closest or religious backgrounds, but one reaction that occurs immediately is that this will not do anything good because rich parents will take dramatic measures to let their kids go to ‘the right school’, measures that poorer parents are not able to take. Other improvements may be ballot systems to offer the same chances to all children.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/11/comprehensive-schools-socially-exclusive