...with new furry antlers
Tuesday 19 May 2009
Sunday 10 May 2009
Star Trek
So we went and saw the new movie. And thoroughly enjoyed it.
... despite a number of obvious plot and technology problems that nitpickers could obsess over, if they were minded to. You have to be willing to suspend disbelief a little.
But how lucky was that, that they found a young actor who looks like a young Leonard Nimoy, and he can raise one eyebrow!
And despite the fab modern CGI spaceships, there were a few tips of the hat to the good old '60s special effects, like the "alien" who is just a girl in her underwear dyed green (the girl, not the underwear) that Kirk ends up snogging at one point. Just like the good old days!
... despite a number of obvious plot and technology problems that nitpickers could obsess over, if they were minded to. You have to be willing to suspend disbelief a little.
But how lucky was that, that they found a young actor who looks like a young Leonard Nimoy, and he can raise one eyebrow!
And despite the fab modern CGI spaceships, there were a few tips of the hat to the good old '60s special effects, like the "alien" who is just a girl in her underwear dyed green (the girl, not the underwear) that Kirk ends up snogging at one point. Just like the good old days!
LOL at
. . . journalists giving ANYONE a hard time about dodgy expense claims!!
. . . . .
As far as I can understand the coverage, and shorn of the usual media nonsense, the main problem seems to be that MPs can designate a house as their MP house, improve it (e.g. get the central heating fixed if it needs it) on expenses, then designate another different house, improve that one, and so on, getting all the necessary repairs done on a whole portfolio of properties.
Proposal: any capital gain above inflation that they make on selling a property that they've designated as their MP house, at any stage, should be handed back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)