So the other day, I saw a clip of Neil Young on Stephen Colbert's talk show, talking about GMOs and Monsanto. Colbert asked him why he was so anti-GMO becuase a study showed that there were negligible nutritional differences, according to data from Europe and the USA. He retorted by claiming that it 'must be a monsanto funded study' or something to that effect, and went on to vaguely beat around the bush saying that GMOs are bad because they're bad. I believe he was trying to make a point about crop diverstiy. You can see the full clip below.
Now, whether you're for or against GMOs I don't care. The point I want to make from this is the pain one feels when someone you look up to disappoints you, particularly when considering celebrities. You know, never meet your heroes type stuff. I'm going to see Neil Young tonight, and I love his music. Heart Of Gold, Fuckin' Up, Cortez the Killer to name a few. Even his newer stuff like the aptly named Monsanto Years. Neil has always been a hippy, a tree-hugger, and that's one of the things I really love about him. But sometimes, you see this person you idolise make their point so poorly in the face of no adversity, and you can't help but cringe. It's a deep pain, that this person who does somethings so brilliantly stuggles elsewhere, and we hate to see that, we hate to see our heroe's invincibility challenged.
I remember last year I met Ozzy Ardiles in an Argentine restaurant on Camden High Street. I don't know what I expected really. Had a nice chat and moved on, and there was something about him that wasn't invincible. He was far more down to earth than I had been expecting. In this case a hero's invincibility was challenged but not in a negative way, and far more deliberatly. He was an everyman. I left without my image of him depracated, but enhanced, because he was an everyman. This is a key difference, and something that should be utilised more often. Celebrities appearing more down to earth preserves their image far more than an air of invincibility around them, because that's only begging to be taken down.
So, I reckon I'll be posting more often now that my exams are all said and done. I'm sure I'll enjoy Neil all the same tonight.
When you find out which airport you'll be going to for your flight, no-one has ever reacted by going "Oh boy, I sure do love Heathrow Terminal 3." No. It just doesn't happen. No-one has ever said "You know I really enjoy Gatwick, especially around ten in the morning!". Come on. I recognise that some airports are larger, more extensive and offer more services than others. But all in all they are souless concourses for airlines to pretend as if they understand you, and empathise with your delayed flight. This is a real gripe I have, soulessness of airports.
When you walk into one, it's always the same old shite. The same old white, but speckled with black tiles sprawling out towards the check in. The same old duty free offers of Toblerone's that you'll never fit in your hand luggage, and overpriced perfumes that are 40% off high street value. The only thing that vaguely brings character to airports are the bloody signs. To be fair I do prefer black/yellow over blue/white. The latter feels just so formal. And the service just feels so souless too. Going to an airport is a routine. You check-in, let the machine work, and get on a plane. Everything an airline does is try to make you feel special. The oddly smiley air hostess, and the celebratory landing music (which is figuratively saying "Look, you're alive! Applaud me." Fuck off Ryanair.
But in the end does it really matter? That's what they're meant to be in the end. Airports don't need character. I don't complain about a bus station not having character. I'm just a bit grumpy today. But exams will be over soon, so no worries. Airports: they're alright, I guess.
