we all like to be praised, to hear words of encouragement, to be told we are good at our jobs, that we are nice people, that we are funny (ok i admit i have to imagine what it is like to get praise).
words of praise must be even better when you have been suffering stinging attacks from colleagues, like water to a thirsty man.
gordon brown had just given a very good speech to the labour party conference. the conference enjoyed it, but they would. ok there were some naysayers over the speech: it hadn’t gone far enough or it was too little too late.
so hats off to the conservative shadow chancellor george osborne who offered up some lovely words of praise to gordon brown. osborne would normally be among the last people to praise gordon brown, so when he says something good about the speech you know it was a winner.
what was it that osborne said?
george osborne said that gordon brown had “retreated to the left”, ok he did say he had done this to save his job, which undercuts the praise a little – but i guess he thought he had to have a little dig at gordon.
but just fancy that a labour politician retreating to the left. amazing. who would have thought it.
so it looks like osborne has given brown’s speech the thumbs up. now it is time for the those labour members of parliament who have been whinging and whining to also give him the thumbs up as well.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
cunts
cunts
i know it is not a particularly academic term. i know it is a term probably not used that often by professional political pundits. which probably explains why i am neither.
the labour party conference has started.
the economic situation is dire, not because there are real problems but because of some greedy twats in offices who on the one hand praise capitalism but on the other are doing their level best to screw the system up so badly that they cause a depression.
there are social issues that need to be debated and dealt with – youth (sorry young adults) disaffection and disenfranchisement, growing wealth inequality, the immigration issue and more.
politically there is still the vexed issue of surveillance britain, the growing belligerence of russia and then there are the forthcoming usa elections.
things are in a state of flux.
the labour party conference should be a time of unity, of getting together (and as someone once told me) getting their ducks in a line.
but no.
instead of learning from what happened to john major, the labour party backbenchers seem to be on a course of self-destruct. bitching, carping, moaning, complaining and scheming, in fact they may as well be daily mail readers.
it is time for the labour party to man up. it is time for them to either say we have a candidate to stand against gordon brown and his name is “x” (where x = milliband). or they have to shut up and get on with the job of making sure that labour wins at the next election.
neither will happen. there will not be a candidate who comes forward, the internal attacks will not stop and the government will be felled not by the work of cameron and his conservatives or clegg (who?) and his liberal democrats but by a few no name, no hope labour back benchers who want their time in the sun as they provide quote after quoted against the government – such as this from the daily mail (so there is a good chance it is made up)
“some labour dissidents said they may back off after the banking crisis. ‘we are not daft enough to be accused of undermining the pm when he is trying to save homes and jobs,’ said one.
‘but he has to go - it just won’t be this week.’”
quite how this attitude doesn’t undermine the prime minister is beyond me. though one has to be impressed with the cowardice of the mp for not allowing their name to be used. how easy it is to criticise when you are not prepared to put your name to it.
i blame those faceless, nameless, spineless members of parliament for all the problems that now befall the labour government. they don’t have the courage of their convictions and they are doing the tories work for them.
if cameron gets in it is their fault.
cunts.
i know it is not a particularly academic term. i know it is a term probably not used that often by professional political pundits. which probably explains why i am neither.
the labour party conference has started.
the economic situation is dire, not because there are real problems but because of some greedy twats in offices who on the one hand praise capitalism but on the other are doing their level best to screw the system up so badly that they cause a depression.
there are social issues that need to be debated and dealt with – youth (sorry young adults) disaffection and disenfranchisement, growing wealth inequality, the immigration issue and more.
politically there is still the vexed issue of surveillance britain, the growing belligerence of russia and then there are the forthcoming usa elections.
things are in a state of flux.
the labour party conference should be a time of unity, of getting together (and as someone once told me) getting their ducks in a line.
but no.
instead of learning from what happened to john major, the labour party backbenchers seem to be on a course of self-destruct. bitching, carping, moaning, complaining and scheming, in fact they may as well be daily mail readers.
it is time for the labour party to man up. it is time for them to either say we have a candidate to stand against gordon brown and his name is “x” (where x = milliband). or they have to shut up and get on with the job of making sure that labour wins at the next election.
neither will happen. there will not be a candidate who comes forward, the internal attacks will not stop and the government will be felled not by the work of cameron and his conservatives or clegg (who?) and his liberal democrats but by a few no name, no hope labour back benchers who want their time in the sun as they provide quote after quoted against the government – such as this from the daily mail (so there is a good chance it is made up)
“some labour dissidents said they may back off after the banking crisis. ‘we are not daft enough to be accused of undermining the pm when he is trying to save homes and jobs,’ said one.
‘but he has to go - it just won’t be this week.’”
quite how this attitude doesn’t undermine the prime minister is beyond me. though one has to be impressed with the cowardice of the mp for not allowing their name to be used. how easy it is to criticise when you are not prepared to put your name to it.
i blame those faceless, nameless, spineless members of parliament for all the problems that now befall the labour government. they don’t have the courage of their convictions and they are doing the tories work for them.
if cameron gets in it is their fault.
cunts.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
shares
can anyone explain stocks and shares to me?
more and more the whole stock market just appears to be no more than smoke and mirrors. if it didn't have such an impact on the lives of everyone there would be a good argument that the london stock exchange is a really a care in the community exercise to keep self-important people off the streets.
i keep hearing that there is no confidence in the financial system, that banks cannot borrow money from other banks. yet lloyds are about to spend £12 billion on buying hbos. you can only imagine what it must have been like back at the boss of lloyds house when he discovered that spare £12 billion down the back of the sofa. and who knew that barclays would find a £1 billion in a drawer so that they could buy parts of lehman bank.
virgin are rumoured to be part of one of several consortium that are interested in buying gatwick airport. i am sure the £2 billion or so it will cost is just pocket change for richard branson.
they will all be paying cash because we have been told there is just no lending and borrowing going on between banks.
the credit crunch is causing house prices to drop. for some that is a disaster for others it is a boon. now the house prices that were over-inflated are dropping to reasonable levels. so first time buyers can get on to the lovely housing ladder. well they could if the banks would let them, but the banks are all keeping their money for a rainy day.
people who have bought houses are complaining that they are not making money on the deal from the moment that they moved in, and there i was thinking you bought a place to live in it.
all of this means that the stock market has seen millions and millions of pounds wiped off the value of shares. where has all the money gone? if it existed it had to go somewhere. where did it go?
marx talked of a crisis of capitalism. the socialist workers party have been talking about the imminent crisis of capitalism for the last 20 or so years now (still at least someone is happy with the current situation and you can see them all telling their mates “see i told you there was going to be a crisis, i told you”).
of course one of the ironies of this “crisis” is that the cheerleaders of the free market who wanted less regulations to free up the entrepreneurial risk taking spirit are the ones who are crying out for the state to step in and save their sorry arses.
no matter what the financial experts say in the media i still don’t understand how shares work. more and more i am thinking that neither do they.
more and more the whole stock market just appears to be no more than smoke and mirrors. if it didn't have such an impact on the lives of everyone there would be a good argument that the london stock exchange is a really a care in the community exercise to keep self-important people off the streets.
i keep hearing that there is no confidence in the financial system, that banks cannot borrow money from other banks. yet lloyds are about to spend £12 billion on buying hbos. you can only imagine what it must have been like back at the boss of lloyds house when he discovered that spare £12 billion down the back of the sofa. and who knew that barclays would find a £1 billion in a drawer so that they could buy parts of lehman bank.
virgin are rumoured to be part of one of several consortium that are interested in buying gatwick airport. i am sure the £2 billion or so it will cost is just pocket change for richard branson.
they will all be paying cash because we have been told there is just no lending and borrowing going on between banks.
the credit crunch is causing house prices to drop. for some that is a disaster for others it is a boon. now the house prices that were over-inflated are dropping to reasonable levels. so first time buyers can get on to the lovely housing ladder. well they could if the banks would let them, but the banks are all keeping their money for a rainy day.
people who have bought houses are complaining that they are not making money on the deal from the moment that they moved in, and there i was thinking you bought a place to live in it.
all of this means that the stock market has seen millions and millions of pounds wiped off the value of shares. where has all the money gone? if it existed it had to go somewhere. where did it go?
marx talked of a crisis of capitalism. the socialist workers party have been talking about the imminent crisis of capitalism for the last 20 or so years now (still at least someone is happy with the current situation and you can see them all telling their mates “see i told you there was going to be a crisis, i told you”).
of course one of the ironies of this “crisis” is that the cheerleaders of the free market who wanted less regulations to free up the entrepreneurial risk taking spirit are the ones who are crying out for the state to step in and save their sorry arses.
no matter what the financial experts say in the media i still don’t understand how shares work. more and more i am thinking that neither do they.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
contest
it is pretty much accepted that gordon brown is travelling down shit creek without a paddle. to make matters his canoe has sprung a leak.
it has to be hard when your political opponents attack you for events that are beyond your control. it has to be worse when it is your own party.
there is a double irony here. the conservatives can sit back and goad gordon brown and the labour party over the current financial crisis. they can moan and complain, they can point and sneer. scoring easy points. the one thing they don’t seem to do is provide alternatives.
the labour dissenters seem to be doing the same thing. the difference between then and the conservatives is that they are offering an alternative. well it is an alternative of sorts. they talk about a new narrative (ok hands up who the fuck knows what that means?) or they talk about getting the message out to the electorate. really what they want to say is: “we don’t like gordon and we are scared we are going to lose our seats”.
you expect the conservatives to do it. it is part and parcel of the political process.
you don’t expect it from labour. the dissenters are putting their short-term desires (keeping their nice salary safe) before the needs of the party and the country.
they are helping the tories.
gordon has a few options. he can tough it out, and he more than likely will.
he can give them the leadership election that they want, and he will probably win that as no one of worth will come forward because no one will want to take the chance that they will be in charge if (oh ok) when labour tank at the next election.
i think gordon should go for a slightly more drastic option. he should call a general election right here and right now. what would his platform be for this snap election? simple: nationalise the utilities, nationalise the rail, pull the troops out of iraq, scrap id cards and increased tax on the very wealthy.
i tell you if he did that he would walk the election.
do it gordon – you know it makes sense.
it has to be hard when your political opponents attack you for events that are beyond your control. it has to be worse when it is your own party.
there is a double irony here. the conservatives can sit back and goad gordon brown and the labour party over the current financial crisis. they can moan and complain, they can point and sneer. scoring easy points. the one thing they don’t seem to do is provide alternatives.
the labour dissenters seem to be doing the same thing. the difference between then and the conservatives is that they are offering an alternative. well it is an alternative of sorts. they talk about a new narrative (ok hands up who the fuck knows what that means?) or they talk about getting the message out to the electorate. really what they want to say is: “we don’t like gordon and we are scared we are going to lose our seats”.
you expect the conservatives to do it. it is part and parcel of the political process.
you don’t expect it from labour. the dissenters are putting their short-term desires (keeping their nice salary safe) before the needs of the party and the country.
they are helping the tories.
gordon has a few options. he can tough it out, and he more than likely will.
he can give them the leadership election that they want, and he will probably win that as no one of worth will come forward because no one will want to take the chance that they will be in charge if (oh ok) when labour tank at the next election.
i think gordon should go for a slightly more drastic option. he should call a general election right here and right now. what would his platform be for this snap election? simple: nationalise the utilities, nationalise the rail, pull the troops out of iraq, scrap id cards and increased tax on the very wealthy.
i tell you if he did that he would walk the election.
do it gordon – you know it makes sense.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
hadron
in case you haven’t heard they are firing up the large hadron collider tomorrow morning. if it works it will help scientists get a little closer to understanding some of the deeper mysteries of the universe, the origin of mass (which in my case is down to the apple doughnuts that sainsburys sell), and perhaps they can find the higgs particle, which may the key to answering some very important questions.
all sounds pretty exciting.
but wait there are a few people who are worried that this is a mad act of science on the verge of going wrong.
they say that the start up of the large hadron collider could create black holes that will suck the world into them. which, lets be fair, is not going to be nice. these doomsayers say, “don’t do it”.
their cries have fallen on death ears, so tomorrow somewhere between france and switzerland a small new universe will be created, which means it, will be arrogant and afraid to commit.
when it comes time to throw the switch will there be a little bit of hesitation? will they think to themselves “mm have we done the maths on this right?” will they have second thoughts? will they just pretend that they threw the switch?
or will it destroy the world?
it should all go well. i hope so as i want to go see the francis bacon show at the tate britain on friday and that won’t happen if the world has been sucked down a black hole.
all sounds pretty exciting.
but wait there are a few people who are worried that this is a mad act of science on the verge of going wrong.
they say that the start up of the large hadron collider could create black holes that will suck the world into them. which, lets be fair, is not going to be nice. these doomsayers say, “don’t do it”.
their cries have fallen on death ears, so tomorrow somewhere between france and switzerland a small new universe will be created, which means it, will be arrogant and afraid to commit.
when it comes time to throw the switch will there be a little bit of hesitation? will they think to themselves “mm have we done the maths on this right?” will they have second thoughts? will they just pretend that they threw the switch?
or will it destroy the world?
it should all go well. i hope so as i want to go see the francis bacon show at the tate britain on friday and that won’t happen if the world has been sucked down a black hole.
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
mccain ahead in the usa presidential election polls. it can't happen.
cameron ahed in the polls over here. just not right.
it is like we are back in the 80s (at least the music is a bit better).
sensible people want obama to win. the problem is he stands for change. but change seems to be fluffy and nice and in the words of bill watterson, a pony for everyone. it is time that obama started putting more meat on the bones of the dream of change.
over here cameron is in lead position for the forthcoming election. he talks of change as well. change from the current labour party and a hinted at change of conservatism. a bit like obama there is not that much solid about the changes that cameron offers - other than they will not be labour. the main difference is the conservatives have previous form and we all know that regardless of what they say about compassionate conservatism it just means that they will say sorry while people lose their jobs and the rich get richer.
of the lot of them gordon brown is probably the most honest and the one most driven by the right convictions but he is such a dour speaker that he just doesn't inspire.
is it too much to ask for him to have a "palin" moment (it can be sarah or michael, i don't mind).
cameron ahed in the polls over here. just not right.
it is like we are back in the 80s (at least the music is a bit better).
sensible people want obama to win. the problem is he stands for change. but change seems to be fluffy and nice and in the words of bill watterson, a pony for everyone. it is time that obama started putting more meat on the bones of the dream of change.
over here cameron is in lead position for the forthcoming election. he talks of change as well. change from the current labour party and a hinted at change of conservatism. a bit like obama there is not that much solid about the changes that cameron offers - other than they will not be labour. the main difference is the conservatives have previous form and we all know that regardless of what they say about compassionate conservatism it just means that they will say sorry while people lose their jobs and the rich get richer.
of the lot of them gordon brown is probably the most honest and the one most driven by the right convictions but he is such a dour speaker that he just doesn't inspire.
is it too much to ask for him to have a "palin" moment (it can be sarah or michael, i don't mind).
Sunday, September 07, 2008
fault
it is not my fault that i am fat. no really it isn’t.
a few weeks ago i discovered i was fat because my pal paul was on the chubby side and so he enabled me to be fat. my waistline is all down to paul, nothing to do with the pizzas i put away.
then i discovered that i was fat not because i scoff chocolate like it was going out of style but because of the combination of dietary abundance and a sedentary lifestyle. it is true there is no way i can go out and do stuff because i am too busy filling my face with all the food that is there, not only is it there but it is crying out to me “eat me”, “eat me” “eat me and me and me and me”, and there is just no way i can refuse.
just as i was coming to terms with these reasons for my rotundness i learn that it is the fault of pollution. fantastic.
the range of reasons given to why i am fat makes me feel like the first trip up to the buffet bar in a restaurant: which one will i have? then i realised no need to worry i can have them all, and i can come back for me later.
i could go into a long ramble about the loss of personal responsibility that this fosters, but that puts me too close to david cameron and his conservative party. (oh ok you have dragged it out of me, on this i have some sympathy with what he is saying).
but before i worry about responsibility i am going to get a few chocolate bars to wolf down, after all it is not my fault if i get to be fatter.
a few weeks ago i discovered i was fat because my pal paul was on the chubby side and so he enabled me to be fat. my waistline is all down to paul, nothing to do with the pizzas i put away.
then i discovered that i was fat not because i scoff chocolate like it was going out of style but because of the combination of dietary abundance and a sedentary lifestyle. it is true there is no way i can go out and do stuff because i am too busy filling my face with all the food that is there, not only is it there but it is crying out to me “eat me”, “eat me” “eat me and me and me and me”, and there is just no way i can refuse.
just as i was coming to terms with these reasons for my rotundness i learn that it is the fault of pollution. fantastic.
the range of reasons given to why i am fat makes me feel like the first trip up to the buffet bar in a restaurant: which one will i have? then i realised no need to worry i can have them all, and i can come back for me later.
i could go into a long ramble about the loss of personal responsibility that this fosters, but that puts me too close to david cameron and his conservative party. (oh ok you have dragged it out of me, on this i have some sympathy with what he is saying).
but before i worry about responsibility i am going to get a few chocolate bars to wolf down, after all it is not my fault if i get to be fatter.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
windfall
to put it politely gordon brown is fucked (please excuse the use of the highly technical psephologist term). well actually he is not just fucked he is right royally fucked.
even worse for gordon is that the laws of physics do not apply to him. in the real world shit flows downwards, yet for gordon it flows from the bottom upwards.
he is attacked and blamed from all sides, from allies and enemies alike.
you only have to look at the increasing cost of fuel. to read the press it is gordon brown’s fault that the fuel companies are making outrageous profits while also putting up the price of fuel (“oh pity us”, they cry, “our costs have gone up and we can’t make huge profits anymore, oh we can if we just put our prices up”).
brown made them put the prices up.
it is brown’s fault that the price of oil has gone up. the increased demand from china and india. not really a factor in this. the madness of hedging the price of fuel has had nothing to do with it. the unwillingness to increase the supply of oil has had no bearing on the increased.
brown has just increased the price of oil on a whim.
but there are times when he is the architect of his own problems. there has been talk of a windfall tax and a £100 rebate to those in need. the story is allowed to float about in the news for a few days building up expectation and then brown says no, it is not happening, was never going to happen, well maybe it was never going to happen, not really sure, if we are going to be honest. i think. possibly. (what makes the situation worse is that we can all remember when it all went tits up (another psephologist term) for brown when he let the talk of an early election to drift about before squashing it when it became apparent that he had lost the confidence of the electorate. you would have thought once bitten twice shy, but nope).
yet if we are honest we all know that a windfall tax or a rebate to the needy is never going to be enough.
thanks to thatcher we sold off our utilities to private companies. there was a lot of talk about competition, efficiency, cheaper prices and a land of milk and honey. like so much that thatcher promised it was a lie.
so what we have are large companies who know that they can screw the punter, because there is no competition, that they only have to worry about efficiencies when they are forced into it.
even worse foreign companies own several of the companies.
see that is how the free market works.
and that really brings me to the point of this.
the only way out of this for gordon brown is for him to pull up his socks, roll up his sleeves, grit his teeth, spit in the eye of the cbi and do what he knows is right and nationalise the utilities. bring them all back into public ownership.
do that gordon and not only have you solved the current issue of prices, but you will be seen as a hero by so many in the country that you will be elected again.
gordon: you know i am right.
even worse for gordon is that the laws of physics do not apply to him. in the real world shit flows downwards, yet for gordon it flows from the bottom upwards.
he is attacked and blamed from all sides, from allies and enemies alike.
you only have to look at the increasing cost of fuel. to read the press it is gordon brown’s fault that the fuel companies are making outrageous profits while also putting up the price of fuel (“oh pity us”, they cry, “our costs have gone up and we can’t make huge profits anymore, oh we can if we just put our prices up”).
brown made them put the prices up.
it is brown’s fault that the price of oil has gone up. the increased demand from china and india. not really a factor in this. the madness of hedging the price of fuel has had nothing to do with it. the unwillingness to increase the supply of oil has had no bearing on the increased.
brown has just increased the price of oil on a whim.
but there are times when he is the architect of his own problems. there has been talk of a windfall tax and a £100 rebate to those in need. the story is allowed to float about in the news for a few days building up expectation and then brown says no, it is not happening, was never going to happen, well maybe it was never going to happen, not really sure, if we are going to be honest. i think. possibly. (what makes the situation worse is that we can all remember when it all went tits up (another psephologist term) for brown when he let the talk of an early election to drift about before squashing it when it became apparent that he had lost the confidence of the electorate. you would have thought once bitten twice shy, but nope).
yet if we are honest we all know that a windfall tax or a rebate to the needy is never going to be enough.
thanks to thatcher we sold off our utilities to private companies. there was a lot of talk about competition, efficiency, cheaper prices and a land of milk and honey. like so much that thatcher promised it was a lie.
so what we have are large companies who know that they can screw the punter, because there is no competition, that they only have to worry about efficiencies when they are forced into it.
even worse foreign companies own several of the companies.
see that is how the free market works.
and that really brings me to the point of this.
the only way out of this for gordon brown is for him to pull up his socks, roll up his sleeves, grit his teeth, spit in the eye of the cbi and do what he knows is right and nationalise the utilities. bring them all back into public ownership.
do that gordon and not only have you solved the current issue of prices, but you will be seen as a hero by so many in the country that you will be elected again.
gordon: you know i am right.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
ttt
she is no condi, but sarah palin has now entered my top torry totty list (international).
her speech at the republican convention was an assured attack on the democrats and obama. it was the usual mix of personal schmaltz and paean to the glory of the american way that so moves the american voter.
hopefully she hasn't done enough to swing the female vote over to the republicans.
because while the republican convention might be happy to chant "usa usa usa" the rest of the world is not looking forward to them remaining in the oval office.
so i will be checking out mrs palin for the eye candy, but hoping that obama cleans up in the polls.
her speech at the republican convention was an assured attack on the democrats and obama. it was the usual mix of personal schmaltz and paean to the glory of the american way that so moves the american voter.
hopefully she hasn't done enough to swing the female vote over to the republicans.
because while the republican convention might be happy to chant "usa usa usa" the rest of the world is not looking forward to them remaining in the oval office.
so i will be checking out mrs palin for the eye candy, but hoping that obama cleans up in the polls.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
quote
for some odd reason i was reading a review of a collection of dirk bogarde’s letters. why is this odd? well i have never read any of his books, and i was never much of a fan of him as an actor. so there was no reason for me to read the review, but i did. i enjoyed the review, but i am not going to be buying the book.
in the review there was a lovely line: “the need to write, though, doesn't impose on a general public the need to read”.
i know much of what i write (oh alright all of what i write) falls into the category of “not necessary to read”.
yet that is the joy of the internet (or web2.0 as it is now known) it allows so many of us to express our views, our opinions, our hopes and our fears, to lay bare our souls for all the world to see.
a recent book “cult of the amateur” (a book i own and one day i might even read) argues that the internet/web2.0 has seen a shift from knowledge to opinion. so there has been the rise of the citizen journalist (have camera phone will travel) and the blogger some of whom have influence, but not as much as is often claimed, but the majority are like me read by a dedicated few (and i love you all).
but if you really want to see writing that should not be read then you need to head over to that very special part of the internet: the message boards. it doesn’t matter if the message board is attached to a respectable media outlet, whether it deals with a minority hobby or if it deals with politics, sports or entertainment the message board is a license to write in electronic crayon.
all logic, all rationality and all contact with reality go out the window for many of the people who comment on the message boards.
reading some of their posts you can imagine them searching the net for the story that sets them off resulting in them banging on their keyboards shouting at the screen, their eyes bugging out, the vein in their forehead throbbing.
i blame my pal paul for my current fascination in message boards, when i read the comments on the daily mail’s website or over at the evening standard i can imagine what it must have been like to tour bedlam during it’s heyday.
the message boards are now a guilty pleasure and while they are there i can feel a little bit smug and superior with the drivel i write.
in the review there was a lovely line: “the need to write, though, doesn't impose on a general public the need to read”.
i know much of what i write (oh alright all of what i write) falls into the category of “not necessary to read”.
yet that is the joy of the internet (or web2.0 as it is now known) it allows so many of us to express our views, our opinions, our hopes and our fears, to lay bare our souls for all the world to see.
a recent book “cult of the amateur” (a book i own and one day i might even read) argues that the internet/web2.0 has seen a shift from knowledge to opinion. so there has been the rise of the citizen journalist (have camera phone will travel) and the blogger some of whom have influence, but not as much as is often claimed, but the majority are like me read by a dedicated few (and i love you all).
but if you really want to see writing that should not be read then you need to head over to that very special part of the internet: the message boards. it doesn’t matter if the message board is attached to a respectable media outlet, whether it deals with a minority hobby or if it deals with politics, sports or entertainment the message board is a license to write in electronic crayon.
all logic, all rationality and all contact with reality go out the window for many of the people who comment on the message boards.
reading some of their posts you can imagine them searching the net for the story that sets them off resulting in them banging on their keyboards shouting at the screen, their eyes bugging out, the vein in their forehead throbbing.
i blame my pal paul for my current fascination in message boards, when i read the comments on the daily mail’s website or over at the evening standard i can imagine what it must have been like to tour bedlam during it’s heyday.
the message boards are now a guilty pleasure and while they are there i can feel a little bit smug and superior with the drivel i write.
Monday, September 01, 2008
taglines
for many of us our first introduction to a new movie is the film poster. sometimes we are attracted by the image; most often it is the pithy little comment that serves as a pitch that appeals. this can either be in the form of a tagline or a catchy review.
so it was with me. there i was on the station platform and i read.
“guns”
now i am from the school of thought that there are not many films that couldn’t be improved by there being a large helping of guns in them. “citizen kane” is the greatest film of all time but a few running gun battles would have improved it. “toy story” may have been a work of genius, but without the inclusion of an uzi firelight it remains a pale imitation of what it might have been. a few scenes of balletic bullet mayhem would have made “on golden pond” a much more serious movie.
“girls”
guns are crucial but girls are almost as important. i can’t think of an ingmar bergman film that wouldn’t have been made all that much more enjoyable if it had a full on lap-dance scene in it, maybe two for the slower ones (oh that is all of them). “there will be blood” would have been hugely improved by several girl on girl scenes, they may not have added to the story, but it would have made the film that much more watchable. “schindler’s list” would have benefited by having some sultry ladies in uniform.
“geezers’
now tell me what movie would not be improved by having a geezer in it, a slick fast-talking tough guy who takes no shit and dishes out the dirt. imagine “star wars” with a character telling darth vader to “shut it” or during “close encounters of the third kind” instead of the famous notes of welcome there was a shout of “get out of our manor”.
so when a film poster has the world “guns, girls, geezers” i should have been in hog heaven and i was. the elation died before it could be take flight. not only was the poster promising guns, girls and geezers, it was also promising guy ritchie.
when it comes to films there are certain names that just scream “wait till this appears on bbc2 before you watch it”. there is cedric the entertainer (a name that surely gets him arrested for lying), there is danny dyer and then there is guy ritchie. they all provide hints as to the quality of the film.
so in the case of the new ritchie movie the triumvirate of guns, girls and geezers will not produce a fun movie.
oh well the poster is nice.
so it was with me. there i was on the station platform and i read.
“guns”
now i am from the school of thought that there are not many films that couldn’t be improved by there being a large helping of guns in them. “citizen kane” is the greatest film of all time but a few running gun battles would have improved it. “toy story” may have been a work of genius, but without the inclusion of an uzi firelight it remains a pale imitation of what it might have been. a few scenes of balletic bullet mayhem would have made “on golden pond” a much more serious movie.
“girls”
guns are crucial but girls are almost as important. i can’t think of an ingmar bergman film that wouldn’t have been made all that much more enjoyable if it had a full on lap-dance scene in it, maybe two for the slower ones (oh that is all of them). “there will be blood” would have been hugely improved by several girl on girl scenes, they may not have added to the story, but it would have made the film that much more watchable. “schindler’s list” would have benefited by having some sultry ladies in uniform.
“geezers’
now tell me what movie would not be improved by having a geezer in it, a slick fast-talking tough guy who takes no shit and dishes out the dirt. imagine “star wars” with a character telling darth vader to “shut it” or during “close encounters of the third kind” instead of the famous notes of welcome there was a shout of “get out of our manor”.
so when a film poster has the world “guns, girls, geezers” i should have been in hog heaven and i was. the elation died before it could be take flight. not only was the poster promising guns, girls and geezers, it was also promising guy ritchie.
when it comes to films there are certain names that just scream “wait till this appears on bbc2 before you watch it”. there is cedric the entertainer (a name that surely gets him arrested for lying), there is danny dyer and then there is guy ritchie. they all provide hints as to the quality of the film.
so in the case of the new ritchie movie the triumvirate of guns, girls and geezers will not produce a fun movie.
oh well the poster is nice.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
jealousy
olympic handover.
the blonde boris triumphantly accepts the olympic flag.
a red london bus.
just how green is ken right now? i think he is a bright shade of envy.
can’t say i blame him.
the blonde boris triumphantly accepts the olympic flag.
a red london bus.
just how green is ken right now? i think he is a bright shade of envy.
can’t say i blame him.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
ban2
will people stop going on about the use of the word decimate.
we all know it is used incorrectly, but we all know what people mean when they use it.
you are not big, you are not clever and you are no longer original when you go on about what decimate really means.
we all know it is used incorrectly, but we all know what people mean when they use it.
you are not big, you are not clever and you are no longer original when you go on about what decimate really means.
ban
it is time to ban “role model” when it is applied to any sporting non-personality. young bryony shaw wins a bronze medal at the olympics and at the end of a very very very gushing thanks she said “fuck” live on tv.
of course the use of the world fuck has brought raging condemnation from at least 14 people, and most of them see themselves as being guardians of the moral fibre of the nation. rather than just chalk up this stray fuck to a heat of the moment enthusiasm it has become a question of what sort of role model is bryony shaw to the youth of the nation?
the simple answer is: no. not in bryony shaw’s wildest dreams is she a role model to the youth of britain.
quite why it is thought that because you are good at sports you somehow have the answers or that you should be held up to scrutiny. after all most successful sportsmen are selfish; they have to be in order to get to the top. they have to have supreme belief in their own abilities, they have to have a belief that winning is what it is all about.
these are not qualities that scream empathy.
add to the mix that top sportsmen are paid far beyond that of ordinary mortals and we have moved beyond the realms of shared experience.
the lessons that we can learn from sportsmen are that regardless of naturally ability success comes when it is mixed with blood sweat and tears.
we may want our sportsmen to be nice people, but really what we want them to do is to win. that is their job. as we have turned sportsmen into celebrities we have also given them the additional job of being role models. it is easier to point to the behaviour of these role models than it is to point out that parents may have let their children down, that more and more we abrogate responsibility to anyone.
it must be hard to be a sportsman (or for that matter a minor celebrity) so let us make their jobs a little easier by stop branding them role models.
of course the use of the world fuck has brought raging condemnation from at least 14 people, and most of them see themselves as being guardians of the moral fibre of the nation. rather than just chalk up this stray fuck to a heat of the moment enthusiasm it has become a question of what sort of role model is bryony shaw to the youth of the nation?
the simple answer is: no. not in bryony shaw’s wildest dreams is she a role model to the youth of britain.
quite why it is thought that because you are good at sports you somehow have the answers or that you should be held up to scrutiny. after all most successful sportsmen are selfish; they have to be in order to get to the top. they have to have supreme belief in their own abilities, they have to have a belief that winning is what it is all about.
these are not qualities that scream empathy.
add to the mix that top sportsmen are paid far beyond that of ordinary mortals and we have moved beyond the realms of shared experience.
the lessons that we can learn from sportsmen are that regardless of naturally ability success comes when it is mixed with blood sweat and tears.
we may want our sportsmen to be nice people, but really what we want them to do is to win. that is their job. as we have turned sportsmen into celebrities we have also given them the additional job of being role models. it is easier to point to the behaviour of these role models than it is to point out that parents may have let their children down, that more and more we abrogate responsibility to anyone.
it must be hard to be a sportsman (or for that matter a minor celebrity) so let us make their jobs a little easier by stop branding them role models.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
pride
i remember having a conversation with one of my old work colleagues – like so many of the conversations we had it left me scratching my head. it must have been during a world cup campaign and we were talking about national anthems he was going through a list of all his favourite ones, it was no shock that “god save the queen” came bottom of the list. when it came to certain things he was very predictable and very conscious of what the “correct” and trendy view was.
in the conversation over the anthem he claimed that the british one was a dirge. i was flummoxed.
because of the olympics i am getting to hear the anthem more often than normal. now it may very well be an unfashionable thing to say but by golly i do love to hear it. it sounds even better when you can hear the feint sounds of the spectators singing along, it is not helped by my joining in, as i can’t carry a tune even if i am using a bucket.
long may the anthem be heard.
in the conversation over the anthem he claimed that the british one was a dirge. i was flummoxed.
because of the olympics i am getting to hear the anthem more often than normal. now it may very well be an unfashionable thing to say but by golly i do love to hear it. it sounds even better when you can hear the feint sounds of the spectators singing along, it is not helped by my joining in, as i can’t carry a tune even if i am using a bucket.
long may the anthem be heard.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
quote
a new must read political book is out this monday, “cameron on cameron”. in it david cameron says:
"i'm going to be as radical a social reformer as mrs. thatcher was an economic reformer, and radical social reform is what this country needs right now…
"it's dealing with the issues of family breakdown, welfare dependency, failing schools, crime, and the problems that we see in too many of our communities."
the reason why it will be a must read book is the hope that at last cameron will outline just what being a radical social reformer really means.
cameron is quick to use the phrase “breakdown britain” he is not so quick to state his policies for changing the situation. rather the conservatives trot out the tired excuse that they do not want to provide the labour government with any ideas. perhaps that is a canny strategy or perhaps it is just the fact that they do not have anything new to offer.
we may learn something from cameron’s new book.
we may have to wait until the general election is called.
we can guess at some of what will be offered. the usual mix of tax cuts for the rich, a push on traditional family values, the removal of welfare provisions, a return to selection in schools, in short radical means it will be a return to old conservative values.
maybe the boys and girls of new labour will be rushing out to get themselves a copy of the book so that they can remind themselves why they shouldn’t be engaging in political in-fighting. i doubt it.
that is the reason why the book can be seen as essential reading because as new labour self-destruct cameron and the conservatives are looking more and more likely to be forming the next government.
and that is a scary thought.
(i just have to find it somewhere very cheap).
"i'm going to be as radical a social reformer as mrs. thatcher was an economic reformer, and radical social reform is what this country needs right now…
"it's dealing with the issues of family breakdown, welfare dependency, failing schools, crime, and the problems that we see in too many of our communities."
the reason why it will be a must read book is the hope that at last cameron will outline just what being a radical social reformer really means.
cameron is quick to use the phrase “breakdown britain” he is not so quick to state his policies for changing the situation. rather the conservatives trot out the tired excuse that they do not want to provide the labour government with any ideas. perhaps that is a canny strategy or perhaps it is just the fact that they do not have anything new to offer.
we may learn something from cameron’s new book.
we may have to wait until the general election is called.
we can guess at some of what will be offered. the usual mix of tax cuts for the rich, a push on traditional family values, the removal of welfare provisions, a return to selection in schools, in short radical means it will be a return to old conservative values.
maybe the boys and girls of new labour will be rushing out to get themselves a copy of the book so that they can remind themselves why they shouldn’t be engaging in political in-fighting. i doubt it.
that is the reason why the book can be seen as essential reading because as new labour self-destruct cameron and the conservatives are looking more and more likely to be forming the next government.
and that is a scary thought.
(i just have to find it somewhere very cheap).
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
coins
for various reasons i have recently started trying to give shop keepers the exact money that way i cut down on the amount of change i have in my pockets and it means that i am using the loose coins that i seem to have floating around the place.
there i was in my favourite coffee shop, i am sorting through the shrapnel to give the exact amount. there is a little “tsk tsk” from the lanky barista, as i must have been holding him up from doing something really important and interesting.
yet shamefacedly i have to confess that a sign of encroaching old age kicked in as i sorted through the change: i gave him a 1 pence piece instead of the 5 pence piece i meant to hand over.
ooops.
even more than that i realised i had made the mistake as soon as i did it because i was stunned at seeing my first example of the new coinage.
yes the new heraldic coins are here.
several months back the mail on sunday made a big song and dance about the designs of the new coins. at the time they didn’t know what they would look like, they just knew that britannia would no longer be on the 50 pence piece. this was a terrible thing because it would be the first time that britannia would not have featured on the country’s coinage for the first time in 300 years.
this change was seen as being a betrayal of all that is british by gordon brown and new labour.
judging by the tone of the pieces that appeared in the mail you would have thought that very fabric of life, as we know it was about to be torn asunder. look they cry we have 30 thousand people who want britannia kept; now we have 45 thousand people. it is an unstoppable tide of people who are prepared to fight this change, to defend our way of life.
take britannia off of our 50 pence pieces at your peril.
david cameron came on board to say that the conservative party would return britannia to the coinage.
i was surprised that the mail on sunday didn’t blame this change of the coinage for causing the sub-prime mortgage crash in the states, the credit crunch in the uk. i don’t think it would stretching matters to claim that the situation in georgia is down to the fact that britannia has now been taken off of the 50 pence piece.
well that is not strictly true either as there are lots of 50 pence pieces around that still feature britannia, it is just that the new ones are now out.
what is a bigger shock is that after a few weeks of making this a big cause for the mail on sunday it was quietly dropped. there was no big story to say that the new coins were nothing more than a way to integrate us closer to europe even though new labour had promised a vote on coins in europe (not that they did, but that isn’t something the mail worries about).
the lack of coverage of the coins meant that when i saw my first one i was a little awestruck that i could hold in my hand a new shiny 1 pence piece and to know that i held something that could bring down governments and make world’s collide (even if it nothing of the sort occurs). for that reason alone i was slow in giving the right change to the barista.
i am still recovering from the fact that the new labour have managed to slip the coins in under the radar. keep watching the skies as disaster is only around the corner. well according to the mail on sunday and they wouldn’t lie.
would they?
there i was in my favourite coffee shop, i am sorting through the shrapnel to give the exact amount. there is a little “tsk tsk” from the lanky barista, as i must have been holding him up from doing something really important and interesting.
yet shamefacedly i have to confess that a sign of encroaching old age kicked in as i sorted through the change: i gave him a 1 pence piece instead of the 5 pence piece i meant to hand over.
ooops.
even more than that i realised i had made the mistake as soon as i did it because i was stunned at seeing my first example of the new coinage.
yes the new heraldic coins are here.
several months back the mail on sunday made a big song and dance about the designs of the new coins. at the time they didn’t know what they would look like, they just knew that britannia would no longer be on the 50 pence piece. this was a terrible thing because it would be the first time that britannia would not have featured on the country’s coinage for the first time in 300 years.
this change was seen as being a betrayal of all that is british by gordon brown and new labour.
judging by the tone of the pieces that appeared in the mail you would have thought that very fabric of life, as we know it was about to be torn asunder. look they cry we have 30 thousand people who want britannia kept; now we have 45 thousand people. it is an unstoppable tide of people who are prepared to fight this change, to defend our way of life.
take britannia off of our 50 pence pieces at your peril.
david cameron came on board to say that the conservative party would return britannia to the coinage.
i was surprised that the mail on sunday didn’t blame this change of the coinage for causing the sub-prime mortgage crash in the states, the credit crunch in the uk. i don’t think it would stretching matters to claim that the situation in georgia is down to the fact that britannia has now been taken off of the 50 pence piece.
well that is not strictly true either as there are lots of 50 pence pieces around that still feature britannia, it is just that the new ones are now out.
what is a bigger shock is that after a few weeks of making this a big cause for the mail on sunday it was quietly dropped. there was no big story to say that the new coins were nothing more than a way to integrate us closer to europe even though new labour had promised a vote on coins in europe (not that they did, but that isn’t something the mail worries about).
the lack of coverage of the coins meant that when i saw my first one i was a little awestruck that i could hold in my hand a new shiny 1 pence piece and to know that i held something that could bring down governments and make world’s collide (even if it nothing of the sort occurs). for that reason alone i was slow in giving the right change to the barista.
i am still recovering from the fact that the new labour have managed to slip the coins in under the radar. keep watching the skies as disaster is only around the corner. well according to the mail on sunday and they wouldn’t lie.
would they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)