happy birthday heavy metal.
40 years ago today black sabbath released their genre defining album and the world was a better place.
40 years of air guitar.
long may it live.
woooooooooooargh.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
lottery
the forthcoming euro lottery might be the biggest ever lottery pay out in the uk, and i would be lying if i didn't say i hope it is me (in it to win it).
at camelot there is an advisor who is there to help you decide what you will do with your winnings.
spend it comes to mind.
i can't believe that anyone who does the lottery - hasn't planned what they will do with their winnings.
i remember when my mum did her first lottery. she didn't win. he question was, did she keep hold of that ticket for next week? she was a tad upset to discover she had to buy a new one each week. then there would be the conversations that would start off with: "wouldn't it be nice to win £5000. i wouldn't say no to £10000... £25k would be lovely". as the conversation progressed so would the amount my mum would have liked to win. she never did with that £1 million, £5 million or even that £10 million.
i know what i would do with my winnings, but i will share that with you when i win the big one.
camelot suggest that you go on holiday to mull over your options if you have a big win.
so they are telling you to start spending straight away. good for them.
at camelot there is an advisor who is there to help you decide what you will do with your winnings.
spend it comes to mind.
i can't believe that anyone who does the lottery - hasn't planned what they will do with their winnings.
i remember when my mum did her first lottery. she didn't win. he question was, did she keep hold of that ticket for next week? she was a tad upset to discover she had to buy a new one each week. then there would be the conversations that would start off with: "wouldn't it be nice to win £5000. i wouldn't say no to £10000... £25k would be lovely". as the conversation progressed so would the amount my mum would have liked to win. she never did with that £1 million, £5 million or even that £10 million.
i know what i would do with my winnings, but i will share that with you when i win the big one.
camelot suggest that you go on holiday to mull over your options if you have a big win.
so they are telling you to start spending straight away. good for them.
twat
it always worries me when i agree with the conservative party, though not as much as i am frightened that i will agree with the daily mail. yet here i am thinking that the conservatives have it right with their demand that john healey, labour’s housing minister, apologises for his comment that for some people having their house repossessed "can be the best option".
that he also said it on a day when repossessions hit a 14-year high, either shows callousness on the part of the minister or, worse, demonstrates an idea in government that they can ‘justify’ repossessions. neither is something you want, or expect, from a labour government.
mr. healey is right that repossessions are a fact of life and that when you buy your own place there is always a risk that you may default on the payments. of course one of the problems of the housing market has been the move from the house being a place that people live in to the house becoming part of an investment portfolio.
even so you just don’t expect a labour minister to try to spin such an event into having a silver lining. i guess that when he is in his constituency surgery the level of support and advice he gives is: “smile, it might never happen (and if it did it will probably be the best option)”.
logically it follows that if you can’t keep up with the rent it will be the best option that you are made homeless. mr. healey must be cursing his bad luck not to be alive when the workhouse was still in existence, so he could say that ‘for some the workhouse can be the best option’.
perhaps i am being flippant.
the real problem with mr. healey’s statement is that it reminds you that members of parliament are in a very privileged position, they get paid a lot, they get hefty expenses, and when they lose their seat they also get a generous golden handshake. in short they don’t have the worries of most of us.
if you want a reason why there is a disinterest in parliamentary politics then you don’t have to look much further than the attitude of members of parliament like mr. healey.
if he were to lose his seat at the next election it can only be the best option.
that he also said it on a day when repossessions hit a 14-year high, either shows callousness on the part of the minister or, worse, demonstrates an idea in government that they can ‘justify’ repossessions. neither is something you want, or expect, from a labour government.
mr. healey is right that repossessions are a fact of life and that when you buy your own place there is always a risk that you may default on the payments. of course one of the problems of the housing market has been the move from the house being a place that people live in to the house becoming part of an investment portfolio.
even so you just don’t expect a labour minister to try to spin such an event into having a silver lining. i guess that when he is in his constituency surgery the level of support and advice he gives is: “smile, it might never happen (and if it did it will probably be the best option)”.
logically it follows that if you can’t keep up with the rent it will be the best option that you are made homeless. mr. healey must be cursing his bad luck not to be alive when the workhouse was still in existence, so he could say that ‘for some the workhouse can be the best option’.
perhaps i am being flippant.
the real problem with mr. healey’s statement is that it reminds you that members of parliament are in a very privileged position, they get paid a lot, they get hefty expenses, and when they lose their seat they also get a generous golden handshake. in short they don’t have the worries of most of us.
if you want a reason why there is a disinterest in parliamentary politics then you don’t have to look much further than the attitude of members of parliament like mr. healey.
if he were to lose his seat at the next election it can only be the best option.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
1200
i have done 1200 of these things.
not sure if that is a good thing or not.
oh well many many more to come.
not sure if that is a good thing or not.
oh well many many more to come.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
conumdrum
now i confess i started writing this a few days ago. then it was somewhat more topical and there was even a touch of humour in it (i know i know – but i thought hey why not try something new). for some odd reason (laziness) i never finished it and now it has been voted for and carried through.
oh sorry i haven’t told you what it is i am on about.
a few days ago gordon brown made the surprising and, slightly, radical proposal that members of parliament would vote on a proposal to change the method by which we elect parliament. the idea is that we would move from the current ‘first past the post’ system to the alternative voting method (basically you rank candidates in order of preference, if someone gets more than 50% they are elected, if no one has reached that target the candidate with the lowest vote is eliminated and their second choices are distributed among the remaining candidates. this is done until the magic 50% is achieved. simple).
parliament passed the vote today, february 9th, and the plan is that the public will now get a referendum to choose between the two methods.
of course the announcement was greeted with the usual level of derision and scorn. the liberal democratic saw it as a ‘deathbed conversion’, albeit a small step in the right direction. the liberals want full proportional representation; it is their only hope of touching power. the conservatives talked about how brown was trying to fiddle the system (they don’t say how, they just say ‘fiddle’ – which is a nice word and carries the implication that gordon brown is a thief and untrustworthy). the conservatives are happy with the ‘first past the post’ system, i tend to agree with them (i know a bit of a shock there).
one of the reasons for this proposed change, according to gordon brown and jack straw, is an attempt to let the electorate know that politics and politicians are aware that their standing is pretty low and that they are prepared to change in order to win back public confidence. another reason given for this change is that it is a sop to the liberals, a shout out that tells the lib-dems that labour cares about electoral reform, so if there is a hung parliament you know who to work with.
ok, ok i can hear you muttering where is the conundrum, where is the humour, what is the point of all of this.
i first heard about this proposed change on the radio. one of the commentators on the change was from one of the, seemingly, many organisations who are concerned with/ interested in electoral reform and they said something along the lines of ‘without troubling the public for their views, ministers hand-picked the voting system they favour’.
and this is where the conundrum and an irony pop up.
the irony? a bunch of self-selecting unelected and unaccountable talking heads can pontificate about electoral methods. quite why i should favour their opinion over those who are elected is beyond me.
the conundrum? their basic criticism (aside that the preferred option isn’t one that they chose) is that a decision has been made, an option presented and the opportunity to pick offered.
i can picture them now. sitting down, discussing the various methods of voting weighing up the pros and cons and then making a decision as to which is the right one.
hold on but how do they come to that decision?
do they just say, “this is the right one”? not very democratic.
they must vote. surely?
do they have a vote on the voting system used to vote on the best voting system? after all they can’t just use ‘first past the post’ as they have told us it is not good enough for parliamentary democracy, so it can’t be good enough to vote on the method to vote for the method that we are going to use to vote for parliament. even before they vote on the vote for the voting system, there has to be a vote to make sure that the vote for the vote for the voting system is the best one to use. though that also implies that there should be a vote on the vote on the vote for the vote for the voting system.
and i haven’t even complicated this by asking if there is a voting system to make sure that all the potential voting choices have been correctly voted onto the voting choice ballot. of course once you have asked that you need to check has the right voting choice been made for the voting system to make sure all the potential voting choices have been made. which leads to the question: was there a vote on the vote… oh hell you know where i am going with this.
as much as it may annoy the self-appointed guardians of the pure flame of purity (or something equally wonderful) there is a reason we have an elected parliament – we put them there to make choices for us, but at the same time we have them there because they are accountable.
we can vote them out.
whatever voting system there is.
(you can file this under – was it worth the wait? you decide.)
oh sorry i haven’t told you what it is i am on about.
a few days ago gordon brown made the surprising and, slightly, radical proposal that members of parliament would vote on a proposal to change the method by which we elect parliament. the idea is that we would move from the current ‘first past the post’ system to the alternative voting method (basically you rank candidates in order of preference, if someone gets more than 50% they are elected, if no one has reached that target the candidate with the lowest vote is eliminated and their second choices are distributed among the remaining candidates. this is done until the magic 50% is achieved. simple).
parliament passed the vote today, february 9th, and the plan is that the public will now get a referendum to choose between the two methods.
of course the announcement was greeted with the usual level of derision and scorn. the liberal democratic saw it as a ‘deathbed conversion’, albeit a small step in the right direction. the liberals want full proportional representation; it is their only hope of touching power. the conservatives talked about how brown was trying to fiddle the system (they don’t say how, they just say ‘fiddle’ – which is a nice word and carries the implication that gordon brown is a thief and untrustworthy). the conservatives are happy with the ‘first past the post’ system, i tend to agree with them (i know a bit of a shock there).
one of the reasons for this proposed change, according to gordon brown and jack straw, is an attempt to let the electorate know that politics and politicians are aware that their standing is pretty low and that they are prepared to change in order to win back public confidence. another reason given for this change is that it is a sop to the liberals, a shout out that tells the lib-dems that labour cares about electoral reform, so if there is a hung parliament you know who to work with.
ok, ok i can hear you muttering where is the conundrum, where is the humour, what is the point of all of this.
i first heard about this proposed change on the radio. one of the commentators on the change was from one of the, seemingly, many organisations who are concerned with/ interested in electoral reform and they said something along the lines of ‘without troubling the public for their views, ministers hand-picked the voting system they favour’.
and this is where the conundrum and an irony pop up.
the irony? a bunch of self-selecting unelected and unaccountable talking heads can pontificate about electoral methods. quite why i should favour their opinion over those who are elected is beyond me.
the conundrum? their basic criticism (aside that the preferred option isn’t one that they chose) is that a decision has been made, an option presented and the opportunity to pick offered.
i can picture them now. sitting down, discussing the various methods of voting weighing up the pros and cons and then making a decision as to which is the right one.
hold on but how do they come to that decision?
do they just say, “this is the right one”? not very democratic.
they must vote. surely?
do they have a vote on the voting system used to vote on the best voting system? after all they can’t just use ‘first past the post’ as they have told us it is not good enough for parliamentary democracy, so it can’t be good enough to vote on the method to vote for the method that we are going to use to vote for parliament. even before they vote on the vote for the voting system, there has to be a vote to make sure that the vote for the vote for the voting system is the best one to use. though that also implies that there should be a vote on the vote on the vote for the vote for the voting system.
and i haven’t even complicated this by asking if there is a voting system to make sure that all the potential voting choices have been correctly voted onto the voting choice ballot. of course once you have asked that you need to check has the right voting choice been made for the voting system to make sure all the potential voting choices have been made. which leads to the question: was there a vote on the vote… oh hell you know where i am going with this.
as much as it may annoy the self-appointed guardians of the pure flame of purity (or something equally wonderful) there is a reason we have an elected parliament – we put them there to make choices for us, but at the same time we have them there because they are accountable.
we can vote them out.
whatever voting system there is.
(you can file this under – was it worth the wait? you decide.)
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
cynical
a sigh. a sob. a choke. a tear.
alastair campbell has a moment on the andrew marr show.
not a great start to a sunday for mr. campbell.
or is it?
lots of coverage for mr. campbell.
which means lots of coverage for his new novel.
cynical me?
of course.
alastair campbell has a moment on the andrew marr show.
not a great start to a sunday for mr. campbell.
or is it?
lots of coverage for mr. campbell.
which means lots of coverage for his new novel.
cynical me?
of course.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
sport
sport is an amazing thing: it brings out the best and the worst in people. it unites and divides. sport can make you happy or it can leave you sad. it can have you on the edge of your seat or bore the tits off you. sport is filled with heroes and villains, winners and losers.
in short sport is a metaphor for life.
as i have gotten older my interest in sport has become more and more academic. i no longer understand the passion it brings out in people (though i will readily confess to welling up during sports movies). i now listen to the results of my favourite team and go ‘yay’ or ‘boo’ and then move on to whatever else i was doing. though i still get a little antsy when the english rugby union team takes to the field to play, and i let out a ‘coooooome on you booooys’ in hope that my voice of encouragement will help them win.
from the vantage point of the cynic it is easy to see where sport has gone wrong: money. the more popular the sport the more money there is in it (fishing doesn’t count – it is as much as a sport as train spotting is), the more money there is the bigger the amount of wankers who are involved.
you only have to look at formula 1 to see proof of that. lots of cars just going around and around and around and around. drivers claiming it is their skills that are paramount when really it is the technology that is in the car that really matters. save the environment and just have them race scalextric cars – it would be just as exciting and a lot cheaper to do.
or look at football where players can get paid enormous sums of money and then complain that they are asked to work too hard (yeah a couple of games a week and some training sessions… get real). or the fans of football who want their clubs to spend more money than is sensible but will complain the moment there is financial trouble with the club.
yet sport has shown itself to be a universal language, one that can bring us all together – such as when the world watched and gasped at the performances of usain bolt and michael phelps. we follow global sports stars such as david beckham, roger federer, tiger woods. sport has brought countries together – such as south africa, when the springboks won the rugby world cup.
yes sport has much to commend it.
sport’s change to a leading powerhouse financial brand, with global sponsorship, super rich performers, international support and reach has taken place in a world that is a lot less ordered than previously. now sport and politics don’t just mix they go hand in hand. sport is now a legitimate target for terrorists – financial and political. on the one hand you have businessmen getting involved in sport because they see it as a way to make a lot of money – they have no love for the sport as such, just what they can get from it. on the other hand you have political terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on where you stand) that will now attack sportsmen because they will create the shock and awe that the modern terrorist wants.
most recently we saw that with the africa cup of nations when the togo team bus came under attack, with the result that two of the party were killed. unsurprisingly the togo government withdrew their team from the tournament. at the time there was much sympathy directed at the togo team.
now it seems that the reward for being shot at and having members of the their delegation killed is that they are being banned from the next two africa cup of nations tournaments. seems perfectly reasonable to me, in a warped and twisted way. the confederation of african football has chosen a letter of the law type approach – something to do with state interference in sport meaning that the team has to be banned. of course what should have happened was that togo be allowed to play in the tournament because anyone with half a mind could see why they withdrew.
commonsense is something that sports administrators seem to lack.
one would have expected fifa to pop up and say something but i guess joseph s blatter was more concerned with women’s football wearing tighter tops than to point out to one of the affiliated organizations that it was making a bit of a tit of itself by a totally stupid ban.
blatter, like the rest of the world, must be hoping that the 2010 world cup in south africa is like the 1995 rugby world cup there – successful and with a feel good story for africa.
that is the other thing about sport – it encourages you to live in hope.
in short sport is a metaphor for life.
as i have gotten older my interest in sport has become more and more academic. i no longer understand the passion it brings out in people (though i will readily confess to welling up during sports movies). i now listen to the results of my favourite team and go ‘yay’ or ‘boo’ and then move on to whatever else i was doing. though i still get a little antsy when the english rugby union team takes to the field to play, and i let out a ‘coooooome on you booooys’ in hope that my voice of encouragement will help them win.
from the vantage point of the cynic it is easy to see where sport has gone wrong: money. the more popular the sport the more money there is in it (fishing doesn’t count – it is as much as a sport as train spotting is), the more money there is the bigger the amount of wankers who are involved.
you only have to look at formula 1 to see proof of that. lots of cars just going around and around and around and around. drivers claiming it is their skills that are paramount when really it is the technology that is in the car that really matters. save the environment and just have them race scalextric cars – it would be just as exciting and a lot cheaper to do.
or look at football where players can get paid enormous sums of money and then complain that they are asked to work too hard (yeah a couple of games a week and some training sessions… get real). or the fans of football who want their clubs to spend more money than is sensible but will complain the moment there is financial trouble with the club.
yet sport has shown itself to be a universal language, one that can bring us all together – such as when the world watched and gasped at the performances of usain bolt and michael phelps. we follow global sports stars such as david beckham, roger federer, tiger woods. sport has brought countries together – such as south africa, when the springboks won the rugby world cup.
yes sport has much to commend it.
sport’s change to a leading powerhouse financial brand, with global sponsorship, super rich performers, international support and reach has taken place in a world that is a lot less ordered than previously. now sport and politics don’t just mix they go hand in hand. sport is now a legitimate target for terrorists – financial and political. on the one hand you have businessmen getting involved in sport because they see it as a way to make a lot of money – they have no love for the sport as such, just what they can get from it. on the other hand you have political terrorists (or freedom fighters depending on where you stand) that will now attack sportsmen because they will create the shock and awe that the modern terrorist wants.
most recently we saw that with the africa cup of nations when the togo team bus came under attack, with the result that two of the party were killed. unsurprisingly the togo government withdrew their team from the tournament. at the time there was much sympathy directed at the togo team.
now it seems that the reward for being shot at and having members of the their delegation killed is that they are being banned from the next two africa cup of nations tournaments. seems perfectly reasonable to me, in a warped and twisted way. the confederation of african football has chosen a letter of the law type approach – something to do with state interference in sport meaning that the team has to be banned. of course what should have happened was that togo be allowed to play in the tournament because anyone with half a mind could see why they withdrew.
commonsense is something that sports administrators seem to lack.
one would have expected fifa to pop up and say something but i guess joseph s blatter was more concerned with women’s football wearing tighter tops than to point out to one of the affiliated organizations that it was making a bit of a tit of itself by a totally stupid ban.
blatter, like the rest of the world, must be hoping that the 2010 world cup in south africa is like the 1995 rugby world cup there – successful and with a feel good story for africa.
that is the other thing about sport – it encourages you to live in hope.
Friday, January 29, 2010
overheard
there i was in my favourite coffee shop.
i was supping a nice strong latte and reading. mainly minding my own business. if there is a problem with the coffee shop it is a place where lots of trendy people go to hang out and let everyone else know that they are hip and trendy. it is not enough to be there showing off, you have to be loud so people can hear you being hip and trendy.
so i am sipping coffee.
couple of tables down from me a couple are chatting. well he is doing the talking she is just providing the audience as he does his one man show.
there were a few things that made me rankle (and in my defense i wasn't earwigging the conversation, just that the volume of it was such that you couldn't ignore it) with my usual disdain of youth who believe that the world owes them a shot at fame just because they think they are good.
but he dropped a gem.
"what is it with lady gaga? i don't get it. who likes her? she can't sing, she can't dance, she wears big pants. sure she writes her own songs, but they are shit!"
can't say i disagree with him.
i was supping a nice strong latte and reading. mainly minding my own business. if there is a problem with the coffee shop it is a place where lots of trendy people go to hang out and let everyone else know that they are hip and trendy. it is not enough to be there showing off, you have to be loud so people can hear you being hip and trendy.
so i am sipping coffee.
couple of tables down from me a couple are chatting. well he is doing the talking she is just providing the audience as he does his one man show.
there were a few things that made me rankle (and in my defense i wasn't earwigging the conversation, just that the volume of it was such that you couldn't ignore it) with my usual disdain of youth who believe that the world owes them a shot at fame just because they think they are good.
but he dropped a gem.
"what is it with lady gaga? i don't get it. who likes her? she can't sing, she can't dance, she wears big pants. sure she writes her own songs, but they are shit!"
can't say i disagree with him.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
iwant
iwant (see what idid there - and there) the apple ipad.
iknow (see doing it again) that in saying that iam (call it a style thing) marking myself out as an apple junkie, but idon't (icould be in marketing) care.
call me shallow, but the ipad looks very very cool.
iwant.
(and at some point apple will make a piece of tech and they will just call it the iwant and it won't have to do anything more than be sexy because what it does will be in the title - it's sole purpose will be to an object of deisre...)
(also it can't be long before apple launch a line of perfumes - the ismell line. mmm hold that don't sound right, maybe the ismellsweet line. there will be the clothing range - the idress. crikey steve jobs give me a job i have extended the brand into totally new ranges.)
(mmm perhaps i should do this for a living - i could be ipat.)
iknow (see doing it again) that in saying that iam (call it a style thing) marking myself out as an apple junkie, but idon't (icould be in marketing) care.
call me shallow, but the ipad looks very very cool.
iwant.
(and at some point apple will make a piece of tech and they will just call it the iwant and it won't have to do anything more than be sexy because what it does will be in the title - it's sole purpose will be to an object of deisre...)
(also it can't be long before apple launch a line of perfumes - the ismell line. mmm hold that don't sound right, maybe the ismellsweet line. there will be the clothing range - the idress. crikey steve jobs give me a job i have extended the brand into totally new ranges.)
(mmm perhaps i should do this for a living - i could be ipat.)
playing
did you know that there was a time when there was no violent crime, no rapes, no binge drinking, no robbery, no riots, no single parents or no divorce? a time when all the police did was rescue kittens from trees and tell people the time (even if they didn’t want to know) and the workers doffed their caps to their betters.
i know i know it is hard to believe that such a time ever existed, but it did.
i know it did because david cameron has told me so. this golden age occurred under the conservative government of margaret thatcher.
moving on from his ‘broken britain’ idea cameron now talks about ‘social recession’ where all the ills of british society are laid at the feet of gordon brown.
the solution to this new version of ‘broken britain’ seems to be as simple as the cause: tax breaks for married couples. a neat packaging of several key favourite themes of the tories: tax cutting, traditional family life, crime and morality. (so much for the new conservatives.)
now i may be cynical but the ‘social recession’ catch phrase (not as good as ‘i love it when a plan comes together’) saw the light of day at the same time the sentences were being passed on the two boys involved in the edlington torture case. cameron was quick to use this case for political gain and to blame the labour government for the decline of social order.
while lip service was paid to the extreme rarity of such cases the implication was clear: under labour the country is going to hell in a handcart. to save the country we need the fresh, morally correct conservative party (led by david (i may or may not have been involved with drugs at college) cameron) to lead us to the faintly remembered time when the only person who came into your house unannounced was the tooth fairy.
in some ways cameron’s morality attack is an echo of gordon brown’s ‘toffs’ strategy. the difference being that when cameron is attacking binge drinking or divorce we all know he doesn’t mean us – he means those poor people over there. when the right wing press go on about how the young are easily influenced by images of sex and violence they don’t mean the children of their readers – they mean those poor people over there.
after all when prince harry and his set get pissed it is all a jolly jape. while the antics of amy winehouse or peaches geldof may cause some newspapers to complain about their conduct they also know that they sell their papers, and of course there is no chance that their responsible reporting of these people will influence anyone.
the idea of broken britain that is in a social recession is a strong one, but it is not an honest one. it is just a crude way for cameron to tell his core support that he really is one of them and that when he gets into power it will be conservative business as normal.
i know i know it is hard to believe that such a time ever existed, but it did.
i know it did because david cameron has told me so. this golden age occurred under the conservative government of margaret thatcher.
moving on from his ‘broken britain’ idea cameron now talks about ‘social recession’ where all the ills of british society are laid at the feet of gordon brown.
the solution to this new version of ‘broken britain’ seems to be as simple as the cause: tax breaks for married couples. a neat packaging of several key favourite themes of the tories: tax cutting, traditional family life, crime and morality. (so much for the new conservatives.)
now i may be cynical but the ‘social recession’ catch phrase (not as good as ‘i love it when a plan comes together’) saw the light of day at the same time the sentences were being passed on the two boys involved in the edlington torture case. cameron was quick to use this case for political gain and to blame the labour government for the decline of social order.
while lip service was paid to the extreme rarity of such cases the implication was clear: under labour the country is going to hell in a handcart. to save the country we need the fresh, morally correct conservative party (led by david (i may or may not have been involved with drugs at college) cameron) to lead us to the faintly remembered time when the only person who came into your house unannounced was the tooth fairy.
in some ways cameron’s morality attack is an echo of gordon brown’s ‘toffs’ strategy. the difference being that when cameron is attacking binge drinking or divorce we all know he doesn’t mean us – he means those poor people over there. when the right wing press go on about how the young are easily influenced by images of sex and violence they don’t mean the children of their readers – they mean those poor people over there.
after all when prince harry and his set get pissed it is all a jolly jape. while the antics of amy winehouse or peaches geldof may cause some newspapers to complain about their conduct they also know that they sell their papers, and of course there is no chance that their responsible reporting of these people will influence anyone.
the idea of broken britain that is in a social recession is a strong one, but it is not an honest one. it is just a crude way for cameron to tell his core support that he really is one of them and that when he gets into power it will be conservative business as normal.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
back
been ignoring this for too long.
this is about to change (well that is the plan).
new dawn and all that sort of thing.
this is about to change (well that is the plan).
new dawn and all that sort of thing.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
overheard
there i am in my favourite coffee shop.
it is christmas day.
most of the punters there are just happy to have somewhere to escape from the christmas festivities.
italian woman serving up the lovely hits of strong coffee.
young middle-class couple, media types, recently moved into the area. they are pleased to have found the coffee shop as they used to drink at the other one in brick lane. they remember the woman from years ago. they chat a little.
they leave.
bloke comes back.
bloke: do you have any spare cloves?
woman: yes i have spare clothes.
b: can i have some?
w: they won’t be your size..
b: (laughter) no cloves, i want to make mulled wine.
w: (laughter) ooh no, we don’t have any cloves.
b: that is a shame, i have the oranges and cinnamon, just don’t have the cloves.
w: cinnamon is good, we have some of that.
b: no i am fine for cinnamon, it is the cloves we don’t have. i suppose i could make it without the cloves. do you think that would be ok? just oranges and cinnamon?
w: sounds good. should be fine.
(all seems to be resolved, both seem pleased with the outcome.)
b: how do you make mulled wine?
did he find out how to make mulled wine? i have no idea?
are cloves essential? who knows?
it did make me smile.
it is christmas day.
most of the punters there are just happy to have somewhere to escape from the christmas festivities.
italian woman serving up the lovely hits of strong coffee.
young middle-class couple, media types, recently moved into the area. they are pleased to have found the coffee shop as they used to drink at the other one in brick lane. they remember the woman from years ago. they chat a little.
they leave.
bloke comes back.
bloke: do you have any spare cloves?
woman: yes i have spare clothes.
b: can i have some?
w: they won’t be your size..
b: (laughter) no cloves, i want to make mulled wine.
w: (laughter) ooh no, we don’t have any cloves.
b: that is a shame, i have the oranges and cinnamon, just don’t have the cloves.
w: cinnamon is good, we have some of that.
b: no i am fine for cinnamon, it is the cloves we don’t have. i suppose i could make it without the cloves. do you think that would be ok? just oranges and cinnamon?
w: sounds good. should be fine.
(all seems to be resolved, both seem pleased with the outcome.)
b: how do you make mulled wine?
did he find out how to make mulled wine? i have no idea?
are cloves essential? who knows?
it did make me smile.
Friday, January 01, 2010
2010
welcome to the new year.
the new new.
a time of changes.
a time of choices.
a time of challenges.
a little like michael owen i am approaching 2010 with hope (though i have more chance of playing for england than he does).
the new decade is filled with possibilities. opportunities. all that is needed is the will, the desire, the dedication and the drive to go for it, to push through the pain barrier, to go the extra mile. blah blah.
who the fuck am i kidding. it will be the same as last year but with a big chance that the tories will be in power.
the tories in power - lawks that is a depressing thought with which to start the new year.
the new new.
a time of changes.
a time of choices.
a time of challenges.
a little like michael owen i am approaching 2010 with hope (though i have more chance of playing for england than he does).
the new decade is filled with possibilities. opportunities. all that is needed is the will, the desire, the dedication and the drive to go for it, to push through the pain barrier, to go the extra mile. blah blah.
who the fuck am i kidding. it will be the same as last year but with a big chance that the tories will be in power.
the tories in power - lawks that is a depressing thought with which to start the new year.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
2009
end of the year.
cusp.
between here and there. then and now. before and after. past and present. this and that. tom and jerry. bill and ben. yadda yadda.
a time of reflection.
a time of resolution.
a time of oh fuck that.
like a member of parliament caught in the expenses scandal i am happy to see the back of 2009.
a truly shit year.
time to move on.
time to move up.
out with the old. in with the new.
happy new year one and all.
cusp.
between here and there. then and now. before and after. past and present. this and that. tom and jerry. bill and ben. yadda yadda.
a time of reflection.
a time of resolution.
a time of oh fuck that.
like a member of parliament caught in the expenses scandal i am happy to see the back of 2009.
a truly shit year.
time to move on.
time to move up.
out with the old. in with the new.
happy new year one and all.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
gutted
some facts.
i like books.
i like stephen king.
'under the dome' 900 pages of new stephen king goodness.
i am broke.
borders are broke.
borders are liquidating stock like there is no tomorrow (for borders there isn't, they ceased to exist today).
90% off.
i am broke.
still go in.
lots of people.
lots of empty shelves.
stacks of books. no rhyme. no reason. just piles.
nothing of interest.
hold on i recognise that book and someone has it in their pile of books.
bloke with the copy of 'under the dome' is less than helpful.
hope he chokes when he is reading it.
mooch around for a bit more.
no sign of another copy of it.
gutted.
i still like books.
i still like stephen king.
i don't have a copy of 'under the dome'.
i am still broke.
i like books.
i like stephen king.
'under the dome' 900 pages of new stephen king goodness.
i am broke.
borders are broke.
borders are liquidating stock like there is no tomorrow (for borders there isn't, they ceased to exist today).
90% off.
i am broke.
still go in.
lots of people.
lots of empty shelves.
stacks of books. no rhyme. no reason. just piles.
nothing of interest.
hold on i recognise that book and someone has it in their pile of books.
bloke with the copy of 'under the dome' is less than helpful.
hope he chokes when he is reading it.
mooch around for a bit more.
no sign of another copy of it.
gutted.
i still like books.
i still like stephen king.
i don't have a copy of 'under the dome'.
i am still broke.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
christmas
although it started earlier this year, it has taken longer for me to get into grinch mode.
a lot of that is that i am avoiding the retail experience and it seems that christmas doesn't exist beyond shops.
time for me to dig out the dr. seuss books again - just don't expect me to be smiling come christmas.
bah humbug.
a lot of that is that i am avoiding the retail experience and it seems that christmas doesn't exist beyond shops.
time for me to dig out the dr. seuss books again - just don't expect me to be smiling come christmas.
bah humbug.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
overheard
there i was at the, rather excellent, sophie calle exhibition at the whitechapel gallery when i overheard the following.
"because the paper shakes it is really intense."
made me smile.
"because the paper shakes it is really intense."
made me smile.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
moan
it has been a remarkably mild start to winter. warm and bright. most people have enjoyed pleasant temperature, the winter clothes left in the wardrobe for a few more weeks, the heating left off (ah the savings, the savings), the bright days filling our hearts with extra joy.
well that is until you get on a 15 or 25 bus where the heating is cranked up as high as it will go. i suppose it is churlish of me to complain afterall saunas are not cheap so it is nice london transport to provide me one for my journey into the west end (perhaps it is part of the price increase strategy - your journey will cost you more, but there will be additional benefits. depending on the bus you catch it might be a sauna, there might be a gym,a swimming pool, a petting zoo just something extra to help the journey go by.
the problem with the sauna approach in mild climes is you end up at the end of your journey somewhat baked, somewhat red in the face and with big sweat stains on your shirt.
i would put up with that if the buses ran smoothly, but they never do. there is always a 'schedule delay' as they even out the times between buses (always seems to happen to the one i am on, never the one behind me). or they decide to stop a few stops too soon, because the driver is coming to his lunch break, oddly the driver never admits to this, not does he remind passengers that they can get a credit to catch the next bus in order to complete their journey.
i like the bus. there is something exciting about driving through the city and being able to look at the world around you, seeing the city from different angles. however i would like to do it in buses that were not trying to cook me - and if they are trying to bake me then i wish they would get me to my destination in a timely fashion.
boris - before you put the prices up make sure you have the service working smoothly.
not sure why i even moan at boris - it is not like he cares, if he did he wouldn't be putting the prices up.
well that is until you get on a 15 or 25 bus where the heating is cranked up as high as it will go. i suppose it is churlish of me to complain afterall saunas are not cheap so it is nice london transport to provide me one for my journey into the west end (perhaps it is part of the price increase strategy - your journey will cost you more, but there will be additional benefits. depending on the bus you catch it might be a sauna, there might be a gym,a swimming pool, a petting zoo just something extra to help the journey go by.
the problem with the sauna approach in mild climes is you end up at the end of your journey somewhat baked, somewhat red in the face and with big sweat stains on your shirt.
i would put up with that if the buses ran smoothly, but they never do. there is always a 'schedule delay' as they even out the times between buses (always seems to happen to the one i am on, never the one behind me). or they decide to stop a few stops too soon, because the driver is coming to his lunch break, oddly the driver never admits to this, not does he remind passengers that they can get a credit to catch the next bus in order to complete their journey.
i like the bus. there is something exciting about driving through the city and being able to look at the world around you, seeing the city from different angles. however i would like to do it in buses that were not trying to cook me - and if they are trying to bake me then i wish they would get me to my destination in a timely fashion.
boris - before you put the prices up make sure you have the service working smoothly.
not sure why i even moan at boris - it is not like he cares, if he did he wouldn't be putting the prices up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)