The local council has just issued its new guidelines for rubbish collection. It is to be:
recycling weekly, non-recyclable rubbish in a wheelie bin half the size of the present ones, and collected once a fortnight.
While I appreciate, like most conservatives, the need to do something about our various environmental problems, this solution seems harsh and dangerous. Firstly, it is designed to make people suffer, a principle that is being ejected from the criminal justice system, but apparently alive and well in environmental circles. Where is the carrot, the benefits one could accrue from recycling? Secondly, it assumes that families of different sizes can be made to use the same amount of material. This will lead to people driving the 10 miles to the local tip, and dumping their crap there. you cannot just slice in half the stuff you use. Thirdly, leaving rubbish lying around, whether in kitchens, gardens, or wherever, for two weeks will present a health hazard. The collection of rubbish is one public service most conservatives are happy to have provided by the state or agents thereof: its introduction was primarily for public health reasons and it is those that are being completely ignored here. Over and above some putative threat to the earth the first priority of a government ("with limited resources" as we're always being told) should be the health of its citizens. But now they are using the threat of disease as another stick to beat people into changing what they see as outrageous "consumerist" lifestyles.
Naturally, as far as our council is concerned, it is just because of "targets" and you know us guv, our hands are tied.
I saw this quote on Samizdata today:
Despite the compelling evidence against recycling, Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth wants everyone to be forced to recycle. He attacks support for "the personal freedoms of citizens... this is a basic value that will need to be reviewed."
It's difficult to avoid the thought that for many on the green left, this already is being reviewed, and it can be done nice and easily as the first priority for anyone is the imminent destruction of earth. Unless we abandon everything that socialists have always hated (except when they were celebrating the latest pig iron and steel production figures from the socialist bloc), we will all die. As before, socialists dismiss the liberty of the individual. Then, it was in the service of releasing the proles from bondage. Now, it's saving the earth. Either way, the individual is of little consequence, although as a small reward, they can have as many orgasms as they like (why does the Green Party take the line that under 16s have a right to "satisfying physical relationships" as I saw in a letter to the Times recently, I wonder).
Thursday, 30 November 2006
Tuesday, 28 November 2006
Alan Freeman
Alan Freeman, legendary DJ, has died. My own tribute to the man is that when I was struggling for identity, and felt completely cast off from my generation, I found his programme "Thirty Years of Number Ones" on Radio 1 and it changed my approach to life, the purpose of life, and life itself, for me. His style was easily mocked in those later years, but his mission was to bring great music to people and he did it.
Alright? Not 'alf!
Alright? Not 'alf!
Monday, 27 November 2006
Apologizing for Things You Didn't Do
Dizzy has a post up about Blair's near apology for the slave trade.
I agree with Dizzy: an apology usually expresses a sense of responsibility for an action or event, which cannot be the case here. But Blair's near-apology is part of a political debate in which Blair (as the embodiment of the British state) is responsible, because we have accepted that people not involved in slavery by two hundred years or more, are nonetheless victims of it, hence anyone to do with the state is a perpetrator of it. The logic is twisted but understandable, even if it is nonsense. The problem is, it comes down to simple political axioms: all black people are de facto victims of slavery, whatever their personal situation, and all white people are de facto privileged at least in part because of it. Britain's role in slavery, as Dizzy did point out, and Blair didn't, extends to ending it - the British state realised the evil of it, and ended it as far as it could. But this is ignored, it has to be, otherwise the comforting simplicities of the narrative would be obscured. The article on the BBC quotes a few people, who, despite their privileged media and even governmental roles, seem to think they were victims directly involved in the slave trade and deserve greater apologies, up to and including reparations.
As an Irish descedent, whose living relatives were directly abused and discriminated against by the British state, I would object to having my taxes used, through reparations, to declare me responsible for slavery. Perhaps, though, we could insist on proper reparations from Germany for the two world wars in order to pay for it. Or we could trace everyone's origins so the money would have to come only from people whose ancestors have lived in Britain (excluding internal victims, like Irish people, some Scots and so on) since before 1807 would have their tax money used to pay the reparations. Of course, to qualify for reparations, you would have to trace your ancestry to the slave trade and have the research independently verified.
Handily, as we have an ethic that blithely declares blanket victimhood and blanket responsibility, such tricky little problems can be ignored. The politics of victimhood are endless: expressing sorrow for the slave trade and making it clear, as if it were really needed, that we're all against slavery, is, I suppose, fair enough. Making us morally responsible, or financially responsible, is not: because we had no choice in its direction or outcome. You can't get a conviction if your defendant had no role in the crime itself. And it will do nothing for race relations to institutionalise the view that white people are the root of all evil.
I agree with Dizzy: an apology usually expresses a sense of responsibility for an action or event, which cannot be the case here. But Blair's near-apology is part of a political debate in which Blair (as the embodiment of the British state) is responsible, because we have accepted that people not involved in slavery by two hundred years or more, are nonetheless victims of it, hence anyone to do with the state is a perpetrator of it. The logic is twisted but understandable, even if it is nonsense. The problem is, it comes down to simple political axioms: all black people are de facto victims of slavery, whatever their personal situation, and all white people are de facto privileged at least in part because of it. Britain's role in slavery, as Dizzy did point out, and Blair didn't, extends to ending it - the British state realised the evil of it, and ended it as far as it could. But this is ignored, it has to be, otherwise the comforting simplicities of the narrative would be obscured. The article on the BBC quotes a few people, who, despite their privileged media and even governmental roles, seem to think they were victims directly involved in the slave trade and deserve greater apologies, up to and including reparations.
As an Irish descedent, whose living relatives were directly abused and discriminated against by the British state, I would object to having my taxes used, through reparations, to declare me responsible for slavery. Perhaps, though, we could insist on proper reparations from Germany for the two world wars in order to pay for it. Or we could trace everyone's origins so the money would have to come only from people whose ancestors have lived in Britain (excluding internal victims, like Irish people, some Scots and so on) since before 1807 would have their tax money used to pay the reparations. Of course, to qualify for reparations, you would have to trace your ancestry to the slave trade and have the research independently verified.
Handily, as we have an ethic that blithely declares blanket victimhood and blanket responsibility, such tricky little problems can be ignored. The politics of victimhood are endless: expressing sorrow for the slave trade and making it clear, as if it were really needed, that we're all against slavery, is, I suppose, fair enough. Making us morally responsible, or financially responsible, is not: because we had no choice in its direction or outcome. You can't get a conviction if your defendant had no role in the crime itself. And it will do nothing for race relations to institutionalise the view that white people are the root of all evil.
The New Model (Barmy) Army
Norm has posted a refutation of my refutation, on his blog.
Don't get me wrong - I am opposed to pointless and irritating noise. I enjoy the quiet life. And I can't comment directly on what Norm has experienced because I'm not there. But I have followed an Ashes tour with the Army and heard them, been in the middle of them, been part of them, sung and (been) drunk with them.
To blame the noise Norm has experienced on the Barmy Army and to describe them as an "infestation" still seems unfair to me. I've experienced drunkenness and aggression, and endless shouting of "cmon Aussie cmon" and so on, and I've been threatened, abused and had to listen to hours upon hours of rubbish from Aussie fans in cricket grounds in Australia, and it was a lot worse than singing; but the authorities and Australian fans really didn't seem half as interested in the problems we experienced as they do in a bit of noisy trumpeting and shouting. The kind of irritation Norm has experienced is not copyrighted, nor was invented by the Barmy Army. It is not essential to their existence, nor is it an inevitable part of their being anywhere.
I also believe that the Barmy Army, as I said before, whatever some pockets of it do, are by and large a force for good, which is why the Australians have tried, somewhat half heartedly, to imitate them.
Having said that, the Barmy Army is supposed to be an organisation for making friends and having a good time, so they should discourage the kind of shouting Norm objects to. I don't see anything wrong with chants or shouts; they are part of supporting teams, but they shouldn't go on for hours. I disagree with Norm's point that the good parts of the Army don't "mitigate" this - yes they do, as our good points always mitigate our bad, and the Barmy Army are just a bunch of sports fans, not criminals.
Norm also makes a wider point:
they periodically also set up what to many who aren't part of their chorus is an appalling din, intruding on the concentration, and on the pleasure of watching the game in peace.
TMS has had debates on this for the last year or so. Traditionally cricket has been a peaceful game to watch. But is it changing? Some TMSers, like Aggers, took Norm's position, but others thought that the way cricket is watched, just like the way it is played, is adapting to attract new generations. For good or bad, it might just be that your odds of watching cricket in peace are going to lengthen anyway. I enjoy both parts of it.
Why am I giving any effort to this? The world is falling to bits and an Englishman is arguing with an Australian fan over cricket, or matters pertaining to it. That, again, is why I love cricket. Even in its minor disputes, its niggles and its arguments, cricket seems to have encoded what we take to be good, ethical, sensitive and thoughtful, which is why we're conducting this discussion on a common assumption that pleasant things, like friendship and humour, peace and quiet, are good; and noise and aggression are bad.
Don't get me wrong - I am opposed to pointless and irritating noise. I enjoy the quiet life. And I can't comment directly on what Norm has experienced because I'm not there. But I have followed an Ashes tour with the Army and heard them, been in the middle of them, been part of them, sung and (been) drunk with them.
To blame the noise Norm has experienced on the Barmy Army and to describe them as an "infestation" still seems unfair to me. I've experienced drunkenness and aggression, and endless shouting of "cmon Aussie cmon" and so on, and I've been threatened, abused and had to listen to hours upon hours of rubbish from Aussie fans in cricket grounds in Australia, and it was a lot worse than singing; but the authorities and Australian fans really didn't seem half as interested in the problems we experienced as they do in a bit of noisy trumpeting and shouting. The kind of irritation Norm has experienced is not copyrighted, nor was invented by the Barmy Army. It is not essential to their existence, nor is it an inevitable part of their being anywhere.
I also believe that the Barmy Army, as I said before, whatever some pockets of it do, are by and large a force for good, which is why the Australians have tried, somewhat half heartedly, to imitate them.
Having said that, the Barmy Army is supposed to be an organisation for making friends and having a good time, so they should discourage the kind of shouting Norm objects to. I don't see anything wrong with chants or shouts; they are part of supporting teams, but they shouldn't go on for hours. I disagree with Norm's point that the good parts of the Army don't "mitigate" this - yes they do, as our good points always mitigate our bad, and the Barmy Army are just a bunch of sports fans, not criminals.
Norm also makes a wider point:
they periodically also set up what to many who aren't part of their chorus is an appalling din, intruding on the concentration, and on the pleasure of watching the game in peace.
TMS has had debates on this for the last year or so. Traditionally cricket has been a peaceful game to watch. But is it changing? Some TMSers, like Aggers, took Norm's position, but others thought that the way cricket is watched, just like the way it is played, is adapting to attract new generations. For good or bad, it might just be that your odds of watching cricket in peace are going to lengthen anyway. I enjoy both parts of it.
Why am I giving any effort to this? The world is falling to bits and an Englishman is arguing with an Australian fan over cricket, or matters pertaining to it. That, again, is why I love cricket. Even in its minor disputes, its niggles and its arguments, cricket seems to have encoded what we take to be good, ethical, sensitive and thoughtful, which is why we're conducting this discussion on a common assumption that pleasant things, like friendship and humour, peace and quiet, are good; and noise and aggression are bad.
ho ho
It must be April 1st.
The front page of the BBC website has a big plug for themselves, saying:
The BBC's Battles/Fighting for Editorial Independence.
When I had finished laughing, I realised they were serious. Do they cover their noted battle for independence over EU or multicultural issues? Do they cover their fight to get the racist murder of Kriss Donald recognised for what it was?
It's interesting that this arm of big government thinks it can play on the over-taxed public's sympathy for them against other arms of big government. As if the BBCs bias and incompetence today is somehow justified by whatever role they played in the General Strike. The BBC still does not realise that it is not a poor little victim, but a privileged taxation funded media enterprise which uses its advantage to squeeze genuine companies out of business and attempts to crush its rivals, not by making more money, but by begging the government for it.
The front page of the BBC website has a big plug for themselves, saying:
The BBC's Battles/Fighting for Editorial Independence.
When I had finished laughing, I realised they were serious. Do they cover their noted battle for independence over EU or multicultural issues? Do they cover their fight to get the racist murder of Kriss Donald recognised for what it was?
It's interesting that this arm of big government thinks it can play on the over-taxed public's sympathy for them against other arms of big government. As if the BBCs bias and incompetence today is somehow justified by whatever role they played in the General Strike. The BBC still does not realise that it is not a poor little victim, but a privileged taxation funded media enterprise which uses its advantage to squeeze genuine companies out of business and attempts to crush its rivals, not by making more money, but by begging the government for it.
Sunday, 26 November 2006
Norm's Reply
I emailed Norm to apprise him of my criticism of his stance. He has replied thus:
..I'd like you to understand my point of view. I have no objection to people having fun, taking the mickey, supporting their team. I'm happy to listen to football songs and chants whenever I go to Old Trafford to watch ManUnited.
But the Barmy Army specialize in relentless noise - mainly with the "Barmy Army, Barmy Army, Barmy Army...." chant which they can sometimes keep up for extended periods. If you're sitting next to that, or even nearby, it can absolutely ruin your day at the Test. So I stand by what I wrote. I've seen many different sets of supporters - cricket and football - getting behind their team without doing what the Barmy Army do.
Fair enough. I don't agree, but I'll leave it here.
..I'd like you to understand my point of view. I have no objection to people having fun, taking the mickey, supporting their team. I'm happy to listen to football songs and chants whenever I go to Old Trafford to watch ManUnited.
But the Barmy Army specialize in relentless noise - mainly with the "Barmy Army, Barmy Army, Barmy Army...." chant which they can sometimes keep up for extended periods. If you're sitting next to that, or even nearby, it can absolutely ruin your day at the Test. So I stand by what I wrote. I've seen many different sets of supporters - cricket and football - getting behind their team without doing what the Barmy Army do.
Fair enough. I don't agree, but I'll leave it here.
Sorry Norm, You're Wrong
I don't say this very often - indeed, never before, because Norm is a clever, humane, thoughtful person; but something he has written has got right up my nose.
This:
The Barmy Army, I see from the press, are moaning: because their trumpet player has been prevented from playing; because they have not been able all to congregate in the same area of the ground. The conceit is that the Army are only supporters having a bit of fun, and I have to agree that the banning of their trumpet player is stupid. He disturbs nothing. But the Barmy Army, supporting the England team as may be, are an infestation. They intrude on the enjoyment of those (or at least many of those) who are not of their number, being an outfit dedicated to the pure production of noise - I mean, unpleasant noise. Not all supporters go in for that. And, by and large, watching cricket at the Gabba these last few days has been a more peaceful experience than some I've had.
By which I can only think that Norm objects to the noise because, by and large, it's taking the mickey out of the australians: which, to judge by the ridiculous seating and "security" policies at the Gabba, is what the Australian cricket authorities really can't stand. As a former trooper in the Barmy Army myself I can assure everyone that they are as friendly a bunch of drunken blokes as you'll meet; that their banter is generally funny and not threatening; that the Australian fans usually reply in kind and they end up in the bar together.
Describing paying supporters as an "infestation", just because they're noisy (I can't see any other complain against them here), is unfair and unjust. They are not yobs, or hooligans, they just suppport their team vociferously (like West Indian fans have been doing for 30 years).
Before I am accused of being a whinging pom, let's just run through the recent Australian whinges, shall we?
The Aussies lost in 2005 because of:
the weather
the ball
the umpires
the Barmy Army
extremely unlucky injuries (as if England have never had these before)
unfair sledging
unfair use of substitutes
England playing the game not in "the spirit of cricket" (a wholly fictitious entity created to ensure Australian dominance of a game they rose to supremacy in partly by intimidating and barracking opposing teams)
Apart from these, other whinges included:
insults to Jason Gillespie being "racist" (bzzzzt, you lose)
insults to Matthew Hayden being stage managed by the England team
constant barracking by home fans, even the non-Army elements
the English media being awful (er, and?)
I can't be bothered to find links for these, but I've heard them all. This time, by forcibly preventing England fans from being a group of fans, the Aussies have got their whinging in first. Well done, lads.
NOTE: Even after today's vaguely improved performance, England are still crap. No whinges on this score from me.
This:
The Barmy Army, I see from the press, are moaning: because their trumpet player has been prevented from playing; because they have not been able all to congregate in the same area of the ground. The conceit is that the Army are only supporters having a bit of fun, and I have to agree that the banning of their trumpet player is stupid. He disturbs nothing. But the Barmy Army, supporting the England team as may be, are an infestation. They intrude on the enjoyment of those (or at least many of those) who are not of their number, being an outfit dedicated to the pure production of noise - I mean, unpleasant noise. Not all supporters go in for that. And, by and large, watching cricket at the Gabba these last few days has been a more peaceful experience than some I've had.
By which I can only think that Norm objects to the noise because, by and large, it's taking the mickey out of the australians: which, to judge by the ridiculous seating and "security" policies at the Gabba, is what the Australian cricket authorities really can't stand. As a former trooper in the Barmy Army myself I can assure everyone that they are as friendly a bunch of drunken blokes as you'll meet; that their banter is generally funny and not threatening; that the Australian fans usually reply in kind and they end up in the bar together.
Describing paying supporters as an "infestation", just because they're noisy (I can't see any other complain against them here), is unfair and unjust. They are not yobs, or hooligans, they just suppport their team vociferously (like West Indian fans have been doing for 30 years).
Before I am accused of being a whinging pom, let's just run through the recent Australian whinges, shall we?
The Aussies lost in 2005 because of:
the weather
the ball
the umpires
the Barmy Army
extremely unlucky injuries (as if England have never had these before)
unfair sledging
unfair use of substitutes
England playing the game not in "the spirit of cricket" (a wholly fictitious entity created to ensure Australian dominance of a game they rose to supremacy in partly by intimidating and barracking opposing teams)
Apart from these, other whinges included:
insults to Jason Gillespie being "racist" (bzzzzt, you lose)
insults to Matthew Hayden being stage managed by the England team
constant barracking by home fans, even the non-Army elements
the English media being awful (er, and?)
I can't be bothered to find links for these, but I've heard them all. This time, by forcibly preventing England fans from being a group of fans, the Aussies have got their whinging in first. Well done, lads.
NOTE: Even after today's vaguely improved performance, England are still crap. No whinges on this score from me.
Saturday, 25 November 2006
The Bleedin' Obvious
If you go to this BBC page you see a link to an audio/video thingy called "Health Risks of Polonium 210".
May I respectfully suggest some future articles for the BBC's hard pressed health department:
"Abortion 'kills foetuses' study claims"
"Health Risks of knife in the heart examined"
"Death is a killer, scientist says"
"Boot in the bollocks - painful?"
"Playing sport is 'exercise' claims study"
"Health risks of smoking 90 a day examined"
"Sexual disease rates could be improved by changing behavour, claims stupid study by ridiculous fundamentalist"
Now that I put it like this, is there any link between the Daily Mail and the BBC's Health Department?
May I respectfully suggest some future articles for the BBC's hard pressed health department:
"Abortion 'kills foetuses' study claims"
"Health Risks of knife in the heart examined"
"Death is a killer, scientist says"
"Boot in the bollocks - painful?"
"Playing sport is 'exercise' claims study"
"Health risks of smoking 90 a day examined"
"Sexual disease rates could be improved by changing behavour, claims stupid study by ridiculous fundamentalist"
Now that I put it like this, is there any link between the Daily Mail and the BBC's Health Department?
Things Never To Do
The meme I got tagged with yesterday by James Higham (and subsequently only managed to pass on to one individual, namely Tom Paine), has got me thinking about such vows and whether they are worth anything, inspire by reading Ian Kershaw, Martin Gilbert, Richard J Evans and a book called "A Strange Enemy People", about the British zone of Germany between 1945 and 1950.
These ideals tend to take one thing for granted: your ability to make those choices. Tom Paine, in his 10, gives voice to his fears for liberty in his homeland, which I avoided, but feel increasingly keenly. People talk and write of the lack of opposition in Nazi Germany, and only sometimes do the comfortable historians refer to the manufacturing of widespread consent in a dictatorship, by which I mean the way that moral values we take for granted in a free society don't apply to the same extent. If you have a set of beliefs but are consistently living in a state of terror, with death and torture your faithful companions, you lose the responsbility of someone with the freedom to exercise your choices, and others lose the right to bring you to account. Under oppression, real oppression, if you feel your duty is to survive in the face of bewildering violence and the meaninglessness of life it spreads, you are not to be judged. That doesn't mean that murder and terrorism automatically become justified; but it means collaboration with an evil government does not deserve the condemnation we seem inclined to give sometimes.
Martin Gilbert gives a harrowing account of the attempts of rabbis to formulate ethical codes for living in the ghetto - that it is even considered should be enough to make us weep. Even in a true "victim" position, to consider yourself an autonomous moral citizen with responsbilities to yourself and others, and even to some kind of ideal about human purposes - should put our society to shame. Perhaps it was just an attempt to survive by making their situation the subject of routine and hence to humanise it; still it shines to us across the bright lights of our shallow world.
What I mean is not that we are heading the same way as Nazi Germany or any other dictatorship; it is just a comment on the nature of responsibility and morality.
As it happens, I agree with Mr Paine's assumptions: I do think our rights are being infringed, despite the figleaf and lawyer's chequebook of the Human Rights Act, and I do think our government, out of sheer mistrust and misunderstanding of the people, are trying to bring us under ever more control. We are, at the moment at least, not really bothered - and so we are fiddling while our trousers are being eaten by a small but malicious dog.
These ideals tend to take one thing for granted: your ability to make those choices. Tom Paine, in his 10, gives voice to his fears for liberty in his homeland, which I avoided, but feel increasingly keenly. People talk and write of the lack of opposition in Nazi Germany, and only sometimes do the comfortable historians refer to the manufacturing of widespread consent in a dictatorship, by which I mean the way that moral values we take for granted in a free society don't apply to the same extent. If you have a set of beliefs but are consistently living in a state of terror, with death and torture your faithful companions, you lose the responsbility of someone with the freedom to exercise your choices, and others lose the right to bring you to account. Under oppression, real oppression, if you feel your duty is to survive in the face of bewildering violence and the meaninglessness of life it spreads, you are not to be judged. That doesn't mean that murder and terrorism automatically become justified; but it means collaboration with an evil government does not deserve the condemnation we seem inclined to give sometimes.
Martin Gilbert gives a harrowing account of the attempts of rabbis to formulate ethical codes for living in the ghetto - that it is even considered should be enough to make us weep. Even in a true "victim" position, to consider yourself an autonomous moral citizen with responsbilities to yourself and others, and even to some kind of ideal about human purposes - should put our society to shame. Perhaps it was just an attempt to survive by making their situation the subject of routine and hence to humanise it; still it shines to us across the bright lights of our shallow world.
What I mean is not that we are heading the same way as Nazi Germany or any other dictatorship; it is just a comment on the nature of responsibility and morality.
As it happens, I agree with Mr Paine's assumptions: I do think our rights are being infringed, despite the figleaf and lawyer's chequebook of the Human Rights Act, and I do think our government, out of sheer mistrust and misunderstanding of the people, are trying to bring us under ever more control. We are, at the moment at least, not really bothered - and so we are fiddling while our trousers are being eaten by a small but malicious dog.
Banks to withstand flu pandemic
Thank goodness for that. And here's me lying awake at night worrying how that bunch of grasping hypocrites was going to cope in the event that half of us are laid up with a life threatening virus.
Friday, 24 November 2006
Goddamm it
I can't even find email addresses for half the chaps below. I really am sad.
And worse than that - I dreamt about the England performance last night, woke up shivering, realised it was a dream, and when I switched on Radio 5 Live, it was much, much worse than my dream.
I hate it when the children write stories like that.
Oh thank goodness - Jilted John on the CD.
"He's more of a man than you'll ever be/here we go/two three four/"
And worse than that - I dreamt about the England performance last night, woke up shivering, realised it was a dream, and when I switched on Radio 5 Live, it was much, much worse than my dream.
I hate it when the children write stories like that.
Oh thank goodness - Jilted John on the CD.
"He's more of a man than you'll ever be/here we go/two three four/"
Tag. I'm It
I've been tagged. I haven't responded until now because I've been squeezing blood out of the proverbial stone in my classroom. Bloody hellfire, even my student looks at me with contempt in her glance. Still. I've got Depeche Mode on the mp3, and I'm dicing with powercuts. So here we go.
Ten Things The Drummer Would Never Do:
1) Declare: "As a socialist, I..."
2) Procure/assist/advise in or for an abortion unless it were needed for survival
3) Wear gold or gold lame
4) Watch Lost
5) Give up on the power or importance of history
6) Give up on the people, or declare them a mob, like Polly
7) Declare: "As a republican, I..."
8) Vote Green/Socalist/Revolutionary Communist/Communist/Left Socialist/Left Revolutionary/Left Communist/Right Communist/Reform Communist/Communist Party of Britain/ British Communist Party/The Communist Party of Great Britain/Revolutionary Socialist Party/BNP.*
9) Read any more books by Richard Dawkins (I was only 21, ok???)
10) Refuse to watch Doctor Who, if it were broadcast on a tv channel I can receive.
*= Yes I know I've just made some of these up.
note: I have not put "Become an atheist". I don't wish to, goodness knows I don't; but I ain't gonna promise it.
I believe I'm required to pass this meme on (how Prof Dawkins would think I'm doing his work for him). Alas, I know few bloggers. So: Tom Paine, UK Daily Pundit, the Ranting Guttersnipe, Nanny Knows Best, The Pedant General
...and that will have to do. If anyone would like to be tagged by me, please let me know (oo...er...eh?...eh?....nudge....nudge....wink, wink).
UPDATE (10.40pm): I was tagged by James Higham (http://nourishingobscurity.blogspot.com). Sorry, forgot my manners.
Ten Things The Drummer Would Never Do:
1) Declare: "As a socialist, I..."
2) Procure/assist/advise in or for an abortion unless it were needed for survival
3) Wear gold or gold lame
4) Watch Lost
5) Give up on the power or importance of history
6) Give up on the people, or declare them a mob, like Polly
7) Declare: "As a republican, I..."
8) Vote Green/Socalist/Revolutionary Communist/Communist/Left Socialist/Left Revolutionary/Left Communist/Right Communist/Reform Communist/Communist Party of Britain/ British Communist Party/The Communist Party of Great Britain/Revolutionary Socialist Party/BNP.*
9) Read any more books by Richard Dawkins (I was only 21, ok???)
10) Refuse to watch Doctor Who, if it were broadcast on a tv channel I can receive.
*= Yes I know I've just made some of these up.
note: I have not put "Become an atheist". I don't wish to, goodness knows I don't; but I ain't gonna promise it.
I believe I'm required to pass this meme on (how Prof Dawkins would think I'm doing his work for him). Alas, I know few bloggers. So: Tom Paine, UK Daily Pundit, the Ranting Guttersnipe, Nanny Knows Best, The Pedant General
...and that will have to do. If anyone would like to be tagged by me, please let me know (oo...er...eh?...eh?....nudge....nudge....wink, wink).
UPDATE (10.40pm): I was tagged by James Higham (http://nourishingobscurity.blogspot.com). Sorry, forgot my manners.
Thursday, 23 November 2006
SSshhhhhh
By the way, it's been awfully quiet around here lately. Have my readers deserted me? All I hear when I visit Sitemeter is the hushed whisper of the tumbleweed rolling ironically across my blog.
tsk.
Well, one day in and it certainly looks like normal cricketing service is resumed. I have no idea whatsoever what Harmison is thinking but he must be the softest fast bowler ever. These guys are usually renowned for being snarling, aggressive anti-heroes, but Harmison is as easily put off his line as David Cameron. This would be fine if we had other ripsnorting shitbags we could call on, but alas there is only Freddie to carry the fire to the Aussies, while he has to soothe Harmison's troubled confidence at the same time. Truth be told, I only listened to the end of the day's play, as I was waking up; I had been seized by the dread I remembered from previous tours: in 1998-99, though, I had no choice but to watch the horror repeatedly unfold, while last night I could anticipate it and go to sleep.
When we look at such utterly pathetic performances, it should remind us that we do, as the rest of the world thinks, have a tendency to arrogance at the slightest success. While we rationalise it by saying that we lose so often it is fair enough for us to go overboard when we win, everyone else just thinks we are trying to reassert imperial dominance. Growing up watching England losing regularly in all sports, except maybe rugby, it has been difficult for me to appreciate that other countries see England sport as part of the old empire: it just makes me think that if that were true, the British Empire would never have got out of Portsmouth.
And we struggle to maintain aggression in sport: it is as if we think we don't have the right to assert ourselves (for what is it we are asserting when we play a game aggressively?), that we need to be timid and to play with some sense of guilt, almost. England - and Britain - is currently struggling to find a purpose and role for itself, as it has been since 1945. What makes this different is that now no-one really feels comfortable saying "British culture or English culture is....". The only thing anyone wants to say is that it is tolerant. Great. Not much good if you are trying to psych yourself up to bowl at 94mph to the world's best batsmen.
I've written before on the end of the UK. I'm aware that I'm heading for the same extreme I've just criticised England fans for (but the other end) - but would the end of the UK give the England cricket a purposeful and teleological boost?
Geez, cricket can be a depressing sport sometimes. That's why it is the greatest of all sports.
When we look at such utterly pathetic performances, it should remind us that we do, as the rest of the world thinks, have a tendency to arrogance at the slightest success. While we rationalise it by saying that we lose so often it is fair enough for us to go overboard when we win, everyone else just thinks we are trying to reassert imperial dominance. Growing up watching England losing regularly in all sports, except maybe rugby, it has been difficult for me to appreciate that other countries see England sport as part of the old empire: it just makes me think that if that were true, the British Empire would never have got out of Portsmouth.
And we struggle to maintain aggression in sport: it is as if we think we don't have the right to assert ourselves (for what is it we are asserting when we play a game aggressively?), that we need to be timid and to play with some sense of guilt, almost. England - and Britain - is currently struggling to find a purpose and role for itself, as it has been since 1945. What makes this different is that now no-one really feels comfortable saying "British culture or English culture is....". The only thing anyone wants to say is that it is tolerant. Great. Not much good if you are trying to psych yourself up to bowl at 94mph to the world's best batsmen.
I've written before on the end of the UK. I'm aware that I'm heading for the same extreme I've just criticised England fans for (but the other end) - but would the end of the UK give the England cricket a purposeful and teleological boost?
Geez, cricket can be a depressing sport sometimes. That's why it is the greatest of all sports.
Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Ashes To Ashes, Funk to Funky, We Know....
So here it is. Almost. I've avoided commenting on the ashes, which begins tonight, for the simple reason that as far as I'm concerned, it's still September 2005 and we've only just won the ashes back after 16 years. The thought that the long years of anguish may just be about to begin again is too much for me, so I've tried to pretend that the taste of glorious victory is still fizzing on my tongue, and that KP only yesterday scorched the Oval turf with his 158.
Alas, this is not the case. I am afraid that I think England are going to go down in this series and this is why:
1) It's Australia. It's extremely hot, humid, or not humid, or dry, or the wind is blowing off the antarctic. England players just don't have enough time to grasp the fact that not only is Australia different, it's massive and they will not just be heading up the road to Headingly, but going the equivalent of London-Warsaw, Paris-Edinburgh and so on when they go between tests. With such a punishing schedule, I just don't think they will have enough time to acclimatise.
2) It's Australia. The Aussies have not lost a series at home since 1992-3.
3) It's Australia. The Aussie media and sporting public do not like poms, with this curious habit of complaining about England's sledging, tactics, sporting behaviour, media, and fans (who are racist of course) while simultaneously going on about whinging poms. Fine, except that when there are 100000 of these buggers at the MCG it's like going to the Bernabeu for a win - for five days on the bounce. I'd be surprised if England weren't worn down by this, as they have been on previous tours.
4) Duncan Fletcher. Yes good coach. But from media shy he seems to have become a media whore, with quotes everyday about something or other. And his judgement is suspect in the extreme. Read, with a couple of 50s in his last two tests, gets dropped for a player who hasn't scored more than about 20 for at least 18 months AND makes regular dropped catches. Wait for him to drop Ponting on 2 in the first test, and see what happens.
5)Marcus Trescothick. The partnerships between him and Strauss were instrumental to the 05 Ashes success. Cook is a good player, but not the same kind. Without Tres there to blast a few fours at the start of an innings, it'll fall to Strauss, who'll get out, caught at point cutting McGrath, for 6.
6) The bowling. Where to start? Panesar is brilliant but can't bat. Giles is ok. Why not go with Panesar? Well, because he might not take enough wickets....well, alright then, how many is Giles going to take? It doesn't matter because he might get 20 runs or so. The negativity surrounding England's selections is slap back in the mid 90s - something I thought we'd lost for ever. It seems not. Harmison? Can't be doing with it. Anderson? Hmmmm. Mahmood? dunno, mate. Who is going to smash those Aussie helmets? Fred? "Three jobs" Flintoff? I wouldn't be surprised if he was crocked again after the first test. I guess it'll have to be Hoggie then.
7)The last hurrah. This will almost certainly be the last Ashes series for many of the Aussie grandads, and by golly they are going to make sure that it's a good one. They are so psyched up and ready; they won't be taken by surprise this time, they're in front of their children and grandchildren, who will all be psyching them up even more. There'll be none of the mateyness of 05 - it'll be back to the big bad Aussies sledging and fighting and scrapping their way to victory.
If I seem a bit pessimistic it's because I am. I'd love England to put up a fight, but I can't see it. If there's one thing worse than a whinging Aussie it's a gloating Aussie, and I think there's going to be plenty of them.
Play up, play up and play the game.
Alas, this is not the case. I am afraid that I think England are going to go down in this series and this is why:
1) It's Australia. It's extremely hot, humid, or not humid, or dry, or the wind is blowing off the antarctic. England players just don't have enough time to grasp the fact that not only is Australia different, it's massive and they will not just be heading up the road to Headingly, but going the equivalent of London-Warsaw, Paris-Edinburgh and so on when they go between tests. With such a punishing schedule, I just don't think they will have enough time to acclimatise.
2) It's Australia. The Aussies have not lost a series at home since 1992-3.
3) It's Australia. The Aussie media and sporting public do not like poms, with this curious habit of complaining about England's sledging, tactics, sporting behaviour, media, and fans (who are racist of course) while simultaneously going on about whinging poms. Fine, except that when there are 100000 of these buggers at the MCG it's like going to the Bernabeu for a win - for five days on the bounce. I'd be surprised if England weren't worn down by this, as they have been on previous tours.
4) Duncan Fletcher. Yes good coach. But from media shy he seems to have become a media whore, with quotes everyday about something or other. And his judgement is suspect in the extreme. Read, with a couple of 50s in his last two tests, gets dropped for a player who hasn't scored more than about 20 for at least 18 months AND makes regular dropped catches. Wait for him to drop Ponting on 2 in the first test, and see what happens.
5)Marcus Trescothick. The partnerships between him and Strauss were instrumental to the 05 Ashes success. Cook is a good player, but not the same kind. Without Tres there to blast a few fours at the start of an innings, it'll fall to Strauss, who'll get out, caught at point cutting McGrath, for 6.
6) The bowling. Where to start? Panesar is brilliant but can't bat. Giles is ok. Why not go with Panesar? Well, because he might not take enough wickets....well, alright then, how many is Giles going to take? It doesn't matter because he might get 20 runs or so. The negativity surrounding England's selections is slap back in the mid 90s - something I thought we'd lost for ever. It seems not. Harmison? Can't be doing with it. Anderson? Hmmmm. Mahmood? dunno, mate. Who is going to smash those Aussie helmets? Fred? "Three jobs" Flintoff? I wouldn't be surprised if he was crocked again after the first test. I guess it'll have to be Hoggie then.
7)The last hurrah. This will almost certainly be the last Ashes series for many of the Aussie grandads, and by golly they are going to make sure that it's a good one. They are so psyched up and ready; they won't be taken by surprise this time, they're in front of their children and grandchildren, who will all be psyching them up even more. There'll be none of the mateyness of 05 - it'll be back to the big bad Aussies sledging and fighting and scrapping their way to victory.
If I seem a bit pessimistic it's because I am. I'd love England to put up a fight, but I can't see it. If there's one thing worse than a whinging Aussie it's a gloating Aussie, and I think there's going to be plenty of them.
Play up, play up and play the game.
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
The Power of Polly
Further to the mention of Polly by Tim Worstall today, I found this concise and true comment on The Joy of Curmudgeonry, in response to Deogolwulf's post about the state. akaky writes:
One of the reasons that Ms Toynbee and others of her statist disposition do not fear the power of the state is because they intend to be on the commanding heights of that state, looking down on the poor helots they get to lord it over. If you intend to be a master, then, by definition, you are for increasing the power of masters, even if you tell yourself that what you are doing is for the helots' own good.
One of the reasons that Ms Toynbee and others of her statist disposition do not fear the power of the state is because they intend to be on the commanding heights of that state, looking down on the poor helots they get to lord it over. If you intend to be a master, then, by definition, you are for increasing the power of masters, even if you tell yourself that what you are doing is for the helots' own good.
The Science of Viz
It seems that the "beer goggles" effect, well known to drinkers everywhere, in fact has a scientific basis and an equation.
The BBC report I've linked to here goes on to say:
Nathan Efron, Professor of Clinical Optometry at the University of Manchester, said: "The beer goggles effect isn't solely dependent on how much alcohol a person consumes, there are other influencing factors at play too.
"For example, someone with normal vision, who has consumed five pints of beer and views a person 1.5 metres away in a fairly smoky and poorly lit room, will score 55, which means they would suffer from a moderate beer goggle effect."
Fair enough.
It concludes by saying:
A poll showed that 68% of people had regretted giving their phone number to someone to whom they later realised they were not attracted.
A formula rating of less than one means no effect. Between one and 50 the person you would normally find unattractive appears less "visually offensive".
Non-appealing people become suddenly attractive between 51 and 100. At more than 100, someone not considered attractive looks like a super model.
It really does read like a Viz spoof article, but without any of the swearing. I bet the research was fun and "cost effective".
The BBC report I've linked to here goes on to say:
Nathan Efron, Professor of Clinical Optometry at the University of Manchester, said: "The beer goggles effect isn't solely dependent on how much alcohol a person consumes, there are other influencing factors at play too.
"For example, someone with normal vision, who has consumed five pints of beer and views a person 1.5 metres away in a fairly smoky and poorly lit room, will score 55, which means they would suffer from a moderate beer goggle effect."
Fair enough.
It concludes by saying:
A poll showed that 68% of people had regretted giving their phone number to someone to whom they later realised they were not attracted.
A formula rating of less than one means no effect. Between one and 50 the person you would normally find unattractive appears less "visually offensive".
Non-appealing people become suddenly attractive between 51 and 100. At more than 100, someone not considered attractive looks like a super model.
It really does read like a Viz spoof article, but without any of the swearing. I bet the research was fun and "cost effective".
Monday, 20 November 2006
Another Great Blog
Just discovered another cool blog: The Joy of Curmudgeonry
Any blog that quotes Old English in its header is good enough for me.
Any blog that quotes Old English in its header is good enough for me.
BA are a Bunch of Discriminatory Idiots
I have to admit, when I heard that the woman in this case was going to appeal, I thought that common sense might actually prevail.
Au contraire. BA are maintaining that crucifixes are to be hidden at all times.
So let's look at the logic, shall we? Again?
She said during Monday's meeting, British Airways told her it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery, but would be standing by its original decision.
"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy."
Fine. She must be lying then, because BA cannot both recognise that the crucifx is not jewellery and insist that it is. If they do treat the cross as jewellery, why say this:
"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths."
So. You do recognise that the crucifix is a religious symbol, you allow other faiths to wear visible symbols, but you do not allow Christians the same privilege. Either that or the above statement is totally irrelevant to this case.
Given that you do allow other faiths to wear visible symbols of faith, you cannot be offended by the appearance of religious symbols per se. Given that you have admitted that the crucifix is being treated as such, why is it to be hidden and other symbols are not? Just because they can't be hidden? What kind of spurious reasoning is that? Why would you need to hide one religous symbol anyway, if you are happy to see others?
As I and His Grace and many others pointed out first time round, if she came into work wearing a bishop's mitre, or priestly vestments, or a foot long crucifix, would she be allowed to wear them openly, because it would not be practicable to hide them?
BA's defence of their illogical position is non-existent, but relies solely on their authority as bosses. Why aren't the unions jumping up and down about this? They are not quoted in the BBC website report at all. Surely they should be in the forefront of fighting discrimination?
I'm pleased to say that I can give in to my fear, save the planet, and boycott BA -all without doing a stroke of work. Life can be extremely comfortable sometimes.
Au contraire. BA are maintaining that crucifixes are to be hidden at all times.
So let's look at the logic, shall we? Again?
She said during Monday's meeting, British Airways told her it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery, but would be standing by its original decision.
"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy."
Fine. She must be lying then, because BA cannot both recognise that the crucifx is not jewellery and insist that it is. If they do treat the cross as jewellery, why say this:
"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths."
So. You do recognise that the crucifix is a religious symbol, you allow other faiths to wear visible symbols, but you do not allow Christians the same privilege. Either that or the above statement is totally irrelevant to this case.
Given that you do allow other faiths to wear visible symbols of faith, you cannot be offended by the appearance of religious symbols per se. Given that you have admitted that the crucifix is being treated as such, why is it to be hidden and other symbols are not? Just because they can't be hidden? What kind of spurious reasoning is that? Why would you need to hide one religous symbol anyway, if you are happy to see others?
As I and His Grace and many others pointed out first time round, if she came into work wearing a bishop's mitre, or priestly vestments, or a foot long crucifix, would she be allowed to wear them openly, because it would not be practicable to hide them?
BA's defence of their illogical position is non-existent, but relies solely on their authority as bosses. Why aren't the unions jumping up and down about this? They are not quoted in the BBC website report at all. Surely they should be in the forefront of fighting discrimination?
I'm pleased to say that I can give in to my fear, save the planet, and boycott BA -all without doing a stroke of work. Life can be extremely comfortable sometimes.
Sunday, 19 November 2006
Drinking
I posted a little comment on Devil's Kitchen today boasting about my intake of Pol Roger over the weekend. The thing about that was that Ms Drummer and I did the drinking at home and it wasn't beer.
I tend to think that actually, the great centrepiece of English civilisation is the pub. It is the pub where most political chatter (however ill-informed) takes place, which is why Guardian columnists despise the kind of talk that goes on there - precisely because it is a real democratic forum. It is in the pub that communities find their soul, in homely, safe, environments with buildings that have lived through the wars, the unemployment, the dislocation of the last century and more. It is in the pub where we drink together, meet new people, disagree with friends, and fight. Yes, pubs can be aggressive and difficult places. We mind our manners, queue appropriately - sometimes under pain of a beating, which is fair enough - and help out fellow drinkers, as a chap I was profoundly scared of did for me tonight, just by calling the barman for me. The ethic of the queue is nowhere stronger than in the pub; and the last time I was physically threatened was when I attempted to challenge that, some years ago. The ethic of closing the door from the winter wind, out of sheer consideration, is nowhere stronger than in the pub, where unless you are lucky enough to sit by the fire, the biting chill can take your bones even when far from the window seats. We drink real beer, local beer, living beer, as well as Stella and good wines. We eat crappy crisps and chips with cheese; beef wellington and beefburgers; death by chocolate and the lightest sorbets.
The pub is not the bar: I have been in too many bars in Australia, or "cafes" in France, not to know the difference. French cafes have a reputation for philosophy, but only in the English pub have I heard philosophy, religion, politics, football, cricket, television, radio and the toad work being discussed. The French cafes that serve booze serve only crap lager or Stella, very little in the way of real, quality, small time local produce (for which the French are supposed to be famous) and there is nowhere to be social and unsociable at the same time. France is also uneasy with the concept of going to the bar and demanding service, often insisting that you wait until the waiter is ready, and then handing you a receipt for two halves of crap lager.
And the pint - glorious measure of perfection, oh you tribute to irrationality breeding success, you are the correct amount for beer and lager, for sustenance and not-yet-full bladders, you are reasonably priced and you come at excellent intervals.
The half - you imp, you cheeky devil, you promise of riches and glory, you temptress - you are just too sexy to be called "250ml" or whatever.
Crisps! Oh blessed accompaniment to the hungry work of drinking! You fill me with salt and make me regretfully need more drink. Peanuts, you slightly healthier and chunkier means to the same end!
Here's to the pub - whatever New Labour's health fascists think. Cheers!
I tend to think that actually, the great centrepiece of English civilisation is the pub. It is the pub where most political chatter (however ill-informed) takes place, which is why Guardian columnists despise the kind of talk that goes on there - precisely because it is a real democratic forum. It is in the pub that communities find their soul, in homely, safe, environments with buildings that have lived through the wars, the unemployment, the dislocation of the last century and more. It is in the pub where we drink together, meet new people, disagree with friends, and fight. Yes, pubs can be aggressive and difficult places. We mind our manners, queue appropriately - sometimes under pain of a beating, which is fair enough - and help out fellow drinkers, as a chap I was profoundly scared of did for me tonight, just by calling the barman for me. The ethic of the queue is nowhere stronger than in the pub; and the last time I was physically threatened was when I attempted to challenge that, some years ago. The ethic of closing the door from the winter wind, out of sheer consideration, is nowhere stronger than in the pub, where unless you are lucky enough to sit by the fire, the biting chill can take your bones even when far from the window seats. We drink real beer, local beer, living beer, as well as Stella and good wines. We eat crappy crisps and chips with cheese; beef wellington and beefburgers; death by chocolate and the lightest sorbets.
The pub is not the bar: I have been in too many bars in Australia, or "cafes" in France, not to know the difference. French cafes have a reputation for philosophy, but only in the English pub have I heard philosophy, religion, politics, football, cricket, television, radio and the toad work being discussed. The French cafes that serve booze serve only crap lager or Stella, very little in the way of real, quality, small time local produce (for which the French are supposed to be famous) and there is nowhere to be social and unsociable at the same time. France is also uneasy with the concept of going to the bar and demanding service, often insisting that you wait until the waiter is ready, and then handing you a receipt for two halves of crap lager.
And the pint - glorious measure of perfection, oh you tribute to irrationality breeding success, you are the correct amount for beer and lager, for sustenance and not-yet-full bladders, you are reasonably priced and you come at excellent intervals.
The half - you imp, you cheeky devil, you promise of riches and glory, you temptress - you are just too sexy to be called "250ml" or whatever.
Crisps! Oh blessed accompaniment to the hungry work of drinking! You fill me with salt and make me regretfully need more drink. Peanuts, you slightly healthier and chunkier means to the same end!
Here's to the pub - whatever New Labour's health fascists think. Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
