My suspicions were correct.
I sensed my reality check may not sit comfortably with Team Green’s captain, one Kez Dugdale. My foresight led me to save my post which was so cruelly censored from Kez’s comments (unlike the 11 hysterical supporters).
I have also edited the original post slightly.
Perhaps I am being cynical but all I see here is sanctimonious rabble.
Yes Kez, your routine is mundane, but it is the expression of detail that leaves me confused. Why tell us that you browse in Oxfam and shop in the Co-op? This is clearly born of self promotion.
I hope that your shower is a cold one to save baby seals. I hope that your alarm clock runs on solar power. I hope your washing powder protects rain forest frogs.
Why don’t you read the papers online to save on printing poisons? Why don’t you reduce the need to heat a whole shop for you to sit in by making your own coffee?
You were livid? Of all the things going on around you, you get livid from someone throwing out a jug of milk? You recycle religiously? Is that even possible?
On the subject of the ‘self-explanatory’ questions, I would appreciate explanation as to why a coffee shop should support Fairtrade? This scheme is all very well if you are one of the farmers involved but if you’re not, you’re screwed. Not only does this scheme artificially distort the local markets where it is introduced, it will impoverish more than it will enrich.
Help the planet? Don’t worry about the planet, it will be fine. It is us that’ll be fecked. We’re not destroying the planet, only making it inhospitable for humans.
I admire your motivation to embark on such a campaign but I really can’t understand the target.
I for one can not wait for you to publish your results.
No really.
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Monday, 15 September 2008
Gravy Train Driver
Following on from the debate on the mighty SNP Tactical Voter blog, I have been searching deep in my mind for a reason why I feel ‘pride’ in my homeland and when fellow countrymen do well.
Mr Voter asked why we should derive any pride from Scottish achievements and suggested that to be proud of your country is ‘fairly bizarre’. Whilst I am not criticising this position, I do not agree. And here be why…
I think that pride in the achievements of those from your country stems from an awareness of the perception of others. I will explain (as it works in my head).
If an unknown tennis player achieves a remarkable victory in an event the first question asked is, ‘what is his/her name?’. This question is invariably followed by, ‘What country are they from?’.
The name is sought for reference and the country for context. We allow ourselves to apply characteristics to nations in any way that is open to us with one being against those we know are from there. In the case where we don’t personally know anyone from said country, we refer to the closest option– those from that country who are known to us through a variety of media.
This is why we derive pride, and indeed shame, from those who make the news and represent an image (albeit a potentially flawed one) of the country we are from.
I feel pride in big Eck Hammy Bell, wee Boab Burns and Ass Smith because I realise that when I meet people from far off lands who don’t know me, they refer to these people in an attempt to understand my culture and, most importantly, me. I am viewed against them and, due to their impressive influence on the world, I gain from that comparison and am therefore proud with the association.
The logical continuation of this is pride in the performance of current Scots in the public eye. I feel pride in Andy Murray’s achievements as he is seen to represent an aspect of the Scottish psyche that shows dedication and a ‘fuck you’ attitude. I relate to this personality trait and enjoy this comparison (even though it may be a million miles from the truth).
Pride in those from your own country does not show a blinkered love of all from that country; it shows an affiliation with perceptions of that person. It is not jumping on a gravy train so much as being the train driver and selecting the gravy that you will allow to be loaded in the carriages.
Mr Voter asked why we should derive any pride from Scottish achievements and suggested that to be proud of your country is ‘fairly bizarre’. Whilst I am not criticising this position, I do not agree. And here be why…
I think that pride in the achievements of those from your country stems from an awareness of the perception of others. I will explain (as it works in my head).
If an unknown tennis player achieves a remarkable victory in an event the first question asked is, ‘what is his/her name?’. This question is invariably followed by, ‘What country are they from?’.
The name is sought for reference and the country for context. We allow ourselves to apply characteristics to nations in any way that is open to us with one being against those we know are from there. In the case where we don’t personally know anyone from said country, we refer to the closest option– those from that country who are known to us through a variety of media.
This is why we derive pride, and indeed shame, from those who make the news and represent an image (albeit a potentially flawed one) of the country we are from.
I feel pride in big Eck Hammy Bell, wee Boab Burns and Ass Smith because I realise that when I meet people from far off lands who don’t know me, they refer to these people in an attempt to understand my culture and, most importantly, me. I am viewed against them and, due to their impressive influence on the world, I gain from that comparison and am therefore proud with the association.
The logical continuation of this is pride in the performance of current Scots in the public eye. I feel pride in Andy Murray’s achievements as he is seen to represent an aspect of the Scottish psyche that shows dedication and a ‘fuck you’ attitude. I relate to this personality trait and enjoy this comparison (even though it may be a million miles from the truth).
Pride in those from your own country does not show a blinkered love of all from that country; it shows an affiliation with perceptions of that person. It is not jumping on a gravy train so much as being the train driver and selecting the gravy that you will allow to be loaded in the carriages.
Big Botherer
I should start by declaring an interest. I am a smoker who derives great pleasure from my habit and who has no intention to cease at any time in the near future (much to the disgust at those trying to help me train for my impending participation in the Great North Run). The below is, as I like to say, a subject close to my black heart.
I have for the last few weeks been involved in a major tobacco firm’s submission to the Department of Health’s consultation: The Future of Tobacco Control. I do a fair amount of work for this client.
Not a week goes by where some diatribe is not expressed by the anti-smoking lobby. The one that is particularly irritating me at the moment are attempts to remove the depiction of smoking in films. Not only do I fundamentally disagree with any form of censorship (if you don’t want your kid to see smokers on film, stop them going to the cinema) why are we so concerned with the portrayal of tobacco products yet seem not to have any issue with the plethora of weaponry and violence that is common? There are even those who support the retrospective removal of smokers from past films. Reminds me of the old Jorge phrase, he who controls the past, controls the future…
The proposals from DoH include banishing tobacco products below the counter (similar to moves currently being made in Scotland), selling tobacco products in plain packaging and banning 10 packs (or ‘kiddy packs’ as they are described in the consultation – you couldn’t make that up). The aim of these proposals is to stem youth smoking initiation. These measures will not be effective in their aim, meaning that by the government’s own standards this is legislatively impotent (see the Better Regulation Executive, House of Lords’ Economic Affairs Select Committee, the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee, Better Regulation Commission – the list goes on…). Indeed, the majority of research into this suggests that these policies will be counterintuitive with more young people taking up smoking as it is an even more obvious means of rebellion. On top of this, where similar laws have been introduced (see several provinces in Canada, Iceland etc) the effects have been consistent with the research.
However, what most riles me about the consultation was the brazen inclusion of the wish to ‘denormalise’ smoking and smokers. “Denormalisation” is not in itself a conceptual objective that is compatible with the principles of good regulation of a legal product. It is unclear in its definition and has no clear, measurable objective. Neither is it possible to further define and validate the concept through clear and concrete evidence. It is, at best, a speculative supposition.
Government either regulates or it does not regulate. In turn, a product is legal or it is not legal. To attempt to create a grey area as an objective of public policy represents a deliberate and illegitimate attempt to demonise and discriminate against a chosen, legal activity freely enjoyed by a significant proportion of the adult population. This is contrary to the respect for core democratic values that is linked both to freedom of expression and to personal liberty.
It is illegal for a farmer to smoke on his own in a single seated tractor in the middle of a field in the middle of the countryside. It legal for a parent to smoke in their car with the windows up and three children in the back.
I could go on further but, to be honest, I think folk will have struggled to have read to here. If any one comments I may rant on (through my gasps for air…)
I have for the last few weeks been involved in a major tobacco firm’s submission to the Department of Health’s consultation: The Future of Tobacco Control. I do a fair amount of work for this client.
Not a week goes by where some diatribe is not expressed by the anti-smoking lobby. The one that is particularly irritating me at the moment are attempts to remove the depiction of smoking in films. Not only do I fundamentally disagree with any form of censorship (if you don’t want your kid to see smokers on film, stop them going to the cinema) why are we so concerned with the portrayal of tobacco products yet seem not to have any issue with the plethora of weaponry and violence that is common? There are even those who support the retrospective removal of smokers from past films. Reminds me of the old Jorge phrase, he who controls the past, controls the future…
The proposals from DoH include banishing tobacco products below the counter (similar to moves currently being made in Scotland), selling tobacco products in plain packaging and banning 10 packs (or ‘kiddy packs’ as they are described in the consultation – you couldn’t make that up). The aim of these proposals is to stem youth smoking initiation. These measures will not be effective in their aim, meaning that by the government’s own standards this is legislatively impotent (see the Better Regulation Executive, House of Lords’ Economic Affairs Select Committee, the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee, Better Regulation Commission – the list goes on…). Indeed, the majority of research into this suggests that these policies will be counterintuitive with more young people taking up smoking as it is an even more obvious means of rebellion. On top of this, where similar laws have been introduced (see several provinces in Canada, Iceland etc) the effects have been consistent with the research.
However, what most riles me about the consultation was the brazen inclusion of the wish to ‘denormalise’ smoking and smokers. “Denormalisation” is not in itself a conceptual objective that is compatible with the principles of good regulation of a legal product. It is unclear in its definition and has no clear, measurable objective. Neither is it possible to further define and validate the concept through clear and concrete evidence. It is, at best, a speculative supposition.
Government either regulates or it does not regulate. In turn, a product is legal or it is not legal. To attempt to create a grey area as an objective of public policy represents a deliberate and illegitimate attempt to demonise and discriminate against a chosen, legal activity freely enjoyed by a significant proportion of the adult population. This is contrary to the respect for core democratic values that is linked both to freedom of expression and to personal liberty.
It is illegal for a farmer to smoke on his own in a single seated tractor in the middle of a field in the middle of the countryside. It legal for a parent to smoke in their car with the windows up and three children in the back.
I could go on further but, to be honest, I think folk will have struggled to have read to here. If any one comments I may rant on (through my gasps for air…)
Thursday, 11 September 2008
To keep Malc happy...
Further to below, and in case you haven’t seen, Brown has finally got a new chief speech-writer. Tim Kiddell previously led the cross-government delivery unit for the Health Work and Wellbeing Strategy supporting Dame Carol Black's review of the health of Britain's workforce.
A senior civil service source informs me – in all seriousness – that one of the interview questions was: “Are you prepared to regularly be phoned by the Prime Minister at 3am?”.
Apparently Kiddell was the only one who said yes.
A senior civil service source informs me – in all seriousness – that one of the interview questions was: “Are you prepared to regularly be phoned by the Prime Minister at 3am?”.
Apparently Kiddell was the only one who said yes.
Truffle shuffle...
I understand that Wilf Stevenson started at Number 10 on Monday. It has not been officially announced yet but it would appear that he has taken over Stephen Carter's role. Wilf is not involved in policy but strategy.
This is the first step in what is likely to be a major overhaul at Number 10 combined with a substantial reshuffle after the Labour Party conference. Perhaps we will finally have a Brownite government after all ....
This is the first step in what is likely to be a major overhaul at Number 10 combined with a substantial reshuffle after the Labour Party conference. Perhaps we will finally have a Brownite government after all ....
Thursday, 4 September 2008
No more thorny issues?
Apparently a wee text is doing the rounds in Scottish Labour:
"The Labour Party have today changed their emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accurately reflects their political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you are actually being fucked!"
Not really big or clever but amusing all the same...
"The Labour Party have today changed their emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accurately reflects their political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you are actually being fucked!"
Not really big or clever but amusing all the same...
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
Noise pollution
Is it fair to say that if you need reminded to take your possessions with you when leaving a train you deserve to lose them?
Or if you need warned about the gap between the train and the platform you deserve to fall?
Or if you need warned about the gap between the train and the platform you deserve to fall?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
