Wednesday, July 11, 2007

The world of the sad little git

Today I have received a little deluge of comments from one sad little hopeless git.

He, for I assume it is a he, has found my quiet little blog and decided not to comment on what I have said, but to simply insult me.

I do not know this person
I doubt he knows me.

He strikes me as someone who would never dare say these things to my face.

In one post, he says he is doing this because he is bored at work. He should feel himself lucky - I doubt he would have work if this attitude of his were better known.

I do not understand this type of person.

It is similar to the kind of people who write viruses for computers and then giggle Beavis and Butthead style to themselves as they see peoples machines and sometimes even livelihoods eaten away.

Or the spotty little sad chap in school who drops nasty little notes into some girls locker. Then hides behind a tree to see if he can glimpse her knickers.

Or the kids that throws mud at an old ladies window, because somehow frightening the living daylights out of her is seen as funny.

Ian Duncan Smith talks much of a Broken Society and blames, unfairly, the role of unmarried and single parent families.

Maybe he would be better to focus on why there are so many nasty little people like this person flinging insults at me. Maybe he can find one of the Tory's famous islands to put them all on.

But then they would have to get on with each other, and that they would find impossible.

The Internet has become a haven for such people. They can hide behind it, be anonymous, giggle till they drool at the wave of sickness they spread.

But the one thing I can guarantee - they don't boast to their mummies about what they did in work today.

All bets are off then!

Brown reviews casinos

Diary Entry for Wednesday, 11th July 2007

It seems that our Green may have been saved a fate worse than death! I and the other residents had been most disturbed that one of the houses at the far end was planning to open a roulette and craps room.

In our quiet little backwater this seemed most inappropriate. Dear Mrs Benedict was the fist to denounce the plan. She is a staunch Catholic, but errs further to St Francis than the mainstream of that era. Although she has a most noble home, gloriously bedecked with tasteful objet d'art, she is in constant state of guilt over the sin of personal possession. That being the case, you need only imagine her views on gambling of any kind - especially formalised!

Mrs Peach was the second to foray. She bashed on my door to announce the fact of the project. This was a scandal, the good lady announced from the very depth of her magnificent girth, and the post mistress would have been most upset by the news, had they not already closed the post office.

There was another side to the argument. The far end of the green is less affluent than our end round the monument. It leads onto our regrettably decaying shopping high street and establishments such as the football pub complete with large vulgar TV screen. IT was being promoted that this establishment would provide colour and gayety to the area, jobs for the unemployed, and bring money in.

This is where I started getting very confused. For I have, on occasion, been forced to spend an evening in such establishments around the world. My experience is that they are often built in the cheaper, areas of cities to save money. That the local economy benefits in no way whatsoever since the casino also offers accommodation, restaurants, shops, entertainment - anything and everything to keep people indoors. And that the only gayety that is provided is some pretty garish bright lights.

And of course, the one set of people who cannot afford to go to the casino are those that live next door.

Now, legislation as it stands, means that the establishment cannot open, but my local Labour MP assures me that there is a great demand for it and so they are changing the law. Great demand from whom? Everybody, apparently. And she proved it by showing me a piece of paper. Sure enough, it said "every body want a casino in the Green." And it was signed by Ricardo Castilliano (Sicily & Las Vegas) Ltd. Independent researchers.

Well, that was that. It was researched - though all in the green were a little confused that nobody had actually asked them.

Now, you can probably understand my relief when the First Lord of the Treasury stood up today and more or less said, to hell with that idea and sat down again. Actually he announced a review, but you could see the outcome of the review all over his face.

I think I might grow to like this First Lord!



See also Nick Robinsons Post

Technorati Tags: , ,

As long as he has nice teeth

A lazy day today. It is not that I have nothing to do, it is just that I have little will to do it with. This is a common malaise; not just common to me, but common to all that use eclectic thinking as a way of life.

The most prominent of these types are the politicians and the media who together strive to lead/control our world as much as practically possible without getting shot.

Nick Robinson today has posted a short and neat article about Political Cross Dressing. He is referring to the issues of housing, education, health and welfare and how the two main parties of conceit, the Tories and Labour, seem to be unclear as to which colours they are wearing for which issue.

He is concerned, it appears, that there is worry within the Brown camp that the Boy David has stolen the moralistic high ground.

It is an interesting issue this. When does the practicality of running an institution such as a country become a fight for ideals rather than useful action? Nick points us helpfully to an article by the Guardian's Jonathan Freeland.  Jonathan is discussing the US political climate and argues, with some good reason, that US voters want their politicians to achieve things for their lives, but they want them achieved through heart-appealing rhetoric, rather than to be sold to them with statistics, tables and ven diagrams.

I have sympathy with that attitude; a friend of mine's mother once noted that she would vote for the man who had the nicest teeth. Actually, this is not such a whimsical ambition. It was not so much the nice smile as looking for the type of person who would care about having a nice smile. Any woman of a certain age will remember her mother liking a particular suitor for his neat and tidy dress sense. It was seen as a sign of success, of stability, of intelligence.

Likewise in politics, an MP or Senator who is seen to have an emotional bond with an issue can be, at least in the short term, more convincing a champion of that issue than someone who demonstrates a solid technical understanding of how it works.

However, I think this only works so far, and perhaps not as far in this country than in the US; despite my friend's mother's fixation on dentistry.  

Therefore, it may be a little premature for people to condemn our new First Lord, just because he is number orientated. Because the politics of passion is more complicated than simple speech making or crying in the right places. Blair got this one right - almost instinctively. While he was seen as being passionate about any subject, he ensured just enough grasp of the figures for people to feel he had a real grasp of the subject. Remember here that little criticism of Blair stuck prior to the Iraq war. Since the war, many people have decided that since he got that wrong, every thing else MUST be wrong. The logic is appalling, but there is nothing logical about politics; well, not if the press have any say in the matter.

And this is a good place to bring in the press. In Jonathan Freeland's piece he cites the book "The Political Brain" by Drew Western. Western spends pages and his psychology background, to explain that the political brain is an emotional brain. Well, we kind of know that! (I refer you to the dentures once again.) But this assumes that people only react using their political brain. He tested people by confronting them with political speeches; those that hit home most were the ones that appealed to the emotional receptors in our brain. However, people don't just think of politics when confronted with speech making. If you are cueing in hospital your political brain may crave for a solution, but your pragmatic brain would rather an answer to "how long will I have to wait."

And it is this second approach that, I believe, better describes peoples day to day aspiration need from the political establishment.

So, they may warm to David Cameron's tirade against the Broken Society, but when they need a house, they will love Gordon Brown for saying he will build a house exactly "here."

Davis Cameron has taken on Blair's impassioned role - but it is not the only major role in politics. The Son of the Manse with his pragmatic approach can also fulfil the nations need, but with one proviso - will the media, who love a passionate battle, let him?


Nobody Tags: , , ,

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Daily Mail Incites Hatred

Standing in a queue at my local supermarket is a pain, but it does afford one the opportunity to gaze at the headlines of the various national newspapers.

Distance means that I cannot read the whole article, just the headline, and so it is a good test as to a headlines intent.

Following the Conviction of the four cowardly idiots yesterday for the attempted bombings of 21st July last year, the Daily Mail ran a headline making a massive deal over the fact that the terrorists were refugees on benefits.

So what?

What is important is that they were 4 criminally minded thugs who wanted to kill innocent people. Who cares where they came from?

99.9% of vicious nasty crime in this country is caused by home grown, white, British thick heads. Racists attacks are caused mostly by British Nationals.

Now, I know that the Daily Mail is simply xenophobic and nationalistic. And I know they never feel more pleased with themselves than when they are hating someone, but do they really think that by inferring that the problem here is that the convicted were refugees is really going to help anything?

No. It will just increase divisions, turn more ignorant white nationalists to organizations like the BNP, and make life worse for everyone.

Yep. I have no problems in saying that the Daily Mail incited hatred.

Don't we have a law against that yet?


Grumpy Nobody

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Up Sticks and rush to save the Queen!

The old carbuncle, my dear housekeeper Mrs Bi-Monthly, decided this morning to turn the household into an over chlorinated public bath. Or at least that is how it felt to my embattled nasal passages.

The result of this campaign was that I resigned myself to find quarters elsewhere in the city. First stop would be to St James and lean on the favour of my Club's Doorman. However, my untimely arrival seemed to have put the gentle soul's nose out of joint as he was having some of the brass work re-guilded.

commons-gallery Next stop, therefore,  was to the Commons, and a restful loiter in the Gallery above the chamber. If you have not been there I would recommend a visit. It give a magnificent view of the commons and as long as there is nothing major happening is a good place to relax while the business chatters on below.

Not this day, however. Three things occurred. Firstly the new Prime Minister decided he would flex his ample vocal muscles to the delight or otherwise of the assembled. Secondly, he decided to rewrite, or at least write, the constitution on the spot. And thirdly, he did not have the foresight to brief the hacks, so the whole flaming crew from paper and TV were packed into the gallery desperately trying to remember their shorthand.

To be fair, the new First Lord of the Treasury had some interesting things to say. You may wade through it here.

But a quick summery might be put at returning, or bringing, more power to the common man. Hmmm. So that would be away from the Monarchy then? The Royal Prerogative, perhaps? That will make a few of the old Lords Jittery down at the club! I didn't think that GB was a republican, but with phrases like Bill of Rights and WRITTEN constitution knocking around, and passing more powers to the commoners, and a threatened statement about the future of the Lords before the Holidays - well who knows?

Worrying times indeed!

However the reactions of the Tories and the Lib Dems brought things down to earth. Quite a lot of what Brown said you would think would find favour - especially with Ming the Meaningless, and even with the Boy David, when in his more liberal mood.

But no - faced with the possibility that Brown might just find favour with the British People, they upped drawbridges and just accused him of having blood on his hands.

Well, they obviously want change then!

All in all, a most disquieting day. I am not sure what I fear most. The Old Carbuncles spring clean at home, or the First Lords hosing down of the constitution in the commons.



Monday, July 02, 2007

Monday's child is full of woe!

Diary Entry for Monday the 2nd of July

Sunday dawned wet and feverish, which is somewhat off putting when one considers that the date hailed it as the first of July. I remember a time when July greeted us with sparkling mornings as the dew was lifted from the grass by the breaking sun, warm lunches and long evenings. This July, however, is thoroughly anti-Wimbledon, for those who still partake of that ancient sport of Lawn Racquet Tennis.

However, I who am thoroughly bored of grunting and groaning athletes headed for the cultural challenges of the Waddesdon Manor Art Dance and Drama festival. Hundreds of over eager youngsters tapping and whinnying and over acting them selves to oblivion. One of them belongs to my household, so I went along with well practiced cheery face to enjoy the happenings.

For some reason, the day decided to keep the wetting to a minimum, and we managed to watch most of what was required while remaining mostly dry. And jolly good it was too!

It is an interesting affair. A goodly entrance fee ensures that although the performances may be many moons away from professionalism, the staging and equipment is first class and run by professionals. At least, when mistakes were made they came through the speaker systems with a clarity and precision the like of which is a treat for a school performer, if a little painful for the less than doting members of the audience.

Returning home, and I decided to treat the family to one of my little fish suppers: baby clams cooked in a fennel and tomato soup, grilled fillets of salmon, calamari, grilled tiger prawns and a bowl full of soft rice with courgette and red capsicum.

Eventually I find my way onto the Internet to survey the weekends events. The normal mix, some dreadful flooding and the odd political note was almost completely drowned out by the continuing attempts by people to blow us all up.

This is really quite upsetting and bewildering - why should they want to blow up some kids in a nightclub? Or a family on their way to holiday?

Oh, I understand that baffoons like Gorgeous Galloway think that it all our fault, and that Lord Ahmed thinks we should just go around saying sorry to everyone, and perhaps start worshipping his god to be on the safe side, but personally I think all that is a load of baloney!

I really don't think our current stack of radicals and terrorists are doing this because we have upset them. They are doing this because they don't like us. They don't like the way we can laugh at anything, including them. They don't like the fact that we protect gay rights. They don't like that we think women as equals to men. And they really hate the fact that some of us simply do not believe in their god at all.

This is not especially a Muslim thing - there are Christian idiots out there who hate the same things. It is a fanatics thing, and this world does not need fanatics, of any shape or belief. The BBC today asked how safe do you feel in the UK? MY sole comment was simply we did not run from the IRA, we won't run from this lot either; it is business as usual.

Talking of the BBC, I noticed that a bit of my blog ended up on Nick Robinsons blog under "blogs linking here." I better start saying nice things about him! No, give me just a minute, I'll think of something ...




Sunday, July 01, 2007

Smoking - It's a dogs life!


Welcome to the Dog Inn, Ewyas Harold, Herefordshire, which is, apparently, the last bastion of the great, smelly English smoker.

For it's Landlord, a certain Anthony Blows, supporter of the daft UK Independence party, contributor to The Big Debate web site (current postings, erm about 9) and server of fillet steak and onion rings (do people really still do that to fillet steak?), has decided that he is in a mood to defy the smoking ban that came in today across England.

At a potential £2500 fine a go, this is no mean thing to decide. But he is being supported by the rather disgraceful Freedom 2 Choose lot, an outfit of bad losers who really can't get their heads round the fact that they have, umm, lost.

Mr Blows is quite verbose on the subject, according to Auntie:

"I'm doing it for the simple reason that this is my home. My wife and I work 200 hours a week in this pub. It's private property and there's no way they can stop us doing it.

"Pubs have been smoking for goodness knows how long and you just can't do that. It's been brought in on the back of a pack of lies."

A pack of lies? Let us try that again: A pack of lies. And which pack of lies would that be? The one that says that 600 lives could be saved each year across the country? Or the one that says all those people who are dying of smoking related diseases caused through other people's smoke are just delusional? 

Or perhaps Mr Blows believes that this is a freedom of speech issue? Well okay, I defend his right to make a fool over himself about lung cancer and it's incredibly strong links to passive smoking, but I do not defend his right to blow smoke in my face while he is doing it.

To help him along, I hive stolen a few links from Wikipedia's very informative article:

The Dog In is a very pretty, if empty, little pub, going by the photos on Tony Blow's website, and I am sure it would be a very popular place to visit.

But I wonder how many people don't go there because it is a very smoky environment?

Others have also been busy. Anthony Worrel-Tompson has hosted a dinner for his FOREST friends, an organization magnanimously supported by the tobacco industry.

Apparently, the Director for the Institute of Ideas (which sounds a pretty bad idea in the first place), one Claire Fox will say the ban is sign of our "small minded times."

"These new modern puritans demonise our behavior and preach illiberalism."

That would be the 80% of the English public who back the plan, then. That would be 48 million people to your, well, one. You lose!

Look guys, let's face it. You have been blowing smoke in our faces without giving a damn for several hundred years. I know, I was a selfish smoker too, once. Now it is the turn of the people who think you can take your silly little arguments and shove them right up Worrel-Thompsons back side!



Please note, if any sad people from Forest or Freedom 2 Choose, or their daft, mislead supporters want to comment on this tirade - don't bother. Since I believe that you all now resemble the primary school bully who has been turned on by the rest of the school, I will take teachers advice and simply ignore you.