Last day of the year today, no blogging apart from to say Happy New Year, have a good one.
See you in 2010.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Let's spend like it's 2017!
Breaking news people, it seems that the election promises of jam tomorrow are starting to come out from the Government, as today we're being told the Government is to decide (by March) on a high-speed rail link (up to 200mph) that will run between London and the West Midlands in order to give us plebs a real "choice" at the next election.Now comes the hilarious bit about the multi-billion pound project. Construction is planned to start in 2017 and end in 2025. Yes that''s right, its a proposal to give people a real choice at the next election as to whether they want to spend oodles of cash we haven't yet got on a rail link after the election after that. Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary has told the Times,
“In terms of new policy, high-speed rail is my top priority over the next three months”Sounds familiar, wasn't it all about an "integrated transport policy" in 1997? Then in the 2001 manifesto didn't they say "Labour's priority is to improve and expand railway"? By 2005 I'm pretty sure we were promised "a new generation of high-speed trains
on intercity routes".
Incidentally, don;t be mistaken for thinking it's only Labour that are making proposals to spend money not yet in the current account in the distant future on the Mecca of "high speed rail". The Tories are proposing to start construction in 2015, just in time for the next election too.
Throughout all the hot air though not once have seen anyone talk about the passenger cost which is, in effect, what makes or breaks such things. It's all well and good if you can catch a train from London to Edinburgh that takes 2 hours and 40 minutes (assuming the right kind of rain and no leaves on the track), but if it's going to cost more than an Easyjet flight is anyone really going to use it?
I guess we're all going to have to get used to this sort of bullshit from the parties over the coming months. The economy is in the complete shit as we know, so what more can they do but promise us really cool new flashy things in six to ten years time? Everyone knows that budgets need to be cut, so the only scope for spending commitments can be on things where another election comes in between.
Frankly, I'll be sticking with my car.
Image via Flickr
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Who wrote it then?
Yesterday evening I bought, for the first time ever, a copy of the Financial Times (had run out of puppy training pads and needed a broadsheet) and was thoroughly confused by an article and banner on the front page.
The paper had a picture of Niall Ferguson on it and directed you to the commentary section and this article by-lined as "by Niall Ferguson". Yet at the end of the article it says,
Update: Oh *face palm* fail on my part. Seems that "Laurence A Tisch" is a title/role at Harvard. Je suis un cock!
The paper had a picture of Niall Ferguson on it and directed you to the commentary section and this article by-lined as "by Niall Ferguson". Yet at the end of the article it says,
The writer is Laurence A Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, author of The Ascent of Money and a contributing editor of the FTWhat's that all about then?
Update: Oh *face palm* fail on my part. Seems that "Laurence A Tisch" is a title/role at Harvard. Je suis un cock!
The Big Sale con trick?
I couldn't help but laugh the other day when I went into Tesco. They're having their sale, it's called The Big Sale and it is by-lined with the little image over there to the right.Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but if your sale involves taking the VAT rise of 2.5% as a hit on your prices what you're actually doing is keeping your prices the same and saying that because you have not raised them it's a sale.
Hustle!
Fight, fight, fight!
Oh my there is a little fight going on between my mate, the Devil's Kitchen and the immensely right on Sunny Hundal after DK commented on one of Sunny's posts about class war being a great strategy.
To summarise, DK has quite rightly pointed out that the politics of identity that Sunny specialises in are divisive and hypocritical because whilst he bangs on relentlessly about the evils of racism and arbitrary discrimination upon specific identity groups he is quite happy to cast arbitrary judgements upon people around the notion of class.
I can't say I disagree with DK's analysis of Sunny and identity politics in general. It has always struck me as richly ironic that people like Sunny complain so ferociously about racism yet have no qualms in making discriminatory judgement on people because of what they perceive as class privilege.
Of course, as DK points out, his post led to a Twitter storm of comments against him from Sunny's many cheerleaders, who claimed, as Sunny rather idiotically did, that DK was saying that class is a type of race, which of course he didn't, but was rather pointing out that when someone is labelled by their class it happens because of their parents not them, much like if you are born with green skin.
It's not a rocket science argument to understand really.
To summarise, DK has quite rightly pointed out that the politics of identity that Sunny specialises in are divisive and hypocritical because whilst he bangs on relentlessly about the evils of racism and arbitrary discrimination upon specific identity groups he is quite happy to cast arbitrary judgements upon people around the notion of class.
I can't say I disagree with DK's analysis of Sunny and identity politics in general. It has always struck me as richly ironic that people like Sunny complain so ferociously about racism yet have no qualms in making discriminatory judgement on people because of what they perceive as class privilege.
Of course, as DK points out, his post led to a Twitter storm of comments against him from Sunny's many cheerleaders, who claimed, as Sunny rather idiotically did, that DK was saying that class is a type of race, which of course he didn't, but was rather pointing out that when someone is labelled by their class it happens because of their parents not them, much like if you are born with green skin.
It's not a rocket science argument to understand really.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Happy Christmas
Happy Christmas, if you're reading this on Christmas Day what are you playing at? Leave the keyboard and monitor alone and bugger off and eat. Music time!
Happy Christmas
Happy Christmas
Thursday, December 24, 2009
For God sake, Jesus was a lefty-liberal!
There's a rather interesting piece in the Guardian today about how the Church of England has realised its buggered up with young people and intends to have a drive to "recruit" Churchgoers.What's most interesting for me are the comments under the article which contains lots of hyperbole about how the Church is being evil and planning to brainwash children.
As the shortest sentence in the Bible says. Jesus wept. Is belief in a God really so bad that children shouldn't come into contact with a general message that tells them that they shouldn't murder; shouldn't steal; shouldn't lie; should respect their parents; shouldn't cheat on a partner; should treat others as they would wish to be treated themselves; should look to forgiveness over retribution etc etc?
Look, I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Bible (like the Koran), isn't full of some right vicious and violent nastiness. In fact the Old Testament makes the violence in the Koran look pretty mild in comparison. However, what I find incredible is the way the positive sides of the message that Christianity gives (be it in Catholicism (putting aside its patent heresy natch!*) or Protestantism**), get cast aside by you're typical Guardian reader when in fact they're exactly the sort of liberal values they support generally, and all because at the top of it it has some subjugation of one's hope and faith to a monotheistic Deity.
Seriously, if Jesus was alive today (a man's who's existence at least is not I think in dispute) he would be a Guardian reader. Yet, he would of course be pilloried for believing that he was the Son of an unprovable God, no doubt ridiculed for being a bit mad (oh the irony given the average Guardian readers hatred of prejudice towards the mentally ill), and his core beliefs about non-violence, turning the other cheek, forgiveness and the like would be dismissed out of hand.
I realise this is the second post in as many days where the subject of faith has come up, but honestly, I just don't comprehend the sheer hypocrisy of those on the so-called "Liberal Left" when they display so much hatred for a faith that is essentially in keeping with their values, all, so it seems because of the bit about God.
If a kid is brought up with the liberal moral teachings of Christianity but also believes in God is it really "evil"?
Apologies for labouring the point here, but politically speaking, if you look at the New Testament, the carpenter's son from Nazareth known as Jesus was essentially preaching a message that today would be seen as incredibly left wing. He was a little man standing up against an Imperial oppressor, he was preaching the evils of capitalism, and extolling the virtues of the weak and meek over the the rich.
Pardon my blasphemy for those that have an issue with it, but: Jesus Christ! Is it not patently absurd that Guardian readers should hate something so in line with their own beliefs just because it's not secular?
Here endeth the lesson for the day.
* This is a running joke with a Catholic friend.
** Obviously there are other denominations in Christianity, I just couldn't be arsed to write them all.
As the shortest sentence in the Bible says. Jesus wept. Is belief in a God really so bad that children shouldn't come into contact with a general message that tells them that they shouldn't murder; shouldn't steal; shouldn't lie; should respect their parents; shouldn't cheat on a partner; should treat others as they would wish to be treated themselves; should look to forgiveness over retribution etc etc?
Look, I'm not suggesting for one moment that the Bible (like the Koran), isn't full of some right vicious and violent nastiness. In fact the Old Testament makes the violence in the Koran look pretty mild in comparison. However, what I find incredible is the way the positive sides of the message that Christianity gives (be it in Catholicism (putting aside its patent heresy natch!*) or Protestantism**), get cast aside by you're typical Guardian reader when in fact they're exactly the sort of liberal values they support generally, and all because at the top of it it has some subjugation of one's hope and faith to a monotheistic Deity.
Seriously, if Jesus was alive today (a man's who's existence at least is not I think in dispute) he would be a Guardian reader. Yet, he would of course be pilloried for believing that he was the Son of an unprovable God, no doubt ridiculed for being a bit mad (oh the irony given the average Guardian readers hatred of prejudice towards the mentally ill), and his core beliefs about non-violence, turning the other cheek, forgiveness and the like would be dismissed out of hand.
I realise this is the second post in as many days where the subject of faith has come up, but honestly, I just don't comprehend the sheer hypocrisy of those on the so-called "Liberal Left" when they display so much hatred for a faith that is essentially in keeping with their values, all, so it seems because of the bit about God.
If a kid is brought up with the liberal moral teachings of Christianity but also believes in God is it really "evil"?
Apologies for labouring the point here, but politically speaking, if you look at the New Testament, the carpenter's son from Nazareth known as Jesus was essentially preaching a message that today would be seen as incredibly left wing. He was a little man standing up against an Imperial oppressor, he was preaching the evils of capitalism, and extolling the virtues of the weak and meek over the the rich.
Pardon my blasphemy for those that have an issue with it, but: Jesus Christ! Is it not patently absurd that Guardian readers should hate something so in line with their own beliefs just because it's not secular?
Here endeth the lesson for the day.
* This is a running joke with a Catholic friend.
** Obviously there are other denominations in Christianity, I just couldn't be arsed to write them all.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Christmas decorations banned by the elf of 'elf and safety
Here's an extract from a letter sent by social landlord, Bedfordshire Pilgrim Housing Association to its tenants in a block of flats."On a recent inspection of this block it has been noted that a number of items have been left in the communal areas. This includes Christmas decorations and pictures on the walls plus micellaneous (sic) items. I am writing the same letter to all tenant sin (sic) the block....Note: The Elf pictured is for illustrative purposes. The real one in the story probably didn't look so pretty.
Recent guidance issued by the fire brigade states that "All communal parts must be kept clear at all times".... If these items are not removed within that time it states that 'the association may arrange for their removal and disposal with no fruther (sic) notice'.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)