Thursday, May 03, 2007

I probably do agree with what he says...

The right to be wrong

Voltaire is either spinning in his grave or pi**ing himself laughing.

Too.. er, something, to miss

Looking out for polar bears

I think everyone should visit these beautiful, unspoiled but devastated places to see just how in danger they are from folk taking a last chance to see/study these beautiful, unsp...

Are we perhaps in danger of killing with 'awareness'? Just askin'

Let's send a film crew up to find out.

Meanwhile, my Maplin solar phone charger is doing the business in my home office window as I write.

What's source for the goose...

Still in the thick of trying to squeeze the maximum PR for the RE:tie award whilst juggling all sorts of help and advice - solicited and some often not - from everyone who kindly wants a piece of the action.

As a consequence of paying a PR-dissemination service to send out our release, I also ended up with a free trial for a service called 'Enquirer', whereby you get bombarded with pitch and story lead requests posted by journalists.

It has been fairly fruitful, and I have had a couple pick up as a consequence of my replying. With luck one will be in Accountancy with my views on 'being' a social enterprise, and another will pitch my plea for help in a subscription only net magazine called Scientific Business.

Having gone cold Turkey on scanning the papers and online feeds to concentrate on all this, I now have another addiction, as there are about 50 a day. And I can't resist peeking at even those which are nothing in my area.

It's also fascinating to see how 'news' is actually created. I saw on the news today a 'story' which was basically created by a journalist setting out what they needed to fill out their medium's agenda.

War is hell. Except for sales and ratings. Discuss.

Nothing much to do with the environment (though I have to say war is pretty poor on the carbon footprint front), or my current fun and games, but I was moved to write to our national broadcaster again (so there is a tenuous link), and really have nowhere else to file it. Sorry.

Washington's War by Gen Sir Michael Rose

I watched this piece, sporting the now inevitable Newsnight twofer sandwich, with the General on one side, a single, totally opposing view from Washington on the other, and the BBC voice of sweet, cynical reason in the middle.

I confess to little in the way of historical, military or geopolitical education and experience in comparison to this collection, but really couldn't get my head around even the basic premise that has lead the BBC to help this old boy advertise and sell his controversial product, and stir up a nest of WASPS (geddit?) to drive some ratings.

Surely in the War of Independence the British were fighting even initially a relatively coherent, and ever-more united group of folk who stood FOR something, and were prepared to defend it with their lives to get... or keep it, and make it work for self-betterment on resolution?

Whereas, by any reasonable estimation, the coalition forces and those around them are just being attacked by an amorphous collection of anarchic organisations and individuals whose simple, even stated, aim is to stand solely AGAINST anything 'Western' (with the occupation serving up a cause on a plate). And they will attack to their deaths any aspect associated with this, including the very people, soil and ways of life they are in theory 'defending'. Job done, they will rattle about a while to ensure the maximum misery is caused for the benefit of any who may have missed the point... and the media... and then move on to the next appropriate venue. I am sure our political ‘leadership’ will soon provide this opportunity to them.

So in this case I just can't make any aspect of the cited comparison stick, and hence wonder what the point of it all was. Bar the sales and ratings, of course.