Bored. Saw a chance to plug Junkk. Took it: In praise of... wheelie bins
"I have often looked at these things with wonder as I travel outside our fair county (we don't seem to have them here - black bin liners for the once a week nasties and two blue RE-Boxes for the dry (paper) and wet (cans, bottles - no plastic) weekly kerbside collection. I have to say they are, in comparison, huge, and frankly both ugly and daunting, but obviously necessary if collections are less regular. Why is there no national standard?
But as space created will always be filled, I do wonder at their size. They are monsters.
We compost most and haven't thrown anything else out in a few years. I like to make things out of some stuff and am storing the rest until I can figure out what can be made of them too... or the missus figures out what is in the loft. It's amazing looking at a few hundred Pot Noodle containers slotted together, and surprising how little space they occupy so stacked No, I’m still stumped on these).
So let’s not forget another option: re:use (try http://www. Junkk.com to find, or indeed suggest ideas around that we can all share - if I can make a rucksack out of an old vacuum cleaner, anything is possible).
And if all else fails, there is one final option (almost said solution... oops). We could always try to use... less.
Recycling is awfully spiffy, and much better than not, and meets all sorts of targets and stuff. But it's still not that high of the waste hierarchy ladder, sadly. Wheelie and truly."
Saturday, January 20, 2007
There's snow business like no snow business
Charles cancels ski trip to back green pledges
Why does this not seem so depressingly predictable? And so pathetically pointless? And leave one with a slight sense of besuited spinmeisters digging their master's next hole.
'Chaz no mates' gives up something that is no fun any more, and may not be able to be done quite soon (What's the snow like there? I overheard a mobile conversation last night where a guy had phoned his mate from the ski holiday to say there was no snow - something to reflect upon on the flight home).
I'm impressed. Not.
Why does this not seem so depressingly predictable? And so pathetically pointless? And leave one with a slight sense of besuited spinmeisters digging their master's next hole.
'Chaz no mates' gives up something that is no fun any more, and may not be able to be done quite soon (What's the snow like there? I overheard a mobile conversation last night where a guy had phoned his mate from the ski holiday to say there was no snow - something to reflect upon on the flight home).
I'm impressed. Not.
Daring to speak its name?
I'd hesitate to infer too much or indeed any of it was a consequence of what I wrote (deliberately vague, because a) I don't have a satisfactory solution to hand and b) am a coward), but looking back at subsequent comments to mine in the Newsnight blog referred to in my last post there were some very interesting ones there. And, to my mind, both moderate and balanced too.
Usually such discussion, where it rarely takes place, quickly degenerates into something rather nasty, with anyone making a simple factual point accused of promoting some kind of Final Solution in defence of Lebensraum. Or at best a rather murky set of exchanges on Malthusian theory.
Hence I found what had been written there quite informative and worth pondering, to factor in. It is indeed odd that so many cultures are so worried about population slow down, and its consequences on economic growth, and that they don't seem so concerned with the other side of this: increased consumption, pollution and... well you can see where it leads.
As I say, I don't have ready answers, and hence don't want to go to far 'there'. I have two kids. Is that balance or excess? They are half-Chinese, and that leads to an interesting point. While I'm sure I need to research it a lot more to be sure of my facts, I do believe that in the face of some of the more excitable pro-population expansion (or at least population consequence discussion) censors, this country has quietly been maintaining a policy of control for some time now. I wonder how they did/do it, and why it has attracted so little attention?
Usually such discussion, where it rarely takes place, quickly degenerates into something rather nasty, with anyone making a simple factual point accused of promoting some kind of Final Solution in defence of Lebensraum. Or at best a rather murky set of exchanges on Malthusian theory.
Hence I found what had been written there quite informative and worth pondering, to factor in. It is indeed odd that so many cultures are so worried about population slow down, and its consequences on economic growth, and that they don't seem so concerned with the other side of this: increased consumption, pollution and... well you can see where it leads.
As I say, I don't have ready answers, and hence don't want to go to far 'there'. I have two kids. Is that balance or excess? They are half-Chinese, and that leads to an interesting point. While I'm sure I need to research it a lot more to be sure of my facts, I do believe that in the face of some of the more excitable pro-population expansion (or at least population consequence discussion) censors, this country has quietly been maintaining a policy of control for some time now. I wonder how they did/do it, and why it has attracted so little attention?
Friday, January 19, 2007
Three times lucky!
I like Newsnight, One of the few progs with teeth. Just watched last night's on the PC.
And lo, the blog allowed me to kill 3 birds (is that a PC-accepted phrase anymore?) with one email ('scuse the BB repetition; it's been a busy week).
"Just watched the programme on my PC – nice feature, well done (which has a bearing on the first of today’s topics).
Licence Fee
I was transfixed by Ms. Wark’s interview with, one presumes, the guy who signs her pay cheque. But at least one of them had figured out who funds it. I’m afraid I don’t think he came off too well on this. Without rewinding to review again, I came away with two main impressions. One is that the choice is seen by him to be between ‘quality’ and toys. While they are a factor in the former, I’d have also thought numbers of bodies, how efficiently they deliver ‘product’ to consumer and what they get paid to do so would be worth looking at too. It may have helped to swing those of us not on indexed-linked salaries with competitors at every turn, and who wonder why it requires a UK reporter (and crew?) to go to the other part of the world where there is BBC representation, to film a 30’ filler on global warming. It is classic civil service ‘empire-build first, delivery later’ thinking at its worst. We then come to the matter of salaries and bonuses, especially at the top. What is the point equating the BBC with the private sector? It operates totally differently. And I’d imagine anyone going into it at executive level would know that. The compensation for not dripping in cash is (was) security and the chance not to dig through the barrel base further and further in search of the ratings to justify one’s fiscal worth in comparison with the private sector. As with ‘stars’ such as Ross, Moyles, etc, I simply just don’t buy the argument that you have to compete by playing ‘this any price talent’ game. Working for the BBC gives you access to a whole country in developing the skills (and in terms of stars, audience) upon which to forge very nice careers internally or onwards. It’s lazy management, and nothing less, that leads to clinging on to existing staff no matter what, when a simple ‘Sorry, we’ll miss you’ could suffice. And don’t come back with that ‘we need to attract top talent’ argument. It’s out there. You just have to stay on top of where it is and be ready to move.
Big Brother
I normally wouldn't give this a microsecond's thought, let alone commit to keyboard, but as our nation's finest pols, NGOs and media have decided it is more important than anything else (unless a tornado whisks the BB house to Oz), why not me as well?
I have two words to offer: AGENDA and EDIT.
From the media company that sets this up, to the media that feed on the controversy so set up (as if they didn't know), how anyone with a brain can assign any significance to the words and actions of a vetted and selected and manipulated group of human extremes is beyond me. It's like watching a show called BIG BOMBER and getting in a lather because all the guys with (I'll avoid any potentially un-PC or pejorative descriptions here) huddle around in one corner discussing hair bleach and exotic dinner ingredients whilst looking ominously across the room at the lone US Marine popped in to see what happens.
And should things not quite work to the full requirements of the AGENDA, there is always the EDIT. You can leave in, or out, what serves your needs best. Leave to simmer, and serve.
The day people don’t notice and discuss differences (I’d prefer celebrating them rather than trying to homogenise us all) between each other is when we are all clones, and even then I’m sure we’ll still do it.
Pathetic. Shame on the whole sorry cabal involved and feeding off it all. Including those rushing to be offended, preferably on a guest slot.
Green
Gosh, dilemmas. I don’t envy that poor chap from Innocent. I wonder if he imagined he was running into the same kind of deal as the DG? Here to stick it to Tescos (maybe not: they are a supplier, after all) and find oneself lumped along with them in the nasty capitalist expansion stakes. Not quite the same, or fair, to be so simplistic. but Ms. Wark did raise some pretty critical issues.
If we really are serious about this planet saving thing, we to grasp that there are lots of us, getting to be more and more, most of whom have little else to do than earn, aspire, and hence purchase in an upward spiral that has only one end point that I can see, if left unchecked. So while oodles better than a Tesco air-flown mango I’m sure (if a few aisles apart), as a clearly ethical business that started in a fair stall and now is expanding globally, making and distributing and all that stuff, it must be hard to weigh the various considerations.
I myself suffer the same daily concerns with my business (it’s very hard to create anything new without adding to the environmental costs), and often find myself shy of the ideal by demands of family and immediate, vs. far, future. But I do try and avoid getting hit by my own boomerang and mouthing off too much on what others should do whilst not doing it myself (a long, growing and depressing list developing in this regard), and so far have managed to produce a service and, with luck soon, products that actually serve to reduce or reuse when they hit the marketing stream. And not a target in sight!
Finally no, I didn’t rush into carb-con offsetting either, but fear that the essential wisdom of something like this has been tainted in the public’s eyes by some much-ballyhooed efforts being poisoned chalices or schemes designed more to serve agendas and salaries than any decent, global (Kalahari bushmen breathe the same air we’re thinking of trading) environmental ROI.
Back to work:)"
And lo, the blog allowed me to kill 3 birds (is that a PC-accepted phrase anymore?) with one email ('scuse the BB repetition; it's been a busy week).
"Just watched the programme on my PC – nice feature, well done (which has a bearing on the first of today’s topics).
Licence Fee
I was transfixed by Ms. Wark’s interview with, one presumes, the guy who signs her pay cheque. But at least one of them had figured out who funds it. I’m afraid I don’t think he came off too well on this. Without rewinding to review again, I came away with two main impressions. One is that the choice is seen by him to be between ‘quality’ and toys. While they are a factor in the former, I’d have also thought numbers of bodies, how efficiently they deliver ‘product’ to consumer and what they get paid to do so would be worth looking at too. It may have helped to swing those of us not on indexed-linked salaries with competitors at every turn, and who wonder why it requires a UK reporter (and crew?) to go to the other part of the world where there is BBC representation, to film a 30’ filler on global warming. It is classic civil service ‘empire-build first, delivery later’ thinking at its worst. We then come to the matter of salaries and bonuses, especially at the top. What is the point equating the BBC with the private sector? It operates totally differently. And I’d imagine anyone going into it at executive level would know that. The compensation for not dripping in cash is (was) security and the chance not to dig through the barrel base further and further in search of the ratings to justify one’s fiscal worth in comparison with the private sector. As with ‘stars’ such as Ross, Moyles, etc, I simply just don’t buy the argument that you have to compete by playing ‘this any price talent’ game. Working for the BBC gives you access to a whole country in developing the skills (and in terms of stars, audience) upon which to forge very nice careers internally or onwards. It’s lazy management, and nothing less, that leads to clinging on to existing staff no matter what, when a simple ‘Sorry, we’ll miss you’ could suffice. And don’t come back with that ‘we need to attract top talent’ argument. It’s out there. You just have to stay on top of where it is and be ready to move.
Big Brother
I normally wouldn't give this a microsecond's thought, let alone commit to keyboard, but as our nation's finest pols, NGOs and media have decided it is more important than anything else (unless a tornado whisks the BB house to Oz), why not me as well?
I have two words to offer: AGENDA and EDIT.
From the media company that sets this up, to the media that feed on the controversy so set up (as if they didn't know), how anyone with a brain can assign any significance to the words and actions of a vetted and selected and manipulated group of human extremes is beyond me. It's like watching a show called BIG BOMBER and getting in a lather because all the guys with (I'll avoid any potentially un-PC or pejorative descriptions here) huddle around in one corner discussing hair bleach and exotic dinner ingredients whilst looking ominously across the room at the lone US Marine popped in to see what happens.
And should things not quite work to the full requirements of the AGENDA, there is always the EDIT. You can leave in, or out, what serves your needs best. Leave to simmer, and serve.
The day people don’t notice and discuss differences (I’d prefer celebrating them rather than trying to homogenise us all) between each other is when we are all clones, and even then I’m sure we’ll still do it.
Pathetic. Shame on the whole sorry cabal involved and feeding off it all. Including those rushing to be offended, preferably on a guest slot.
Green
Gosh, dilemmas. I don’t envy that poor chap from Innocent. I wonder if he imagined he was running into the same kind of deal as the DG? Here to stick it to Tescos (maybe not: they are a supplier, after all) and find oneself lumped along with them in the nasty capitalist expansion stakes. Not quite the same, or fair, to be so simplistic. but Ms. Wark did raise some pretty critical issues.
If we really are serious about this planet saving thing, we to grasp that there are lots of us, getting to be more and more, most of whom have little else to do than earn, aspire, and hence purchase in an upward spiral that has only one end point that I can see, if left unchecked. So while oodles better than a Tesco air-flown mango I’m sure (if a few aisles apart), as a clearly ethical business that started in a fair stall and now is expanding globally, making and distributing and all that stuff, it must be hard to weigh the various considerations.
I myself suffer the same daily concerns with my business (it’s very hard to create anything new without adding to the environmental costs), and often find myself shy of the ideal by demands of family and immediate, vs. far, future. But I do try and avoid getting hit by my own boomerang and mouthing off too much on what others should do whilst not doing it myself (a long, growing and depressing list developing in this regard), and so far have managed to produce a service and, with luck soon, products that actually serve to reduce or reuse when they hit the marketing stream. And not a target in sight!
Finally no, I didn’t rush into carb-con offsetting either, but fear that the essential wisdom of something like this has been tainted in the public’s eyes by some much-ballyhooed efforts being poisoned chalices or schemes designed more to serve agendas and salaries than any decent, global (Kalahari bushmen breathe the same air we’re thinking of trading) environmental ROI.
Back to work:)"
Green. Greener, Greenest.
I think we need a new colour: Greener than green?
It's hard to keep up with it all, much less make much sense of it. Maybe that was the intention?
As I listen to last night's Newsnight (can't believe Ethical Man's piece has been called 'Costing the Earth') on the same subject, here's a selection to choke on along with me as I try and digest it all:
Guardian - You've checked the price and calorie count, now here's the carbon cost
Telegraph - How sinful is your shopping basket?
BBC - Tesco boss unveils green pledges
Indy - Tesco's entrance takes the climate change campaign on to another level altogether
Indy - Tesco invests £500m to create 'green consumer revolution'
Interestingly, as I write, I listen to one of Innocent's top bods struggling to defend their ethical stance that they actually exist to sell more and more, which causes more and more carbon. Interesting dilemma. I wonder if he felt it worth appearing.
Finally, I note that Tescos are planning on selling half price energy light bulbs.
I add here an ad (and their les than green original) I worked up and sent their marketing people over two years ago with a pitch for Junkk.com. I guess this is their reply... nick it.
Talk to the man himself
I'm going to try: Tesco Chief Executive - Your Questions
Here's what I wrote:
"What about supporting other areas of environmental good practice, such as repair and reuse?
There are sites such as http://Junkk.com which are trying to find second uses for your products as they are now in the first instance, and maybe later on could encouarge you to build in (or ask your suppliers/brands to do) second uses to the design.
And the best part is, it could add a new attraction to the product for almost no extra cost!"
Here's what I wrote:
"What about supporting other areas of environmental good practice, such as repair and reuse?
There are sites such as http://Junkk.com which are trying to find second uses for your products as they are now in the first instance, and maybe later on could encouarge you to build in (or ask your suppliers/brands to do) second uses to the design.
And the best part is, it could add a new attraction to the product for almost no extra cost!"
A right Royal...
He's at it again (putting one's size nines in one's gob, don't ya know).
Taxpayers see green over Prince's flight
Who will rid us of these troublesome, self-appointed celeb/pol/regal mouthpieces of planet saving, who almost all make me want to buy a Hummer to drive to the airport to fly to Australia to plant an oak in the desert and then get surprised when it croaks and lets off methane decomposing.
I think I was a tad more polite in the post:
"At least at the bottom of this post there are some carbon-offset (one presumes legit and effective) ads and, rather wonderfully, Tiger Moth flights & Queen's 80th £5 coin sales. At least at my cycle of reading . Buy 19 of them and she can hand the keys to junior and he can get there on his own!
It’s all a matter of degree.
I hope he feels his advisers are worth the money they cost us, and his standing as an eco-spokesperson. Tony Blair has already blown his cred (and that of the govt. he heads and whose messages we are meant to heed and follow) to prep his next career's travel requirements hypocrisy-free. And I'm sure Mr. Yeo has a good explanation for his private flight enthusiasm not so long ago, and the entire Lib Dem party are flogging their big cars (to keep on pumping out the gas in new hands) and buying new ones (to add still more).
Meanwhile the rest of us are to take what exactly from such examples, and do what by them?
What they say. Not what they do. Apparently.
I think we need new, and more credible role models.
I think of course HRH is entitled to fly. How else to do his job? But I think for such a thing he should do at his own expense and slap down such silly spin from his munchkins (most of whom can stay at home rather than trying to jump on a jolly) to try to justify it. And I think to gain some credibility back for his beliefs he needs to weigh the positive promo of such awards (or any other eco-adventure) to the negative such bad publicity inevitably attracts if it’s not well structured. It's a fact. Like having an Aston and a Prius. It's going to happen, Assess the bigger picture. Or maybe the chance to schmooze with celebs like Al is just too hard to resist vs. setting an example?"
Indy
BBC - note a slight similarity in the reporting?
Telegraph
Taxpayers see green over Prince's flight
Who will rid us of these troublesome, self-appointed celeb/pol/regal mouthpieces of planet saving, who almost all make me want to buy a Hummer to drive to the airport to fly to Australia to plant an oak in the desert and then get surprised when it croaks and lets off methane decomposing.
I think I was a tad more polite in the post:
"At least at the bottom of this post there are some carbon-offset (one presumes legit and effective) ads and, rather wonderfully, Tiger Moth flights & Queen's 80th £5 coin sales. At least at my cycle of reading . Buy 19 of them and she can hand the keys to junior and he can get there on his own!
It’s all a matter of degree.
I hope he feels his advisers are worth the money they cost us, and his standing as an eco-spokesperson. Tony Blair has already blown his cred (and that of the govt. he heads and whose messages we are meant to heed and follow) to prep his next career's travel requirements hypocrisy-free. And I'm sure Mr. Yeo has a good explanation for his private flight enthusiasm not so long ago, and the entire Lib Dem party are flogging their big cars (to keep on pumping out the gas in new hands) and buying new ones (to add still more).
Meanwhile the rest of us are to take what exactly from such examples, and do what by them?
What they say. Not what they do. Apparently.
I think we need new, and more credible role models.
I think of course HRH is entitled to fly. How else to do his job? But I think for such a thing he should do at his own expense and slap down such silly spin from his munchkins (most of whom can stay at home rather than trying to jump on a jolly) to try to justify it. And I think to gain some credibility back for his beliefs he needs to weigh the positive promo of such awards (or any other eco-adventure) to the negative such bad publicity inevitably attracts if it’s not well structured. It's a fact. Like having an Aston and a Prius. It's going to happen, Assess the bigger picture. Or maybe the chance to schmooze with celebs like Al is just too hard to resist vs. setting an example?"
Indy
BBC - note a slight similarity in the reporting?
Telegraph
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Time and Place
A long time ago, a very good (but not so good I can recall the actual name) newspaper ad on TV (go figure) involved a series of versions of the same incident from a different perspective. A yoof is running to an old lady. Is it to rob her? Or, as it turned out, to push her out of the way of a falling object.
I was pondering this as I uploaded the next bit of citizen journalism in so many days.
Depending on where you are in the world, it has been a bit blowy here today. And here I have captured the aftermath of a lovely silver birch suffering the consequences in the Church Yard as I walked to get the boys from school.
'Bloomin' Global Warming', I thought, as I reflected on the 2 (out of 4) similarly sized and aged trees that have fallen in our garden since we moved in. Assuming we are not as a family fatal to large trees, it had to be the only explanation.
But, need it? The clue to my thinking (unproven, I grant you) is the age comment above. Trees do not live for ever. Maybe it was just their time, and the high winds tipped the balance, along with the tree itself.
Just a thought. At least we're OK for firewood, not that we dare burn it. At least until the Russians cut our gas off. Time to look at high-efficiency wood stoves, I think.
ps: One irony is that, I believe (and this does need confirming), a wind turbine would need to be locked down to avoid self-damage. As I write this the next day, it would be hard-pressed to light an LED.
Telegraph
Indy
What goes up... should have a good reason
Like most folk, I bought Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'. One chapter tops, and it was on the shelf. And it didn't get me any extra girlfriends by being there.
But he's smart cookie, and so it's worth paying attention when he adds his t'pennyworth: Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change
Amen. However, much as I agree with him, I really hope that he will see this laudable view as less than compatible with the report I read, if true, of him hitching a ride on a tourist space rocket.
They don't use bio-diesel.
BBC
But he's smart cookie, and so it's worth paying attention when he adds his t'pennyworth: Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change
Amen. However, much as I agree with him, I really hope that he will see this laudable view as less than compatible with the report I read, if true, of him hitching a ride on a tourist space rocket.
They don't use bio-diesel.
BBC
Carb-con
For the first time in a long time, I read a piece that seemed to pretty much say what I've been eyebrow-twitching, if not saying, for a while, and in quite calm, lucid and pragmatic terms: Planting trees won't offset jetting to the sun
I had to write:
'There's a certain irony to this headline as I watch my garden head to Oz (and I don't mean Botany Bay - great cartoon by Matt in The Telegraph on just this point, by the way).
Just wanted to say I agree with you. Which for a pretty committed 'green' may sound surprising. I see this issue as too much 'Carb-con jobs for the boys', and not enough doing what's necessary, right and fair.
I also like to see the issue(s) put as factually as possible, and in terms most if not all average folk can appreciate. Well done.
The rest of what you say is less easy to applaud, by simply being so true and unpalatable.
We do need leadership. Strong leadership. And by example (I'm almost afraid to point you at this). Plus we need sensible media support. This is the first I've seen in a while.
Thank you.'
Now, I wonder, will the 'Anon' dogs of PR and lobbyists appear from to savage this debate into further deadlock and inertia?
Indy: Carbon offsetting 'can be harmful'
BBC
I had to write:
'There's a certain irony to this headline as I watch my garden head to Oz (and I don't mean Botany Bay - great cartoon by Matt in The Telegraph on just this point, by the way).
Just wanted to say I agree with you. Which for a pretty committed 'green' may sound surprising. I see this issue as too much 'Carb-con jobs for the boys', and not enough doing what's necessary, right and fair.
I also like to see the issue(s) put as factually as possible, and in terms most if not all average folk can appreciate. Well done.
The rest of what you say is less easy to applaud, by simply being so true and unpalatable.
We do need leadership. Strong leadership. And by example (I'm almost afraid to point you at this). Plus we need sensible media support. This is the first I've seen in a while.
Thank you.'
Now, I wonder, will the 'Anon' dogs of PR and lobbyists appear from to savage this debate into further deadlock and inertia?
Indy: Carbon offsetting 'can be harmful'
BBC
Interest Groups
Davos 07: what everyone's talking about
Love the post YouCant. This thread is running at about 4 (as I type) to how many on the other, 'BB blog' channel on this site (sorry, I had to contribute there too)?
And, really, to all you other guys, good points all as well.
But careful what you wish for (I posted elsewhere the notion of a show called BIG BOMBER... as a joke... to make a point), whatreallyhappened. I suspect the forces of PCs know (or can find out) where we live and may feel it's easier to make a target-ticking point with us than try and find anyone doing anything actually illegal.
Love the post YouCant. This thread is running at about 4 (as I type) to how many on the other, 'BB blog' channel on this site (sorry, I had to contribute there too)?
And, really, to all you other guys, good points all as well.
But careful what you wish for (I posted elsewhere the notion of a show called BIG BOMBER... as a joke... to make a point), whatreallyhappened. I suspect the forces of PCs know (or can find out) where we live and may feel it's easier to make a target-ticking point with us than try and find anyone doing anything actually illegal.
Moderate Views?
The topic of media moderation has been raised: Pulling Blogs Is Bad Policy
"As with all things, the devil is in the details.
I commend the Guardian (and my own, immodestly - on Junkk.com since you didn't ask, but hey, why not try for a plug?) for its immediate upload which, looking at the talk policy in the box above as I write 'will remove posts that contain racist, sexist or offensive/threatening language, personal attacks on the writer or other posters, posts that exceed the maximum length, and posts that are off topic.'
Trouble is, in a few of those cases the definition is a bit vague, and the media controller becomes all powerful in setting an AGENDA by the way they EDIT (a point I have noted in another blog on this site about, of all things, the Big Brother farce).
But obviously something is better than nothing, and I guess we work on trust and faith in those we engage with.
I love the seemingly sound connotations behind words like 'managing' or 'moderated'. But, playing Devil's advocate, and shooting myself in the foot a tad, I could see why a blog may need to be pulled, if I'm unsure why for "legal reasons", when the comments became too ferocious.
I was recently in one such where I was praying for the site owner to intervene as an 'Anon' poster, who knew exactly who I was, drifted into very dark territory.
I agree that the debate can emerge somewhere else, but it's not that easy to track where unless you are determined or don't have a life.
The range of different voices may usually balance the debate, but I have my doubts how well it produces a well-rounded discussion. In my area of interest, the environment, when it comes to major media (though I often wonder how many actual readers there are outside the chattering classes who probably meet in the Ivy for lunch every day anyway) I often sense the dark arts of media professionals and lobbyists keeping things to extremes. Yes, that may on average seem like balance, but not useful debate, to me at least, especially when blogged ‘information’ can be less than verifiable.
And that is where a moderator you trust can be quite useful. I've moderated out very little on my site, but always attempted to put things that are more contentious or open to subjective interpretation at least in some context based on my experience and knowledge. Then at least the reader can assess context.'
Guardian: The world is watching them
"As with all things, the devil is in the details.
I commend the Guardian (and my own, immodestly - on Junkk.com since you didn't ask, but hey, why not try for a plug?) for its immediate upload which, looking at the talk policy in the box above as I write 'will remove posts that contain racist, sexist or offensive/threatening language, personal attacks on the writer or other posters, posts that exceed the maximum length, and posts that are off topic.'
Trouble is, in a few of those cases the definition is a bit vague, and the media controller becomes all powerful in setting an AGENDA by the way they EDIT (a point I have noted in another blog on this site about, of all things, the Big Brother farce).
But obviously something is better than nothing, and I guess we work on trust and faith in those we engage with.
I love the seemingly sound connotations behind words like 'managing' or 'moderated'. But, playing Devil's advocate, and shooting myself in the foot a tad, I could see why a blog may need to be pulled, if I'm unsure why for "legal reasons", when the comments became too ferocious.
I was recently in one such where I was praying for the site owner to intervene as an 'Anon' poster, who knew exactly who I was, drifted into very dark territory.
I agree that the debate can emerge somewhere else, but it's not that easy to track where unless you are determined or don't have a life.
The range of different voices may usually balance the debate, but I have my doubts how well it produces a well-rounded discussion. In my area of interest, the environment, when it comes to major media (though I often wonder how many actual readers there are outside the chattering classes who probably meet in the Ivy for lunch every day anyway) I often sense the dark arts of media professionals and lobbyists keeping things to extremes. Yes, that may on average seem like balance, but not useful debate, to me at least, especially when blogged ‘information’ can be less than verifiable.
And that is where a moderator you trust can be quite useful. I've moderated out very little on my site, but always attempted to put things that are more contentious or open to subjective interpretation at least in some context based on my experience and knowledge. Then at least the reader can assess context.'
Guardian: The world is watching them
Hell in a handbasket
The other day a reader asked me to mention the perverse travesty of the situation in Burma being ignored whilst so much of less import gets coverage and debate and public outrage in support. I replied that I would love to (and now have - it is an issue I have felt strongly about since I lived in Asia. Indeed one of the songs I wrote with my wife for her highly-acclaimed debut album was called 'Shadow of a Hero', about Aung Sung Ki ('scuse spelling)), but really I didn't feel it possible or right for the Junkk 'brand' to err too far, too often from our core area of interest.
Well, sod that.
I have just woken up to the farce that is Big Brother, our political establishment, and the sorry state of this country's chattering classes, the media they serve and read and, sorry to say, a large chunk of my fellow (wo)man.
As I watch the River Wye come up the highstreet, my dustbin head to Aberdeen, my breakfast juice (please let it be squeezed in situ and shipped over) freeze-dried in Orange County, I'd say there were a few other things a tad more important.
Animal Farm
"I normally wouldn't give this a microsecond's thought, let alone commit to keyboard, but as our nation's finest pols, NGOs and media have decided it is more important than anything else (unless a tornado whisks the BB house to Oz), why not me as well?
I have two words to offer: AGENDA and EDIT.
From the media company that sets this up, to the media that feed on the controversy so set up (as if they didn't know), how anyone with a brain can assign any significance to the words and actions of a vetted and selected and manipulated group of human extremes is beyond me. It's like watching a show called BIG BOMBER and getting in a lather because all the guys with (I'll avoid any potentially un-PC or pejorative descriptions here) huddle around in one corner discussing hair bleach and exotic dinner ingredients whilst looking ominously across the room at the lone US Marine popped in to see what happens.
And should things not quite work to the full requirements of the AGENDA, there is always the EDIT. You can leave in, or out, what serves your needs best. Leave to simmer, and serve.
Pathetic. The whole sorry lot of you."
Telegraph
Indy
Indy - a good analysis of several issues
Mad - good to kick a ball rolling!
Guardian, subsequently. I was going to add... 'Especially those making hay out of being 'offended'. Reminds me of when I was in Hong Kong, and all white non-Chinese were dubbed 'Queilos', which wasn't meant as a compliment. Or response? Well, we didn't run around wailing and trying to get a slot on tlak shows. We just figured, 'Hey, why not?', and started calling ourselves that. Kinda took the sting out of it. A lot of maturity is missing here. And commom sense. The day differences between people are not noticed, and commented upon, is when we are all the same clone. And then I'm sure ways will be found to set us apart even then. Learn to swim before you try and tell the tide to stop.
Telegraph, subsequently, for crying out loud. More than you ever will want, or need to know.
Telegraph, ditto
BBC - Jade to donate her TV fee to charity - The classic 'get out of jail free' response to such things if you get caught these days. I wonder what her fee to the News of the World was, and where it went?
GuardianCiF - A very good comment by a guy called Waltz
Indy - India grits its teeth as Jade prepares to jet in - As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Well, sod that.
I have just woken up to the farce that is Big Brother, our political establishment, and the sorry state of this country's chattering classes, the media they serve and read and, sorry to say, a large chunk of my fellow (wo)man.
As I watch the River Wye come up the highstreet, my dustbin head to Aberdeen, my breakfast juice (please let it be squeezed in situ and shipped over) freeze-dried in Orange County, I'd say there were a few other things a tad more important.
Animal Farm
"I normally wouldn't give this a microsecond's thought, let alone commit to keyboard, but as our nation's finest pols, NGOs and media have decided it is more important than anything else (unless a tornado whisks the BB house to Oz), why not me as well?
I have two words to offer: AGENDA and EDIT.
From the media company that sets this up, to the media that feed on the controversy so set up (as if they didn't know), how anyone with a brain can assign any significance to the words and actions of a vetted and selected and manipulated group of human extremes is beyond me. It's like watching a show called BIG BOMBER and getting in a lather because all the guys with (I'll avoid any potentially un-PC or pejorative descriptions here) huddle around in one corner discussing hair bleach and exotic dinner ingredients whilst looking ominously across the room at the lone US Marine popped in to see what happens.
And should things not quite work to the full requirements of the AGENDA, there is always the EDIT. You can leave in, or out, what serves your needs best. Leave to simmer, and serve.
Pathetic. The whole sorry lot of you."
Telegraph
Indy
Indy - a good analysis of several issues
Mad - good to kick a ball rolling!
Guardian, subsequently. I was going to add... 'Especially those making hay out of being 'offended'. Reminds me of when I was in Hong Kong, and all white non-Chinese were dubbed 'Queilos', which wasn't meant as a compliment. Or response? Well, we didn't run around wailing and trying to get a slot on tlak shows. We just figured, 'Hey, why not?', and started calling ourselves that. Kinda took the sting out of it. A lot of maturity is missing here. And commom sense. The day differences between people are not noticed, and commented upon, is when we are all the same clone. And then I'm sure ways will be found to set us apart even then. Learn to swim before you try and tell the tide to stop.
Telegraph, subsequently, for crying out loud. More than you ever will want, or need to know.
Telegraph, ditto
BBC - Jade to donate her TV fee to charity - The classic 'get out of jail free' response to such things if you get caught these days. I wonder what her fee to the News of the World was, and where it went?
GuardianCiF - A very good comment by a guy called Waltz
Indy - India grits its teeth as Jade prepares to jet in - As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Up in smoke?
This is one for the dilemma file (or ITanic Vs.).
Cremation or burial?
Despite most in the eco-sphere on this topic surrounding casket design (Cardboard, bamboo, etc), I must confess to having treated it as a bit of a niche thing, despite death, along with taxes, being a bit of a growth industry, along with the global population.
And that is a key consideration. Because if there's more and more of us standing on top of the earth, there's an ever more limited series of places to stick folk under it. And once we start fighting with the guys planting bio-fuel crops, it could get ugly.
Of course it already has to an extent. When I lived in Singapore over a decade ago, large numbers of ancestors were quietly, if rather unceremoniously JCB'd from their eternal slumbers and popped in an urn in a wall if they were lucky.
So pretty much my whole experience, including personally with my Dad, has been cremation.
But in the whole dental filling (mercury) pollution and simple combustion products (heat, gas) scheme of things, is it a good idea?
I'll have to go find out.
Cremation or burial?
Despite most in the eco-sphere on this topic surrounding casket design (Cardboard, bamboo, etc), I must confess to having treated it as a bit of a niche thing, despite death, along with taxes, being a bit of a growth industry, along with the global population.
And that is a key consideration. Because if there's more and more of us standing on top of the earth, there's an ever more limited series of places to stick folk under it. And once we start fighting with the guys planting bio-fuel crops, it could get ugly.
Of course it already has to an extent. When I lived in Singapore over a decade ago, large numbers of ancestors were quietly, if rather unceremoniously JCB'd from their eternal slumbers and popped in an urn in a wall if they were lucky.
So pretty much my whole experience, including personally with my Dad, has been cremation.
But in the whole dental filling (mercury) pollution and simple combustion products (heat, gas) scheme of things, is it a good idea?
I'll have to go find out.
Following In Jeremy Clarkson's Footsteps!
Well, apart from the height. And the money. And the cars.
And less-than-eco attitude. And, for that matter, the job.
Because I was going to say that like him, I today became a local newspaper journalist.
Thing is, he was hired and asked and paid, and I wasn't but offered and wasn't. However I see it as a milestone of sorts. And a good sign (except the STILL doing things for free bit - I need an agent). I have of course written op-eds before, but this seemed like my first real bit of citizen journalism.
The occasion was a council meeting to discuss getting hydro-power in Herefordshire.
The rest you can read here.
What is also worthy of note is that in that spread above, there were at least 3, maybe 4 other stories about the environment. It sis getting BIG! I hope we can play a part.
ps: The lights are mentioned in the article. It was good to see huge chandeliers with low-energy bulbs. At least someone is walking as they talk
A dish best served cold
If you go back in these blogs a fair way, you'll find I was less than impressed with the way SKY's Big Idea competition was handled.
I took part in the online Forum for a while with similarly unhappy contestants, but when it got a bit nasty (either a resident psycho or, more likely, production house minion, PR or lawyer) decided to move to more fruitful areas.
Today the OFCOM paperwork arrived. I'm going to enjoy this. We may even yet profit.
Especially when I read this the same day: ITV Play rapped over 'unfair' quiz
It's a bit broad, but 'rule 2.11 of the broadcasting code, which states that "competitions should be conducted fairly".' And if they can be nabbed on this, then I'd say we're looking even better.
I took part in the online Forum for a while with similarly unhappy contestants, but when it got a bit nasty (either a resident psycho or, more likely, production house minion, PR or lawyer) decided to move to more fruitful areas.
Today the OFCOM paperwork arrived. I'm going to enjoy this. We may even yet profit.
Especially when I read this the same day: ITV Play rapped over 'unfair' quiz
It's a bit broad, but 'rule 2.11 of the broadcasting code, which states that "competitions should be conducted fairly".' And if they can be nabbed on this, then I'd say we're looking even better.
The right behind the write
As readers will appreciate (as in 'know', not 'you're a bonzer dude, mate', sadly ) I trawl a lot and get sent a lot each day. Some of which I share. So it's always nice to see others finding what I have found interesting equally so.
My interests are eclectic, but obviously take in the eco, design, invention, ads, media, etc. One I have just surveyed (I will leave it nameless), which I do open as it is useful, had a monthly round-up. However I was moved to write to them (and those they quoted):
"I am enjoying and valuing the summaries that pop into my in-box from you guys. Such as:
A BURGER AND A CUP OF ETHICS, PLEASE
McDonalds tries to surf the ethical tide and up its green credentials with a rainforest connection. As of January 9th all of its 1,200 outlets in Britain will sell only coffee from growers certified by global non-profit organisation the Rainforest Alliance.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2007/gb20070109_958716.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe_companies
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/news.cfm?id=mcdonalds
......................................................................................................................
MARKS OFFSETS ITS SPARKS
UK retail giant Marks and Spencer launches its £200m, 100-point eco-plan to inject environmental responsibility into every layer of its business and make it carbon neutral by 2012.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/01/15/ap3328593.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6261939.stm
While it has to be welcome that organisations are moving in a better direction, it is also sad that often the hype is not matched by the subsequent realities. The jury is still out on the above, but even after a few days caution is advised.
I, too read about the McDonalds story and was impressed. However, a qualification and Fairtrade reply I saw tucked away in the Business letters page of the Sunday Times has made me more circumspect.
Equally, after its first flush, the M&S story bears further scrutiny. According to the Telegraph today they have put no numbers to it which, if true is very noble for a such a marketing-led company."
I'd like to think that I here, and we at Junkk.com do try our best to not just take what we're served and pass it on, but cock an eyebrow at least at everything, and where the situation demands add our own take and, if necessary, doubts.
There really is a tad too much these days being served up and taken as given, when a few questions may not hurt before passing on.
My interests are eclectic, but obviously take in the eco, design, invention, ads, media, etc. One I have just surveyed (I will leave it nameless), which I do open as it is useful, had a monthly round-up. However I was moved to write to them (and those they quoted):
"I am enjoying and valuing the summaries that pop into my in-box from you guys. Such as:
A BURGER AND A CUP OF ETHICS, PLEASE
McDonalds tries to surf the ethical tide and up its green credentials with a rainforest connection. As of January 9th all of its 1,200 outlets in Britain will sell only coffee from growers certified by global non-profit organisation the Rainforest Alliance.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2007/gb20070109_958716.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe_companies
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/news.cfm?id=mcdonalds
......................................................................................................................
MARKS OFFSETS ITS SPARKS
UK retail giant Marks and Spencer launches its £200m, 100-point eco-plan to inject environmental responsibility into every layer of its business and make it carbon neutral by 2012.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/01/15/ap3328593.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6261939.stm
While it has to be welcome that organisations are moving in a better direction, it is also sad that often the hype is not matched by the subsequent realities. The jury is still out on the above, but even after a few days caution is advised.
I, too read about the McDonalds story and was impressed. However, a qualification and Fairtrade reply I saw tucked away in the Business letters page of the Sunday Times has made me more circumspect.
Equally, after its first flush, the M&S story bears further scrutiny. According to the Telegraph today they have put no numbers to it which, if true is very noble for a such a marketing-led company."
I'd like to think that I here, and we at Junkk.com do try our best to not just take what we're served and pass it on, but cock an eyebrow at least at everything, and where the situation demands add our own take and, if necessary, doubts.
There really is a tad too much these days being served up and taken as given, when a few questions may not hurt before passing on.
All that's Green... need not be?
I was interested in a new travel initiative called Greenbee, from John Lewis Partnership, for whom I have a high regard on several counts.
Sadly, it was not what I thought it would be. Tap in environment to the search, and this is the closest you get.
Interesting name, though. I wonder what lies behind it?
Sadly, it was not what I thought it would be. Tap in environment to the search, and this is the closest you get.
Interesting name, though. I wonder what lies behind it?
Well, he did ask.
So where are the new ideas?
'...Here, for one.
And if the party's environmental record so far, and even the tangibles behind the 'bold new thinking' is anything to go on, it's a shame the current system/regime is incapable, or unwilling, to genuinely try and find them in new places, and support them if they have merit.'
For once, a short answer (though it need a lot more) to a short question.
ADDENDUNM:
The author has kindly replied, thanking me for my input and suggesting it needs reflecting upon. To which I have followed up (you never know):
'As will many of us, I'm sure. I just hope we have the time to do so before inactions reap unfortunate consequences.
I am of course politically and even corporately (if not commercially) naive, but having embarked upon a one-person effort to DO something about our environmental future, using the skills at my disposal, it can be frustrating to find those that who one thought were claiming and indeed tasked to help were in fact dedicated, either through ignorance, inefficiency or ambition, to thwarting one's efforts at almost every turn. I am currently looking at a govt.-funded quango - to whom I took my business plan for support 3 years ago - now moving into an area of direct competition with me! And this after they claimed no interest in what I was doing 'because it was commercial'. They now have 'sponsors' logos on their site, which is an ad where I come from.
In my 'job' I read a lot, and have done so daily for several years, and the number of times what is said ever gets done at all, much less as claimed originally, makes for a sorry state of affairs. But even most major media are complicit in allowing such short-termism to succeed and flourish.
The system is not working, yet it is still growing and hence becoming ever more complex, which only makes the chances of restitution and repair more difficult. But we must try, if only as individuals, though it would be so much better to do so in concert. An empire of minions between the top and reality can be very comforting for a while, but when there are no more beans to count, or manage, because the bean-makers have been depleted and worn out then even those with index-linking and gold-plating may yet starve. Trouble is, perhaps not in their (career) lifetime.
So it can be hard. I was at a '3rd sector' gathering last year, which claimed to be about improving creative thinking, innovation and pushing social entrepreneurship with private types like me. In my view it failed on all counts, and was almost designed to maintain the status quo behind a facade of hype by the composition of invitees and structure. Pity.
I will keep trying to engage, indeed in some ways for selfish reasons (if there's money I will try and bag some), but really it is not often worth the effort. So we end up with 'us' and 'them'... again.'
'...Here, for one.
And if the party's environmental record so far, and even the tangibles behind the 'bold new thinking' is anything to go on, it's a shame the current system/regime is incapable, or unwilling, to genuinely try and find them in new places, and support them if they have merit.'
For once, a short answer (though it need a lot more) to a short question.
ADDENDUNM:
The author has kindly replied, thanking me for my input and suggesting it needs reflecting upon. To which I have followed up (you never know):
'As will many of us, I'm sure. I just hope we have the time to do so before inactions reap unfortunate consequences.
I am of course politically and even corporately (if not commercially) naive, but having embarked upon a one-person effort to DO something about our environmental future, using the skills at my disposal, it can be frustrating to find those that who one thought were claiming and indeed tasked to help were in fact dedicated, either through ignorance, inefficiency or ambition, to thwarting one's efforts at almost every turn. I am currently looking at a govt.-funded quango - to whom I took my business plan for support 3 years ago - now moving into an area of direct competition with me! And this after they claimed no interest in what I was doing 'because it was commercial'. They now have 'sponsors' logos on their site, which is an ad where I come from.
In my 'job' I read a lot, and have done so daily for several years, and the number of times what is said ever gets done at all, much less as claimed originally, makes for a sorry state of affairs. But even most major media are complicit in allowing such short-termism to succeed and flourish.
The system is not working, yet it is still growing and hence becoming ever more complex, which only makes the chances of restitution and repair more difficult. But we must try, if only as individuals, though it would be so much better to do so in concert. An empire of minions between the top and reality can be very comforting for a while, but when there are no more beans to count, or manage, because the bean-makers have been depleted and worn out then even those with index-linking and gold-plating may yet starve. Trouble is, perhaps not in their (career) lifetime.
So it can be hard. I was at a '3rd sector' gathering last year, which claimed to be about improving creative thinking, innovation and pushing social entrepreneurship with private types like me. In my view it failed on all counts, and was almost designed to maintain the status quo behind a facade of hype by the composition of invitees and structure. Pity.
I will keep trying to engage, indeed in some ways for selfish reasons (if there's money I will try and bag some), but really it is not often worth the effort. So we end up with 'us' and 'them'... again.'
Selling beans. No longer counting them. Apparently.
A few days ago I noted the coverage of the M&S green announcement, and felt this was one that needed time to settle.
Happily, others are still paying attention: No figure on M&S's green payback
To whom I felt moved to write (plus a ps on EDF snitching on pot growers):
"Thank you for your piece today, which will make a nice counterpiece in my blog to the mostly uncritical gush that has been accorded this announcement in other quarters.
It has not been my experience that anyone in marketing, especially retail, has not put a price, first, and as high as possible, on anything they do. This has to be a new one.
However, with this new found hue, maybe my little organisation, which does no more than offer free (with paid ads if they want to push something genuinely, planet-savingly, consumer-benefittingly green they sell or do - only not going 'carbon neutral' because, as you say, they should have done ages ago and it really only helps their own bottom line, PR and CSR at AGM time) opportunities for them to upload their product data for reuse and recycling info purposes (which one would have assumed a savvy marketer would see as a possible ADDITIONAL sales opportunity), as has such as ecover, maybe they may feel like getting back to us after 3 years trying to get through the minions, using such e-dm as our Folda-Holda.
We cost them nothing and could make them money, after all. But maybe looking good is more important and needs more attention than actually doing good.
Rgds, Peter Martin
ps: Shining a light on EDF's true role in joint supply-side issues
I was recently at a seminar at the Science Museum where one of my co-presenters was extolling the virtues of hemp as source of textiles, etc. In eco-terms it is even way ahead of bamboo for instance. However all our enthusiasm for the potential (myself included) was dampened slightly when the speaker was asked how we grew it at home... you know the rest.
Still if EDF does feel like making a contribution to global warming in synergistic areas, it may be worth looking at!"
Happily, others are still paying attention: No figure on M&S's green payback
To whom I felt moved to write (plus a ps on EDF snitching on pot growers):
"Thank you for your piece today, which will make a nice counterpiece in my blog to the mostly uncritical gush that has been accorded this announcement in other quarters.
It has not been my experience that anyone in marketing, especially retail, has not put a price, first, and as high as possible, on anything they do. This has to be a new one.
However, with this new found hue, maybe my little organisation, which does no more than offer free (with paid ads if they want to push something genuinely, planet-savingly, consumer-benefittingly green they sell or do - only not going 'carbon neutral' because, as you say, they should have done ages ago and it really only helps their own bottom line, PR and CSR at AGM time) opportunities for them to upload their product data for reuse and recycling info purposes (which one would have assumed a savvy marketer would see as a possible ADDITIONAL sales opportunity), as has such as ecover, maybe they may feel like getting back to us after 3 years trying to get through the minions, using such e-dm as our Folda-Holda.
We cost them nothing and could make them money, after all. But maybe looking good is more important and needs more attention than actually doing good.
Rgds, Peter Martin
ps: Shining a light on EDF's true role in joint supply-side issues
I was recently at a seminar at the Science Museum where one of my co-presenters was extolling the virtues of hemp as source of textiles, etc. In eco-terms it is even way ahead of bamboo for instance. However all our enthusiasm for the potential (myself included) was dampened slightly when the speaker was asked how we grew it at home... you know the rest.
Still if EDF does feel like making a contribution to global warming in synergistic areas, it may be worth looking at!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)