Almost completely clueless
The latter. Or rather, just now over a cuppa, on my PC.
I truly appreciate the next-day re:view facility, and would only wish that this could be extended to all programmes and archived for permanent access at any future point.
I already view most news programmes with some caution as to the agenda being served by the selection of guests, editing and overall content. This would be further compounded by any cut down sample.
Already I dismiss any snippet of an interviewee's comments without having access to the full exchange an context.
I just tried the Breakfast Takeway link above on my Mac to see how much of Scotland wind power will supply by next Tuesday, but sadly it supplied my Mac/Firefox combo with no more than a vast screed of error data.
I think I'll keep it live as much as I can. These days there may be fact.. or was it Memorex?
Friday, February 09, 2007
A Mighty Wind
In light of recent discussions, I have decided to re-post to Newsnight:
Are domestic wind turbines an eco-con?
I very much appreciate these blog posts because, between the inevitable extremes of opinion, there are some smart cookies who do seem to know what they are talking about and can share some worthwhile facts.
Hence I have revisited after quite a while, as a consequence of a BBC news report this morning, the content accuracy (or at least diligence to put PR in context) of which rang a few bells in my mind.
My main concern was that the claim was made that a new windfarm would supply half of Scotland.
I raised some doubts on my blog - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/02/talking-heads.html - and it seems they MAY be founded, but so far those involved in the discussion would be the first to admit we don't know.
Should anyone who does revisit these pages some answers would be appreciated.
I fear that my faith in objective reporting, even my our premier national news channel, is being seriously eroded as it becomes more and more of a PR-patsy for government and other organisations who wish to be seen to be doing 'good' in pushing their agendas.
My only concern is delivering genuine enviro-ROI from initiatives that will improve my kids' futures, and not some pol's career, activist's pension plan fund or commercial interest's lobby pot.
Or, for that matter, some unconcerned journalist/editor/producer's desire just to fill a slot under the name of 'news'.
And just for fun, I have written to the editor:
More Ethical Man territory (I've posted on his piece on the matter as well), but this does extend to other issues you have raised, such as the programme's and indeed BBC's role in sharing objective information. My main area of concern is how we are being driven in the area of environmental good practice, and what I perceive as a poor level of context and objectivity on many issues that surely demand as much as reasonably possible before people commit their money, votes and kids' futures, based on what is often little more than agenda-driven, target-based, career/empire-enhancing or profit-generating PR.
From pieces on electric cars that 'don't pollute' (they do, it's just the exhaust pipe is in a different place) to a slot on wind-farm generation today that frankly didn't add up, I'd be much more inclined to enthusiastically embrace all these planet-saving initiatives if I didn't feel I was being conned, and not very well, by all those with the most to gain... in the short term. It's as shame that I feel the media I should trust most are complicit in taking me along for the ride.
Are domestic wind turbines an eco-con?
I very much appreciate these blog posts because, between the inevitable extremes of opinion, there are some smart cookies who do seem to know what they are talking about and can share some worthwhile facts.
Hence I have revisited after quite a while, as a consequence of a BBC news report this morning, the content accuracy (or at least diligence to put PR in context) of which rang a few bells in my mind.
My main concern was that the claim was made that a new windfarm would supply half of Scotland.
I raised some doubts on my blog - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/02/talking-heads.html - and it seems they MAY be founded, but so far those involved in the discussion would be the first to admit we don't know.
Should anyone who does revisit these pages some answers would be appreciated.
I fear that my faith in objective reporting, even my our premier national news channel, is being seriously eroded as it becomes more and more of a PR-patsy for government and other organisations who wish to be seen to be doing 'good' in pushing their agendas.
My only concern is delivering genuine enviro-ROI from initiatives that will improve my kids' futures, and not some pol's career, activist's pension plan fund or commercial interest's lobby pot.
Or, for that matter, some unconcerned journalist/editor/producer's desire just to fill a slot under the name of 'news'.
And just for fun, I have written to the editor:
More Ethical Man territory (I've posted on his piece on the matter as well), but this does extend to other issues you have raised, such as the programme's and indeed BBC's role in sharing objective information. My main area of concern is how we are being driven in the area of environmental good practice, and what I perceive as a poor level of context and objectivity on many issues that surely demand as much as reasonably possible before people commit their money, votes and kids' futures, based on what is often little more than agenda-driven, target-based, career/empire-enhancing or profit-generating PR.
From pieces on electric cars that 'don't pollute' (they do, it's just the exhaust pipe is in a different place) to a slot on wind-farm generation today that frankly didn't add up, I'd be much more inclined to enthusiastically embrace all these planet-saving initiatives if I didn't feel I was being conned, and not very well, by all those with the most to gain... in the short term. It's as shame that I feel the media I should trust most are complicit in taking me along for the ride.
You gotta larf#2 - At least this is funny
I am indebted to Dave at Solarventi for sending me a genuine funny item (to credit the author, he is Matt from the Telegraph) in an otherwise humour-bereft day.Much as I love my kids, because our school's staff can't cope with the snow they are now at home. I am lucky enough to be here. How many have lost a day's pay or had to pay for childminders whilst others enjoy a day off on our taxes?
Back to the funny, it does raise one issue. If you look below I file all such things under 'CLIM' for climate change. Global Warming doesn't quite sit with this image, really.
And yes, I know there are complex meteorological explanations.
Telegraph
BBC
Telegraph - Why does snow close down schools but not shops?
You gotta larf
Moderate motorists must speak out
I'm seeing this as further evidence of a two-tier country: those who get paid to write nonsense and those dumb enough to do it for nothing.
I, of course, am happy to admit I don't get paid. Not sure if it is nonsense, though.
As they (er... him.. young him?) are trying to kill people to defend their (his... etc) freedoms, at least Ken will make London a safe haven for them. I'm so glad I don't live there any more.
So Doddy, did this piece of yours work out for the best in bridging racial, cultural, urban/country media elite/rest of us divides, ya think?
I'm seeing this as further evidence of a two-tier country: those who get paid to write nonsense and those dumb enough to do it for nothing.
I, of course, am happy to admit I don't get paid. Not sure if it is nonsense, though.
As they (er... him.. young him?) are trying to kill people to defend their (his... etc) freedoms, at least Ken will make London a safe haven for them. I'm so glad I don't live there any more.
So Doddy, did this piece of yours work out for the best in bridging racial, cultural, urban/country media elite/rest of us divides, ya think?
Looks like someone has been reading my blog!
'Do as we say, not as we do' attitude fuels consumers
Good article. Good last questions. I look forward to answers.
Actually, I'd say this attitude fuels no one.
If an example cannot be set, then one needs to be made...
at the voting booth.
ps: Can anyone help me? Not that I can afford one, and worry about
the impact of buying a new car (eco-impact through manufacture
5-25% (depending who tells you) of total through lifespan), as I live in
the country and have to (yes, have to) drive pretty much everywhere,
and almost all on motorways, is a hybrid the best solution (and I don't
mean the dirty great 4x4 the commissioners will opt for to look good if
not do much better)?
I just wonder how spending the majority of my journey using a small
engine to lug a big battery can be more efficient.
You see, I am more keen on saving the planet for my kids than
looking good at the AGM, the climate conference in Bali, or 'who
hit the best target' awards.
Good article. Good last questions. I look forward to answers.
Actually, I'd say this attitude fuels no one.
If an example cannot be set, then one needs to be made...
at the voting booth.
ps: Can anyone help me? Not that I can afford one, and worry about
the impact of buying a new car (eco-impact through manufacture
5-25% (depending who tells you) of total through lifespan), as I live in
the country and have to (yes, have to) drive pretty much everywhere,
and almost all on motorways, is a hybrid the best solution (and I don't
mean the dirty great 4x4 the commissioners will opt for to look good if
not do much better)?
I just wonder how spending the majority of my journey using a small
engine to lug a big battery can be more efficient.
You see, I am more keen on saving the planet for my kids than
looking good at the AGM, the climate conference in Bali, or 'who
hit the best target' awards.
Well, you know, it's just not practical.. for some of us.. not to
'Blair ready to cut out Bush in quest for a green legacy'
Well, everything is relative. With Bush as a bar, TB is in with a chance
of looking better in comparison.
Well, everything is relative. With Bush as a bar, TB is in with a chance
of looking better in comparison.
Tick 'dem boxes, meet 'dem targets!
Test to steer learners on a greener route
This is, of course, all good eco-stuff and any sensible embracing
of such advice and practice is to be encouraged. However, I do have a few
points/questions bearing in mind drivers are '...examined on their
knowledge of “eco-driving” techniques for reducing fuel consumption
and harmful emissions...'
2 - I am unclear on the point here. The faster you go the more fuel
you use, obviously. Are we to drive on motorways at 50mph to save fuel?
4 - Interesting. And this improves eco-driving how?
5 - Supertrams or LRTs are [more] environmentally friendly [than ?]
because electric power has [a greater eco-efficiency?]
It does make one wonder what the rest of the facts/questions are.
This is when to put your foot down
So, who is correct?
If it is JC, then surely people face the prospect of failing by giving
the correct answer?
Where and when do we see this proof?
And if proven, what happens next?
An eco-shredding of all the literature?
ps: I'm pretty sure driving at 150mph will get you somewhere quicker,
but possibly not home.
Telegraph Blog - Test, Tyres and Cat Litter
This is, of course, all good eco-stuff and any sensible embracing
of such advice and practice is to be encouraged. However, I do have a few
points/questions bearing in mind drivers are '...examined on their
knowledge of “eco-driving” techniques for reducing fuel consumption
and harmful emissions...'
2 - I am unclear on the point here. The faster you go the more fuel
you use, obviously. Are we to drive on motorways at 50mph to save fuel?
4 - Interesting. And this improves eco-driving how?
5 - Supertrams or LRTs are [more] environmentally friendly [than ?]
because electric power has [a greater eco-efficiency?]
It does make one wonder what the rest of the facts/questions are.
This is when to put your foot down
So, who is correct?
If it is JC, then surely people face the prospect of failing by giving
the correct answer?
Where and when do we see this proof?
And if proven, what happens next?
An eco-shredding of all the literature?
ps: I'm pretty sure driving at 150mph will get you somewhere quicker,
but possibly not home.
Telegraph Blog - Test, Tyres and Cat Litter
Talking Heads
I really question the value of our 'news' these days.
Hot on the heel of my last blog on the plastics recycling, here I sit with BBC Breakfast on, and up pops a presenter to tell us that the UK has hit a major milestone in alternative energy production - the establishment of a wind farm that 'produces 2GW.
And then we cut to the sole interviewee, the MD of something to do with wind ra-ra.
Apparently this is awesome, because it's enough to supply 2M people, or half of Scotland.
The line of questioning then dives off to shredding seagulls via a brief mention of too slow/too fast efficiencies, which are put to bed by the claim that they run at 70-80% of the time. At 2GW? Actually what is that figure? Per what?
I should be over the moon, but such is my level of trust in all parties, the government, the industry and the media that deals wit them, I am merely overcome with a deep unease that I am being fed a line.
It would have been so much better to have had at least some expert, independent (though where one finds anyone who is not in the pay of an agenda group is anyone's guess) balance to put these figures in context.
My letter:
The Power of Wind
This milestone is encouraging news. Is it possible to have more context on the figures quoted in layperson's terms?
What actual delivery does 2GW apply to? Is it an average? Over what period?
Times: Green light for energy station
In this day and age, I am intrigued by the way eco-initiatives are shared.
Hence, may we be told what '...the POTENTIAL to produce UP TO
200MW of electricity' translates to in reality?
If you are investing £280M surely one should know to a fair degree of
accuracy what WILL be produced?
If it means that half of Scotland gets supplied with wind energy 70-80% of the time that's fantastic.
Is this really the case?
Forbes - Green is the new black
BBC - UK wind power reaches milestone
Times - Wind farm ‘marks step towards cleaner energy’
Hot on the heel of my last blog on the plastics recycling, here I sit with BBC Breakfast on, and up pops a presenter to tell us that the UK has hit a major milestone in alternative energy production - the establishment of a wind farm that 'produces 2GW.
And then we cut to the sole interviewee, the MD of something to do with wind ra-ra.
Apparently this is awesome, because it's enough to supply 2M people, or half of Scotland.
The line of questioning then dives off to shredding seagulls via a brief mention of too slow/too fast efficiencies, which are put to bed by the claim that they run at 70-80% of the time. At 2GW? Actually what is that figure? Per what?
I should be over the moon, but such is my level of trust in all parties, the government, the industry and the media that deals wit them, I am merely overcome with a deep unease that I am being fed a line.
It would have been so much better to have had at least some expert, independent (though where one finds anyone who is not in the pay of an agenda group is anyone's guess) balance to put these figures in context.
My letter:
The Power of Wind
This milestone is encouraging news. Is it possible to have more context on the figures quoted in layperson's terms?
What actual delivery does 2GW apply to? Is it an average? Over what period?
Times: Green light for energy station
In this day and age, I am intrigued by the way eco-initiatives are shared.
Hence, may we be told what '...the POTENTIAL to produce UP TO
200MW of electricity' translates to in reality?
If you are investing £280M surely one should know to a fair degree of
accuracy what WILL be produced?
If it means that half of Scotland gets supplied with wind energy 70-80% of the time that's fantastic.
Is this really the case?
Forbes - Green is the new black
BBC - UK wind power reaches milestone
Times - Wind farm ‘marks step towards cleaner energy’
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Doers or Shakers?
I read a lot of wild and wonderful things in my day. And so my eye is attuned to a potential nugget. Bearing in mind Junkk.com gets scores of questions about plastics recycling this one caught my eye as a potential plastic fantastic:
Plans on the table for food-grade PET recycling plant
So far, so rehashed press release. With a bit of that much loved, and now noted hype, spin and lack of substance we are seeing from all quarters these days, especially the environment. And too often faithfully trotted out by a rather compliant fourth estate. These days, I read 'could have' as 'here's a complete punt' when issued by official sources, especially when hand in hand with 'by the end of the year'. I'll be impressed if anything that cannot be confirmed now is up and operating in 10 months. It takes that long to get planning permission for a conservatory!
So my interest was piqued by the rather contrary comment at the end, from a well-established recycler such as Linpac.
I sense dissent amongst the vast silent, suffering majority of fellow doers in the environmental world, when vast, bloated, over-funded and totally inefficient, seemingly unaccountable quangos like WARP... sorry, WRAP, get gazillions of public money. And proceed to p*ss it all away on nothing that actually does anything other than expand and support their empires and nice lunches with COI ad agencies in SoHo. I am now building up a fair dossier of hard-working organisations who have been blown out by this old-boy outfit in favour of such needy causes as Tesco and Heinz.
What was that I wrote earlier about 'First against the wall..'.
When will the major media, and hence public, get to wake up to the sheer waste of money that is not going to secure a better future for our kids, at the expense of endless officers, boards, salaries, pensions and trips to Bali to discuss the consequences trips to Bali?
Enough!
letsrecycle
Plans on the table for food-grade PET recycling plant
So far, so rehashed press release. With a bit of that much loved, and now noted hype, spin and lack of substance we are seeing from all quarters these days, especially the environment. And too often faithfully trotted out by a rather compliant fourth estate. These days, I read 'could have' as 'here's a complete punt' when issued by official sources, especially when hand in hand with 'by the end of the year'. I'll be impressed if anything that cannot be confirmed now is up and operating in 10 months. It takes that long to get planning permission for a conservatory!
So my interest was piqued by the rather contrary comment at the end, from a well-established recycler such as Linpac.
I sense dissent amongst the vast silent, suffering majority of fellow doers in the environmental world, when vast, bloated, over-funded and totally inefficient, seemingly unaccountable quangos like WARP... sorry, WRAP, get gazillions of public money. And proceed to p*ss it all away on nothing that actually does anything other than expand and support their empires and nice lunches with COI ad agencies in SoHo. I am now building up a fair dossier of hard-working organisations who have been blown out by this old-boy outfit in favour of such needy causes as Tesco and Heinz.
What was that I wrote earlier about 'First against the wall..'.
When will the major media, and hence public, get to wake up to the sheer waste of money that is not going to secure a better future for our kids, at the expense of endless officers, boards, salaries, pensions and trips to Bali to discuss the consequences trips to Bali?
Enough!
letsrecycle
And a sooooper time was had by all... most... some... well, a few.
Dear Ms. Armistead,
Blair hots up Global Cool
I'm guessing this would be the same “individuals should take responsibility for their actions” Blair that reckons not flying for business or pleasure is not really practical, at least for those who can, now that the new career on the global lecture circuit beckons. I'm afraid I have a rather different view of what he's hotting up.
Global Cool itself looks like another fine effort. In fact I await their next outing. When will it be?
I'm just hoping that getting the billions to sign up won't prove tricky when the eco-elites live by lists, and while they do carry some baggage of his own, it would appear there is now an even more gre-elite above the ones inhabited by Mssrs. Goldsmith & 'My 747's get towed to the runway, but fancy-a-ride-in-my-spaceship' Branson, which has to smack of irony.
That's the problem with being exclusive; those on the outside don't feel very included or inclined to engage, but I am sure we are more than reassured to know that carbon reduction is a “battle for government and business”.
The media can of course play its part, depending on whether it's there for the celebrity or to do something rather than sidle up to the latest 'in message. I recall Mr. Hartnett on BBC Breakfast being allowed to run a commercial for the Toytoa Prius which, while admirable as a car in many ways, may not be the only solution that he claimed, at least for those who live outside of London and would just be lugging around a big battery with a small petrol engine.
He, and Aunty, also seemed to forget to tell us where to find this initiative, a common oversight it seems. Don't forget the reason you're all toasting and plugging whatever it is.
As to the managers from Shell, I wonder if they were in agreement with their bosses views at Davos, as reported on Today recently.
But at least you all have low energy light bulbs, and will remember to f******* switch them off when you leave, I'm sure.
Bless.
Yours, planet-savingly,
Peter Martin
Junkk Male
Sunday Express: concerts to save planet
Worth a try
A case of power corrupting absolutely
"JC, you are a fine journalist, a superb writer, a very funny person and a great entertainer. But I really can't believe you need the rating£ any more to come out with such mentalist-baiting guff as this (and I'll sacrifice 300-odd characters to cut'npaste):
'... if every nation meets its obligations under the Kyoto agreement, the Earth won’t be saved. In fact, the heat expected in 2020 would arrive in 2026. So we ruin our lives to buy just six more years.
... Global warming’s coming, so you can don your King Canute hat and stand on the beach waving your Toyota Prius at the advancing heatwave, but it won’t make a ha’p’orth of difference."
Is that what you will be reading your kids each night?
Apply your skills to make sure we do what can, sensibly, to mitigate and/or prevent the possibility. And especially ensure the chancers from all sides of the eco-exchange debate don't screw up the environment with daft, short-term, impractical and plain bad ROI (eco, £, social..) nonsense."
"JC, you are a fine journalist, a superb writer, a very funny person and a great entertainer. But I really can't believe you need the rating£ any more to come out with such mentalist-baiting guff as this (and I'll sacrifice 300-odd characters to cut'npaste):
'... if every nation meets its obligations under the Kyoto agreement, the Earth won’t be saved. In fact, the heat expected in 2020 would arrive in 2026. So we ruin our lives to buy just six more years.
... Global warming’s coming, so you can don your King Canute hat and stand on the beach waving your Toyota Prius at the advancing heatwave, but it won’t make a ha’p’orth of difference."
Is that what you will be reading your kids each night?
Apply your skills to make sure we do what can, sensibly, to mitigate and/or prevent the possibility. And especially ensure the chancers from all sides of the eco-exchange debate don't screw up the environment with daft, short-term, impractical and plain bad ROI (eco, £, social..) nonsense."
Ah.. am de lore!
Europe draws up criminal code to save environment
While this seems simple common sense, with a less than impressive
history to look back upon so far, it is to be hoped that the enforcement
and penalties are matched by a preceding and equally coherent level
of information, guidance and indeed reasonable opportunities to enable
willing and easy compliance.
Altogether now.. WEEEeeeeeeeeeeee!
BBC - EU to get tough on 'green crimes'
While this seems simple common sense, with a less than impressive
history to look back upon so far, it is to be hoped that the enforcement
and penalties are matched by a preceding and equally coherent level
of information, guidance and indeed reasonable opportunities to enable
willing and easy compliance.
Altogether now.. WEEEeeeeeeeeeeee!
BBC - EU to get tough on 'green crimes'
Ratings Whores
Talk about Newsnight
'Just watched on PC. A bumper crop.
Motorists - What struck me most was how superficially this issue was treated, and how what was shared could shape the way it was viewed, even down to the choice of debaters with JP's 'moderation'. One inarticulate 'pro'-motorist 'representative' and one smug, though equally inarticulate 'anti'. Were they chosen just to make JP look good? Why just two? Why from such extremes (as if I'd didn't ratings-well know)? This was not a worthwhile discussion or debate on an emotive and highly topical issue. I have more interesting things to sift through in the few posts above. Nothing to do with breaking the law of not. It's whether the law is being applied fairly or accurately. Where all the money goes, if not to improving transport to offer non-driving options. Urban-centric vs. country chasms of perception, especially between policy-makers, activists and a lot of the chattering classes in Islington, Westminster and Fleet Street. The complete collapse of trust in officialdom.
Peerages - I should do more, but I could really care less. Again, a couple of extreme bookends - one duffer and one shrill harpie - to make things spicy but not exactly informative.
Balls - Golly, what you can read when the lines have such great pauses to look between: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/better-devil.html
At least the car-less lady had the grace to stumble on what constituted reasonable protest. Speaking of one law for one set...
Text Mess - So the school is going to cut the dodgy pages out and all is tickedy-boo? That's it? I rather hope a follow-up is planned.
Iraq widow exclusive - http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2007881,00.html
Why is the BBC so obsessed with 'exclusives'. It matters little to me whether they are or not, so long as they are covered accurately, objectively, with integrity and in a timey manner. Maybe it explains the 'twofers' we get for 'debates': Ratings. And that is more about boosting individuals' media careers than anything else.
Shame.'
'Just watched on PC. A bumper crop.
Motorists - What struck me most was how superficially this issue was treated, and how what was shared could shape the way it was viewed, even down to the choice of debaters with JP's 'moderation'. One inarticulate 'pro'-motorist 'representative' and one smug, though equally inarticulate 'anti'. Were they chosen just to make JP look good? Why just two? Why from such extremes (as if I'd didn't ratings-well know)? This was not a worthwhile discussion or debate on an emotive and highly topical issue. I have more interesting things to sift through in the few posts above. Nothing to do with breaking the law of not. It's whether the law is being applied fairly or accurately. Where all the money goes, if not to improving transport to offer non-driving options. Urban-centric vs. country chasms of perception, especially between policy-makers, activists and a lot of the chattering classes in Islington, Westminster and Fleet Street. The complete collapse of trust in officialdom.
Peerages - I should do more, but I could really care less. Again, a couple of extreme bookends - one duffer and one shrill harpie - to make things spicy but not exactly informative.
Balls - Golly, what you can read when the lines have such great pauses to look between: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/better-devil.html
At least the car-less lady had the grace to stumble on what constituted reasonable protest. Speaking of one law for one set...
Text Mess - So the school is going to cut the dodgy pages out and all is tickedy-boo? That's it? I rather hope a follow-up is planned.
Iraq widow exclusive - http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2007881,00.html
Why is the BBC so obsessed with 'exclusives'. It matters little to me whether they are or not, so long as they are covered accurately, objectively, with integrity and in a timey manner. Maybe it explains the 'twofers' we get for 'debates': Ratings. And that is more about boosting individuals' media careers than anything else.
Shame.'
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Quality of Debate
It's not just what you say, or how you say it. It's also between whom: Talk about Newsnight
I just watched the piece on my PC, and sit amazed at the docile and polite Mr. Paxman I saw.
What troubles me slightly is that I am still not clear as to whether what was written was as presented in English as stated. Mr. P said it was; and the headteacher said it was not, albeit in a less than coherent or convincing manner. Mind you, that seems to have served our current crop of politicians pretty well lately. Deny, deny deny. And eventually they'll give up asking and move on.
'
If it is the case that this text was/is as claimed, I can only wonder if such things remain permitted by selective access to and teaching from 'certain chapters' to be acceptable, as, grudgingly, claimed. I can see our more liberal leadership finding that one may be a slight dilemma. Imagine George G or our Ken popping over a copy of 'John & Jim Go Down On The Farm' from our primary kids' sexual equality indoctrination courses, to the British Councils in the Middle East.
I'm also curious as to the choice of 'balancing guest' to such an issue. Sure she seems to be some kind of Govt. foot-in-mouthpiece, but might I suspect her faith may have made her attractive to spice things up?
Surely a less contentious representative could have been located, especially to answer key
Times
I just watched the piece on my PC, and sit amazed at the docile and polite Mr. Paxman I saw.
What troubles me slightly is that I am still not clear as to whether what was written was as presented in English as stated. Mr. P said it was; and the headteacher said it was not, albeit in a less than coherent or convincing manner. Mind you, that seems to have served our current crop of politicians pretty well lately. Deny, deny deny. And eventually they'll give up asking and move on.
'
If it is the case that this text was/is as claimed, I can only wonder if such things remain permitted by selective access to and teaching from 'certain chapters' to be acceptable, as, grudgingly, claimed. I can see our more liberal leadership finding that one may be a slight dilemma. Imagine George G or our Ken popping over a copy of 'John & Jim Go Down On The Farm' from our primary kids' sexual equality indoctrination courses, to the British Councils in the Middle East.
I'm also curious as to the choice of 'balancing guest' to such an issue. Sure she seems to be some kind of Govt. foot-in-mouthpiece, but might I suspect her faith may have made her attractive to spice things up?
Surely a less contentious representative could have been located, especially to answer key
Times
I'm angry all right
Are you an angry motorist?
I this an attempt to help, or capitalise? My mind is clear:
'Oh, lor, is this what it's coming to?
Ignoring all the pros and cons of car-related issues, and the feelings they may or may not inspire, the sheer illogicality of 'expressing' anything relevant to those who make policy via the suffering of a poor sod just getting through their day a million floors below beggars belief.
Such an outrage can only backfire on any efforts to question some of these issues, so as all you conspiracy theorists and media vultures circle and feed, have a play with the notion that everything can be manipulated these days to suit the agenda.
I hope we can see calm, dedicated policing being done, allowed to be done and seen to be done in getting the culprit.
So I simply now await the truth no one can know, no matter how good for ratings is the discussion.
And once it is discovered, justice being done.'
ADDENDUM:
Well, I should have know my point would be missed/ignored. And what will this media do with all this feedback?
I tried this, too:
I don't know whether they are motorists who are angry, or just people pushed too far, too fast by too many rules that are not well thought out and seem to have other agnendas than those stated, but I just went to that link above and it looks like it's gone past the 3/4 million mark. Now what?
No Answers.
One thing is for sure, there is very little trust or patience left around.
I this an attempt to help, or capitalise? My mind is clear:
'Oh, lor, is this what it's coming to?
Ignoring all the pros and cons of car-related issues, and the feelings they may or may not inspire, the sheer illogicality of 'expressing' anything relevant to those who make policy via the suffering of a poor sod just getting through their day a million floors below beggars belief.
Such an outrage can only backfire on any efforts to question some of these issues, so as all you conspiracy theorists and media vultures circle and feed, have a play with the notion that everything can be manipulated these days to suit the agenda.
I hope we can see calm, dedicated policing being done, allowed to be done and seen to be done in getting the culprit.
So I simply now await the truth no one can know, no matter how good for ratings is the discussion.
And once it is discovered, justice being done.'
ADDENDUM:
Well, I should have know my point would be missed/ignored. And what will this media do with all this feedback?
I tried this, too:
I don't know whether they are motorists who are angry, or just people pushed too far, too fast by too many rules that are not well thought out and seem to have other agnendas than those stated, but I just went to that link above and it looks like it's gone past the 3/4 million mark. Now what?
No Answers.
One thing is for sure, there is very little trust or patience left around.
Chip & Pain
New e-passport may not travel well
Devilish detail, indeed. I watched this on TV this morning.
And I think I have identified the latest fudge word du jour: 'likely'.
Or in this case, 'not likely', as in the non-answer to the question as to
whether these things will last more than two years, what the US
immigration will do by way of a knock-back if it gets bust en route with
the friendly skies (if not destination), and if not who pays for the fix.
Now, when I buy something, it's good for a year. 3-5 on extended
warranty (surely this is not what they're planni... no, couldn't be). This
is because actuaries have assessed the viable lifespan of the product.
So... for this item I am forced to get, why the 8 year discrepancy? And
why the fudge? Trust is in short supply guys. If you really want to be
sure of that index-linked, gold-plated pension, I'd suggest you make
things work, and have real answers ready if not. Otherwise, what are
you for?
Devilish detail, indeed. I watched this on TV this morning.
And I think I have identified the latest fudge word du jour: 'likely'.
Or in this case, 'not likely', as in the non-answer to the question as to
whether these things will last more than two years, what the US
immigration will do by way of a knock-back if it gets bust en route with
the friendly skies (if not destination), and if not who pays for the fix.
Now, when I buy something, it's good for a year. 3-5 on extended
warranty (surely this is not what they're planni... no, couldn't be). This
is because actuaries have assessed the viable lifespan of the product.
So... for this item I am forced to get, why the 8 year discrepancy? And
why the fudge? Trust is in short supply guys. If you really want to be
sure of that index-linked, gold-plated pension, I'd suggest you make
things work, and have real answers ready if not. Otherwise, what are
you for?
But will it fly?
Sharkride
This is indeed an interesting concept, and good luck to them.
It certainly addresses the 'charge time' negative that applies to such vehicle options. And, standing ready for electrical engineers to correct me, there may also be some benefits with the energy loss in charging by not requiring a myriad, not-so-efficient domestic points both for charging and transfer of electrical energy. However....
I wish people would not label electric cars as no-polluting, as the exhaust pipe is just in another place, unless we are talking nuclear, which has its on set of issues.
Plus, on the day the EU fudge on vehicle emissions due to 'lobbying' (what is that? We know where your kids go to school, or what?) by major manufacturers, I'd have to say we'd need to wait a while before they can be made to agree, with the cooperation of governments and utility/station providers, on what battery, where it goes, how it comes in and out in a standard way, how safe, who pays.....
But we can dream:)
This is indeed an interesting concept, and good luck to them.
It certainly addresses the 'charge time' negative that applies to such vehicle options. And, standing ready for electrical engineers to correct me, there may also be some benefits with the energy loss in charging by not requiring a myriad, not-so-efficient domestic points both for charging and transfer of electrical energy. However....
I wish people would not label electric cars as no-polluting, as the exhaust pipe is just in another place, unless we are talking nuclear, which has its on set of issues.
Plus, on the day the EU fudge on vehicle emissions due to 'lobbying' (what is that? We know where your kids go to school, or what?) by major manufacturers, I'd have to say we'd need to wait a while before they can be made to agree, with the cooperation of governments and utility/station providers, on what battery, where it goes, how it comes in and out in a standard way, how safe, who pays.....
But we can dream:)
It's a con
This http://www.breathingearth.net/ from Dave at Solarventi.
With my recently reminded nudge on attribution I would point out he was sent it, and sent it to me. I don't know when I'll get the time to discover its attribution (other than Dave tends to know about such stuff, and cares about science) and hence accuracy, so view it in this light.
All I can say is, for now, in the great climatic prof and con scheme of things, it's a striking example of a very bad con. And I don't mean that in a good way. See how words can be played with?
With my recently reminded nudge on attribution I would point out he was sent it, and sent it to me. I don't know when I'll get the time to discover its attribution (other than Dave tends to know about such stuff, and cares about science) and hence accuracy, so view it in this light.
All I can say is, for now, in the great climatic prof and con scheme of things, it's a striking example of a very bad con. And I don't mean that in a good way. See how words can be played with?
Mixed Messages?
In light of the BBC's avowed commitment to the need for solutions to mitigate and/or address climate change, what do you think?:
South African Tourism teams up with BBC World for marketing drive
Meanwhile, on a piece in the same slot about passports, the commentator excused his travelling by air constantly, because 'that's my job'. A notion, I suspect, all business travellers could apply.
Business is business, I guess.
South African Tourism teams up with BBC World for marketing drive
Meanwhile, on a piece in the same slot about passports, the commentator excused his travelling by air constantly, because 'that's my job'. A notion, I suspect, all business travellers could apply.
Business is business, I guess.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
I'll grant you. But not you.
This is one of my broad brushstrokes. Take as such.
At Uni, I was broke. The problem was I had middle-class, middle-income parents. So when it came to largess, their generosity went pretty much on the fees and stuff. Hall bar tabs didn't make the cut. That was what van driving was for.
However, I did notice that there were those who seemed to be first in and last out, 12 pints of subsidised Red Barrel later, without recourse to alternative sources of income. Oddly, they were from two extremes. There were the rich, connected kids who just didn't need to worry about much as it was all sorted. And there were those from lower income families who were on full grants, including 'living expenses'.
I've noticed funding is a bit like that, with the extra quirk that the rich guys also get money they don't need simply by being connected, and the poor guys get helped to find anything that can get thrown at them by rich guys paid a nifty cut from the pot to do so.
Meanwhile, Malcolm in the middle struggles on.
At Uni, I was broke. The problem was I had middle-class, middle-income parents. So when it came to largess, their generosity went pretty much on the fees and stuff. Hall bar tabs didn't make the cut. That was what van driving was for.
However, I did notice that there were those who seemed to be first in and last out, 12 pints of subsidised Red Barrel later, without recourse to alternative sources of income. Oddly, they were from two extremes. There were the rich, connected kids who just didn't need to worry about much as it was all sorted. And there were those from lower income families who were on full grants, including 'living expenses'.
I've noticed funding is a bit like that, with the extra quirk that the rich guys also get money they don't need simply by being connected, and the poor guys get helped to find anything that can get thrown at them by rich guys paid a nifty cut from the pot to do so.
Meanwhile, Malcolm in the middle struggles on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)