Add a comment May 29th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
A “Deputy ding dong”? That is what is on Newsnight tonight, according to the main BBC Politics page, anyway.
Is it just me or is does that sound just, well, wrong? Particularly considering that two of the candidates appear to be campaigning primarily on the basis that they are ‘ding dong’-less.
An unfortunate turn of phrase, I would have thought, particularly considering the look on Paxman’s face in the photo they put next to it…
Of course it is actually referring to a debate amongst the candidates for the deputy leader of the Labour Party on Newsnight, but I read it and had a completely different, and quite horrible, image pop into my head. Which I now want to share with others - this sort of pain really is best shared.
Add a comment May 28th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Okay, so I lied about not posting at all today. But I got back early, and this isn’t really much of a post in itself - more of a “go read this” one.
As I was back early, I decided to flip through some blogs and I came across this post by Chris Dillow on religion in egalitarian politics. It is brilliant, and I am in complete agreement, especially when he says:
“[M]y beef is not with religion as such. It’s about the role it should play in politics. In an egalitarian polity, in which people should be persuaded rationally of policies, religion should have no place – even if it is true. Religion might motivate political beliefs, but it shouldn’t, and needn’t, be the public justification for them.”
It’s a great post, go read it in full.
2 Comments May 27th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
There will be no posts tomorrow as I am going be doing on duty as a St. John Ambulance first aider at the Southend Air Show. which requires a lot of them. It is the largest free air show in Europe, and even though the weather is crappy, I’m sure plenty of people will still turn up to watch the Red Arrows and the other planes fly.
It’s going to be a long, long day - I’m going to have to leave home at 5am, and I’ be surprised if I’m back before 10pm, since we have to go by train.
I see the job of St. John first aiders as preventing paramedics being called out where they are not needed, so that they can focus on the truly important and life-threatening injuries. It is good to know, however, that ‘Johnnies’ can indeed save lives when needed [via BritBlog Roundup 119]. Well done to that man! Though I hope I never need to perform CPR for real, I do the training so that I can if I need to.
UPDATE: I just got back - at 7pm, so a 14-hour rather than 17-hour day. The trains were surprisingly more effective than I had thought, and due to the weather conditions [which we weren't allowed to talk about] we were all stood down far earlier than anticipated. Few injuries though, unfortunately, but the Red Arrows were fantastic as usual. It was cold and wet and yucky all day, so now I’m going to go and have a nice relaxing bath, and then I might go down the pub.
1 Comment May 27th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Under a new government plan, alcoholic drinks are to carry health warning labels under a “voluntary code”. Under the code, manufacturers will label their products with the number of units in each bottle or can, plus details of “government safe drinking limits”.
Of course this is not enough for some state interventionist, such as Labour peer Lord Mitchell, who had previously tried to introduce a Bill to force manufacturers to label their products with advice to pregnant women not to drink. He said, predictably, that: “Anything is better than nothing, but I think it is a bit wishy-washy, I would have preferred something stronger than a voluntary code.”
What is the point of this? People who drink aren’t going to look at a label that says something like ‘Warning: Alcohol can cause liver damage’ or ‘Alcohol can kill’ or ‘Don’t drink too much’ and then do anything more than ignore it and carry on as before. Everyone with even half a brain knows that alcohol can cause problems - just like everything else can if taken in excess.
I’m especially sure that the “government safe drinking limits” will be ridiculously puritanical, which will cause little more than derision cast in their direction.
Education is the only way to cause people to cut down on excessive drinking, in the same way as it has been for smoking. Instead of telling people what they should do, tell them what could happen if they over-indulge. The basest instinct is the will to survive, so threatening the health or life of excessive drinkers through the problems which could arise is the best, and probably only, way to cause a modification in drinking habits.
Source: The Telegraph
Add a comment May 27th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Add a comment May 27th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
There are some things that you just don’t expect - and that the Conservatives would propose selection by race is certainly one of them. David Willetts said that they drew up this proposal because there are towns which are
“divided by race and religion into two very distinct groups… In those communities which are deeply divided we could use the creation of new academies to improve links between the communities by setting the aim of recruiting students from both those communities.”
Yes, I suppose that some communities are divided by race, in the same way that some are divided by religion or economic circumstance!
Schools should not have to, or even be able to, select pupils based on their racial origin. To do otherwise is discrimination - and there is no such as thing as ‘positive’ discrimination. All discrimination is discrimination, no matter what gloss you wish to try and put on it, and this idea of discrimination of the worst kind.
Selection in schools is good thing, and the ability for schools to select should be protected. But this selection should be only along the lines of ability and geographical closeness to that school compared to others. Race, certainly, is not an appropriate excuse for taking one student over another, and it should not be accepted in schools any more than it would be accepted in the workplace.
Having required levels of school children from different races represented in the area is a really quite stupid idea. I very much doubt that it would significantly increase community cohesion, either, as those whose children didn’t get into the school of their choice due to their ‘race’ would rightly raise a fuss over it. At the very least, this proposal would not survive a court challenge. Discrimination on race is illegal, after all.
Sources: BBC, The Telegraph
2 Comments May 26th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
This woman is a cyber-stalker, and has been convicted of
harassing Rachel North. She needs to be found, for her own good as well as everyone else’s. She is quite obviously a nut-job. If you see her, call the police. Read
Rachel’s post for the details.
I can see this sort of cyber-stalking rising in numbers as the internet spreads out and blogging and social networking becomes more and more popular. I just hope that I never come under the sort of stalking and harassment that Rachel has. I don’t think I’d be able to handle it even half as well.
via Iain Dale; button by Devil’s Kitchen [code in the comments of Rachel's post]
2 Comments May 26th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
It’s not women’s fault that they can’t read maps, it’s down to their gender.
Research says that both gender and sexual orientation affect how good you are at navigating:
“Sexual orientation and gender affects navigation skills, with straight men best at map reading and heterosexual women worst, according to a new study.
Researchers at the University of Warwick considered how we perform mental tasks in light of sexual preferences, with straight men performing better at map reading than gay men who in turn perform better than lesbians, who in turn do better than straight women.” (The Telegraph)
Of course this is never definitive, but it is an interesting result and comparability between navigation skills, gender and sexual preference. What does it really mean, however, in a practical sense? Very little indeed. Interesting that gender and even sexuality affect something like navigation, though.
Add a comment May 26th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
This is try the sort of thing which annoys me. Why, just why?
“From today, anyone with £1,000 to hand and a serious enthusiasm for Diana memorabilia can purchase a contemporary relic: a fragment of the silk used for the princess’s wedding dress… The fabric has been cut into 1,000 swatches of roughly four square inches, to go with every copy of A Dress for Diana, a lavish coffee-table account of the Emanuels’ best-known assignment. If all 1,000 sell, the venture could realise £1 million.” (The Times)
Diana has been dead for nearly a decade. Let it go, for fuck’s sake! Really, who cares any more, and why do they care? Yes, she did some good and charitable things whilst she was alive, but both the outpouring of grief at her death and since has been absolutely ridiculous in the extreme.
She wasn’t anything all that special in herself during life. She was another human being who did some good stuff, and tragically died in an accident. Her life was not inherently any more special or important than anyone else’s. Like every other human being she had faults and great strengths. Lots of people have done greater amounts of ‘good’ in their life and not been mourned so at their death. What makes Diana any more special than them?
Nothing does. She was a pretty face in the media who came to be seen as the victim in her marriage break-up and did lots of charity work whilst also gaining a sympathy vote.
She has been dead for nearly a decade. Let the cult die down and away, and let her rest in peace. And don’t spent lots of money on small pieces of material that was a part of her wedding dress and very long time ago. I mean, £1,000 for four square inches?! Ridiculous.
End the obsession.
Source: The Times
1 Comment May 26th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Who could do such a thing? To walk past a fellow climber near the top of the biggest mountain in the world, how shallow and callous would you have to be? And how little regard for human life?
Luckily at least some people aren’t like that:
“A stricken climber left to die on Everest was saved by an American guide and a sherpa who found her by accident as they returned from the summit. The dramatic rescue of the Nepalese woman has reopened a passionate debate about mountaineering ethics, a year after the controversial death on the mountain of the British climber David Sharp. The woman, identified only as Usha, was found on Monday morning suffering from severe altitude sickness about 550 metres beneath the 8,848m (29,028ft) summit.” (The Times)
I find it hugely offensive that someone, anyone, would just leave another human being to die like that. There is always something that can be done. At the very least, you should try.
Despite the number of people who climb Everest is continually climbing, with more and more people vying to be the first from their minority group to reach the summit, and even the first mobile phone call made from the summit of Everest. But it is still dangerous to climb the mountain - and always will be.
It was first climbed “because it was there” - pretty much the reason for all climbing activities - but it now seems to be climbed simply so that people can brag that they’ve done it. And they appear to put a greater emphasis on gaining their bragging rights than on saving a human life. If you get so far only to not quite reach the summit, it would be a disappointment, I’m sure, but a life, any life, is worth more than that. And no real mountaineer would think anything else.
Source: The Times
