Add a comment July 13th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
The similarities between the two are startling:
- Both are leaders of large organisations with a penchant for telling people what is right and wrong and what they should do.
- Both are failing to provide any sort of clear leadership to their respective organisations.
- Both are ditherers, who just can’t make their mind up over important issues.
- And last but not least, both are being told by senior people within their own ranks that their position is “untenable“.
For the Archbishop of Canterbury, the issues all boil down to how progressive the Church of England should be: should they have women bishops or gay bishops? The more they argue and dither over an issue that the general public just can’t see any reason for an argument over. The Church used to be/claim to be the nations moral compass. But now, it is the nation which is way ahead of the Church. We believe in equality. Too many of them appear to be blinded by a few words in a book.
For the Prime Minister, the man who claimed to have a moral compass, the issues are instead based on competence - or, rather, lack thereof. He has failed to manage the economy and has refused to take any non-required opportunity to go to the people. You know you’re scewed when John Major is offering you sympathy…
Despite the differing issues, when it comes to taking decisions on them, Rowan Williams and Gordon Brown have taken precisely the same response: dither. And this is why they are both under fire from both outside their own organisations and from within.
The only question I now ask is: has anyone ever seen them together…?
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
Add a comment May 20th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Masterfoods, who recently switched to using animal rennet to make whey for its chocolate, has been forced to rethink it’s decision by an adverse reaction from the market. They received 6,000 letters of complaint within a week, and forty MPs signed a petition to “to voice their disquiet”. Thus, Masterfoods has changed their decision and had this to say:
“The consumer is our boss and we had lots of feedback from consumers who were unhappy about the change. It became very clear, very quickly that we had made a mistake, for which I am sorry.
There are three million vegetarians in the UK and not only did we disappoint them but we upset a lot of the consumers. We have listened to their views and have decided to reverse our decision.”
And that is precisely how the market should and does work. Masterfoods made an unpopular decision, received lots of complaints from consumers, and decided to reverse their decision. Precisely as I said when I blogged about Mars bars becoming non-vegetarian, the market will decide whether Masterfoods have made a good decision or not, and the effect (or potential effect) on their profits will decide their course of action - and in this case, it meant that they had to switch back to the vegetarian-friendly alternative.
A great example of the free market in action.
Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent
