I do not hate. I am not a hater.
However there are a handful of things I loathe.
I have a visceral dislike of those vox pops you get on the TV News where the journos go out into the streets and ask passers by for their opinion on whatever the current Issue of Note is.
My objection to these bits is threefold:
1) They are meaningless. If the intention is to gain an understanding of the public's views on a particular topic then a far more rigorous method is to use polling.
2) They are embarassing. It is painful listening to my fellow citizens embarass themselves with comments that they have not had the time to prepare beforehand. It is clearly patently unfair of the journos to pounce on someone in the street with a question concerning what may be a very complex issue and expect them to contribute a well-thought-out answer.
3) They are fake. There is a script to these things. Journos only ever seem to ask questions that have one obvious answer viz "Are you in favour of MPs swindling the taxpayer?" A: "It is distgusting. They are all the same etc"
The clear and obvious solution to my problem is to stop watching the news. Unfortunately, as I've already discussed, this is not really an option.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Ideology and the state vs. markets paradigm
Charlotte Gore, libertarian liberal democrat, has been responding at length to a comment I made on this post on her blog.
Chris Dillow has commented on the G20 protests, and of course manages to be far more coherent than I've been, what with my constantly changing opinion on the matter:
This is what I find most interesting about Dillow: he highlights the absurdity of exhorting people to support one set of rulers (state bosses) against another set of rulers (corporate bosses). All left/right distinctions kind of fall away when you frame the political debate in these terms.
T'be honest when it comes to political ideology I don't give a flying fig: they're interesting things to study in their own right, just as science, technology, business, political economy, and the history of all of these things are interesting.
But do I care to ascribe to any particular ideology? No. Not really. I am somewhat peeved that despite the fact that humanity possesses the technological and economic capacity to make the world a decent place to live for everyone we still haven't done so.
I am mildly annoyed that not every one of my fellow human beings is living the Good Life they deserve to.
But as to means to achieve these ends? I don't know. I strongly suspect we haven't even started to properly explore the phase space of all possible ways of running our civilization, and there may well be ways that are qualitatively better than the current statist/capitalist model of global political economy, but I am strongly sceptical that any particular Vanguard know What Needs to Be Done and have the ability to do it.
As long as our Leaders avoid doing anything really stupid then things will probably turn out OK.
Progress will happen, as progress always does, with many incremental steps and the occasional jarring revolution.
Civilization will continue to evolve.
Chris Dillow has commented on the G20 protests, and of course manages to be far more coherent than I've been, what with my constantly changing opinion on the matter:
Most of the Left is more interested in smug self-righteousness than in economics.
The debate about what to do now is conventionally framed in terms of the state versus (actually existing) markets - that is, as one set of bosses versus another. The possibility that people can organize themselves - through either genuinely free markets and/or through democratic co-operation - doesn’t arise. But it’s this spontaneous free organization that is the Marxist ideal.
This is what I find most interesting about Dillow: he highlights the absurdity of exhorting people to support one set of rulers (state bosses) against another set of rulers (corporate bosses). All left/right distinctions kind of fall away when you frame the political debate in these terms.
T'be honest when it comes to political ideology I don't give a flying fig: they're interesting things to study in their own right, just as science, technology, business, political economy, and the history of all of these things are interesting.
But do I care to ascribe to any particular ideology? No. Not really. I am somewhat peeved that despite the fact that humanity possesses the technological and economic capacity to make the world a decent place to live for everyone we still haven't done so.
I am mildly annoyed that not every one of my fellow human beings is living the Good Life they deserve to.
But as to means to achieve these ends? I don't know. I strongly suspect we haven't even started to properly explore the phase space of all possible ways of running our civilization, and there may well be ways that are qualitatively better than the current statist/capitalist model of global political economy, but I am strongly sceptical that any particular Vanguard know What Needs to Be Done and have the ability to do it.
As long as our Leaders avoid doing anything really stupid then things will probably turn out OK.
Progress will happen, as progress always does, with many incremental steps and the occasional jarring revolution.
Civilization will continue to evolve.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Three kinds of politics
There are three layers of politics, from the top:
- Theoretical political philosophy: the teachings of Plato, Locke, Mill, Hayek, Smith, Berlin, Marx, and the rest occupy this topmost and most ideological stratum of political discourse.
- Administrative political reality: this layer contains politics as it is instantiated in the real world, and is often at odds with the ivory-tower teachings of the upper layer. It is studied by sociologists and political scientists.
- The office politics of the powerful: this is the layer most often discussed by journalists who are too close to the game to realise that inasmuch as the personalities involved are of any relevance to what actually goes on (see above) it is almost impossible to predict what effect they will have. Nick Robinson is particularly guilty of believing that this is the only layer of politics that matters.
Monday, January 12, 2009
THE SCIENCE OF LISTENER ATTENTION by Toby Zeigler
I heard, whilst watching the complete series 2 box set of The West Wing, Toby Zeigler mention something called "the science of listener attention" - I immediately googled it but could only find specific references to the episode and the script:
I didn't think any more of it until I read what guestblogger Gareth L Powell was writing on Futurismic:
A coincidence, no? AIDCA sounds a lot like the written equivalent of the science of listener attention.
And further serendipity ensued with the discovery of this gem of an article by Cory Doctorow on how to write productively amidst the storm of distraction and noise that we are all constantly confronted with:
In both books Taleb criticises (amongst much else) the idea that people are "well informed" if they read the newspaper every morning.
Taleb describes the difference between the contents of daily newspapers and the contents of published books as akin to the difference between noise and signal.
No one can realistically know what medium-term relevance the daily churn of events will have on the markets, or the economy, or science, or technology.
Those events that are significant are so widely discussed and reported that it is practically impossible not to know that they are happening.
Which brings me back to the science of listener attention: if advertisers have such supposedly powerful techniques to get my attention how do I continue to effectively control my informational consumption? How do I robustify my memetic input? How do I screen my prospective mindmates? How do I let the good in and leave the bad on the magazine stand?
By reading more books and fewer nespapers.
[Gareth L Powell is a guestblogger on Futurismic]
Addendum:
In Fooled by Randomness Taleb mentions a preference for the classics, on the basis that if they've remained relevant and discussed for so long they must have value to them.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that lastingness is a guarantor of quality: but I take the basic point that if literature has survived for a long time it's worthy of respect.
{Although on a more technical point: later on in the book Taleb discusses the survivorship bias (go Google it). How does he know that the classics (i.e. ancient greek and roman literature and philosophy) are not simply prevalent because of the survivorship bias? Perhaps if the Library of Alexandria hadn't burnt down we'd consider the works in there to be of superior quality? Lasting historical relevance of books is a randomness-prone property. However I still agree with Taleb that reading about long-lasting ideas and reading older books is a workable heuristic for dealing with the "what will I read" question...}
He also mentions he reads weekly magazines like The Economist and The New Yorker on the basis that these have had enough time for news and ideas to be processed and contain potentially useful knowledge, as opposed to irrelevant data.
And yes: I am aware of the irony that I've resolved to read and write more but have also been watching The West Wing but whaddayagonnado - it has already taught me something today:
Beware of political speechwriters.
You want the benefits of free trade? Food is cheaper. Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are cheaper, phone service is cheaper. You feel me building a rhythm here? That's 'cause I'm a speechwriter and I know how to make a point. It lowers prices, it raises income. You see what I did with "lowers" and "raises" there? It's called the science of listener attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites and now you end with the one that's not like the others. Ready? Free trade stops wars. And that's it. Free trade stops wars! And we figure out a way to fix the rest! One world, one peace. I'm sure I've seen that on a sign somewhere.
I didn't think any more of it until I read what guestblogger Gareth L Powell was writing on Futurismic:
There are tried and tested techniques that advertisers have been using for decades – techniques that can be easily adapted to improve the response you get from your emails, subscription drives and blog posts.The best known of these techniques is undoubtedly AIDCA. This formula is so powerful that it has remained in constant use since the 1950s, and has recently found a new lease of life with email and online marketing.
AIDCA stands for: Attention, Interest, Desire, Conviction, and Action. Over the next six days, I’ll be guiding you through each of these stages, giving you a powerful tool to use when you’re trying to elicit a response from your readership.
A coincidence, no? AIDCA sounds a lot like the written equivalent of the science of listener attention.
And further serendipity ensued with the discovery of this gem of an article by Cory Doctorow on how to write productively amidst the storm of distraction and noise that we are all constantly confronted with:
Researching isn't writing and vice-versa. When you come to a factual matter that you could google in a matter of seconds, don't. Don't give in and look up the length of the Brooklyn Bridge, the population of Rhode Island, or the distance to the Sun. That way lies distraction — an endless click-trance that will turn your 20 minutes of composing into a half-day's idyll through the web. Instead, do what journalists do: type "TK" where your fact should go, as in "The Brooklyn bridge, all TK feet of it, sailed into the air like a kite."My recent hostility towards the stormy cloud of the media was piqued by reading two excellent books by Nicholas Nassim Taleb: Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan.
In both books Taleb criticises (amongst much else) the idea that people are "well informed" if they read the newspaper every morning.
Taleb describes the difference between the contents of daily newspapers and the contents of published books as akin to the difference between noise and signal.
No one can realistically know what medium-term relevance the daily churn of events will have on the markets, or the economy, or science, or technology.
Those events that are significant are so widely discussed and reported that it is practically impossible not to know that they are happening.
Which brings me back to the science of listener attention: if advertisers have such supposedly powerful techniques to get my attention how do I continue to effectively control my informational consumption? How do I robustify my memetic input? How do I screen my prospective mindmates? How do I let the good in and leave the bad on the magazine stand?
By reading more books and fewer nespapers.
[Gareth L Powell is a guestblogger on Futurismic]
Addendum:
In Fooled by Randomness Taleb mentions a preference for the classics, on the basis that if they've remained relevant and discussed for so long they must have value to them.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that lastingness is a guarantor of quality: but I take the basic point that if literature has survived for a long time it's worthy of respect.
{Although on a more technical point: later on in the book Taleb discusses the survivorship bias (go Google it). How does he know that the classics (i.e. ancient greek and roman literature and philosophy) are not simply prevalent because of the survivorship bias? Perhaps if the Library of Alexandria hadn't burnt down we'd consider the works in there to be of superior quality? Lasting historical relevance of books is a randomness-prone property. However I still agree with Taleb that reading about long-lasting ideas and reading older books is a workable heuristic for dealing with the "what will I read" question...}
He also mentions he reads weekly magazines like The Economist and The New Yorker on the basis that these have had enough time for news and ideas to be processed and contain potentially useful knowledge, as opposed to irrelevant data.
And yes: I am aware of the irony that I've resolved to read and write more but have also been watching The West Wing but whaddayagonnado - it has already taught me something today:
Beware of political speechwriters.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Wag the blog
Since I stopped reading newspapers I have replaced much of my procrastination reading Polly Toynbee's and Janet Daley's opinions on whatever with reading some of the following sci-tech/economics/SF blogs. They are no more or less well-informed than professional newspaper columnists but considerably more amusing:
I'm pretty sure that doing this goes against the spirit of my desire to read more actual books rather than irrelevant nonsense.
{No offense is implied to any of the above: I'm just saying at this stage in my life it would probably be better to focus on the profound and important rather than the trivial and up-to-the-minute}
*Sigh* --- I should really just avoid reading blogs altogether. It isn't educational, and doesn't improve my deep knowledge about anything.
- Stumbling and Mumbling by sometime stock-picker and author of this book Chris Dillow.
- The Yorkshire Ranter by some programmer and military history enthusiast Alex Harrowell.
- D-Squared Digest by some vaguely economic-type Daniel Davis.
- The Conscience of a Liberal by Nobel economics dude Paul Krugman.
- Jon Taplin's Blog by communications professor Jon Taplin.
- Ideas by David Friedman, author of this libertarian book.
- The War Nerd by a military history enthusiast from Fresno.
- Short Sharp Science by the good people at New Scientist magazine.
- Physorg by a load of people.
- The Early Days of a Better Nation by SF writer Ken MacLeod.
- Charlie's Diary by SF writer Charles Stross.
- Matamodern by nanotechnology theorist Eric Drexler.
- Bringing Nothing to the Party by raconteur Paul Carr.
- FuturePundit.
- What's Next: Top Trends.
- An American Redhead in London by, er, an American redhead in London.
- Futurismic by various people.
- Velcro City Tourist Board by Paul Raven.
I'm pretty sure that doing this goes against the spirit of my desire to read more actual books rather than irrelevant nonsense.
{No offense is implied to any of the above: I'm just saying at this stage in my life it would probably be better to focus on the profound and important rather than the trivial and up-to-the-minute}
*Sigh* --- I should really just avoid reading blogs altogether. It isn't educational, and doesn't improve my deep knowledge about anything.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Finding Wisdom in the Mass
One of the problems with writing a blog is that when you get an idea for a post, an idea which may be the result of weeks of mental incubation (a la Hermann von Helmholtz's theory of the steps of discovery or James Webb Young's A Technique for Producing Ideas), you also find yourself tasked with the tedious chore of chasing down all the links, references, quotations, blog posts, magazine articles, or books that contributed to your idea and including them in your post as well.
The problem is similar to that of information overload: with so many possible sources of information and text, how do we know what to read? And how do you know what to include in your post?
Do you really have to include references to everything and anything that might have contributed to the idea in the text?
I can't surf the web for any length of time without discovering new websites that are well worth my while reading.
So what how do I allocate my time so as to achieve maximum utility?
The problem is similar to that of information overload: with so many possible sources of information and text, how do we know what to read? And how do you know what to include in your post?
Do you really have to include references to everything and anything that might have contributed to the idea in the text?
I can't surf the web for any length of time without discovering new websites that are well worth my while reading.
So what how do I allocate my time so as to achieve maximum utility?
Monday, December 29, 2008
Damn you Taleb
Bearing in mind Nassim Nicholas Taleb's admonitions to stop reading newspapers, I have been making an effort to avoid doing so.
The problem is I am finding it extremely difficult. I can just about avoid watching TV, but I spend so much time online it become difficult to avoid looking at newssites. Even worse (when I do) reading articles like this:
The problem with this is that I simply don't even buy newspapers. On the other hand I don't buy blogs, and there are some excellent weblogs that are completely free (The Yorkshire Ranter, Charlie's Diary, Stumbling and Mumbling etc).
The problem with blogs is that for every reasonable blog there are thousands of unreasonable ones. If people don't like what one blog says they can just go and find one that says stuff they like - I'm probably guilty of this myself in my blog selection.
This leads to what the one of the guests on Andrew Marr's Start the Week (in which he recaps some of the more profound biotechnological and computational stories of the past year) describes as counter knowledge.
Perhaps I should just go cold-turkey on all forms of media, including blogs and newspapers, TV news and so forth?
The problem is if I did that I wouldn't know what to think! I need to know more before I can make reasonable judgements, and the only way I can find out more is if I read more, and the only way I can read more educational stuff is if I read books (including textbooks).
One of the comments on this blog post on Overcoming Bias (another excellent blog) puts it rather well: the "opportunity cost" of reading newspapers is very high.
The problem is I am finding it extremely difficult. I can just about avoid watching TV, but I spend so much time online it become difficult to avoid looking at newssites. Even worse (when I do) reading articles like this:
Churnalism and all other forms of sponsored or assisted reporting are deplorably remote from Steer's ideal of the reporter as author of history's first draft. They are really little more than sordid compromises which famous newspapers and broadcasters feel forced to make in a plummeting market.
I believe that one day and somehow web-based news outlets will find a way to finance expensive, agenda-setting journalism. But that is a faith-based position, not an entirely rational one. The website does not yet exist that can afford to send correspondents on speculative foreign missions or to fund expensive long-term investigations.
As yet, despite the brilliance of sites such as this one, the best online journalism remains dependent on revenues earned by its paper and broadcast parents and upon journalists employed and paid primarily by old media outlets.
The problem with this is that I simply don't even buy newspapers. On the other hand I don't buy blogs, and there are some excellent weblogs that are completely free (The Yorkshire Ranter, Charlie's Diary, Stumbling and Mumbling etc).
The problem with blogs is that for every reasonable blog there are thousands of unreasonable ones. If people don't like what one blog says they can just go and find one that says stuff they like - I'm probably guilty of this myself in my blog selection.
This leads to what the one of the guests on Andrew Marr's Start the Week (in which he recaps some of the more profound biotechnological and computational stories of the past year) describes as counter knowledge.
Perhaps I should just go cold-turkey on all forms of media, including blogs and newspapers, TV news and so forth?
The problem is if I did that I wouldn't know what to think! I need to know more before I can make reasonable judgements, and the only way I can find out more is if I read more, and the only way I can read more educational stuff is if I read books (including textbooks).
One of the comments on this blog post on Overcoming Bias (another excellent blog) puts it rather well: the "opportunity cost" of reading newspapers is very high.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Knowledge and newspapers
After thinking about my previous post further I've realised that newspapers are fairly entertaining. They also help fulfil the basic human need for gossip and discussion, which is good.
The problem is they just provide you with information, no deep knowledge. I read loads of newspapers and news websites every day and I know what's happening, but (to quote Elliot Carver) I don't know "why" things are happening.
I don't know enough about the world to come to analyse what happens independently of journalistic blowhards, disingenuous politicians, lawyers, scientists, and experts of every stripe.
Chris Dillow (a journalist who has written this book, and can therefore be considered an agent of deep knowledge) says of opinion:
Because I possess relatively little deep knowledge it would be a good idea for me to go somewhere and read lots of books about a wide variety of important things (economics, management, accountancy, psychology, engineering, physics, maths, electronics, computer science, literature, philosophy, politics etc) and get "up to speed" on Life, the Universe, and Everything and then I'll be able to make my own judgements.
I also think that "not reading the daily newspapers" would be a good New Years Resolution, particularly bearing in mind (the opinion of) Thomas Jefferson:
So I guess I'll be reapplying to university...
Update:
Edited on the 27th of December, links and quotes added.
The problem is they just provide you with information, no deep knowledge. I read loads of newspapers and news websites every day and I know what's happening, but (to quote Elliot Carver) I don't know "why" things are happening.
I don't know enough about the world to come to analyse what happens independently of journalistic blowhards, disingenuous politicians, lawyers, scientists, and experts of every stripe.
Chris Dillow (a journalist who has written this book, and can therefore be considered an agent of deep knowledge) says of opinion:
Opinion is over-rated. Sure, I like a neat turn of phrase or a new perspective. On a good day I even like the occasional fact. But mere opinions are like arseholes - everyone's got one, and I don't want to hear any of them.
Because I possess relatively little deep knowledge it would be a good idea for me to go somewhere and read lots of books about a wide variety of important things (economics, management, accountancy, psychology, engineering, physics, maths, electronics, computer science, literature, philosophy, politics etc) and get "up to speed" on Life, the Universe, and Everything and then I'll be able to make my own judgements.
I also think that "not reading the daily newspapers" would be a good New Years Resolution, particularly bearing in mind (the opinion of) Thomas Jefferson:
Avertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.Quite right. An opinion, of course, but still.
...
I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it.
...
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
So I guess I'll be reapplying to university...
Update:
Edited on the 27th of December, links and quotes added.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Black swans and newspapers
Currently reading The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Pretty good. One personal point hits home though: why the hell do I read so many newspapers? Why does anyone?
The stock answer is "to be informed" - which is a bunch of bull. Not only does Taleb show how reading newspapers actually makes you less knowledgeable about what goes on in the world he also points out that newspapers are so full of misery and negativity there is little value in them even as a form of entertainment.
Much better to read a good book - which I'm just off to do right now.
The stock answer is "to be informed" - which is a bunch of bull. Not only does Taleb show how reading newspapers actually makes you less knowledgeable about what goes on in the world he also points out that newspapers are so full of misery and negativity there is little value in them even as a form of entertainment.
Much better to read a good book - which I'm just off to do right now.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Impatience with the IMP
It seems I'm in good company with my opinion that the government's IMP (Interception Modernisation Project) is a great big steaming pile of FAIL and that Geoff Hoon is a bit silly, from the The Independent's Open House:
In speaking out against the government's proposed database of telephone and internet records last night, Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald joined a remarkable cast of critics of Labour's most draconian instincts.
...the really startling chorus of opposition to the raft of illiberal policies that has characterised this government is that which has emerged from the security establishment.
It's former MI5 heads Stella Rimington and Eliza Manningham-Buller speaking out against 42 days, and senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers saying the same thing. It's former Prison Service director general (now Barnado’s Chief Executive) Martin Narey decrying the rate at which we incarcerate children, or Prison Governors Association president Paul Tidball on the government's decision to build Titan prisons 'in the face of unanimous opposition from professional and expert groups'. And it's Brian Gladman, a former director of strategic electronic communications at the Ministry of Defence and US government security consultant, saying that ID cards would be a disaster.
The list goes on. These people are not partisans. They're professionals. They're experts. If anyone is going to have sympathy with the impulse to 'go quite a long way' in undermining freedom to stop terrorism (another Hoonism) and crime and benefit fraud, it is surely them. And if even these people think the government has got it wrong, one has to ask: who on earth does the government consult when it formulates this stuff?
The appropriate message is that all of this is not "being tough on terrorism" it is giving in to terrorism.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Oh Fucking Hell
Ugh. Why?
LATER: When I first read this I was paralysed with rage.
I don't usually engage emotionally with politics - but...
No, no. I really can't express myself.
LATER: When I first read this I was paralysed with rage.
I don't usually engage emotionally with politics - but...
No, no. I really can't express myself.
Monday, September 01, 2008
I understand politics, I just don't like it...
Why is it that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the economic times faced by Britain and the rest of the world "are arguably the worst they've been in 60 years" is it suggested that he is damaging the economy?
Check out what David Cameron has to say:
However I'm still having difficulty with the idea that telling the truth at all times is a bad thing in a politician, particularly when you're dealing with your own constituents (the British people).
It's possible there is a causal connection between what Darling said and the fall in Sterling (I don't understand currency trading enough to know if this is an entirely bad thing or not --- doesn't it mean that we'll be able to sell stuff abroad more easily?) but if Darling is telling the truth then perhaps this fall in Sterling is entirely warranted, and would have happened anyway once everyone else caught on to the Chancellor's way of thinking.
And if he's wrong then it doesn't matter either, because if GDP starts growing again and inflation and unemployment continue to remain low then things will be alright.
In short, Darling is hoping for the best but preparing (and warning us about) the worst.
It's important that politicians be honest and straightforward with the public, so why is Alastair Darling being criticised for commenting on the economic outlook? He is, after all, the government minister in charge of the Treasury.
And it seems I am not alone in thinking this, here are the results of a Guardian poll asking the question "do you admire Darling's frankness?":
Well said, Darling
There seems to be a disjoint between the public's perception (a politician not only telling the truth, but being honest and open with his opinions) and the perception of rival politicians and some in the media who see this as a mistake.
It does seem a bit overblown to say that things are the worst they've been since 1948. I'm pretty sure they aren't. But Darling is the professional so I suppose if he says it is there's a chance he's right.
Check out what David Cameron has to say:
"I think it's extraordinary that the chancellor said it, because – remember – a chancellor of the exchequer has got to think not only 'I must tell the truth at all times' but also 'I must use my words carefully, so that I don't actually create a situation that's even worse, that creates a crisis of confidence'."The "crisis of confidence" was apparently indicated by a fall in the value of Sterling.
However I'm still having difficulty with the idea that telling the truth at all times is a bad thing in a politician, particularly when you're dealing with your own constituents (the British people).
It's possible there is a causal connection between what Darling said and the fall in Sterling (I don't understand currency trading enough to know if this is an entirely bad thing or not --- doesn't it mean that we'll be able to sell stuff abroad more easily?) but if Darling is telling the truth then perhaps this fall in Sterling is entirely warranted, and would have happened anyway once everyone else caught on to the Chancellor's way of thinking.
And if he's wrong then it doesn't matter either, because if GDP starts growing again and inflation and unemployment continue to remain low then things will be alright.
In short, Darling is hoping for the best but preparing (and warning us about) the worst.
It's important that politicians be honest and straightforward with the public, so why is Alastair Darling being criticised for commenting on the economic outlook? He is, after all, the government minister in charge of the Treasury.
And it seems I am not alone in thinking this, here are the results of a Guardian poll asking the question "do you admire Darling's frankness?":
Well said, Darling
There seems to be a disjoint between the public's perception (a politician not only telling the truth, but being honest and open with his opinions) and the perception of rival politicians and some in the media who see this as a mistake.
It does seem a bit overblown to say that things are the worst they've been since 1948. I'm pretty sure they aren't. But Darling is the professional so I suppose if he says it is there's a chance he's right.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Alright, but how does it affect me?
[evil self-interested guy]
As a subject of Constitutional Monarch Elizabeth Windsor, I don't really have any right to comment on who the citizens of the USA decide to choose to be their Supreme Overlord.
However I am entitled to ask "how does it affect me?"
As for individual Americans Barack Obama is the correct choice, in terms of healthcare, education, and general niceness, but obviously that is entirely irrelevant to me. Let the rednecks enjoy their quadrennial bend-over fest once again and let them keep their damned assault rifles. Psshft.
[/evil self-interested guy]
My compassion for all people is severely tested by George W Bush, and the idea that John McCain might be a good choice of President for the USA. Whatever.
[evil self-interested guy]
The only real way that US foreign policy has directly impinged on my own life is through the Iraq War, and namely the fact that I (or rather a bunch of my associates) will have to pay for a part of it as British tax payers. Also some soldiers probably got killed and the whole business has has the whole world crackin' wise about our mommas.
I suspect, however, that the experience of Iraq, Afghanistan and the whole land-war-in-Asia bit will deter most British politicos from similar adventures over the next few years, and as such even if John "Armageddon" McCain became Prez it would be unlikely I'd find myself paying for another war.
There's also this tiresome business with Russia, Georgia and some godforsaken miserable hole called South Ossetia. I don't much care for the whole damned situation. Our Foreign Secretary has been mouthing off about it in this unintentionally hilarious article in The Guardian:
Russia is fucked in the long run. Losing 700, 000 people a year to demographic change is the kind of thing you can't ignore, let alone cause you to collapse into nationalistic paranoia, from a BBC Article:
If and when the governments of Eastern Europe and Britain get our act together and roll out our massive nuclear-reactor/clean-coal-plant building programme the whole question of energy security, global warming, and peak oil will sort itself out.
Let the Americans choose whoever they want.
[/evil self-interested guy]
As a subject of Constitutional Monarch Elizabeth Windsor, I don't really have any right to comment on who the citizens of the USA decide to choose to be their Supreme Overlord.
However I am entitled to ask "how does it affect me?"
As for individual Americans Barack Obama is the correct choice, in terms of healthcare, education, and general niceness, but obviously that is entirely irrelevant to me. Let the rednecks enjoy their quadrennial bend-over fest once again and let them keep their damned assault rifles. Psshft.
[/evil self-interested guy]
My compassion for all people is severely tested by George W Bush, and the idea that John McCain might be a good choice of President for the USA. Whatever.
[evil self-interested guy]
The only real way that US foreign policy has directly impinged on my own life is through the Iraq War, and namely the fact that I (or rather a bunch of my associates) will have to pay for a part of it as British tax payers. Also some soldiers probably got killed and the whole business has has the whole world crackin' wise about our mommas.
I suspect, however, that the experience of Iraq, Afghanistan and the whole land-war-in-Asia bit will deter most British politicos from similar adventures over the next few years, and as such even if John "Armageddon" McCain became Prez it would be unlikely I'd find myself paying for another war.
There's also this tiresome business with Russia, Georgia and some godforsaken miserable hole called South Ossetia. I don't much care for the whole damned situation. Our Foreign Secretary has been mouthing off about it in this unintentionally hilarious article in The Guardian:
Ukraine is a leading example of the benefits that accrue when a country takes charge of its own destiny, and seeks alliances with other countries.So, if South Ossetia decides it wants to take charge of its own destiny and seeks an alliance with Russia that's OK? What is Miliband trying to say here?
Russia is fucked in the long run. Losing 700, 000 people a year to demographic change is the kind of thing you can't ignore, let alone cause you to collapse into nationalistic paranoia, from a BBC Article:
Being briefly buoyed by oil 'n' gas revenues does not excuse completely ignoring the long-term prospects of your people. From Charles Grant in The Guardian:The seriousness of this [demographic] problem has led to an urgent, polarised and often angry debate in Russia about ways to tackle the problem.
Many medical specialists berate the government's apparent inaction over the country's health crisis. It is estimated that a third of Russian men abuse alcohol, while smoking rates are among the highest in the world. New threats, such as the rapid spread of HIV/Aids, merely compound an already bad situation, they say.
Politicians on the nationalist wing of the political spectrum see the hand of the West, and of Russia's "enemies" more widely, in the population decline.
Russia's Achilles heel is its economy. This has been growing fast, at over 7% a year. Wealth has spread out from the energy companies and the government, helping to create a prosperous middle class. But the economy remains dangerously dependent on energy and raw materials. Russia has very few high-tech industries, its record on innovation is appalling, it has too few small and medium-sized companies and its service industries are backward.South Ossetia has a population of 70, 000 people! That's one-tenth of the number of people Russia needs to conquer every year to make up its population numbers!
If and when the governments of Eastern Europe and Britain get our act together and roll out our massive nuclear-reactor/clean-coal-plant building programme the whole question of energy security, global warming, and peak oil will sort itself out.
Let the Americans choose whoever they want.
[/evil self-interested guy]
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Observation
To win an argument, it is not enough to have the correct answer to a question, one must also be the one who successfully frames the question.
For example: in the UK at the moment concerning the issue of immigration the question is "how do we reduce it?"
But with an aging population and an increasing need of skilled labour it is obvious that the question we should be asking is "how do we enhance the benefits of immigration?" Or better yet "how do we increase immigration?"
Those who are against immigration for short-sighted and selfish reasons have successfully framed the question, so that they will always win. If people think that immigration is a bad thing then anyone who proposes measures to reduce it will be seen to be solving the problem.
However the question "how do we reduce immigration?" begs the question "do we want to reduce immigration?" This is a question that is never discussed.
[images from Daily Hate and alex-s on flickr]
That's right: you are right to worry
For example: in the UK at the moment concerning the issue of immigration the question is "how do we reduce it?"
But with an aging population and an increasing need of skilled labour it is obvious that the question we should be asking is "how do we enhance the benefits of immigration?" Or better yet "how do we increase immigration?"
Damn straight
Those who are against immigration for short-sighted and selfish reasons have successfully framed the question, so that they will always win. If people think that immigration is a bad thing then anyone who proposes measures to reduce it will be seen to be solving the problem.
However the question "how do we reduce immigration?" begs the question "do we want to reduce immigration?" This is a question that is never discussed.
[images from Daily Hate and alex-s on flickr]
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Tom Harris MP: "Stop being Miserable!"
Journalist Michael Kinsley once said that "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."
In the case of junior minister Tom Harris this is entirely correct: he suggested on his blog And Another Thing that the public should cheer up, considering that they've never had it so good:
Although I believe that open debate is an essential component of democracy, why do we glorify in complaining so much? So petrol prices are high. The prices of clothes and electronics are down. And maybe if people walked rather than drove their cars they'd save money and be healthier.
Living Longer ... and Longer
The Daily Mail took exception to Harris' remarks (I'm not linking - I dislike the Mail's editorial stance on immigration, gay marriage, women's issues, abortion, foreign policy, education, crime - as such I don't want to contribute my Google-mana to their cause). His response is clear:
I think nostalgia and sentimentalism for the past are negative forces in debate. If something can be shown to have got worse, bring it up. Otherwise people should be suggesting how things can be improved, rather than complaining that they think things have got worse.
In a more general sense, polymath intellectual Stewart Brand (Whole Earth Catalog, The Well) comments that "good old stuff sucks" in The World Question Centre's What Have you Changed your Mind About?:
The idea that things have become progressively worse over the last fifty years (at least in the world's Western liberal democracies) is ridiculous.
[ImageWorldGDP from here, Life Expectancy at 65 from here]
In the case of junior minister Tom Harris this is entirely correct: he suggested on his blog And Another Thing that the public should cheer up, considering that they've never had it so good:
In our own country today, despite the recent credit squeeze, our citizens have never been so wealthy. High-def TVs fly off the shelves at Tesco quicker than they can be imported. Whatever the latest technological innovation, most people can treat themselves to it. Eating out - a rare treat when I was a child in the ’70s - is as commonplace as going shopping. And when we do go shopping, whether for groceries or for clothes, we spend money in quantities that would have made our parents gasp.This is a point I always raise when people suggest "this country is going to the dogs!" How exactly is it?
Although I believe that open debate is an essential component of democracy, why do we glorify in complaining so much? So petrol prices are high. The prices of clothes and electronics are down. And maybe if people walked rather than drove their cars they'd save money and be healthier.
Living Longer ... and Longer
The Daily Mail took exception to Harris' remarks (I'm not linking - I dislike the Mail's editorial stance on immigration, gay marriage, women's issues, abortion, foreign policy, education, crime - as such I don't want to contribute my Google-mana to their cause). His response is clear:
I know it’s only the Mail, but for the record, I absolutely was not telling people to cheer up. I was simply asking why people in the current generation - even those who aren’t suffering as much from the current economic slowdown - aren’t as happy as our parents’ generation. Am I being too optimistic in expecting a grown-up debate about this?Apparently he is. I am incredibly fortunate to be living in the UK at this time in history. I'd say being middle-class in the UK is probably amongst the top five best possible states for a person to exist in all history.
Like. Things have never been better.
I think nostalgia and sentimentalism for the past are negative forces in debate. If something can be shown to have got worse, bring it up. Otherwise people should be suggesting how things can be improved, rather than complaining that they think things have got worse.
In a more general sense, polymath intellectual Stewart Brand (Whole Earth Catalog, The Well) comments that "good old stuff sucks" in The World Question Centre's What Have you Changed your Mind About?:
Remodeling an old farmhouse two years ago and replacing its sash windows, I discovered the current state of window technology. A standard Andersen window, factory-made exactly to the dimensions you want, has superb insulation qualities; superb hinges, crank, and lock; a flick-in, flick-out screen; and it looks great. The same goes for the new kinds of doors, kitchen cabinetry, and even furniture feet that are available — all drastically improved.
The message finally got through. Good old stuff sucks. Sticking with the fine old whatevers is like wearing 100% cotton in the mountains; it's just stupid.
Give me 100% not-cotton clothing, genetically modified food (from a farmers' market, preferably), this-year's laptop, cutting-edge dentistry and drugs.
The idea that things have become progressively worse over the last fifty years (at least in the world's Western liberal democracies) is ridiculous.
[ImageWorldGDP from here, Life Expectancy at 65 from here]
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
One Last Post...
One of the more annoying aspects of the NewsCloud is it's tendency to simplify then exaggerate.
Take science vs. religion.
The mere fact that you have some idea of what I'm talking about it disgusting. How can such a puerile expression be useful? As a mental hook for something so complex and profound (and so misunderstood) that it escapes almost all serious consideration.
In the last 24 hours the British parliament has been debating and voting on a series of issues associated with abortion (should the last date at which an abortion can happen be lowered from 24 weeks), hybrid embryo research, and saviour siblings.
Some tasteful sketches of a foetus from Leonardo da Vinci
All these are important issues. I won't comment on them because there are facets of the debate (particularly associated with abortion), which I simple don't know about.
These issues are important and as such they should be treated as such. This is not, nor has it ever been, about "science vs. religion."
That expression "S vs. R" begs so many questions it is almost impossible to dissect it without falling into the trap of dignifying the debate, but I will attempt it.
Science is a tool. It is a way of thinking about, and observing the world. Empirical evidence (input from our sensory apparatus, both biological and artificial) and recorded data acquired through empirical means are considered.
Once they have been considered scientists think of ways that any patterns, or lack of pattern, in the data can be explained. They create a hypothesis.
They then attempt to disprove the hypothesis. They create experiments that are intended to disprove their hypothesis. If a hypothesis stands up to this treatment, and the work of one scientist is corroborated by the work of many other scientists, then an hypothesis is accepted as a scientific theory.
Yes, I know there's more to it than that. Check out this document on the scientific method for more details on the subject.
Religion is many things to many people. To me it is yet another system of control, external to myself.
It is also a panacea in moments of weakness. It is a crutch and it is community. Sometimes it is good and sometimes it is bad. Sometimes it is right. Usually it is wrong.
I do not judge those who have faith. I know what faith is. It is like a powerful drug, and it can make difficult things ... less difficult. I have had faith.
However I am entirely within my rights to call anyone who believes in the afterlife a fool and anyone who thinks the universe is run by some dude with a beard who isn't a science fiction writer of some sort (if God can't be a science fiction writer, or is not a full-time [and published] science fiction writer I quit - god is wrong and it is immoral to have faith ;-)) an idiot.
Anyway I despise how this argument is corrupted and dragged through the dirt by slavering hacks wanting to churn out copy on a "controversial" debate.
Addendum: I am entirely aware that this article is without evidence, empirical or otherwise. It is also fairly badly written. So sue me.
Take science vs. religion.
The mere fact that you have some idea of what I'm talking about it disgusting. How can such a puerile expression be useful? As a mental hook for something so complex and profound (and so misunderstood) that it escapes almost all serious consideration.
In the last 24 hours the British parliament has been debating and voting on a series of issues associated with abortion (should the last date at which an abortion can happen be lowered from 24 weeks), hybrid embryo research, and saviour siblings.
Some tasteful sketches of a foetus from Leonardo da Vinci
All these are important issues. I won't comment on them because there are facets of the debate (particularly associated with abortion), which I simple don't know about.
These issues are important and as such they should be treated as such. This is not, nor has it ever been, about "science vs. religion."
That expression "S vs. R" begs so many questions it is almost impossible to dissect it without falling into the trap of dignifying the debate, but I will attempt it.
Science is a tool. It is a way of thinking about, and observing the world. Empirical evidence (input from our sensory apparatus, both biological and artificial) and recorded data acquired through empirical means are considered.
Once they have been considered scientists think of ways that any patterns, or lack of pattern, in the data can be explained. They create a hypothesis.
They then attempt to disprove the hypothesis. They create experiments that are intended to disprove their hypothesis. If a hypothesis stands up to this treatment, and the work of one scientist is corroborated by the work of many other scientists, then an hypothesis is accepted as a scientific theory.
Yes, I know there's more to it than that. Check out this document on the scientific method for more details on the subject.
Religion is many things to many people. To me it is yet another system of control, external to myself.
It is also a panacea in moments of weakness. It is a crutch and it is community. Sometimes it is good and sometimes it is bad. Sometimes it is right. Usually it is wrong.
I do not judge those who have faith. I know what faith is. It is like a powerful drug, and it can make difficult things ... less difficult. I have had faith.
It's glowing! It must be SCIENCE!
However I am entirely within my rights to call anyone who believes in the afterlife a fool and anyone who thinks the universe is run by some dude with a beard who isn't a science fiction writer of some sort (if God can't be a science fiction writer, or is not a full-time [and published] science fiction writer I quit - god is wrong and it is immoral to have faith ;-)) an idiot.
Anyway I despise how this argument is corrupted and dragged through the dirt by slavering hacks wanting to churn out copy on a "controversial" debate.
Addendum: I am entirely aware that this article is without evidence, empirical or otherwise. It is also fairly badly written. So sue me.
A Commentary on Commentaries
At any given time there are a smattering of article in the dead tree press, blogs, websites, and magazine outlets worthy of perusal by anyone with a healthy interest in what is said about what goes on in the world.
Collected here are a few items that I feel are worthy of comment (I'm going to have one post per article, 'cause it's easier that way).
Privacy and social networking are two key components of the zeitgeist of social debate in the first decade of the 21st century. Zoe Williams writes in The Guardian writes of teenagers and online exhibitionism:
"...trying to inculcate discretion at a time when everybody is seeking exposure is like teaching abstinence at a time when all they want to do is have sex. Never mind the rights and wrongs of it, it doesn't work..."
There is no doubt that adolescence is a time when children are emotionally crippled by their own biology until they emerge, as if from a crysalis, into the neurotic grab-bag of talents, proclivities, and questionable ethics that makes up what passes to be a fully-functioning adult and denizen of the 21st century (that's an awful sentence, on two levels, but I will keep it because I enjoyed writing it - damn it!). However. I don't think teenagers are necessarily stupid.
This brings us on to the next key point in Williams' article. Something that has already occurred to most journos and commentators is that all this rubbish that is stuck up on social networking websites will (theoretically) still be there in the year 2020, when yours truly might be thinking of running for election to political office.
What's to be done? Williams suggests:
"...that 15 years hence, people won't need to be protected from their past excesses, because the very fact that this is a universal impulse that social-networking sites merely cater to, will mean that tomorrow's politicians will all have as many skeletons in their closets as one another. In fact, if you don't have a YouTube video from when you were 16, dancing to Britney Spears's Toxic, then it'll be as much an impediment to your public approval rating as being single is today."
This point is well made. I will now smatter this blog with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, safe in the knowledge that people will draw from this the conclusion that I am "genuine" and "honest about my mistakes."
However they could also conclude that I am too computer-illiterate to spellcheck my post!
[However if Ray Kurzweil is right, by 2020 the computers will have taken over in an event already being labelled as "the technological singularity" - if I'm capaigning on a pro-singularity ticket my spelling mistakes will be interpreted as an early and tacit recognition of the need to augment my feeble human intellect with a Mighty Processor. On the other hand if I'm going to campaign on an anti-singularity platform my PC-illiteracy will be seen as being evidence of my inherent suspicions of technology.]
The agony of indecision! I feel like the press is saying Gordon Brown must be feeling.
I don't owe the person who I will be anything. I would vote for him, but only after a close examination of the policies he supports on a variety of issues and the relative positions of his opponents.
In conclusion if, by 2020, we're still going on and on about politicians' personalities as if they mattered a gnat's shite then Dog help us, Dog help us all.
Collected here are a few items that I feel are worthy of comment (I'm going to have one post per article, 'cause it's easier that way).
Privacy and social networking are two key components of the zeitgeist of social debate in the first decade of the 21st century. Zoe Williams writes in The Guardian writes of teenagers and online exhibitionism:
"...trying to inculcate discretion at a time when everybody is seeking exposure is like teaching abstinence at a time when all they want to do is have sex. Never mind the rights and wrongs of it, it doesn't work..."
There is no doubt that adolescence is a time when children are emotionally crippled by their own biology until they emerge, as if from a crysalis, into the neurotic grab-bag of talents, proclivities, and questionable ethics that makes up what passes to be a fully-functioning adult and denizen of the 21st century (that's an awful sentence, on two levels, but I will keep it because I enjoyed writing it - damn it!). However. I don't think teenagers are necessarily stupid.
This brings us on to the next key point in Williams' article. Something that has already occurred to most journos and commentators is that all this rubbish that is stuck up on social networking websites will (theoretically) still be there in the year 2020, when yours truly might be thinking of running for election to political office.
What's to be done? Williams suggests:
"...that 15 years hence, people won't need to be protected from their past excesses, because the very fact that this is a universal impulse that social-networking sites merely cater to, will mean that tomorrow's politicians will all have as many skeletons in their closets as one another. In fact, if you don't have a YouTube video from when you were 16, dancing to Britney Spears's Toxic, then it'll be as much an impediment to your public approval rating as being single is today."
This point is well made. I will now smatter this blog with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, safe in the knowledge that people will draw from this the conclusion that I am "genuine" and "honest about my mistakes."
However they could also conclude that I am too computer-illiterate to spellcheck my post!
[However if Ray Kurzweil is right, by 2020 the computers will have taken over in an event already being labelled as "the technological singularity" - if I'm capaigning on a pro-singularity ticket my spelling mistakes will be interpreted as an early and tacit recognition of the need to augment my feeble human intellect with a Mighty Processor. On the other hand if I'm going to campaign on an anti-singularity platform my PC-illiteracy will be seen as being evidence of my inherent suspicions of technology.]
The agony of indecision! I feel like the press is saying Gordon Brown must be feeling.
I don't owe the person who I will be anything. I would vote for him, but only after a close examination of the policies he supports on a variety of issues and the relative positions of his opponents.
In conclusion if, by 2020, we're still going on and on about politicians' personalities as if they mattered a gnat's shite then Dog help us, Dog help us all.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
[some smart-arsed blogging title like "Maxed Out" or something...]
You remember that Max Gogarty thing a few weeks ago?
To summarise: some 19-year-old guy was planning on blogging his gap year experiences (P.S. I'm kind of technically on a gap year and I'm also 19 years old) through The Guardian.
Guardian Unlimited and CiF being what they are his first post (which was to a reasonable standard, certainly better than my own scrawlings) was soon inundated by sneering comments.
The usual hazing then turned into a flaming of thermonuclear proportions as it emerged that Max Gogarty was the son of The Guardian's travel writer Paul Gogarty.
I read Max's blog post after reading Andy Pietrasik's response at the time and my immediate response was anger directed not at Max himself, but rather at the troops of anonymous drones who spent their day writing venomous comments about the Gogartys, The Guardian, and how this was as foul a piece of nepotism as the world has seen since James Murdoch was appointed CEO of BSkyB (and I'm not just saying that 'cos I didn't get the job).
I even wrote a blog post about how annoying I find the majority of the commenters on CiF (which I didn't publish because I felt it lacked panache).
But now I've changed my mind. I've decided I find the majority of commentators in The Guardian more annoying than the idiots who comment on CiF.
There's something about the London-centric, hand-wringing, do-gooder, middle-class, Radio 4-listening-to, we-should-be-in-charge, Save the Polar Bears, Gordon's All Right Really, pompous, Oxbridge, media intelligencia that really sets my teeth on edge.
But what exactly is it that I find so irritating? I listen to Radio 4 and I like London and I think Gordon's all right really. So why do I find Polly Toynbee and George Monbiot and David Aaaaronovitch (or however many as he has in his damn name) so irritating?
Maybe my irritation stems from the fact that I feel I ought to be tribally loyal to these loudmouths in the face of the Richard Littlejohns and Melanie Phillipses of this world and my rejection of their values constitutes a heretical offense.
Maybe it's because, like all bloggers, deep-down I secretly long to be a London-based urbanite intellectual?
Or maybe it's because intelligent bloggers like Chris Applegate at qgwhlm whose views I respect and agree with also think this is damn nepotism and so do random but pretty good blogs that Applegate points to here like The Last Bus Home.
Although I broadly agree with Rafael Behr that this constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment targeting an innocent I also agree with CiF commenter oniongravy here. This storm in a nanocup does demonstrate one of the little faultlines in the UK today - that between those who live in London and write articles for quality newspapers (and most of the crap newspapers as well) and everyone else.
To summarise: some 19-year-old guy was planning on blogging his gap year experiences (P.S. I'm kind of technically on a gap year and I'm also 19 years old) through The Guardian.
Guardian Unlimited and CiF being what they are his first post (which was to a reasonable standard, certainly better than my own scrawlings) was soon inundated by sneering comments.
The usual hazing then turned into a flaming of thermonuclear proportions as it emerged that Max Gogarty was the son of The Guardian's travel writer Paul Gogarty.
I read Max's blog post after reading Andy Pietrasik's response at the time and my immediate response was anger directed not at Max himself, but rather at the troops of anonymous drones who spent their day writing venomous comments about the Gogartys, The Guardian, and how this was as foul a piece of nepotism as the world has seen since James Murdoch was appointed CEO of BSkyB (and I'm not just saying that 'cos I didn't get the job).
I even wrote a blog post about how annoying I find the majority of the commenters on CiF (which I didn't publish because I felt it lacked panache).
But now I've changed my mind. I've decided I find the majority of commentators in The Guardian more annoying than the idiots who comment on CiF.
There's something about the London-centric, hand-wringing, do-gooder, middle-class, Radio 4-listening-to, we-should-be-in-charge, Save the Polar Bears, Gordon's All Right Really, pompous, Oxbridge, media intelligencia that really sets my teeth on edge.
But what exactly is it that I find so irritating? I listen to Radio 4 and I like London and I think Gordon's all right really. So why do I find Polly Toynbee and George Monbiot and David Aaaaronovitch (or however many as he has in his damn name) so irritating?
Maybe my irritation stems from the fact that I feel I ought to be tribally loyal to these loudmouths in the face of the Richard Littlejohns and Melanie Phillipses of this world and my rejection of their values constitutes a heretical offense.
Maybe it's because, like all bloggers, deep-down I secretly long to be a London-based urbanite intellectual?
Or maybe it's because intelligent bloggers like Chris Applegate at qgwhlm whose views I respect and agree with also think this is damn nepotism and so do random but pretty good blogs that Applegate points to here like The Last Bus Home.
Although I broadly agree with Rafael Behr that this constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment targeting an innocent I also agree with CiF commenter oniongravy here. This storm in a nanocup does demonstrate one of the little faultlines in the UK today - that between those who live in London and write articles for quality newspapers (and most of the crap newspapers as well) and everyone else.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Opinions
Who you are affects what you see as important and what opinions you have.
Recently there has been a debate on the comments pages of the main newspapers concerning Gordon Brown's obsession with "Britishness" and our "shared values."
It occurs to me that for the men and women of letters who, unsurprisingly, occupy the op-eds, editorials, and comment pieces in the mainstream media what matters are words, descriptions, names, titles, laws, treaties, phrases, syntax, semantics, symbolism, narratives, stories, and speeches.
If electrical engineers had such a powerful channel of communication then they would undoubtedly place more importance on practicalities such as how the national grid is set up, electrical component efficiency, and all manner of other eeng topics.
That is not to say that they would only talk about these topics, just as some commentators (most notably the excellent Johann Hari) occasionally deign to discuss practical topics.
Businessmen will opine on business matters, scientists will opine on scientific matters, and bloggers will rant about anything that takes their fancy (and perhaps occasionally stumble across something worthwhile in a million-monkeys-on-a-million-typewriters sort of way).
My point is that different people will always have different perspectives, as well as different ulterior motives.
Britishness is not something I personally give a damn about. I appreciate the arguments as to why Britishness is considered important but I still feel that it is being seized on as important not because it actually is but rather because it lies within the intellectual comfort-zone of the sort of people who write in newspaper editorials.
[Meta-commentary: damn, this came out all wrong. I'm pretty exhausted on account of having just come back from a week-long training junket, more on that and my new job later... Also I'll discuss Ubuntu later as well...]
Recently there has been a debate on the comments pages of the main newspapers concerning Gordon Brown's obsession with "Britishness" and our "shared values."
It occurs to me that for the men and women of letters who, unsurprisingly, occupy the op-eds, editorials, and comment pieces in the mainstream media what matters are words, descriptions, names, titles, laws, treaties, phrases, syntax, semantics, symbolism, narratives, stories, and speeches.
If electrical engineers had such a powerful channel of communication then they would undoubtedly place more importance on practicalities such as how the national grid is set up, electrical component efficiency, and all manner of other eeng topics.
That is not to say that they would only talk about these topics, just as some commentators (most notably the excellent Johann Hari) occasionally deign to discuss practical topics.
Businessmen will opine on business matters, scientists will opine on scientific matters, and bloggers will rant about anything that takes their fancy (and perhaps occasionally stumble across something worthwhile in a million-monkeys-on-a-million-typewriters sort of way).
My point is that different people will always have different perspectives, as well as different ulterior motives.
Britishness is not something I personally give a damn about. I appreciate the arguments as to why Britishness is considered important but I still feel that it is being seized on as important not because it actually is but rather because it lies within the intellectual comfort-zone of the sort of people who write in newspaper editorials.
[Meta-commentary: damn, this came out all wrong. I'm pretty exhausted on account of having just come back from a week-long training junket, more on that and my new job later... Also I'll discuss Ubuntu later as well...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
