I know I shouldn't be churlish as hopefully it means less plastic bags are used in the UK, but this story about the "I'm not a plastic bag" bag really winds me up. I can't believe that anyone would want to queue overnight for a what is an ordinary cotton bag. How did people even know they were going on sale at their local Sainsbury's? Is there a constantly updated pointless fashion accessory web site that I'm missing?
If people really desperately cared about "doing their bit" they could have bought a normal cotton bag from any department store years ago. Mrs Wild Bill tells me that it is the norm in Germany. It's only because all the WAGs, Siennas and Kates have started to show how eco-conscious they are that so many others decide to slavishly follow.
The design of the bag is also very telling. By walking around carrying something with "I'm not a plastic bag" on the side it means people can show how eco-virtuous they are to the entire world. Whatever happened to not blowing your own trumpet?
I believe we have a responsibility as human beings for the stewardship of this planet so if this means less plastic bags are produced and end up in landfill then ultimately this silly bag will have done it's job, but I feel this whole exercise shows that a lot of what passes for environmentalism these days is merely fashionable whimsy.
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
Saturday, 21 April 2007
Colluding with a killer
What did you think when you first saw the pictures of the Virginia Tech killer? I was shocked when I saw them and not a little scared. Now think how the relatives of those killed must have felt when they saw them.
Much has been said about whether or not NBC and the other broadcast outlets should have broadcast his disgusting manifesto. Make no mistake, they did not have to show it, it was in their power not to show it but they took the option that promised ratings over the good of their viewers.
The most powerful argument against the showing of the video is that it is exactly what the killer wanted. It is hard to argue against this. He obviously thought it all through and chose to send his ramblings to NBC, a BROADCASTER. So it logically follows that he wanted his murderous intentions to be BROADCAST. So what did NBC do? They BROADCASTED them and therefore did exactly what he wanted which was to further terrorise those who had already suffered immeasurably and to give encouragement to those who might try to replicate such terrible acts in the future.
Much has been said about whether or not NBC and the other broadcast outlets should have broadcast his disgusting manifesto. Make no mistake, they did not have to show it, it was in their power not to show it but they took the option that promised ratings over the good of their viewers.
The most powerful argument against the showing of the video is that it is exactly what the killer wanted. It is hard to argue against this. He obviously thought it all through and chose to send his ramblings to NBC, a BROADCASTER. So it logically follows that he wanted his murderous intentions to be BROADCAST. So what did NBC do? They BROADCASTED them and therefore did exactly what he wanted which was to further terrorise those who had already suffered immeasurably and to give encouragement to those who might try to replicate such terrible acts in the future.
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
An appeal for the lost art of rhetoric
I've just been to a presentation at my work where Powerpoint was used by the two speakers. As far as corporate presentations go this was not bad and the slides were mostly used to flag up the main points.
However too often Powerpoint is used as a crutch and as a replacement for making a good rhetorical presentation. I've lost count of the wasted hours taken up by sitting through interminable presentations using slides crammed with information.
If you ever make presentations at your work, take it from me, a hardened listener (with a hardened rear posterior) , just don't use it. If you feel you must, just use a couple of slides. Try to communicate and converse with your audience and think through the flow and layout of your "words".
I've always thought this but I'm posting about it now because I've just read this article in today's Times which shows that new research shows that using Powerpoint is a waste of time! Our brains are just not designed to listen to a talk and read text at the same time. Well that explains it!
However too often Powerpoint is used as a crutch and as a replacement for making a good rhetorical presentation. I've lost count of the wasted hours taken up by sitting through interminable presentations using slides crammed with information.
If you ever make presentations at your work, take it from me, a hardened listener (with a hardened rear posterior) , just don't use it. If you feel you must, just use a couple of slides. Try to communicate and converse with your audience and think through the flow and layout of your "words".
I've always thought this but I'm posting about it now because I've just read this article in today's Times which shows that new research shows that using Powerpoint is a waste of time! Our brains are just not designed to listen to a talk and read text at the same time. Well that explains it!
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
Don't resign!
No not Des Browne but Paul Wolfowitz. When I first read the story of Paul Wolfowitz's apparent involvement in securing a promotion and salary increase for his girlfriend who also worked at the World Bank I thought it looked pretty bad.
Now Andy McCarthy at National Review's The Corner has pointed out this piece in the Wall Street Journal which paints a very different picture. Apparently Mr Wolfowitz was at pains to remove himself considerations of his girlfriend's employment prospects but he was urged by officials at the bank to intervene because of the unfairness of the conflict of interest to her career.
It looks like the whole thing is a smear job by entrenched interests at the bank to rid themselves of a bank president who was unpopular with these entrenched interests in the first place.
Update:
Bronwen Maddox in The Times says something similar. While I don't agree with her views on Iraq she is fair to Mr Wolfowitz.
Update 2:
The excellent Gerard Baker makes the same point and shows how Gordo and Hilary have been involved. A must read!
Now Andy McCarthy at National Review's The Corner has pointed out this piece in the Wall Street Journal which paints a very different picture. Apparently Mr Wolfowitz was at pains to remove himself considerations of his girlfriend's employment prospects but he was urged by officials at the bank to intervene because of the unfairness of the conflict of interest to her career.
It looks like the whole thing is a smear job by entrenched interests at the bank to rid themselves of a bank president who was unpopular with these entrenched interests in the first place.
Update:
Bronwen Maddox in The Times says something similar. While I don't agree with her views on Iraq she is fair to Mr Wolfowitz.
Update 2:
The excellent Gerard Baker makes the same point and shows how Gordo and Hilary have been involved. A must read!
Friday, 13 April 2007
Media frenzies and reality - never the twain shall meet
On the plus side, and making a very similar point to something I posted on earlier is Libby Purves in the Times today taking a swipe at the media who have been gorging themselves silly all week over the sailors selling their stories to the media.
Her main point is that while all this goes on, reality rolls on unreported which means countries like Iran can humiliate our Navy with a blatant act of war and get away with it while nobody bothers analysing why and what the eventual consequences will be. Frustrating!
Her main point is that while all this goes on, reality rolls on unreported which means countries like Iran can humiliate our Navy with a blatant act of war and get away with it while nobody bothers analysing why and what the eventual consequences will be. Frustrating!
Abortion - the ultimate motherly act? I don't think so.
I've just read this fairly depressing piece by Caitlin Moran in The Times, a writer who I usually enjoy as she is a good wit. She reveals she had an abortion last year and essentially argues that if a child is not wanted it's best for everyone (including the unwanted child) not to bring it into the world.
I think her worldview is best represented by this particular sentence:
I think she is saying (and she does admit it is "unChristian") that when it comes to this life in the womb she takes the place of God in deciding whether it lives or dies.
Very sad.
I think her worldview is best represented by this particular sentence:
"For if a pregnant woman has dominion over life, why should she not also have
dominion over not-life?"
I think she is saying (and she does admit it is "unChristian") that when it comes to this life in the womb she takes the place of God in deciding whether it lives or dies.
Very sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)