A Few Cracks I Noticed in "Reality Show" X-Factor

X - Factor likes to claim that it is pure reality TV. That everything you; the viewer were shown on telly, is 100 percent, what really happened. This is complete bullshit, if anyone who knows even a little about how telly works -could tell you. There is very little that gets transmitted and very few acts shown on the show, that weren't highly choreographed beforehand. The "arguments" between judges. Those change of hearts. The sob stories of the "good" singers. These are not arbitrary snippets of human drama captured on film. (though the sad back stories of contestants are true.) But are scripted and pre planned to produce a coherent and dramatic narrative throughout the series. Virtually nothing you see on Saturday tea time is "reality TV". There are obvious logical problems that bely the producers claims that the show is authentic reality TV, if we think about them. How can the judges possibly devote enough time to see all 200,000 wannabees?* (how many applied in 2009.) Assuming they put in 10 hours a day, every day - to see them all. That would be 120 a day, or about four and a half years to see everyone. (it would take them just a squeak under 2 years, if that was all they did, non stop for 24 hours a day; until everyone had been auditioned.) If anyone can supposedly show up, why do you have to submit an application form? Why is the show not broadcast in real time, live, if it is a genuine slice of reality pie? These can't be got around, and the producers hope they won't be spotted (if anyone assumes the show is really as authentic to start with.). However, these don't really concern me. They are metaphysically impossible to avoid. But, sometimes if you watch carefully (or are just a loser like me, who has nothing else better to do than nitpick a popular TV show.), sometimes little bits of "evidence", get past the editors that all is not quite as "real" as the producers claim. I noticed a few this week. And perhaps some more might get broadcast. I'll keep an eye out whilst it is on and see what I can find. So here are two of last Saturdays "cracks" that unintentionally gave the game away.

The "Temple Fire" band. That monumentally shit boyband, that killed Whams "Wake Me Up Before you Go go." with those actions that are now seared on my visual cortex for all time, and will never leave ever. Yeah, Temple Fire lamented to whatsisface who presents it, that the reason they bombed (guys, you can't sing for a start.) was because they were told to sing that instead of what they wanted to sing. You see one of the terms of auditioning on the show, is that you are contractually obliged to sing what they tell you to, if they do so. Now call me cynical, but that could be used by, say -an unscrupulous editing team to set someone up for an embarrassing fall, or to disrupt their act at the eleventh hour, and capture the results on camera. Hmmmm

Mary Byrne, a Dublin Tesco till lady - has received quite a lot of coverage in this years show. She has been called the new "SuBo", a dowdy looking middle aged women who can sing a cover of a song fairly well. The creators of the show, know that for a show that "everyone" can enter and win, that everyone seems to defined as soft focus good looking young people, who could model nightclothes for Kays catalogue, if it went by the majority of contestants who make it to the finals. For a show designed to produce a mass marketed new star.(It is in reality a chance for Cowell to make loads of cash from the phone votes, the revenue from a potential new star is too small and too risky to be the main source of the shows dividends) -that is understandable. But the Su Bo contestant makes the show look more broadly democratic, and has the emotional investment of the trampled on underdog making it big time. They [the producers] love to go nuts with the latter, and that was the source of the second suspicious "crack" that got out. She was asked to describe her life on the tills, and she said that she was always assigned the same till station (no. 14 I think it was.) every shift, all of the time. For anyone who has worked on a till at a supermarket should know this is utter bollocks. They have a number to log on assigned to them But no-one is assigned the same console all the time. You get moved around or asked to relieve other ope raters (for breaks and shift ends etc.), or moved to the front during quieter times. It was put in to highlight the drudgery she faced; locked to her till, and the road to showbiz was her only escape route. I assume everyone else on her department just has to fuck off and sing for their supper presumably? In a nutshell she was told to say that by the editors, to make her job look rubbisher than it is.

Reality TV indeed. I'll keep an eye out for more of these unless, A) I can't really be arsed too. B)

I forget it is on. I'm rubbish at remembering telly schedules. C) I get a life. It might happen!

*I did actually know a guy (he could sing.) who did go to an audition (in 2008 I think.) for the show, and no -he didn't get to see Simon and co, like 90 percent of the other people who go to auditions. Unfortunately for him, decent singers don't make that horrible phrase; - "good telly"

Glenn Beck is NOT Martin Luther King!

The right wing libertarian group the "Tea Party" have kicked up a bit of a pen and ink with a rally held yesterday at the Washington National Mall, ostensibly aimed at "Restoring Honour", fronted by the preposterous Fox pundit Glenn Beck. The rally was about err... restoring some - err... stuff, with a bit of right wing spiel about God having a bigger role in America (Beck is a born again.) and paying more respect to the armed forces. (I thought these guys didn't like taxes and government spending? Who pays for all those tanks and guns and planes anyway?) The content of his speech isn't really all that interesting. It just gives a silly blow hard a chance to look all dangerous and subversive by explaining how hard up and persecuted people like the multimillionaire broadcaster who has ample access to the nations airwaves - really are. As usual for a Tea Party speech there was references to the horrors of Barack Obamas tyranny, what with him doing some stuff or something like that.

No, what makes the rally interesting is not the content of the speech itself (it was pretty dire stuff.), but the greater context around it. The speech happens to fall on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther Kings "I have a dream" speech, you may have heard of. And was made in the same location as Becks speech. This has caused some ripples (though not calls to censor the rally.) with people like Reverend Al Sharpton, a well known black, left wing preacher and civil rights activist - who question the tactfulness of a potential PR stunt on behalf of Beck, claiming somehow he is a latter day Luther King (to an almost all white audience.). Beck himself claims he didn't make the connection before his speech, putting it down to "divine providence" (Oh give me a fucking break!). Whether he knew or not, he apparently stuck a few "Kingisms" in the speech for good measure. But it was a comment by - who else; but the Tea Party's poster girl Sarah Palin, that sparked my interest in the affair.

Palin, greeted by chants of 'USA, USA, USA' from many in the crowd, told the gathering, 'It is so humbling to get to be here with you today, patriots. You who are motivated and engaged ... and knowing never to retreat.'

Palin likened the rally participants to the civil rights activists who came to the National Mall to hear King's historic speech, which came at a crucial moment in the civil rights struggle.

She said the same spirit that helped civil rights activists overcome oppression, discrimination and violence would help this group as well.


'We are worried about what we face. Sometimes, our challenges seem insurmountable,' Palin said. 'Look around you. You're not alone.'

Apparently Sarah had such an uphill struggle in life, she had slum it and to get herself nominated as a vice presidential candidate. Bummer!

The interesting comment (all of Palins speeches are interesting for unintentional reasons.) is her comparison of the Teabaggers (or whatever the collective term is.) with Dr. Kings civil rights marchers. I hope that many right minded people would see the comparison she makes as insultingly facile as it deserves to be seen. It is also what pisses me off about this group of people (the teabaggers, not the civil rights advocates.) The civil rights marchers genuinely did face oppression, discrimination and violence, and a lot of it was extremely severe too. Let us not forget, the Dr. King was killed for what he believed in. The civil rights movement went through seven shades of shit, and a hell of a lot of hardship and sacrifice to try to rectify a genuine social evil, like state enforced racism, and horrendous prejudice. The Teabaggers cause on the other hand, is merely a self indulgent one. The maximum extent of the "persecution" they face, is being called a bunch of fuckwits by vocal lefties. The "oppression" they claim they face is also rather nebulous. It is a dead give away that they find it hard to articulate precisely what shape this "oppression" takes. The teabaggers are really only annoyed that their right wing; libertarian; uber free market manifesto was rejected by their countrymen at the elections. Tough, that's democracy. There's a hell of a lot of loser sour grapes on their behalf. A bit of advice, get some more votes on your side. Life, as ultra free market enthusiasts like themselves love to remind us -isn't very fair.

One final thing, when the civil rights movement was at its peak in the 60's, there was a lot of sentiment around about "uppity niggers.", "the civil righters are un American / Communists.", "Martin Luther King is unpatriotic." etc. One wonders that if Beck and Palin had been around in the 60's, would their sentiments be with the civil rights marchers, or their detractors? I think I can can guess which.

The House Comes Down for Ringo Starr

CLICK HERE FOR STREETVIEW IMAGE OF MADRYN STREET. Ringo's house is the one facing in front. (the one not boarded up. Though it is now all sealed up.)

We have learned that 9 Madryn Street in Toxteth; Liverpool, (and indeed Madryn Street itself) the house that one Richard Starkey was born in (AKA Ringo off the Beatles.) has had a demolition notice served on it by Liverpool council. Several fans and Beatles local tour guides have formed a group called SMS (Save Madryn Street) in response, claiming it has special historic value, being where the former Beatle came into the world 70 years ago. The council disagrees. Ringo was only there for three months (though other sources say five years.). The Starkeys moved to Admiral Grove up the road, when his single mum couldn't pay the rent at Madryn Street. So its relationship with the Beatles is too tenuous to justify saving it - let alone Madryn Street. As this part of Toxteth really needs regenerating as soon as possible. The five year moratorium they put on knocking these houses down is up. So is it worth saving (IMHO.) No. But there is a small nod to sentimental preservation that could be done. So here's my take.

This part of Liverpool desperately needs something doing with it. It is just going to sit there rotting, as well as attracting arsonists and squatters. The houses are in very bad state of repair. They were reputedly cold and damp when inhabited, God knows what state they are in now? They would essentially have to be virtually rebuilt to become habitable again for regeneration. They are the kind of terraces that were lucky to have dodged the bulldozers of the 30's, never mind the and 60's to 80's, let alone now. Indeed Ringos old house has had its outer walls replaced at some later date. So is technically the same building? Demolishing the others and leaving number 9 standing alone has been proposed. Well there is questions about their structural condition from a century of damp. New building s would need new foundations excavated. Shoring up the house to modern standards would be pretty expensive, and would delay construction.

Perhaps the biggest clincher is that a lot in Liverpool are in favour of the clearance. Ringo himself has been lukewarm in supporting preserving them. He upset a lot of people by telling them not to hassle him with autobiographies. (who made you famous by the way anyway?) Liverpool is in the middle of an increase of fortune, with the Capital of culture and all. Could Toxteth follow Hulme in Manchester? Transforming a run down suburb to a more agreeable area. A new Ringo Starr road, or Starkey lane, in the site of old Madryn Street. My suggestion would be one already proposed. Preserve the facade of the house (and the Madryn Street road sign.) at the Liverpool Museum. An in situ rebuild would be really expensive and very time consuming for a really quite tenuous Beatle monument. Paying homage to Liverpools past, but thinking of the future. I can't think of an appropriate Beatles metaphor for this idea, so we'll all get by with a little help, or something.

Militant Medical Nurse Blog

I was reading a story on the Mails website about the family of a pensioner who they accused of badly treating her in hospital, as she was dying of terminal cancer. I looked at some of Mailwatch's comments on the story, and the thread on the Mail vs the NHS (the right wing press love a bit of nurse bashing. And I use the word "bit" liberally.) I eventually discovered a link to the Militant Medical Nurse blog , written by a graduate nurse who goes by the name of "Nurse Anne." It is a passionate and extremely heartfelt rebuttal to all the popular misconceptions about nurses and nursing the right wing press like to put out. It is an angry blog, but angry in a good way, as only a passionate response to the endless lies and shit spread about a career the blogs author loves with a passion. It is simply one of the most compelling blogs I have ever read. I've virtually read most of it already. I was just disappointed there wasn't an infinite number of posts! Like all good insider exposes into a well known but badly understood vocation, we learn that what we thought we knew about [in this case] nursing was wrong, and the muckslingers know even less (but it wouldn't be fun then.) The blog utterly demolishes the old nursing tropes trotted out by journos who have never bothered to look in to how stuff actually works. Firstly we learn that nurses with degrees in the subject is a good thing. Nursing is a valued profession (corrected;- it should be.) recognition of this would help the public understand a nurses role for one. For another, a nurse is responsible for lives. For checking that those drugs are right, that that tachycardia won't lead to an arrest. Compassion must be married to experience and practical application. Being nice alone, won't save lives. Indeed, subjectively reacting to situations, without an awareness of the whole, is likely to be more harmful.

More disturbingly we learn that NHS business managers are in favour of using fewer qualified nurses and more health care assistants and cadets (teenage temps looking for paid work experience.) Both of these (and nurse Anne says so) do admirable work, but they have two drawbacks. Neither are qualified to any extent like nurses, and are not registered (so can't carry the can if someone dies) The latter are also not protected terms (this can be really frustrating if patients / visitors see them as equally qualified), so you can get a lot off chaff with the wheat. The duty nurses have to worry about poorly trained staff, and cadets who are just there cause it pays more than McDonald's. They are constantly having to monitor them (you have to, if you can get blackballed for something they did wrong.), and can't delegate them tasks with greater autonomy. It is also difficult when patients / visitors have little distinction between the roles of nurses /other ward staff, and see cadets as qualified nurses, and nurses as cadets.

The last point is perhaps the most devastating one of all. The reduction of qualified nurses, and inflation of auxiliary staff has had a terrible effect on curtailing nurses valuable rationed time. The patient to nurse ratio has increased drastically. This has resulted in the reduction of time a nurse can spend with patients (holistic care. How?), and enormous demands on a nurses workload. When a nurse is responsible for perhaps 15 patients a shift, every second is precious. Preparing pills can take all morning, literally any delay can result in backlog, and then more backlog. The stories of dirty hospitals, and pensioners being left in their shit are not down to wilful cruelty or neglect [on the nurses part]. They simply cannot be everywhere at once, all the time. Something has to give; and are going to fall by the wayside. The post where she says nurses are now too tied up to rigid schedules, that they sometimes have to avoid eye contact with patients / visitors, lest they fall behind even more, as time [literally] costs lives - is truly heartbreaking (the article "Nurse Anne's pamphlet for patients" should be required reading for all. It doesn't sound half as harsh in context to the articles.) The ghost of Florence Nightingale herself couldn't do better. This cost cutting deflation of qualified nurses on wards is downright dangerous, and it is insulting to say that they don't care. They do! They just need more resources, more time and more support. (more nurses.) God knows if it is just down to bean counters in management blinded by their narrow specialisms?

So check out Militant Medical Nurse. You'll never be able to stop yourself from flinching when you hear another pundit mouthing off about "too posh to wash, and too mean to clean." nurses. Especially nurses who have been out of the loop for 25 years (a lot has changed apparently.) I know I might end up punching my computer screen sometime soon.

A Mosque "at" Ground Zero.

There is quite a furore going in in the US at the moment about proposals to build a 13 storey £100 million dollar "super mosque" in New York about two blocks from (180 m or 600 ft) away from ground zero (you can see the location here on Street View. The grotty looking "Burlington Coats" building in front of you is to be razed for the proposed centre.) . Many are up in arms about a mosque (it is actually proposed to be a community centre, auditorium and other stuff. The prayer room will not be classed as a mosque to give the developers more say over who can use it.) being built so close to a place devastated by Islamist inspired terrorism. Indeed some of the wording on articles hostile to the plans, is designed to make out that the "mosque" is going to be built on the site itself. (It isn't.) So what is going on here do we ask? Well let's rewind a bit to see how the whole thing kicked off.

On 9/11 the morning staff of Burlington coats were in the basement ready to start work. They never would. One of the landing gear from the hijacked planes fell onto their workplace and crashed through two floors (no one was hurt, it was empty on those levels.). Burlingtons closed down permanently, and eight years later a nearby mosque that was overfilled, used the building as an overspill prayer room. The imam of that mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf - a Sufiist who had founded a group promoting understanding between American Muslims and their non Muslim countrymen saw the irony in using a place damaged by terrorism to be used to promote a more stable situation. No-one seems to have batted an eyelid at this, as like many of these kinds of stories - a single quite innocuous story gets mega coverage out of the blue. This time a right wing blogger who founded the "Stop the Islamification of America." got wind of Raufs plan to develop the site of his prayer room to create his centre. A thereonin all hell broke loose. Sarah Palin started twittering. Newt Gingrich got quite cross. Glenn Beck. Well just acted like Glenn Beck.

On one level the reaction is unsurprising. It would have been difficult to have justified building a thirteen storey mosque at ground zero itself. The sad truth is that those towers were destroyed in the name of the most radical elements of that faith. I must emphasise that I don't think all Muslims were complicit (they weren't.). But it would be [a bit] like building a tribute to the RAF in Dresden. Both these organisations are mainly composed of upstanding people, but the unpleasant links are there. I do understand why the families of the victims (but some others have more questionable motives.) were alarmed. But on the other hand, the proposed centre is being built by Sufi Muslims, who have no links to Al-Quieda (how could they?) which is an important distinction. I doubt anyone would object to a Methodist community centre near Manchester's Arndale Centre (attacked by the supposedly Catholic aligned IRA.) That is a distinction that has not been mentioned much. Also Rauf himself seems an impressive figure. I am always wary of these religious "centres", but the guy seems legitimate in wanting to promote harmonious relations, and we need that now more than ever. He seems the kind of prominent moderate who may be able to do that. Lastly geographically the street is quite concealed (you'd hardly give it a second glance). From street view, ground zero is not visible, screened by the surrounding streets. The existing building is surrounded by large buildings, and I doubt even a thirteen storey structure would look conspicuous there. It certainly isn't right in the noses of people wanting to go to ground zero In fact had this story not received so much coverage, the new centre would likely have gone unnoticed to the greater world. In the end it is really an issue for Rauf and the victims to come to an accommodation with. It would be churlish for me to go one way or the other. But that hasn't stopped a few people, who I think have less than admirable reasons to nail their colours to the mast.

Littlejohn has done an article covering this story. The article focuses on the effects of the story on Barack Obamas popularity. There isn't really much to say about the story (insults out of touch lefty's, who hate normal people.) but he takes Obama to task for saying

"As a citizen and a President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as anyone else in this country."

I know that may not go down well with a lot of Americans, but it is from a constitutional point of veiw correct. But in practice Obama can't really do much to stop it (assuming he would want to anyway.) It is a private venture on private land. Sarah Palin, and Gingrich and whoever always like to nail their libertarian, small government; colours to the mast on every occasion possible. Wouldn't Obama cracking down on a private building on private property, be an example of the most heavy handed statism any horrid property hating socialist could only dream of? Or does libertarian principle only apply to certain things. (hey it is them who bang on about this all the time.)

The article highlights the barmy "theories" that Obama is a Muslim because err.. his middle name is Hussein, or something. Apparently in the wake of this, a quarter of Americans believe this to be so. (Yikes!) This emphasis on Obamas "otherliness" has been a recurring theme. As well as all Muslims being perceived as fith columnists ("Muslim Obama" being a sleeper is a popular conspiracy.) It all has the air of some very murky rhetoric being chucked about. For all Littlejohn may berate the US president for not condemning the "mosque", I find it rather admirable he is trying to ride the storm a little, not giving some of the more extreme sentiment a platform. It does however highlight the lengths that the ultra conservatives will go to attack their president. At once tawdry, depressing and rather scary. These people are sore losers to say the least. I hope Obama knows what he really is up against.

PS Littlejohn comes out with this corker:

"In so doing, he displayed an ignorance of history which made David Cameron’s recent confusion over the timing of America’s entry into World War II look like a minor clerical error.

Obama’s words would have come as a surprise not only to the Founding Fathers, who established the United States on concrete Christian principles"

Didn't they do all that freedom from religion as well as of it too? They were strict in stipulating the divide between religion and the state. Looks like Cameron isn't the only one who needs to do his homework.

*This link below highlights the origins of the "mosque" in greater detail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

A Level Cliches

Today is A - Level results day, and for the 29th year in a row the pass rate has gone up, and for 13 years the amount of A grades have also increased. This being the case, we know this allows the press to wheel out a few annual results day cliches that I tried to list in full here, what with August being a slack season news wise, and the right wing press being indulgent in a bit of generational bashing - well that's an added bonus! So with this in mind, I decided to a bit of "cliche bingo" to see which of my predictions got printed. I didn't get them all, but like many students today; I was impressed with the results I got.


1.) PICTURE OF THREE POSH LOOKING GIRLS JUMPING UP IN THE AIR CLUTCHING THEIR RESULTS PAPER FULL OF STRAIGHT A'S.

If we only relied on the press coverage we'd think that only 7 lads in the country ever passed exams at all. As usual, no ugly girls ever pass exams at all. There must be some Logan's Run for mingers going on in our sixths forms!

This is a well known cliche, and the blog below has collected a load of pictures of pretty posh girls getting their results. So I award myself a zillion points so far.
http://sexyalevels.tumblr.com/

4.) PRECOCIOUS KID PASSES EXAM.

Self explanatory. More points.

6.) THEY'RE GETTING EASIER.

Now was there really any chance of this one getting missed? I predicted the following being brought up.

*"A-Levels were once the gold standard".

*"New Labours attempt to get half of people in university." and "social engineering"

*"grade inflation."

I don't personally think A-levels are a walk in the park these days. But predicting the cliched narratives of a Mail editorial certainly are. They truly were the gift that kept on giving here:

*"But what does it tell you about our ‘gold standard’ exams, when some 3,500 students who win three straight As today are expected to be rejected by universities?"

Gold standard. Ding.

*"For 13 years, Labour cynically raised their hopes, tinkering with the exam system to cast a rosy light on its own record, while promising to find university places for half the nation’s school-leavers."

"But that attainment gap will not be closed the Labour way – simply by disguising it or rigging the university admissions system, in a botched attempt at social engineering."

Labour; 50 percent in uni. Social engineering. Ding. Ding.

"How is anyone to distinguish between the brilliant and the merely excellent, when at least 60,000 papers are predicted to be awarded the new A* supergrade for scores of more than 90 per cent?"

Inflating grades. Ding!

Oh yeah, they try and shirk off that they are not belittling the students, with this opening statement, and other lame platitudes to duck out of their argument. (which is really just a rehash of the "I'm not racist but...", put into another context.)

"With their required grades achieved and their university places secure, the Mail offers every one of them our warmest congratulations."

they're still a piece of piss though!

"The Mail has nothing but admiration for those who have scored top grades."

Bollocks.

Well it's GCSE results next week. Same old score then. Oh well, eyes down.

Express Racism

I honestly don't know why Nick Griffin bothers shelling out for PR campaigns to pump his racist bullshit to all and sundry, when the Daily Express seems to be only too willing to do the job for him. But don't worry because we have a strong press complaints commission who will take the Express to task for crap like this headline. Won't they?

A - Level Results Day Means Only One Thing

Oh God I've just remembered it's A-Level results day tomorrow. I'm not worried about it for the usual reason people are, as I did them myself 13 years ago. But because inevitably the papers will be full of the following cliches that get printed every single year results day arrives, of which one in particular pisses me off quite a lot. (students doing well and celebrating isn't one of them I might add. I'm not quite that dead on the inside yet!!) . So lets refresh on the usual cliches that get wheeled out:

1.) PICTURE OF THREE POSH LOOKING GIRLS JUMPING UP IN THE AIR CLUTCHING THEIR RESULTS PAPER FULL OF STRAIGHT A'S.

This picture always inevitably gets printed. The three middle class girls (they look like head girls.) caught mid jump receiving the good news. One always has a white cardy and a floral dress on. In fact I'm sure they are the same three girls that are used every year, reliving an acceptable face of home counties totty for the Mail readers; posing for an exam day photoshoot type of Groundhog day, that is locked in some kind of infinite temporal loop for all time. Weird stuff indeed.

2.) CLEVER LOOKING FOREIGN STUDENT GETS LOADS OF A's.

This is almost a given for any A-level results coverage. We get the heartwarming tale of the foreign born student (almost always with accompanying picture of an "archetypal" studious looking student with glasses.) who could speak no English when they began a course, but managed to bag a full house of A grades at the end of it. Sometimes they even knew no English a year before taking them. Sometimes they even learnt English on the bus on the way to the exam hall, or even learnt English during the exam itself. This kind of story, when done in the Mail is a good example of the weird ambiguity, the and all over the place application of prejudice the paper likes to tap into. On the one hand, foreigners are a bunch of sponging terrorists, but they are also good at showing up our "drunken dumbed down yoofs" as well. That insight over we got to:

3.) I GOT 8 A's.

This is one of the few opportunities for young men to be photographed on exam day (you might swear that none ever passed from the photos.), and they are usually all lads in this category. The mug shot will be a white student version of the archetypal photo mentioned in 2). A gangly academic student who passed 8 A-levels, including the less popular disciplines like further maths, or even the classics. Usually off to a red brick to do something sciencey. An old lecturer of mine had a bugbear about colleges allowing someone to take up such an extra large workload, when even the best universities only have a three or four discipline entry requirements. I admit its pretty bloody impressive to pass all that, but I have to agree that's a hell of a lot of work to pile on someone still in their teens.

4.) PRECOCIOUS KID PASSES EXAM.

There is often a story about how a precocious 12 year old kid wonder passed their physics A-Level about six years before most students do. Again there is the picture of a slightly intense looking kid holding up his pass paper for the whole world to see. Shouldn't a twelve year old really be perhaps doing more 12 year olds kind of stuff than this? There is going to be a lot of exams and deadlines, and stuff in their future life. Cut them a bit of slack. One always wonders if it was 100 percent the kids desire to take the exams so early, or does the whole thing, and accompanying picture all have the air of an attempt by the kids parents to look good at the school gates, what with their little genius. Hmmmm..?

5.) MY LEG FELL OFF AND I STILL PASSED.

Or I fell off a mountain, (often these are tales of sporty people who got injured.) broke every bone in my body and still came top in Chemistry. Extra points if they display their results wearing a plaster cast / war wounds. I can't think of anything much more interesting to say about these ones. Triumph over adversity and all that.

6.) THEY'RE GETTING EASIER.

There is no point ignoring this one, and God I would like too. It will inevitably be mentioned and brought up. It always does. Phrases such as "A-Levels were once the gold standard". "New Labours attempt to get half of people in university." "social engineering" "too politically correct to let people fail." tend to pop up, as does "grade inflation." Sometimes they employ the use of showing the easiest bit of a "new" exam, with the hardest section of an older one. These kinds of article seem to be written by journalist who haven't seen an A - Level paper since 1973, and don't take into account the greater role of the changing nature of society and tertiary education approaches. Anecdotally, the new papers I have seen, don't seem much different [in difficulty] to those of 1996 and 1997 (they were saying they were easier back then as well.), which would be odd if they get easier every year. So it seems more bullshit inflation than grade inflation.

As I said I am no expert on exams so I won't comment further on it, but I suspect many who like to bang on about how easy they are would fail horribly if made to sit an "easy" exam of today. Again just a hunch, but there we are.

Lets hope everyone gets what they want though. I doubt that many students would be downcast by the tabloids bellyaching over this (they have better stuff to think about for a start.) Glad I haven't had to go through that day for a while though.

*I'll do a form of "A-Level cliche bingo" over the next few days. See how many of my six get printed by the papers. (and perhaps see for others I missed out.)

Gerald Warner Straw Mans Richard Dawkins.

Gerald Warner is a bit of an odd cove. A Telegraph blogger, he's one of the most crustiest old reactionaries I've ever heard of. He's so staggeringly; curmudgeonly old fashioned, he could seriously make professional fuddy duddy, Roger Scruton look like an eligible contender to present the next series of "Pimp My Ride". His blog is therefore excellent fodder for on line car crash entertainment. A taster of which can be this entry, which throws a series of attacks at Richard Dawkins for being the godawful militant atheist scoundrel that he is. It is a series of unfocused criticisms of [Dawkins] wanting the Pope to be arrested, to his documentary on faith schools that's going out on More4 this Wednesday. The entire article has so many straw men in it, it begins to resemble a Worzal Gummage themed fancy dress party. So we get stuff like this:

"Dawkins calls on us rather a lot, which might seem a touch inconsistent in a man who has said: “People can believe what they want, but I wish they would leave the rest of us alone.""

No one is under duress to listen (let alone abide by) to what he has to say. I don't think the same can be said about some of the major religions (obviously with varying degrees of intensity.) in the past, and indeed the present.

"Dawkins argues in his programme that religious schools encourage social segregation. So do public schools, such as Oundle, his alma mater; Oxford colleges such as Balliol where he was educated or New College where he was a fellow; and just about every institution that promotes excellence or within which people freely associate. Does he regard them as a menace too?"

I suppose they do practice a form of segregation on the grounds of wealth and exam results. Oxford in principle is open to anyone who has the intelligence to meet the entry requirements. I don't think it can really be accused of encouraging social segregation (though there is likely an atmosphere of idiosyncratic donnish eccentricity about the place, that outsiders may find odd.) . The dangers of religious schools come from the fact that they widen and compound the fractuous gaps that the already highly mutually exclusive religions import on our society. They also impose their subjective values as "truth" on small kids, rather than giving a broad education which encourages varying viewpoints and critical thinking, two of the best gifts a child can receive, and that is why I personally dislike faith schools so much. When we hear that 95 percent of kids in the harmonious paradise of Northern Ireland who attend segregated schools, of which 68 percent of 18-25 years old never meet the "other side" at all! (No really!) Then we have insider reports of schoolkids at a Muslim school being taught that Jews are monkeys! yeah we must conclude that there are reasons to consider them a menace to social harmony, and thus in a different league to the "dangers" going to a public school.

Faith school children just freely associated themselves into their schools! Come off it Gerald.

"Despite his attempts to deconstruct established religions, Dawkins does not bring the same relentless empiricism to bear on superstitions which he himself embraces"

Oh it's this argument again. Dawkins bad for bashing "your" superstition. But you bash his "superstition" and that's good. So you're attacking him for his embrace of the very evil (a "faith" position) that you yourself are defending, as it is only evil if it is someone elses one.

Genius. I'm sure man made climate change won't get mentioned in the next sentence.

"such as man-made global warming:"

Original aren't they?

"he has even recommended Al Gore’s notoriously discredited film on the subject."
Who discredited it? It's supposed errors were cross examined by a court. They found no evidence for iffy research.

"He also supports the Great Ape Project, which seeks to extend moral and legal rights to great apes."

If only there was some chemical compound in the cells of animals that was like a record of the ancestry of different species that could link mankind to chimps and gorillas.

"Dawkins carries his reductionism and scientism to lengths of intolerance that dismay even some of his admirers. When the Oxford theologian Alister McGrath accused him of being ignorant of Christian theology, Dawkins asked, with classic academic rigour, “do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns”?

This is such a silly argument, my eyeballs fall out of my head whenever I hear it. Christian theology and the existence of God are two completely different issues. This is no different to someone arguing that you can't say the Force is made up because you've only seen the Star Wars films and haven't read George Lucas's biography, every star Wars novel and every single Wookiepedia article.

"So, would he debate Marxism with Eric Hobsbawm without having read a word of Marx."

Dawkins isn't into splitting hairs on the finer points of theology. He's concerned about the case for the existence of God, and the truthful merits of the major faiths. The two are almost totally mutually exclusive

Stuff like this makes me think that the God /no God question is literally an exercise in banging your head on a brick wall, preferably a wailing one.

The Bolton News Printed It.

Remember that letter to the Bolton News I posted about on Saturday. Well it was printed, and was the letter that made the headline for the letters page as well! It survived remarkably intact from being edited. They've altered some of the punctuation and the odd comment, which I think makes some of the prose lose its original "bite". But 99 percent of what I submitted, made it on there. I must admit, although I thought my letter was quite good, and was pretty much what I originally set out to write (and had to re write as the e-mail deleted the bloody original one I was to send!) I did feel a bit bad at first, the letter is quite scathing, and I'm sure Mr. Harrison wouldn't have been expecting such a "robust" response (I actually think he would have liked a letter backing him up on how right he was about the cushy life on the dole.) But then I thought stuff it a bit. It's a lot worse for unemployed people worrying about their state of affairs, than someone being put out by a scathing letter setting them straight. I suppose that was really why I wrote it, not withstanding the fact that it was combating my pet peeve, lazy [non] thinking and right wing urban myths. But because he was belittling an issue that really affects people badly on a personal level, people who often have little voice. I hope that I spoke up for more people than myself. Challenge a stereotype for once, not perpetuate one.

Some Concluding Comments on the Speed Camera Affair

There was an interesting interview with Julie Spence,the outgoing head of Cambridgeshire police in the Telegraph the other day. It has been given coverage in other newspapers, including the Mail. The gist of it is that she says middle class folk who (rightly) want to see wrongdoers face the consequences of their actions, but do not apply this philosophy when breaking speed limits, are really being quite hypocritical (I agree.) It relates to the decision to remove fixed speed cameras in Oxfordshire, which has been criticized by the chief constable. I did a posting on the effectiveness of speed cameras here so I won't rehash on this one. Instead I want to highlight on some of what Ms. Spence has said, some of the loaded comments added by the Mail, and most importantly some of the comments to the article, which I believe are at the heart of the speeding problem.

" Julie Spence, one of the country's longest-serving chief constables, described speeding as 'middle-class anti-social behaviour'.

She said: 'People think, "We should be able to get away with it".
'They wouldn't tolerate lawbreaking by somebody else but they do it themselves without thinking.

'It all seems OK until something tragic happens, like their child dies because of a road traffic accident."

This needs to be highlighted more often, and we will see it in the comments below. Laws have to be applied evenly, objectively with a give and take, not just on the subjective whim,- say if the face fits, which some seem to want. It aint practical (not to mention in the spirit of the rule of law) It's always ironic that [law] is most in need of objective application to be both practical and fair, but is perhaps the most subjective issue of all.

"Her comments will put her at odds with many middle-class motorists, who feel persecuted by speed cameras and believe they are a 'soft target' for fines.

Many motorists who are caught speeding complain that they are being used to line the pockets of councils."

If that is the case. How do Gatsos single out Middle Class people? Won't they zap anyone speeding? And why are they being removed in a cost cutting exercise, if the rake in cash?

"Speeding fines raise about £100million every year - and many drivers believe that police should instead be targeting more serious offenders."

Thus in lies the problem.

"But Mrs Spence, 55, said that while anti-social behaviour is often associated with rowdy youths or vandalism, 'for too many it is the antics of drivers who refuse to accept that speed limit signs apply to them"

Good point.

"'Driving without care or consideration for other road users is probably among the worst kind of antisocial behaviour in its truest sense, because serious offenders can, and do, kill."

Ditto.

It is also difficult for the Mail to paint her as a do-gooder, Gordon McNueLiebore nanny state PC, pc (or whatever), when she says stuff like.

" that too much police time was spent on 'social work', blames the 'have-it-all' society for many social problems.

'Easy credit, drink as much as you can, have it when you want, buy this, buy that and buy the other,' she said.

'This irresponsibility costs - you play while others pay - and I think we have got to the point where we need to have a little more responsibility"

The underlying problem I have with this whole thing is that there seems a whole set of drivers out there who just will not accept that speeding is a big deal at all. That the right to drive very fast, should possibly be weighed against the right not to have a tonne of Mercedes smearing someone/something onto a primary A - road. Comments like this:

" These Chief Constables have themselves to blame for their in efficient and useless forces....... Now they need to make changes, get officers off paperwork and "elf and safety" rubbish and get on with what they are meant to be doing and SUPPORT THEM"

"Interesting that Criminals (think GBH, robbery with violence,etc) and speeding motorists are being spoken about in the same terms."

Well they aren't. But the end result of all can be carnage and maiming, and deaths, senseless horrible deaths at that. That is what she was trying to say.

"Well, she just about epitomises everything which is wrong with UK - stupid politically correct idiots over promoted far beyond their capabilities making daft comments. I recall my last speeding offence on M6 on a quiet Sunday morning doing 82 MPH. I was clocked by one of those silly vans which sit on the top of motorway bridges - for goodness sake I was the only bleeding car on the road. Are they all bonkers, how in heaven's sake is that worthy of a fine and 3 points. About time these PC coppers were thrown back to wherever they came from - pushing pointless paper around in some pointless job I've no doubt.

My heart bleeds.

"She wants to seriously consider why the majority of people in the UK are too scared to go out at night in ANY city or major town. Speeding drivers I can handle, the thugs that control our streets I cannot. Hasn't she got anything better to do with her time?"

Trying to stop both of them I think. Speeding cars are as good at breaking bones as muggers.

"The police just love to attack the middle classes don't they, possibly because they are soft targets and don't assault the police when they get caught. A sense of proportion from the police would be helpful along with some recognition from them that there is an understanding that burgulary , theft and assault are very different concepts from travelling in your car at 5-10 mph above the speed limit."

They are different concepts, but getting hit by a speeding car can be a lot more painful than a punch in the face.

All these comments are in the green. I didn't include all the ones about "the police should catch proper crooks instead of picking on middle class people." or "working class people speed too." (she never said they didn't.) And they highlight a worrying trend that some drivers just really downplay the dangers of speeding, and see it as "acceptable.". I really got an insight into how entrenched this desire to speed was when I saw "Police Camera Action" the other week. We saw three habitual speeders (heavy duty speeding. Up to 170 mph on the A 14, in one case) meet a 4 year old girl who was paralysed from the neck down, brain damaged and unable to breath without a ventilator. Her life totally, utterly ruined by a head on smash with an oncoming driver (who admitted to continuing speeding after the accident happened!) One of the drivers clearly was trying to wrestle with his desire to speed, against the terrible human cost of the worst case endpoint of this desire. We've made progress in making the roads safer (8000 in 1966 to 3000 in 2007), but this blase attitude to speeding, relative to the perceived dangers of robbery and assaults (which don't result in 3000 fatalities per annum, let alone 8000.) shows we have a way to go. But with brave officers like Julie Spence, who is willing to face the wrath of the more vocal "speeding lobby", we may be able to bring that figure down.

No Sign of my Letter.

In my last post, I showed a transcript of a letter I sent to the Bolton News, responding to the idiotic comments of Arnold Harrison about youth unemployment, where he pumped out the usual spiel about most people taking unemployment as a "cushy" option to real work. The kind of stuff that any pub bore who knows naff all about the real state of unemployment, passed off as complete scientific opinion. I sent the letter (well I e-mailed it) off Saturday morning, but it hasn't been printed today, and generally rebuttals to other peoples letters in the Bolton News get printed a day or so after the offending screed. So if there is nothing tomorrow, I doubt it's going to get printed at all, which is a shame as the letters page can be a bit of a bastion of sheer pompous idiocy at times. They could do with a good grenade lobbed in there now and again. It is also a shame, because I took that long dawdling writing the damn thing, the registration time out ooji Mcdoodgey on the e-mail kicked in, deleting the bloody thing completely. Upon which I had to write it again from scratch! Bummer.

Arnie. Prepare to be Terminated!

As I said in my previous post. I am currently unemployed at the moment. Another victim of staffing spending cuts during the economic downturn. It's pretty tough, and there is a lot of competition for jobs at the moment. There is simultaneously an up swelling in stories about "cushy benefits anecdotes." and that life on the dole is too rewarding to find real work. There is also talk of encouraging people to find work, which is all good and fine, IF THERE WERE LOADS OF BLOODY JOBS GOING! THERE ISN'T. THAT'S THE GODDAMN REASON PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF ARE OUT OF WORK!! There seems to be a bunch of people who think that everyone on the dole wants to be there. They do not seem capable of distinguishing the majority of people who are out of work due to plain bad luck, than the minority who do fiddle the system. People like Arnold Harrison who contributed this masterpiece of joined up thinking to the Bolton News:

"TO Mr Brian Derbyshire. I have followed your contributions for many years, not always agreeing, but in this case on reading your comments about Mr Stuart Chapman, I totally agree with him.

Many of the present younger generation do not want to work and have no intention of doing so In many cases it being no fault of their own but the system. The lack of quality education, the lack of incentives and deterrents. Why rise early in the morning to start work at 7.30am in a mundane job with little future prospects when I can stay in bed, draw my weekly benefits and with a little wheeling and dealing get by very nicely, thank you.

Why learn? Why conform? Why work? The pot at the end of the rainbow does exist but only for the very few. The remainder are happy to sit and wait for the finger of fate. In the meantime, life is more than bearable and do not gorge, Mr Derbyshire, our nation has a policy of importing foreign workers to do the jobs we will not do ourselves. It is the system.

Arnold Harrison Little Hulton"

Missing the point a bit. Doing Northernbloke has raddled my brain or something. I have a greater urge to hammer these people around the head (spiritually speaking of course!) with the stupid illogic of their own ramblings, than I used to do. So I sent this response to this idiotic letter that goes as follows.

"One of the strongest indicators of healthy self awareness and a good grasp of the topic at hand is when you can judge whether to dive in and explain a complex social problem, or whether it is best to actually do some research on what you’re talking about beforehand. This way you don’t end up being the opinionated voice of the saloon bar pundit. A nugget of wisdom that seems to have escaped Mr. Arnold Harrison; author of (Why work for a mundane job?) a staggering letter about youth unemployment. Which is ironically, written by someone who knows nothing whatsoever on youth unemployment.

Leaving aside the tiresome and insulting cliché that “today’s youth” are a bunch of lazy oafs (they aren’t). Mr. Harrison appears to think that most unemployed people both want and choose to be unemployed. (They don’t) I’ll let Mr. Harrison into a little secret they don’t. Speaking as an unemployed, not so youthful youth, (31) I don’t appreciate being told by someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about on this issue that we are in the position we are in because we don’t want to work. And that I’m better off unemployed. (Trust me I’m NOT!) There are too many people out of work, and too few jobs to go round. I was made unemployed by the far reaching hand of the economic slump, not through choice. I have e-mailed and written to as many employers I can think of. If you get a response from one in thirty of them you are doing well. I’ve signed up for voluntary work, but there is a back log (work it out.) I’ve walked around retail estates giving out CV’s. I’ve even somehow managed to haul my lazy youthful backside out of bed at 6 am to do jobs in the past. Mr Harrisons letter really could have done with a bit of research.

I can assure him I have never got up thinking I’m on a winner. I’ve gone from quite a well paid job, to 60 quid a week on the dole (taxes which I paid into in previous jobs, and will pay back in future ones.) I am in a kind of limbo – which only those who unintentionally find themselves out of work can understand, as my life is on hold while I find something new. It’s the strangest kind of cushy existence I’ve ever experienced.

So Mr. Harrison, I suggest you get your facts straight, before sounding off in the paper. We live in hope."

I don't pull to many punches, and it is long(ish) for a newspaper letter, so I don't know how likely it is going to get published. But we'll see. I am so sick of this kind of lazy arsed [non] thinking, swallowing the big lie as generously as an alchie necks slugs of whisky. Two seconds of reflective thinking about what he had written should have told him that you do see lots of under 30's working in every day situations, oh all the bloody time! I literally believe people like Arnold have got their heads so squarely up their backsides, they would believe any limit of stuff so stupid and so self evidently irrational, if it backed up their silly world views. I don't think I could even begin to think up the kind of utter arse these people could potentially fall for, if it rang all the right bells. Even if I stayed in a dark room for 20 whole years. Depressing isn't it?

A Double Headed Assault

The Daily Expresses Christmases have all come at once with this story about the Romanian president, Traian Basescu's comments on how 2 million Romanians (100,000 in UK) are working overseas, because the natives of western Europe. (The Express headline implies he means the U.K. But further reading between the lines reveals that he actually was commenting on Italy, Spain, Germany and France. We don't get a look in!) are too accustomed to living off the cushy bosom of state welfare, to do the jobs the Romanians are filling. And indeed it is good for Romania, as they have a deficit of unemployed, and minimal welfare benefits themselves. It is really a double whammy for the Express, as they can (and do) claim that it will encourage more Romanians to come here, (pure speculation.) and allows them to have a pop at the feckless working classes, who live on our cushy (I've currently been put out of work, and waiting for all this money I'm apparently supposed to hosed down with! I most certainly AM NOT better off!) welfare system. At one point the.. You've guessed it - Taxpayers fucking Alliance give us this soundbite.

“President Basescu has held a mirror up to our welfare culture and identified the lack of incentives to work that mean so many UK nationals pick welfare over work, and so many migrants flock here to cash in.”

He said that the native born, OF A LIST OF NATIONS THAT DIDN'T INCLUDE BRITAIN were disenfranchised to work because of the "generous benefits", and that his countrymen had to fill those roles. Not that they were coming for benefits themselves.

Nigel Farage sticks his oar in with this statement.

“We cannot blame the Romanians for taking what they can get but we can blame our own Government for allowing British workers’ wages to be forced down and jobs to be handed over to those prepared to work for less.”

It's ambiguous whether his "what they can get" refers to benefits, but don't Farage and the "Tax Payers Alliance" always nail their libertarian, uber free market colours to the mast? Aren't these migrant workers embodying the spirit of free enterprise? Isn't wage deflation, and cost undercutting to those who are willing to work harder for less, the true spirit of the free market? Character building or some bollocks? Is Farage endorsing that the state should regulate the wages of low paid indigenous workers?

Now I must emphatically state that I don't support the raw free market philosophy of these people quoted. I know many who would suffer under a system, due to bad luck, the wrong place at the wrong time, not having an entrepreneurial nature. The totally self made society is often more myth than reality. I know a few "self maders" who had a bit of a leg up on the way. Nor is it right to ignore that certain working class groups do fare badly with such a mobile; globalised labour market. See the Lindsey oil depot trouble last year. (perhaps tax incentives for companies to invest in local workforces in deprived areas is an idea. I'm not averse to this sort of protectionism.) But migrant workers can create jobs too. I worked in a distribution warehouse a few years ago, for a Christmas job. It is safe to say, that the place was kept running by the Eastern European staff (my god these guys could work.). It would have been hard (IMHO) to staff it with just local workers, and gave me a perspective on this issue. But that is another story, and I may tell it one day. But it gets on my wick when these so - called champions of laissez faire, ostensibly try a bit of worker solidarity this way. A sad hypocritical joke.

A Masterpeice of Hypocracy. The Mail Lecturing People on Creating Helath Scares!

The bare brass faced balls of the Daily Mail and it's columnists is truly the stuff of legends. How Richard Littlejohn, the star columnist of a paper that sells more health scares, does x cause cancer? (Answer to tabloid rhetorical questions are usually no.) Why brushing your teeth causes rectal prolapses, and grapes make you go psychotic "health" articles. Shit like that. Yes, -how Littlejohn, sitting in his tacky villa in Florida can type the following article and keep a straight face at the ironic chutzpah of writing an article condemning overreactions to health scares in a paper that does more health scare stories, than a PG factory churns out teabags. Actually I do understand how he can, that six figure; closer to seven salary of his. That's what.


Here it is in full then.


"Labour blew £1.2 billion on the swine flu epidemic that never was.

A new study says all the money spent on patronising advertising campaigns, vaccinations, anti-virals and face-masks probably saved just 26 lives.

Each case cost £46million, which would have paid for six months of cancer drugs for 3,000 patients.

And no one can be sure if those 26 people wouldn’t have died anyway. Swine flu claimed fewer lives in Britain than a normal winter flu outbreak.

That’s despite hysterical predictions from the ludicrous Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer and Whitehall’s resident Dr Death, that 65,000 people would die.

We’ve been here before. Labour’s default mode whenever a potential public health problem arose was blind panic.

During the foot-and-mouth scare, every farm in Britain was turned into an al fresco Argentinian barbacoa pit.

Millions of animals were slaughtered unnecessarily, causing untold hardship in rural communities.

Five minutes after a sheep sneezed in Lanarkshire, Gordon Brown was summoning a press conference to announce that he was taking charge.

It was more Corporal Jones than Winston Churchill.

Same with headless chicken flu and the non-existent SARS epidemic, which was going to lead to thousands of corpses on the London underground.

The Tories have form in this area, too. Remember the great heterosexual Aids epidemic myth, which consumed hundreds of millions of pounds in the 1980s?

Perhaps it is too much to hope that the new Government will introduce a sense of proportion.
At the moment the risk-averse ‘if it saves one life’ tendency holds sway.

We simply can’t afford to keep throwing billions at every health scare. Rule one: Don’t panic."


I've a few rebuttals on what's been written, so here we go:


1. Regarding Labour "blowing" 1.2bn on combating swine flu. Hindsight is 20/20 (his argument about money wasted that could have been used in cancer drugs is the same thing.). The outbreak may never have happened anyway. The preparations may have prevented it from spreading in the first place. The H1N1 strain (not technically swine flu, but a hybrid of 3 strains of flu) was reported to have been responsible for 457 UK deaths. SARS about 775 worldwide. So there was a danger, and they weren't "the scares that never were." Real, human casualties occurred. It's easy to sit there as an armchair spectator afterwards, proclaiming that there may never have been an outbreak after all. Truth is influenza has a nasty habit of mutating, SARS is a RNA based pathogen, and thus more prone to mutation and species jumping than a DNA based one. It's hard to detect before hand if a virus will mutate (evolution is a reactive force after all.). Containment (after preliminary victims were identified as succumbing to these viruses) is the best option.


2. You can't compare funding cancer drugs (of which the juries out on their effectiveness) with preventing a viral pandemic. They are completely different things. The cost of prevention, is much less than the cost of a pandemic (in both lives and money).

3. It's all good and well complaining about the powers that be are so obsessed with "elf n safety" in regards to "if it saves one life" mentality. But we all know that if it was a Mail columnists family member, or the right kind of "face fits" victim who succumbed, then they would scream blue murder at the governments /NHS callousness in allowing their loved ones to die. The "if it saves one life" mentality perhaps doesn't seem as rigid, if it is someone close to you who needs saving.

4. About foot and mouth. The main reason so many cattle were destroyed was that although it didn't kill all of them, it damaged their ability to produce milk. They were essentially almost worthless on the market. Handy going to uni with someone who was a dairy farmer!

5. Hmm heterosexual AIDS?? Yeah we didn't get an epidemic here. But there's this place called Africa, and you might say it's a bit of a problem over there. It's hard to predict the extent of an epidemic, before it has occurred.

But all these rebuttals, really miss the point of his article. Littlejohn is not really interested in how the health system deals with pandemics. It's a win win argument. If there is no pandemic, the government and NHS have overreacted and wasted tax payers money, and thus are the enemy. If there was a pandemic, the government and NHS are incompetent and failed the tax payer who funds them to do the job they are supposed to do, and are thus the enemy. And all this from a paper that can blow any health scare (if there is even any basis at all to justify it) into a hysterical end of the world scenario. They have no right to lecture anyone on "getting it into perspective."

This kind of thing by "hard hitting" columnists like Littlejohn really bugs me. All the snide racism and homophobia, and plain nastiness and ill spirit that saturates his cruddy column is bad enough. But Littlejohn has admitted himself that his job is to "sit at the back and throw bottles", when he was asked why; if he was so pissed off about everything, did he not become an MP himself. The world and his wife can sit at the back dismissing everything as toss. I know full well that Littlejohn lacks the intelligence and gumption to ever try to put forward active solutions, or to have a reasoned debate without resorting to name calling. It stinks when knee jerk cynicism is palmed off as "brave" and "controversial", by the likes of Littlejohn. It's just the laziest and most crude form of punditry going.

I Fixed Something On My Laptop. This is a Miracle!

I'm astounded. For the first time ever I've actually fixed something on a computer when it started to play up. I was catching up on a few DVD's on the Nero player, when the whole machine seizes up, the screen goes weird, the colours on the screen go even weirder, and I'm left with a tiny version of the normal screen, that is about a quarter of the size -at the centre of the display, with a black border around it, which will not let me alter it to get it back to full size. But lo and behold, I managed to mess around with a few settings and get the display back to normal size. Thus, for the first time ever - I have mended a computer. That strange machine that functions on strange gobbledygook, and weird stuff that I have some genetic indisposition to ever understand. But no more! I fixed a computer, and that truly is a miracle.

I speak too soon. The bloody spell checker on blogger has now decided to stop working. (honest!!)