Things I feel I would like to write: a review of my trip to see Clybourne Park at the theatre on Tuesday, a paean to vocabulary, a summary of yesterday's budget, a rousing call for Saturday's march, a record of my dinner at Bob Bob Ricard and a rant about the difficulties of hiring an RV in California in late August. Clearly I can't possibly get into all of those topics, I am far too distracted. Hmmmm. Drums fingers. Adds another line to the epic poem I am co-writing with Kate about the wonders of white wine. Hmmmm. Thinks again. Maybe I will do them all in one sentence. Depending on which ones are popular or generate feedback, I can then expand on them at a later date if necessary.
A play about changing attitudes to race in the Chicago suburbs, Clybourne Park disappointed me while seeming to delight ninety percent of the audience: they thought it was shocking and hilarious, while I felt jaded and unimpressed - the acting was patchy at best, the Big Shock moments weren't shocking, and there was no insight into current race divides that you couldn't find in an episode of The Office.
Partially inspired by this most amazing flowchart, I've realised that, possibly even more than my health, I am grateful for my vocabulary, a gift I received from my word-loving, crossword-solving parents - if you can't express your feelings, if you can't explain why you are thinking something or articulate your motivation, you're effectively rendered mute - I see it in teens who fight, not because they're violent, but because they can't tell the other person what they mean - and I'd argue that an ability to speak about the contents of one's head with precision is the greatest asset we can have.
I haven't really investigated the budget fully yet - my concentration levels are not at their highest at the moment - but it doesn't seem to have said anything too pleasing, and the thing that jumped out at me is that they are now going to tax private jet travel, to which I say, WHY THE FREAKING HECK WASN'T IT BEING TAXED BEFORE?
In the pub after choir on Monday, I became aware that none of my right-leaning singing friends had even heard of this Saturday's March for the Alternative, which a) means that they're not reading my blog (outrageous) and b) means that the right-wing press are not even covering it, even to slag it off - not something that should have surprised me, but since it's been on the front page of The Guardian's website pretty much daily since its announcement, the realisation that huge swathes of the populus don't even know it's happening is slightly frustrating - so for one last time (maybe), please read about it, and please come if you can.
I kind of don't want to tell anyone how much I like Bob Bob Ricard because obviously I am childishly possessive of a popular restaurant in central London and want it to be my place and no one else's except the people who know about it already, but in the spirit of sharing, it really is a gorgeous restaurant in Soho that has only become nicer since I was last there three years ago - the food is reliable, the menu has a good selection of prices and the atmosphere is basically my idea of eat-out perfection; on the downside, the wine list is a bit expensive, the waiting staff sometimes top up your glass even if you haven't taken a sip since thirty seconds ago when they last came round, and if there are celebrities present you can't see them because each table is curtained off, so opportunities for spying are limited - but basically, if I was richer and/or famous I'd go there constantly and if you want to take me out for a romantic meal, you could do worse than choose this place.
Hiring an RV in California in late August is freaking difficult, not just because there is a massive shortage of RVs for hire, but also because all the websites work like this: you type in your dates, they show you a list of possible vehicles that they may or may not have for hire, you are allowed to select one (and only one) of the vehicles that you're interested in (even if you'd be delighted to hire any of the twenty or so results they've found), and a new page loads asking for your details including your credit card number to secure the deposit, which you fill in, and then you get an email saying that they will look to see if the vehicle is available and then get back to you when they can, usually within 48 hours but no promises, and they can legitimately charge your card if the vehicle IS available, so you're loath to give your card details to anyone else, but you also know from experience that it's unlikely that that particular RV is going to be available and time is of the essence and there are possibly only two RVs available for that week on the whole of the West Coast, but you can't request a quote for any others because what if they all are available and your card gets charged twenty times and you end up paying a non-refundable 20% deposit on twenty RVs when you only want one?
OK that's it for now. I am bored and busy and grumpy and very happy all at once. Also: read Siddhartha, it's amazing. And this is brilliant too. Also, Boots own Skin, Hair & Nails supplements are just as good as Perfectil's and half the price. And I bought Pureology shampoo and conditioner for coloured hair - extra volume version - and it makes my hair really greasy. And I think one of the crayfish in my salad this lunchtime was funny. I spat it out but if I die in the next 12 hours, that's probably why. Also about a month ago, I got my highlights done by a girl and then quite soon after I saw my mum, who was like, 'When are you getting your hair done?' and I was all defensive and like, 'I just HAD it done!' and she was like, 'Oh! Sorry! Aren't they meant to dye the roots so you can't see them any more?' and I was like, 'They DID!' and she said, 'Hmmmm,' which she says quite often, and I said, 'It's HIGHLIGHTS, Mum - they take a section of the hair and then split it in half, and dye half of it and leave the other half undyed - it's meant to make it look more natural rather than just a block of solid colour.' And she nodded and realised she wasn't going to get anywhere with that argument, so she stayed quiet. And then I looked in the mirror, and my mum was right, I think the girl in the salon must have chosen each section, dyed about 10% of it and discarded 90%. And it's freaking annoying but it was too long ago to complain so now I'm going somewhere else to get it done again. Boring boring boring annoying. BYE.
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
American politics, ducks, opera and solipsistic ramblings
This news greeted me when I arrived at work this morning: "Christine O'Donnell, considered so rightwing she is unelectable, takes 53% of vote in Republican primary." The article that follows described O'Donnell as "pro-gun, anti-abortion and believes masturbation is a sin."
I got really depressed and a bit foot-stampy and lip-curly, and then I wondered, briefly, whether if America went stupidly right, and Palin got elected, Britain would then drift away from our alleged 'special relationship' as America's poodle, and align ourselves more with Europe, which I would prefer - not that Europe is flawless or anything, but I sit more comfortably there than in the States. So perhaps it's conceivable that a shift to the far right in the US is a move away from the US for the UK. Because that would make me happy. It's probably naive and pipedreamish though. Plus, who am I kidding, even if we're not involved, a nuclear war between Iran and the US would probably have some 'mild' fallout in the UK. I'm not counting my chickens. Or my ducks.
I had a very sweet message from a nameless friend this morning saying that the duck thing yesterday was hilarious, and how could anyone be phobic of them. I feel the need, therefore, to clarify that, while duck phobias are potentially very amusing, what was funny about that particular screenshot was the advertisement placement. Either an automated ad generator threw out a very funny scenario, or someone selling ad space for the health company has a sadistic sense of humour. Anyway. Apologies to all of you who found the joke self-explanatory but clearly some of the Faithful need a little gentle nudging to experience the full comedic value of the item, and who are we to deny them?
Meanwhile, I clearly need a little gentle nudging to experience the full comedic value of MY LIFE as I am still pleasantly mulling/boohooing over my existential crisis, facing up to the fact that impressing friends, family and potential lovers has basically been my motivation for eternity, and that, without that driving force, I seem to be left with enough drive and energy to pour Coco Pops into my bowl but not much else. I went to the opera on Friday to see Cosi Fan Tutte, which confirmed that I love the Royal Opera House but don't like Mozart's operas, and then spent the interval discussing with Nick who we thought was going to win Ultimate Big Brother, a pleasingly personal rebellion against the permasnobs around us. Would that the two twunts sitting next to me had been so subtle with their disinterest - but instead they spent the entire second half kissing and frotting, despite the fact that I turned my head ninety degrees to stare at them for full minutes at a time. The man opened his eyes and clearly noted my displeasure but did not cease his whispering and giggling. It was an outrage, I tell you, especially during such a stupid opera - it's usually romantic, but this one wasn't: [SPOILER ALERT] two blonde women are in love with two men, who both are crazy about them too, but their friend says women can't be faithful, so he bets them they won't be, so the two men pretend to be called to war and the women are devastated and then LATER THAT DAY the men dress up as hippies or something, and arrive at the house and the women don't recognise them as their lovers and are totally taken in by the whole scam, and within 24 hours, both the women have said they are now in love with the new men, and the men are devastated because their women have been proved to be cheats, but their friend says 'That's the way women are', and the men reveal the 'prank' and the women are shocked but then they all still get married. HOW HILARIOUS.
Any way, despite the ridiculously unerotic plot, the snogging and whispering continued and at the end of the night I went home grumpy, randy and lonely, three of the crappest dwarves. Since then I have been at work when I'm meant to be at work, but have otherwise been in my flat watching TV and reading. It's been nice because I've been exhausted what with all the thinking I'm having to do about my Existential Crisis. And I know people will wonder why I don't just stop thinking about it, then. But it's not really a choice. I wasn't happy before except when I was buried in several feet of thick, hardset denial, and sorting out this stuff, asking these difficult questions, will hopefully lead to a bit more of a happy bunny environment in my head. More dogs on the heath than snakes in the grass. Big pink tongues - no forks.
I got really depressed and a bit foot-stampy and lip-curly, and then I wondered, briefly, whether if America went stupidly right, and Palin got elected, Britain would then drift away from our alleged 'special relationship' as America's poodle, and align ourselves more with Europe, which I would prefer - not that Europe is flawless or anything, but I sit more comfortably there than in the States. So perhaps it's conceivable that a shift to the far right in the US is a move away from the US for the UK. Because that would make me happy. It's probably naive and pipedreamish though. Plus, who am I kidding, even if we're not involved, a nuclear war between Iran and the US would probably have some 'mild' fallout in the UK. I'm not counting my chickens. Or my ducks.
I had a very sweet message from a nameless friend this morning saying that the duck thing yesterday was hilarious, and how could anyone be phobic of them. I feel the need, therefore, to clarify that, while duck phobias are potentially very amusing, what was funny about that particular screenshot was the advertisement placement. Either an automated ad generator threw out a very funny scenario, or someone selling ad space for the health company has a sadistic sense of humour. Anyway. Apologies to all of you who found the joke self-explanatory but clearly some of the Faithful need a little gentle nudging to experience the full comedic value of the item, and who are we to deny them?
Meanwhile, I clearly need a little gentle nudging to experience the full comedic value of MY LIFE as I am still pleasantly mulling/boohooing over my existential crisis, facing up to the fact that impressing friends, family and potential lovers has basically been my motivation for eternity, and that, without that driving force, I seem to be left with enough drive and energy to pour Coco Pops into my bowl but not much else. I went to the opera on Friday to see Cosi Fan Tutte, which confirmed that I love the Royal Opera House but don't like Mozart's operas, and then spent the interval discussing with Nick who we thought was going to win Ultimate Big Brother, a pleasingly personal rebellion against the permasnobs around us. Would that the two twunts sitting next to me had been so subtle with their disinterest - but instead they spent the entire second half kissing and frotting, despite the fact that I turned my head ninety degrees to stare at them for full minutes at a time. The man opened his eyes and clearly noted my displeasure but did not cease his whispering and giggling. It was an outrage, I tell you, especially during such a stupid opera - it's usually romantic, but this one wasn't: [SPOILER ALERT] two blonde women are in love with two men, who both are crazy about them too, but their friend says women can't be faithful, so he bets them they won't be, so the two men pretend to be called to war and the women are devastated and then LATER THAT DAY the men dress up as hippies or something, and arrive at the house and the women don't recognise them as their lovers and are totally taken in by the whole scam, and within 24 hours, both the women have said they are now in love with the new men, and the men are devastated because their women have been proved to be cheats, but their friend says 'That's the way women are', and the men reveal the 'prank' and the women are shocked but then they all still get married. HOW HILARIOUS.
Any way, despite the ridiculously unerotic plot, the snogging and whispering continued and at the end of the night I went home grumpy, randy and lonely, three of the crappest dwarves. Since then I have been at work when I'm meant to be at work, but have otherwise been in my flat watching TV and reading. It's been nice because I've been exhausted what with all the thinking I'm having to do about my Existential Crisis. And I know people will wonder why I don't just stop thinking about it, then. But it's not really a choice. I wasn't happy before except when I was buried in several feet of thick, hardset denial, and sorting out this stuff, asking these difficult questions, will hopefully lead to a bit more of a happy bunny environment in my head. More dogs on the heath than snakes in the grass. Big pink tongues - no forks.
Monday, 2 November 2009
4199-word-long weekend
I had the most amazing couple of days, and now all I can think about is the passive aggressive phone conversation I’ve just had about choir. GROWL. Unlikely though it may seem, I am actually not a fan of confrontation. In fact, I hate arguments and find them deeply upsetting. However, what I hate even more is someone thinking ill of me when it is unjustified. If I’ve actually been a proper pain in the arse, and of course, that happens all the time, then people can think ill of me all they like – it’s fair enough. But when they are gripping the incorrect extremity of the woody growth, I find it extremely hard to let things lie. I shouldn’t care, I know. What does it matter what they think, as long as I know the truth? But hey. We can’t all be mature. And fortunately I have ten A4 pages of hand-written notes (front and back) to bring the last two days back to life.
Just like last year and the year before, I attended the Battle of Ideas in west London, a two day debating forum run by the Institute of Ideas. And here follows what I learned, and, in square brackets, the irrelevant self-obsessed ramblings that popped into my head during each debate:
First up for me was a debate about Parliament, where all four speakers (including Martin Bell) agreed that reform of the political system is urgently needed. [Is it antisocial to eat a banana in this environment?] Over the course of the weekend, it seemed to go without question that the monarchy needs to be abolished immediately, that power should be shared out more equally among Parliament, that select committees should have more power, and that the House of Lords should be fully elected. Unless we have greater self-determination and greater control over our lives, we won’t become engaged in politics. All this makes sense to me, I just don’t see it happening. So many good ideas, but seemingly so little chance of any real change occurring. I left feeling a bit hopeless. [Would that guy’s stutter be deal-breaking?]
Next: Post-Recession Ideologies. How should the financial crisis change the way we think about the world? [How easy would it be to duplicate the wrist-band I’m wearing and sneak someone in for free tomorrow?] Despite working in a bank, I found this one less gripping, but this was the first time I’d heard people attacking the politics of austerity – the idea that we’re all being blamed for being too greedy, that we should all have allotments and go back to basics and stop travelling more than three metres from the house where we were born etc. In this discussion, there seemed to be anger that we are not looking for positive solutions to the problem, and are instead being shackled with this mantle of collective guilt. Terms like ‘the force of globalization’ only serve to make us feel powerless and disenfranchised, which is probably what the governments want – whereas we do have choices, and we should be getting angry and politicised.
Third on Saturday: When is it right to go to war. FASCinating. I couldn’t have been more glued to my seat on this one. [Hmmm. There are a lot of left-handers here. I like that.] The panel was really opposed, which made things more heated, and I came away not knowing what I think, which was uncomfortable but I could feel my brain recalibrating, which is always satisfying. A fairly pacifist speaker started off (1) , saying that firstly, it is profoundly undemocratic to engage in interventions in another country for reasons other than self-defence – it means we’re basically saying, “Our domestic system is perfect – all that’s left is to spread this system around the globe.” Additionally, going to war justifies more war, normalises violence, and makes no effort to address the causes of systemic conflict on an international level. We want less war, not more. [Is it acceptable to take the bus to the tube from here or is that unforgivably lazy?]
The second speaker (2) disagreed, saying that there are occasions where we must defend those who can’t defend themselves, and that if we wait for UN endorsement, we will wait forever, because there will always be some vetoes on every possible conflict. He argued that there weren’t enough interventions. Speaker three (3) said that since we don’t have a democratic society, thus we don’t have democratic control of our armed forces. Once we have successful national governance, only then can we partake in a valid global governance. And it will only be then that we have the right to legitimise intervention. I could see his logic, but I worried about the hundreds of thousands of people dying in genocides around the world. Then I worried about the people dying in the UK armed forces in conflicts that I didn’t agree with. Then the fourth speaker (4) started, and was deeply patronising but basically seemed to have faith in the concept that we know what is right, and we know what is wrong, and that we have a duty to defend those who are being treated cruelly. And it’s precisely this idea that there are universal truths that I find difficult. I’m just not sure I would feel confident knowing which side is right in a war that’s being fought on a different continent over battle lines that were often drawn centuries before I was born. But 4 was convinced: we are all suffering from way too much post-colonial guilt, we have to stop self-flagellating and get involved. It’s become politically incorrect to say that we are in the right, and so we do nothing while people die. I agree – it has become politically incorrect to say that. But I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. [I’m going to have duck and pancakes tonight. But will I be able to fit in Singapore noodles as well?]
1 said that sovereignty and self-determination is a human right – other nations can’t make those decisions on your behalf. 2 said it’s a choice, then, between self-determination or universal human rights – you can’t have one or the other. How much self-determination is ‘allowable’? What if horrific cruelties are being acted out with women and children being raped? Is it ‘appallingly imperialist’ to say that is wrong? Sure, a lot of the values we have might have western origins, but that doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong. An audience member asked us to remember that, although war kills, peace kills too, which I thought was a good point. How do we get rid of evil dictatorships if we can’t use force? But then pacifist 3 spoke again, using vivid images of civilians being bombed at weddings by allied forces, innocent children being killed at school. It does turn my stomach and it’s hard to justify. Maybe impossible. 2 agreed with 4, that the very concept of universal values is now seen as imperialist and wrong, and that he is not prepared to allow fear of imperialism to trump socialist values. Then 1 said that it’s this very self-flagellation that is making us go to war, not stopping us – we feel so guilty for having caused so much crap around the world that we feel like we have to fix all the messes. And speaker 3 said, I thought profoundly, that if something truly was a universal value, it probably wouldn’t need to be imposed. An audience member said that, who were we kidding, we only get involved in interventions when we have stuff to gain, like oil. [I fancy the guy in the checked shirt. A lot.] And patronising 4 said that you don’t get cheap oil from fighting wars, you get it from doing deals. The politicians aren’t trying to stay in Iraq and colonise it for resources, they’re trying to get out. I left the debate feeling none the wiser, but privileged to have seen such intelligent people arguing with such passion about a topic with such global significance.
Next – Rethinking Freedom: Rights or Liberty. There was a real sense throughout the weekend that we aren’t as free as even I might have imagined. I mean, obviously I have long been grumpy about the Nanny State, and I’m not happy about CCTV, and I’ve always been passionately opposed to ID cards, but there seem to be a number of stealth laws that have been passed that are eroding our freedoms in a slightly terrifying way. I’m wary of getting too Orwellian about it all, but these people were persuasive. The very idea that having rights (i.e. laws that protect us) removes our freedom is a contradiction that I hadn’t really thought much about before. The second speaker argued that rights and freedom shouldn’t be mutually exclusive but I’m not sure it’s possible to have them both. She was very strong about privacy, arguing that without it we have no political refuge. Agreed. Speaker 3 said, sensibly, that the state can, and should, guarantee rights – but it should also guarantee us a space in which to exercise those rights. A fan of rights and legislation might say that “the right to live free from poverty is more valuable than the right to live with freedom of expression.” 3 disagreed. Then the discussion turned to the BNP and freedom of speech, with 4 talking passionately about illiberal liberalism, where we’re heading towards a one-party monolith, an authoritarian, totalitarian state where there is only one acceptable opinion. It’s as if free speech is okay, as long as it’s liberal. He quoted Voltaire: “Think for yourselves, and allow others the privilege of doing so too.” The conversation about the BNP on Question Time then shifted to the BBC itself, which was widely seen as part of the problem, a state apparatus promoting government interests.
Speaker 2 said that the idea of universal freedom is difficult (as we had seen in the war debate). Civil rights as separate from civil liberties. Free speech vs. equality. Some say we need to repress speech that might offend oppressed groups – but 2 said she found that deeply patronising. We need to have the ability to engage in argument and debate. That’s where self-belief comes from. People only engage with civil liberties when the discussion affects their own civil liberties. What we need to work on is engaging their interest about the liberties of others.
An audience member commented that we have given up our privacy, and with it our sense of our own importance – we now feel powerless and we’ve lost confidence that our opinion is every bit as valid as that of the people who rule us. That definitely resonated. I too feel powerless. I have opinions but no voice. And even if I have a voice, I am deeply sceptical about my ability to change anything at all. [Woo! I asked a question and got applause! From a cool black guy wearing Sennheiser headphones!]
Then I cheered up in the final act of Saturday – a balloon debate between six revolutions, the French, Industrial, Sexual, English, Scientific and American. [The guy talking about the French Revolution is unquestionably very fit but I’m not sure about the way he’s pushed up his jacket sleeves.] It was all very arbitrary but in the end it was a draw between the Scientific and the Industrial, and the genuinely brilliant chairwoman had them decide it by an arm-wrestle. Science won. [It is unacceptable that she is so ridiculously intelligent and stunning.]
Then on to Sunday. Are you still with me? Perhaps not, but I need to get this off my chest. Topic one: the Human Rights Act. [Aw, the chair was introducing the speakers on his left and right and had to look at his hands and make an L in order to tell which one was which!] This debate was all a bit technical for me and I’d had no idea of the controversies surrounding the 1998 piece of legislation, but once again, it seemed to be a fight between rules and freedoms. As far as I’m concerned, freedom sounds alluring but the consequences of universal freedom are a bit scary when conflict seems like an inevitable by-product. Universal freedom is fine as long as everyone can sit down and debate things rationally, but given the inarticulacy of the planet (me included) when it comes to dealing with opposing views, a peaceful, free society doesn’t seem likely. Still, legislating for everything is certainly not the way to achieve the goal and the chair of the discussion (a lawyer himself) went so far as to say that the Human Rights Act had contributed to the death of political culture in the UK and that we have been neutered… That said, there was broad support for the Act in some form or other and all the panellists believed that it or something like it was important (clearly some laws are OK). [I think that guy is photographing me. Look pretty and clever.]
Second on Sunday: Mr Obama Goes To Washington. I have to admit to drifting off here, which was strange because one of the speakers was the Managing Editor of my beloved Prospect magazine, but he did repeat almost verbatim his article in the latest issue so I’m sure he could understand me drifting off. [Is the Managing Editor of Prospect magazine out of my league? I think probably yes.] The general thrust of the debate seemed to be that Obama had done pretty well in his first ten months, but could have done more, and the major criticism seemed to be that he defined himself as the anti-Bush, but hasn’t yet put forward many strong policies of his own. Is there are Big Vision? A coherent ideology? Surprisingly, not so much, and without a vibrant opposition against which to pitch themselves, they don’t know who they are; they know what they don’t want, but they’re not so clear on what they do. Obama consults everyone, but there’s a lack of conviction. Interesting. [I think I’d fancy him more if he had better glasses. The Managing Editor, that is. Not Obama.]
Then on to The Good Society: Virtues for a Post-Recession World. Four very different speakers made their points. 1 said that we are pretty much always in a post-recession world – the only thing that's different is how long ago the last one was. Either way, recessions are an inevitable fact of life, so we shouldn't really be bothering with trying to formulate particular virtues specific to now – there are universal virtues we should be thinking about, and they’re timeless. His belief is that what matters most to people is having a good job, and that consequently, anything we can do to create and retain jobs should be our first aim. Everything like charitable giving, good parenting and so on come late, once employment is sorted out. And the way to create this, he believes, is to be optimistic. Hope breeds new ideas, whereas giving up is the ultimate tragedy. We should concentrate on possibility and cultivate the will to achieve. Because “the pessimists are always on the losing side.” I liked that. Don’t turn against the risk-takers, he said – don’t over-regulate, bankers or otherwise.
2 was similarly aspirational, saying that to be a good human is to be active, to want to shape reality, to want to give something back, to refuse to accept the given world as given. It doesn’t have to be total selflessness – we should enjoy the beauties of the world because it is these that often move us to gratitude. I loved what she said, but disagreed with her that it is embarrassment that prevents people from aiming for virtue – I think the truth lies somewhere between laziness and a feeling of hopelessness, that we can’t make a difference even if we try.
Speaker 3 was fascinating in that he saw things from a perspective I’d never considered. He said it is commonplace to think of ourselves as living in an age of greed and selfishness, where our lack of restraint has led to this turmoil, where we’re all culpable and should all be ashamed. He said that this is the first time that it isn’t an elite getting criticised – this time it’s everyone, from Fred Goodwin, to the peasant in China who dares to buy a fridge, to the greedy low-income families who take out a mortgage they can’t afford. This has led to a feeling that there should be global restraint – loud calls for cutting back on pretty much everything, but, unusually, with no possibility for redemption as a result. We have to give up everything we’ve come to love, flying, eating meat, smoking, boozing, debating – we’re just evil consumers, users of resources – and we should turn this around. We aren’t just consumers, we’re creators, and we should be celebrating our achievements and looking to the future. We’re suffering from a lack of vision and need to regain the confidence that we can be problem-solvers as well as problem-makers. Decadence is a product, not a cause of the problem. Marx said we can create the new world through ruthless criticism of the old. We need freedom and prosperity to take us forward.
Then the wonderful Evan Harris MP was speaker 4, who launched an attack on the politics of celebrity. I’d been to a debate on Saturday where someone pointed out that an ex-Big Brother contestant is running for election in Scotland with the hands-up admission that “I know nothing about politics, I’m just going to vote with my conscience.” We need to have more political conviction, not less. But as Harris (or Evan. Can I call you Evan?) pointed out, we’re going to lose out to personality. “I don’t care about the leaders! Any of them!” he said, recklessly. “It’s the policies that count.” Refreshing but unlikely to make a difference. Sigh. [I think I want to be an MP.]
Yet again I felt simultaneously inspired and depressed. So many fantastic ideas, so much truth, but seemingly so few opportunities to execute these changes that need to be made so urgently. I stood up and said that there seemed to be a lot to be done and I felt truly hopeless and a bit like crying. Evan said I wasn’t the first woman who had said that to him and he did try to offer what he felt would be practical solutions: restoring inter-party democracy (presumably by bolstering select committees and by taking power away from the PM and the Whips) but expressed doubt that the findings of the committee he is, I believe, chairing, which will recommend parliamentary reforms, will be heeded at all.
Then downstairs to Is The NHS Institutionally Ageist? which seems to be a firm yes from all sides. It’s an interesting issue for someone who knows nothing about it (like me). There aren’t enough resources – so how do you issue them fairly? Allocating in response to need is fine, as long as needs are finite – but they’re not. There is infinite need. So then you start thinking about ‘meetable needs’ – but then there’s also the issue of benefit, in that you want to get as much bang for your buck as possible, which always discriminates against the elderly in that the cost of treating them is always greater and the ease of treating them is always less. Apparently the NHS has QUALYs, Quality Adjusted Life Years, and it basically says that the maximum you can spend to gain one more QUALY is approximately £30,000. This obviously discriminates against the elderly because their treatment is way more expensive as it’s way more complicated. They rarely suffer from just one condition, and their conditions are chronic and thus less glamorous and less well-funded and less well-researched than more prestigious (speaker’s words) illnesses that affect younger people. An audience member made the valid point that we live in an ageist society, and until that changes, there won’t be enough pressure on the health service to be any different. [I wonder how much weight I’ve gained this weekend?]
And finally, to What Next?, where panellists gave us the bees from their bonnets, what they felt were the most important issues for the coming months. And this was when the whole weekend came to life for me. Seeing the raw passion as each person spoke about the one thing they believe is most worth fighting for – it was inspirational and moving. James Boyle said that the most disgraceful problem in the UK is that every year the number of illiterate people rises. Even if you don’t care about them, he said, they are a massive drag on the economy. There is nothing more wasteful than uneducated people, he said: attack illiteracy.
Anthony Horowitz was incredibly angry about the Independent Safeguarding of Authority, the countless CRB checks that have to be done before parents can help out at their kids’ schools etc. Ian Huntley had been CRB checked, he pointed out. It’s pernicious, it destroys our relationships with children and is an horrendous piece of legislation.
Susan Neiman said that the split between religious and secular people is what needs to change the most. Religion is not the foundation of morality. But equally, secularists shouldn’t heap scorn on the religious. Whether god exists is beyond human knowledge. We should acknowledge that, whatever it was that created the world, it wasn’t me. So I have an incentive to give back for the gift of creation. A sense of gratitude is a moral emotion that will counter the sense of pessimism and misery. I am all for overcoming barriers between people (this is my main complaint against humanism, which I fear constructs more), so this resonated.
Katherine Rake, formerly of my beloved Fawcett Society, said that nostalgia may be all the rage, but it makes us fear the modern. And let’s not aim to recreate some sort of 1950s golden era that never existed. As an audience member later said: grow-your-own, make do and mend, it’s a return to domestic labour, and we all know who’ll be doing the majority of that.
James Panton spoke amazingly about the hyper-regulation of everyday life. We have a tendency to view other people’s actions as harmful to us. Smoking, drinking, photographing in public are all regulated. And sure, sometimes bad things will happen. But he hates the idea that, left to our own devices, we will cause each other harm: the inference is that we can’t work out a compromise within our community, amongst ourselves. So we legislate and regulate. We’re living life through license and it incapacitates us, but worse, we don’t just put up with it, we actually call for more. We’re becoming infantilised. We can take charge of our lives, we can organise these things for ourselves.
At this point I was squirming in my seat. How can we do it, though? Give me practical pointers, please. So I put my hand up, and the chair said, “Yes, to the lady in the yellow hat,” and I said, “I’ve been tremendously inspired by a lot of what I’ve heard this weekend. But I’m not in a powerful position. I’m not a respected journalist, or an MP. I don’t work for a think tank. I’m just a PA, a secretary, and I don’t know what I can do. What one thing would you suggest?”
James Panton said that I should refuse to allow people to control my life from above, and in response to Susan Neiman said, “I know that god doesn’t exist and I am sure that I create the world.” It was the most extraordinary sight, one human’s absolute certainty in his own power. I could have kissed him.
Susan Neiman and Katherine Rake said that I should think globally but act locally – believe in the power of the grassroots and do whatever I could to make as much change as I could, no matter how small it feels at the time. How do we raise the level of discussion when we have global media and other bodies that have a vested interest in keeping us stupid? We need to make ideas as fascinating as we can, as gripping as the latest MTV reality show. Let’s improve the way we communicate what’s important. And finally, that got me engaged. One thing I can do is communicate, and I agree that there is a huge gulf between the engaged academic and political class and the rest of the population. But I think I’m straddle the gulf. I like shopping. I worry about boys. I think I can speak to people and get them engaged. I just need a forum. It was food for thought. Rich, delicious, nourishing food.
And then Claire Fox, founder of the Institute of Ideas, summed up by saying that she believes in freedom, in freedom of speech, in autonomy, in humanity. That she is worried about the over-cautious, risk-averse nature of our population. She wants us to debate. To become better intellectually equipped. “Be idealistic,” she instructed. “Ideas matter. You can change the world. Human reason can conquer all. Believe in the capacity of people to change and to be change-makers.” I had tears in my eyes.
An extraordinary weekend that gives me goosebumps just remembering it. And then I went home and watched The X Factor Results.
Just like last year and the year before, I attended the Battle of Ideas in west London, a two day debating forum run by the Institute of Ideas. And here follows what I learned, and, in square brackets, the irrelevant self-obsessed ramblings that popped into my head during each debate:
First up for me was a debate about Parliament, where all four speakers (including Martin Bell) agreed that reform of the political system is urgently needed. [Is it antisocial to eat a banana in this environment?] Over the course of the weekend, it seemed to go without question that the monarchy needs to be abolished immediately, that power should be shared out more equally among Parliament, that select committees should have more power, and that the House of Lords should be fully elected. Unless we have greater self-determination and greater control over our lives, we won’t become engaged in politics. All this makes sense to me, I just don’t see it happening. So many good ideas, but seemingly so little chance of any real change occurring. I left feeling a bit hopeless. [Would that guy’s stutter be deal-breaking?]
Next: Post-Recession Ideologies. How should the financial crisis change the way we think about the world? [How easy would it be to duplicate the wrist-band I’m wearing and sneak someone in for free tomorrow?] Despite working in a bank, I found this one less gripping, but this was the first time I’d heard people attacking the politics of austerity – the idea that we’re all being blamed for being too greedy, that we should all have allotments and go back to basics and stop travelling more than three metres from the house where we were born etc. In this discussion, there seemed to be anger that we are not looking for positive solutions to the problem, and are instead being shackled with this mantle of collective guilt. Terms like ‘the force of globalization’ only serve to make us feel powerless and disenfranchised, which is probably what the governments want – whereas we do have choices, and we should be getting angry and politicised.
Third on Saturday: When is it right to go to war. FASCinating. I couldn’t have been more glued to my seat on this one. [Hmmm. There are a lot of left-handers here. I like that.] The panel was really opposed, which made things more heated, and I came away not knowing what I think, which was uncomfortable but I could feel my brain recalibrating, which is always satisfying. A fairly pacifist speaker started off (1) , saying that firstly, it is profoundly undemocratic to engage in interventions in another country for reasons other than self-defence – it means we’re basically saying, “Our domestic system is perfect – all that’s left is to spread this system around the globe.” Additionally, going to war justifies more war, normalises violence, and makes no effort to address the causes of systemic conflict on an international level. We want less war, not more. [Is it acceptable to take the bus to the tube from here or is that unforgivably lazy?]
The second speaker (2) disagreed, saying that there are occasions where we must defend those who can’t defend themselves, and that if we wait for UN endorsement, we will wait forever, because there will always be some vetoes on every possible conflict. He argued that there weren’t enough interventions. Speaker three (3) said that since we don’t have a democratic society, thus we don’t have democratic control of our armed forces. Once we have successful national governance, only then can we partake in a valid global governance. And it will only be then that we have the right to legitimise intervention. I could see his logic, but I worried about the hundreds of thousands of people dying in genocides around the world. Then I worried about the people dying in the UK armed forces in conflicts that I didn’t agree with. Then the fourth speaker (4) started, and was deeply patronising but basically seemed to have faith in the concept that we know what is right, and we know what is wrong, and that we have a duty to defend those who are being treated cruelly. And it’s precisely this idea that there are universal truths that I find difficult. I’m just not sure I would feel confident knowing which side is right in a war that’s being fought on a different continent over battle lines that were often drawn centuries before I was born. But 4 was convinced: we are all suffering from way too much post-colonial guilt, we have to stop self-flagellating and get involved. It’s become politically incorrect to say that we are in the right, and so we do nothing while people die. I agree – it has become politically incorrect to say that. But I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. [I’m going to have duck and pancakes tonight. But will I be able to fit in Singapore noodles as well?]
1 said that sovereignty and self-determination is a human right – other nations can’t make those decisions on your behalf. 2 said it’s a choice, then, between self-determination or universal human rights – you can’t have one or the other. How much self-determination is ‘allowable’? What if horrific cruelties are being acted out with women and children being raped? Is it ‘appallingly imperialist’ to say that is wrong? Sure, a lot of the values we have might have western origins, but that doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong. An audience member asked us to remember that, although war kills, peace kills too, which I thought was a good point. How do we get rid of evil dictatorships if we can’t use force? But then pacifist 3 spoke again, using vivid images of civilians being bombed at weddings by allied forces, innocent children being killed at school. It does turn my stomach and it’s hard to justify. Maybe impossible. 2 agreed with 4, that the very concept of universal values is now seen as imperialist and wrong, and that he is not prepared to allow fear of imperialism to trump socialist values. Then 1 said that it’s this very self-flagellation that is making us go to war, not stopping us – we feel so guilty for having caused so much crap around the world that we feel like we have to fix all the messes. And speaker 3 said, I thought profoundly, that if something truly was a universal value, it probably wouldn’t need to be imposed. An audience member said that, who were we kidding, we only get involved in interventions when we have stuff to gain, like oil. [I fancy the guy in the checked shirt. A lot.] And patronising 4 said that you don’t get cheap oil from fighting wars, you get it from doing deals. The politicians aren’t trying to stay in Iraq and colonise it for resources, they’re trying to get out. I left the debate feeling none the wiser, but privileged to have seen such intelligent people arguing with such passion about a topic with such global significance.
Next – Rethinking Freedom: Rights or Liberty. There was a real sense throughout the weekend that we aren’t as free as even I might have imagined. I mean, obviously I have long been grumpy about the Nanny State, and I’m not happy about CCTV, and I’ve always been passionately opposed to ID cards, but there seem to be a number of stealth laws that have been passed that are eroding our freedoms in a slightly terrifying way. I’m wary of getting too Orwellian about it all, but these people were persuasive. The very idea that having rights (i.e. laws that protect us) removes our freedom is a contradiction that I hadn’t really thought much about before. The second speaker argued that rights and freedom shouldn’t be mutually exclusive but I’m not sure it’s possible to have them both. She was very strong about privacy, arguing that without it we have no political refuge. Agreed. Speaker 3 said, sensibly, that the state can, and should, guarantee rights – but it should also guarantee us a space in which to exercise those rights. A fan of rights and legislation might say that “the right to live free from poverty is more valuable than the right to live with freedom of expression.” 3 disagreed. Then the discussion turned to the BNP and freedom of speech, with 4 talking passionately about illiberal liberalism, where we’re heading towards a one-party monolith, an authoritarian, totalitarian state where there is only one acceptable opinion. It’s as if free speech is okay, as long as it’s liberal. He quoted Voltaire: “Think for yourselves, and allow others the privilege of doing so too.” The conversation about the BNP on Question Time then shifted to the BBC itself, which was widely seen as part of the problem, a state apparatus promoting government interests.
Speaker 2 said that the idea of universal freedom is difficult (as we had seen in the war debate). Civil rights as separate from civil liberties. Free speech vs. equality. Some say we need to repress speech that might offend oppressed groups – but 2 said she found that deeply patronising. We need to have the ability to engage in argument and debate. That’s where self-belief comes from. People only engage with civil liberties when the discussion affects their own civil liberties. What we need to work on is engaging their interest about the liberties of others.
An audience member commented that we have given up our privacy, and with it our sense of our own importance – we now feel powerless and we’ve lost confidence that our opinion is every bit as valid as that of the people who rule us. That definitely resonated. I too feel powerless. I have opinions but no voice. And even if I have a voice, I am deeply sceptical about my ability to change anything at all. [Woo! I asked a question and got applause! From a cool black guy wearing Sennheiser headphones!]
Then I cheered up in the final act of Saturday – a balloon debate between six revolutions, the French, Industrial, Sexual, English, Scientific and American. [The guy talking about the French Revolution is unquestionably very fit but I’m not sure about the way he’s pushed up his jacket sleeves.] It was all very arbitrary but in the end it was a draw between the Scientific and the Industrial, and the genuinely brilliant chairwoman had them decide it by an arm-wrestle. Science won. [It is unacceptable that she is so ridiculously intelligent and stunning.]
Then on to Sunday. Are you still with me? Perhaps not, but I need to get this off my chest. Topic one: the Human Rights Act. [Aw, the chair was introducing the speakers on his left and right and had to look at his hands and make an L in order to tell which one was which!] This debate was all a bit technical for me and I’d had no idea of the controversies surrounding the 1998 piece of legislation, but once again, it seemed to be a fight between rules and freedoms. As far as I’m concerned, freedom sounds alluring but the consequences of universal freedom are a bit scary when conflict seems like an inevitable by-product. Universal freedom is fine as long as everyone can sit down and debate things rationally, but given the inarticulacy of the planet (me included) when it comes to dealing with opposing views, a peaceful, free society doesn’t seem likely. Still, legislating for everything is certainly not the way to achieve the goal and the chair of the discussion (a lawyer himself) went so far as to say that the Human Rights Act had contributed to the death of political culture in the UK and that we have been neutered… That said, there was broad support for the Act in some form or other and all the panellists believed that it or something like it was important (clearly some laws are OK). [I think that guy is photographing me. Look pretty and clever.]
Second on Sunday: Mr Obama Goes To Washington. I have to admit to drifting off here, which was strange because one of the speakers was the Managing Editor of my beloved Prospect magazine, but he did repeat almost verbatim his article in the latest issue so I’m sure he could understand me drifting off. [Is the Managing Editor of Prospect magazine out of my league? I think probably yes.] The general thrust of the debate seemed to be that Obama had done pretty well in his first ten months, but could have done more, and the major criticism seemed to be that he defined himself as the anti-Bush, but hasn’t yet put forward many strong policies of his own. Is there are Big Vision? A coherent ideology? Surprisingly, not so much, and without a vibrant opposition against which to pitch themselves, they don’t know who they are; they know what they don’t want, but they’re not so clear on what they do. Obama consults everyone, but there’s a lack of conviction. Interesting. [I think I’d fancy him more if he had better glasses. The Managing Editor, that is. Not Obama.]
Then on to The Good Society: Virtues for a Post-Recession World. Four very different speakers made their points. 1 said that we are pretty much always in a post-recession world – the only thing that's different is how long ago the last one was. Either way, recessions are an inevitable fact of life, so we shouldn't really be bothering with trying to formulate particular virtues specific to now – there are universal virtues we should be thinking about, and they’re timeless. His belief is that what matters most to people is having a good job, and that consequently, anything we can do to create and retain jobs should be our first aim. Everything like charitable giving, good parenting and so on come late, once employment is sorted out. And the way to create this, he believes, is to be optimistic. Hope breeds new ideas, whereas giving up is the ultimate tragedy. We should concentrate on possibility and cultivate the will to achieve. Because “the pessimists are always on the losing side.” I liked that. Don’t turn against the risk-takers, he said – don’t over-regulate, bankers or otherwise.
2 was similarly aspirational, saying that to be a good human is to be active, to want to shape reality, to want to give something back, to refuse to accept the given world as given. It doesn’t have to be total selflessness – we should enjoy the beauties of the world because it is these that often move us to gratitude. I loved what she said, but disagreed with her that it is embarrassment that prevents people from aiming for virtue – I think the truth lies somewhere between laziness and a feeling of hopelessness, that we can’t make a difference even if we try.
Speaker 3 was fascinating in that he saw things from a perspective I’d never considered. He said it is commonplace to think of ourselves as living in an age of greed and selfishness, where our lack of restraint has led to this turmoil, where we’re all culpable and should all be ashamed. He said that this is the first time that it isn’t an elite getting criticised – this time it’s everyone, from Fred Goodwin, to the peasant in China who dares to buy a fridge, to the greedy low-income families who take out a mortgage they can’t afford. This has led to a feeling that there should be global restraint – loud calls for cutting back on pretty much everything, but, unusually, with no possibility for redemption as a result. We have to give up everything we’ve come to love, flying, eating meat, smoking, boozing, debating – we’re just evil consumers, users of resources – and we should turn this around. We aren’t just consumers, we’re creators, and we should be celebrating our achievements and looking to the future. We’re suffering from a lack of vision and need to regain the confidence that we can be problem-solvers as well as problem-makers. Decadence is a product, not a cause of the problem. Marx said we can create the new world through ruthless criticism of the old. We need freedom and prosperity to take us forward.
Then the wonderful Evan Harris MP was speaker 4, who launched an attack on the politics of celebrity. I’d been to a debate on Saturday where someone pointed out that an ex-Big Brother contestant is running for election in Scotland with the hands-up admission that “I know nothing about politics, I’m just going to vote with my conscience.” We need to have more political conviction, not less. But as Harris (or Evan. Can I call you Evan?) pointed out, we’re going to lose out to personality. “I don’t care about the leaders! Any of them!” he said, recklessly. “It’s the policies that count.” Refreshing but unlikely to make a difference. Sigh. [I think I want to be an MP.]
Yet again I felt simultaneously inspired and depressed. So many fantastic ideas, so much truth, but seemingly so few opportunities to execute these changes that need to be made so urgently. I stood up and said that there seemed to be a lot to be done and I felt truly hopeless and a bit like crying. Evan said I wasn’t the first woman who had said that to him and he did try to offer what he felt would be practical solutions: restoring inter-party democracy (presumably by bolstering select committees and by taking power away from the PM and the Whips) but expressed doubt that the findings of the committee he is, I believe, chairing, which will recommend parliamentary reforms, will be heeded at all.
Then downstairs to Is The NHS Institutionally Ageist? which seems to be a firm yes from all sides. It’s an interesting issue for someone who knows nothing about it (like me). There aren’t enough resources – so how do you issue them fairly? Allocating in response to need is fine, as long as needs are finite – but they’re not. There is infinite need. So then you start thinking about ‘meetable needs’ – but then there’s also the issue of benefit, in that you want to get as much bang for your buck as possible, which always discriminates against the elderly in that the cost of treating them is always greater and the ease of treating them is always less. Apparently the NHS has QUALYs, Quality Adjusted Life Years, and it basically says that the maximum you can spend to gain one more QUALY is approximately £30,000. This obviously discriminates against the elderly because their treatment is way more expensive as it’s way more complicated. They rarely suffer from just one condition, and their conditions are chronic and thus less glamorous and less well-funded and less well-researched than more prestigious (speaker’s words) illnesses that affect younger people. An audience member made the valid point that we live in an ageist society, and until that changes, there won’t be enough pressure on the health service to be any different. [I wonder how much weight I’ve gained this weekend?]
And finally, to What Next?, where panellists gave us the bees from their bonnets, what they felt were the most important issues for the coming months. And this was when the whole weekend came to life for me. Seeing the raw passion as each person spoke about the one thing they believe is most worth fighting for – it was inspirational and moving. James Boyle said that the most disgraceful problem in the UK is that every year the number of illiterate people rises. Even if you don’t care about them, he said, they are a massive drag on the economy. There is nothing more wasteful than uneducated people, he said: attack illiteracy.
Anthony Horowitz was incredibly angry about the Independent Safeguarding of Authority, the countless CRB checks that have to be done before parents can help out at their kids’ schools etc. Ian Huntley had been CRB checked, he pointed out. It’s pernicious, it destroys our relationships with children and is an horrendous piece of legislation.
Susan Neiman said that the split between religious and secular people is what needs to change the most. Religion is not the foundation of morality. But equally, secularists shouldn’t heap scorn on the religious. Whether god exists is beyond human knowledge. We should acknowledge that, whatever it was that created the world, it wasn’t me. So I have an incentive to give back for the gift of creation. A sense of gratitude is a moral emotion that will counter the sense of pessimism and misery. I am all for overcoming barriers between people (this is my main complaint against humanism, which I fear constructs more), so this resonated.
Katherine Rake, formerly of my beloved Fawcett Society, said that nostalgia may be all the rage, but it makes us fear the modern. And let’s not aim to recreate some sort of 1950s golden era that never existed. As an audience member later said: grow-your-own, make do and mend, it’s a return to domestic labour, and we all know who’ll be doing the majority of that.
James Panton spoke amazingly about the hyper-regulation of everyday life. We have a tendency to view other people’s actions as harmful to us. Smoking, drinking, photographing in public are all regulated. And sure, sometimes bad things will happen. But he hates the idea that, left to our own devices, we will cause each other harm: the inference is that we can’t work out a compromise within our community, amongst ourselves. So we legislate and regulate. We’re living life through license and it incapacitates us, but worse, we don’t just put up with it, we actually call for more. We’re becoming infantilised. We can take charge of our lives, we can organise these things for ourselves.
At this point I was squirming in my seat. How can we do it, though? Give me practical pointers, please. So I put my hand up, and the chair said, “Yes, to the lady in the yellow hat,” and I said, “I’ve been tremendously inspired by a lot of what I’ve heard this weekend. But I’m not in a powerful position. I’m not a respected journalist, or an MP. I don’t work for a think tank. I’m just a PA, a secretary, and I don’t know what I can do. What one thing would you suggest?”
James Panton said that I should refuse to allow people to control my life from above, and in response to Susan Neiman said, “I know that god doesn’t exist and I am sure that I create the world.” It was the most extraordinary sight, one human’s absolute certainty in his own power. I could have kissed him.
Susan Neiman and Katherine Rake said that I should think globally but act locally – believe in the power of the grassroots and do whatever I could to make as much change as I could, no matter how small it feels at the time. How do we raise the level of discussion when we have global media and other bodies that have a vested interest in keeping us stupid? We need to make ideas as fascinating as we can, as gripping as the latest MTV reality show. Let’s improve the way we communicate what’s important. And finally, that got me engaged. One thing I can do is communicate, and I agree that there is a huge gulf between the engaged academic and political class and the rest of the population. But I think I’m straddle the gulf. I like shopping. I worry about boys. I think I can speak to people and get them engaged. I just need a forum. It was food for thought. Rich, delicious, nourishing food.
And then Claire Fox, founder of the Institute of Ideas, summed up by saying that she believes in freedom, in freedom of speech, in autonomy, in humanity. That she is worried about the over-cautious, risk-averse nature of our population. She wants us to debate. To become better intellectually equipped. “Be idealistic,” she instructed. “Ideas matter. You can change the world. Human reason can conquer all. Believe in the capacity of people to change and to be change-makers.” I had tears in my eyes.
An extraordinary weekend that gives me goosebumps just remembering it. And then I went home and watched The X Factor Results.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Hi, it's me
Ooh, I'm all riled about those silly Americans who have made a series of TV ads highlighting the failures of the British NHS, in order to deter Obama's plans for a more supportive healthcare system across the pond. Sure, there are lots of people who have been let down or disappointed by the NHS. It's certainly not perfect. But count up the percentage of Brits who feel lucky to have the NHS, and compare that to the percentage of Americans who feel lucky to have their current insurance-based system, and I'm certain that the answer would be fairly conclusive.
And then there's all this kerfuffle about MPs expenses. It really is quite laughable what they have legally been allowed to get away with. The sad thing is, the entire saga is just confirming what everyone thought before: the whole system sucks. Voter disenfranchisement is in full force now, next to no-one has any faith that the marks they leave on their ballot paper will do any good, leaving the door wide open for lairy parties like the BNP to waft in at the European Elections next month - their supporters won't be put off by superficial scandals like this one. It's all so terribly disappointing and, for the life of me, I can't see what's going to change anything except a massive issue like a war to pull everyone off the sidelines and reengage them with their government. And, much as I want parliamentary reform, even I wouldn't advocate getting involved in any more military disputes. Thankfully I have the third week of my politics course tonight and we are discussing voter apathy, so maybe I'll be able to supply you with the answers tomorrow.
On a different note, I can tell you that currently annoying me most are people who leave voicemails that begin, 'Hi, it's me.' Growl. Obviously if I can recognise your voice, then saying 'It's me' isn't going to change anything. What is even worse, however, is 'Hi, it's only me,' which shows such an appalling and deep-seated lack of self-confidence that it actually makes me angry rather than sad. I think I have too much time on my hands.
And then there's all this kerfuffle about MPs expenses. It really is quite laughable what they have legally been allowed to get away with. The sad thing is, the entire saga is just confirming what everyone thought before: the whole system sucks. Voter disenfranchisement is in full force now, next to no-one has any faith that the marks they leave on their ballot paper will do any good, leaving the door wide open for lairy parties like the BNP to waft in at the European Elections next month - their supporters won't be put off by superficial scandals like this one. It's all so terribly disappointing and, for the life of me, I can't see what's going to change anything except a massive issue like a war to pull everyone off the sidelines and reengage them with their government. And, much as I want parliamentary reform, even I wouldn't advocate getting involved in any more military disputes. Thankfully I have the third week of my politics course tonight and we are discussing voter apathy, so maybe I'll be able to supply you with the answers tomorrow.
On a different note, I can tell you that currently annoying me most are people who leave voicemails that begin, 'Hi, it's me.' Growl. Obviously if I can recognise your voice, then saying 'It's me' isn't going to change anything. What is even worse, however, is 'Hi, it's only me,' which shows such an appalling and deep-seated lack of self-confidence that it actually makes me angry rather than sad. I think I have too much time on my hands.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
My life since Friday
Oooh, it's all go. In less than 24 hours, the United States of America will have a new president - either a man who will alienate the rest of the world even more than the previous blunderbuss of an incumbent - or a man who might not. I dearly hope Obama wins - not because I think anything much will change if he does - but because I fear how much things will deteriorate under McCain. Yet, despite my strongly-held opinions, I won't be staying up to watch the results trickle in overnight. In the UK, the first results won't come in until after 00:30, and the last state, Palin's own dear Alaska, is due to declare at 05:00. Maybe if it were a Friday night, I might consider it - but it's only a Tuesday, I have three more days of work ahead of me and I need all the beauty sleep I can lay my hands on.
In the flurry of excitement about being a terrifying female in my last post, I neglected to document my weekend's activities. As planned, on Friday night I went to Shepherd's Market for delicious tapas at the recommended El Pirata, where we compared recent TopShop purchases, discussed haircuts and spotted David Gest sitting at the bar. Then the four of us went to see the Bond film at the Curzon Mayfair, my new favourite cinema, along with a bizarre mix of other Hallowe'en moviegoers. Quantum of Solace was probably about as good as Casino Royale, but without the first film's surprise factor. I had such high expectations after CR knocked me sideways - it would never be possible for a sequel to pack the same punch. But it was good, and funny, and the chases and fights were brilliant, and the jokes worked, and the girls were gorgeous and Daniel's blue eyes were piercing and the gadgets made us gasp. That table computer! I need one urgently...
On Saturday I arose impressively early and trotted off to Kensington on my tod, to attend the first day of the Battle of Ideas. I saw debates about the nature of truth; capitalism; whether citizenship classes will affect youth engagement with politics; the hard facts about abortion; and a balloon debate between six people, each representing a different subject on the liberal education curriculum - and campaigning to stay in the balloon on the basis that their subject encapsulated best 'what it means to be educated'. I found myself voting for travel over philosophy in the first head-to-head, literature over languages in the second, and science over sport in the third. In the final showdown (travel vs. literature vs. science), I voted for science - as did the majority of people in the room. It surprised me but I think we chose correctly. A fascinating day, all in all. I returned home, switched on The X Factor and ate a tin of microwaveable hot dogs (yes mother, I took them out of the tin before I microwaved them). I don't think I said more than about ten words out loud all day - it was very Zen and very lovely.
On Sunday I had fully intended to head back to Kensington for the Battle's second day - but found myself to be completely incapacitated for most of the morning, unable to get out of bed. Then I spent the rest of the day cleaning my flat as only a true OCD victim can clean, wiping the dust off between the slats of my Venetian blinds, hoovering every available surface (including underneath my sofa cushions) and generally restoring order. I have been burning the candle over the past few weeks, and last weekend I realised my wick had extinguished. After a few days spent taking things easy, I now feel as though my batteries have recharged and I'm ready for the onslaught. Which is lucky, because my next free evening is Sunday 16th November. I don't quite know how I got this busy, but it's all good clean fun and I'm enjoying myself. Long may it continue.
In the flurry of excitement about being a terrifying female in my last post, I neglected to document my weekend's activities. As planned, on Friday night I went to Shepherd's Market for delicious tapas at the recommended El Pirata, where we compared recent TopShop purchases, discussed haircuts and spotted David Gest sitting at the bar. Then the four of us went to see the Bond film at the Curzon Mayfair, my new favourite cinema, along with a bizarre mix of other Hallowe'en moviegoers. Quantum of Solace was probably about as good as Casino Royale, but without the first film's surprise factor. I had such high expectations after CR knocked me sideways - it would never be possible for a sequel to pack the same punch. But it was good, and funny, and the chases and fights were brilliant, and the jokes worked, and the girls were gorgeous and Daniel's blue eyes were piercing and the gadgets made us gasp. That table computer! I need one urgently...
On Saturday I arose impressively early and trotted off to Kensington on my tod, to attend the first day of the Battle of Ideas. I saw debates about the nature of truth; capitalism; whether citizenship classes will affect youth engagement with politics; the hard facts about abortion; and a balloon debate between six people, each representing a different subject on the liberal education curriculum - and campaigning to stay in the balloon on the basis that their subject encapsulated best 'what it means to be educated'. I found myself voting for travel over philosophy in the first head-to-head, literature over languages in the second, and science over sport in the third. In the final showdown (travel vs. literature vs. science), I voted for science - as did the majority of people in the room. It surprised me but I think we chose correctly. A fascinating day, all in all. I returned home, switched on The X Factor and ate a tin of microwaveable hot dogs (yes mother, I took them out of the tin before I microwaved them). I don't think I said more than about ten words out loud all day - it was very Zen and very lovely.
On Sunday I had fully intended to head back to Kensington for the Battle's second day - but found myself to be completely incapacitated for most of the morning, unable to get out of bed. Then I spent the rest of the day cleaning my flat as only a true OCD victim can clean, wiping the dust off between the slats of my Venetian blinds, hoovering every available surface (including underneath my sofa cushions) and generally restoring order. I have been burning the candle over the past few weeks, and last weekend I realised my wick had extinguished. After a few days spent taking things easy, I now feel as though my batteries have recharged and I'm ready for the onslaught. Which is lucky, because my next free evening is Sunday 16th November. I don't quite know how I got this busy, but it's all good clean fun and I'm enjoying myself. Long may it continue.
Wednesday, 23 April 2008
Good news day
I don't know what it is, but news seems to go in waves - not so much between good and bad, but between fascinating and dull. The past week or so has been remarkably low on interesting news, in my humble opinion, with only Zimbabwe scraping my patented Gripometer above zero. Today, however, it's been a different story and I can't seem to get enough of the stuff. The Guardian website, which has been annoying me almost non stop of late, has this morning featured several pieces that have driven me to post comments - and several more upon which I would have commented, had I not felt too stupid to do so.
Topics of note include:
- Lap dancing clubs and the lax licensing laws surrounding them. Should they be legalised further or should the controls surrounding them be even more strict? I doubt there will ever be a day when some men don't like watching naked women writhing around, so, disgusting and moronic as I think it is, better that it's legal than it's forbidden. However, it'd be good if as much effort went into raising women's self esteem to a point where they'd rather be broke or do a crappy admin job than shake their booty in public, where Jordan and Belle du Jour aren't idolised, where Nuts and Zoo magazines don't encourage women to act like whores and where middle class girls don't go on pole dancing classes at their friends' hen dos and think it's hilarious.
- Prawns. The market for prawns is so great that huge swathes of Bangladesh land are being turned into immense prawn factories. Farmers who won't sell their land to the prawn farmers have their fields poisoned. I've got about five bags of the critters in my freezer. Feeling a bit less excited about eating them now.
- Hillary. So, she won in Pennsylvania - but her argument now seems to be 'OK, I won't win the highest number of delegates, but you should still choose me as the Democratic candidate because ultimately I'm more likely to win the election.' Which is about as fair as George W. Bush's presidency. Americans would lose faith in their electoral system and in the Democrats, McCain would have a field day saying that she wasn't democratically selected and, in short, it's a terrible idea. Much as I don't think Obama will make an impressive president, I think HRC has to stand down.
- British charitable giving is absurd. More money is given to a donkey sanctuary in Southern England than to the top three women's charities combined. The top 200 women's charities together receive less in donations than either the RSPCA, the Lifeboats or the Royal Opera House. This is outrageous and should be rectified.
and...
- Croc shoes in health warning. These rubber clogs aren't my bag. I'll admit that I was briefly tempted by a pink pair but when seen in size 10 on the end of my pasty white legs, it wasn't quite the kooky, girly look I'd imagined in my head. And a good thing too, as the incidence of accidents caused by this man-made footwear is startling - hundreds reported on escalators worldwide, including one girl who had her big toe ripped off after her foot became caught on a moving staircase. Clearly there are some terrible jokes to be had about crocodiles being dangerous but I'm far too busy and important to sit around constructing them...
That's it for now - a random summary of left wing news from London. It's not particularly funny but it gave me pause for thought.
And, just to console any of my Faithful who were worried that I might be veering off into bad reportage and away from my safer ground of self-ridicule and mindless ranting, hear this: today, at approximately 07:58, I opened my wardrobe to extract the black and white striped wool dress that I planned to wear today. At its shoulder, I noticed a white thread. 'Don't pull it,' I warned myself. 'That would be idiotic, you'll make a hole.' Simultaneously, I pulled it. It became longer. I started to panic and pulled harder. Eventually, three to four inches of thread in my fist, I broke it off. I pulled back to admire my handiwork. There was a three to four inch hole in the seam of the dress. It was irrepairable. I took the dress off the hanger and placed it, with love and apologies, into the bin. To add insult to injury, I am now wearing a pair of trousers that should, if there was a god, be far too big for me. But they fit juuuuust fiiiine. Sigh.
Topics of note include:
- Lap dancing clubs and the lax licensing laws surrounding them. Should they be legalised further or should the controls surrounding them be even more strict? I doubt there will ever be a day when some men don't like watching naked women writhing around, so, disgusting and moronic as I think it is, better that it's legal than it's forbidden. However, it'd be good if as much effort went into raising women's self esteem to a point where they'd rather be broke or do a crappy admin job than shake their booty in public, where Jordan and Belle du Jour aren't idolised, where Nuts and Zoo magazines don't encourage women to act like whores and where middle class girls don't go on pole dancing classes at their friends' hen dos and think it's hilarious.
- Prawns. The market for prawns is so great that huge swathes of Bangladesh land are being turned into immense prawn factories. Farmers who won't sell their land to the prawn farmers have their fields poisoned. I've got about five bags of the critters in my freezer. Feeling a bit less excited about eating them now.
- Hillary. So, she won in Pennsylvania - but her argument now seems to be 'OK, I won't win the highest number of delegates, but you should still choose me as the Democratic candidate because ultimately I'm more likely to win the election.' Which is about as fair as George W. Bush's presidency. Americans would lose faith in their electoral system and in the Democrats, McCain would have a field day saying that she wasn't democratically selected and, in short, it's a terrible idea. Much as I don't think Obama will make an impressive president, I think HRC has to stand down.
- British charitable giving is absurd. More money is given to a donkey sanctuary in Southern England than to the top three women's charities combined. The top 200 women's charities together receive less in donations than either the RSPCA, the Lifeboats or the Royal Opera House. This is outrageous and should be rectified.
and...
- Croc shoes in health warning. These rubber clogs aren't my bag. I'll admit that I was briefly tempted by a pink pair but when seen in size 10 on the end of my pasty white legs, it wasn't quite the kooky, girly look I'd imagined in my head. And a good thing too, as the incidence of accidents caused by this man-made footwear is startling - hundreds reported on escalators worldwide, including one girl who had her big toe ripped off after her foot became caught on a moving staircase. Clearly there are some terrible jokes to be had about crocodiles being dangerous but I'm far too busy and important to sit around constructing them...
That's it for now - a random summary of left wing news from London. It's not particularly funny but it gave me pause for thought.
And, just to console any of my Faithful who were worried that I might be veering off into bad reportage and away from my safer ground of self-ridicule and mindless ranting, hear this: today, at approximately 07:58, I opened my wardrobe to extract the black and white striped wool dress that I planned to wear today. At its shoulder, I noticed a white thread. 'Don't pull it,' I warned myself. 'That would be idiotic, you'll make a hole.' Simultaneously, I pulled it. It became longer. I started to panic and pulled harder. Eventually, three to four inches of thread in my fist, I broke it off. I pulled back to admire my handiwork. There was a three to four inch hole in the seam of the dress. It was irrepairable. I took the dress off the hanger and placed it, with love and apologies, into the bin. To add insult to injury, I am now wearing a pair of trousers that should, if there was a god, be far too big for me. But they fit juuuuust fiiiine. Sigh.
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Post Script
This is why patience is a virtue. I said I had nothing to write about. I wrote about very little. And then I left the blogging site and went to Yahoo to search for something - and found this:
Headlines don't come much better than that. Only in America...
Headlines don't come much better than that. Only in America...
Sunday, 16 September 2007
Only in America...
When the lows hit, they really hit. This morning has been especially tough as, right now, I should be wending my way to the hell that is Gatwick Airport for a week in the Canary Islands. Instead, I'm here, facing another week at work, and he's off to the sun on his own - not ideal for either party but I know which I'd rather be doing.
So I'm distracting myself by re-reading all our old emails and sitting alone in my room without the TV or stereo playing. For some strange reason, these techniques seem to make me feel even worse, until the Adwords on the right hand side of my Googlemail account bring up something quite extraordinary. When I'm in a dark place, it takes a fairly big surprise to distract me, but diapers for American pet birds is certainly up there. The photo gallery alone is enough to startle me into a new state where Lanzarote is briefly forgotten, and the company phone number, 888-412-POOP almost raises an incredulous smile. I'm not sure it'll keep my mind off bleaker issues for long but I've got to be grateful for all the respite I can lay my hands on - and for that, Mark and Lorraine Moore, founder of Avian Fashions, I thank you.
So I'm distracting myself by re-reading all our old emails and sitting alone in my room without the TV or stereo playing. For some strange reason, these techniques seem to make me feel even worse, until the Adwords on the right hand side of my Googlemail account bring up something quite extraordinary. When I'm in a dark place, it takes a fairly big surprise to distract me, but diapers for American pet birds is certainly up there. The photo gallery alone is enough to startle me into a new state where Lanzarote is briefly forgotten, and the company phone number, 888-412-POOP almost raises an incredulous smile. I'm not sure it'll keep my mind off bleaker issues for long but I've got to be grateful for all the respite I can lay my hands on - and for that, Mark and Lorraine Moore, founder of Avian Fashions, I thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)