I'm voiting Republican because...

Love this video. Strange that I came across via the Telegraph's re-designed website, not known for its support for the Democrats. See the website.

Magnetic Non-personality

I haven't written anything for ages partly because I've been busy at work and too whacked in the evening to think about it, but mainly because I seemed to run out of things to write about. I did start a post on an eventful outward holiday journey to Cyprus which culminated in Master P losing his passport less than an hour after landing, but I decided to spare his blushes.

(It turned up eventually, four days into the week-long holiday, but only after many phone calls locally and to the UK, the rigmarole of reporting it to the police who couldn't have cared less, downloading the various forms at an internet cafe, trying to figure out how we could get two passport photos of him (they don't do photo booths in Cyprus) and plotting a round trip to Nicosia and the UK High Commission.)

But I digress. What prompted the post was not my son's 'lesson in life', but an email that crossed my inbox today, one that listed all the various consultations that the government is going through. There were 15 in total, most of them by NICE, the one that caught my eye though was on proposals to implement the European Commission Decision on safety warnings on toys containing magnets.

I downloaded the PDF and according to the executive summary:

"The hazard, which previously had been little appreciated within the toys industry, is the ability of magnets to attract each other, or to metal parts, through human tissue when swallowed or inhaled."

First, I question the use of the word 'ability'. The online dictionary defines this as:

1. power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc.
2. competence in an activity or occupation because of one's skill, training, or other qualification: the ability to sing well.
3. abilities, talents; special skills or aptitudes: Composing music is beyond his abilities.

Which suggests that magnets are making a concious decision as to whether to attract other magnets or metals (actually just those containing iron if O-level physics serves) and clearly they don't. Surely it is a property rather than an ability?

Pedantry aside, how is that the toy industry hadn't appreciated that this is what magnets do? Surely that is the why they incorporate them in toys because of their magnetic properties?

And attracting other magnets and metals through human tissue? Well yes they can if they're the sort they use in MRI scanners (that's the point) or the electromagnets they use in scrap yards, but magnets found in kids' toys?

And inhaling magnets? How's that done? A bit of magnetic dust perhaps, but a bit of attractive snot hardly seems a great hazard.

Don't get me wrong: anything that makes the world safer has my full support and I'd rather not have teddy bears with pins in them for kids to swallow, or toy trains painted with leaded paint. Little magnets might fall into that category, but somehow I doubt it.

The consultation asks six questions, but the second is the most telling:

"Do you agree with our assumption that large businesses (manufacturers, importers and retailes) would comply with the warning requirement regardless of Government intervention?"

As in large business playing Herod? Not the best marketing ploy eh?

Clarkson for PM

Being something of a Clarkson fan, I loved his imagined manifesto (penned by Leo McKinstry) were he to stand for Prime Minister in the Mail today, unhallowed be thy name. This was in light of the petition to this effect at the excellently flaky Petitions.pm.gov.uk.

I doubt that Jezza would sign up to all 20 policies, but probably above half. And the thing is that, if he were to stand, he'd probably surf into No.10 pm on a landslide, assuming you can ride a surfboard on slip-sliding earth.

Which is why I like Jezza so much. He probably could. He is today's idiot savant (or autistic savant as we have to say these days -- that's something else to get his apolitical teeth into) along with Boris Johnson, Gwyneth Dunwoody, Lembit Opik and any number of political mavericks shunted out of mainstream politics and into the media's eccentricities because of their 'off-message' opinions.

The thing is, the British public loves 'off-message'. It gives us another take on political thinking, one that isn't 'blue skies thinking', or 'legacy', or 'not fit for purpose', or any other of the career politicos' mantras -- see the CPS 2008 Lexicon. (Think I've taken a wrong right turn here)

We need 'off-message', or even 'out of the box', thinking, not the anodyne so prevalent today. Would you turn out to vote for Gordon, the Cameron/Blair clone or the other bloke whose name I can't even remember? Or someone with political balls to offer something original thinking?

As one of my heroine's, Rosa Luxemburg, had it:

"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."

May it be ever thus. And Jezza for PM!!

Snoutcasts

It is been quite a week for lifestyle health scares. Parents are going to get a nanny-style ticking off if their kids are overweight because it causes diabetes in latter life and by 2050 more than half of us will be obese. (Although it's not our fault apparently.) Meanwhile, it is the affluent who are drinking too much and they/we should stop it tout de suite.

Food and drink to the anti-nanny state critics, if you'll pardon the apt cliche. And there are plenty of them, some of which I link to, not because I necessarily agree with their criticism of the nanny state, but mostly because they can be an entertaining read.

I'm ambivalent on this issue because, as a society, we can be a bit hypocritical on the subject. On the one hand we don't think it's any business of the state to tell us what we should and shouldn't do and yet we also demand that something should be done about things that outrage us.

Take the alcohol example above. On the one hand our response is: "Good advice, but I'll make my own choices thankee very much." On the other, show us a Daily Mail photo of a young binge-drunken lass incapable in the gutter and flashing her knickers and it's "The government should act and change the licensing laws," or whatever.

But where I do get uncomfortable is when government introduces laws to enforce lifestyle changes. Making people wear seatbelts is one thing, but using statute to make people stop smoking, drink less, eat better etc is another, especially when it is the individual who bears the brunt of the legislation.

Anyway, what prompted these thoughts was Piccadilly Station in Manchester. It has been a no smoking building for ages, since it was renovated for the 2002 Commonwealth Games I think, and certainly long before Euston etc. Staff and passengers used to slip out a side door to an area where they could have a fag break.

All that has changed. There is now a sign that says it is now illegal to smoke outside the doors and there is a sign spelling this out and pointing to a smoking area by the car park which, with no sense of irony, is behind the bike sheds.

Okay, so they are the secure bike lockers, but talk about teenage iconography.

Inept Opposition

Not a bad caption, but I think mine was better: "See! There was another one over there a minute ago and now it's gone! Honest."

I find it incredible that such an apparently well-researched report could be so inaccurate here in Manchester at a hospital that has neither A+E or maternity services. It may have done so once in the dim and distant, but not for the last 20 years to my knowledge. But it's not just here another seven of the list of 29 who are giving a bewildered shake of the head, saying "Not us, Dave."

In fact one of Dave's own MPs has had to apologise to his local hospital over this almighty cock-up.

Meanwhile, having said they will definitely, definitely do away with inheritance tax, it now seems that this is just one of a range of options being considered, while Dave is getting it in the neck over his rhetoric over street crime so, to switch our attention, they are promising to repeal the Human Rights Act. Can't think which hammer prompted that knee-jerk.

I take an interest in politics because I believe, sad person that I am, that politics still matters. And that a sign of a healthy democracy is a strong, credible government and an equally strong and credible opposition. Better still if there is a third or fourth party who, when they speak, you scratch your chin and think, "Hmm, they've got a point there."

I'm sure there have been equally inept opposition parties in the past, the sort who march their policies to the top of the and march them down again, or over the top of the trenches to be mown down by withering machine gun fire (from their own side) but I'm blowed if I can think of a disorganised mob to match this lot.

It is all too sad to contemplate. Perhaps it's time to give up my childish belief in politicians.

UPDATE: It gets worse.

Told You I'd be Back

Well, it’s been a while since I put down my virtual blogging pen to concentrate on other things, like developing the new skills available in Titan Quest through the Immortal Throne expansion and by reading more books. Nothing heavy you understand – I’ve been belatedly ploughing my way through the fast- paced novels by Simon Kernick that I only recently stumbled upon, with the latest, Severed, in the Fathers' Day gift wrap. Hopefully.

I’ve also spent time drifting the web finding interesting sites. I won’t bore you with the detail, but two worth a visit are The Riddle of Life which does make you think again about the Bible and LiteSum in which you type in what interests you and pulls up a summary from Wikipedia. Try Canal Street Manchester for example. It is a bit slow though.

I’ve reading other people’s blogs as well as adding daily to my tumblelog which involves far less effort than writing your own thoughts. Let the commentators comment, I say, rather than comment on the commentators. And now I shall contradict myself by adding my two pen’orth as to whether TB was right or wrong in his views about the “feral” media.

Actually that’s not strictly true. I’ll leave the rights and wrongs of the debate to others, mine is more an observation as someone who has worked with the media for more years than he cares to remember and how it has changed incredibly in that time.

Back then there was a rhythm to the media day. Broadcast media had news at breakfast, lunch and early and late evening and a story would remain pretty static throughout. The print media had you busy in the afternoon for the morning papers or early morning for the evenings.

One thing changed all that – technology. First there was satellite and cable broadcasting that changed the news horizon. There were suddenly stations dedicated to news and the insatiable beast that 24/7 rolling news programmes was born. Radio followed suit with the creation of new BBC talk stations that were “more news and sport” and local stations adding to the news gathering throng.

Then the web added to the pressure. It was how more and more of us began to get our news and the print media had to fight back. At one time, an evening paper was written by 9am and had to use the ‘stop press’ button to add the scantest detail of any breaking story. Nowadays the first edition is on the street by 6am and journalists are working almost round the clock.

So things have changed, but others haven’t, particularly the politician’s three card trick – the morning bulletin that says that “such-and-such a minister is expected to announce…”, the midday bulletin that confirms that the minister did indeed announce as expected followed by the analysis in the evening. But with 24/7 rolling news, every single programme wants to move the story along with a new take on it and it can be bloody wearing for those on the receiving end.

I’m not feeling sorry for the politicians here – that’s what they’re paid for and indeed what they desire. It’s the ‘ordinary’ people who get caught up in maelstrom who suffer. I’ve been involved in my fair share of major stories to manage and whereas a briefing and few interviews would have sufficed, now the demand is bloody relentless.

Drive Time wants its own interview, usually live down the line. The Today programme expects the same, as does Radios One Two etc and suddenly you’re expected to do four, five or six separate interviews over a 24 hour period. And that’s just the BBC, not including telly or the numerous independent commercial stations also want a piece of you.

This happened not long ago with a major, controversial issue that we’d planned for went public. The doctor who’d agreed to front it was great, but he ended up doing interview after interview over an afternoon, evening and morning. To say he was wasted by the experience is an understatement.

So for TB to say that the media has become feral is quite true in its literal sense – the domestic animal of yesteryear has escaped into the 21st century to become the untameable beast it is today.

Horses Midstream

If Mr Cameron's Conservatives succeed, the electoral future belongs to image consultants and marketing experts. But if Mr Brown prevails, there might be a return to real politics. We might actually find ourselves arguing once again about the basic principles of taxation and spending, welfare dependency and wealth creation: as far as Blairites are concerned, this would be a step back into the dark ages before we kicked all this ideological nonsense into the undergrowth. In so many respects – not least those that Mr Brown himself would choose to emphasise – a Brown ascendancy would be a repudiation of what Mr Blair has stood for. But a Cameron win would be a vindication.

Hmm. Can the Telegraph really be beginning to switch allegiances to Broon instead of Cameroon? It'll be the Daily Mail next.