Hey,
I haven't made a list of songs that I like in a long time. Nice to do one every now and then though, innit?
The thing is, in recent weeks I've kind of reverted back to the Emo way of life. This is partly down to two things;
a) I never really stopped being an Emo, did I?
b) We Are The Ocean.
We Are The Ocean - God Damn Good.
I really like this band these days. Like the way the smell of toast makes one crave a slice, this band completely rekindled my love for Alexisonfire. The contrast between the screaming (I know, I don't like screaming either. But it's there, and trust me it gets bearable) and the singing is striking. Because the screamo element of bands like WATO isn't great, it almost amplifies the quality of the vocals. This song is an example of this.
Alexisonfire - No Transitory
It is with this in mind that Alexisonfire is next. This song especially. But if you don't like the screaming elements of these songs, thank goodness for Dallas Green's sideproject "City and Colour".
City and Colour - The Death of Me
And on a similar note, Luke Pickett...
Luke Pickett - See You At The Disco
And yet, there is still a side of me that tries to be cool. And it expresses itself by liking the XX.
I geniunely do like the XX, and I'm sure many of you have heard their self-titled album due to the praise it recieved since the Mercury prize. Rather, this is a link to a cover of some 80s pop song. It's cool.
XX - Teardrops
Unfortunatly, this urge to try and be cool is immediately squashed by what I dread - enjoying the same taste in music as my parents.
This isn't neccessarily a bad thing, but what has meant is that I am now a fan of Tom McRae. I resent this, since I have always mocked my parents about how he isn't famous. Yet on Saturday I saw him live (free ticket, free dinner). And it was actually really good. So here's the highlight of the night - his song "I Still Love You".
I'll try and and get more music on here, going to see Pete Wentz's new band on Monday. Will let you know how it goes.
DC x
Friday, 22 October 2010
Thursday, 21 October 2010
I only think in the form of crunching numbers, or at least I wish I did.
Hey,
So yesterday was the big spending review. And spending reviews aren't nice. What yesterday was George Osbourne looking at the state of finances in our country, much the way a parent would with their sons' bank balance. Imagine Gideon (that's George's real name, honest) looking at what we spent money on, with disdain and the like? All this reckless spending from the last administration has made his head spin. The word "quango" fills him with an uncontrollable urge to slap Danny Alexander. Poor lad.
Now, ideally I would be writing to discuss what was slashed yesterday. But I can't, for you see I don't really know what happened. Yesterday's report was a blizzard of numbers, the noise of the crunching hurt my ears. The sheer quantity of statistics meant that anything that was controversial was burried under all those quangos.
Due to devolution, and being Scottish, much of what was spoken yesterday didn't really affect me and if it does it's still to early to gauge. For instance, University spending is being by 40%, but that only indirectly applies to me since the university system is different up here. All these big questions, like tuition fees and graduate tax are still unanswered. I wish they were answer pretty soon, those megaphones are still in large force on university campus, and between that and the number crunching I am getting a massive migrane.
Media coverage has been awkward because it is difficult to simplify yesterday's review. The BBC basically shrugged and said "err, well, if you have a child, then, err, it's probably not so good". But I don't have a child (I think). So it's confusing.
The only thing I digested was a little contradiction inregards to culture. The blood of the British Film Council is still on Gideon's knife, a geniune loss from the cuts, yet museums and the like remain much of their priveleges, e.g. free entry. Now I'm not suggesting the Coalition aren't fans of Banksy - it's hard not to like Banksy - but if they are so concerned about the deficit why close a successful element? Money is saved but the country is poorer now; if it wasn't for the BFC there would be no "In the Loop", no "Bend It Like Beckham", no "Love Actually" and the financial spin-offs of these. In 2009 British films made $29.9 billion in worldwide box offices - that's quite a lot of money, ain't it? But, if you want to keep some paintings around for free then go ahead. It all seems odd to me.
So yesterday was the big spending review. And spending reviews aren't nice. What yesterday was George Osbourne looking at the state of finances in our country, much the way a parent would with their sons' bank balance. Imagine Gideon (that's George's real name, honest) looking at what we spent money on, with disdain and the like? All this reckless spending from the last administration has made his head spin. The word "quango" fills him with an uncontrollable urge to slap Danny Alexander. Poor lad.
Now, ideally I would be writing to discuss what was slashed yesterday. But I can't, for you see I don't really know what happened. Yesterday's report was a blizzard of numbers, the noise of the crunching hurt my ears. The sheer quantity of statistics meant that anything that was controversial was burried under all those quangos.
Due to devolution, and being Scottish, much of what was spoken yesterday didn't really affect me and if it does it's still to early to gauge. For instance, University spending is being by 40%, but that only indirectly applies to me since the university system is different up here. All these big questions, like tuition fees and graduate tax are still unanswered. I wish they were answer pretty soon, those megaphones are still in large force on university campus, and between that and the number crunching I am getting a massive migrane.
Media coverage has been awkward because it is difficult to simplify yesterday's review. The BBC basically shrugged and said "err, well, if you have a child, then, err, it's probably not so good". But I don't have a child (I think). So it's confusing.
The only thing I digested was a little contradiction inregards to culture. The blood of the British Film Council is still on Gideon's knife, a geniune loss from the cuts, yet museums and the like remain much of their priveleges, e.g. free entry. Now I'm not suggesting the Coalition aren't fans of Banksy - it's hard not to like Banksy - but if they are so concerned about the deficit why close a successful element? Money is saved but the country is poorer now; if it wasn't for the BFC there would be no "In the Loop", no "Bend It Like Beckham", no "Love Actually" and the financial spin-offs of these. In 2009 British films made $29.9 billion in worldwide box offices - that's quite a lot of money, ain't it? But, if you want to keep some paintings around for free then go ahead. It all seems odd to me.
Monday, 27 September 2010
Fuck Off Tory Scum. Apparently.
Hey,
So, whilst re-familiarising myself with the University's surroundings following the summer's reprise (and more recently the activities of Fresher's Week) amidst the Fraser Building, the GUU and QMU were rather unflattering posters and graffiti of the current government and their proposed heavy spending cuts. Excuse my language for a moment, but the general theme of this PR was that of "Fuck Off Tory Scum".
Now, before I continue, can I stress that I oppose said cuts. In my opinion these cuts are extremely premature due to the fragile economy and the threat of a double-dip recession and other equally frightening jargon. But by venting anger in this way, involving spray paint, swear words and megaphones is wrong and a bit thoughtless. In pragmatic terms the bill to clean up the graffiti will have to be met by the educational institutions they are trying to protect. It's like trying to raise awareness STDs by writing "I Have Chlamydia" on someone. Yes, your point has been made, but you're not the one who has to go round with that on your shirt, are you? The use of the loud megaphones push more people away from their views than pull them in, and it kind of portrays an image not of "freedom of speech" but of "my voice is louder than yours".
In an article in The Guardian Charlie Brooker wrote of how the Left is generally not as good as the Right at creativity, and with this point he is right; whilst the Left has had to deal with such phrases as "Deficit Deniers" or supporting an apparent "Job's Tax" (the proposed National Insurance contribution increase) we on the Left's line hasn't really strayed too far away from "Nazis!" or "Fascists!". Or in this case, "Scum!".
A change in approach feels needed. Although Charles Saatchi (the man behind the famous "Labour Isn't Working" election poster) recently said in The Times that only negative campaigning is truly successful, that doesn't make it right. Ethically, how can you claim moral high ground when you are attacking a faction of society the way these posters do, in this case those of upper-class and prestigious educational backgrounds . Yes, the Government's proposals may be wrong, but by bringing it down to a class war is simply not the way forward. If roles were reversed, how would we like it if "Fuck Off Poor Twats" (or something similar) was brandished around in an equally carefree manner? I suspect it would not go down too well.
Believe it or not but people outside our higher-education bubble voted Conservative. As a consequence, we have a Government that many of us didn't want. The only way we can ensure that this doesn't happen again is that we campaign in the right ways until 2015, but that shouldn't involve megaphones and swear words.
So, whilst re-familiarising myself with the University's surroundings following the summer's reprise (and more recently the activities of Fresher's Week) amidst the Fraser Building, the GUU and QMU were rather unflattering posters and graffiti of the current government and their proposed heavy spending cuts. Excuse my language for a moment, but the general theme of this PR was that of "Fuck Off Tory Scum".
Now, before I continue, can I stress that I oppose said cuts. In my opinion these cuts are extremely premature due to the fragile economy and the threat of a double-dip recession and other equally frightening jargon. But by venting anger in this way, involving spray paint, swear words and megaphones is wrong and a bit thoughtless. In pragmatic terms the bill to clean up the graffiti will have to be met by the educational institutions they are trying to protect. It's like trying to raise awareness STDs by writing "I Have Chlamydia" on someone. Yes, your point has been made, but you're not the one who has to go round with that on your shirt, are you? The use of the loud megaphones push more people away from their views than pull them in, and it kind of portrays an image not of "freedom of speech" but of "my voice is louder than yours".
In an article in The Guardian Charlie Brooker wrote of how the Left is generally not as good as the Right at creativity, and with this point he is right; whilst the Left has had to deal with such phrases as "Deficit Deniers" or supporting an apparent "Job's Tax" (the proposed National Insurance contribution increase) we on the Left's line hasn't really strayed too far away from "Nazis!" or "Fascists!". Or in this case, "Scum!".
A change in approach feels needed. Although Charles Saatchi (the man behind the famous "Labour Isn't Working" election poster) recently said in The Times that only negative campaigning is truly successful, that doesn't make it right. Ethically, how can you claim moral high ground when you are attacking a faction of society the way these posters do, in this case those of upper-class and prestigious educational backgrounds . Yes, the Government's proposals may be wrong, but by bringing it down to a class war is simply not the way forward. If roles were reversed, how would we like it if "Fuck Off Poor Twats" (or something similar) was brandished around in an equally carefree manner? I suspect it would not go down too well.
Believe it or not but people outside our higher-education bubble voted Conservative. As a consequence, we have a Government that many of us didn't want. The only way we can ensure that this doesn't happen again is that we campaign in the right ways until 2015, but that shouldn't involve megaphones and swear words.
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Websites; promotion of your party or the insulting of another?
Hey,
Reading yesterday's The Guardian I stumbled across Charlie Brooker's article about how the Right-wing are brilliant at creating snappy-yet-misleading nicknames for political disputes. He named examples, such as the "boom and bust" economy, the National Insurance increase being a "tax on jobs" and, most recently in the US, the "ground zero mosque" to support his claims. The Left, in his view, were pretty unimaginative, resorting to the age-old insults of "Bastards! Fascists! Racists!" which don't support their argument because a) they are wrong and b) they aren't, well, catchy enough.
His article made me think - which on its own is always worrying - about whether he is right to propose this hypothesis; are the Right-wing better at sprouting their propaganda? To investigate, I used the easiest readily available sources - the official party websites of the Conservatives and Labour. To give the research some depth I also looked at the Democrats and the Republicans in the state of New York, where the Democrats are in power as opposed to the Conservatives here.
The United Kingdom - The Labour Party and The Conservatives
(http://www2.labour.org.uk/home)
(http://www.conservatives.com/Default.aspx)
The Conservative website tells you more about the bad things New Labour did during their thirteen years in Government than the actual positives of the ConDem coalition. This, in my opinion, is not healthy. Four out of the five headlines on the Conservative homepage are about Labour's failings, ranging from economic policy to pension warnings and Labour's "legacy". The only headline that is not Labour related is that about aid for Pakistani flood victims.
The Labour Party website is a bit side-tracked by the leadership campaigns being conducted by the Milibands et al. There is disgruntled mumblings at the Government - they are in opposition, after all - but they are more centred at the Liberal Democrats, the unexpected enemy following the General Election in May. The Conservatives have always been the rivals, but Nick Clegg was the centre-left flirt that left feelings hurt. And it hasn't been forgiven.
What is interesting to see is that both Parties are aware of the importance and power of social networking. Both sites have links to Facebook pages of their party (if you are interested, more people "like" the Tories than Labour). Both sites also offer a "find your nearest representative" application. It showed I live in Conservative desert-land, with more hope of my skin turning Smurf-like blue than of meeting a Tory in the West of Scotland with any influence at all.
New York State - The Republicans and The Democrats.
(http://www.nygop.org/home)
(http://www.nydems.org/)
The New York case study is useful to look at since in the USA the conservative Republicans are not in power and the Democrats are.With this change in role between the two countries, have the patterns that we have seen in the UK - that of the Right publicly attacking the Left - different?
In a nutshell, no.
The Democrats website is far from perfect, before we look into it. There is a cheap dig at the Republican lobbyist Rick Lazio by the side of the site, which is a bit tacky by the standards of a serious political organisation. Compared to the Republicans however this is tame. Whilst the main story on the Democrats page is "Andrew Cuomo, The New New York Agenda: A Plan For Action", a plan for reform, the Republicans use their equivalent space to focus on the "Hall of Shame" of the Democrats leadership of New York, with satirical, "comical" images to boot. And it all seems a bit cheap.
Conclusions
I have only made these judgements by browsing the websites of these parties and not much else e.g. election campaign material. Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be at their ugliest during these elections and just as bad as each other (just search for election posters from previous elections on Google to find out). It isn't a new practice by any means, but the internet (and social networking) has just proved to be a new outlet for this propaganda. However, I would have to agree with Brooker. When it comes to these "dirty tactics" the Right appear to be more street-wise than the Left. They have their reasons, of course; the Conservatives have big cuts to make and want to place as much blame as possible on the previous administration, whilst the Republicans have mid-term elections this November. But overall, although the Left can often appear to be the more passionate, the Right have the sharper tongues.
DC
x
Reading yesterday's The Guardian I stumbled across Charlie Brooker's article about how the Right-wing are brilliant at creating snappy-yet-misleading nicknames for political disputes. He named examples, such as the "boom and bust" economy, the National Insurance increase being a "tax on jobs" and, most recently in the US, the "ground zero mosque" to support his claims. The Left, in his view, were pretty unimaginative, resorting to the age-old insults of "Bastards! Fascists! Racists!" which don't support their argument because a) they are wrong and b) they aren't, well, catchy enough.
His article made me think - which on its own is always worrying - about whether he is right to propose this hypothesis; are the Right-wing better at sprouting their propaganda? To investigate, I used the easiest readily available sources - the official party websites of the Conservatives and Labour. To give the research some depth I also looked at the Democrats and the Republicans in the state of New York, where the Democrats are in power as opposed to the Conservatives here.
The United Kingdom - The Labour Party and The Conservatives
(http://www2.labour.org.uk/home)
(http://www.conservatives.com/Default.aspx)
The Conservative website tells you more about the bad things New Labour did during their thirteen years in Government than the actual positives of the ConDem coalition. This, in my opinion, is not healthy. Four out of the five headlines on the Conservative homepage are about Labour's failings, ranging from economic policy to pension warnings and Labour's "legacy". The only headline that is not Labour related is that about aid for Pakistani flood victims.
The Labour Party website is a bit side-tracked by the leadership campaigns being conducted by the Milibands et al. There is disgruntled mumblings at the Government - they are in opposition, after all - but they are more centred at the Liberal Democrats, the unexpected enemy following the General Election in May. The Conservatives have always been the rivals, but Nick Clegg was the centre-left flirt that left feelings hurt. And it hasn't been forgiven.
What is interesting to see is that both Parties are aware of the importance and power of social networking. Both sites have links to Facebook pages of their party (if you are interested, more people "like" the Tories than Labour). Both sites also offer a "find your nearest representative" application. It showed I live in Conservative desert-land, with more hope of my skin turning Smurf-like blue than of meeting a Tory in the West of Scotland with any influence at all.
New York State - The Republicans and The Democrats.
(http://www.nygop.org/home)
(http://www.nydems.org/)
The New York case study is useful to look at since in the USA the conservative Republicans are not in power and the Democrats are.With this change in role between the two countries, have the patterns that we have seen in the UK - that of the Right publicly attacking the Left - different?
In a nutshell, no.
The Democrats website is far from perfect, before we look into it. There is a cheap dig at the Republican lobbyist Rick Lazio by the side of the site, which is a bit tacky by the standards of a serious political organisation. Compared to the Republicans however this is tame. Whilst the main story on the Democrats page is "Andrew Cuomo, The New New York Agenda: A Plan For Action", a plan for reform, the Republicans use their equivalent space to focus on the "Hall of Shame" of the Democrats leadership of New York, with satirical, "comical" images to boot. And it all seems a bit cheap.
Conclusions
I have only made these judgements by browsing the websites of these parties and not much else e.g. election campaign material. Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be at their ugliest during these elections and just as bad as each other (just search for election posters from previous elections on Google to find out). It isn't a new practice by any means, but the internet (and social networking) has just proved to be a new outlet for this propaganda. However, I would have to agree with Brooker. When it comes to these "dirty tactics" the Right appear to be more street-wise than the Left. They have their reasons, of course; the Conservatives have big cuts to make and want to place as much blame as possible on the previous administration, whilst the Republicans have mid-term elections this November. But overall, although the Left can often appear to be the more passionate, the Right have the sharper tongues.
DC
x
Hey,
Reading yesterday's The Guardian I stumbled across Charlie Brooker's article about how the Right-wing are brilliant at creating snappy-yet-misleading nicknames for political disputes. He named examples, such as the "boom and bust" economy, the National Insurance increase being a "tax on jobs" and, most recently in the US, the "ground zero mosque" to support his claims. The Left, in his view, were pretty unimaginative, resorting to the age-old insults of "Bastards! Fascists! Racists!" which don't support their argument because a) they are wrong and b) they aren't, well, catchy enough.
His article made me think - which on its own is always worrying - about whether he is right to propose this hypothesis; are the Right-wing better at sprouting their propaganda? To investigate, I used the easiest readily available sources - the official party websites of the Conservatives and Labour. To give the research some depth I also looked at the Democrats and the Republicans in the state of New York, where the Democrats are in power as opposed to the Conservatives here.
The United Kingdom - The Labour Party and The Conservatives
(http://www2.labour.org.uk/home)
(http://www.conservatives.com/Default.aspx)
The Conservative website tells you more about the bad things New Labour did during their thirteen years in Government than the actual positives of the ConDem coalition. This, in my opinion, is not healthy. Four out of the five headlines on the Conservative homepage are about Labour's failings, ranging from economic policy to pension warnings and Labour's "legacy". The only headline that is not Labour related is that about aid for Pakistani flood victims.
The Labour Party website is a bit side-tracked by the leadership campaigns being conducted by the Milibands et al. There is disgruntled mumblings at the Government - they are in opposition, after all - but they are more centred at the Liberal Democrats, the unexpected enemy following the General Election in May. The Conservatives have always been the rivals, but Nick Clegg was the centre-left flirt that left feelings hurt. And it hasn't been forgiven.
What is interesting to see is that both Parties are aware of the importance and power of social networking. Both sites have links to Facebook pages of their party (if you are interested, more people "like" the Tories than Labour). Both sites also offer a "find your nearest representative" application. It showed I live in Conservative desert-land, with more hope of my skin turning Smurf-like blue than of meeting a Tory in the West of Scotland with any influence at all.
New York State - The Republicans and The Democrats.
(http://www.nygop.org/home)
(http://www.nydems.org/)
The New York case study is useful to look at since in the USA the conservative Republicans are not in power and the Democrats are.With this change in role between the two countries, have the patterns that we have seen in the UK - that of the Right publicly attacking the Left - different?
In a nutshell, no.
The Democrats website is far from perfect, before we look into it. There is a cheap dig at the Republican lobbyist Rick Lazio by the side of the site, which is a bit tacky by the standards of a serious political organisation. Compared to the Republicans however this is tame. Whilst the main story on the Democrats page is "Andrew Cuomo, The New New York Agenda: A Plan For Action", a plan for reform, the Republicans use their equivalent space to focus on the "Hall of Shame" of the Democrats leadership of New York, with satirical, "comical" images to boot. And it all seems a bit cheap.
Conclusions
I have only made these judgements by browsing the websites of these parties and not much else e.g. election campaign material. Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be at their ugliest during these elections and just as bad as each other (just search for election posters from previous elections on Google to find out). It isn't a new practice by any means, but the internet (and social networking) has just proved to be a new outlet for this propaganda. However, I would have to agree with Brooker. When it comes to these "dirty tactics" the Right appear to be more street-wise than the Left. They have their reasons, of course; the Conservatives have big cuts to make and want to place as much blame as possible on the previous administration, whilst the Republicans have mid-term elections this November. But overall, although the Left can often appear to be the more passionate, the Right have the sharper tongues.
DC
x
Reading yesterday's The Guardian I stumbled across Charlie Brooker's article about how the Right-wing are brilliant at creating snappy-yet-misleading nicknames for political disputes. He named examples, such as the "boom and bust" economy, the National Insurance increase being a "tax on jobs" and, most recently in the US, the "ground zero mosque" to support his claims. The Left, in his view, were pretty unimaginative, resorting to the age-old insults of "Bastards! Fascists! Racists!" which don't support their argument because a) they are wrong and b) they aren't, well, catchy enough.
His article made me think - which on its own is always worrying - about whether he is right to propose this hypothesis; are the Right-wing better at sprouting their propaganda? To investigate, I used the easiest readily available sources - the official party websites of the Conservatives and Labour. To give the research some depth I also looked at the Democrats and the Republicans in the state of New York, where the Democrats are in power as opposed to the Conservatives here.
The United Kingdom - The Labour Party and The Conservatives
(http://www2.labour.org.uk/home)
(http://www.conservatives.com/Default.aspx)
The Conservative website tells you more about the bad things New Labour did during their thirteen years in Government than the actual positives of the ConDem coalition. This, in my opinion, is not healthy. Four out of the five headlines on the Conservative homepage are about Labour's failings, ranging from economic policy to pension warnings and Labour's "legacy". The only headline that is not Labour related is that about aid for Pakistani flood victims.
The Labour Party website is a bit side-tracked by the leadership campaigns being conducted by the Milibands et al. There is disgruntled mumblings at the Government - they are in opposition, after all - but they are more centred at the Liberal Democrats, the unexpected enemy following the General Election in May. The Conservatives have always been the rivals, but Nick Clegg was the centre-left flirt that left feelings hurt. And it hasn't been forgiven.
What is interesting to see is that both Parties are aware of the importance and power of social networking. Both sites have links to Facebook pages of their party (if you are interested, more people "like" the Tories than Labour). Both sites also offer a "find your nearest representative" application. It showed I live in Conservative desert-land, with more hope of my skin turning Smurf-like blue than of meeting a Tory in the West of Scotland with any influence at all.
New York State - The Republicans and The Democrats.
(http://www.nygop.org/home)
(http://www.nydems.org/)
The New York case study is useful to look at since in the USA the conservative Republicans are not in power and the Democrats are.With this change in role between the two countries, have the patterns that we have seen in the UK - that of the Right publicly attacking the Left - different?
In a nutshell, no.
The Democrats website is far from perfect, before we look into it. There is a cheap dig at the Republican lobbyist Rick Lazio by the side of the site, which is a bit tacky by the standards of a serious political organisation. Compared to the Republicans however this is tame. Whilst the main story on the Democrats page is "Andrew Cuomo, The New New York Agenda: A Plan For Action", a plan for reform, the Republicans use their equivalent space to focus on the "Hall of Shame" of the Democrats leadership of New York, with satirical, "comical" images to boot. And it all seems a bit cheap.
Conclusions
I have only made these judgements by browsing the websites of these parties and not much else e.g. election campaign material. Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be at their ugliest during these elections and just as bad as each other (just search for election posters from previous elections on Google to find out). It isn't a new practice by any means, but the internet (and social networking) has just proved to be a new outlet for this propaganda. However, I would have to agree with Brooker. When it comes to these "dirty tactics" the Right appear to be more street-wise than the Left. They have their reasons, of course; the Conservatives have big cuts to make and want to place as much blame as possible on the previous administration, whilst the Republicans have mid-term elections this November. But overall, although the Left can often appear to be the more passionate, the Right have the sharper tongues.
DC
x
Monday, 9 August 2010
There's something about milk.
Hey,
Not the best of weeks for dairy then, is it? First we are told that some of the milk we drink isn't from cows, but from something that used to be a cow but isn't a cow anymore. Or it could be, because we are told the milk is actually from a cow that is still a cow, not an artificial cow that used to be a cow but isn't anymore.You get that?
Yeah, I didn't either. In Dara O'Briain's book "Tickling the English" he divides the English/British public into two groups; pragmatics and romanticists. The pragmatic people just get on with their lives, whereas the romantics are rather eccentric; hysteria about the dangers of immigration and causes of cancer, reliving the "highlights" of that war we won against Germany all those years ago and all that. It all kind of sounds like that newspaper I don't really like. I like to think I am the former; basically, the world is overpopulated, with five billion more people on the planet than their was a century ago. This means that we need to find a way to feed all these people before Thomas Malthus's theory - that the world can only cater so many people before it's natural balance is restored through war, famine and disease - is drastically proved right. If this means that we need to create more cows, crops and cider artificially (OK, the last one is because I'm greedy) then so be it.
The European Union, has stated that there is nothing wrong with this milk, yet it hasn't stopped some. On a brief visit to the Daily Express website (my second favourite paper) I typed into the search engine "cow milk danger" which popped up a comment which said, "no wonder there is so much cancer". The right-wing is bloody rather funny sometimes.
Despite these "revelations" about these artificial cows (which sounds like a Jeremy Kyle-esque insult) I can't see why everyone is so surprised. I mean, they have been saying "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" for as long as I can remember. You silly people, if only you listened! I'm only surprises nobody has accused Kraft of doing this in a sick retaliation to the mess that "we" did to the Gulf of Mexico.
Secondly, rumour has it that the coalition could be abolishing free milk for children in schools. Sounds very familiar that, doesn't it? Sounds a bit like Thatcher, doesn't it? This highlights one thing; that the Tories really, and I mean really, do not like milk! Is everyone at Eton lactose intolerant? Does it make Boris Johnson "a bit gassy" or Theresa May's throat swell up? I don't know. But how can you have a "Big Society" without the friendly help of calcium to keep our kids strong? Tell me, Mr Gove!
They can of course just claim it is to cut another of these inefficiencies that those nasty free-spending Labour folk left behind that they have to sort out. But to cut something as symbolic during the Thatcher years as the free milk is just a bit too ideologically driven during these times. Besides, if it's because milk is quite expensive, I hear there is some quality artificial cow milk going about which is as cheap as ever the now.
DC
x
Not the best of weeks for dairy then, is it? First we are told that some of the milk we drink isn't from cows, but from something that used to be a cow but isn't a cow anymore. Or it could be, because we are told the milk is actually from a cow that is still a cow, not an artificial cow that used to be a cow but isn't anymore.You get that?
Yeah, I didn't either. In Dara O'Briain's book "Tickling the English" he divides the English/British public into two groups; pragmatics and romanticists. The pragmatic people just get on with their lives, whereas the romantics are rather eccentric; hysteria about the dangers of immigration and causes of cancer, reliving the "highlights" of that war we won against Germany all those years ago and all that. It all kind of sounds like that newspaper I don't really like. I like to think I am the former; basically, the world is overpopulated, with five billion more people on the planet than their was a century ago. This means that we need to find a way to feed all these people before Thomas Malthus's theory - that the world can only cater so many people before it's natural balance is restored through war, famine and disease - is drastically proved right. If this means that we need to create more cows, crops and cider artificially (OK, the last one is because I'm greedy) then so be it.
The European Union, has stated that there is nothing wrong with this milk, yet it hasn't stopped some. On a brief visit to the Daily Express website (my second favourite paper) I typed into the search engine "cow milk danger" which popped up a comment which said, "no wonder there is so much cancer". The right-wing is bloody rather funny sometimes.
Despite these "revelations" about these artificial cows (which sounds like a Jeremy Kyle-esque insult) I can't see why everyone is so surprised. I mean, they have been saying "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" for as long as I can remember. You silly people, if only you listened! I'm only surprises nobody has accused Kraft of doing this in a sick retaliation to the mess that "we" did to the Gulf of Mexico.
Secondly, rumour has it that the coalition could be abolishing free milk for children in schools. Sounds very familiar that, doesn't it? Sounds a bit like Thatcher, doesn't it? This highlights one thing; that the Tories really, and I mean really, do not like milk! Is everyone at Eton lactose intolerant? Does it make Boris Johnson "a bit gassy" or Theresa May's throat swell up? I don't know. But how can you have a "Big Society" without the friendly help of calcium to keep our kids strong? Tell me, Mr Gove!
They can of course just claim it is to cut another of these inefficiencies that those nasty free-spending Labour folk left behind that they have to sort out. But to cut something as symbolic during the Thatcher years as the free milk is just a bit too ideologically driven during these times. Besides, if it's because milk is quite expensive, I hear there is some quality artificial cow milk going about which is as cheap as ever the now.
DC
x
I'm still alive! But I'm on Soccerlens
Hey,
Sorry about my blog avoidance of recent weeks. I really am. These last few weeks I have been writing for this football site, called "Soccerlens". It's good experience for writing, although I have been told by some brave anonymous posters "to do my research" and, interestingly, I'm English when I have wrote about Celtic. I think it's because despite being a Celtic fan I don't have these green-goggles on which make my eyes believe that they can do no wrong.
Anyway, that's where I have been. I'm still alive. But I do miss being overtly sarcastic on things not related to football. I feel I need to write in this again.
http://soccerlens.com/author/davidchilds/
DC
x
Sorry about my blog avoidance of recent weeks. I really am. These last few weeks I have been writing for this football site, called "Soccerlens". It's good experience for writing, although I have been told by some brave anonymous posters "to do my research" and, interestingly, I'm English when I have wrote about Celtic. I think it's because despite being a Celtic fan I don't have these green-goggles on which make my eyes believe that they can do no wrong.
Anyway, that's where I have been. I'm still alive. But I do miss being overtly sarcastic on things not related to football. I feel I need to write in this again.
http://soccerlens.com/author/davidchilds/
DC
x
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)