Category: Odds and Ends

Dear Ben, AI program, or Person who has been landed with today’s post

I am writing to you to see whether I can get a sensible answer to the fate of the member’s comments to articles published on your website. I have contacted DW technical support and have prefaced my enquiry by saying that I am quite prepared to hear that I have/haven’t done something at my end to enable me to see the posts. (As an aside, I am that person that the remote IT person asks whether I have my PC switched on and can I see the red light.)

If it turns out that I am not the only one who cannot see the Member’s comments, I can only come to two conclusions. The first is that you need to take a serious look at the competency of your IT people. The second is that you are trying to quietly phase out these communications from your members. I really hope that it isn’t the latter. So which is it or, is there a third option? I have likened the DW level of communication, on this subject, as similar to that coming from the British Rail School of customer care. If you have never experienced this, I can assure you that it is a very low bar to clear. Do I have to put my conspiracy tin hat on with the DW?

Why is this matter worthy of my using up my last two Christmas stamps? I enjoy the sense of being with a like-minded community. Also, sometimes the comments are more interesting and witty than the article that they relate to. The other reason is that I get a sense that the DW is somewhat adrift. When I first started listening to the DW, you and a few others were, ‘The voice crying in the wilderness.’ Now there is an army of conservative voices competing for the same audience. This together with your expansion into razors, chocolates, children’s programs, films etc seems to have taken some of the energy and purpose from your messaging. Don’t misunderstand me, I applaud all of these ventures but this is not the time to reduce contact with the base, your loyal members. Perhaps you can differentiate yourself from the others by instead of just giving people reasons not to vote for the Democrats, give them everyday examples as to why they should vote for Republicans.

Well done if you have managed to make it this far. There is no need to respond, especially if you either fix the problem or, be honest with your members as to why you have made another decision. Just a suggestion. Do something very local and relevant to a local community which ordinary people, either side of the divide, can relate to. That having been said, keep up the good work in 2024.

 

I was somewhat puzzled by the weekend article entitled, ‘Apprehension and Reconciliation in the Deep South’ written by your L.A. bureau chief, Christopher Grimes. Was it a family travelogue where the absent son returns to his roots and reconciles with family over the political divide or, was it just another political hit piece? My reading suggest the latter as most of the article focussed on the Republican candidate Herschel Walker with a guilty by association with Trump verdict. There was no context to the article outlining the issues or, any mention of Walkers opponent, Raphael Warnock, who has an even more interesting history. It seems clear to me that Mr Grimes resignation from ‘nuance and soft reasoning’ extends to his political views. Perhaps he should leave the L.A bubble more often and reconnect with the real world.

Source

Grimes, C (20/08/22), Apprehension and Reconciliation in the Deep South, FT Weekend Magazine. p14

 

Sometimes you read about a decision by a local Counsel and you want to see the person who made it and ask why. Colchester Council has destroyed a 2000 year old Roman garden fountain because it couldn’t find a suitable home for it. It was discovered in 1998 and has been described as a unique piece of garden furniture (The Times, 10/09/18).  The Counsel said that it had been damaged on excavation and that it was too costly to repair but I suppose you could say that about most things that had been buried for 2000 years and then dug up. The Council went on to say, “We have to strike a balance with the level of public funding and storage space available unfortunately, on very rare occasions, exceptionally difficult decisions have to be made.”   I would like to ask this Counsel officer how often these difficult decisions are made, by whom and with whose approval. The other question is how hard did he try. Most counsels have more spaces than they can account for where this artifact could have been displayed including,  libraries, offices, schools, theaters and Universities. If these are all ‘choc a block’ with Roman remains, what about giving to other counsels who are not so Roman artifact rich. Perhaps, given the garden connection, somewhere like Kew Gardens might be interested. What I suspect is that this was a low level decision, taken routinely in an area where Roman archaeology is common and under valued. There should be a higher level of accountability when these ‘exceptional decisions’ are made and should involve independent archaeological oversight.

It seems that the biggest threat to the survival of Roman history in Britain is not the Saxons, Angles and Scots  but local Councils like Colchester.

 

reference: The Times, 10/09/18,                                                                                        Quotation by Axel Oxenstierna “An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?” = Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Oxenstiernahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)

 

There was a snippy news item in Carol Midgley’s Notebook today, headed ‘stick it to the man.’ (The Times, 27/08/18) In summary, the story is that some woman’s rights people had stuck ‘phallus shaped stickers’ on the Iron Men statues on Cosby Beach with the text, “woman don’t have penises.” The usual suspects reacted, the Mayor has vowed to track the perpetrators down; it was declared ‘anti trans’ (presumably by the pro trans people) and the police are investigating. Nothing very unusual there then. The piece ends by saying that we are at a unique point in history when  the police are investigating this prank with it’s “woman don’t have penises” message.

I know that it is a throwaway piece but are we really at a ‘unique point in history’ with this rather childish prank? The probability is that the Mayor was caught off-guard for a comment and pulled out the stock, ‘I will track them down’ response. I will guarantee that the police have already consigned the whole thing to the square bin marked, ‘under investigation’ and the only official who might be exercised by these antics is probably the Litter Warden, who has to gather up all the evidence before he gets it in the neck from an outraged Mother on a day out at the beach with her children. ‘A unique point in history’ more like a normal day at the office.

 

Reference:The Times, 27/08/18, Carol Midgley, Comment

I like this quote and I think that it should be born in mind every time someone tells you , ” 97% of scientists agree on this”.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. “(Michael Crichton)

 

I was asked for my pet hate recently and came up with so many minor irritations of modern living that I couldn’t make a choice. The point about pet hates is that they must impact personally and cannot be the really big things like Trump, Leo and Brexit over which we have no control. Also, I am pretty sure that I cannot use the word ‘hate’ and have toned it down to ‘dislikes’ in the title. Please don’t judge me on the basis of this list as I am really a nice person.

1. Talking during a performance at the cinema/theatre/concert hall etc. Why? What is so important that it can’t wait until the interval? A major indication of someone who has no respect for others. Suggestions as to how we stop this? (Employing  a sniper is not a solution!)
2. Parking on the line in a multi-storey car park thus taking up two spaces.
3. The word ’emotional’ in all it’s forms used in sports commentary. “Tell me, how do you feel emotionally after training for four years for this race and coming fourth?”. A gold medal to the first athlete who summons up their last reserves and decks the interviewer.
4. Trolleys abandoned in the middle of supermarket aisles whilst the owner drifts around the shop in their own world.
5. Loud music played on the train/back garden/park or, any other open spaces by an individua. Same comment as point 1.
6. Televised pranks played on unsuspecting members of the public. Is it really that funny to humiliate someone going about their business? Would it count as self defense to promote the solution in item 3 (Gold medal in the post. No questions asked)
7. Save us from amateur entertainers, especially singers. There are very few people who can sing in tune unaccompanied but very many who thing that they can.
8. Aggressive drunks. They are not victims. The victims are all those people who have to deal with them or clear up after them. It is time we treated this seriously and really forced them to face the consequences of their lack of control.
9. People who drop litter. For normal people, picking up their litter was something that was drummed into them as soon as they could walk. It is so engrained that I am not sure that I could drop a wrapper in the street even at gunpoint. I just don’t understand and don’t get me started on ‘fly tippers!’.