M'colleague doesn't sound to have enjoyed 2006 so much. I've had a ball.
I've had 4 jobs during the year, which is pretty unusual for a quadragenarian I'm sure. Oh yes and I turned 40 and moved house. Quite a lot of high-stress activities and the only damage seems to have been to my waistline. I even gave up biting my nails.
I started this blog to fill the dead time between the end of the Channel4 News and the unconsciousness on work-days away from home. Can't believe it's still going. Even if the readership has averaged just over 1.0 it's been worthwhile. Cheers to my world-weary ex-co-worker for keeping the posts rolling along.
Maybe I'll bore you (and make God laugh) with my hopes for 2007 later, but meanwhile I need to go cook chicken.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
Year-End Payback
One item today reminded me of a posting I made last month.
Within the next few days, the UK will pay the final installment on the almost-interest-free loan that stopped my grandparents' generation from starving to death after World War 2.
The idea of solving a war with a big wad of cash seems more appealing than getting stuck in it yourself. In fact the US are masters of the art - Contras in Nicaragua, for example.
Maybe someone American could explain whether there's a law against that kind of things these days.
Not a perfect parallel I'd agree - the US hardly fought WW2 at arms-length. I'm not forgetting the 300,000 or so US soldiers who died in the same war. But contrast with the 25 million Soviets who died and proxy wars start to make some kind of sense.
Oh - and any Americans reading this - please pass on my thanks to your grandparents. And I hope you spend the repayment money on something useful.
Within the next few days, the UK will pay the final installment on the almost-interest-free loan that stopped my grandparents' generation from starving to death after World War 2.
The idea of solving a war with a big wad of cash seems more appealing than getting stuck in it yourself. In fact the US are masters of the art - Contras in Nicaragua, for example.
Maybe someone American could explain whether there's a law against that kind of things these days.
Not a perfect parallel I'd agree - the US hardly fought WW2 at arms-length. I'm not forgetting the 300,000 or so US soldiers who died in the same war. But contrast with the 25 million Soviets who died and proxy wars start to make some kind of sense.
Oh - and any Americans reading this - please pass on my thanks to your grandparents. And I hope you spend the repayment money on something useful.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Sad-damned
I have mixed feelings about Saddam's imminent demise.
On the one hand, no-one can argue with a serious face that the man is a first class monster. His crimes against his own people are on a moral magnitude with Hitler's. His war-waging with Iran and the classic annexation of Kuwait were bordering on lunacy. So, we exterminate him, yes?
Well, do we? It has long been apparent that Iraq is not capable of healing itself. Does his execution quell his supporters? Simple answer: no. As with any despotic regime, there are the next generation of despots sat in little despot green-houses being fed and watered ready for the opportunity to become Head Despot, through fair means or foul -- usually the latter. His death or where he is killed will probably not be announced until the deed is done to avoid any further insurgency.
Incidentally, I love that the word insurgent is a universally embraced term for utter balmpots. Six years ago, only crossword buffs like Stan and I had ever heard that word. Now, it's bar-room de riguer in any political discussion. Funny how we don't have insurgents here, just terrorists. There's a subtlety in nomenclature that should not be ignored for those of us with a lexicalogical bent.
Back on topic, insurgents will continue to insurge whether the moonbat EU gets its stay of execution or indeed the sentence is commuted to life. Uncle Sam will argue it sends a message to those who would aspire to fill his shoes, just as he argues that state-sponsored execution is a deterrent to wouldbe murderers -- and we all know that is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.
Somewhere in the middle lies the right thing to do. But I'll be buggered if I know where. I would hate to be in the shoes of the person who finally makes a decision on this, for they will be recorded in history whichever way they sway and will be damned by 50% of the future for certain.
Don't misunderstand the point I'm making here. If you go out and kill 5 girls in Ipswich, I have no trouble in frying your arse. This is a moral dilemma in context; it's not one man, it's a nation.
On the one hand, no-one can argue with a serious face that the man is a first class monster. His crimes against his own people are on a moral magnitude with Hitler's. His war-waging with Iran and the classic annexation of Kuwait were bordering on lunacy. So, we exterminate him, yes?
Well, do we? It has long been apparent that Iraq is not capable of healing itself. Does his execution quell his supporters? Simple answer: no. As with any despotic regime, there are the next generation of despots sat in little despot green-houses being fed and watered ready for the opportunity to become Head Despot, through fair means or foul -- usually the latter. His death or where he is killed will probably not be announced until the deed is done to avoid any further insurgency.
Incidentally, I love that the word insurgent is a universally embraced term for utter balmpots. Six years ago, only crossword buffs like Stan and I had ever heard that word. Now, it's bar-room de riguer in any political discussion. Funny how we don't have insurgents here, just terrorists. There's a subtlety in nomenclature that should not be ignored for those of us with a lexicalogical bent.
Back on topic, insurgents will continue to insurge whether the moonbat EU gets its stay of execution or indeed the sentence is commuted to life. Uncle Sam will argue it sends a message to those who would aspire to fill his shoes, just as he argues that state-sponsored execution is a deterrent to wouldbe murderers -- and we all know that is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.
Somewhere in the middle lies the right thing to do. But I'll be buggered if I know where. I would hate to be in the shoes of the person who finally makes a decision on this, for they will be recorded in history whichever way they sway and will be damned by 50% of the future for certain.
Don't misunderstand the point I'm making here. If you go out and kill 5 girls in Ipswich, I have no trouble in frying your arse. This is a moral dilemma in context; it's not one man, it's a nation.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Absolutists United
The Polish Parliament would like to crown Jesus as the next King of Poland. A wonderful story that saves me commenting on Organised Religion and Monarchy in two separate posts.
I'm imagining the reactions of a few people :-
(a) A Polish businessman trying to sell the idea of Poland as a modern, approachable place to do business.
(b) An Iranian politician
(c) A Jew in Warsaw
If I were a Christian (which I am not) I would probably take offense to Jesus being demoted from his position as Saviour of the World to being merely King of Poland.
If I were a Monarchist (which I am not) I would prefer a living, breathing human King/Queen who could veto Laws, greet foreign visitors and open bridges.
As a Republican and an Atheist I'm looking forward to seeing how this whole mess comes out.
I'm imagining the reactions of a few people :-
(a) A Polish businessman trying to sell the idea of Poland as a modern, approachable place to do business.
"Kurwa!! They're making us look like a bunch of extremists stuck in the 16th century !!"
(b) An Iranian politician
"Aiiiieeee !!! Why didn't we think of this first. Quick - let's make Mohammed (may his name be blessed) the Sheik of Iran !"
(c) A Jew in Warsaw
"Oy Vay ! Here we go again"
If I were a Christian (which I am not) I would probably take offense to Jesus being demoted from his position as Saviour of the World to being merely King of Poland.
If I were a Monarchist (which I am not) I would prefer a living, breathing human King/Queen who could veto Laws, greet foreign visitors and open bridges.
As a Republican and an Atheist I'm looking forward to seeing how this whole mess comes out.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Stan's Army
Is there anything our government is any good at ?
Yesterday I described their inability to handle education. In the past I've described their inability to protect our armed forces. Here we go again ...
This is incompetence worthy of Frank Spencer. And then for want of £167 of body armour, this man died.
Here's what would happen in my army (should anyone give me one for Christmas perhaps):-
(1) Stan's army is never deployed unless we outnumber the opposition 10 to 1.
(2) All front-line troops get all the kit they want. If Stan can't afford it, Stan's army stays home.
(3) Stan's army is only ever deployed for a week at a time. Every deployment is reviewed every week. If there's insufficient gratitude for the work done by Stan's army, then Stan's army come home.
Yesterday I described their inability to handle education. In the past I've described their inability to protect our armed forces. Here we go again ...
An Army Board of Inquiry into his death found that the pistol he tried to shoot the Iraqi with failed and he was shot by a comrade in a tank who was trying to protect him but did not know his high-powered machine gun was inaccurate at short range.
This is incompetence worthy of Frank Spencer. And then for want of £167 of body armour, this man died.
Here's what would happen in my army (should anyone give me one for Christmas perhaps):-
(1) Stan's army is never deployed unless we outnumber the opposition 10 to 1.
(2) All front-line troops get all the kit they want. If Stan can't afford it, Stan's army stays home.
(3) Stan's army is only ever deployed for a week at a time. Every deployment is reviewed every week. If there's insufficient gratitude for the work done by Stan's army, then Stan's army come home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)