On a blog without a name » Uncategorized

Knell’s Second Law

Nicholas — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:30:46 +0000

When contentious subjects are being discussed, an individual’s knowledge of the subject under discussion is inversely proportional to their willingness to loudly make authoritative-sounding statements.

To be or not to be

Nicholas — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:19:02 +0000

I have added a poll, which should appear on the left hand side of the page. Please report any problems, including slow page-loading.

Depending in part on the results, as of 1st Jan, this blog may or may not exist.

The battle for births

Nicholas — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:34:54 +0000

In America, it would be unthinkable for a pregnant woman to drink. To be seen doing so in public might even invite hostile comment from perfect strangers, and the absolute rule against drinking is regularly alluded to in American popular culture. Yet in other countries the rule is hardly so absolute. As the BBC notes, women are subjected to many complex, conflicting orders and injunctions during pregnancy – many of them are surely cultural as much as they are medically rational responses to pregnancy. Most of them, of course, call for self-denial, and play on one of mankind’s favourite emotions, guilt. It’s a winning combination, of course.

Who said what when

Nicholas — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:53:53 +0000

The Washington post hardly ever gives context for its stories – in fact, I’ve never seen them put a paragraph like this after a story, until today:

Editor’s Note: How much effort the Bush administration made in going after Osama bin Laden before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, became an issue last week after former president Bill Clinton accused President Bush’s “neocons” and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks. Rice responded in an interview that “what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years.”

The story in question suggests that the Whitehouse may have had a warning about the possibility of the 9/11 attacks that they foolishly did not reveal to the 9/11 commission.

At last, smoking explained

Nicholas — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:35:20 +0000

Not for the first time in its life, Tom and Jerry is the subject of censorship. In the mid-twentieth-century, the target was violence, and the campaign in America led to those rather strange cartoons in which Tom and Jerry were fond friends. I’m grateful to PD for pointing me in the direction of the latest attack on this dangerous genre. It seems that Tom and Jerry is little more than an advertising campaign for smoking. Of course, the historian in me is outraged that the cartoons are to be mutilated. On the basis, according the the Scotsman, of a single complaint. I wonder if AIDS and world hunger can also be solved by editing old cartoons.

The Telegraph also comments on the interesting priorities and moral choices that the move reveals.

And – since is the first post made via wifi in a cafe – PD would like to add the thought that between the jobs for OFCOM investigators, film editors and so on, deciding to edit smoking out of old cartoons keeps quite a few people in work. At tax-payer and consumer expense, of course. But at least somebody is thinking of the children.

An experiment

Nicholas — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:43:29 +0000

As an experiment, I’ve added a “no comment” section, which I shall use to post links and the like upon which I have no real comment to make, but which I think you might find interesting or useful. On the main website, these will appear on the left of the main text – for the moment, I’ve left them to appear in the RSS feed. Feedback welcome.

Silly Season

Nicholas — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:26:08 +0000

Every year the press run a story about who has been “left in charge” while the PM takes a summer holiday. Of course, its barely a story – tolerated by Downing Street, one suspects, because it distracts attention from the fact that the Prime Minister is actually taking a holiday – since in this age of instant, global communication for civilians, let alone governments, the notion that the reins of power are ever truly transferred to anyone is ridiculous. This year the particular spin is a rather brutal comment by a former senior Army officer, though given the material that the Deputy Prime Minister seems to have provided for him to react too, one can’t help feeling that as inevitable as this story is, the DPM has only himself to blame for much of the form.

Reproduced, merely to preserve the venom of the comments, is what Colonel Collins told the BBC. If anyone needs a lesson in why one should never jest about one’s own incompetence, he is advised to study the following carefully:

I have to say that the prospect of John Prescott running the country in the absence of Tony Blair is a prospect that fills me with horror,” he told the BBC’s Daily Politics.

A man who on the BBC last week by his own admission struggles with a paper and pencil, and is incompetent by his own admission with technology, running two complex wars, and a number of other complex issues in the nation leaves me wondering who actually is running the nation.

Is it the civil service behind the scenes? Or… this man who by his own admission is not up to the job?

It does fill me with horror, and I feel sorry for the troops who are deployed at the risk of their lives on his behalf.

The Invasion of Men

Nicholas — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:09:39 +0000

While I have always felt that the intellectual case in favour of St Hilda’s College admitting men was extremely strong, I did not think that I would see that day come nearly so soon. Now that it has, I find the traditionalist in me is fighting my intellect!

More coverage (and a better headline) here.

Test Post

Nicholas — Sun, 14 May 2006 19:08:32 +0000

This is a test post.

First Post

Nicholas — Fri, 12 May 2006 17:15:20 +0000

So there.