I don't think this very unusual for a 40-something without children, but Christmas doesn't mean as much to me as it did when I was 10.
Not the most startling declaration, I agree. The thing with Christmas when you've already had 40 of them (I don't really remember the first 3) is that this time of year seems to just come round so often. As the christmas lights go up in city centres (earlier and earlier, but thats a cheap shot at the commercialism of Christmas which isn't my main point here) I usually shrug them off and promise myself to wait a bit longer.
When the work Christmas events parties start and the Christmas cards start to arrive then I have to conclude that '"Its begining to look a lot like Christmas" - Which is not to say I don't want invitations or cards. Its always good to be remembered after all.
I spend Christmas Day with my family and I enjoy that very much too. I enjoy their company at other times of the year too, so that isn't specifically Christmassy, but as a day, I enjoy Christmas day. I even like roast turkey now (which I didn't when I LOVED christmas as a kid). Present giving and receiving in our family is made easier by the fact that we are all intrepid readers. So its books all round.
A universal problem with Christmas, which I don't feel so badly but I can see in many others, is the overbearing pressure to feel happy. Now I feel happy, or at least not too unhappy, but people close to me are facing unavoidable 'issues' that are going to change the future. The need to celebrate isn't most naturally at the top of our thoughts.
My personal reasons for indifference this year is a feeling of not DESERVING a celebration. Christmas comes round every year whether I've wasted the whole year pulling fluff from my navel, or if I've worked hard enough for three promotions, run an organisation to save the whale or, as is my special ambition, finish two fantastic new publishable novels.
I've done none of those things - I've climbed few more Wainwright fells, read a few novels (one of which was outstanding) and, I hope, been good company to my friends some of the time.
But Christmas comes anyway.
(Oh, it may be true that it would mean more if I let Jesus into my life, but that isn't going to happen)
There is one song that does get close my current Christmas philosophy, and the strange thing is I've known the song for years but last year I was 'awakened' to the words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O_fCs5Buwg&NR=1
Sometimes the words might seem cynical but I think they are spot on about how I feel about Christmas and the memories of how I have experienced Christmas over the years. Most of all I love the turn on the usual christmas card message.. its all very well being Merry at Christmas and Happy in the New Year.. but a Hopeful Christmas? And Brave New Year? And a wish that your road be clear. This means Christmas is just part of the way forward, not an excuse to stop time and wear a paper hat.
So thats why my wish for all my (probably non existent readers) is for your Christmas to be Hopeful and your New Year Brave.
(Lake rather spoils that video by wishing Merry Christmas at the End! But in the other versions I found he looks too young to have the world weary view of the song!)
Monday 21 December 2009
Monday 14 December 2009
When is a wild prejudice OK....?
When its against Ginger haired people, apparantly.
First let me state an interest in Ginge. My hair may have darkened, greyed at the corners and become scarce all over... but my indentitification with the cause is eternal and fringed with pride.
And in that light I read a news story on the BBC website today of a Christmas Card being sold in York carrying the message ""Santa loves all kids. Even ginger ones."
The redheaded mother of three redhead daughters complains to Tescos, who immediatly withdraw it from sale with apologies. The makers of the card refuse to comment. Presumeably someone in their design department mutters something about people not having a sense of humour. 'Political Correctness gone mad' may even get a mention.
The question here, laying aside immediate responses like 'what if ginger had been replaced by black', is why is this card 'funny'.
I was asked this once by a university housemate - not about this particular case of course - but about what I find funny. I still find this difficult to explain. I tend to take this on a case by case basis, but for the sake of this posting I'll need some kind of definition. Funny is about personal foibles, its about something of the unexpected. Clever wordplay and satire come into it to, no doubt.
There is only one 'point' being made by this card - That kids with ginger hair are less lovable for that reason alone. Having a colour hair isn't a foible. There is no word play, and its not particularly surprising either. 'Ginge's' nave been the 'acceptable' target for a while. Satire is about what adults that do that is funny. its not about what children are.
This card wasn't just offensive - It was lazy and unfunny, it promoted laughing at difference for the sake of it.
And yeah, i know this posting hasn't been as light hearted as i usually aim for , but so be it.
First let me state an interest in Ginge. My hair may have darkened, greyed at the corners and become scarce all over... but my indentitification with the cause is eternal and fringed with pride.
And in that light I read a news story on the BBC website today of a Christmas Card being sold in York carrying the message ""Santa loves all kids. Even ginger ones."
The redheaded mother of three redhead daughters complains to Tescos, who immediatly withdraw it from sale with apologies. The makers of the card refuse to comment. Presumeably someone in their design department mutters something about people not having a sense of humour. 'Political Correctness gone mad' may even get a mention.
The question here, laying aside immediate responses like 'what if ginger had been replaced by black', is why is this card 'funny'.
I was asked this once by a university housemate - not about this particular case of course - but about what I find funny. I still find this difficult to explain. I tend to take this on a case by case basis, but for the sake of this posting I'll need some kind of definition. Funny is about personal foibles, its about something of the unexpected. Clever wordplay and satire come into it to, no doubt.
There is only one 'point' being made by this card - That kids with ginger hair are less lovable for that reason alone. Having a colour hair isn't a foible. There is no word play, and its not particularly surprising either. 'Ginge's' nave been the 'acceptable' target for a while. Satire is about what adults that do that is funny. its not about what children are.
This card wasn't just offensive - It was lazy and unfunny, it promoted laughing at difference for the sake of it.
And yeah, i know this posting hasn't been as light hearted as i usually aim for , but so be it.
Friday 11 December 2009
Oh Just shut Up
In the absence of anything else coming to my mind after this week.. here are two 'conversations' I just loathe and will always make me argumentative, or more likely, scarce from the speaker....
"You know I went into bar in Wales, and everyone there just switched into speaking Welsh when they saw me... "
Er, no, they were almost certainly speaking Welsh before you arrived. That's how a small but significant number of people in Wales communicate. And even if it were true, its their conversation so if they don't want you eavesdropping then thats their business and their right. And anyway, its not as if Welsh is a private code. If you want to listen in - and as a would be writer I'm often of this mine - you know, you can actually buy books on the Language in Shops. Even in England.
But silence and retreat is probably the best approach, just to save energy. I suspect many people who will start with this conversational piece are also the sort who think communicating with a foreigner one just needs to speak louder. Or at least their descendents.
"Its not that I mind gay people, but its such a shame they have 'spoilt' such a lovely word like gay'.
Well, no. You can still use the word gay in its original meaning. English is a language of synonyms where context is all. BUT, even if it were so, given the years of persecuation that homosexual people have suffered, if all they ever claim in retribution is one word I suspect we should be thankful - those of us who, by some freak of nature prefer the opposite gender. The French Peasantry asked for more than a few heads.
"You know I went into bar in Wales, and everyone there just switched into speaking Welsh when they saw me... "
Er, no, they were almost certainly speaking Welsh before you arrived. That's how a small but significant number of people in Wales communicate. And even if it were true, its their conversation so if they don't want you eavesdropping then thats their business and their right. And anyway, its not as if Welsh is a private code. If you want to listen in - and as a would be writer I'm often of this mine - you know, you can actually buy books on the Language in Shops. Even in England.
But silence and retreat is probably the best approach, just to save energy. I suspect many people who will start with this conversational piece are also the sort who think communicating with a foreigner one just needs to speak louder. Or at least their descendents.
"Its not that I mind gay people, but its such a shame they have 'spoilt' such a lovely word like gay'.
Well, no. You can still use the word gay in its original meaning. English is a language of synonyms where context is all. BUT, even if it were so, given the years of persecuation that homosexual people have suffered, if all they ever claim in retribution is one word I suspect we should be thankful - those of us who, by some freak of nature prefer the opposite gender. The French Peasantry asked for more than a few heads.
Saturday 5 December 2009
Thoughts on the Knox case
Something that always fascinates me is how some stories become news, and once news, how stories become big news (1). The story I write about here is of the latter category – The murder of an English student abroad was always going to be a mid-broadcast page five type of news item. But is seems this story really took off and arrived on the front page when we learnt that the prime suspect was a beautiful woman with ‘so much to live for’.
I have no comment to make on the guilt or otherwise of Amanda Knox. I've only followed the case at a distance and have been no where near the courtroom, the appropriate place to make a judgement on such matters. My reaction to the trial’s conclusion must have an element of sexism but I doubt I'm alone in that. I do still have this instinct is still to write ‘if the judges are correct’ or ‘if she did really do it’. I'm aware there is an element of sexism/”lookism” in this – I seem to have a pre-conditioning to disbelief that an attractive woman could be capable of an evil act. I never felt the same uncertainty when I heard of the guilt of Rosemary West or just about any male killer.
One piece of evidence given in the reports I found slightly confusing. Knox wrote a short story in which a male character spoke of a ‘chicks desire to be hurt’. If all writers are responsible for the thoughts of their characters the supply of fiction could take a bit of a knock. I can only presume this was not the clinching argument in the case.
I also don’t quite see the need for compensation of €4.4. Its unlikely Knox has such funds. I read somewhere that her parents have to pay, but surely she is an independent adult now and there doesn’t seem to be any suggestions that they were ‘negligent parents’ and this was some kind of factor. On the other side, does £2 million plus ever compenstate for the lost of a beloved daughter anyway? I’d say not.
(1) Newsrooms certainly look for trends – Once one child has been attacked by the family’s pet, this seems to happen three of for times a month. Unless the canine community is able to orchestrate periodic attacks on us, one must conclude a certain amount of unoriginal thought must be at play with journalists
I have no comment to make on the guilt or otherwise of Amanda Knox. I've only followed the case at a distance and have been no where near the courtroom, the appropriate place to make a judgement on such matters. My reaction to the trial’s conclusion must have an element of sexism but I doubt I'm alone in that. I do still have this instinct is still to write ‘if the judges are correct’ or ‘if she did really do it’. I'm aware there is an element of sexism/”lookism” in this – I seem to have a pre-conditioning to disbelief that an attractive woman could be capable of an evil act. I never felt the same uncertainty when I heard of the guilt of Rosemary West or just about any male killer.
One piece of evidence given in the reports I found slightly confusing. Knox wrote a short story in which a male character spoke of a ‘chicks desire to be hurt’. If all writers are responsible for the thoughts of their characters the supply of fiction could take a bit of a knock. I can only presume this was not the clinching argument in the case.
I also don’t quite see the need for compensation of €4.4. Its unlikely Knox has such funds. I read somewhere that her parents have to pay, but surely she is an independent adult now and there doesn’t seem to be any suggestions that they were ‘negligent parents’ and this was some kind of factor. On the other side, does £2 million plus ever compenstate for the lost of a beloved daughter anyway? I’d say not.
(1) Newsrooms certainly look for trends – Once one child has been attacked by the family’s pet, this seems to happen three of for times a month. Unless the canine community is able to orchestrate periodic attacks on us, one must conclude a certain amount of unoriginal thought must be at play with journalists
Friday 4 December 2009
Geeky time again!
I'm geeky about a few things. I don't think I'm generally geeky, though I guess these things are relative.
But I am geeky about draws for big international competions; a winning combination of football, geography, and, well combinations. And people taking something very seriously that could easily be organised in a back room somewhere. When I was younger I was fascinated by the disperate approach of the FA cup draw - three elderly adminsterators with a velvet bag in a commitee room - to the World Cup Finals, all pomp and ceremony with rules so complex that no one in the room really understands them. The team names sign would fall off, nearly decappitating the small boys who always seemed to get a starring role - which of course I wanted. And half way through someone would realise that Scotland had been given too easy a draw and they would all have to start again.
These days the cup draws are more televisual, using rejects from the National Lottery Machine design competition, and a compere who always has to make a quip about each team, also in a rather National Lottery way (So Hartlepool will play Rochdale, their third appearance in the second round draw since 1958).
The world cup draw format is much the same as always, but the technology has improved and this year at least the rules were not TOO complicated. At least I could understand them, so could the organisers. Not sure Charlize Theron did, but she did flirt quite charmingly with everyone.
The end result is a four by eight combination of thrirty two country names, and that I have usually memorised within the hour.
Did anyone mention geek?
But I am geeky about draws for big international competions; a winning combination of football, geography, and, well combinations. And people taking something very seriously that could easily be organised in a back room somewhere. When I was younger I was fascinated by the disperate approach of the FA cup draw - three elderly adminsterators with a velvet bag in a commitee room - to the World Cup Finals, all pomp and ceremony with rules so complex that no one in the room really understands them. The team names sign would fall off, nearly decappitating the small boys who always seemed to get a starring role - which of course I wanted. And half way through someone would realise that Scotland had been given too easy a draw and they would all have to start again.
These days the cup draws are more televisual, using rejects from the National Lottery Machine design competition, and a compere who always has to make a quip about each team, also in a rather National Lottery way (So Hartlepool will play Rochdale, their third appearance in the second round draw since 1958).
The world cup draw format is much the same as always, but the technology has improved and this year at least the rules were not TOO complicated. At least I could understand them, so could the organisers. Not sure Charlize Theron did, but she did flirt quite charmingly with everyone.
The end result is a four by eight combination of thrirty two country names, and that I have usually memorised within the hour.
Did anyone mention geek?
Thursday 3 December 2009
A series of e-mails are hacked from a Science department at the University of East Anglia, and now all the people who make claims against ‘Climate Change’ can truly believe that they have ‘them’ on the run.
I’d heard something of the ‘story’ but first became aware that the topic was ‘hot news’ while watching Question Time last week. Here is a remarkable co-incidence – or a conspiracy even (1) - that Melanie Phillips should have been booked to appear on QT the week this story broke. The woman who is number three in George Monbiot’s top ten Climate Change Deniers given such an opportunity to let rip (2)
Actually that was something she wasn’t happy about. Being described as a ‘Denier’. She said this made comparison with Holocaust deniers. Now I write as an ‘Existence of God’ denier and an ‘Aliens live among us’ denier. I freely own up to both. I would say that all four things are connected only by denial (They just make a varying degree of sense.) That’s not an uncommon rhetorical devise - Make out that a description is just like another that is ‘worse’ means the initial description should never have been made. Its still baloney of course.
To me there is always a piece missing in the central theory of Phillipsism (in case she ever reads this I’d better stick to a safe albeit invented term). There is a basic truth that isn’t mentioned. The theory is all these scientists have a self interest in keeping the ‘Climate Change Myth’ going. Their grants depend on it, the argument goes. This line of thought conveniently ignores the fact that grants are available to take the counter argument - from oil companies, to the obvious example – that far exceed what governments are likely to pay out.
But let’s forget grants. Climate change is in nobody’s interests. Scientists, me, and you all love guzzling fuel, switching on lights, watching TV, heating our homes, taking cheap flights. Why invent a theory that stops one living the ‘modern high life’? (Of course I've heard the line that scientists came up with the theory so they could take all the cheap flights but unless someone comments on my blog to the contrary I can’t really find the enthusiasm for countering that)
Of course, governments have jumped enthusiastically on the Climate Change bandwagon because it gives them the perfect excuse to tax us more.
Except, of course, they haven’t. It’s taken more than forty years to reach the current consensus that something must be done, and that has only been possible since GW Bush left the Whitehouse. The psephological truism is that no government can be elected in a Western Democracy on a platform of more taxes. I know that well enough, as the member of a party often called ‘honourable’ for attempting the reverse(3). If there was the credible scientific research out there that Climate Change theory is a scam, then the modern democratic politician would be seeking it out. That there is a growing consensus amongst them that Climate change science is on to something is what I’d describe as ‘suggestive’
So, there is the psychological, psephological, motivational line of reasoning for why I don’t doubt that ‘Inconvenient truth’
And that’s even before I've started on the Science!
(1) Assuming Phillips wasn't a late addition to the panal given the news to discuss. Do the BBC do that?
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10
(3) Remember 1p on Income tax for Education? Or 50% top rate of tax? Both positions I wholeheartedly supported by the way.
I’d heard something of the ‘story’ but first became aware that the topic was ‘hot news’ while watching Question Time last week. Here is a remarkable co-incidence – or a conspiracy even (1) - that Melanie Phillips should have been booked to appear on QT the week this story broke. The woman who is number three in George Monbiot’s top ten Climate Change Deniers given such an opportunity to let rip (2)
Actually that was something she wasn’t happy about. Being described as a ‘Denier’. She said this made comparison with Holocaust deniers. Now I write as an ‘Existence of God’ denier and an ‘Aliens live among us’ denier. I freely own up to both. I would say that all four things are connected only by denial (They just make a varying degree of sense.) That’s not an uncommon rhetorical devise - Make out that a description is just like another that is ‘worse’ means the initial description should never have been made. Its still baloney of course.
To me there is always a piece missing in the central theory of Phillipsism (in case she ever reads this I’d better stick to a safe albeit invented term). There is a basic truth that isn’t mentioned. The theory is all these scientists have a self interest in keeping the ‘Climate Change Myth’ going. Their grants depend on it, the argument goes. This line of thought conveniently ignores the fact that grants are available to take the counter argument - from oil companies, to the obvious example – that far exceed what governments are likely to pay out.
But let’s forget grants. Climate change is in nobody’s interests. Scientists, me, and you all love guzzling fuel, switching on lights, watching TV, heating our homes, taking cheap flights. Why invent a theory that stops one living the ‘modern high life’? (Of course I've heard the line that scientists came up with the theory so they could take all the cheap flights but unless someone comments on my blog to the contrary I can’t really find the enthusiasm for countering that)
Of course, governments have jumped enthusiastically on the Climate Change bandwagon because it gives them the perfect excuse to tax us more.
Except, of course, they haven’t. It’s taken more than forty years to reach the current consensus that something must be done, and that has only been possible since GW Bush left the Whitehouse. The psephological truism is that no government can be elected in a Western Democracy on a platform of more taxes. I know that well enough, as the member of a party often called ‘honourable’ for attempting the reverse(3). If there was the credible scientific research out there that Climate Change theory is a scam, then the modern democratic politician would be seeking it out. That there is a growing consensus amongst them that Climate change science is on to something is what I’d describe as ‘suggestive’
So, there is the psychological, psephological, motivational line of reasoning for why I don’t doubt that ‘Inconvenient truth’
And that’s even before I've started on the Science!
(1) Assuming Phillips wasn't a late addition to the panal given the news to discuss. Do the BBC do that?
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10
(3) Remember 1p on Income tax for Education? Or 50% top rate of tax? Both positions I wholeheartedly supported by the way.
West Country Diary - The Wrap up
Calling a halt on the west Country diary now.. this blog wasn’t meant to be a postcard from anywhere and with said holiday now more than a week in the past my enthusiasm for recalling it is fast diminishing…..
So in three easy pieces. In Bristol
Good – playing balloon with Bethan and visiting old friends
Bad – a 1-2 reverse to Bristol Rovers
Interesting – A tour of Artisits homes in the suburb of Totterdown
In Wells/Glastonbury
Good – The climb up the Tor
Bad – The weather
And a restless day in Bath where I couldn’t really settle to do anything and found myself in a museum of Far Eastern Art which was kinda interesting something I wouldn’t normally do. In the evening I saw Lloyd Cole play. which will be reviewed in full later. The following morning I ate a lot – and enough to mean didn’t need to eat until 3pm – of French toast
Only one of these three activities was planned.
So in three easy pieces. In Bristol
Good – playing balloon with Bethan and visiting old friends
Bad – a 1-2 reverse to Bristol Rovers
Interesting – A tour of Artisits homes in the suburb of Totterdown
In Wells/Glastonbury
Good – The climb up the Tor
Bad – The weather
And a restless day in Bath where I couldn’t really settle to do anything and found myself in a museum of Far Eastern Art which was kinda interesting something I wouldn’t normally do. In the evening I saw Lloyd Cole play. which will be reviewed in full later. The following morning I ate a lot – and enough to mean didn’t need to eat until 3pm – of French toast
Only one of these three activities was planned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)