I thought I should start doing a bit of blogging again. As a first brief toe in the water, I just thought I'd say afew words about how much pleasure Twitter has brought me - and is bringing me. If you're really interested in making friends all around the world, it's such a rewarding experience. It does make the sleeping thing rather difficult though. But you can't have everything in life!
Make the effort to go beneath the facade and you'll get to know some delightful people. You do learn how poorly a lovely fascinating woman can be treated on Twitter by guys who hardly deserve the description human being. Always be yourself and never try to deceive for whatever reason. No real friendship, online or in person, can be based on anything but openness and honesty. When mutual trust has been established, so much fun and enjoyment and real friendship can follow.
So Twitter is neither a good nor a bad thing. It's what you make of it. I find it very positive indeed. I'm just glad it wasn't here when I was working. I never would have gotten any work done!
Friday, August 7, 2015
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Twitter - Joys & Pitfalls
I thought it was well past time for another blog. Right? . . . RIGHT?! lol
This one is prompted by my use of Twitter. It gives me news and opinions faster than any TV news channel and keeps me informed of my special interests (eg. West Ham Utd. and the U. of California Golden Bears). And it also keeps me in touch with some friends and acquaintances who either share some of my interests or atleast my sense of humor. Some I've met "in the flesh", in some cases after meeting them online, others only online. It's the latter that will be my subject.
In the past few weeks I've found 2 people to follow - both females, but what's your point? ;-) - who also followed me and with whom I much enjoyed Tweeting. However, the first of them started to comment on Tweets directed to others and then criticised me about some of the people I follow on Twitter. After afew days it became obvious that I had made a big mistake and felt I had to Block her, something I have never done before. All in all it wasn't a pleasant experience.
The second person is quite different - I can definitely tell - and I look forward to an enjoyable and entertaining Twittership (anything's a word now if you use it enough!). She has an imagination - Thank God - but also lives in the real world. It's that combination of grounding in reality plus a mind that soars above the mundane that really is so important to me.
I'm really going to have to be more discriminating in future . . . yeah, right. ;-)
This one is prompted by my use of Twitter. It gives me news and opinions faster than any TV news channel and keeps me informed of my special interests (eg. West Ham Utd. and the U. of California Golden Bears). And it also keeps me in touch with some friends and acquaintances who either share some of my interests or atleast my sense of humor. Some I've met "in the flesh", in some cases after meeting them online, others only online. It's the latter that will be my subject.
In the past few weeks I've found 2 people to follow - both females, but what's your point? ;-) - who also followed me and with whom I much enjoyed Tweeting. However, the first of them started to comment on Tweets directed to others and then criticised me about some of the people I follow on Twitter. After afew days it became obvious that I had made a big mistake and felt I had to Block her, something I have never done before. All in all it wasn't a pleasant experience.
The second person is quite different - I can definitely tell - and I look forward to an enjoyable and entertaining Twittership (anything's a word now if you use it enough!). She has an imagination - Thank God - but also lives in the real world. It's that combination of grounding in reality plus a mind that soars above the mundane that really is so important to me.
I'm really going to have to be more discriminating in future . . . yeah, right. ;-)
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Budgets: Can't live with 'em . . .
So yet another Budget has been announced by the Chancellor. (They don't seem to do Budgets anymore in the States.) The usual spin, counterspin, creative headlines, and endless TV analyses and interviews with "ordinary" people ("Why didn't he even mention [fill in the blank or blanks]") are all good fun. But the truth is Europe is still in recession, and just when you think things may have semistabilized a Cyprus comes along. America is hardly in better shape, with the Fed's QE policies continuing till . . . when?
So the UK doesn't have any support from a buoyant economy elsewhere and cannot either spend much more (loss of credibility/rising cost of government borrowing/inevitable rise in taxation) or cut much more (adding to unemployment/depressing growth/political suicide). Longterm planning is the only effective way to go, but unfortunately the election cycle is now 5 years, not the 10 or so that's probably required to get the Conservatives another term in office. Whether they can scare enough voters about what a Labour or even Lab/Lib coalition would do - as they did successfully in the days of Foot and Kinnock - remains to be seen, but it's doubtful at best.
So the Chancellor is in fact on fundamentally the right course (give or take), but it may prove all for naught when the other side gets in in 2 years' time. Hey ho.
And we could do with some decent weather too!
So the UK doesn't have any support from a buoyant economy elsewhere and cannot either spend much more (loss of credibility/rising cost of government borrowing/inevitable rise in taxation) or cut much more (adding to unemployment/depressing growth/political suicide). Longterm planning is the only effective way to go, but unfortunately the election cycle is now 5 years, not the 10 or so that's probably required to get the Conservatives another term in office. Whether they can scare enough voters about what a Labour or even Lab/Lib coalition would do - as they did successfully in the days of Foot and Kinnock - remains to be seen, but it's doubtful at best.
So the Chancellor is in fact on fundamentally the right course (give or take), but it may prove all for naught when the other side gets in in 2 years' time. Hey ho.
And we could do with some decent weather too!
Friday, January 4, 2013
How about a little perspective?
One thing that seems notably lacking in the reportage of Fiscal Cliff, Deficit level, Unemployment rate, et al. in the U.S. right now is just a modicum of perspective. Well that's what I'm here for.
What is the bigger news: income tax rates going up by 4.6% on individuals earning £200K or couples earning $250K a year . . . or the Bush tax cuts being made permanent for about 99% of the population? Given that these cuts passed in 2003 with just 2 Democratic votes in the Senate and 7 in the House, this looks to me like a huge vindication of the popularity of George W's hard won tax reductions. As to the rises for the top 1%, it is always popular to hit the rich when the economy is in the tank, especially when the bankers had more than a little to do with the collapse in the first place. When the economy recovers - whenever that may be - a Republican administration might be able to reverse or seriously amend them; but nobody's going to raise income tax rates on the 99%. Other taxes are bound to go up - I don't recall the politicians saying much about the fact that the temporary reduction in the Social Security tax rate in 2011/12 from 6.2% to 4.2% has NOT been renewed for 2013 - but income tax rates are likely as high on all levels of income as they're ever going to be. Is this not a major victory for Republican tax cutters, if they only knew it?!
Many conservatives, including myself, have castigated the Obama foreign policy as less than energetic in protecting America's interests - as we see them, of course. But we are apparently prepared to intervene against Syria's WMD, the Patriot Act has been renewed with extra added surveillance, Guantanamo Bay is still open for business, the troop surge in Iraq was repeated in Afghanistan, and drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan, Somalia, etc. are more frequent than ever. The mistakes made in unconditionally encouraging the Arab Spring, regrettable as they were, are gradually being superceded by more realistic policies. So again Bush's policies in this area are now still being pursued in many of their aspects.
Pres. Obama's biggest accomplishment is so-called Obamacare. The rather quirky Supreme Court ruling that ruled it Constitutional and the results of the 2012 elections mean it will never be repealed. However the complexity of the legislation combined with the liberties taken in justifying it's cost mean that before very long significant elements of it will have to be amended to make it more efficient and less expensive for government and the private suppliers of medicines, hospital care, etc. Effective action is unlikely to be possible while the current President is still in office, but I would predict that sometime between 2017 and 2020 this will happen, no matter who wins the next Presidential election.
The upcoming fights over spending "cuts" (really over reining in future increases in spending) and entitlements and tax reform will very likely produce an almost totally Republican/conservative-friendly package at the end, even if it falls short of what they might consider ideal. Given that the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by Democrats/liberals, the idea some conservative zealots have of all or nothing politics is quite baffling. It seems to be more in keeping with rebels against a dictatorship than the political give and take of a representative democracy. One only has to note that the Fiscal Cliff-avoiding deal was only made possible when the negotiations were taken over by the "adults" in the Senate.
So doom and gloom should not be allowed to prevail amongst the ranks of my fellow conservatives. Much has been achieved and more can be achieved in 2013. If they want to achieve more, then maybe putting up mainstream respected - and respectable! - Senate candidates in 2014 against the vulnerable Democrat Class of 2008 might be a good idea.
What is the bigger news: income tax rates going up by 4.6% on individuals earning £200K or couples earning $250K a year . . . or the Bush tax cuts being made permanent for about 99% of the population? Given that these cuts passed in 2003 with just 2 Democratic votes in the Senate and 7 in the House, this looks to me like a huge vindication of the popularity of George W's hard won tax reductions. As to the rises for the top 1%, it is always popular to hit the rich when the economy is in the tank, especially when the bankers had more than a little to do with the collapse in the first place. When the economy recovers - whenever that may be - a Republican administration might be able to reverse or seriously amend them; but nobody's going to raise income tax rates on the 99%. Other taxes are bound to go up - I don't recall the politicians saying much about the fact that the temporary reduction in the Social Security tax rate in 2011/12 from 6.2% to 4.2% has NOT been renewed for 2013 - but income tax rates are likely as high on all levels of income as they're ever going to be. Is this not a major victory for Republican tax cutters, if they only knew it?!
Many conservatives, including myself, have castigated the Obama foreign policy as less than energetic in protecting America's interests - as we see them, of course. But we are apparently prepared to intervene against Syria's WMD, the Patriot Act has been renewed with extra added surveillance, Guantanamo Bay is still open for business, the troop surge in Iraq was repeated in Afghanistan, and drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan, Somalia, etc. are more frequent than ever. The mistakes made in unconditionally encouraging the Arab Spring, regrettable as they were, are gradually being superceded by more realistic policies. So again Bush's policies in this area are now still being pursued in many of their aspects.
Pres. Obama's biggest accomplishment is so-called Obamacare. The rather quirky Supreme Court ruling that ruled it Constitutional and the results of the 2012 elections mean it will never be repealed. However the complexity of the legislation combined with the liberties taken in justifying it's cost mean that before very long significant elements of it will have to be amended to make it more efficient and less expensive for government and the private suppliers of medicines, hospital care, etc. Effective action is unlikely to be possible while the current President is still in office, but I would predict that sometime between 2017 and 2020 this will happen, no matter who wins the next Presidential election.
The upcoming fights over spending "cuts" (really over reining in future increases in spending) and entitlements and tax reform will very likely produce an almost totally Republican/conservative-friendly package at the end, even if it falls short of what they might consider ideal. Given that the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by Democrats/liberals, the idea some conservative zealots have of all or nothing politics is quite baffling. It seems to be more in keeping with rebels against a dictatorship than the political give and take of a representative democracy. One only has to note that the Fiscal Cliff-avoiding deal was only made possible when the negotiations were taken over by the "adults" in the Senate.
So doom and gloom should not be allowed to prevail amongst the ranks of my fellow conservatives. Much has been achieved and more can be achieved in 2013. If they want to achieve more, then maybe putting up mainstream respected - and respectable! - Senate candidates in 2014 against the vulnerable Democrat Class of 2008 might be a good idea.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
This is politics . . .
The issue of Gay marriage has come to the forefront in the U.K. because of The PM's pledge to introduce it into law next year. It's an emotive issue for many, but in the context of my thoughts here it's just an example of what politicians and political parties sometimes feel they have to do, especially when they perceive they're being left behind by public opinion.
When David Cameron became Conservative Party leader, he set about trying to detoxify the Tory brand in the eyes of people who had voted for New Labour under Tony Blair or even the LibDems because they no longer felt comfortable voting Conservative. The Green agenda and the Big Society were among the results. It didn't quite work in the 2010 General Election, and with the economy set to scrape along the bottom through the next election in May 2015 any ballast that can be thrown overboard before then that might keep anyone from voting Tory is being targeted. The Republicans in the U.S. are going to have to do the same sort of thing in regard to immigration policy.
But I think it's very important in both cases to understand that just trying to remove blockages to people voting for your party rather by default is not often enough to achieve victory. Labour will have to come up with positive policies before the next election that amount to more than "We're not Them". Likewise I believe the Conservatives will have to stop circling around the question of EU membership and adopt something like what has been called a Back to the Common Market or Out policy. As for the LibDems . . . I just don't know where they go from here. I imagine they will try to take credit for everything popular the Coalition has done (well, they already do that) and pin the rest on the Tories. But will that work? I doubt it.
Political parties do often stand on principles, but they generally don't like to sink with them. So while I'm personally opposed to homosexual marriage, I fully understand why it's a Conservative PM who is proposing it.
When David Cameron became Conservative Party leader, he set about trying to detoxify the Tory brand in the eyes of people who had voted for New Labour under Tony Blair or even the LibDems because they no longer felt comfortable voting Conservative. The Green agenda and the Big Society were among the results. It didn't quite work in the 2010 General Election, and with the economy set to scrape along the bottom through the next election in May 2015 any ballast that can be thrown overboard before then that might keep anyone from voting Tory is being targeted. The Republicans in the U.S. are going to have to do the same sort of thing in regard to immigration policy.
But I think it's very important in both cases to understand that just trying to remove blockages to people voting for your party rather by default is not often enough to achieve victory. Labour will have to come up with positive policies before the next election that amount to more than "We're not Them". Likewise I believe the Conservatives will have to stop circling around the question of EU membership and adopt something like what has been called a Back to the Common Market or Out policy. As for the LibDems . . . I just don't know where they go from here. I imagine they will try to take credit for everything popular the Coalition has done (well, they already do that) and pin the rest on the Tories. But will that work? I doubt it.
Political parties do often stand on principles, but they generally don't like to sink with them. So while I'm personally opposed to homosexual marriage, I fully understand why it's a Conservative PM who is proposing it.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Things I Hate about TV
I watch a LOT of television - news, sports, drama,. comedy, movies, documentaries, etc. But there are certain things that drive me up the wall, especially on satellite/cable stations.
1) The amount of time given over to commercials, including those for their own programs. Terrestrial TV in the UK either has no ad breaks (BBC) or a strictly limited number. Non-terrestrial stations however have seemingly endless commercial breaks. And they definiutely coordinate when they're on, so you can rarely find a channel that is not also showing ads at the same time. Which brings me to . . .
2) The quite disgraceful content of so many of the ads. Satellite channels are full of ads for "Pay Day" loans (with annual interest rates of thousands of percent), ambulance chasing lawyers ("If we don't win, you pay nothing"), insurance companies and insurance search sites, and currently lawyers wanting you to sign up with them to get back missold PPI (when the best advice is you do this yourself without having to pay a fee to anyone). I can't help thinking of how much money these people must be making off the gullibility and desperation of others.
3) News and sports anchor people who so often say at the end of an interview "We'll have to leave it there". Just say thank you and move on. Also . . .
4) Reporters - or whatever you want to call them - who ask victims of some tragedy "How do you feel . . . " This also goes for asking this question of triumphant sportsmen and women.
5) Endless "reality TV" shows. I quite enjoyed Big Brother in its early years - and made some great new friends of other fans in the process - but later it - and the contestants - became too self aware for it to represent even the semblance of "reality". The Apprentice still hangs on to some credibility, but it's a close run thing. All other of these shows that have appeared since should go into Room 101.
6) Sports announcers who try to make the event they're covering exciting, when we can see perfectly well whether it is or not. Some of them raise their voice in mini-orgasms 50 times a match for 2 or 3 really significant moments only.
7) Documentaries which clutter themselves with irrelevant images and recreations and/or talk down to the viewer. BBC used to be immune from this disease, but it's definitely creeping in.
8) Watching "Civilisation" recently, I noticed again that Lord Clark walked and talked, but NEVER at the same time. Nowadays presenters are forever in motion. It's distracting and completely unnecessary.
9) Newsreaders who end a pre-commercial segment by announcing that "after the break" they'll be talking about something, then don't actually do so until one or two additional commercial breaks have occurred. It's transparently aimed at keeping you watching through as many ads as possible, and I find it disingenuous and very irritating.
10) Lots more that I can't think of at the moment.
But I still love TV, even with all its flaws.
1) The amount of time given over to commercials, including those for their own programs. Terrestrial TV in the UK either has no ad breaks (BBC) or a strictly limited number. Non-terrestrial stations however have seemingly endless commercial breaks. And they definiutely coordinate when they're on, so you can rarely find a channel that is not also showing ads at the same time. Which brings me to . . .
2) The quite disgraceful content of so many of the ads. Satellite channels are full of ads for "Pay Day" loans (with annual interest rates of thousands of percent), ambulance chasing lawyers ("If we don't win, you pay nothing"), insurance companies and insurance search sites, and currently lawyers wanting you to sign up with them to get back missold PPI (when the best advice is you do this yourself without having to pay a fee to anyone). I can't help thinking of how much money these people must be making off the gullibility and desperation of others.
3) News and sports anchor people who so often say at the end of an interview "We'll have to leave it there". Just say thank you and move on. Also . . .
4) Reporters - or whatever you want to call them - who ask victims of some tragedy "How do you feel . . . " This also goes for asking this question of triumphant sportsmen and women.
5) Endless "reality TV" shows. I quite enjoyed Big Brother in its early years - and made some great new friends of other fans in the process - but later it - and the contestants - became too self aware for it to represent even the semblance of "reality". The Apprentice still hangs on to some credibility, but it's a close run thing. All other of these shows that have appeared since should go into Room 101.
6) Sports announcers who try to make the event they're covering exciting, when we can see perfectly well whether it is or not. Some of them raise their voice in mini-orgasms 50 times a match for 2 or 3 really significant moments only.
7) Documentaries which clutter themselves with irrelevant images and recreations and/or talk down to the viewer. BBC used to be immune from this disease, but it's definitely creeping in.
8) Watching "Civilisation" recently, I noticed again that Lord Clark walked and talked, but NEVER at the same time. Nowadays presenters are forever in motion. It's distracting and completely unnecessary.
9) Newsreaders who end a pre-commercial segment by announcing that "after the break" they'll be talking about something, then don't actually do so until one or two additional commercial breaks have occurred. It's transparently aimed at keeping you watching through as many ads as possible, and I find it disingenuous and very irritating.
10) Lots more that I can't think of at the moment.
But I still love TV, even with all its flaws.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
