Tim Atkinson's Blog, page 47
January 31, 2015
Surf safely
If you've got children, and you're living in a typically technology-filled home, then you've got a problem. It's a peculiarly modern problem. And it's a relatively recent problem. But it's potentially one of the biggest problems parents now face.
I use the internet in my work as a matter of course. Most of the research I do is conducted online and I'm used to having a fast, reliable wireless connection. All my devices are synchronised and I can open tabs on my phone or iPad or my Mac interchangeably without copying or sending links. It's a real bonus.
But it comes with its dangers. There are young, nimble-fingered and incredibly adept members of the family who revel in the mysteries of new technology. Shielding them from the internet's less wholesome corners can be a constant problem.
You can forget that password. Or rather, if you do don't worry as your kids will almost certainly know it whether you think they do or not. If you want to prevent the bad and let in the good, you need a filter.
We're with TalkTalk and their HomeSafe filter is among the best there is. It's free to all TalkTalk customers and puts parents in control of what's available on their home wifi network. Through your account settings, you can set a series of restrictions that means certain sites and searches will be censored.
It works, too. Even an innocent search (mine) for the opening hours of a restaurant was blocked because it was deemed to contain references to 'alcohol and drug' products.
Well, you can't be too careful. Rather that than have the kids stumble across something that they're not ready for. I can, if I wish, suspend the filter to gain access to specific sites or just phone directory enquiries to book a table!
But the kids can't un-see what they might find if we're not careful.
That's not all TalkTalk is doing. Last year they were instrumental in the launch of InternetMatters.org - a ground-breaking not-for-profit organisation that gives parents expert advice about online safety issues, such as cyberbullying, inappropriate content and sexting. It helps parents learn about, talk about and deal with issues their children may encounter online. Internet Matters ensure parents have not just the tools, but also the information they need to make informed decisions. Establishing an independent online safety organisation is a big commitment, but it’s an important part of what I feel a responsible ISP should be doing.
TalkTalk is proud to be leading the debate and continues to work hard to ensure its customers maximise the benefits of being online, but have the peace of mind to do it safely.
I use the internet in my work as a matter of course. Most of the research I do is conducted online and I'm used to having a fast, reliable wireless connection. All my devices are synchronised and I can open tabs on my phone or iPad or my Mac interchangeably without copying or sending links. It's a real bonus.
But it comes with its dangers. There are young, nimble-fingered and incredibly adept members of the family who revel in the mysteries of new technology. Shielding them from the internet's less wholesome corners can be a constant problem.
You can forget that password. Or rather, if you do don't worry as your kids will almost certainly know it whether you think they do or not. If you want to prevent the bad and let in the good, you need a filter.
We're with TalkTalk and their HomeSafe filter is among the best there is. It's free to all TalkTalk customers and puts parents in control of what's available on their home wifi network. Through your account settings, you can set a series of restrictions that means certain sites and searches will be censored.
It works, too. Even an innocent search (mine) for the opening hours of a restaurant was blocked because it was deemed to contain references to 'alcohol and drug' products.
Well, you can't be too careful. Rather that than have the kids stumble across something that they're not ready for. I can, if I wish, suspend the filter to gain access to specific sites or just phone directory enquiries to book a table!
But the kids can't un-see what they might find if we're not careful.
That's not all TalkTalk is doing. Last year they were instrumental in the launch of InternetMatters.org - a ground-breaking not-for-profit organisation that gives parents expert advice about online safety issues, such as cyberbullying, inappropriate content and sexting. It helps parents learn about, talk about and deal with issues their children may encounter online. Internet Matters ensure parents have not just the tools, but also the information they need to make informed decisions. Establishing an independent online safety organisation is a big commitment, but it’s an important part of what I feel a responsible ISP should be doing.
TalkTalk is proud to be leading the debate and continues to work hard to ensure its customers maximise the benefits of being online, but have the peace of mind to do it safely.
January 28, 2015
U Star Novels Valentine Giveaway Offer
What do you get for the Valentine who has everything? (After all, they've got you, right?)
Forget roses (twice the price in February), champagne (try sparkling Saumur instead - much nicer and far cheaper) and five star dining. Feed their mind instead. Give them a book. (Stay with me, I'm not plugging any of my own although, ahem, should you wish to buy one or two I'll not stop you...)
But what about a book with your beloved at the centre of the story? U Star Novels has devised the perfect Valentine's gift: customised romance novels. Simply fill in the online order form and you’ll have a Valentine’s Day gift unlike any other.
Stepping into the leading role – your loved one can be the dashing adventurer in an action packed adventure or the damsel in distress in a steamy romance! Or even one of the most well-known romantic heroes from some of the most well-loved classic novels.
All you need to do is upload details like eye and hair colour, workplace, car type, favourite drink etc. and you will be sent your own personalised novel in the mail right in time for Valentine’s Day. Or if you are running late – ebooks are available as well.
I know, right? Sounds better than 50 Shades already! And two lucky readers can get a book for free as I've not one, but TWO codes to give away.
Just leave a comment before next Monday, 4th February, and it could be you!
Good luck!
And Happy Valentines Day!
Forget roses (twice the price in February), champagne (try sparkling Saumur instead - much nicer and far cheaper) and five star dining. Feed their mind instead. Give them a book. (Stay with me, I'm not plugging any of my own although, ahem, should you wish to buy one or two I'll not stop you...)
But what about a book with your beloved at the centre of the story? U Star Novels has devised the perfect Valentine's gift: customised romance novels. Simply fill in the online order form and you’ll have a Valentine’s Day gift unlike any other.
Stepping into the leading role – your loved one can be the dashing adventurer in an action packed adventure or the damsel in distress in a steamy romance! Or even one of the most well-known romantic heroes from some of the most well-loved classic novels.
All you need to do is upload details like eye and hair colour, workplace, car type, favourite drink etc. and you will be sent your own personalised novel in the mail right in time for Valentine’s Day. Or if you are running late – ebooks are available as well.
I know, right? Sounds better than 50 Shades already! And two lucky readers can get a book for free as I've not one, but TWO codes to give away.
Just leave a comment before next Monday, 4th February, and it could be you!
Good luck!
And Happy Valentines Day!
January 24, 2015
Kenwood Smoothie 2GO SB055 Review
How's the New Year's resolution going. You know, the one about healthy eating? Oh dear...
What you need is... Well, at the risk of sounding like Arkwright or even Granville in (Still) Open All Hours, let's cut to the chase. Eating (and drinking) well is great, but time-consuming. Which is where kitchen gadgets like this - the Kenwood Smoothie 2Go - come in.
We were sent one to try by House of Fraser Electricals, and here's how we got on.
Would I recommend it? Absolutely! As you can see, it's child's play.
Just don't let the children do the chopping!
What you need is... Well, at the risk of sounding like Arkwright or even Granville in (Still) Open All Hours, let's cut to the chase. Eating (and drinking) well is great, but time-consuming. Which is where kitchen gadgets like this - the Kenwood Smoothie 2Go - come in.
We were sent one to try by House of Fraser Electricals, and here's how we got on.
Would I recommend it? Absolutely! As you can see, it's child's play.
Just don't let the children do the chopping!
January 20, 2015
Democracy Day
Yes, 750 years ago today a French-born military dictator and hostage-taker (King Henry and his son) summonded what is being called the first English Parliament.
Parliament, there's a French word, coming as it does from the verb parlez - to talk - and boy, do they!
And while we're on the subject, The House of Commons (which is what we're really celebrating today - as Simon de Montfort took the radical step of inviting local worthies as well as Barons and Bishops to parley 750 years ago) wasn't 'common' at all. You wouldn't find any ordinary men (still less, women). But then the term 'commons' doesn't mean common at all but comes from the French (oui) communes, meaning the place where people from the shires came to parley.
I'll get my anorak.
But before I do, and before we all pat ourselves on the back in a typically self-congratulatory manner, here are a few more facts about our English so-called democracy:
1. It costs a fortune.
In spite of the fact that as few as 15% of voters bother, local councillors can claim in excess of £20,000 per annum and qualify for a pension. And for what? No doubt there exist some dynamic, dedicated and effective local authorities out there but I've yet to come across them. And I've experienced a few. In most cases they seem dominated by self-interest, inertia and incompetence. Did I ever tell you how many years I and many others had been pressing our council for parking permits?
2. It's a merry-go-round.
Ok, that's party politics rather than democracy. But if you want an example of the 'all change' every few years philosophy of Westminster, just take a look at education. Changes in the last ten years alone include: a reformed national curriculum (2009) followed by a new national curriculum (2015); sweeping changes to GCSEs (almost annually); Free Schools; Academies; a National Qualification for Head Teachers followed by the abolition of the National Qualification for Head Teachers. I could go on. But it's too depressing.
3. Local, schmocal
Of course, party political meddling isn't just confined to Westminster. Local councils have their share of the yah-boo-sucks if they want it, we don't (in spite of what might be best). Our local council had a party that, a few years ago, really got to grips with traffic problems in the town. (Any surprise that they were Independent?) But once the Tories gained control, what happened?
4. There's too much
You can have too much of a good thing. And I'm convinced we've got too many elected representatives drawing fat expenses cheques (see above). And the problem with electing councils, or parliaments, or talking-shops of any kind is that issues get lost, either because they're too complicated or because our representatives don't think it's sexy enough for them to represent us. Do you know how many MPs voted last year in a debate on autism? 11. Eleven. Out pf 650.
5. It's inefficient.
I'm not saying no democracy, oh no. I'm just saying, less democracy. More ain't always better, fewer elected representatives who can be more easily held accountable and swiftly removed should they get ideas above their station.
Because, in the end, it's the parley that's wrong with Parliament. Too much talking, not enough thinking. Too many debate talked out of time for obscure party reasons; too many votes and speeches made solely by virtue of having (or wanting) to tow the party line. And too little speaking us for us, the people that put the politicians there.
That is, if we voted.
Parliament, there's a French word, coming as it does from the verb parlez - to talk - and boy, do they!
And while we're on the subject, The House of Commons (which is what we're really celebrating today - as Simon de Montfort took the radical step of inviting local worthies as well as Barons and Bishops to parley 750 years ago) wasn't 'common' at all. You wouldn't find any ordinary men (still less, women). But then the term 'commons' doesn't mean common at all but comes from the French (oui) communes, meaning the place where people from the shires came to parley.
I'll get my anorak.
But before I do, and before we all pat ourselves on the back in a typically self-congratulatory manner, here are a few more facts about our English so-called democracy:
1. It costs a fortune.
In spite of the fact that as few as 15% of voters bother, local councillors can claim in excess of £20,000 per annum and qualify for a pension. And for what? No doubt there exist some dynamic, dedicated and effective local authorities out there but I've yet to come across them. And I've experienced a few. In most cases they seem dominated by self-interest, inertia and incompetence. Did I ever tell you how many years I and many others had been pressing our council for parking permits?
2. It's a merry-go-round.
Ok, that's party politics rather than democracy. But if you want an example of the 'all change' every few years philosophy of Westminster, just take a look at education. Changes in the last ten years alone include: a reformed national curriculum (2009) followed by a new national curriculum (2015); sweeping changes to GCSEs (almost annually); Free Schools; Academies; a National Qualification for Head Teachers followed by the abolition of the National Qualification for Head Teachers. I could go on. But it's too depressing.
3. Local, schmocal
Of course, party political meddling isn't just confined to Westminster. Local councils have their share of the yah-boo-sucks if they want it, we don't (in spite of what might be best). Our local council had a party that, a few years ago, really got to grips with traffic problems in the town. (Any surprise that they were Independent?) But once the Tories gained control, what happened?
4. There's too much
You can have too much of a good thing. And I'm convinced we've got too many elected representatives drawing fat expenses cheques (see above). And the problem with electing councils, or parliaments, or talking-shops of any kind is that issues get lost, either because they're too complicated or because our representatives don't think it's sexy enough for them to represent us. Do you know how many MPs voted last year in a debate on autism? 11. Eleven. Out pf 650.
5. It's inefficient.
I'm not saying no democracy, oh no. I'm just saying, less democracy. More ain't always better, fewer elected representatives who can be more easily held accountable and swiftly removed should they get ideas above their station.
Because, in the end, it's the parley that's wrong with Parliament. Too much talking, not enough thinking. Too many debate talked out of time for obscure party reasons; too many votes and speeches made solely by virtue of having (or wanting) to tow the party line. And too little speaking us for us, the people that put the politicians there.
That is, if we voted.
January 16, 2015
Should teacher Stuart Kerner have been spared jail?
What do you think of the 44-year old teacher and his 16 year-old... well, what exactly? Victim? Prey? Stalker? Lover?
If you haven't heard this news story you can read about it here. Basically, a 44 year old man (Stuart Kerner) was spared jail this week despite being found guilty of having sex with the girl, who was a pupil at the school at which he was vice-principal.
The girl was over the age of consent; the sexual activity was thus consensual in every sense of the word. Indeed, according to the judge, she did more than willingly submit. But Kerner was her teacher or a teacher at her school and therefore in a position of trust. And that made what he did a criminal offence.
Almost every secondary teacher of a similar age will know someone like Stuart Kerner. And men - for it is largely male teachers - will often read such cases with a sigh and whisper there-but-for-grace of God go I. It's an occupational hazard.
I can vividly recall an occasion when God's grace was nearly not so bountiful. A girl, fifteen at the time, took to hanging around outside my classroom, found out where I lived and began following me in the street. Nothing came of it. She grew tired, I suppose, and I breathed a sigh of relief.
But there were others - colleagues, friends - for whom it was different. Some of them no doubt wake in the night terrified that one day there will be knock on the door and a warrant for their arrest. There were - and as Kerner shows, still are - some awful abuses of power even if nothing technically illegal (at the time) ever happened.
But in other cases some of these men have marriages and families to show for the mutual love and trust they shared with girls they once taught. Back in the eighties, and before the law added abuse of trust to the charge sheet, teachers did sometimes fall in love with their pupils. Not often, maybe. And not openly. But they did, and such relationships didn't all end in tragedy.
Today, such men would be charged, tried and possibly jailed. Or at the very least, like Kermer, given a suspended sentence and placed on the Sex Offenders register for life together with a life ban from working with children. And in most cases this is an entirely appropriate response. But maybe not all.
There was a tremendous backlash after the sentence was passed. The judge is herself now under investigation for her summing up. It may be a mistake to say (as she did) that the girl as good as 'groomed' the teacher. And although the Attorney General yesterday rejected the call for a review of the sentence - on the rather curious grounds that the offence 'wasn't covered by the unduly lenient sentence scheme' - there are today moves afoot to change that ruling.
Let's be clear about this. A suspended sentence doesn't mean Kerner won't go to prison. Just that he won't provided he does nothing - nothing - to bring him to the attention of the police for the next eighteen months. And he's not 'got away' with anything, in losing career, respect, and possibly his family. And this attempt to shed light on the debate is emphatically not about blaming the victim or excusing criminal behaviour. But crimes are often complex collisions of human passions and demand an individual response and the consideration of unique circumstances - something that appears to be more difficult thanks to knee jerk headline grabbing reactions to what the press more often regard as lenient sentences.
I've this week finished Richard Cole's highly entertaining (not to say eyebrow-raising) autobiography, Fathomless Riches, or How I Went from Pop to Pulpit. Coles descriptions of himself reveal someone more vulnerable and at risk in his twenties and thirties than a great many sixteen year olds are. And what of Stephen Fry and his thirty-year-junior lover and fiancé.
Age, and age-gaps, aren't as obviously important as we assume. The age of consent in sixteen. For the next two years the law further protects girls (and boys) from the predatory advances of those in positions of authority over them.
But not all advances are predatory; not all young people need such protection. And a fair number of those who are older and should know better, might. Before we all jump to conclusions we need to step back and consider things clearly, calmly and with the facts of the matter - the individual matter - before us.
Which is what Judge Joanna Greenberg QC did.
If you haven't heard this news story you can read about it here. Basically, a 44 year old man (Stuart Kerner) was spared jail this week despite being found guilty of having sex with the girl, who was a pupil at the school at which he was vice-principal.
The girl was over the age of consent; the sexual activity was thus consensual in every sense of the word. Indeed, according to the judge, she did more than willingly submit. But Kerner was her teacher or a teacher at her school and therefore in a position of trust. And that made what he did a criminal offence.
Almost every secondary teacher of a similar age will know someone like Stuart Kerner. And men - for it is largely male teachers - will often read such cases with a sigh and whisper there-but-for-grace of God go I. It's an occupational hazard.
I can vividly recall an occasion when God's grace was nearly not so bountiful. A girl, fifteen at the time, took to hanging around outside my classroom, found out where I lived and began following me in the street. Nothing came of it. She grew tired, I suppose, and I breathed a sigh of relief.
But there were others - colleagues, friends - for whom it was different. Some of them no doubt wake in the night terrified that one day there will be knock on the door and a warrant for their arrest. There were - and as Kerner shows, still are - some awful abuses of power even if nothing technically illegal (at the time) ever happened.
But in other cases some of these men have marriages and families to show for the mutual love and trust they shared with girls they once taught. Back in the eighties, and before the law added abuse of trust to the charge sheet, teachers did sometimes fall in love with their pupils. Not often, maybe. And not openly. But they did, and such relationships didn't all end in tragedy.
Today, such men would be charged, tried and possibly jailed. Or at the very least, like Kermer, given a suspended sentence and placed on the Sex Offenders register for life together with a life ban from working with children. And in most cases this is an entirely appropriate response. But maybe not all.
There was a tremendous backlash after the sentence was passed. The judge is herself now under investigation for her summing up. It may be a mistake to say (as she did) that the girl as good as 'groomed' the teacher. And although the Attorney General yesterday rejected the call for a review of the sentence - on the rather curious grounds that the offence 'wasn't covered by the unduly lenient sentence scheme' - there are today moves afoot to change that ruling.
Let's be clear about this. A suspended sentence doesn't mean Kerner won't go to prison. Just that he won't provided he does nothing - nothing - to bring him to the attention of the police for the next eighteen months. And he's not 'got away' with anything, in losing career, respect, and possibly his family. And this attempt to shed light on the debate is emphatically not about blaming the victim or excusing criminal behaviour. But crimes are often complex collisions of human passions and demand an individual response and the consideration of unique circumstances - something that appears to be more difficult thanks to knee jerk headline grabbing reactions to what the press more often regard as lenient sentences.
I've this week finished Richard Cole's highly entertaining (not to say eyebrow-raising) autobiography, Fathomless Riches, or How I Went from Pop to Pulpit. Coles descriptions of himself reveal someone more vulnerable and at risk in his twenties and thirties than a great many sixteen year olds are. And what of Stephen Fry and his thirty-year-junior lover and fiancé.
Age, and age-gaps, aren't as obviously important as we assume. The age of consent in sixteen. For the next two years the law further protects girls (and boys) from the predatory advances of those in positions of authority over them.
But not all advances are predatory; not all young people need such protection. And a fair number of those who are older and should know better, might. Before we all jump to conclusions we need to step back and consider things clearly, calmly and with the facts of the matter - the individual matter - before us.
Which is what Judge Joanna Greenberg QC did.
January 12, 2015
Happy Birthday Ladybird!
It's Happy 100th Birthday, Ladybird! Yes, the iconic children's books are exactly 100 years old today and if, like me, you grew up with these lovely little volumes then that fact can't fail to fill you with a warm glow of nostalgia.
Who can forget Peter and Jane? Personally, the non-fiction titles (Exploring Space; How it works... Television; The Road Makers) were my favourites while my sister went for classic tales re-told: Rapunzel, The Elves and the Shoemaker and The Gingerbread Boy.
Thankfully, my own children still read them: there's a sizeable collection still at Grandma's to add to the ones I seem to have incorporated into my own library over the years. Charlie, when we're away, has a habit of choosing 'Tootles the Taxi' whilst Eloise, I'm pleased to say, is in Disney cold-turkey with a penchant for the aforementioned Rapunzel. Not a tangled hair in sight!
I'm delighted the little gems are still glistening; the simple appeal is timeless even if, at times, the text isn't quite as politically-correct as we'd now expect. And over the years they've inspired their fair share of parody titles. I'm not sure there ever was a Ladybird Book of Hallucinogenic Drugs...
Still less, a Let's Make Bombs...
I rather like the idea of a Ladybird Book of Breasts, though, as well as a Book of Superfluous Facial Hair.
But when all's said and done, the best titles were always above parody anyway. Some years ago my (eldest) daughter bought me a fabulous Ladybird mug complete with an example of the iconic Ladybird art and an extract which purported to be from the Ladybird Book of Cricket.
And until recently, I thought that was parody too. But no, it's there in the original - a time-capsule memory of a moment when such things actually happened. Or if they didn't, when they ought to have done.
Happy Birthday Ladybird!
Who can forget Peter and Jane? Personally, the non-fiction titles (Exploring Space; How it works... Television; The Road Makers) were my favourites while my sister went for classic tales re-told: Rapunzel, The Elves and the Shoemaker and The Gingerbread Boy.
Thankfully, my own children still read them: there's a sizeable collection still at Grandma's to add to the ones I seem to have incorporated into my own library over the years. Charlie, when we're away, has a habit of choosing 'Tootles the Taxi' whilst Eloise, I'm pleased to say, is in Disney cold-turkey with a penchant for the aforementioned Rapunzel. Not a tangled hair in sight!
I'm delighted the little gems are still glistening; the simple appeal is timeless even if, at times, the text isn't quite as politically-correct as we'd now expect. And over the years they've inspired their fair share of parody titles. I'm not sure there ever was a Ladybird Book of Hallucinogenic Drugs...
Still less, a Let's Make Bombs...
I rather like the idea of a Ladybird Book of Breasts, though, as well as a Book of Superfluous Facial Hair.
But when all's said and done, the best titles were always above parody anyway. Some years ago my (eldest) daughter bought me a fabulous Ladybird mug complete with an example of the iconic Ladybird art and an extract which purported to be from the Ladybird Book of Cricket.
And until recently, I thought that was parody too. But no, it's there in the original - a time-capsule memory of a moment when such things actually happened. Or if they didn't, when they ought to have done.
Happy Birthday Ladybird!
January 8, 2015
January 6, 2015
Happy New Jar!
Yes! A happy jar for a happy year. A year focused on happiness and - as Bing Crosby sang - accentuating the positive in each day.
My resolution (should you care) is to have one meat-free day per week. (Much easier, I think, than vague 'cutting down' pledges but that's just my need for specifics.) My daughter, though, surprised me by showing me her 'happy jar' yesterday - namely, a jar in which she has resolved to place a written record of one good thing that has happened each day. Here it is:
At the end of the year, she assures me, she will tip out the jar and read all the entries. And it'll be much better than a diary because it will be one, single, simple and specially chosen moment. And even on the darkest, most depressing day there will be something worth recording. To say nothing of the fact that the very act of selecting and recording something automatically sets you in a more positive frame of mind to begin with. By the end of the year you'd be struggling to limit yourself to just one piece of paper!
The psychology behind such resolutions is interesting. And if you are (interested, that is) you can read more about it here.
Personally, I think I'd struggle to overcome my inner misanthrope, certainly for an entire year. After all, there's something inherently comforting about pessimism, isn't there? If you know you're at rock bottom, then things can't get any worse!
Or is that optimism?
My resolution (should you care) is to have one meat-free day per week. (Much easier, I think, than vague 'cutting down' pledges but that's just my need for specifics.) My daughter, though, surprised me by showing me her 'happy jar' yesterday - namely, a jar in which she has resolved to place a written record of one good thing that has happened each day. Here it is:
At the end of the year, she assures me, she will tip out the jar and read all the entries. And it'll be much better than a diary because it will be one, single, simple and specially chosen moment. And even on the darkest, most depressing day there will be something worth recording. To say nothing of the fact that the very act of selecting and recording something automatically sets you in a more positive frame of mind to begin with. By the end of the year you'd be struggling to limit yourself to just one piece of paper!
The psychology behind such resolutions is interesting. And if you are (interested, that is) you can read more about it here.
Personally, I think I'd struggle to overcome my inner misanthrope, certainly for an entire year. After all, there's something inherently comforting about pessimism, isn't there? If you know you're at rock bottom, then things can't get any worse!
Or is that optimism?
Happy New Year!
No, happy new year. A happy one, focused on the happiness and - as Bing Crosby sang - accentuating the positive in each day.
My resolution (should you care) is to have one meat-free day per week. (Much easier, I think, than vague 'cutting down' pledges but that's just my need for specifics.) My daughter, though, surprised me by showing me her 'happy jar' yesterday - namely, a jar in which she places a written record of one thing to have happened each day. Here it is:
At the end of the year, she assures me, she will tip out the jar and read all the entries. And it'll be much better than a diary because it will be one, single, simple and specially chosen moment. And even on the darkest, most depressing day there will be something worth recording. To say nothing of the fact that the very act of selecting and recording something automatically sets you in a more positive frame of mind to begin with. By the end of the year you'd be struggling to limit yourself to just one piece of paper!
The psychology behind such resolutions is interesting. And if you are (interested, that is) you can read more about it here.
Personally, I think I'd struggle to overcome my inner misanthrope, certainly for an entire year. After all, there's something inherently comforting about pessimism, isn't there? If you know you're at rock bottom, then things can't get any worse!
Or is that optimism?
My resolution (should you care) is to have one meat-free day per week. (Much easier, I think, than vague 'cutting down' pledges but that's just my need for specifics.) My daughter, though, surprised me by showing me her 'happy jar' yesterday - namely, a jar in which she places a written record of one thing to have happened each day. Here it is:
At the end of the year, she assures me, she will tip out the jar and read all the entries. And it'll be much better than a diary because it will be one, single, simple and specially chosen moment. And even on the darkest, most depressing day there will be something worth recording. To say nothing of the fact that the very act of selecting and recording something automatically sets you in a more positive frame of mind to begin with. By the end of the year you'd be struggling to limit yourself to just one piece of paper!
The psychology behind such resolutions is interesting. And if you are (interested, that is) you can read more about it here.
Personally, I think I'd struggle to overcome my inner misanthrope, certainly for an entire year. After all, there's something inherently comforting about pessimism, isn't there? If you know you're at rock bottom, then things can't get any worse!
Or is that optimism?
December 30, 2014
An open letter to a US Citizen
Dear American cousin:
Yet again we here in the old country hear about another gun tragedy. If it's not some nut case running amok in a mall its some kid killing her instructor on the range or - now - a toddler accidentally shooting his own mother.
When will this madness end?
Your right to bear arms is about the same as my right to wear a sword when attending court. In the distant past when your ancestors (and mine) were winning themselves a nation (let's not go into that in too much detail) then I suppose the right to bear arms was an essential survival mechanism and about as necessary, I should imagine, as a supply of clean water.
And I know it's not the object's fault, either. I know a knife is only lethal in the hands of an attacker and a gun only kills when someone shoots it but...Without kitchen knives our cooking would be rather difficult; without guns we could still do most things I imagine, without much trouble. Couldn't we?
I'm no idealist; I realise we can't rid the world of weapons. But we can restrict their numbers and their distribution can't we? And we can do this without infringing anyone's freedom. Let's just think about it in the same way as we do speed limits or drug laws shall we? Quite happy to have freedoms to do potentially harmful things like that curtailed, aren't we? I'm sure it really wouldn't hurt to have a law that limited the ownership and carrying of guns.
And just think of the tragedies it might prevent.
Yet again we here in the old country hear about another gun tragedy. If it's not some nut case running amok in a mall its some kid killing her instructor on the range or - now - a toddler accidentally shooting his own mother.
When will this madness end?
Your right to bear arms is about the same as my right to wear a sword when attending court. In the distant past when your ancestors (and mine) were winning themselves a nation (let's not go into that in too much detail) then I suppose the right to bear arms was an essential survival mechanism and about as necessary, I should imagine, as a supply of clean water.
And I know it's not the object's fault, either. I know a knife is only lethal in the hands of an attacker and a gun only kills when someone shoots it but...Without kitchen knives our cooking would be rather difficult; without guns we could still do most things I imagine, without much trouble. Couldn't we?
I'm no idealist; I realise we can't rid the world of weapons. But we can restrict their numbers and their distribution can't we? And we can do this without infringing anyone's freedom. Let's just think about it in the same way as we do speed limits or drug laws shall we? Quite happy to have freedoms to do potentially harmful things like that curtailed, aren't we? I'm sure it really wouldn't hurt to have a law that limited the ownership and carrying of guns.
And just think of the tragedies it might prevent.
