.....
Looks like N.Korea wants to continue nuclear testing, assuming that it was a nuclear bomb the last time that is....
Anyway, as expected, this has brought on massive reactions of disapproval and anger from the Usual Suspects.
Only thing is, something about it all doesn't seem right to me.
How come the US and the UK (and a couple of others) have the right to decide who can or who can't have nuclear weapons?
OK, I can see the sense of having to govern and manage the ownership and manufacture of Nuclear Weapons but ignoring this and it being North Korea is question, doesn't it seem a bit well, unfair and a little too much like schoolyard bully tactics?
"i've got a nuclear bomb and you don't, so nah nah nanah nah!"
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
misguided money
You must've heard about Madonna's wanting to adopt a new child, yes?
A dear friend of mine pointed out something to me. I have to admit that I hadn't given it much thought because as a rule, I try not to concern myself with the goings on of the rich and famous.
As you know, she is in the process of completing the adoption process of a Malawian boy hat she "found" in an orphanage in the area. On the face of it, this is a noble thing to do; essentially wanting to save the life of a child.
But what about the rest of it?
Firstly, the whole thing might not even be legitimate as there are strict rules that must be followed and conditions that have to be met before a possible parent is granted the permission for the adoption.
Are we supposed to ignore the rules and in some instances LAWS because she is Madonna?
Don't forget that this child isn't without family as his father is still alive.
Ahhhh..... But they say that the child will only be in the Uk with Madonna for a few years and will eventually go home.
Right.
Take a child out of a poor country to live in London (and where-ever else Madonna chooses to live...) for a few years and then at a later age, when the child has grown up to be a healthy individual he can go home back to his family. Can you see that happening?
Now I might be a bit cynical but somehow, I find it hard to believe that a child that is brought up in luxury afforded by Madonna is likely to be willing to go back to Malawi after X number of years.
Is this even the right thing to do?
For a long time, I always wondered why the incredibly rich didn't just give a huge amount of money to the people that need it. When I was older and learned how things work, I realised that them setting up charities and organising events and things that go on beyond themselves is more productive. I mean, spending £200,000 to set up a charity and associated network to run that charity that will go on to continually make money to help is going to be better than simply giving a single cash injection to the cause. Of course, it wouold be better if you also give a huge amount of cash to give it a good start but still, it is long term solutions we should be looking at.
Isn't that what should've happened here?
Instead of adopting a single child, shouldn't Madonna instead seek to rectify the problems faced by ALL of the children at that ophanage?
I mean, as my friend said, wouldn't it even be more preferable to simply give the father the money needed to take care of the child?
A dear friend of mine pointed out something to me. I have to admit that I hadn't given it much thought because as a rule, I try not to concern myself with the goings on of the rich and famous.
As you know, she is in the process of completing the adoption process of a Malawian boy hat she "found" in an orphanage in the area. On the face of it, this is a noble thing to do; essentially wanting to save the life of a child.
But what about the rest of it?
Firstly, the whole thing might not even be legitimate as there are strict rules that must be followed and conditions that have to be met before a possible parent is granted the permission for the adoption.
Are we supposed to ignore the rules and in some instances LAWS because she is Madonna?
Don't forget that this child isn't without family as his father is still alive.
Ahhhh..... But they say that the child will only be in the Uk with Madonna for a few years and will eventually go home.
Right.
Take a child out of a poor country to live in London (and where-ever else Madonna chooses to live...) for a few years and then at a later age, when the child has grown up to be a healthy individual he can go home back to his family. Can you see that happening?
Now I might be a bit cynical but somehow, I find it hard to believe that a child that is brought up in luxury afforded by Madonna is likely to be willing to go back to Malawi after X number of years.
Is this even the right thing to do?
For a long time, I always wondered why the incredibly rich didn't just give a huge amount of money to the people that need it. When I was older and learned how things work, I realised that them setting up charities and organising events and things that go on beyond themselves is more productive. I mean, spending £200,000 to set up a charity and associated network to run that charity that will go on to continually make money to help is going to be better than simply giving a single cash injection to the cause. Of course, it wouold be better if you also give a huge amount of cash to give it a good start but still, it is long term solutions we should be looking at.
Isn't that what should've happened here?
Instead of adopting a single child, shouldn't Madonna instead seek to rectify the problems faced by ALL of the children at that ophanage?
I mean, as my friend said, wouldn't it even be more preferable to simply give the father the money needed to take care of the child?
teach them what...?
You might've missed this but there are plans to give teachers the power to fine children, or more specifically their parents, on the spot for the childs bad behaviour outside of of school.
I am not the only one to think this is one of the most stupid and lazy and responsibilty shirking ideas ever.
Whose resposibilty is it to police the streets? You want the answer? read the question again and what do you see? POLICE OkOk.... smart arses out there will say "actually, no, you don't see police, that's the point" but hold on a minute. Isn't that exactly the point?
Not sure about you but my local area has recently been recruiting more special constables and the presence of real police officers in town has been more noticeable and is in my opinion getting better. I do recognise that the police can't be everywhere but still, should teachers be drafted in to do the work of the police?
Don't teachers have enough responsibilty already?
As it stands, teachers already have a tough job. In schools they are next to powerless to enforce any disciplinary actions and school kids, especially trouble makers just don't have any fear or respect for them. In fact, in a lot of cases, I'm willing to bet my left nut that a lot of teachers are scared of the kids. Knowing this situation, you want to give teachers the added responsiblity of policing and punishing bad behaviour of kids outside of the school?
You have to be a moron not to see that this will only give the children more reason to be disruptive and target teachers with abuse.
And who are you fining anyway?
Slap a £100 fine on a school kid and it is the parents that have to pay. The idea behind this is that it involves the parents in the discpline process and the fine would urge the parents to be more involved in well, "sorting out" their kids.
Unless of course the parents are the same as the kids, in which case you've just made both the parents and children angry at you.
Wonderful.
Great Idea guys.
Keep it up.
I am not the only one to think this is one of the most stupid and lazy and responsibilty shirking ideas ever.
Whose resposibilty is it to police the streets? You want the answer? read the question again and what do you see? POLICE OkOk.... smart arses out there will say "actually, no, you don't see police, that's the point" but hold on a minute. Isn't that exactly the point?
Not sure about you but my local area has recently been recruiting more special constables and the presence of real police officers in town has been more noticeable and is in my opinion getting better. I do recognise that the police can't be everywhere but still, should teachers be drafted in to do the work of the police?
Don't teachers have enough responsibilty already?
As it stands, teachers already have a tough job. In schools they are next to powerless to enforce any disciplinary actions and school kids, especially trouble makers just don't have any fear or respect for them. In fact, in a lot of cases, I'm willing to bet my left nut that a lot of teachers are scared of the kids. Knowing this situation, you want to give teachers the added responsiblity of policing and punishing bad behaviour of kids outside of the school?
You have to be a moron not to see that this will only give the children more reason to be disruptive and target teachers with abuse.
And who are you fining anyway?
Slap a £100 fine on a school kid and it is the parents that have to pay. The idea behind this is that it involves the parents in the discpline process and the fine would urge the parents to be more involved in well, "sorting out" their kids.
Unless of course the parents are the same as the kids, in which case you've just made both the parents and children angry at you.
Wonderful.
Great Idea guys.
Keep it up.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
the trouble with being......... late
who's never been late?
Fact of life is that sometimes, through no fault of your own (except perhaps a bit of naivety on your part) life creates problems that results in you being late for something. But this isn't what I am talking about.
My previous posts touched upon the effects of your timing on other people and this is no different.
Picture the scene:
You arrive at a bar ten minutes early because for once you managed to get on the train you wanted to and before that, the roads were clear so that the bus you were on was left unhindered to go up the high street and around that round-about with no problems. You find a free table and sit down, get comfy and prepare your self to meet and greet your friend. Of course, you were early so you know that you'll have to wait for a moment which is no bother really as you do sort of need to relax after the public transport experience.
5 minutes pass and it is now the meeting time.
Of course, you didn't really expect them to be here on the dot, especially seeing your own early arrival was down to fantastic luck on the travelling so you wait for another 5 minutes.
10 further minutes pass and the bar is getting busier.
Feeling a little guilty you order a drink. After you order, you check your phone and your watch. They might've left a message that you missed or your watch might be wrong. Sitting there taking sips of your drink, you check your phone again. Across the floor of the bar you notice two people who might be looking in your direction. Having finished our first drink, you order a second but was that the best thing to do? Now you look like a person sitting in a bar drinking by themselves.
That couple at the bar are looking at you again.
Is it you they are looking at or is it the table.
Should you get up?
Stay where you are and well, drink by yourself?
It's half an hour now and still nothing.
No message, no phone call, no sign of them.
Is that couple laughing now?
Maybe I should get up and give them the table.
Maybe I should wait outside.
Perhaps they've got the meeting time wrong, or maybe the wrong address.
Check your phone again.
* * *
You think you hear your name and look up.
Finally, it's your friend.
It's over.... everything's ok.
You're not angry because the feeling of relief overtakes eerything else.
As the moment passes you think to yourself, "where the hell were you, why are you late?" but you want to shake off that lonely drinking image as quickly as possible.
It doesn't help that your friend just carries on as if nothing has happened. No apology, no "excuse me", no explantion, they just launch into coversation as if everything's normal.
Was it deliberate?
Was it just bad planning?
Was there an accident during their journey?
How?
Why?
Everything's not OK but you can't exactly bring it up now, can you.
If you do, you've just gone from person drinking by themselves into slightly drunk person shouting at someone. What do you do? Smile and carry on.
What is this person?
Selfish?
Inconsiderate?
Arrogant?
Fact of life is that sometimes, through no fault of your own (except perhaps a bit of naivety on your part) life creates problems that results in you being late for something. But this isn't what I am talking about.
My previous posts touched upon the effects of your timing on other people and this is no different.
Picture the scene:
You arrive at a bar ten minutes early because for once you managed to get on the train you wanted to and before that, the roads were clear so that the bus you were on was left unhindered to go up the high street and around that round-about with no problems. You find a free table and sit down, get comfy and prepare your self to meet and greet your friend. Of course, you were early so you know that you'll have to wait for a moment which is no bother really as you do sort of need to relax after the public transport experience.
5 minutes pass and it is now the meeting time.
Of course, you didn't really expect them to be here on the dot, especially seeing your own early arrival was down to fantastic luck on the travelling so you wait for another 5 minutes.
10 further minutes pass and the bar is getting busier.
Feeling a little guilty you order a drink. After you order, you check your phone and your watch. They might've left a message that you missed or your watch might be wrong. Sitting there taking sips of your drink, you check your phone again. Across the floor of the bar you notice two people who might be looking in your direction. Having finished our first drink, you order a second but was that the best thing to do? Now you look like a person sitting in a bar drinking by themselves.
That couple at the bar are looking at you again.
Is it you they are looking at or is it the table.
Should you get up?
Stay where you are and well, drink by yourself?
It's half an hour now and still nothing.
No message, no phone call, no sign of them.
Is that couple laughing now?
Maybe I should get up and give them the table.
Maybe I should wait outside.
Perhaps they've got the meeting time wrong, or maybe the wrong address.
Check your phone again.
* * *
You think you hear your name and look up.
Finally, it's your friend.
It's over.... everything's ok.
You're not angry because the feeling of relief overtakes eerything else.
As the moment passes you think to yourself, "where the hell were you, why are you late?" but you want to shake off that lonely drinking image as quickly as possible.
It doesn't help that your friend just carries on as if nothing has happened. No apology, no "excuse me", no explantion, they just launch into coversation as if everything's normal.
Was it deliberate?
Was it just bad planning?
Was there an accident during their journey?
How?
Why?
Everything's not OK but you can't exactly bring it up now, can you.
If you do, you've just gone from person drinking by themselves into slightly drunk person shouting at someone. What do you do? Smile and carry on.
What is this person?
Selfish?
Inconsiderate?
Arrogant?
the trouble with being......... on time
you can never really be on time.
it's a fact.
whenever you organise to meet up with someone, you are either going to be early or you are going to be late. The question is on what side of the meeting time you will end up on.
With this in mind, what then is the point of stressing about being early or late?
Isn't this line of thinking then about not inconveniencing the other people instead? After all, usually, if you set a meeting place at a certain time, chances are that place was chosen because it is the most easily accessible to all and not of equal distance/difficulty to get to.
And let's be honest here, being on time is never good enough anyway. Fact is, people would like everyone else to be early so that the evening isn't held up uneccessarily. In that case, why not decide to meet later? Yes sometimes that just isn't possible because of different schedules but in the instances that can be worked around, why not meet with an hour to spare so that
i) those that are not far from meeting point can sit and have a coffee
ii) gives the late people a bigger margin to work in.
that should also remove the occurance of people being late because instead of having a single meeting time, you have a meeting period.
How about the fact that some people will always turn up much earlier than everyone else. Their extra prudence in the time department has meant that they will have to wait much longer than everyone else, especially if there are usually late people. The on-timers of the more sensitive persuasion are now going to be of the mind that they themselves were also late.
Here's where I try and convince you that most of the time I try to be on time. I also have to explain that I am not very good at it. It's not that I don't care if I'm late, it's more that my sense of timing is just crap not to mention that I am seemingly the greatest victim of Sod's Law (see here).
Let's say I have to drive into London. Now I know that the journey takes maybe 45 mins to do casually. Add 15 mins for possible traffic lights and parking issues and an hour is perfectly reasonable in my mind. In fact, I've done the journey in half an hour during rush hour no less so I know an hour is enough time. Sod's Law dictates that when i really need to make a good impression, everything will go out of their way, to get into mine. They decide to close down two of the three lanes of the A13 going into London. They also decide to close one lane of the Blackwall Tunnel to make sure that the tail back from the A12/A14/A406 junction is as long as possible. IT would probably also decide to rain causing more delays and finally, on that day, they'll also want to suspend all of the parking bays in the entire area of where I usually park.
So was I wrong to aim to get there on time?
Should I have allowed extra extra time for, in insurers' terms, "Natural Disasters".
On time doesn't work.
Better aim to be early....
it's a fact.
whenever you organise to meet up with someone, you are either going to be early or you are going to be late. The question is on what side of the meeting time you will end up on.
With this in mind, what then is the point of stressing about being early or late?
Isn't this line of thinking then about not inconveniencing the other people instead? After all, usually, if you set a meeting place at a certain time, chances are that place was chosen because it is the most easily accessible to all and not of equal distance/difficulty to get to.
And let's be honest here, being on time is never good enough anyway. Fact is, people would like everyone else to be early so that the evening isn't held up uneccessarily. In that case, why not decide to meet later? Yes sometimes that just isn't possible because of different schedules but in the instances that can be worked around, why not meet with an hour to spare so that
i) those that are not far from meeting point can sit and have a coffee
ii) gives the late people a bigger margin to work in.
that should also remove the occurance of people being late because instead of having a single meeting time, you have a meeting period.
How about the fact that some people will always turn up much earlier than everyone else. Their extra prudence in the time department has meant that they will have to wait much longer than everyone else, especially if there are usually late people. The on-timers of the more sensitive persuasion are now going to be of the mind that they themselves were also late.
Here's where I try and convince you that most of the time I try to be on time. I also have to explain that I am not very good at it. It's not that I don't care if I'm late, it's more that my sense of timing is just crap not to mention that I am seemingly the greatest victim of Sod's Law (see here).
Let's say I have to drive into London. Now I know that the journey takes maybe 45 mins to do casually. Add 15 mins for possible traffic lights and parking issues and an hour is perfectly reasonable in my mind. In fact, I've done the journey in half an hour during rush hour no less so I know an hour is enough time. Sod's Law dictates that when i really need to make a good impression, everything will go out of their way, to get into mine. They decide to close down two of the three lanes of the A13 going into London. They also decide to close one lane of the Blackwall Tunnel to make sure that the tail back from the A12/A14/A406 junction is as long as possible. IT would probably also decide to rain causing more delays and finally, on that day, they'll also want to suspend all of the parking bays in the entire area of where I usually park.
So was I wrong to aim to get there on time?
Should I have allowed extra extra time for, in insurers' terms, "Natural Disasters".
On time doesn't work.
Better aim to be early....
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
the trouble with being......... early
it is important to be early when you arrange to meet someone; or anyone for that matter. It doesn't matter if it is a causual friend, a work colleague, an informal business meeting or an important interview; early is best.
But how early is early?
If you're going into an interview, the answer is simple especially as usually, they at the office would be the ones who would be expecting you at a certain time. It makes sense for you to be there before this expected time so that you can get physically and mentally comfortable in the strange surroundings and there be more ready for the interview.
But how about when you are meeting a person?
What happens you are meeting a friend at say 7pm at a certain tube stop?
Do you turn up ten minutes beforehand so that you wait for them or do you aim to get there AT 7pm and risk delays and hence, making them wait for you? What if both people decide to turn up 10 minuts earlier? Why not just make the meeting at 6:50 then?
Does 7pm mean 7pm?
Why is 6:50 ok but 7:10 not?
And why go to the bother to be ten minutes earlier? If you turn up early, then you WILL have to wait. What can you do in ten minutes? If you're standing outside a tube station the answer is; not a lot. If you decide to quickly go get a bottle of water you might end up being late despite being early. What if the other party is held up and would be 10 mins late? That 10 minutes has just turned into 20 minutes; that's 1/3 of a hour. What then?
How about if your friend is one who is always on time?
You being early has just made them be "late" compared to you? How would that make them feel? I mean, all through their journey, all was well because they knew they were on time but when they get to the meeting point, there you are already.
If they're in the slightest bit sensitive about these sort of things, you might've just ruined their evening.
Being early isn't all it's cracked up to be.
But how early is early?
If you're going into an interview, the answer is simple especially as usually, they at the office would be the ones who would be expecting you at a certain time. It makes sense for you to be there before this expected time so that you can get physically and mentally comfortable in the strange surroundings and there be more ready for the interview.
But how about when you are meeting a person?
What happens you are meeting a friend at say 7pm at a certain tube stop?
Do you turn up ten minutes beforehand so that you wait for them or do you aim to get there AT 7pm and risk delays and hence, making them wait for you? What if both people decide to turn up 10 minuts earlier? Why not just make the meeting at 6:50 then?
Does 7pm mean 7pm?
Why is 6:50 ok but 7:10 not?
And why go to the bother to be ten minutes earlier? If you turn up early, then you WILL have to wait. What can you do in ten minutes? If you're standing outside a tube station the answer is; not a lot. If you decide to quickly go get a bottle of water you might end up being late despite being early. What if the other party is held up and would be 10 mins late? That 10 minutes has just turned into 20 minutes; that's 1/3 of a hour. What then?
How about if your friend is one who is always on time?
You being early has just made them be "late" compared to you? How would that make them feel? I mean, all through their journey, all was well because they knew they were on time but when they get to the meeting point, there you are already.
If they're in the slightest bit sensitive about these sort of things, you might've just ruined their evening.
Being early isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
