I am starting to assemble a gallery of ludicrous opening sentences in Guardian "Comment is free" blogs.
There was Iain Dale starting his article with a completely invented word - "condundra".
Then there was Ed Vaizey talking about Blair's "gradual defenestration" in his first clause. I am still trying to imagine someone being chucked out of a window gradually.
But Christopher Hitchens today takes the absolute biscuit for "Comment is free" opening sentence blunders.
In fact, "blunder" is too light a term to describe it. "Limited catastrophe" might be more appropriate. First, he makes the basic mistake of calling the Liberal Democrats the "Liberal Democratic party". Then he writes an outrageous statement. "What statement?" - you might well ask. Well, I am not going to repeat it. I like to sleep at night.
Somewhere in the chambers of Sue, Grabbit and Runne I suspect a lawyer is working later than usual for a Friday afternoon.
17:06 update - someone in the Guardian corrected the outrageous sentence referred to above as my blog posting whirled around the internet. If you want to read what was originally written, Stephen Tall, bless him, has been bold enough to quote it on his blog. I notice that the Guardian have also removed a comment at the bottom of Hitchens' posting, which repeated the offending sentence. They have replaced the comment with this remark:
"This comment repeated - and took issue with - a factual error from the original post. It has been removed by CiF administrators following advice from our legal team."
So, even if someone at Sue, Grabbit and Runne wasn't having a late Friday afternoon, it appears that our learned friends in the Guardian were!
Friday, September 8, 2006
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Blair: Even the kids are revolting
Tony Blair has chosen audiences of school children to whom to make major announcements on at least two previous occasions. One was the launch of his last general election campaign.
The idea seemed to be that if you want a meek and mild audience with that extra splash of "they are the future, not you old gits" then go to a school. And, indeed, the school children sat, rather bemused, while our Tone went on about "NuLabor".
However, it is a sign of the expiry of His Toneships' "use by date" that now, even the school children are revolting and he was greeted today with protesting schoolchildren with placards saying "Go".
The idea seemed to be that if you want a meek and mild audience with that extra splash of "they are the future, not you old gits" then go to a school. And, indeed, the school children sat, rather bemused, while our Tone went on about "NuLabor".
However, it is a sign of the expiry of His Toneships' "use by date" that now, even the school children are revolting and he was greeted today with protesting schoolchildren with placards saying "Go".
Is Brown any good?
I hope for the sake of our sanity that we do not hear any more ridiculous nonsense about when Blair is going to go - now that he has made an announcement. (It was nice for him to apologise for the recent ruccus though. And how is it that all his major announcements are made in front of a audience of bemused school children?) The full text is here.
If Gordon Brown makes any more mischief about it, or allows anyone within his "camp" to do so, then it proves he is not fit to hold the office of Prime Minister. It is quite right for Blair not to name a date now. After all, Bush might ask him to help him invade Iran next year and he can't handover to Brown while that is going on can he? Seriously, he has said clearly that this month's conference speech will be his last. It would childish for there to be any more speculation and debate. I realise that people like Jeremy Corbyn will never be happy and that all the recent internal debate in the Labour party has been good for the LibDems. But it really would be silly to have any more controversy over which month next year he goes.
When you add all this recent "Blair date" nonsense to all the rigmarole and pain over Thatcher's exit and the elongated Churchill/Eden handover charade then two things become clear:
-The Prime Minister of this country should be directly elected
-The Prime Minister should have fixed terms
The government could then get on with the small matter of running the country without such distractions. After all, no human being should be in office as leader of a country for more than ten years. It is ridiculous to try to go on for longer. The US constitution, once again, is proved to be one of the the wisest documents in history with its fixed terms and direct elections (albeit via an electoral college) for the President.
As for Brown, he is going to have a lot of tricks up his sleeve to dig the Labour party out of its current mess. I can't see him doing it myself. He has been a reasonably good Chancellor. But he has to turn on his smile rather like someone wiring up an ageing generator to one of Edison's original light bulbs. It doesn't come naturally to him.
If Gordon Brown makes any more mischief about it, or allows anyone within his "camp" to do so, then it proves he is not fit to hold the office of Prime Minister. It is quite right for Blair not to name a date now. After all, Bush might ask him to help him invade Iran next year and he can't handover to Brown while that is going on can he? Seriously, he has said clearly that this month's conference speech will be his last. It would childish for there to be any more speculation and debate. I realise that people like Jeremy Corbyn will never be happy and that all the recent internal debate in the Labour party has been good for the LibDems. But it really would be silly to have any more controversy over which month next year he goes.
When you add all this recent "Blair date" nonsense to all the rigmarole and pain over Thatcher's exit and the elongated Churchill/Eden handover charade then two things become clear:
-The Prime Minister of this country should be directly elected
-The Prime Minister should have fixed terms
The government could then get on with the small matter of running the country without such distractions. After all, no human being should be in office as leader of a country for more than ten years. It is ridiculous to try to go on for longer. The US constitution, once again, is proved to be one of the the wisest documents in history with its fixed terms and direct elections (albeit via an electoral college) for the President.
As for Brown, he is going to have a lot of tricks up his sleeve to dig the Labour party out of its current mess. I can't see him doing it myself. He has been a reasonably good Chancellor. But he has to turn on his smile rather like someone wiring up an ageing generator to one of Edison's original light bulbs. It doesn't come naturally to him.
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
"The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January"
So says Amendment XX, dated 1933, to the US Constitution. Wouldn't that be handy over here? The actual hour on the actual date at which each President expires is dictated by the Constitution. No messing around and briefing journalists to wrench the hands of the PM from the doorhandle of his office. It all happens with no debate at all.
The argument is often repeated that if Tony Blair announced a date for his departure, he would turn himself into a lame duck.
I have not often heard this obvious rubbish disputed.
Firstly, what is he now if he is not a lame duck? Take his recent announcement about helping families who are "at risk of producing" troublesome kids. In fact several NGO chiefs have broadly welcomed this proposal. However, it has been drowned out by derision and references to "eugenics" simply because it comes from Tony Blair. It is seen as a blatant attempt to detract attention from the debate over his "use by" date.
Secondly, the whole USA public and the entire world know when the US President will leave office. Yes, this does make the office holder something of a lame duck but you can also argue that much of the statesperson-like work by Presidents is done in the last year or so of office.
Also, look at Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. They were churning out presidnetial orders in their last few days of office like ice creams being handed out on a hot summer's day. Kerby Anderson comments:
President Clinton followed in the tradition of President Carter in putting out a rash of executive orders during his last few months in office. Just on Jimmy Carter's last day in office alone, the Federal Register (a daily summation of new rules for the executive branch) was three times its normal size. The regulations drafted by President Carter and numerous lame-duck regulators earned the nickname: midnight regulations. By the time all the dust settled, it was estimated that President Carter added about 24,500 pages of last-minute regulations. President Clinton surpassed that record with over 30,000 pages of new regulations in the last 90 days.
The argument is often repeated that if Tony Blair announced a date for his departure, he would turn himself into a lame duck.
I have not often heard this obvious rubbish disputed.
Firstly, what is he now if he is not a lame duck? Take his recent announcement about helping families who are "at risk of producing" troublesome kids. In fact several NGO chiefs have broadly welcomed this proposal. However, it has been drowned out by derision and references to "eugenics" simply because it comes from Tony Blair. It is seen as a blatant attempt to detract attention from the debate over his "use by" date.
Secondly, the whole USA public and the entire world know when the US President will leave office. Yes, this does make the office holder something of a lame duck but you can also argue that much of the statesperson-like work by Presidents is done in the last year or so of office.
Also, look at Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. They were churning out presidnetial orders in their last few days of office like ice creams being handed out on a hot summer's day. Kerby Anderson comments:
President Clinton followed in the tradition of President Carter in putting out a rash of executive orders during his last few months in office. Just on Jimmy Carter's last day in office alone, the Federal Register (a daily summation of new rules for the executive branch) was three times its normal size. The regulations drafted by President Carter and numerous lame-duck regulators earned the nickname: midnight regulations. By the time all the dust settled, it was estimated that President Carter added about 24,500 pages of last-minute regulations. President Clinton surpassed that record with over 30,000 pages of new regulations in the last 90 days.
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
Glee club "Charlie is pissed again" song in Guardian
John Hemming follows a few days after Femme de Resistance in highlighting the classic song "Over the sea to Skye" from the Liberator Songbook which ends "Charlie is pissed again". The words were written by Stuart Callison.
As John comments, this song is a very effective rebuttal against the accusation that the party covered up Charlie's drinking. It first featured in the songbook, after all, soon after the 1987 merger. It was sung with great relish at umpteen conference glee clubs in the presence of the press since then. The songbook has been sold on the internet and in "Politicos" at the conference.
And it is an excellent song, I have to say.
Seeking a larger audience for this nugget, beyond the blogosphere, I sent it to Simon Hoggart at the Guardian. I send him lots of bits and pieces (normally nothing to do with the LibDems) and these are often ignored. I did get a mention from him once for pointing out the phrase "It's all gone Pete Tong" (for reasons losts in the mists of time). You could knock me down with a feather, then, when he printed the latter half of the "Charlie pissed" song last Saturday in his Guardian diary. So existence of the song is now well and truly in the public domain, I think we can say.
As John comments, this song is a very effective rebuttal against the accusation that the party covered up Charlie's drinking. It first featured in the songbook, after all, soon after the 1987 merger. It was sung with great relish at umpteen conference glee clubs in the presence of the press since then. The songbook has been sold on the internet and in "Politicos" at the conference.
And it is an excellent song, I have to say.
Seeking a larger audience for this nugget, beyond the blogosphere, I sent it to Simon Hoggart at the Guardian. I send him lots of bits and pieces (normally nothing to do with the LibDems) and these are often ignored. I did get a mention from him once for pointing out the phrase "It's all gone Pete Tong" (for reasons losts in the mists of time). You could knock me down with a feather, then, when he printed the latter half of the "Charlie pissed" song last Saturday in his Guardian diary. So existence of the song is now well and truly in the public domain, I think we can say.
Friday, September 1, 2006
Blair's mug says it all
Recently my daughter bought me a key ring which had my Christian name on it. Also on it was a list of remarkable talents which people called "Paul" are meant to possess:
Patience, good humour, leadership qualities, tenacity
It was a lovely gesture by my daughter. I treasure that keyring.
Any idea that those talents are an accurate reflection of me, just because I have the name "Paul", seems ridiculous. I know that I can be very impatient, bad tempered, clueless and weak.
You could have blown me down with a feather, then, when I read 'The Times' this morning.
During his interview with said organ, Blair sported a mug with "Anthony" written on it, along with the usual flattering qualities which "Anthonys" are meant to possess.
We've had all this damn silly mug business before. He came out of 10 Downing Street with a mug and jeans on when his son was born (I think). There were a number of mickey-takes done of that incident including one where 'Alastair Campbell', behind the door of Number Ten, begged the Prime Minister to hold a mug during his speech to give him extra street cred.
But this "Anthony" mug takes the biscuit. To actually carry a mug like that to an interview is just....well I am left having to borrow some words from the 'Young Ones'...what an "utter utter utter utter"....then the next word is rather impolite.
The mug said on it:
"Anthony, your refined inner voice drives your thoughts and deeds," it read on one side."You're a man who's in charge others follow your lead. You possess great depth and have a passionate mind. Others think you're influential ethical and kind."
Pass the sickbag, Alice
Interestingly, there were some less flattering personal qualities described on the reverse side:
"humble and private, you view the world through a dreamy and reflective lens."
"dreamy and reflective"...I see...dreams like, for example, "my party loves me and everyone loves me and I need to keep on going on and on and...oh.....let's borrow an idea from Hitler and grab trouble makers before they are born."
Patience, good humour, leadership qualities, tenacity
It was a lovely gesture by my daughter. I treasure that keyring.
Any idea that those talents are an accurate reflection of me, just because I have the name "Paul", seems ridiculous. I know that I can be very impatient, bad tempered, clueless and weak.
You could have blown me down with a feather, then, when I read 'The Times' this morning.
During his interview with said organ, Blair sported a mug with "Anthony" written on it, along with the usual flattering qualities which "Anthonys" are meant to possess.
We've had all this damn silly mug business before. He came out of 10 Downing Street with a mug and jeans on when his son was born (I think). There were a number of mickey-takes done of that incident including one where 'Alastair Campbell', behind the door of Number Ten, begged the Prime Minister to hold a mug during his speech to give him extra street cred.
But this "Anthony" mug takes the biscuit. To actually carry a mug like that to an interview is just....well I am left having to borrow some words from the 'Young Ones'...what an "utter utter utter utter"....then the next word is rather impolite.
The mug said on it:
"Anthony, your refined inner voice drives your thoughts and deeds," it read on one side."You're a man who's in charge others follow your lead. You possess great depth and have a passionate mind. Others think you're influential ethical and kind."
Pass the sickbag, Alice
Interestingly, there were some less flattering personal qualities described on the reverse side:
"humble and private, you view the world through a dreamy and reflective lens."
"dreamy and reflective"...I see...dreams like, for example, "my party loves me and everyone loves me and I need to keep on going on and on and...oh.....let's borrow an idea from Hitler and grab trouble makers before they are born."
Shirley Williams makes the "Good List"
The Independent has put together a "Good List" of 100 people it thinks are...well....er....good.
The list bears all the hallmarks of a few journos sitting around in a "silly season" lull throwing a few names together to meet a deadline.
Nevertheless it is an interesting and thought-provoking list. At the end of the day, we are not here to be rich, as highlighted in the Sunday Times Rich List, so it is encouraging that "being good" is perhaps becoming more valued in our society or,...er...at least, in the Independent.
One bright spot is that our Shirl the Whirl is on the list. I am also pleased to see Lionel Blue on the list as he is an all-round good egg.
The list bears all the hallmarks of a few journos sitting around in a "silly season" lull throwing a few names together to meet a deadline.
Nevertheless it is an interesting and thought-provoking list. At the end of the day, we are not here to be rich, as highlighted in the Sunday Times Rich List, so it is encouraging that "being good" is perhaps becoming more valued in our society or,...er...at least, in the Independent.
One bright spot is that our Shirl the Whirl is on the list. I am also pleased to see Lionel Blue on the list as he is an all-round good egg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
