Monday, 27 December 2010
Number One - Retail Store Sales because the purveyors of rampant consumerism whinge for weeks prior to Christmas that people aren't shopping enough, then milliseconds into the Christmas holiday they promote 'Sales' seemingly ignorant of the fact that they they created their own problems by selling stuff at ultra cheap prices on the 26th of December. People aren't stupid. Why pay more just for a Christmas day present in full knowledge that it will be more than 50% cheaper in 24 hours time!
Number Two - Dwelling on terrible news that is of no real concern for people that are not directly affected. This mawkish obsession with bad news at 'Christmas Time' is too much and abnormal. In the past most of us would be none the wiser, and feel much happier and safer as a result. It seems ridiculous to expect that people can emotionally take on constant streams of 'bad news.
Number Three - Finding someone to blame for something, such as the Heathrow disruption. There are significant numbers of people on the 'look out' for kicking someone else. Boo hoo they cry, my Christmas was ruined because I couldn't get my flight a the airports to blame. Get over it. Its one day and there are 364 more where you can get together.
Problems are personal, relative and private, and cheap Gucci will not make them go away.
Friday, 19 November 2010
He has been caught out because the deeper machinations of his sense-making, his core values and his beliefs have manifested themselves in some astonishing claims about the British Society and the British Economy. These are comment of man who has clearly never felt the 'fear' of loosing your ability to provide for yourself and your family, here is a man who inferring that people who are made redundant are work shy scroungers.
If we are to consider the 'generative mechanisms' that lie underneath Lord Young's callous statements, one of them of course is to speak 'as if' the economy is devoid of human beings. To describe 100,000 people as potentially a 'margin of error' is despicable. The economic way of explaining the world (not one covered in glory for predictive accuracy) is that of the 'closed system', where the numbers and the money are cleanly separated from humans and feelings. You only have to look at other regimes that thought of people as 'numbers' to see where that attitude comes from. Go on, check the documents, the millions of people with their inky part numbers on their arms, the numbers that were reported as processed to the centre. This is a deeper and darker belief that has found its way out into the light.
To suggest that people have 'never had it so good' is deluded if you give a kind interpretation (bless him he can't help it, its his age you know)Realistically it is outrageous. He has clearly never lived in a world where uncertainty, stress, financial pressures, despair, anxiety worry are never conflated with the term 'good'.
Lord Young should be sacked. It is the first time I have been moved to protest on the streets. This man should be removed with the speed of the cuts that are affecting the rest of us. How dare he speak of human beings as mere numbers. Here's a book he needs to read.
Friday, 12 November 2010
"The real violence in this situation relates not to a smashed window but to the destructive impact of the cuts."
There are logical problems with the deliberate use of English in their statement. They have isolated an act from its context. The smashed window was part of episodes of aggressive behaviour. It was an act borne out of generative mechanism relating to a set of ideas that condone the use of violence to make a point. It downplays the significance and meaning of the act.
The claim above also suggests that breaking windows is analogous to a management process that (whether well judged or not) is re-structuring processes and monies. Nothing in that process is being physically broken. Now I've been there, in the commercial world where for whatever reason my job was under threat. I've lost my job and it is not a pleasant experience. Did I go the merchant banks that I thought played a significant part in that experience and smash their windows? No. I faced up to the situation and moved on.
I am there now. As an academic I believe that people have a right to access Higher Education. I believe that the country should invest in HE as the R&D department of UK plc too, and it has to be investment that is valued. of course axiological judgements will be made, and that is how the issue should be debated. What do we as a society value and what is valued in our Higher Education experience and output. That said Higher Education doesn't simply have a right to exist because it is Higher Education. It needs to provide true value (epistemologically, pedagogically and practically) and that value has a value that is worth paying for by the people who study. The relativist agenda that suggests that all things are equal (except my point of view which is the best of all) is child like in its grasp of social reality.Some people might not be bright enough or financially capable of having HE. There should be mechanisms to help the exceptional not processes to facilitate the ordinary.
The violent tantrum of the students at Goldsmiths will, if they educate themselves, be realised as incapable of changing anything. It was a destructive act not a generative act. Where are the ideas for solving the problem of funding HE from these bright sparks? The lecturers who have supported the violence have done their students a disservice. They have endorsed a partial grasp of social reality, they have not encouraged imaginative thinking, they have not developed a true sense of critical thinking on and in the nature of HE provision.
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Like most ideas the Wikileaks issue touches on the problem of intention. For example, if I was to ask you if cutting somebody with knife was a good idea, it would all depend on the intention of the person doing the cutting. A malignant intention would be doing it to harm me, like a mugger or a burglar, whereas a surgeon might be cutting me to save my life.
The same goes for knowing things. Sometimes it's in the best interests of everyone for people to be circumspect with the facts. In the classic case of the woman asking her partner 'does my butt look big in this dress', it is not necessarily the case that speaking the 'truth' is an appropriate response. To me the founder of Wikileaks has a child-like and irresponsible attitude to the 'is my butt big' type of situation. He rationalizes the publication of all information as a good thing simply because he holds a catch all philosophy that making the information available is a good thing. This is naive because making information available has consequences and those consequences can harm other people. He is saying that free access to information trumps the effect it has. Surely this can't always be the case. There are bigger pictures to consider.
The question isn't between a world where there is no information versus a world where everything is available. Wisdom and judgments come into play. Telling your partner that her butt looks massive might be true and it might not be taken as polite, helpful, or conducive to a good on-going relationship.
You have to ask what is the motivation driving the fixation with such a simplistic stance to the provision of freely available information. What is going off in the head of the founder of Wikileaks? Why is the provision of information totally divorced from consequences regarded as a 'good idea'? It borders on a socio-pathic disregard for the impact of actions on others. Is there a case for a therapeutic intervention here? What might have happened if Wikileaks was around in the second world war? Would Wikileaks have felt it was appropriate to let the Nazis know about Radar installations? Enigma code breaking, the arrangements for D Day? I presume I'm OK saying these things because being free to express myself regardless of the embarrassment, risks for others or hurt it might create is OK. Surely I'm just being a true Wikileakerist?
Wikileaks is a concept that smacks of the half baked idealistic thinking of first year undergraduates. Naively idealistic and totally simplistic in its grasp of the systemic complexities it purports to address. Wikileaks is a gullible idea. Yes Wikileaks you have the right to know that your digital butt does look big in this.
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Things don't just happen in the real world. Actions are predicated on underpinning philosophy. The inference in Mark Easton's article is plain. A conservative philosophical perspective of family life an the role of women in society (unless they are rich an financially independent) sees women better off performing a domestic role. There is nothing so practical as a good theory said Kurt Lewin.
They've also one the stakeholder analysis, who has power and interest. Cut back areas of major female employment because the political consequences can be managed. Plus we have the added bonus of more consistent female influence in younger years an that will improve anti social behaviour, families will be locked together due to fearful dependence on a male breadwinner, and hey ho we are back to where our social values ought to be.
The budget cuts are as much about social engineering as social prudence.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Technically he has allegedly behaved illegally, and his transgressed the rules of the BBBC. Let's hope that a more holistic and understanding approach is taken to helping and supporting this great sportsman rebuild his life.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Obviously disappointed at his performance is he seeking to displace the blame elsewhere? Let's begin with some basic facts. University education is not School education. A student is an adult learner who takes responsibility for their own learning. The tutors research, design and deliver lectures and provide seminar activities as platforms to help the student develop their understanding. If they have puzzles and need clarification then pondering on them and proactively seeking guidance is what they need to do. If we look at the term 'Student' it has specific connotations. Notice university students are not called pupils. The etymology of the word comes from the latin 'studere' which means to direct ones zeal at something. Notice there is no reference to being spoon fed and taught as a pupil might be. Students are provided with a 'field of study' into which they must immerse themselves taking responsibility for engaging with the subject. Tutors cannot do the learning for the student. Andrew Croskery seems to have decided that he is a customer rather than a student.
This is a hot topic in higher education. It is a misguided and mischievous metaphor. Using the term 'customer' for everyone from patients, passengers, to to pupils has a managerialst genealogy. It is to some extent a helpful metaphor in helping universities think about the service they deliver, and it should also be connected with 'customers' thinking about their responsibilities too. Mr Croskery was awarded a 2:2 because that was standard of the work he submitted it was not awarded to him because he wasn't a very good customer. There are issues with student as customer metaphor. and interesting unexpected side effects form the culture of student experience too.
In a recent Times Higher Article it was noted by Paul Ramsden that universities were not responsible for satisfying students. At first blush this might seem ridiculous and arrogant however the point is well made in the sense there is often a difference between what a students feels they 'want' and educationally what they need. Higher education is transformative process that confronts people with challenging and demanding situations which by 'choice' they would not necessarily put themselves through. To whinge about not receiving tutorship is immature. The opportunity to seek out additional guidance is available to every student. It may not be given with the speed of a fast food restaurant (realising you are not the only student in the world is also part of growing up!) It may not be at the drop of hat at a time and place of your choosing and it will be there if it is sought.
Paul Ramsden is a noted and informed writer in this area. Paul was a prime mover in the 1990s of introducing the notion of 'student experience'. Something that like many sophisticated concepts has been hijacked and misrepresented since. A notion that has been adopted by managerialst conceptions of customer centricity. His fascinating article in the August edition Times Higher is titled No Thinkable Alternative
and he finished the article with the following quote:
"The rationale for university teaching is not satisfying students, distrubuting information to them nor changing them, as some condescendingly say. Rather, it is enabling students to change for themselves...What will inspire our students and our colleagues is the belief that reasoning out problems for yourself is the greatest gift that higher education can offer"
Lets hope the judicial review sends Andrew Croskery back with some simple facts of adult life, and a reminder of the value that the gift of his 2:2 experience has given him for the rest of his life. I say this a former 'desmond' student myself.
Saturday, 18 September 2010
Today's news that Russell Brand has got into lumber because of alleged assault of a photographer in Los Angeles has me feeling differently this time. Whether or not Russell Brand is your sort of guy or not I can imagine that pushy press photographers are a real pain in the backside. Surely there has to be a time when even a celebrity is 'off duty'. Why don't these people leave it to press conferences and other public appearances?
Of course they 'rationalize' their behaviour as perversely providing a 'service' for the celebrity. Keeping the celebrity engine going in order that the brand of Brand doesn't stall they would say. So by the same reasoning that they apply when they say celebrities are never off duty, they should be regarded as never being off duty too! They should also realise that their chosen profession involves risks and hassles as well. That means they should expect to get confronted, pushed and shoved because that comes with the territory of their profession. Russell Brand didn't ask them to become a 'Pap'. Celebrity photographers are self interested. They want to run with the foxes and chase with the hounds. If they get whacked in the process that seems fair game to me.
Here's what Katy Perry tweeted. Can't say I disagree!
If you cross the line & try an put a lens up my dress, my fiancé will do his job & protect me. #standbyyourman #don'tfuckwiththeBrands.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
What I find really interesting is the fact that what we are really witnessing is a battle of educational philosophy. If you ask yourself 'where does educational policy come from?' you are inexorably led to a philosophy that drives some beliefs and some actions.
Contemporary educational policy is based on the assumptions of Post Modernism. The relativist philosophy that on a good day encourages us to appreciate diversity and on a bad day mires us in hand wringing over what to do about 'all those differences' because there are no absolute standards that can be applied to anything. It also influences how problems are characterized and how solutions are formed. So.
Problem = children have challenges learning. Solution = provide customised education to the level of bespoke delivery because everyone has 'special needs'. The issue of course is connotation. Any label used to defined a so called real world phenomenon is open to alternative meanings. I think what Ofsted are saying is that the prevailing meaning is too sloppy, and the overuse of the term special needs characterizes the 'problem' of challenging situations in the classroom as 'the child with special needs' rather the dynamic capability of the teacher. I can hear howls of insult already. After all haven't teaching professionals been 'Kolb'd' up to the eyeballs (if we are lucky they might have been Mezirowed too!) They know all about 'learning styles' their text books describe the 'types' and these difficult children don't fit.
Teaching isn't easy (as a colleague of mine once said to me when I was whinging about the challenges of the job - that's why they pay you! - ouch) Like many 'managers' and executives, teachers are possibly prey to lacking a degree of critical self awareness of the founding philosophies that underpin their world views. Possibly unaware of their Post Modernist credentials, having been steeped in them through teacher training and pgce's, they will also be unaware of the emergence of philosophies such as Critical Realism that at one level reject the so called 'realities' of post modernism's linguistic turn. Maybe Ofsted aren't explicitly aware of the philosophy that under-girds their approach either.On their view the reality is a problem of dynamic teaching capability. It could very well be real too, and no doubt it hurts to hear it.
The special needs zealots also need to be mindful of labels too. Social psychologists call this altercasting. Label someone 'as if ' they have special needs and guess what they behave 'as if ' they have special needs. I'm not suggesting for a minute the issue is easy to resolve, I'm simply making the point that people with alternatives argue their differences on emotive issues rather than unpacking the underpinning points of philosophy. If this is the case then Ofsted and The Teaching Profession will simply play out a grotesque caricature of an unruly classroom! Then what? does that mean Teachers have 'special needs'too?
Friday, 10 September 2010
Like Brown, Terry Jones may have set in train violent consequences that he has no way of controlling. Already 3 people have been shot dead because of his idiocy. He may yet lay claim to being the most controversial of all 21st century Americans. President Obama is trying to glue the US nation together by a bout of international condemnation. President Obama says the US is not going to be divided by religion or ethnicity. The problem is huge and the solution complex. Millions of people are only too happy to run with simplistic and polarised opinions. There is potential for a perfect storm. Instantaneous global communication, high power weaponary within the reach of millions, religious fundamentalism on both sides. This could really 'kick off'. Historians agree John Brown played a major role in starting the Civil War. Maybe they will attribute Terry Jones with starting World War Three.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
The 'brand' of his church includes the word 'Dove' which is regarded as a symbol of peace. His actions are designed to stir trouble.
Similarly the name of the church includes the word 'outreach' which has the common meaning of, surprise, surprise, reaching out, which in turn implies building bridges and meeting people not alienating them. It also implies trying to understand the world view of another to find common ground.
The act of burning a copy of a religious text is deeply offensive to those people who have a faith regardless of their faith. On a direct personal level it is ignorant and rude whether you are religious, agnostic or atheist.
He conflates a world religion with terrorism. This is a gross error of understanding.
He has a supernatural (child like) belief in the material effects of book burning. That somehow this will affect (like sticking pins in a voodoo doll) the attitude and behavior of terrorists. This is merely an example of his dependence on faith rather than practical reality.
He apparently lacks any rhetorical and communication skills because he misunderstands that the meaning of communication is the way it is perceived. If he believes that burning a copy of the Koran will send a message to radical Islam, he overlooks the fact that is also sends a message to moderate Muslims too.
His faux religious zeal and simplistic grasp of realpolitik actually betray his real credentials as a despotic attention seeking trouble maker, with no real concern for others. He doesn't care about our troops in the field, he doesn't care about innocent civilians who will be used as scape goats by his mirrors in terrorist groups, he doesn't care about the beliefs and faiths of other people, he doesn't care about anything except his own opinion and status.
Maybe he should rename his church The Hawk World Polarisation Center instead?
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Thursday, 26 August 2010
This is an argument that has to swim against a tide of thought that argues that to have faith is good because of the very fact that it is irrational. Well someone clever came up with that dead end rebuttal. I fear lack of open mindedness. I fear ideas that are resist counter evidence. I fear dogma. Reading on from the link that Mary Ann posted I thought the following quote from Craig Lee Duckett was worth posting.
"Beliefs oftentime give the appearance of pleasure and peace, because beliefs are almost always personalsubjective and don't push back. People typically believe in those things that make them happy, alleviate their fears, give them hope, and promise to fulfill their wishes and dreams. Life-after-death, living in eternal Paradise with your loved ones, seventy-two virgins, inheriting a vibrant young 'spiritual' body, all knowledge revealed, seeing wicked people get theirs'—these are just some of the things that motivatetempting, the endings neat and tidy. Seeking truth and knowledge, on the other hand, typically produces the opposite effect by eventually uncovering the self-deception and denial underlying most untested belief systems "
The question is very simple. Why do organisations conduct cold calling campaigns? Is it driven by an altruistic concern that we aren't aware of the best deals that just might transform our lives? Are these organisations being philanthropic choosing to call us in the early evening to save us the hassle trudging around stores and surfing the web to ensure we know just what's on offer? You're having a laugh aren't you? No profit driven organisation does anything unless there is something in it for them and that something is 'incremental sales'.
People who wish to exploit the gullibility of others are masters of 'the situation'. Control the situation and you control the person. So, 'get them when they are off guard in their own homes, get them at meal times when they are likely to agree to anything to get you off the line'. Cold calling is an aggressive activity that exploits the vulnerability of people. Worst of all are the cold calling pariahs who call elderly people. I have personal experience of this with my father. Cold called by a utilities company they tried to 'aggregate' his policies into one 'easy to pay plan'. Sounds great until you do the arithmetic and his payments would have trebled!
The people who design cold calling campaigns sit in their office planning how to exploit people. They now that the majority of people are not skilled in rebutting their selling techniques, they know that people often struggle to say 'no', they know most people have never heard of 'bait and switch', 'low balling' and the host of other manipulative techniques they deploy to get a 'Yes'
I recommend the Telephone Preference Service to get these leeches off your case. The real issue for customer choice is the right to choose when to speak to an organisation, when to ask for information and when to spend their money, and how to spend their money. It is not the right of a business to decide when a customer does these things. So stop there, don't tell me these businesses never do these things, don't give me the shallow nonsense about 'providing a service'. Cold calling is the professional equivalent of aggressive begging and the perpetrators should be named and shamed. In the meantime it would pay to learn about their dirty tricks. Customers are not gullible.
Sunday, 22 August 2010
This is worrying. Why are they content to 'believe' rather than put effort into getting the facts? Perhaps its because so much of their life, it's meaning and it's purpose is prepared like a 'ready meal' for them to consume by Big Media and Big Business. With yet more irony, what more evidence is needed for evolution! The brain skill of researching for evidence, analysis, synthesis and placing of meaning has been de-selected. An evolutionary branch that has no need to 'gather evidence' has started in 20% of the population of the USA. In a couple of hundred years they will become a sub (sic) species of human. Unable to understand information, incapable of thinking for themselves, reliant on rote and routine to get them from waking to sleeping. The Washington Post report on the survey should worry anyone who thinks deeper than foam on a Starbuck's cappuccino.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
What is utterly astonishing is the empathy bypass his surviving family members have had. What possible rationalisation can they have for scattering Moat's ashes in the river at Rothbury? Surely this is indicative of the 'nature' of his family and upbringing. A callous disregard for the feelings of others. An inability to sublimate one's own feelings in relation to the feelings of others. You really have to question how his family 'see the world'. Did it not occur to them the level of insensitivity that their act would demonstrate. Quite simply scattering the ashes of Raoul Moat in Rothbury is an insult.
In our politically correct times we are given to the post modernist gullibility of according equivalent value to words and deeds regardless of who does them. No thing is any better or worse than any other thing. There is no absolute right and there is no absolute wrong. This then becomes a justification for the less philosophically sophisticated to justify their right to do anything they please! In the Moatian Parallelverse anything goes. Well I don't go along with the POMO's. Ok so there might not be an absolute version of things like truth, but we can have a consensus, and the consensus could say in non PC terms that the members of Raoul Moat's family are thick, unfeeling, self absorbed, dead heads.
Actions are born from ideas. Ideas are indications of a world view. The Moat view seems to be 'me -centric'. Their lack of respect for the people of Rothbury is shameful. It might be argued that they lack intelligence. What is without doubt is their complete lack of emotional intelligence.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
Putting aside any discussion of religious freedom, I presume senators such as Mr Harry Reid are Christians. Therefore I believe he is being given a truly demanding test of his christian faith to sublimate his anger, grief, thirst for revenge etc and allow something to happen which his core instincts find so deeply wrong.
Notwithstanding the fact that some of the Americans killed by the 9/11 terrorists were in fact Muslims, the issue seems to be much deeper than one of religious freedom. It is a test put at the philosophical basis of Christianity. Turning the other cheek is a philosophical 'turn' (sic) in direct opposition to the historical Jewish approach of 'an eye for an eye'. It is a 'catch phrase' if you like that sums a very deep insight into human nature that shows that an eye for an eye philosophy will degenerate into a viscous circle of vendetta. Because our natural (basest?) instincts are confronted with such a challenge marks the incredible difficulty if the task, because the greater the grievance the greater the challenge of turning away. The philosophical demand to forgive increases in proportion to the scale of the hurt.
Of course with elections looming I'd never say that any of the Senators were turning this into a political vote catching issue rather than a philosophical or theological issue. That would be mean I was being rather gullible.
More... read Rationally Speaking
The Mosque Analysis Part 1 Technorati
Saturday, 14 August 2010
The people (sic) that committed the September 11th 2001 attacks in New York were terrorists. They killed at least 50 people who follow the Islamic religion. They didn't care about them either. There seems to no logical reason why people of that faith cannot have a place of spiritual reflection at the site of the 9/11 atrocity the same as other people can. The small minded and simplistic retort of Sarah Palin that "to build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks" is breath takingly ignorant of the facts, juvenile in its sophistication, and un-educated in terms of philosophical, theocratic and social grasp.
Although as Mick Glossop points out on Twitter " it's not a mosque, it's a cultural centre, and it's not at Ground Zero, it's 2 blocks away, but I agree.... "
A New Yorker speaks
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Thursday, 5 August 2010
One of the problems of paradigm, of world view, is that it can quickly become a psychic prison. Just because it 'has been' doesn't mean it 'will be' in the future. I worked for an edutainment publishing in the 1990s and was told by retailers that kids aged 4 couldn't ever use computers and no one would by software for them. Really?
I'm not so sure that Piers Harding-Rolls, an analyst with Screen Digest, will be proved correct when he said that it was a "tough market" to launch new brands, and when he said that releasing new IP into a mature market was not without risk., surely he is missing the point by defining 'the market' by its current parameters.
The Boston Ice companies overlooked left competition with similar thinking, and whilst not directly analogous it serves as a salutary lesson to keep an open mind about what business you are in and who your competitors are. To do anything else would be rather gullible.
Sunday, 1 August 2010
The need for the State to protect its secrets and defend its borders is a natural right. When censorship intrudes on everyday conversations and exchange of information there is the distinct whiff of Medieval media control in the air. The UAE TRA director general Mohammed al-Ghanem claims that the Blackberry restrictions are due to something quite different to control of communications. He said "Censorship has got nothing to do with this. What we are talking about is suspension due to the lack of compliance with UAE telecommunications regulations." Cue Mandy Rice Davies - "He would wouldn't he"
Saturday, 31 July 2010
The gruesome irony of his claim is surely not lost on the biological entity named Ian Huntley. Not that I'm any legal expert. I assume the law provides rights regardless of previous offences otherwise we lapse as a society into the dark place that the perpetrator exists.
This does not mean we have to 'feel sorry' for him. In August 2002 he murdered two ten year old girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. He was the caretaker (sic) at their school. He joined in police searches and callous TV interviews feigning dismay and concern.
It seems that he has finally revealed his true nature through psychological projection. This behaviour is defined by Sigmund Freud as "a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings, and so on onto someone else" In other words he believes the Prison Service failed in its duty of care and in doing so he is publically admitting that in August 2002 that's exactly what he did. He failed in his duty of care to Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Seeing notions such as 'volunteering' as a 'public services on the cheap' is a small minded, self interested interpretation of the concept. If we live in a society where abstract concepts are avoided because people only respond to things that are given to them on a plate then something profound in the idea is being missed. The Big Society is a systemic notion. There are benefits for the people doing it as well as the people served. The idea of doing something unconditionally to help other people re-balances the 'what's in it for me' mentality that is under girded by materialism, consumerism, and bully boy corporate world views.
The mere fact that someone has a tilt at the concept implies they are likely to be the very people that should reflect on what it truly means for themselves and what they could do, right now, without permission, without payment to make someone else's life easier and happier. There are plenty of people who 'get' the Big Society and plenty of people who are doing something to make it more of a reality.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Because there is concern the government strategy might be in a bit of a muddle due to apparent mixed messages I have decided to step into the PR arena with a 'Bumper Media Campaign' to avert any misunderstandings. Any questions from the local community on the Afghanistan issue and neighbours can just flag my car down and I'll be happy to clarify government policy for them.
These people want to be in sole charge of the affairs of Scotland. What a disturbing prospect that must for anyone living in Scotland. With judgements like that they'll soon be burning witches in North Berwick and Dornoch again! So they claim it was a reasonable medical estimate. It wouldn't have been long to wait and fly him back home 24 hours before he was due to 'pop his clogs'. They could have even used and unmanned plane and blown it up over the Atlantic to give him a taste of his own medicine.
I presume he will be entering the Guiness Book of records for defying medical science? It should not be forgotten what this man actually did. Interestingly the BBC have recently written about a study that says that the Scots consume 25% more alcohol than the british average. Perhaps scientists could identify is there is a correlation between this study and the quality of Scottish government decision making?
Monday, 19 July 2010
There are other ways of Monetizing your blog too which I discovered in this great book...
Friday, 16 July 2010
And as I type a second Moat Facebook is published.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Monday, 28 June 2010
The fact is the 2010 England team were a bunch of overpaid talentless prima donnas. Remember they earn more in one day than most of us earn in a year. They are paid these huge sums to deliver. They didn't.
Unlike the rest of the employed human race these people remain in secure highly paid jobs despite not being able to deilver, failing in front of billions of people, costing the fans that follow them thousands of pounds and still go back to their pampered lifestyles. Nice work if you can get it.
The real issue is being able to define 'the problem'. It is clearly a systemic management problem. Well beyond the intellectual capability of the 'lads in suits' that run the Football Association. A complete re-imagining of what English soccer is about is required. Not just tinkering with team rules and tactics. A complete re-think of what brings success from a high profile team sport. What is the role of the 'manager'? do we need it? Should people who have worked their way 'up the ranks' in the game be determining where it goes in the future. To quote Hamel and Prahalad, all they are going to do is "infect everyone with the same orthodoxies they've infected everyone else with" You've only got to look at the supreme Luddite Sepp Blatter to see how dominant mind-sets can lock a game into the psychic prison of the past.
Welcome to the nightmare!
Remember a true English hero:
Saturday, 19 June 2010
The Daily Mail
If this happens then he might regain his hero status.
Am I being cynical if I say I think I spotted him noticing which side his bread is buttered?
Wayne Rooney is an overpaid, pugnacious and arrogant man who should be dropped from the England team and flown home. The fans who have paid thousands of pounds to be in South Africa are not there to blow smoke up his arse and fawn over his flawed celebrity. He is just a footballer who claims to be an elite performer and he should be judged by his actions not is ill conceived sense of celebrity status.
Wayne Rooney is gullible if he thinks that he is not answerable to the paying public. Where do your wages come from Wayne? He is also gullible if he thinks its the fans job to motivate him, when he is paid to inspire the fans.
The Game An Open Letter To Wayne Rooney
Friday, 4 June 2010
Its been a while now. 15 years or so. This morning I'm sitting in the conservatory on a sunny morning...and I want to speak to my mother. Don't know why. Nothing bad or anything just fancied a chat, a catch up, and I can't. I'm looking at her piano. I thought her soul was in it. Today I don't think she's there. I think she may have gone? I feel very alone at this moment. I'm sure it will pass.
I can't fathom why I suddenly got yanked by the chain on this one. Right now. This morning. A beautiful morning to sit and chat. I think I'm going to have that chat. Right now. A walk and a chat, now that sounds good. Maybe I'm not alone.
Sunday, 23 May 2010
Duchess demonstrates eligability for this blog. As she rationalises what has taken place she attempts to diminish the PR and reputational catastrophe as a heavy day.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Journalists are a case in point. Trained writers and people who are paid to write. The UK election trotted out the odd political blogger to show how 'hip and trendy' they were. The old wags made quips about the new turks using twitter.
Marketing communications and relationship marketing people are evangelists too. Paid to relate paid to communicate. The thing is all these people have TIME to blog, TIME to engage and participate. I've noticed a very interesting things with social networking. I work in academia. Academics do alot of reading and writing. Usually other peoples work. When it comes to blogging and engaging in sharepoint sites, ning communities they simply don't have the time to be avid and prolific. Composing a post occupies the mind as well the time. If your mind and time are occupied you don't blog. Simple as. So if a huge number of people are disenfranchised from the blogosphere not because of technological access or know how, not because of education, then how representative is the blogosphere of opinion?
Blogging and social media neophytes claim its the new frontier. They have the time to preach. For me its Cognitive Miser time. I can engage sparodically, my social influence is limited. The only gratification is expression of point of view. This has taken me 20 minutes and I could have been watching Springwatch.
Monday, 3 May 2010
Now sure as eggs are eggs I'm no SEO expert, and yes I've found that finding 'goldilocks' keywords (not too popular, not too obscure but 'just right') have appeared to make a difference to blog posts visits and also my Squidoo lenses. They've also influenced url selection and also title selection too.
But that is what got me thinking about originality. If writers and publishers of on-line material chase after key words then where is the spark of originality?
If Harper Lee had done a search on 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' would she have thought woah!! Not very popular steer clear? How about Shakespeare? 'Much Ado About Nothing' hmmm not many searches for that...So it seems to me there is a conundrum. Do you go for the unique and rely on your creative genius to be discovered, or do you go bland and follow the sheep?
Google after all is predicated on technical search assumptions not artistic originality.
Friday, 23 April 2010
The British public are not stupid. They do not uncritically digest the pap that comes from the keyboards of so called 'professional' journalists. Furthermore once they realise that they are being misled they will kcik back. The electorate can think for themselves and social media platforms allow the true consensus to emerge into the light. The patronising attitude of Big Media is out of touch with reality and the voice of ordinary people. The man in the street saw Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown do well and and saw a David Cameron grasp and gasp as he put across half baked polemical ideas targetted at getting a 'hurrah' from his fellow 'henries'.
Twitter reaches more people than Sky and more people participate too. Facebook is a popular forum that represents topics from the ground up. All of these places are the new hustings, the space of community. We don't need someone else to make sense of our worlds for us Mr Murdoch we are quite savvy enough to do it for ourselves. If your reporting in this is biased why on earth should we believe anything else your organisation says?
The British electorate have emerged into the sunlight. They don't have to comment in huddles down the pub they can express themselves as they wish via social media. David Cameron did NOT do well on last night's television debate he looked all sea, he looked concerned and desperate, he is out of touch and lives in the past with his media backers.
Objective reporting? See Google Election Trends for the real buzz.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Whilst our news programmes and papers are full of the Clegg effect the blogosphere is remarkably quiet. So just how important is the UK election to the rest of the world? Not alot it seems. Or perhaps its a little early.
Maybe it will get a bit more feisty after tonight's gunfight at the OK Corall. Ego's have been pricked and so pulling Nick down a peg or two is bound to be part of the game plan. The mud slinging has started of course. It has to be asked whether this is a feint or a full on assault. I think the former.
If Nick gets drawn into defending his position he might just slip back to third place. As we know from the 'X' factor and 'Dorothy' you can sing a song well one week and singing for your right to stay in the game the next.
Conservative Americans were worried about Nick Clegg about 17 hours ago from the time of writing this post according to Technorati. Google Buzz seems to be a bit more up to the minute and Twitter is on the pulse too.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
In a recent paper reported by the The BBC titled Magnets Can Modify Our Morality Dr Young is quoted as saying: "To be able to apply a magnetic field to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing"
Worryingly the massive power of the LHC magnets have a huge effect on people working on the project. It seems the magnets 'pull' peoples moral compass away from their typical disposition making them see the ethical consequences of what they are doing in very different ways.
It is claimed that what started as a project seeking ways to improve knowledge about particle physics has for some become a race to create the first so called Particle Weapon capable of launching mini black holes at their targets and blasting them to oblivion. Not even their final screams escape the gravitational pull of the singularity.
Others who were previously staunch rationalists and who have been standing close to the LHC magnets have become highly spiritual and believe they are seeing the mind of God.
Normal morality is typically recovered after a short break away from the LHC. Although scientists are advised to avoid Las Vegas due to the 'top up' effects of the weak magnetic fields that exist around the thousands of slot machines.