The Return of the Malloy
The afforementioned Mike Malloy is back on the air in the US / Internet. His programme has found a home on Air America Radio.
Since it's on at 3AM UK time, interested EU people might want to download the mp3s from the White Rose Society web site.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Friday, April 23, 2004
US Liberalism
Mike Malloy, who used to present a great talk radio programme on the, now
defunct IE America Radio, has started a blog on his site.
it's worth a read, even if just to convince yourself that Michael Moore is not the only person appalled by antics of 'The Bush Crime Family' as Malloy calls them ;)
Unfortunately there is no sign yet of another outlet for Mr Malloy, but hopefully Air America Radio will take him on at some point. But, given the fuss the FCC are making over swearing etc in the post-Janet's-boob shock and awe, it seems unlikely anyone who isn't totally sanitised will be allowed on the air in the US :(
Mike Malloy, who used to present a great talk radio programme on the, now
defunct IE America Radio, has started a blog on his site.
it's worth a read, even if just to convince yourself that Michael Moore is not the only person appalled by antics of 'The Bush Crime Family' as Malloy calls them ;)
Unfortunately there is no sign yet of another outlet for Mr Malloy, but hopefully Air America Radio will take him on at some point. But, given the fuss the FCC are making over swearing etc in the post-Janet's-boob shock and awe, it seems unlikely anyone who isn't totally sanitised will be allowed on the air in the US :(
Speed Camera Myths
First off, I don't have a problem with speed cameras. It's the law, rules are rules etc. I don't even think they should be painted with luminous 'Look I'm a speed camera' paint either. I was never much of a speeder, having a daughter and watching her not look as she crosses the road has made me more aware of the danger of even an extra 5 mph so...
A piece in the excellent (IMHO) Prospect Magazine in April, made the point that many of the financial arguments against speed cameras are complete tosh, vis a vis -
"Urban myths are proliferating around speed cameras. One of the commonest is that they are a backhanded way for local authorities to take pressure off increases in council tax. In fact, the total raised by all cameras last year was just £73m. The surplus after costs was just £6m - and that went to the treasury. Even if councils had got their hands on it, it would have amounted to less than 0.3 per cent of receipts from council tax."
(Unfortunately you can only see the whole ariticle on the web if you are a subscriber. You can get the magazine in Borders in the UK, and if you are not a completely mental right -wing nutter it's worth a look)
There were also some figures showing that most of the money raised by cameras goes back in to maintaining them and adding more so,
unlike parking fines, the Council don't make anything out of them.
First off, I don't have a problem with speed cameras. It's the law, rules are rules etc. I don't even think they should be painted with luminous 'Look I'm a speed camera' paint either. I was never much of a speeder, having a daughter and watching her not look as she crosses the road has made me more aware of the danger of even an extra 5 mph so...
A piece in the excellent (IMHO) Prospect Magazine in April, made the point that many of the financial arguments against speed cameras are complete tosh, vis a vis -
"Urban myths are proliferating around speed cameras. One of the commonest is that they are a backhanded way for local authorities to take pressure off increases in council tax. In fact, the total raised by all cameras last year was just £73m. The surplus after costs was just £6m - and that went to the treasury. Even if councils had got their hands on it, it would have amounted to less than 0.3 per cent of receipts from council tax."
(Unfortunately you can only see the whole ariticle on the web if you are a subscriber. You can get the magazine in Borders in the UK, and if you are not a completely mental right -wing nutter it's worth a look)
There were also some figures showing that most of the money raised by cameras goes back in to maintaining them and adding more so,
unlike parking fines, the Council don't make anything out of them.
ID Cards Revisited
A story about a MORI poll in The Register suggests the public are in favour of ID cards but don't trust the government to implement them properly or to make the IT project side a success. Certainly there is not much past evidence to suggest the IT side will be delivered on time and on budget...
A story about a MORI poll in The Register suggests the public are in favour of ID cards but don't trust the government to implement them properly or to make the IT project side a success. Certainly there is not much past evidence to suggest the IT side will be delivered on time and on budget...
Saturday, February 07, 2004
Corporate Public Responsibility - Tax
Interesting short article from, as ever, The Guardian
Obscene stuff - Companies are getting away with murder. As a small business person I find this even more galling. These companies have huge resources to spend on accountants to avoid paying their dues, yet the government seem to concern themselves more with chasing piffiling amounts from people who earn less than the executives of these companies get as a car allowance. Not good enough. I feel there will never be fairness here unless there is a concerted mulit-lateral strategy across the G7 nations to make companies pay their dues. Otherwise they will always find an off-shore solution that suits them.
I'd like to see companies forced to display / report how much tax they paid on their profits and their full executive compensation packages, their web-site would be a good place. Then we could see which companies were bankrupt, morally that is....
Interesting short article from, as ever, The Guardian
Obscene stuff - Companies are getting away with murder. As a small business person I find this even more galling. These companies have huge resources to spend on accountants to avoid paying their dues, yet the government seem to concern themselves more with chasing piffiling amounts from people who earn less than the executives of these companies get as a car allowance. Not good enough. I feel there will never be fairness here unless there is a concerted mulit-lateral strategy across the G7 nations to make companies pay their dues. Otherwise they will always find an off-shore solution that suits them.
I'd like to see companies forced to display / report how much tax they paid on their profits and their full executive compensation packages, their web-site would be a good place. Then we could see which companies were bankrupt, morally that is....
UK Rail Privitisation
Good points on regulation there. Like anything in life, it's a question of balance - Too much regulation and you end up with an overblown bureaucracy that becomes a monster in itself, full of self-serving public-sector folk who can be just as bad as the private-sector ones. It's a difficult one to get right. Still, on the whole, I'd rather have the overblown public sector than the money-grabbing private sector solution. At least the public-sector one keeps plenty of people in a job, the private one just rewards those chosen few at the top and, to a lesser extent, the share-holders.
Good points on regulation there. Like anything in life, it's a question of balance - Too much regulation and you end up with an overblown bureaucracy that becomes a monster in itself, full of self-serving public-sector folk who can be just as bad as the private-sector ones. It's a difficult one to get right. Still, on the whole, I'd rather have the overblown public sector than the money-grabbing private sector solution. At least the public-sector one keeps plenty of people in a job, the private one just rewards those chosen few at the top and, to a lesser extent, the share-holders.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
It all comes down to the assumption that privitised companies are more economically efficient than public ones.
Perhaps some are, but economic efficiency is just one facet. Yes, we dont have infinite amounts of money, but effectiveness of a service should be just as important as economic prudence. Society should have effective services before they are made economically efficient. Instead we give them less money and tell them to get more efficient... the result being cutting corners just like any private company would do.
Then what happens is that the public services , if they are not privitised eventually bring in private money via sponsorship deals. These deals eventually hold more and more power over the public companies because they rely more and more on this private money and before you know it, we have a public company working for private investors making them money which is not re-investedin the public service but is exported out from the public service and into private hands... so our serives get poorer and poorer and they rely more and more on the private money- which gets more and more...
The answer is more accountability with less accountants!
More scruitiny with less lawyers and a more SENSIBLE moderate approach to this type of set up.
Perhaps some are, but economic efficiency is just one facet. Yes, we dont have infinite amounts of money, but effectiveness of a service should be just as important as economic prudence. Society should have effective services before they are made economically efficient. Instead we give them less money and tell them to get more efficient... the result being cutting corners just like any private company would do.
Then what happens is that the public services , if they are not privitised eventually bring in private money via sponsorship deals. These deals eventually hold more and more power over the public companies because they rely more and more on this private money and before you know it, we have a public company working for private investors making them money which is not re-investedin the public service but is exported out from the public service and into private hands... so our serives get poorer and poorer and they rely more and more on the private money- which gets more and more...
The answer is more accountability with less accountants!
More scruitiny with less lawyers and a more SENSIBLE moderate approach to this type of set up.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
UK Rail Privitisation
Very interesting report on 'File on 4' on Radio 4.
Basically whent the Tories privatised the railways (Nonsense all round really), they created a new type of entity, called a 'Rosco' which takes care of owning the rolling stock and then leasing it back to the train operators. This was done because the length of the train operator franchises was kept short (To make them efficient and generate competition - Market solution and all that tosh) and, consequently, the rolling stock would not be attractive for the train operators to buy due to the long lifetime of those assets. The problem is that although the Tories created 3 of these Roscos - again, to generate competion and a 'market' - there isn't really any competition going on. Result? The costs of leasing are too high to make it attractive for the train operators to lease the amount of rolling stock they really need. Hence standing on the Glasgow to Edinburgh train every day rather than being provided with an extra carriage...
Moral? Regardless of your idealogical position on the concept, privitisation and introducing markets is not an approach does not lend itself to everything.
Sensible? No - some things just don't make sense being de-nationalised. If you think not, go travel around Europe and find a good public transport system that isn't municipal, or otherwise state-owned...
How do we get out of this mess? Feck knows ....
Link :
BBC Radio File on 4
Very interesting report on 'File on 4' on Radio 4.
Basically whent the Tories privatised the railways (Nonsense all round really), they created a new type of entity, called a 'Rosco' which takes care of owning the rolling stock and then leasing it back to the train operators. This was done because the length of the train operator franchises was kept short (To make them efficient and generate competition - Market solution and all that tosh) and, consequently, the rolling stock would not be attractive for the train operators to buy due to the long lifetime of those assets. The problem is that although the Tories created 3 of these Roscos - again, to generate competion and a 'market' - there isn't really any competition going on. Result? The costs of leasing are too high to make it attractive for the train operators to lease the amount of rolling stock they really need. Hence standing on the Glasgow to Edinburgh train every day rather than being provided with an extra carriage...
Moral? Regardless of your idealogical position on the concept, privitisation and introducing markets is not an approach does not lend itself to everything.
Sensible? No - some things just don't make sense being de-nationalised. If you think not, go travel around Europe and find a good public transport system that isn't municipal, or otherwise state-owned...
How do we get out of this mess? Feck knows ....
Link :
BBC Radio File on 4
Sunday, January 04, 2004
Friday, November 28, 2003
Labour's "Big Conversation"
Well, that was interesting - put my tuppence in Labour's Big Conversation (Nice to see you are using PHP and not a Microsoft product for once Tony.)
vis a vis :
Local issue - Public drunkeness, noise and disorder.
National Issues :
1) The apparent increasing resembalance of UK policies to that of the private business-focussed US administration rather than the generally, Socialist, principles of the EU, which will only serve to increase the gap between rich and poor rather than narrow it.
2) More focus on vocational and continuing training rather than unrealistic and irrelevant targets on increasing particpation in academic higher education which does not suit many people, or employers.
3) Absolute necessity of generating a real diversity of industries within the UK economy and encouraging the development of new products and services which will make the UK more able to compete on a global scale.
Comment :
Would like to see more use of the Internet to solicit public opinion and provide voting facilities, provided that access is available to all.
Well, that was interesting - put my tuppence in Labour's Big Conversation (Nice to see you are using PHP and not a Microsoft product for once Tony.)
vis a vis :
Local issue - Public drunkeness, noise and disorder.
National Issues :
1) The apparent increasing resembalance of UK policies to that of the private business-focussed US administration rather than the generally, Socialist, principles of the EU, which will only serve to increase the gap between rich and poor rather than narrow it.
2) More focus on vocational and continuing training rather than unrealistic and irrelevant targets on increasing particpation in academic higher education which does not suit many people, or employers.
3) Absolute necessity of generating a real diversity of industries within the UK economy and encouraging the development of new products and services which will make the UK more able to compete on a global scale.
Comment :
Would like to see more use of the Internet to solicit public opinion and provide voting facilities, provided that access is available to all.
Friday, November 21, 2003
Constitutional Reform - The House of Lords
Here's a good un - The House of Lords, discuss.
What would 'The Sensible Party' do with the second chamber?
My views is this - There is no place in a modern, fair and civilised society for positions of inherited privilege. So, no more monarchy and no more hereditary peers in my book.
Given the state of voting turnout in this country I see little value in an elected chamber though, so how would you select who gets to be a lord?
I tell you what would be a very interesting idea for a second chamber, and maybe this will be technically feasible soon.
Make it like jury duty - i.e. Joe Punter gets selected randomly and sites in the House of Lords for a month. That would be real democracy in action wouldn't it? Probably lead to untold expense claims though - so what else is new? : )
I suppose that opens a general topic - how to get people more invovled in democracy. Theoretically this should be easy, given the number of people who vote for Pop Idol and Big Brother for example...
Here's a good un - The House of Lords, discuss.
What would 'The Sensible Party' do with the second chamber?
My views is this - There is no place in a modern, fair and civilised society for positions of inherited privilege. So, no more monarchy and no more hereditary peers in my book.
Given the state of voting turnout in this country I see little value in an elected chamber though, so how would you select who gets to be a lord?
I tell you what would be a very interesting idea for a second chamber, and maybe this will be technically feasible soon.
Make it like jury duty - i.e. Joe Punter gets selected randomly and sites in the House of Lords for a month. That would be real democracy in action wouldn't it? Probably lead to untold expense claims though - so what else is new? : )
I suppose that opens a general topic - how to get people more invovled in democracy. Theoretically this should be easy, given the number of people who vote for Pop Idol and Big Brother for example...
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Good points, I hear your concerns.
Thing is though, given most people's relatively meagre imaginations with passwords, I'd imagine compromising one
password / PIN from the average member of the public would open up access to all sorts of services, especially internet
ones. Most people have pretty lame, easy to guess passwords and tend to secure everything with the same one - the reason they choose one is precisely the reason that people would ultimately prefer one card to do it all - convenience. But, it's a truism that whatever is easiest and most convenient, often has many pitfalls. The story you tell is exactly the sort of thing that would make such a card unacceptable. Thing is, that story was nothing to do with the card, just the ineptitude of the bank. Let's face it, banks only put in ATMs to save them money, they never go out of their way to make it easier for you to get at your cash for your convenience.
I think it all depends on the security of the information on the card and the method of granting access.
i.e. PIN numbers for cards are generally 4 digits but people find it relatively easy to remember landline telephone numbers, so 7 digits should be ok. Given that and say, a 3 attempts and you're card is locked + 24x7 helpline number to sort out any problems like the one above, should make it relatively secure. Granted that'd be hard for older folk which would be a big problem. I think a PIN + some sort of biometric would be required - fingerprint, retina etc. That is a way off right enough, so maybe we will be arguing about the pros and cons for 10 years+ before this is remotely practical.
I think if government doesn't do this, some enterprising company will do it anyway as the increasing number of passwords etc will make it more attractive to people to get one access method for all these services.
Difficult to imagine who would be trusted to run it though.
Thing is though, given most people's relatively meagre imaginations with passwords, I'd imagine compromising one
password / PIN from the average member of the public would open up access to all sorts of services, especially internet
ones. Most people have pretty lame, easy to guess passwords and tend to secure everything with the same one - the reason they choose one is precisely the reason that people would ultimately prefer one card to do it all - convenience. But, it's a truism that whatever is easiest and most convenient, often has many pitfalls. The story you tell is exactly the sort of thing that would make such a card unacceptable. Thing is, that story was nothing to do with the card, just the ineptitude of the bank. Let's face it, banks only put in ATMs to save them money, they never go out of their way to make it easier for you to get at your cash for your convenience.
I think it all depends on the security of the information on the card and the method of granting access.
i.e. PIN numbers for cards are generally 4 digits but people find it relatively easy to remember landline telephone numbers, so 7 digits should be ok. Given that and say, a 3 attempts and you're card is locked + 24x7 helpline number to sort out any problems like the one above, should make it relatively secure. Granted that'd be hard for older folk which would be a big problem. I think a PIN + some sort of biometric would be required - fingerprint, retina etc. That is a way off right enough, so maybe we will be arguing about the pros and cons for 10 years+ before this is remotely practical.
I think if government doesn't do this, some enterprising company will do it anyway as the increasing number of passwords etc will make it more attractive to people to get one access method for all these services.
Difficult to imagine who would be trusted to run it though.
yeah consolidation of your information onto an ID card sounds like a good thing.
I am all for increased efficiency and reduction in waste paper etc which may outweight any concerns I have.
My concerns are really concerns of the repercussions of abuse of this card.
who decides what info should go on the card,
what about credit rating etc?
what are the repercussions if your card and ID is stolen?
A bank card is fine, but if it is stolen it is just one bank account on it- what if an ID card held every account plus passwords to other things, other very sensitive data about you, your past,etc. It could grind your life to a halt until it was sorted out.
as an example :
a friend of mine- She was in marks, and she wanted to buy food for the weekend cos they had absolutelty nothing in the house.
She went to pay for it with her bank card.
It was refused, even though she knew she had plenty of money in the account.
After a long time of talking to the manager and the credit folk on the phone she left with no food.
So she went to the bank to find out what was happening- luckily there was a bank open on a saturday!!
The bank said , sorry we can see you have money in your account but we cant give you any money at all until monday becuase that is when we can contact the card company to get it sorted.
So the upshot of it was, she could not access HER money and could not buy food for the weekend.
She asked the bank
"so, are you telling me that I will not be able to buy any food? We are going to have to starve till monday? " and the bank said sorry but YES!
Now, how would this translate to an ID card. could these sort of problems exist with such a card?
If a card were to be issued it should be done over a long test time.
It should also not be compulsory to carry, nor should you be penalised for not having one.
Just like forcing OAPs to open bank accounts to get their pension, we should not be forced to have an ID card to life our life as we see fit.
Having said that, I'd consider one if my concerns were shown to be not an issue.
H
I am all for increased efficiency and reduction in waste paper etc which may outweight any concerns I have.
My concerns are really concerns of the repercussions of abuse of this card.
who decides what info should go on the card,
what about credit rating etc?
what are the repercussions if your card and ID is stolen?
A bank card is fine, but if it is stolen it is just one bank account on it- what if an ID card held every account plus passwords to other things, other very sensitive data about you, your past,etc. It could grind your life to a halt until it was sorted out.
as an example :
a friend of mine- She was in marks, and she wanted to buy food for the weekend cos they had absolutelty nothing in the house.
She went to pay for it with her bank card.
It was refused, even though she knew she had plenty of money in the account.
After a long time of talking to the manager and the credit folk on the phone she left with no food.
So she went to the bank to find out what was happening- luckily there was a bank open on a saturday!!
The bank said , sorry we can see you have money in your account but we cant give you any money at all until monday becuase that is when we can contact the card company to get it sorted.
So the upshot of it was, she could not access HER money and could not buy food for the weekend.
She asked the bank
"so, are you telling me that I will not be able to buy any food? We are going to have to starve till monday? " and the bank said sorry but YES!
Now, how would this translate to an ID card. could these sort of problems exist with such a card?
If a card were to be issued it should be done over a long test time.
It should also not be compulsory to carry, nor should you be penalised for not having one.
Just like forcing OAPs to open bank accounts to get their pension, we should not be forced to have an ID card to life our life as we see fit.
Having said that, I'd consider one if my concerns were shown to be not an issue.
H
Friday, November 14, 2003
Smart, finally something I can disagree with Col on, if only slightly!
Firstly, I totally understand concerns about the project being outsourced to some company, messed up and costing too much.
That is inevitably going to happen and I'm not happy about that in the slightest.
And yes, the security on these cards would need to be impressive - Note to Tony, no Microsoft on this one eh Tone?
However, if they don't hold anything more than existing NI cards, licenses and birth certs then that's not much of a concern anyway as they
are only as secure as your back pocket and don't contain much that is of interest or which can't be easily found out by other dubious means.
However, I think you've answered your question on why these would be a good thing. Precisely because you could consolidate all those
cards and docs onto one card. Much more convenient and people like convenience. Can you imagine banking without a bank card these days?
Fact is, as it stands, people like Tesco etc probably have more data on you than the government does. The government don't know what
you've bought in your shopping and in which store you bought it in the last 3 years for example :)
Overall I am in favour of such things because of the potential benefits, particularly medically.
It would be great if in an accident someone could easily tell you were diabetic etc by a quick lookup. Though they could do that with a paper card with an ID number on it and a database.
I think the real benefits would not be available until the back end of the system was all sorted. NHS records out of paper and on to a database etc. All this is a long way off. The UK has been very backward on this sort of stuff and it's time we moved on from that position in my opinion.
It makes me cringe when I go into my GP and he pulls out that folder with all the notes in... I wonder how many buildings and clerks Tesco would need to store all their data in that fashion?
Firstly, I totally understand concerns about the project being outsourced to some company, messed up and costing too much.
That is inevitably going to happen and I'm not happy about that in the slightest.
And yes, the security on these cards would need to be impressive - Note to Tony, no Microsoft on this one eh Tone?
However, if they don't hold anything more than existing NI cards, licenses and birth certs then that's not much of a concern anyway as they
are only as secure as your back pocket and don't contain much that is of interest or which can't be easily found out by other dubious means.
However, I think you've answered your question on why these would be a good thing. Precisely because you could consolidate all those
cards and docs onto one card. Much more convenient and people like convenience. Can you imagine banking without a bank card these days?
Fact is, as it stands, people like Tesco etc probably have more data on you than the government does. The government don't know what
you've bought in your shopping and in which store you bought it in the last 3 years for example :)
Overall I am in favour of such things because of the potential benefits, particularly medically.
It would be great if in an accident someone could easily tell you were diabetic etc by a quick lookup. Though they could do that with a paper card with an ID number on it and a database.
I think the real benefits would not be available until the back end of the system was all sorted. NHS records out of paper and on to a database etc. All this is a long way off. The UK has been very backward on this sort of stuff and it's time we moved on from that position in my opinion.
It makes me cringe when I go into my GP and he pulls out that folder with all the notes in... I wonder how many buildings and clerks Tesco would need to store all their data in that fashion?
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Identity cards
How can these be a good thing?
I just cant see how this will do anything.
I mean we already have passports, driving licences, birth certificates, NI cards, the list goes on...
Why would another ID card be any better?
If it is electronic then it can be copied/ forged...
Is there something I am missing?
Criminals dont care about ID cards etc, unless it is about selling them.
I certainly would not pay for them- we already are paying or them anyway-cos they'll be using our tax revenue.
Also, imagine the system designed- no doubt it'll be outsourced to some company.
They will churn the system out, it'll get hacked and we'll all need to get our ID's patched.
If your ID card isnt patched up to date then you cant get your benefits. You will be an INVALID!
so it goes on...
How can these be a good thing?
I just cant see how this will do anything.
I mean we already have passports, driving licences, birth certificates, NI cards, the list goes on...
Why would another ID card be any better?
If it is electronic then it can be copied/ forged...
Is there something I am missing?
Criminals dont care about ID cards etc, unless it is about selling them.
I certainly would not pay for them- we already are paying or them anyway-cos they'll be using our tax revenue.
Also, imagine the system designed- no doubt it'll be outsourced to some company.
They will churn the system out, it'll get hacked and we'll all need to get our ID's patched.
If your ID card isnt patched up to date then you cant get your benefits. You will be an INVALID!
so it goes on...
U.S. loses WTO steel appeal
Interesting stuff.
Yeah, Recyle, Reuse, Repair.
Thats what the sensible party should stand for!
The thing I was thinking about was this.
We import all this cheaper steel or cheaper coal etc etc; this maybe good for us in the end.
Thinking in a selfish way:
we are using other countries finite natural resources and leaving ours intact for future generations.
So is this a good thing I would think.
Plastics, I dont like them but they are definetly useful. Light and strong and you cant go wrong.
repairing broken things.
Turns out it my Nokia- cost 150 quid, made god knows where - a piece of junk- it is cheaper buying a new phone than to get this one fixed. I liek the wee phone, but this particular model was always duff... they just churn out crap like some software companies do... punt it; patch it after.
Which is why I bought a petrol hungry anti-environment lightweight landrover...
yeah it is cheaper buying a new car, but you cant fix anything on a new car. .except, perhaps, 'go faster stickers'
This laDy you can fix everything!.... basically because everything on it NEEDS fixed... hehe
there are no easy answers:
the sensible party should support
recylcling, reuse and repairing!
Interesting stuff.
Yeah, Recyle, Reuse, Repair.
Thats what the sensible party should stand for!
The thing I was thinking about was this.
We import all this cheaper steel or cheaper coal etc etc; this maybe good for us in the end.
Thinking in a selfish way:
we are using other countries finite natural resources and leaving ours intact for future generations.
So is this a good thing I would think.
Plastics, I dont like them but they are definetly useful. Light and strong and you cant go wrong.
repairing broken things.
Turns out it my Nokia- cost 150 quid, made god knows where - a piece of junk- it is cheaper buying a new phone than to get this one fixed. I liek the wee phone, but this particular model was always duff... they just churn out crap like some software companies do... punt it; patch it after.
Which is why I bought a petrol hungry anti-environment lightweight landrover...
yeah it is cheaper buying a new car, but you cant fix anything on a new car. .except, perhaps, 'go faster stickers'
This laDy you can fix everything!.... basically because everything on it NEEDS fixed... hehe
there are no easy answers:
the sensible party should support
recylcling, reuse and repairing!
Monday, November 10, 2003
Well, the world for it, and it's a word I find myself repeating a lot these days, is - "unsustainable".
We can't go on throwing stuff out all the time and buying more stuff, ultimately we will have to make, either
more recyclable products or more component's products which can be enhanced / swapped out, replaced etc without throwing away the whole thing. A the risk of being an old fart, this is how things used to be - it was called, fixing things. Now things are so cheap, usually because they are made by poorly paid people on the other side of the world, that they are not even worth repairing. Sometimes it is even virtually impossible to replace parts.
My prediction - if we keep on like this - In 150 years, if humans are still around, mining rubbish will be a growth industry.
"Today BR (British reclaims PLC, formerly BP) announced they have struck a major landfill seam next to the site of the
former M74 motorway. The find promises a rich vein of plastics and semi-conductors"
Monbiot is particularly interesting, though some would say alarmist, on the sustainability issue :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,866785,00.html
From time to time I find myself wondering, if plastics were a no-no anymore, how would products we are used to in plastic be packaged? Consider the Gilette Gel Deodorant I use every day, quite apart from how the gel is made, it all comes in a plastic pack. Would it be in a cardboard tube? Maybe soft metal like toothpaste used to be like? I am now thinking how scary it is that my step-daughter has never even seen toothpaste in anything other than a plastic tube. How will it be to her generation when this is no longer on? Even a pack of ham is in plastic, it used to be placed on some greaseproof paper in a brown paper bag. Fact is, the second format will be much more convenient to our increasingly elderly population anyway :) Maybe the increasing numbers of old folk will mean out grumpy old (30 something) men politics will be more fashionable??
We can't go on throwing stuff out all the time and buying more stuff, ultimately we will have to make, either
more recyclable products or more component's products which can be enhanced / swapped out, replaced etc without throwing away the whole thing. A the risk of being an old fart, this is how things used to be - it was called, fixing things. Now things are so cheap, usually because they are made by poorly paid people on the other side of the world, that they are not even worth repairing. Sometimes it is even virtually impossible to replace parts.
My prediction - if we keep on like this - In 150 years, if humans are still around, mining rubbish will be a growth industry.
"Today BR (British reclaims PLC, formerly BP) announced they have struck a major landfill seam next to the site of the
former M74 motorway. The find promises a rich vein of plastics and semi-conductors"
Monbiot is particularly interesting, though some would say alarmist, on the sustainability issue :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,866785,00.html
From time to time I find myself wondering, if plastics were a no-no anymore, how would products we are used to in plastic be packaged? Consider the Gilette Gel Deodorant I use every day, quite apart from how the gel is made, it all comes in a plastic pack. Would it be in a cardboard tube? Maybe soft metal like toothpaste used to be like? I am now thinking how scary it is that my step-daughter has never even seen toothpaste in anything other than a plastic tube. How will it be to her generation when this is no longer on? Even a pack of ham is in plastic, it used to be placed on some greaseproof paper in a brown paper bag. Fact is, the second format will be much more convenient to our increasingly elderly population anyway :) Maybe the increasing numbers of old folk will mean out grumpy old (30 something) men politics will be more fashionable??
oh aye,
punt out: patch after (POPA)
Thats how the world operates now, cos of shoddy standards and cos they chuck money at any issue, never mind about quality just punt it out. Everything is disposable just because it is low quality and replacable. Once upon a time we produced quality products which took time to make, were not very cheap, but lasted a long time/lifetime. However cultures are just swamped by america; their great tide of debt induced low quality acceptance means that it is normal to have low quality products -afterall what do you expect for something costing you pennies.
I say the sensible party stands for supporting quality produced products which should mean less disposable products and means less consumption of natural resources!
We need to be sensible in our approach to consumption!
punt out: patch after (POPA)
Thats how the world operates now, cos of shoddy standards and cos they chuck money at any issue, never mind about quality just punt it out. Everything is disposable just because it is low quality and replacable. Once upon a time we produced quality products which took time to make, were not very cheap, but lasted a long time/lifetime. However cultures are just swamped by america; their great tide of debt induced low quality acceptance means that it is normal to have low quality products -afterall what do you expect for something costing you pennies.
I say the sensible party stands for supporting quality produced products which should mean less disposable products and means less consumption of natural resources!
We need to be sensible in our approach to consumption!
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
surprise surprise,
"Word on da street" is that We tax payers are paying nearly 3 times as much into the rail network after privitisation as we did before privitisation.
Did I mention that privitisation of our national assets was not appropriate for todays society.
it is a con, and should be stopped!
Selling off our countries resources is stupid stupid stupid!
Mind you a few companies have made a combined PROFIT of 1.1 BILLION.
well that's great for them isnt it...
Let's put up the pople responsible for this and charge them for fraudulent activities and neglect.
I say the sensible party should stand for investing in Society before servicing the leeches fat cats.
"Word on da street" is that We tax payers are paying nearly 3 times as much into the rail network after privitisation as we did before privitisation.
Did I mention that privitisation of our national assets was not appropriate for todays society.
it is a con, and should be stopped!
Selling off our countries resources is stupid stupid stupid!
Mind you a few companies have made a combined PROFIT of 1.1 BILLION.
well that's great for them isnt it...
Let's put up the pople responsible for this and charge them for fraudulent activities and neglect.
I say the sensible party should stand for investing in Society before servicing the leeches fat cats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)