CAPTURING THE PAST
Since the start of 1975 I've endeavored to keep a daily diary, writing a few mundane lines about my day, and the occasional comment on my state of mind or the wider world. That's over 42 years worth of trivia, and still going. There are a few gaps along the way, the longest of about six months, but there is, or rather was, a physical book for each calendar year.
That takes up quite a bit of space, for something that gets consulted only on rare occasions. So when we started to think about downsizing, which resulted in our move to our current home, this mountain of paper looked a likely candidate for culling. Except that that's my past life, since I was in the dying days of my teenage years, and does have a certain amount of interest and, very occasionally, some practical use as I try to pinpoint events in the past. So I took a decision that comes with both positive and negative consequences. I would data capture the entries into the digital world, and thereby discard the pile of books. But over four and a bit decades I do seem to have poured out a lot of words....
At least I have an end point to aim for. When I started on this path, in early 2014, it seemed sensible to also digitise each new day's entry as I went along. And to capture the earlier months of that year so that it was complete. So everything from 1 January 2014 is present and correct. Progress at the other end is less encouraging though.
There have been spells when I've neglected the task, so the momentum has been far from linear. Recently I decided to sit down and work out, roughly, how long the project might take. At the rate of progress I'd managed up until that point I'd be around 80 when I finished. I might not live to 80.
A few calculations suggest that to be finished around the time I turn seventy I'm going to have to type up around five to six entries per day. With some entries being no more than a brief paragraph, whilst others can cover two or more pages of A4 in tightly packed script, that isn't a very meaningful measurement. It's not helped by the appalling handwriting, which can require a bit of textual detective work to interpret at times. If I had any sense I'd stop now.
Except that I did mention that there were also positive outcomes to this exercise (as well as the glacially slow reduction in the pile). A cliche I know, but as we go through life we do become different people in many ways, but also retain some essential elements of our personality. Wading through my daily existence from all that time ago is like reading a novel in which I am the central character, but only partially sketched out, and I'm left to try and fill in the holes. It often feels like somebody else's life entirely when I come across incidents and people that trigger no memories at all. Yet others seem so fresh in my mind and I'm instantly returned to the moment. It's an interesting education in the selectivity of memory.
At the moment I'm only in 1980, in the earliest days of my career, gradually recovering from the most serious illness I've ever had, and making some friendships that have continued over the years since. I know that there were some big upheavals in my life in the months I'm now entering, but how the words on the page will relate to my recall is going to be interesting. My current life feels so sorted and contented that I'm not going to encounter anything that could disturb my equilibrium. And there are many events still to look forward to as I type my way through each day.
So it might take me another decade (and then some), but this is one project I'm not giving up on.
Saturday, 4 March 2017
Friday, 3 March 2017
Who's really in control here?
TAKING BACK CONTROL?
It was one of the big slogans of the Leave campaign. It was one of the vaguest, most meaningless slogans of the Leave campaign, but it had a simple appeal to people who didn't really understand why their lives were being hit so hard. They wanted to take back 'control' from the EU - which in reality controls very little of our day to day lives. But who would this mythical 'control' be given to?
Since this was all about the UK, supposedly gaining powers it had lost, the implication was greater control for the UK constitutional set up. For the major components of a representative democracy - executive, legislature and judiciary. In very simple terms the legislature creates the law, the executive administers it, and the judiciary ensures compliance.
So why are the Leave fanatics getting so upset when this happens in practice? First off it was the judges, who ruled that the law required parliament to approve the activation of Article 50. A 'newspaper' (rag) headline declared they were "Enemies of the People". For doing their constitutional job. For daring to ensure that the law was in control. Instead of accepting the judgement, the government wasted a considerable amount of taxpayers' money in trying to get a different decision. What's so hard about accepting the rule of law?
Then it was the MPs who 'dared' to vote against the frankly pathetic bill that May hopes will give her unlimited power to batter through major constitutional changes that weren't even approved by the slender majority in an advisory referendum. Now it's the House of Lords, over whom she tried to loom threateningly, because they have tried to minimise some of the damage being caused to a large group of people. How dare they actually think of putting people first....?
But if this Brexit farce is consistently damaging and suggestive of a bleak future, it still manages to throw up plenty of comedy. Who couldn't laugh at some of the over the top reactions of the fanatics? So now we have the far right, who wanted to take back control, deciding that they don't like the control being shown because it doesn't exactly match the control they want it to be. Or something like that.
So they're pushing a petition to abolish the House of Lords. You couldn't, to use a phrase so beloved of these people, make this shit up. Not only are the EU institutions unfit to meet their demands, so are the UK's. The irony is that many of us on the left have for decades wanted the Lords replaced with something more in line with a democratic state. Now the numpties are pushing for the right decision for all the wrong reasons. What a shower.
It was one of the big slogans of the Leave campaign. It was one of the vaguest, most meaningless slogans of the Leave campaign, but it had a simple appeal to people who didn't really understand why their lives were being hit so hard. They wanted to take back 'control' from the EU - which in reality controls very little of our day to day lives. But who would this mythical 'control' be given to?
Since this was all about the UK, supposedly gaining powers it had lost, the implication was greater control for the UK constitutional set up. For the major components of a representative democracy - executive, legislature and judiciary. In very simple terms the legislature creates the law, the executive administers it, and the judiciary ensures compliance.
So why are the Leave fanatics getting so upset when this happens in practice? First off it was the judges, who ruled that the law required parliament to approve the activation of Article 50. A 'newspaper' (rag) headline declared they were "Enemies of the People". For doing their constitutional job. For daring to ensure that the law was in control. Instead of accepting the judgement, the government wasted a considerable amount of taxpayers' money in trying to get a different decision. What's so hard about accepting the rule of law?
Then it was the MPs who 'dared' to vote against the frankly pathetic bill that May hopes will give her unlimited power to batter through major constitutional changes that weren't even approved by the slender majority in an advisory referendum. Now it's the House of Lords, over whom she tried to loom threateningly, because they have tried to minimise some of the damage being caused to a large group of people. How dare they actually think of putting people first....?
But if this Brexit farce is consistently damaging and suggestive of a bleak future, it still manages to throw up plenty of comedy. Who couldn't laugh at some of the over the top reactions of the fanatics? So now we have the far right, who wanted to take back control, deciding that they don't like the control being shown because it doesn't exactly match the control they want it to be. Or something like that.
So they're pushing a petition to abolish the House of Lords. You couldn't, to use a phrase so beloved of these people, make this shit up. Not only are the EU institutions unfit to meet their demands, so are the UK's. The irony is that many of us on the left have for decades wanted the Lords replaced with something more in line with a democratic state. Now the numpties are pushing for the right decision for all the wrong reasons. What a shower.
'National' broadcaster? Really?
MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT THE EBC?
I wonder what the reaction in England would be if one of the main BBC news bulletins of the day featured, as a major item, several minutes discussing a crisis in the French health service, then, shortly after, another piece on problems with French policing? Something tells me there'd be a few people getting more than a little upset.
It's the BBC after all. The British Broadcasting Corporation. Dedicated to covering British news stories, of interest to British viewers, plus a bit of international coverage. Isn't that what it's supposed to be? So I wonder why, last night, the 10 o'clock news featured two lengthy stories that were really only of interest to the people in one region of the UK? And I wonder which region that might be....?
The BBC recently rejected the demand for a 'Scottish Six', a six o'clock news programme, on BBC1, leading with national stories in Scotland. A dedicated Scottish channel has been promised, although what shape that will take remains to be seen, so judgement must be reserved for now. But it means that on BBC1, the prime UK station, we'll continue to be fed a news service heavily biased towards England.
You see this strongly on so much of the BBC's news and politics output. How often is the UK's third most important political party, in terms of Westminster seats and party members, seen on Question Time? And how often does a minority, far right party with only one MP (perhaps not even that in the near future) and a falling membership manage to be featured so often? Strange, isn't it?
But wait. On Radio Four this morning the news bulletin actually led with a story about Scotland. Sort of. Reporting Cruella de May's speech suggesting that the Scottish Government should stop playing with people's lives, get on with the 'day job', and stop fretting about independence? Funny, I thought the day job included trying to represent the wishes and best interests of the people who live in Scotland? Which has to include an independence option since May's dictatorially-inclined government quite signally refuse to consider all the practical suggestions that have been made to cover the needs of a population that voted decisively to stay in the EU.
As for 'doing the day job', this carries just a smidgin of hypocrisy from the head of a regime that's wasting millions of pounds on the Department of Impending Catastrophe, or Ministry of Truth, or whatever Davis Davis' shambolic organisation is now called.
[Head of DIC sounds about right for Davis....]
In some ways I don't blame the BBC. The government-led attacks and threats it's suffered since the eighties have resulted in a steady decline in the quality of reporting, and a long way form it's once vaunted impartiality. It has been bruised and battered and cowed into lapdog status. The creative departments remain as impressive as ever, and produce's much that's fine in drama and comedy. They even manage to occasional decent documentary. But politically they have been hamstrung and too often sound like little more than a (Westminster) government mouthpiece. Pro-brexit, pro-union, increasingly right wing and seemingly promoting ukip because they like a bit of 'controversy'. (Would Fuhrage even have been heard of if Question Time hadn't slung him under our noses at every opportunity, thus helping to normalise his hate speech?)
A state broadcaster free from commercial influences should be a strong force for truth and good in society. But it also needs to be free from political influence. The BBC has lost it's way.
I wonder what the reaction in England would be if one of the main BBC news bulletins of the day featured, as a major item, several minutes discussing a crisis in the French health service, then, shortly after, another piece on problems with French policing? Something tells me there'd be a few people getting more than a little upset.
It's the BBC after all. The British Broadcasting Corporation. Dedicated to covering British news stories, of interest to British viewers, plus a bit of international coverage. Isn't that what it's supposed to be? So I wonder why, last night, the 10 o'clock news featured two lengthy stories that were really only of interest to the people in one region of the UK? And I wonder which region that might be....?
The BBC recently rejected the demand for a 'Scottish Six', a six o'clock news programme, on BBC1, leading with national stories in Scotland. A dedicated Scottish channel has been promised, although what shape that will take remains to be seen, so judgement must be reserved for now. But it means that on BBC1, the prime UK station, we'll continue to be fed a news service heavily biased towards England.
You see this strongly on so much of the BBC's news and politics output. How often is the UK's third most important political party, in terms of Westminster seats and party members, seen on Question Time? And how often does a minority, far right party with only one MP (perhaps not even that in the near future) and a falling membership manage to be featured so often? Strange, isn't it?
But wait. On Radio Four this morning the news bulletin actually led with a story about Scotland. Sort of. Reporting Cruella de May's speech suggesting that the Scottish Government should stop playing with people's lives, get on with the 'day job', and stop fretting about independence? Funny, I thought the day job included trying to represent the wishes and best interests of the people who live in Scotland? Which has to include an independence option since May's dictatorially-inclined government quite signally refuse to consider all the practical suggestions that have been made to cover the needs of a population that voted decisively to stay in the EU.
As for 'doing the day job', this carries just a smidgin of hypocrisy from the head of a regime that's wasting millions of pounds on the Department of Impending Catastrophe, or Ministry of Truth, or whatever Davis Davis' shambolic organisation is now called.
[Head of DIC sounds about right for Davis....]
In some ways I don't blame the BBC. The government-led attacks and threats it's suffered since the eighties have resulted in a steady decline in the quality of reporting, and a long way form it's once vaunted impartiality. It has been bruised and battered and cowed into lapdog status. The creative departments remain as impressive as ever, and produce's much that's fine in drama and comedy. They even manage to occasional decent documentary. But politically they have been hamstrung and too often sound like little more than a (Westminster) government mouthpiece. Pro-brexit, pro-union, increasingly right wing and seemingly promoting ukip because they like a bit of 'controversy'. (Would Fuhrage even have been heard of if Question Time hadn't slung him under our noses at every opportunity, thus helping to normalise his hate speech?)
A state broadcaster free from commercial influences should be a strong force for truth and good in society. But it also needs to be free from political influence. The BBC has lost it's way.
Thursday, 2 March 2017
Republican times
NOT MY QUEENIE
When Scotland regains it's independence (and I become ever more confident that it's now a when rather than an if) one of the big questions to be answered is what sort of head of state we want to have. In the 2014 referendum the government said we should retain the monarchy to provide a continuing link with the remainder of what had been the UK. But is that really what we want, or need?
I hope not. I've never been a monarchist, never will be, It seems to me that royalty is the most visible symbol of one of the biggest problems our society has to overcome - inherited power, privilege and wealth. Unlike the Scandinavian monarchies they look incapable of reform, with obsequious deference such a profound instinct in so much of the media and establishment. We need a break from all that.
This is about self respect. In the modern world it's surely important that we are treated as citizens, not subjects. That must be integral to any concept of democracy. At least the EU treats us as citizens, but they're even trying to take that right away from us.
Lizzie still, for reasons I fail to understand, is regarded with some affection by much of the public, even in Scotland. Perhaps because she's managed to remain relatively anonymous in this age of media intrusion, as she still receives the sycophantic treatment. But Charlie? I wonder if that will still be the case when the man who talks to plants gets the job (against zero opposition of course)? We can do so much better. Anyone who doubts it just needs to look a short distance over the water to the cultured, intelligent and charismatic Michael D Higgins . What more could you ask for in a head of state? And what chance that someone of his abilities would come out of a bunch of chinless inbreds?
But the EU referendum travesty has so amplified the Little Englander mentality that those down south will likely want to cling on to the crown as part of their return to the 1950s.
Anyway, as my title above suggests, I don't regard her as my queenie anyway. She call herself QE2. But there was never a QE1 of my country.
Most people reading that will jump to the conclusion that I mean Scotland. Unionists will then point out that Scotland is, at least for now, a part of a country called the UK. And then find that my answer is still the same. There was never a Queen Elizabeth of the UK. Either way you look at it she's just plain queen Liz. Unless you're stupid enough to think that Britain is the same thing as England....
And finally, we can be rid of that turgid dirge that passes for a national anthem. Every time I hear it I just wish I was French.
Vive La Republique!
When Scotland regains it's independence (and I become ever more confident that it's now a when rather than an if) one of the big questions to be answered is what sort of head of state we want to have. In the 2014 referendum the government said we should retain the monarchy to provide a continuing link with the remainder of what had been the UK. But is that really what we want, or need?
I hope not. I've never been a monarchist, never will be, It seems to me that royalty is the most visible symbol of one of the biggest problems our society has to overcome - inherited power, privilege and wealth. Unlike the Scandinavian monarchies they look incapable of reform, with obsequious deference such a profound instinct in so much of the media and establishment. We need a break from all that.
This is about self respect. In the modern world it's surely important that we are treated as citizens, not subjects. That must be integral to any concept of democracy. At least the EU treats us as citizens, but they're even trying to take that right away from us.
Lizzie still, for reasons I fail to understand, is regarded with some affection by much of the public, even in Scotland. Perhaps because she's managed to remain relatively anonymous in this age of media intrusion, as she still receives the sycophantic treatment. But Charlie? I wonder if that will still be the case when the man who talks to plants gets the job (against zero opposition of course)? We can do so much better. Anyone who doubts it just needs to look a short distance over the water to the cultured, intelligent and charismatic Michael D Higgins . What more could you ask for in a head of state? And what chance that someone of his abilities would come out of a bunch of chinless inbreds?
But the EU referendum travesty has so amplified the Little Englander mentality that those down south will likely want to cling on to the crown as part of their return to the 1950s.
Anyway, as my title above suggests, I don't regard her as my queenie anyway. She call herself QE2. But there was never a QE1 of my country.
Most people reading that will jump to the conclusion that I mean Scotland. Unionists will then point out that Scotland is, at least for now, a part of a country called the UK. And then find that my answer is still the same. There was never a Queen Elizabeth of the UK. Either way you look at it she's just plain queen Liz. Unless you're stupid enough to think that Britain is the same thing as England....
And finally, we can be rid of that turgid dirge that passes for a national anthem. Every time I hear it I just wish I was French.
Vive La Republique!
Writing for anybody - but mostly for myself
READY MADE SUBJECTS
As well as this blog I also post in one called Go Live. It's been on the go for just over two years now, and has almost three hundred posts.
I enjoy writing, I enjoy going out to various forms of entertainment. Put the two together and I have an ongoing flow of material. The blog title did quickly become a misnomer though. I envisaged it being about all the live events I'd been to see, but immediately realised I wanted to include films as well, or at least those I've been to a cinema to view. At first I also included reports on ice hockey matches too, but soon recognised that they didn't fit in well with the overall theme of the blog. So it's been narrowed down to encompass live music, drama, comedy, and the aforementioned cinema visits. (I've refrained from trying to comment on art exhibitions and galleries, as I'd quickly feel right out of my depth!)
Hardly anyone reads these reviews, and that's fine with me. I did get asked if I'd like to submit some to another blog, but in the end decided against it - I've no need of the pressure and having others read my words isn't what this is all about. I do it for myself, and if anyone else happens to get something from anything I post then that's a bonus. I do it because I enjoy the challenge, because I already try to write every day and here's some immediate subject matter, I do it just for fun and enjoyment. If anyone does find something helpful in my outpourings then that's a bonus.
It has changed the way I view gigs etc. though. Whatever I'm watching a part of my enjoyment comes from turning possible sentences and phrases over in my mind, trying to pick out the essential elements of whatever it is I'm looking at and listening to. I also carry a notebook with me to jot down my thoughts after it's finished. There are a few times when I feel my thoughts are clear enough and I don't need the notes. But come festival time - be it film, jazz or Fringe - the little book is an essential companion. Once you start to see two or three events in the same day the memory is not to be relied upon.
So I will continue with Go Live because it's become a habit I get a lot of pleasure from (even if few other people do!). Occasionally I get a wider readership if the artist being covered decides to retweet or share my post (but only when I've been nice about them!).
But there's one success I'm unlikely to repeat in the future. I had one of my reviews translated into Danish and published on a Danish folk music site, although I only discovered this by accident. With Danish being such an opaque language if you're unfamiliar with it, it was as well I'd put in a couple of made up words, which proved to be untranslatable, and a reference to Jaco Pastorius. Without them I'd never have recognised my own prose!
Tomorrow night I'm off to another folk gig, and then I'll be one step closer to the three hundred mark. Need to keep my hand in for festival season....
As well as this blog I also post in one called Go Live. It's been on the go for just over two years now, and has almost three hundred posts.
I enjoy writing, I enjoy going out to various forms of entertainment. Put the two together and I have an ongoing flow of material. The blog title did quickly become a misnomer though. I envisaged it being about all the live events I'd been to see, but immediately realised I wanted to include films as well, or at least those I've been to a cinema to view. At first I also included reports on ice hockey matches too, but soon recognised that they didn't fit in well with the overall theme of the blog. So it's been narrowed down to encompass live music, drama, comedy, and the aforementioned cinema visits. (I've refrained from trying to comment on art exhibitions and galleries, as I'd quickly feel right out of my depth!)
Hardly anyone reads these reviews, and that's fine with me. I did get asked if I'd like to submit some to another blog, but in the end decided against it - I've no need of the pressure and having others read my words isn't what this is all about. I do it for myself, and if anyone else happens to get something from anything I post then that's a bonus. I do it because I enjoy the challenge, because I already try to write every day and here's some immediate subject matter, I do it just for fun and enjoyment. If anyone does find something helpful in my outpourings then that's a bonus.
It has changed the way I view gigs etc. though. Whatever I'm watching a part of my enjoyment comes from turning possible sentences and phrases over in my mind, trying to pick out the essential elements of whatever it is I'm looking at and listening to. I also carry a notebook with me to jot down my thoughts after it's finished. There are a few times when I feel my thoughts are clear enough and I don't need the notes. But come festival time - be it film, jazz or Fringe - the little book is an essential companion. Once you start to see two or three events in the same day the memory is not to be relied upon.
So I will continue with Go Live because it's become a habit I get a lot of pleasure from (even if few other people do!). Occasionally I get a wider readership if the artist being covered decides to retweet or share my post (but only when I've been nice about them!).
But there's one success I'm unlikely to repeat in the future. I had one of my reviews translated into Danish and published on a Danish folk music site, although I only discovered this by accident. With Danish being such an opaque language if you're unfamiliar with it, it was as well I'd put in a couple of made up words, which proved to be untranslatable, and a reference to Jaco Pastorius. Without them I'd never have recognised my own prose!
Tomorrow night I'm off to another folk gig, and then I'll be one step closer to the three hundred mark. Need to keep my hand in for festival season....
Friday, 24 February 2017
By-election fall out might be for the best?
THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS?
It was English by-election day yesterday, not just in the two Westminster seats that have received ll the coverage today, but also in three council seats. And the results in all five may be an indicator that the disastrous far right politics of 2016 are slowly being rejected.
The clearest indicator of that was in Stoke where Labour held on to their seat despite promises from ukip of an upsurge in their fortunes. This was a constituency that voted heavily to Leave in June. This result may be an indication that many of the voters there are starting to realise how badly they were conned by the Leave campaigns lies and hate-mongering. Ukip thought they had this, so much so that they chose their own toxic leader as Candidate. It's good to see he's had as much success as his frog faced predecessor, although he's got a long way to go to catch up on Fuhrage's seven failures....
Ukip are struggling for money, having had to pay back the EU after misspending public funds, and their membership numbers have fallen. Add in the internal feuding that was so apparent and it's possible this recent failure is one more step towards the fascist party's death spiral. Politics is best rid of them.
On the face of it the result in Copeland looks to be anti-progressive, with a historic win for the governing party. But it might just be part of a much needed jolt for Labour. I like Corbyn. He's got many excellent policies, has tried hard to bring a kinder face to political discourse, and appears to be a fundamentally decent person, the very opposite of the Tory leadership. But. There's too much evidence showing that he's a terrible, indeed ineffectual, people manager. And that's been fatal to Labour's ability to be an effective opposition, with the membership of the shadow cabinet changing like socks. Worse still has been his dereliction of duty in failing to do enough to oppose May's attempts to railroad though disastrous constitutional change. His failure to properly oppose the tyrannical Brexit bill is a betrayal of Remain voters who deserve effective representation in parliament, something that's been left to the numerically handicapped SNP and Lib Dems.
So a Tory win looks bad, but if it's a step on the road to having a more effective Labour party it could turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
In the three council elections the Tories held on to one, but lost the other two to the Lib Dems. Not just narrowly, but on a massive swing. Maybe there were local issues that caused this, but I can only hope it's another sign of the appallingly name Bregret that is becoming mentioned more frequently, and that public opinion is steadily moving decisively against leaving the EU.
That would be good for England and, selflessly, I applaud that. Even if it may actually be a step back for Scottish independence....
It was English by-election day yesterday, not just in the two Westminster seats that have received ll the coverage today, but also in three council seats. And the results in all five may be an indicator that the disastrous far right politics of 2016 are slowly being rejected.
The clearest indicator of that was in Stoke where Labour held on to their seat despite promises from ukip of an upsurge in their fortunes. This was a constituency that voted heavily to Leave in June. This result may be an indication that many of the voters there are starting to realise how badly they were conned by the Leave campaigns lies and hate-mongering. Ukip thought they had this, so much so that they chose their own toxic leader as Candidate. It's good to see he's had as much success as his frog faced predecessor, although he's got a long way to go to catch up on Fuhrage's seven failures....
Ukip are struggling for money, having had to pay back the EU after misspending public funds, and their membership numbers have fallen. Add in the internal feuding that was so apparent and it's possible this recent failure is one more step towards the fascist party's death spiral. Politics is best rid of them.
On the face of it the result in Copeland looks to be anti-progressive, with a historic win for the governing party. But it might just be part of a much needed jolt for Labour. I like Corbyn. He's got many excellent policies, has tried hard to bring a kinder face to political discourse, and appears to be a fundamentally decent person, the very opposite of the Tory leadership. But. There's too much evidence showing that he's a terrible, indeed ineffectual, people manager. And that's been fatal to Labour's ability to be an effective opposition, with the membership of the shadow cabinet changing like socks. Worse still has been his dereliction of duty in failing to do enough to oppose May's attempts to railroad though disastrous constitutional change. His failure to properly oppose the tyrannical Brexit bill is a betrayal of Remain voters who deserve effective representation in parliament, something that's been left to the numerically handicapped SNP and Lib Dems.
So a Tory win looks bad, but if it's a step on the road to having a more effective Labour party it could turn out to be a blessing in disguise.
In the three council elections the Tories held on to one, but lost the other two to the Lib Dems. Not just narrowly, but on a massive swing. Maybe there were local issues that caused this, but I can only hope it's another sign of the appallingly name Bregret that is becoming mentioned more frequently, and that public opinion is steadily moving decisively against leaving the EU.
That would be good for England and, selflessly, I applaud that. Even if it may actually be a step back for Scottish independence....
Thursday, 23 February 2017
Weight watching, the lazy way
FOLLOW THE LAD
People worry about retiring. For several reasons.
Having enough income to live a decent life is the biggest one for most. We're lucky enough to have enough coming in to feed, house and clothe ourselves, and still have something left over to enjoy life with.
Then there's health. Well, you're getting older and the body doesn't quite function like it once did, but all you can do is try to keep active, eat healthily and hope you're lucky. Plus there's a lot to be said for not having to go into an office, or on crowded commuter public transport, when there are bugs going around.
Boredom? Some people wonder how they'll fill the hours of every day when they no longer have a job to turn up at. They wonder how they'll cope with the loss of routine and structure that work provides. They think they'll miss the office gossip, the intellectual challenge, the sense of achievement. And really it depends on the type of person you are. I might, very occasionally, have missed some of the people I used to see every day. But the rest of it? Nah.... Never once. Far from being bored, I wonder how to fit in all the things I want to do some days. And I do have the chance to get some of those things a job used to provide through voluntary work (more of which in a future post). Trust me, there's no reason to let yourself get bored with life.
There was one thing I did have some concerns about though, partly linked to the health concerns above. Other than during a particularly stressful period of work almost twenty years ago, I've never been one to have to worry much about putting on weight. But a less active, less stressed, less structured lifestyle might well lead to eating more, burning off less, and an enlarging waistline. Fortunately we've discovered the perfect route to maintaining a steady mass.
It's simple really. Although we might wake around 7.30 or 8, that's not the same as actually getting up, is it? I go down for hot drinks, feed the cat, come back to bed and catch up on what's happening in the world (WiFi is the retiree's friend). Another round of drinks, a bit of a read of whatever book I'm currently in to and .... oh look, it's 10.30. How did that happen? So by the time I'm up, and done a bit of stretching (those cats know a thing or two), had a shower and chosen today's t shirt, breakfast seems to be some time around midday. And I do like a decent sized breakfast.
So there isn't a lunchtime really. And it's too close to dinner time to want to start snacking, so there is no incentive to eat anything much until I sit at the table again. That's it, that's the secret. Get up so late you can't really consider anything more than two decent meals. I call it the LAD. The Lazy Arse Diet. Works for me....
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
Staring at screens all day
FROM SCREEN TO SHINING SCREEN
A few years ago if I'd said I had spent most of my day looking at screens they'd have been PC monitors or laptops, with the odd glance at my phone. I'd have been looking at reports, plans, spreadsheets. I'd have been filling in forms, writing updates, dealing with emails. And, in hindsight, not really doing anything worthwhile.
Today I've spent long periods looking at four screens, and they have all been worth my attention. In the morning it was the Cameo cinema to see the wonderful 20th Century Women. After lunch we were in the Filmhouse to see German comedy Toni Erdmann, which had one of the funniest party scenes I've ever watched. In the evening it was the TV at home, with the live webcast of the hockey match between Coventry Blaze and my Edinburgh Capitals. Not the finest moment of the day, not just because Caps lost, but due to the effect on my eyesight of such a blurry picture being displayed - sort yourselves out Coventry!
While that was on I paid partial attention to my laptop, doing a bit of tidying up. And now I sit before my desk monitor, battering away at my keyboard to do a bit of writing, a bit of checking up on the news. No reports, plans or spreadsheets. No writing because I have to, but because I want to. And no emails demanding my urgent attention.
There's a lot to be said for retirement....
A few years ago if I'd said I had spent most of my day looking at screens they'd have been PC monitors or laptops, with the odd glance at my phone. I'd have been looking at reports, plans, spreadsheets. I'd have been filling in forms, writing updates, dealing with emails. And, in hindsight, not really doing anything worthwhile.
Today I've spent long periods looking at four screens, and they have all been worth my attention. In the morning it was the Cameo cinema to see the wonderful 20th Century Women. After lunch we were in the Filmhouse to see German comedy Toni Erdmann, which had one of the funniest party scenes I've ever watched. In the evening it was the TV at home, with the live webcast of the hockey match between Coventry Blaze and my Edinburgh Capitals. Not the finest moment of the day, not just because Caps lost, but due to the effect on my eyesight of such a blurry picture being displayed - sort yourselves out Coventry!
While that was on I paid partial attention to my laptop, doing a bit of tidying up. And now I sit before my desk monitor, battering away at my keyboard to do a bit of writing, a bit of checking up on the news. No reports, plans or spreadsheets. No writing because I have to, but because I want to. And no emails demanding my urgent attention.
There's a lot to be said for retirement....
Friday, 17 February 2017
A self-serving POTUS
PUBLIC SERVICE IS A STATE OF MIND
A few weeks ago we went to see the film Jackie ( about the events in the life of Jackie Kennedy following the murder of her husband JFK. The Americans like to say that one of the great things about their country is that any citizen can become president. And at least it's true that someone could have a greater chance of achieving that status than someone would of becoming head of state in the archaic UK system of government. But anyone? Not quite.
The Kennedys weren't anybodys within the US social structure. They were part of the patrician class, born to wealth, privilege, influence and a life well beyond the reach of any ordinary American. Jack became president, but his brothers Bobby and Teddy were also prominent senior politicians of the period.
Current White House incumbent (but for how much longer?) Trump is hardly anybody either. Like the Kennedys he was born into extreme wealth and has become a weel kent name to the media through his activities. And that's where the similarities end.
I was a civil servant for more than three decades. An abortive attempt at a career in retail showed me I wasn't interested in a job where the idea of serving the public was underlaid by the desire to extract as much money as possible from them, and pass it on to other people who didn't do much for the privilege. Over the years I developed a clearer understanding of the importance of having a public service ethos in government work. By which I mean that the first consideration in any decision should be looking at how it can best benefit the public. That might then be subject to all sorts of other pressure - finance, resources, practicality, other legislation etc etc - but that should always be the starting point.
Most civil servants think that way. Recent governments, especially the Tories, have taken a much more aggressive approach, seeking to monetize everything they can. You only have to look at the steady destruction of the NHS to see what damage that causes. In many departments senior management has been brought in from outside industry with a view to turning public services into money making businesses as far as possible. Thus no longer delivering a public service....
The Kennedys might have been brought up as spoiled brats in many ways, but they also had inculcated into them a notion of public service. Perhaps even of duty, that old fashioned aristocratic notion. They were flawed individuals in many ways, but they did have a world view that put the interests of the people, at least as they saw them, at the forefront of their thinking. They had an understanding of what constitutes public service.
Trump only understands service in one way. Whatever he does it must be in the best interests of Donald Trump. He has none of the qualities required in government. A spoiled brat, but with no concept of duty or serving others. Trump is a disaster.
If he's impeached, which seems already to have become a very realistic prospect, he would be succeeded by the vile, homophobic Mike Pence. But, bad as the latter is, the current VP could never be as bad as his present boss. He does, at least, have some notion of what it means to serve the public having held elected office for sixteen years. Pence would be a terrible president. But still a hundred times better than the orange one.
Sunday, 5 February 2017
Passing by the Maple Leaf
Yesterday I was walking down through the lower reaches of the New Town, as you do. (Well, actually, as I don't, because this was rarely seen territory for me, letting my nose and feet lead me without much forethought.) So I came to this junction, and there, in a first floor window on the corner, was a Canadian flag. A splash of colour, and identity, in this dull winter scene.
This wasn't consulate territory, so maybe it's somebody's bedroom, or living room, and they want to proudly display their origins. It's no big surprise in a multinational city like Edinburgh. Hey, it could even be one our 'our' Edinburgh Capitals hockey players....
I walked on, still thinking about that flag, and it struck me how appropriate it seemed for the moment. Canada and Scotland, both with moderate, inclusive, social democratic governments, both outward looking, both nationalities that are welcomed around the world. And both having a southern border with a neighbour that looks increasingly like their government is flirting with fascism. Both at odds with the regressive values of their much larger, bombastic, isolationist 'friend'.
It's not a comparison that stands up for long of course. Some might identify Scotland more with Quebec than Canada, having their own internal discourse about whether or not to sever ties of political rule. And Canada doesn't have to store their neighbour's nukes for them....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)