Steve's random and often belligerent Journal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Uncle Steve

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| [Unconsidered Trifles] [Post a Secret] [The Independent] [BBC News] [Guardian] [BBC photos page] [Cat Town] [Get Human] [The Slant] [The Onion] ]
[Best:| [The Greatest Fantasy Novel Ever Written, etext] [CD: 'Has Been'] [Patricia McKillip] ]
[Food:| [RealGoodTaste Blog] [cocoa-loco] [Artisanduchocolat] ]
[Charity:| [The UK Wolf Conservation Trust] [London Wildlife Trust] [sweet-charity.net] ]
[Misc:| [Why you should support Tibet] [The only link to 'Celtic' history/myth you need] [Chambers' Book of Days] [Awesome online board games shop from Canada] [Maelstrom forums] [Odyssey forums] [Interregnum forums] ]
[My Pages:| [Flickr] [Facebook] [We Heart It] ]
[Wishlist:| [MY WISHLIST!] ]

(no subject) [Dec. 17th, 2009|12:01 am]
[Tags|, , ]

So the UK version of X-factor usually gets the Christmas no.1 with some bland manufactured rubbish. And this year, there's a move by the public to get Rage against the Machine's "Killing in the name of" to no.1 instead, mostly because it contains the words "F*** you I won't do what you tell me!" and that's the message the public wish to send to cynical corporate slush-merchants who assume they own the charts (and to Simon Cowell).

Now, lots of people have pointed out that Sony also own Rage against the Machine's catalogue, and the protest is therefore merely giving more money to them. Moreover, if the Corporation know X-factor will generate a protest vote every year and additional sales, they'll just put MORE money into X-factor next time.

But I disagree! The protest isn't about making Sony hurt, or getting them to change their ways. They won't notice, and neither will Simon Cowell - everyone's richer than God, this won't even register. What the protest does is literally say 'F*** you' to the inevitability of Corporations choosing the xmas number one.

And it's not just playing into Sony's hands (even if they did plant the choice of RatM, which they could well have done). Next year, they might not benefit from the protest vote, but more to the point I WANT Sony to get the money. If they make money from bands like Rage Against The Machine, they'll sign more of those bands more readily. And I like that. They deserve money for putting that out there. (And Cowell doesn't get anything from RatM.)

This protest doesn't only succeed if Sony feel pain and change their ways, or X-factor goes off-air. It succeeds when the public say "no" with sweary anarchist feeling to the pre-ordained choice of the song in the top slot. Yeah, X-factor will be number 2 anyway, and no, Sony won't change a thing. But the public will have said "no", and that will go down in the list of "Christmas Number 1's" and get airtime. Good enough for me.

(The link above is to a fan-made version where the X-factor stars are shown singing the song. Contains loud swearing and general f-you sentiments, which I like.)
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Dec. 14th, 2009|06:57 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Bloody hell Camden, cynically jumping on the latest subculture fashion fad is what you do, have you seriously not managed Steampunk by now?
Utterly fruitless shopping trip today, have got busy on ebay instead. Victorian era kit really shouldn't be this hard to find, but all they had was 1700s or 1920's-40s.
Girl in welded-statue shop slightly bemused when I asked if she had any spare bags of cogs.
Link6 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Nov. 10th, 2009|01:18 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

In the UK we have a newspaper called "The Daily Mail". Most of us are pretty sure it's a long-running joke, and that someday soon the owner will stand up and go "HA! I WAS KIDDING! FOOLED YOU!" and we can all have a good laugh while beating him around the head with the nearest available heavy objects.

Recently it has crossed into territory more suited for The Onion spoof newspaper. One particularly bigoted piece caused over 22,000 complaints.

But today, oh. So special.

Basically, women should learn to be sweetly pretty, and get back in the kitchen.

We're used to stories from the Mail saying "gays are icky", "it's all immigrants' fault" and "everything gives you cancer". But this is quality stuff today from Quentin Letts. It starts with "why can't everyone stop being so common and be posh instead?"

I've linked the page above, but just to deny them some clicks, here's a summary:


- "(Women) have lost the centuries-old idea of being demure in public. The sort of slender-lipped, self-questioning, hesitant lover played by Celia Johnson in David Lean's 1945 film Brief Encounter is now found only in recently arrived immigrant families."

Given the Daily Mail's attitude to Muslims, perhaps he shouldn't be championing "centuries-old ideas of women being demure in public"? Citing a woman who would rather go through one of the most famous tragedies on film rather than speak out loud to the man she loves is presumably not meant as irony here.


- "a grottiness not seen on this crowded island since the early 1800s before Sir Robert Peel formed his police force to tame the grottier purlieux of London."

That's right, the police were formed to tidy up the common folk.


- "One consequence of (Germaine Greer's) convention-shattering ways was a destruction of modesty and decency."

If "modesty and decency" were broken by feminism, you may want to double-check that women wanted them in the first place.


- "The very notion of being a gent became redundant if men and women were the same."

Only if your idea of women is that they are delicate passive flowers who need to be especially looked after because they mustn't do anything for themselves. Otherwise human beings should be treated well regardless, unless you're an arse. Edit: In fact, this quote directly says he'd like women to not be treated equally to men in society. Nice.


- "And so the institution of marriage, which has done more than anything over the centuries to glue society together, is weakened."

Utter bullshit. It's not weakened, and society hasn't relied on it. It didn't even exist in the present form if you go back a few "centuries".


- "This suits the equality freaks. They hate marriage. All that 'love, honour and obey' stuff shivers their timbers."

Yes, why is 'obey' in there on only one side? You arguing FOR it?


- "Yet married couples stay together longer, produce stabler children and generally have a kinder, happier time than their cohabiting counterparts."

Not true. How do you measure a 'kinder, happier time'? And "married people stay together" is hardly surprising, that doesn't mean they SHOULD. Parents staying trapped in a marriage 'for the kids' have children who do worse in school and life than single mothers or anyone else.


- "How different things might have been if Germaine Greer had become a happily married mother."

Yes, he actually typed this.


Then Quentin finishes off having a go at people with short haircuts, because shaved heads on men suggest "oikishness" and no "sophistication".

This wasn't written 40 years ago (or 60). It's a (depressingly) well-read tabloid, and it's allowed to produce the kind of bile that used to be in comedy shows:



Fuck you, Quentin Letts. The Daily Mail's prejudice against the poor, immigrants and liberals is well-known, now they apparently hate women too. Well, any who do anything beyond blushing prettily and talking about kittens.
Link40 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Aug. 7th, 2009|12:36 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Woo! Snap Day. As in, snapping like a dry twig and looking around for something to maim.

Be proud of who you are, people. Just remember, Everyone Else Is Wrong.



Link6 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 13th, 2009|10:55 am]
[Tags|, , , , ]

"But if the media's rotten and the government's rotten and the police are rotten and the city's rotten and the church is rotten - if life as we know it really is fundamentally rotten - what the hell is there left to believe in?"

Charlie Brooker's not happy, but he's got a point. List of things to believe in, please.
Link37 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jul. 9th, 2009|02:17 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Pope Palpatine Benedict is just a comedy machine. Here are some lines from his latest, which are being taken by many to refer to modern neopaganism amongst other things (a top dislike of his):

“There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded. For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal.”


Now, I can't give a direct translation of most of that into what he's really saying, because I'd have to invert every single statement so it matches reality. The short version would be that everything he accuses “smaller” religions of – the rigidity, magical beliefs, failure to respect the dignity of individuals – is exactly how a large number of people view Catholicism. But let's compare in more detail for a moment:

Neopaganism involves far less 'subjugation to occult powers', in my opinion. In fact, the idea that we as humans are not worthy and should unhesitatingly give thanks and praise to a perfect deity is deliberately avoided - rather most paths encourage working with the concept of deity in an experiential way. "Discernment" is critical, unlike some branches of Catholicism which instead extol faithful obedience to pre-written rules.

In fact, unquestioningly trusting 'faith' in that way is very much about "gratification of psychological desires", while neopaganism deliberately encourages you to be aware, ask questions, challenge yourself psychologically, and rely on your own experience rather than the words of others.

Most paths of neopaganism have no figure at the top who is infallible and the head of a hierarchy. There may be teachers and leaders of small groups, but they usually earn their place by knowing a lot and having experience, as well as giving up their time to teach others. Individual freedom and consent are paramount (no wonder the Pope hates it).

“In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded.”

Funnily enough, “love and truth” are concepts very much focused on in many paths of neopaganism, with a specific view towards personal development. Knowing yourself more fully, exploring yourself and multiple ideas about the universe.

I am not aware of how the Pope would like us all to ‘develop’, unless it is entirely according to the rules of his Church. Having more faith in God, and only asking questions so as to lead to a greater understanding …of the Roman Catholic God, seems to be the way of it.

Now, I know that some branches of Christianity are more relaxed, and that others do encourage you to question. But for every Alpha Course there’s an Opus Dei, and this is the Pope we’re talking about. Hearing him lecture liberal new religions on rigidity and hierarchy is just high comedy.
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jun. 26th, 2009|12:16 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Johann Hari has a piece on Marriage in today's Independent saying exactly what I said two years ago.

On the plus side, he now has stats to back it up.

Short version: Children of people who only stay together "for the kids" do worse than anyone else. Worse than with single parents, divorcees, everyone. School dropout rate, failing grades, binge drinking, drugs, crime, early pregnancy are all higher.

David Cameron thinks that £40 a week incentive for married couples to stay locked in a bitter, loveless marriage will "fix Britain". He thinks that marriage - any marriage, as long as it's one man and one woman - is critical to society not exploding, regardless of the state of the actual relationship.

He's a moron, and he's wrong. And so was the previous Conservative leader.

As I said, about three weeks short of two years ago. (See that LJ entry for my thoughts on this, it goes into some detail and I find I still agree with it.)
Link11 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [May. 27th, 2009|06:47 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

Lovely post on how NME became irrecoverably rubbish.

"The NME’s present incarnation – a dishwater-dull industry ***-rag with an editor who resembles a spoon in a suit – is of course merely reflective of a more widespread erosion of choice and illusion of independence which currently infects most aspects of culture and politics."


But the really interesting line is this, talking about Richey/Manics:

"You don’t deal with depression by making it the focal point of your personality – you have to rage against it, perpetually."

Depression makes me angry. This is a good thing, because I know too many people who do exactly the above and make it their personality in the mistaken belief that they will stop feeling bad if they can call it their own.

But I don't get comfortable with it. I'm immediately aware that it's there, and want it gone. It doesn't even tempt me with harsh truths - I know the world is shit, the human condition is unsatisfactory in almost every way, and I Don't Have Enough Money (tm). But if I give in to the sickly anathesia of being depressed about it the whole goddamn time, all I'm doing is guaranteeing a set level of pain indefinitely. This does not work for me.

I'm excitable, it's true. My natural reaction to things I don't agree with is to get angry about them. Luckily, this includes depression. So when I have a day like today (constant rain, uncertainty and stress in every area of life, tired) I'm not able to rest easy until I've sorted out why. (Today: endorphin drop. Turns out my timing is about 3 days).

I'd never make depression the point of my existence. It's the enemy. I can't stand it even for a day, it gets my back up and energises me to do something new. I hope I can channel this into productive actions, but guys with the same response do tend to end up in Secret Volcano Bases or wearing Sun-God robes and referring to themselves as God-Emperor. Er... for example.
(It's a good idea to have moved on from being angry, bitter and frustrated by the time you come to the 'actions' part, I think.)
Link13 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Apr. 28th, 2009|10:10 am]
[Tags|, , ]

This is all kinds of special.

A new bill makes sex education compulsory in all UK schools… but with two clauses.

One is that faith schools will be able to teach their ‘values’ as part of the lesson – such as sex outside marriage, contraception, and homosexuality being ‘wrong’.

The other is that parents can choose to have their children opt out of sexual education completely, *on religious grounds*.

Where do I even start?

“What we're trying to do, and I accept it's difficult, is find a balance between young people having an entitlement to knowledge, facts, information but where schools, particularly schools with a particular faith interest or other disposition, also have a right to put that in context of their particular institution.”

Um, no? You can say what a particular religion approves of… IN A RELIGIOUS STUDIES LESSON. Not in the sex ed or science lesson, if it interrupts with the effectiveness of teaching the mandated curriculum. "Homosexuality is wrong" in the lesson the Government intends to put it in as content to help equality? Is that even legal within equality laws?

Oona Stannard, director of the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales, said: "PSHE is a very important part of a child's education and it should be in the curriculum, but the approach to what is taught ought to be in line with the wishes of parents and should uphold the ethos of the particular school."

No, no, no. What is taught should be based on what they need to know. The direction of PSHE is to prepare children to know about their bodies, but also dangers in society – drugs, unprotected sex and disease, etc.

You do not get to “uphold the ethos of the school” by teaching creationism as fact in science lessons, and you do not get to say “contraception is always wrong” in a Sex Ed lesson.

But then, I have a major problem with the idea of faith schools in general. Not the way we used to have them – I went to a Catholic secondary school, and the religion didn’t interfere with the lessons, ever. I understand that parents should be free to raise their children according to their own choice of views... but we're talking about critical education here.

I don’t even have time to go into why I think this is abhorrent. Anyone care to help me out?

(I haven't gone into detail on my thoughts here, there's some extra discussion in the comments. Short answer = allowing the church to choose ignorance over education is not something I'm in favour of. You provide all the facts and let moral choices be made with full knowledge of the alternatives.)

---

Update: Part 2.
Link19 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Mar. 16th, 2009|10:06 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]

I have no words for how utterly stupid and awful the "Grow your own drugs" show on BBC2 was. I didn't see the first two eps, but it is about how herbal ingredients from the garden can be used to treat minor ailments. And sell his book.

I'm not complaining because it was unscientific or I think these things have no effect. (It was very unscientific, but it knew it. "Of course, this isn't a clinical trial, but our subjects said they felt a bit better after two weeks of drinking the tea...")

And I do think certain herbs and plants have an effect. I believe this very strongly. I DO think Pine resin is genuinely antibacterial/antifungal, but then so is Grapefruit seed extract (quite ferociously so depending on concentration) and (to a much lesser extent) Tea tree oil, although he only went for one substance per theme on the show. That wasn't my problem with it.

My problem was that every second sentence out of his mouth was either outright wrong, or so qualified as to be meaningless. Fine, fine, don't put a disclaimer on saying "since these are natural ingredients and you're stewing them in alcohol for a month in the dark, the resulting tincture might vary in strength! This isn't precise!". I'm okay that he's (mostly) describing treatments which are so weak, any variation won't affect them much. And he needs to sell his book.

But what a goddamn waste. All the things he could have said, and instead he's on bath bombs and anti-perspirants. He had an episode on trees, and mentioned that most pharmaceuticals you take as pills come from plants, but didn't relate it usefully to the public by saying something like "Aspirin comes from boiling up willow bark". Some of the other processes he espouses are going to have just as many impurities and potent active agents at the end of them, I don't see why he had to pick rubbish ones.

Wong is an Ethno-biologist. He's keen to stress that he's a real scientist. Well, I studied chemistry (and nearly did herbal medicine). I took up learning about it as a hobby instead (look, we're tree-huggers. It's traditional.) Having done the Uni side, I know that lily of the Valley stimulates the heart by making more calcium 2+ ions available, because it's a cardenolide. If I thought I could hit the right strength (without going just that leeetle bit too far and making a fatal potion) I could gather and prepare foxglove as a more potent version (although it has a slightly different action). Get it wrong and it's a heart attack in a bottle, but then that was its more frequent use historically...

But even if I hadn't immediately jumped on all the exciting poisons in the garden, I'd still be able to do a better show on the stuff I'd trust the public with than this patronising, misleading, pointless glut of self-promotion. There's so much he could talk about that would actually help people, in quantities and preparations they wouldn't kill themselves with. I mean, okay, they will kill themselves. Because they're stupid and clueless, and are boiling plants in a pot. They're gonna die. But that hasn't stopped him producing a book about it (of course there's a book) albeit with disclaimers all over every section. "This might be dangerous. And, er, not work."

Ginkgo tea improves bloodflow? You amaze me, inspector! Mankind's only known that for... how many thousand years? The idea that it can help with memory is hugely contraversial, and despite clinical trials (funded by a Ginkgo producer) still inconclusive. Or amazing, depending on who you listen to. But mostly contraversial. Ben Goldacre is going to have a screaming fit.

This was a chance to get the good ones out there, the ones with proven biological effects and safe preparation. They exist! Okay, I was always more interested in the tropane alkaloids, but the premise of this show could have really delivered something to the public. Instead we get a smug bastard who manages to be more annoying than Jamie Oliver without even the implied altruism.

Been a very long while since I got the roots, leaves and pyrex lab glassware together to do this stuff, and I could still remember 20 things off the top of my head that this twit should have put in the show. What was left was a near-useless, still occasionally dangerous piece of rubbish (oh, you think people should do an allergy test before playing with Ginkgo? Would that be because it acts like poison ivy to some people? Sheesh.)

There are a lot of good books out there. Very few of them are aimed at absolute beginners preparing herbal medicine to have a biological effect on their own bodies, because... well, it's really goddamn dangerous. But there's a gap in the market for teas, tinctures and various kitchen preparations.

Come on flist! Some of you do this for a living. Get out and write the public-friendly book on how to gather mugwort for fun and profit. Or at least do an actually useful list of herbs better than this blithering idiot.
Link13 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Mar. 1st, 2009|11:21 pm]
[Tags|, ]

...And sometimes your instincts are right.

*Makes a note not to do that again.*

</cryptic>
Link8 comments|Leave a comment

Okay, gloves off now. 300+ contact list, here we come. [Feb. 9th, 2009|06:47 pm]
[Tags|, ]

For those of you who have been following my BT SAGA avidly, here is an update.

Chapter 1.
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3.
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 and Summary.

And there was more too, but you get the drift.

Last thing they said? "You definitely won't have to pay a connection charge". (On the day when the engineer turned up, they'd reactivated the wrong line. Despite me giving them the names of each person linked to each phone point, and which one I wanted activated. Endlessly.)

Today I notice they'd charged me the £124.99.

COLLECT MONAAAY NAOOOOWWW!!
Link9 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jan. 22nd, 2009|10:36 am]
[Tags|, , , , ]

Insomnia – not just a Stephen King novel.

So here’s my (fairly ignorant) view of insomnia, based on the very few times I’ve had it. In recent years I’ve averaged about 5.5-6.0 hours sleep a night, but that was due to getting up early for work (and not an inability to pass out cold when the opportunity arose). My natural body clock appears to be based around “Sleep at 3am, wake up at 11am” - office working is not convenient for this.

So, reasons for insomnia:

1) Fear
2) Your body

That’s it.

Of them, your body is the simpler one – you’re simply too jacked up to sleep. Too much sugar, or stimulants, or your body clock is all out of synch and thinks it’s mid-afternoon. There are many reasons that your body can make it difficult for you to relax or slow down enough to get restful sleep, although to be fair most of them will be entirely your own fault.

Fear contributes to the two big causes:

3) Fear of the next day
4) Fear of sleep itself

Let’s go into these for a minute:

Fear of the next day (or just the future, or death, or anything) keeps you awake because you don’t feel safe, and your brain wants to make sure it’s done everything it can to prepare. It’s racing, because it’s saying “Did I do everything I could to reduce the risk? Is there anything else I can think of to add control and make this fear go away?” You dread the thing that’s waiting to drop on you, and sleeping until an hour or so before it hits just isn’t going to happen.

But it’s Fear of sleep that’s the hilarious one, and the only version I’ve had badly myself. This is based on fear of letting go, of being defenceless and unconscious during the night, with a hint of ‘annihilation of the personality’ and the chance you’ll never come back. Sleep is weird, man! You have to give up your hold on… well, life, really. An added bonus is the realisation that there are hours and hours before you can wake up, far too long to spend sleeping. How can you possibly give up consciousness for that length of time?

This particular reasoning is great because now you don’t even need an actual source of stress in your life in order to have weapons-grade insomnia! You can have it anytime you stop to consider how long sleep takes! Do you realise your heart has to keep beating that whole time? What if it stopped for no reason? We’ve all gotta die sometime… but what if someone broke into your house while you were asleep? Or the ceiling fell in? Or there was a fire? Do you realise you move around every 15 minutes while you’re asleep just to avoid cramp – what if you fall out of bed? And then there's all those dark hours to ponder the meaning of life and death, and our insignificance in the Universe!

How can you possibly sleep ever again?!

Luckily, I love sleep far too much to avoid it for those paltry reasons. Warm duvets, slow stretches and sweet, sweet unawareness are just an added bonus to the awesomeness that is being able to dream. Dreams are great, and a nice antidote to the disappointing way my real life doesn’t have enough giant robot battles or panting supermodels in it. (Did I ever do that LJ post on lucid dreaming in the end? Well, I will.)

There are cures. Being really goddamn tired is a good one (what is this ‘overtired’ rubbish? That just means I crash out quicker!) as is mental exercise. Here’s one for the hardcore among you:

Lie on your back with your arms by your sides. Close your eyes, take some slow breaths. Focus your attention on the big toe of your left foot. Imagine that it is dipped in warm water, and is surrounded by warm golden energy. Feel it inside and out, shining and dissolving all the tension. While keeping that there, include the next toe on that foot as well. Picture dipping them into warm water. Move on slowly to include all the toes on that foot, keeping the feeling going in each as you add it. Start on the big toe of the other foot, and do the same.

Bring the level of the golden glow up your feet slowly, like a hot bath, at whatever speed you feel you can properly hold it and also feel all the muscles on the way up. This part is easier, because now you only need to concentrate on slowly moving the line up your shins. Feel it go over the knees, and up to the thighs. If your hands are by your sides, feel it hit the fingertips as it progresses upwards and include them.

Now you’re half in this warm, gold energy. Keep it moving up the body, holding the same intensity in the toes and up your hips, back, stomach. As it reaches your head, it will feel… really fucking strange, but keep going until it rises up beyond the crown of your head. Hold it covering every part of your body for a while, then slowly let it go. The whole thing should take at least 5 minutes, and probably 10.

If any of you (who aren’t very used to this sort of thing) can move your arms or head at that point, I’ll be very impressed. What it generally does is melt every muscle in your body, and also blast your head into a state of, and I quote, “ ...Uh. ” It’s particularly good for when your mind is racing and wants to attack a problem, because it gives single targets (like the toes) to focus on and really turn up the intensity of the golden light. It also gives you a load of physical sensation to distract yourself with.

If all that is far too Yoga for you, any mental task that turns quick, chaotic thoughts into slow, big ones will work too.

Anyone on here get bad insomnia? Any idea what causes it for you?
Link25 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jan. 15th, 2009|05:42 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Well now, that's interesting.

I'm stuck in Ware, which is about as remote and hideously uncool a place as it's possible to imagine. So naturally, I want to get out and socialise, so that I don't go gibberingly insane from over-exposure to mundane and unsatisfactory folk.

And yet, for the past three times in a row, I've sat here on a weeknight when there's a perfect social thing on in a pub in London and I find my genuine desire to meet new people is being strongly opposed by the comfort and easy accessibility of lazing around the house instead.

London never used to be "too far to go to", and if anything my chance of going out on a work night AND getting enough sleep is vastly improved. So why am I feeling that the trip into the city is just not worth the hassle? That's crazy talk! Of course it is! And yet somehow, here I am.

I mean okay, it's 2 hours each way. And that means about 3 hours there, before I turn around to start coming back at 10pm. But really.

Am disgusted with myself, but also warm and eating biscuits. That's a draw, right there.
Link12 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jan. 14th, 2009|02:59 pm]
[Tags|, ]

It’s mid-January and the Christmas items are on the reduced shelf, so naturally Tesco has already started selling Easter Eggs.
Link14 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Dec. 13th, 2008|01:15 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

The lowest point, the one where I feel as crappy as possible but not enough to get angry about it and make constructive changes to get up again, I like to call Da Blooz. The reason for this is that it's so hilariously comedy bad, singing the blues could actually make me feel better. Or at least couldn't hurt. And it's so hopeless and cruelly unfair, that absolutely anything to lift your mood at that point is worth a go.

So I know that when I get the urge to sing Da Blooz, I need to fucking snap out of it because things have got so comedy that it simply can't be my fault. Also, my only options for playing right now (unless someone finds me a handy piano) are trumpet or ten-string lyre, and that just won't do for Da Blooz.

(Mood today is all good, this was earlier in the week!)

Here's some Clapton playing actual blues, and therefore sounding better than he does playing his own stuff. Doesn't hurt to have Chuck Leavell along, of course.



And Old Love, which takes me back to 1992 in two seconds flat.



Chuck Leavell, interview 1995
"But, when we rehearsed it, he didn't like it. He said, "No, I don't want to do that." So, OK, we go on and we rehearse other songs. We learn all the songs. Comes time to do the show. We do the performance [and it is] very successful. And when we are finished there are no more songs to play, but the audience wants more. So Eric [said], "What can we do? What can we do?" He turned to me and he said, "What can we do?" And I said, "Do 'Old Love'." And [it was] a very special moment for me, because that was the first time I had a strong solo with Eric. It was a very special moment for me."
LinkLeave a comment

BT Part 3, for those who still have the will to live [Nov. 28th, 2008|03:37 pm]
[Tags|]

"Hi, I just want to check that I'm not going to be charged for the engineer visit now that it's not happening."
BT: "Can I have your account number?"
"I only ordered yesterday over the phone, so I haven't got the letter with that number yet. My mobile number is linked to the order..."
"Can I have your account number?"
"...Er, no?"
"Let's spell your entire address letter by letter, it'll be fun."
"Righty, then."
"Hold please!"
*10 minutes later*
"I can't find you, do you mind calling sales? They have a better way of finding you than we do."

"Hello, is that sales?"
"Yes! You don't have an account number, so can I have your mobile number?"
"Yep."
"Okay, this is your account number: xxxxxxx"
"...Er, I thought you weren't allowed to tell me that over the phone? That's what they said yesterday. Anyway, can you check if I'll be charged?"
"I'll just ask. Ooo, they'll need the account number and I've lost it now. Can you remind me what it was?"
"... Yes. "xxxxxxx". You scare me, BT."
*Pause*
"Ooo, he's put me on hold! Anyway, you definitely won't get charged. And if you do, it'll be refunded. But you won't."
"Righty then."
Link18 comments|Leave a comment

Adventures with BT, part 2 [Nov. 28th, 2008|01:05 pm]
[Tags|, ]

(Following on from my previous BT post)

I get a phone call.
“We don’t actually need to send an engineer out, we can activate your phone line for you remotely, even though we couldn't see it to do that originally.”
“Oh. Good.”
“Yes. You’re scheduled for the 15 Dec for the engineer, so that’s the day it’ll be activated.”
“Right.”

I ring back.
“It’s just occurred to me that remote activations which don’t need an engineer normally only take two days. Is mine set to the 15th just because that was the date the engineer was called for?”
“We can’t change the date, the 15th is the earliest.”
“Are you sure?”
“Yes, but I’m reading from a sheet and can’t speak English.”
“Okay.”

I ring back.
“I’m ringing your sales line so I’ll get someone who speaks English and picks up after one ring.”
“Hi!”
“I’m just checking that the 15th wasn’t set because of the engineer, and I couldn’t instead have it activated in the usual 2 working days, because I don’t trust your tech help call centre peons.”
“Let me see.”
*Tasteful on-hold music*
“Okay, I’ve set that up for you for two working days.”
“Wow.”

And the moral is… BLOODY BT, THEY’RE BLOODY USELESS, GAAAAAH.

Then it occurs to me that remote, 2-day activation doesn't cost the £124.99, and I wonder if they're organised enough not to charge me for an engineer.

Ahahahaha.
Link6 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Nov. 27th, 2008|12:14 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

BT can kiss mine.

“Hi BT, I’d like to activate a phone line in the flat I’m moving to. I don’t know the number of the phone point though, it’s currently turned off.”
“We show two lines, this one and this one.”
“Those are both in the other part of the house, not the point in my room. It has been used before, but not for about 18 months.”
“Oh, well, we don’t have any others on here. Can you find the number of this old line?”
“How would I do that?”
“Some guff about 1707 that won’t work when you try it so you’ll ring us back tomorrow.”
“Thanks for that.”

“Hi, I’m ringing back. That was blatantly made up, wasn’t it?”
“Never heard of it, you must have been hallucinating. Okay, you’ll need an engineer to reconnect the line.”
“Okay.”
“That’ll be £124.99!”
“You’re joking, of course.”
“No. And it’ll take a couple of weeks.”
“But... the line exists. The wiring is there. It just needs turning on."
“124.99!”
“Okay, we’ll schedule it for after I’ve definitely moved.”
“Do you want broadband too?”
“Yes.”
“If you order it, we can send it so it arrives at the same time.”
“Great, but I’d like to look at your (and other people’s) packages first. (Since BT is inexplicably the most expensive on the market, and only do 18 month contracts).
“No problem!”

“Hello, I ordered a phone line earlier today and I’ve decided to buy BT broadband as well, like the man mentioned this morning.”
“Sorry, we can’t do that.”
“What?”
“Well, the order’s gone in now. I can’t add to it. You’ll have to wait until it’s connected, and then order with the phone number.”
“You mean if I’d said “yes” half an hour ago, I could have had broadband 2 weeks sooner?”
“Yes.”
“That would have been good to know. And you can’t just bring up the details of my previous order, bank details and everything, and order broadband for me today too?”
“No.”
“Bye then.”


Will be without phone for a while, and without broadband until at least Christmas.

Woe.
Link17 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Oct. 14th, 2008|09:12 am]
[Tags|, , , , ]

For readers who aren’t into UK politics, there was this law that the Government wanted to bring in. I’ll translate it for you from the complicated legal jargon:

"The police can, at any time, snatch anyone off the street and lock them up. They don’t need evidence. They don’t need to charge the person with anything. They don’t need to let them make a phone call, or give them prisoner rights, because they aren’t charged with any crime. This can go on for 42 days – that’s six weeks.

You could vanish for six weeks, and at the end of it be released without any reason for why you were taken. They would not need to offer proof – that’s what the 42 days of investigation are for. They would just need to suspect you of being involved in terrorist activities, and want some more time to find evidence."


Now, when Blair’s government proposed this, everyone with a brain or any sense of ethics said “Er… no.” It goes against Habeas Corpus, it makes a joke of the foundation of English law and civil liberty. Most importantly, it doesn’t protect us from terrorists. Not one case has been brought where more time investigating would have made a conviction happen, and everyone involved has had to admit it wouldn’t stop a terrorist attack.

And yet, Jacqui Smith (strong candidate for worst Home Secretary in the history of the Universe) repeatedly insisted we need this law to make Britain safe. Even though the police say it won’t do that.

Well, the House of Lords threw it out.

‘Good!’ I hear you cry. Yes, but… there’s this bit at the end. Time for another translation:

"If we wait and try and force it through the House of Lords, everything else in this bill gets held up too. So we’ll put the rest through now, and hold this 42-day idea back. We won’t scrap it despite the overwhelming defeat, we’ll keep it in a bill that can be activated by House of Commons MPs “in the case of an emergency”. We get to decide when an emergency is. And I’d like to see the occasion when we need to hold suspected terrorists for 42 days and we can’t spin it as an ‘emergency’."

You can’t begin to imagine the Parliamentary time and money spent on trying to force this bill through in the past few years. Everyone involved should be fired. It’s not just evil, it’s also useless. A bit like Jacqui Smith.
Link19 comments|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]