Archive for category Just some nonsense
Sign Today to Preserve the Power of the ePetition
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on June 5, 2012
For the past few years I have been witnessing a steadily increasing torrent of ePetitions making their way into my inbox. Now don’t get me wrong; they are not spam and I have personally invited them to tempt me with their good causes, pressing issues and downright travesty. However, I now find myself a little concerned that if we collectively sign too many, we could initiate the effect of dulling the keen-edged weapon that is the internet petition.
A few years ago, any politician, CEO, media mogul or ignorant bastard would have been gob-smacked to find a petition dropped into their laps (digitally speaking) that was signed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Consequently, it would have been very likely that whoever the petition was aimed at, be it a government or a misbehaving corporation, would have been pretty unnerved to find their dodgy dealings have attracted the attention of so many and galvanised them into action – albeit the small action of filling in a box and clicking send. At this point of its life, the ePetition is a very powerful tool.
It occurred to me just the other day, though, that by signing all of the petitions sent to me, I may soon found myself sitting on a lonely forgotten mountainside with that kid ; you know, the one who kept shouting, “Wolf! Wolf!”
Over the past year I have signed ePetitions on tar sands, the Amazon, protecting the bees, Syrian atrocities (twice), climate change, the NHS, plastic bags, energy prices, bankers bonuses, fracking, ousting Jeremy Hunt, saving the Rhino, saving this and saving that. I’m a true armchair activist, which of course is fine, but where I’ve previously thought I may be doing some good (ePetitions have been proved to work in the past), I may also need to get a little more picky if that do-gooding is to continue.
Of course ePetitions are a great way of sharing an issue that needs addressing and they will still make people sit up and take notice, plus the fact that the bad guys know that so many of us know what they are up to is wonderful.
However, with all the ePetitions in circulation and people signing everything (like I used to) it won’t be long before 500,000 signatures can be simply brushed aside by the people we’re attempting to influence.
I don’t think that ePetitions should stop; not at all. I just think that those of us who do like to take action by right clicking should spare a thought for the on-going potency of these petitions. It would be very easy for them to loose their muscle if we over-use them. In a way, the biggest enemy of the ePetition is (ironically) it’s biggest advantage: the ease with which one can sign them. I have cookies on my computer so that whenever I decide to sign by filling in my email, all I have to do is push ‘g’ and then send. The rest is done for me. Perhaps if we had to undergo a little more work to get these things signed, then we would only sign the stuff that really matters to us.
Failing that, and since coming to the realisation that signing every ePetition that finds its way to my inbox may not be for the best, I have now designed my own personal hierarchy for ePetitions (designed being a very loose word here):
If it’s something I don’t really care about – delete.
If it’s something I care about, but don’t feel strongly enough to sign – spare a thought, delete.
If it’s something I care and feel strongly about – sign.
If I feel it’s imperative that the issue is fixed now – sign and share on facebook and twitter.
If you like, please feel free to follow my easy four-step guide to not dulling the edge of the ePetition and then carry on signing what you feel you must while protecting the integrity of this potentially very powerful tool. Once this is spent, finding another such device to influence the untouchables may take years, so let’s preserve this one while we still can. Thanks.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Oh, and just in case you are wondering; there isn’t in fact a petition to sign here, I just used that in the title to try and attract your attention, but you can say something in the comments box if you’d like. If I get more than 3 comments, I may just change the world…
I’m Sick of Sick Posts on Facebook
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on February 20, 2012
It seems to me that the tirade of sanctimonious – and sometimes sickening – posts on facebook is getting heavier of late. Not only do these really irritate me, but I also fail to see the point of them.
To give you some examples of what has annoyed me recently, try these:
The first one was a picture of what was obviously a very late aborted baby laying in the hands of a surgeon. Yes a very sad picture, but did I want to come across that while looking through my facebook timeline? No. I bloody well didn’t. The oddest thing about this was that the person who shared it was commenting “this is horrible picture and shouldn’t be on facebook”. Well don’t hit the flippin’ share button then!
The second picture was (yet another) one of these animal cruelty pictures. This time it looked as if a dog had a really nasty injury to its mouth and there was blood everywhere. Thanks for that – just what I wanted to see, especially as my 7-year old was looking over my shoulder.
Apart from the fact that these pictures really annoy me, I also have to ask; do the people posting them, sharing them and making some self-righteous comment about then actually know the provenance of these photos? Do they know where they come from? Was the baby aborted to save the mother, who subsequently then had to suffer the virtual loss of a child? Was the baby aborted because it was already dead? Was this photo picked up from a medical journal or a memo circulated to paediatric surgeons? Is the picture a fake?
In the photo of the dog I noticed that the background didn’t seem to be that of a domestic home, due to the clinical-looking wall and ceiling tiles. Also the dog had a nice big full bowl of food – not a usual practice for animal abusers. Maybe this was an animal hospital and the dog had a wound that had reopened? Maybe the dog had fallen? Who knows? Again, I wonder if the picture is either fake or taken out of context.
What I do know is that people should perhaps engage their brains before they jump on the social bandwagon and start condemning something they actually know diddly squat about.
If you are a person who loves to share these types of picture, think about this: Perhaps these animal abuse photos are actually designed to be circulated around the Internet by the abusers themselves and by re-posting them you may be actually supporting what you think you are condemning. Perhaps the animals are abused for the very reason these photos can be taken. There are sick people out there who do thrive on the instant “fame” such actions can result in: “I put this picture out on facebook and it got shared 100,000 times…” Think about it.
Do these re-posters live by morals that are above the rest of us?
I admit that I will re-post environmental articles that I feel may be of interest to others or that I feel strongly about. But at least I can say that I make every effort that is feasible to live a sustainable life (apart from the amount of travelling I do, but that’s for work and also something I’m trying to change). My point is: these people who are so shocked at pictures of animal cruelty, are they vegetarians? Do they eat organic meat? Do they know where their meat comes from and that the livestock is kept in conditions that do not invoke any suffering? Do they worry about palm oil and the effect that has on wildlife around the world? Maybe some do – but not many.
When I post something up on facebook, I keep it clean and I would definitely not want to shock someone with anything I post. Besides, shock tactics have rarely been proven to work.
Additionally, these pictures are not informing me of something I’m ignorant to. I know late abortions are happening, I know animals are mistreated. I don’t need nasty pictures on facebook to remind me of this.
If all of these photos came with a link to donate to a relevant charity, a petition to lobby the government or some other means of making them relevant and useful, then fair enough. But the majority of them don’t. They are just sad people wallowing in a sad world they feel they must impose on the rest of us.
I could pull a million sick photos off the Internet and circulate them around my social media networks, but why would I want to. Why do others want to?
It reminds me of a video I watched when I was younger that showed people dying in a multitude of different ways. The intro to this video said something like “we have brought you this film because we want you to see the futility of killing”, or some other crap along those lines. What they should have said was, “we bring you this video because you’re sick bastards who enjoy watching others die, but we can’t actually say that, so we have to pretend this is for pious reasons instead”. What a load of nonsense.
If there was no harm in circulating these photos, then fair enough, but many people look at facebook with their kids in the room, or are just looking to connect with friends or find a funny little youtube clip to watch.
I will admit that I am as fascinated by the macabre as the next man and that when a BBC News reporter says, “some of the scenes you about to witness may be disturbing”, I feel even more compelled to watch. But that’s my choice and I get warned beforehand. Having nasty photos sprung on me when I’m just looking for some facebook funnies isn’t… well… funny.
Re-post this is you agree… Blagh!
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better… (and no dodgy photos please)
Scottish, English and Welsh: We’re really all just the same aren’t we?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on January 23, 2012
Alex Salmond and Scottish Parliament have been noisily rattling their sabres again recently with regard to devolution. They are saying that Scotland should be an independent country and completely break away from the United Kingdom.
I’ve got to say, I just don’t get this. I’ll admit that I may not have the cruel hand of history poking at my ancestral line, but as far as I’m concerned, we are one country; fellow citizens of the United Kingdom.
We English, Scots and Welsh all live on the same tiny island, with the same rubbish weather and we speak the same language. Our troops fought and died in the mud together at Waterloo and then wrestled Europe back from Hitler to the same ultimate cost. We share many of the same celebrations, we all felt the pinch when the UK’s banks went to the wall and we’ll cheer and wince together at the Olympics. We are the SAME country and have been for hundreds of years.
Among all this talk of independence and devolution, let’s not forget, however, that Scotland is still a country in its own right; it’s not as if it’s been swallowed up entirely by the UK. The Scots have their own stunning capital city, their own flag, their own rich history, their own parliament and their own very strong and very respected identity. Oh, and lets not forget their own highly distinctive accent.
The UK mainland is less than 100,000 square miles and has a plethora of different cultures, accents and behaviours; it’s part of what makes Britain great. We have such a diverse mix of regions and people already, I don’t see why one group has to feel it’s so different just because it was designated a ‘country’ hundreds of years ago. If we go further back in history than that, we’ll find an Island ruled by numerous Celtic chiefs. Should we perhaps devolve back into these separate tribes and really break up the Union?
Who drew up these borders in the first place anyway? I could completely understand if Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands wanted independence; they’re isolated and miles away from the UK mainland. But Scotland? I could jump in my car right now and make it there in time for tea – and I’m on the opposite side of the country.
Now I may be looking at this from a slightly naïve Englishman’s perspective and perhaps we really are so bad that no country would want to be allied with us. And yes I agree, several English have Kings treated Scotland and its people appallingly in the past. However, I think that harbouring this historical chip on the shoulder from centuries ago is, quite frankly, childish and pathetic. For example, does any Scotsman alive today suffer childhood memories from the day his father went off to Culloden Moor and got killed by the English, or can anyone presently living in Scotland personally remember the hard times suffered by the people during the time of Robert the Bruce’s rebellion? No they can’t, so get over it. It’s as if I found out I was born of an Anglo Saxon bloodline and then chose not to associate with anyone who had Norman ancestors. Silly really, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Yes there are distinctions and they should be cherished and preserved, but this whole political divide is silly and nothing good will come of it. It would be a shame to think there was that much animosity we couldn’t keep the union.
I’m well aware that this is also a hot political issue, but I’m not going to get into that side of matters here because for me that’s far too subjective, with both sides having their own points to make. This whole business about how Scotland would fund itself and what it would trade is another area that I’m not qualified to comment on. However I will say this: in a globalized, interdependent world, such as the one in which we live, sovereignty is a myth. No matter the size of your country, you will always be subject to the political, commercial and economic influences of the other nations on this planet.
I say that strength lies in numbers, which is why – for all its faults – I’m still a fan of the European Union. Why any country would want to go it alone in our modern world is beyond me; unless that country is enslaved under the bonds of oppression of course, but I don’t think that quite applies to Scotland. Let’s look at Tibet for example. This little country wants autonomy from China for a number of valid reasons: many of the people still living there can think back to a time when they had independence; the ruling Chinese government imposes law with and iron fist; they have seen vast amounts of land lost to Chinese immigrants; much of the historical and cultural wealth of the country has been stolen or destroyed by the Chiniese. In this case there really is a case for independence. I don’t think that of any of these circumstances apply to Scotland.
Of course not all Scots want total devolution anyhow. I really hope the Scottish people don’t choose to break away from the rest of us who share our tiny island if it does come down to a referendum. For one it would be a great loss to all concerned I think, and also; the Union Jack would look rubbish without the blue.
GR
Note: Can I Just mention here that I’m well aware there are three countries on this island. I love Wales and I love the Welsh – I’m even part Welsh – but this post is about Scotland; so please don’t feel offended if when talking about the UK, I only referred to Scotland. Thanks.
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Why Can’t Creationists Just Accept That They’re Wrong?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on January 9, 2012
I have recently watched a number of anti-evolution/anti-big bang videos created by creationists (pardon the pun), and I cannot believe that people can be so blinded by faith.
The videos I’m referring to are from a Youtube user I follow, Potholer 54, and are all nominees for his annual Crocoduck Awards. In these videos we have a bunch of creationists who are all trying to persuade us that evolution is fake and that they can prove it; which of course not one of them manages to do.
My reason for putting pen to paper – in the digital sense – is because I was aghast at what some of these guys are trying to convince us of and, apart from shouting at the computer, the only other outlet for my frustration is this blog.
So, what is it that’s got me so annoyed? Well here are a few of the choice moments:
• A filmmaker positioned in the entrance hall to what is obviously a Christian convention asking the delegates how old they think the Earth is. Well duh! Obviously they’re all going to say it’s 6000 years old. And why is that? Because, apparently, if you add up all the years mentioned in the bible, it comes to 6000 years. Therefore, the Earth can only be 6000 years old because it’s written so in the scriptures. Yeah ok. It’s also written in the scriptures that a virgin had a baby and that, many years later, after being thoroughly crucified by the Romans (masters of execution of the time) that very same baby was able to resurrect himself enough and hold a conversation with his virgin mother. Right.
• Then we have a guy who says that the big bang never happened because all evidence for this is based on the Oort Cloud. He argues that it’s impossible for the Oort Cloud to exist because all evidence alluding to it is flimsy and, more importantly, no one has ever seen the Oort Cloud. Hence, he says, the big bang never happened and there must be a creator being instead. I put to this guy via his comments box that no one has ever seen the creator either (except in a story) and that, by his own argument, the creator cannot exist either. I got no reply.
• There’s Steve Harvey, who thinks all atheists are idiots and can’t understand how humans evolved from monkeys, if we still have monkeys today. Sorry, but who are the idiots?
• Then there are blokes – yes I say blokes; plural – who revel in telling us they find it impossible to make life by recreating the conditions similar to an early Earth in a test tube, or in one instance, a snow globe… yes a snow globe. Therefore it has been proven that life on Earth couldn’t evolve from simple proteins, amino acids etc. I mean how could it? If you can’t create life inside a snow globe, that has to be proof doesn’t it?
• In the first video there’s even a guy who is thinks he’s proving that there has to be a creator using the ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg’ argument as if he thinks no body out there can answer this question.
I could go on and on with these examples, but what I really want to talk about is why these guys feel that it’s so important to disprove evolution. If you are a true believer in God, then why can you not accept that perhaps He didn’t create the Earth and all life upon it? Does that truly undermine His ability to still be God. Well… I guess it does actually. Ok, so that’s the question posed in the title answered then. But there are still some things about anti-evolutionists that wind me up.
For example, an underlying theme of these videos is that it’s wrong to preach that evolution is factual because it has never been proved. Ok, for one, evolution has been proved over the last 200 years by the collection and assimilation of EVIDENCE. What is it about the creator story (Adam and Eve, the Earth created in 6 days, etc.) that seems to have people thinking that has been proved. Excuse me while I just bang my head on the desk… ah, that’s better.
It makes me laugh when the biggest anti-evolution argument appears to be a lack of evidence: “it’s only a theory”, “answer me this”, “answer me that”, but when you ask a creationist for their evidence, they will invariably point you in the direction of the bible. That’s it? That’s all they’ve got? And they accuse evolution of an acute lack of evidence? Oh please.
One guy in these videos is angry that a science teacher would dare to challenge the minds of 12-year olds by teaching them about evolution and allowing them to make their choices as to what they want to believe. As far as I’m aware, science in general feels that it’s fine to believe whatever you want; if you have faith and don’t believe in evolution, fine. However there are teachers out there who teach that God created the world, and if you believe in evolution you should be burned at the stake. Well, that seems fair I guess.
To me these arguments reek of desperation. I wonder if, deep down, half of these guys are saying what they do because they truly believe it, or just because they feel they have to. I’ve got nothing against people having a faith and I can see how truly uplifting it can be for many. But this banging on about evolution being a load of nonsense when the counter argument is based purely on faith just bewilders me.
Do go and watch some of these videos, but be prepared; they will wind you up…
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of Charles Darwin, Lisricka and someone called Anon
Tesco: Whatever Next?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on November 21, 2011
Everyone loves to hate Tesco don’t they? (Well, apart from the millions of people who shop there that is.) I will happily admit that I am a Tesco-hater myself. Nevertheless, this post isn’t about that. This post is looking at how what was essentially a grocery store has branched out into a mind-boggling array of other businesses and now has its chubby little fingers in more pies than one could possibly imagine.
I was doing some research for a post the other week on supermarket nappies and I was so amazed by what I found on Tesco’s website that I just had to share it with you.
I have to admit that this is a bit of a lazy post and that the entirety of my research was spent simply trawling through Tesco websites, but I really wanted to find out exactly how much can be accomplished through what we all still essentially think of as a supermarket.
So what do Tesco offer then?
As one would imagine, they still sell food and drink (although it would be very easy to miss that). In 1974 they became the first supermarket to sell petrol, which of course was soon copied by many other supermarkets. From here – also like many other supermarkets – Tesco have expanded into pharmaceuticals, books, music, clothes and electronics – all of which can be bought in store and all of which have left a trail of devastation amongst local businesses and high streets.
However, it’s since the 1990’s that they have really gone to town and now Tesco offer all of these extra services: a mobile phone network; flowers; photos; car insurance; home insurance; life insurance; health insurance: dental insurance; pet insurance; optician services; hotel accommodation; flights; car hire; travel insurance; personal loans; gas & electricity; credit cards; child trust funds; gold exchange; DVD rental: estate agency services; savings accounts; breakdown cover; music downloads; used cars; and finally, a whole catalogue of everything you could ever possibly want to buy in the entire world.
Of course if you’re a customer who owns a Tesco Clubcard (the loyalty award scheme) and also uses all of these services they provide, the points must really stack up. However, imagine all of the information about you this company then has access to. For example what groceries you buy, how often you fill your petrol tank, how much you home is worth, where you go on holiday, what your pets are called, etc, etc. Personally, I think that this is far too much information for a single private company to hold on one person. But then again – points make prizes.
Maybe I’m just living in the past, but to me the above just seems excessive and greedy. I understand that a business has to grow; but this is astounding. Why can’t Tesco just be content with being a supermarket? Or, perhaps, has the definition of a supermarket now changed to that of a company who can offer such a vast array of different services? For me, this just looks like the slippery slope down into “Tesco World” where independent business and freedom of choice is quashed by the few multinational corporations who can afford to do everything. That’s not the kind of world I want for my grand children and I can see why there are a number of different anti-Tesco groups out there, Tescopoly being the biggest. If you want a more damning look at Tesco, please go and visit them.
So where next for Tesco then? My guess would be they’ll branch out into broadband, mortgages and international arms selling.
I truly fear for the future with regard to companies like Tesco. It seems they are unstoppable in their march toward expansion and world domination. Every year they seem to take on another aspect to their business and every year the world of commerce gets just that little bit tighter. When will it stop?
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photo courtesy of Ceasefire Magazine and Tesco (obviously)
My 33p Credit Card Dilemma
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on October 28, 2011
There’s nothing green about this post today, but in keeping with the Green Review’s principles – it’s plenty angry…
I apologise if I’m using my blog as a mouthpiece to vent my exasperation at one more of life’s little frustrations, but that’s what blogs are for isn’t it? Who need physiatrists when you have blogs, eh?
So what’s got me so worked up then?
Well… My credit card provider wrote to me the other day saying that I have accrued 33p interest this month. So what’s wrong with that? I’m sure many of you may be saying. Well yes, 33p isn’t a lot of money. However (and it’s a pretty flippin’ big however), I pay off my credit card every month, so there should be no interest on this account.
On first seeing this I was mildly annoyed, but I thought I’ll just give them a ring and ask (tell) them to remove this 33p interest charge. So I looked up the number, read the small print and found that calls cost 10p per minute. “10p per minute?” I screamed, in my head, “bloody daylight robbery!” By the time I’ve entered my account details on the phone’s keypad, pushed the # key, pushed 4 for credit card enquiries, pushed 2 for account enquiries, listened to a huge long list that doesn’t include what I want to do and finally pushed 7 to talk to an agent, proceeded to hold while they tell me how much my call means to them (yes, because they’re earning 10p a bloody minute), told someone in India my address, date of birth, postcode and tried to answer a security question I can’t remember the answer to, then finally explained what I want, waited again while they talk to a supervisor, click a few buttons on their computer and eventually finish by asking me if there’s anything else they can help me with today (yes, shut up and let me get off the phone!)… by that time, the call alone will have cost me 4 times as much as the 33p charge. “Nope”, I thought, “I’ll email them”.
No email address…
Ok fine. How else could I contact them? A letter perhaps? Nope. The stamp alone costs 36p (2nd class) – that’s a 10% mark up on my original 33p charge, let alone the cost of the envelope and then the time to actually write the letter – which, I admit, would take much less time than to write this blog, but writing this makes me feel better.
So what do I do? Here are my options:
- Pay by post and include a letter that demands they take off the 33p or I’m leaving. Cost: 33p + 36p plus envelope and time.
- Ring them and demand the same. Cost: I reckon about 5-10 minutes on the phone if I’m lucky, so 33p + 50p-£1.
- Pay the money online. Cost: 33p (but a feeling of despondency at letting the credit card company get one over on me).
- Don’t do anything and ignore the 33p in protest. Cost: (eventually) my house, my car, my life savings (?!) and my mental health.
I know this is a puny amount of money but it’s all about the principle: I hate the fact that I can’t contact my own credit card company for free; I hate the fact that they will have taken my money just like that; I hate the fact that if they did this to all of their customers they would probably make a huge amount of money; I hate the fact that it’s another reason the hate the banks… I hate hating things, you know.
So then, I’ve now got a week to make up my mind as to how best to proceed before I get hit with a £12 late payment fee.
Ideas/thoughts/sympathy anyone?
P.S. This is a Santander Debenhams credit card by the way (name and shame). I would ditch it immediately if it we’re up to me, but my wife won’t allow it: something to do with great offers on clothes and make up…
P.P.S. Isn’t it a bit funny that in the days of copy and paste, we’re still using P.S.? I could easily have inserted the above P.S. into the text, but I didn’t.
P.P.P.S. Why is that?
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photos courtesy of Timur Anikin and Ilya Genkin
I Like Traffic Wardens… But Don’t Tell Anyone Please
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on October 10, 2011
I came to a scary realisation the other day: I like traffic wardens. Yes you heard me: I like traffic wardens. And do you know what? I think I can convince you to as well.
Now, first of all I think I should mention that, yes I drive a car, yes I spend a huge amount of money on paying for car parks (and a parking permit), yes I have been given a number of tickets in my time, and no, I am not mad.
My mindset is born of this:
They are here to help: Yes that’s right, traffic wardens are the guardians of our roads, and without them many roadsides would be in a right old mess. For example, how often have you seen a car parked so badly and so illegally it beggars belief that someone could be that much of a selfish ar~~~ole.* Well, if our friendly traffic wardens weren’t around, we could expect a lot more of that. In fact a great number of our urban highways would become virtually impassable if people just parked where they want. To highlight what I am saying; next time you’re out just have a look at how many double yellow lines there are and picture how cramped things could get if these areas we’re filled with cars instead. And come on; admit it – who doesn’t just love seeing a traffic warden slapping a little black and yellow square of misery to someone else’s car windshield, eh? You know you do.
* I don’t usually like to swear in my blog as I feel it just demonstrates a lack of vocabulary. However in this instance, I really couldn’t think of a more appropriate word to use. Sorry.
They don’t write the rules: Traffic wardens are just there to enforce the rules (and thank goodness for that). If a local council has put down parking restrictions in a place they really shouldn’t be, don’t blame the traffic wardens; blame the pen pushers and planners. Also, when you get to your car just as the ticket is being issued, don’t have a go at the traffic warden for not rescinding it – he can’t. Just imagine if he could: our towns would be filled with traffic wardens being chased around by irate drivers attempting to get a let off. It would be like football a match where the referee runs around the pitch trying to shake off a clutch of indignant footballers after showing one of them a red card. Chaos. If you do want to be let off a ticket you have to write to the local council. More often than not, it’s those guys who are the ones who don’t have a shred of sympathy in them and will throw out your appeal as soon as look at it.
They just want to be loved: Probably true, but here’s where I must stop generalising. I feel very lucky that I live in a city where the majority of traffic wardens are not only nice, cordial people, but will also overlook a minor parking infringement more often than not. There are, however, traffic wardens out there who like their job just a little too much and will love to write you a ticket. These are the ones who will stick a ticket on you for going over your limit by smaller amount of time that even the Hadron Collider can measure. There are also the ones who will give you a ticket if that stone stuck between the treads of your tyre is within a hair’s width of the edge of the yellow line. Yes, these ones are not included in my musings. Nor are the private wheel clamping firms: they are a different thing altogether.
I think so many of our negative feelings towards these guys come from the fact that we feel we have the right park anywhere so long as “we’ll only be a couple of minutes”. Unfortunately though, if we do break the rules and get caught, we only have ourselves to blame.
You know, there are so many other things to despise in this world – terrorists, crooked politicians, middle-lane drivers – that one less to worry about can only be good for your health.
So there you are. Have I turned you around and allowed you see our humble traffic warden in a new light, or do you still think they are money-grabbing scum who would step over their dying grandmother just to slap a ticket on your car?
I know that at some point(s) in the future I will break the parking rules. If I do though, I’m not going to waste any negative emotions on the traffic warden issuing the fine. I’ll just shrug and think back to what I have written here.
GR
The Heavens Look on as Wind Power Gets the Ultimate Approval…
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on August 18, 2011
I appologise if the title of this post may be a bit grand and hyperbolic; all I really want to do is show you a photograph. But hey, in these days of tags, keywords and search engine optimization, I think I can be excused for using a slightly over-inflated title, can’t I?
So then, all I ask you to do is look at this photo and see if you can see the eyes?
I’ll admit that I didn’t even notice these eyes until my (cloud-gazing) brother pointed them out to me. (If you’re having trouble, there is one eye on each side of the top blade)
The only explanation I can come with for this phenomenon is that it must be the heavens looking on in approval (although, I do think these ethereal eyes also look a tad like the Mona Lisa’s).
So that’s it then. The wind debate is over. Whether or not people argue that wind power is too expensive, blots the landscape, turns migrating birds into shredded duck and doesn’t really work anyway; we have official word from the Big Man Upstairs that it’s ok by him; and that’s good enough for me.
Well that’s it for now. There’ll be no news from me next week as I’m going on holiday; off for a round the world trip consuming lots of jet fuel, disposable aviation cutlery and staying in lots of expensive hotels… Nah, just kidding. I’m going camping in Devon. Back soon…
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photo courtesy of Scottish Power via Renewable UK
Apparently I like Climate Change: My Personal Struggle With Facebook’s ‘Like’ Button.
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on August 12, 2011
Ok, this post is nothing to do with the environment whatsoever. It is simply a look at Facebook and some associated musings I’ve been having lately…
My thoughts in this post are based on some of the oddities that occur whilst using Facebook and its infamous ‘like’ button. The most recent occurrence was when I found a facebook page simply entitled Climate Change. I thought the page was informative and looked good, so I pressed the ‘like’ button. Of course the reply that instantly came back was “The Green Review likes Climate Change”. Bloody slander! I don’t like climate change! It scares the Hell out of me. But now all of The Green Review’s 13 Facebook followers (yes I’m that popular) have seen this message, essentially claiming I’m a big, fat, climate change-liking fraud. This could be the end of me. I think I’ll have to shelve my green blog and move to South America, Switzerland or Bradford.
My next issue with the ‘like’ button is this: On Father’s Day this year, a number of my friends posted moving messages about their departed fathers, and I naturally wanted to show empathy to these friends of mine. However, as my cursor hovered over the ‘like’ button, index finger ready to strike, I thought to myself; how does it look if I ‘like’ this. For example: So-and-so says something like “I really miss my father. A small patch of light in the world has faded since he died and I miss him every day”. Then underneath you have, “Gareth Eynon likes this” No I don’t. How unsympathetic does that look? In respect of this, I think that facebook should add an ‘empathise’ button… Oh sorry, Facebook’s American isn’t… it should have an empathize button, with a zee.
Next, (and rather conversely) I think that sometimes the ‘like’ button just isn’t enough. You know, when someone posts a really cool link that you want all of your friends to see? Well in this case I think there should be ‘love it!’ button, or perhaps a ‘really, really, really likes’ button. Or maybe you could hit the ‘like’ button an accumulative number of times to show your appreciation for those cream-of-the-crop posts, links, and photos.
Of course there are any number of buttons Facebook could put on, for example: a ‘dislike’ button (as opposed to ‘unlike’); an ‘I think this is stupid’ button; an ‘awesome’ button; or perhaps even an ‘I love this more than my kids’ button. Maybe there could be an ‘insert your own message’ button for those times when the reaction you want to give is just too hard to qualify.
So you can now understand why I will never be the next Mark Zuckerburg. By the way; did you know that the literal translation of Zuckerburg from German means Sugar Mountain? How sweet.
If you like this post, please share it using your ‘I love this, it’s the best thing I’ve ever read in the whole, wide world’ button. Thanks. Back to green issues next week.
