When I was a boy you couldn't get down the street for the cheery Happy Christmas calls. And you'd cop it from the parents if a neighbour didn't hear a reply - a polite one that is.
Now that might be taking things a bit far but for most of my life it has been pretty much the same. It even picked up a bit 15 years ago when we moved to Norfolk where almost everyone still salutes the time of day when you pass. Until this year.
It could be me of course. I am older, maybe less enchanting, less appealing perhaps. But I don't think that's the reason. Others say much the same.
I do call Happy Christmas whenever I am parting from someone I know, however vaguely. Even check-out operators get the treatment. This year everyone looks slightly startled and mumbles a response. Even friends look almost puzzled. In the snow-braved mobile library today three recipients of my bonhomie struggled to respond. Two I count as friend/neighbours.
Is it that we are all miserable now? Could it be that the universal cry of difficult decisions, cut this, slice the other and worse to come is finally wearing us down?
In fact it has hardly felt like Christmas, despite the stunningly early beginning of retail activity this year. Most shops are selling Christmas but few are decked out for it. Where are the lights? The tinsel? I don't see many ads for grottoes and so far only one Santa Claus and he at a National Trust house. To give them credit Blickling Hall was the one place where it really felt like Christmas, apart from the annual Christmas tree exhibitions here and in Fakenham. But to be honest that's it. I ate in a restaurant this week and had to look for any decorations; some white lights and couple of hangings was it but they could have been the norm really.
I am hearing and reading moans about school nativities that don't include carols or hardly refer to the sacred story. I'm an atheist. For me it's the winter solstice but I acknowledge a lot of people get a strong feeling from their faith. I respect the Christian festival just as I respect Divali or Passover. And they should be clearly their own show, as it were. So even we atheists mark the festive season in a traditional way. I enjoy a good carol - it has its place. Which is now. Mix in a modern one or two but allow our Christian brothers and sisters this little space for their own thing please.
There is a chance this year of a white Christmas. Personally I fear it will rain on that parade around here; this is England after all. Thousands are doing their utmost to get 'home' for the event. The weather and our unfamiliarity with it is against them. But the TV pictures? There is nothing to show it is Christmas. Snowbound streets are littered with cars but no lights, no Christmas trees. We see empty streets of banked snow and empty shops - but where are the lights? The banners? The trees.
Is it really Christmas or did the coalition cancel that as well?
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
What leaks isn't always news
As a journalist I have struggled with Wikileaks. I inevitably approve of transparency and reject secrecy. But I have come to realise that privacy and secrecy are not the same and there lies the rub.
What Assange and his chums has been leaking is mostly trivial in the grand scheme of things. It does not expose high crimes and misdemeanours. It does not even for the most part illuminate the paths of power in any helpful way. Generally it has reminded us that people in delicate negotiations need the space and privacy to say what they think. By sharing what may be an unpalatable point of view in their domestic arena they may be better able to influence outcomes that impact directly on the safety and well-being of that internal audience.
Worse, while we all waited breathlessly for the revelations to destroy the evil empire of the USA it has largely done the opposite, suggesting that in many arenas America's foreign policy is more deft than most Brits would be willing to concede.
And then the CIA and others ride in heavy footed to such an extent that the conspiracy theorists begin to wonder if they doth protest too much. Which in turn begins to turn the entire event into another "internet farago".
And it is worth noting that early on it was suggested that the material to be revealed had already been seen by as many as two million government servants - suggesting it was no big deal anyway.
Then, instead of being a web event, which it is, it has become something dreadful brought on by the internet itself.
It is critically important in fact to differentiate between the internet, which as such does not exist, being a mesh of interconnected networks able to communicate because of some clever and now 30 plus year old protocols. The web on the other hand is a set of servers (computers by any other definition) which contain and serve to computers worldwide information, pictures and other content. This ability was invented from the off in one go in 1993 (by a bored CERN geek by name of Tim Berners Lee). It is indeed possible to 'turn off' any web site by shutting down the servers (it simply hops to a new location of course but it takes time, resources etc). You cannot really shut down the internet, especially now it is in the ether as wireless and satellite broadcast).
Which is where my problem gets really tough. The internet in all its forms is a wonder to behold, capable of great good while guilty of much harm (just like printing with moveable type was 400 years ago actually!). Its impact is not really as great as say telegraphy or even wireless which changed the world from wait and see to see and wait. But is is huge and it is also of itself, blameless.
Like fast cars it is the fools at the wheel who do the harm. The internet and the world wide web are doing more good than harm. And if Wikileaks harms either for the quality of its revelations so far then I for one will want to hunt down Assange and ... well I'm a pacifist so I'd just give him a good lecture on truth, secrecy and privacy. In public of course.
What Assange and his chums has been leaking is mostly trivial in the grand scheme of things. It does not expose high crimes and misdemeanours. It does not even for the most part illuminate the paths of power in any helpful way. Generally it has reminded us that people in delicate negotiations need the space and privacy to say what they think. By sharing what may be an unpalatable point of view in their domestic arena they may be better able to influence outcomes that impact directly on the safety and well-being of that internal audience.
Worse, while we all waited breathlessly for the revelations to destroy the evil empire of the USA it has largely done the opposite, suggesting that in many arenas America's foreign policy is more deft than most Brits would be willing to concede.
And then the CIA and others ride in heavy footed to such an extent that the conspiracy theorists begin to wonder if they doth protest too much. Which in turn begins to turn the entire event into another "internet farago".
And it is worth noting that early on it was suggested that the material to be revealed had already been seen by as many as two million government servants - suggesting it was no big deal anyway.
Then, instead of being a web event, which it is, it has become something dreadful brought on by the internet itself.
It is critically important in fact to differentiate between the internet, which as such does not exist, being a mesh of interconnected networks able to communicate because of some clever and now 30 plus year old protocols. The web on the other hand is a set of servers (computers by any other definition) which contain and serve to computers worldwide information, pictures and other content. This ability was invented from the off in one go in 1993 (by a bored CERN geek by name of Tim Berners Lee). It is indeed possible to 'turn off' any web site by shutting down the servers (it simply hops to a new location of course but it takes time, resources etc). You cannot really shut down the internet, especially now it is in the ether as wireless and satellite broadcast).
Which is where my problem gets really tough. The internet in all its forms is a wonder to behold, capable of great good while guilty of much harm (just like printing with moveable type was 400 years ago actually!). Its impact is not really as great as say telegraphy or even wireless which changed the world from wait and see to see and wait. But is is huge and it is also of itself, blameless.
Like fast cars it is the fools at the wheel who do the harm. The internet and the world wide web are doing more good than harm. And if Wikileaks harms either for the quality of its revelations so far then I for one will want to hunt down Assange and ... well I'm a pacifist so I'd just give him a good lecture on truth, secrecy and privacy. In public of course.
Monday, 20 December 2010
Getting in a Pickle
Is this where I came in? Today I read that another of the line up of loonies in this coalition of the unwise is to roll back one of Maggie Thatcher's few good ideas. Yeah, I know but she did have some, be fair. Eric Pickles wants to do away with the Uniform Business Rate - the clue, Eric is in the title - and allow councils to independently vary the levy.
The UBR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_rates_in_England_and_Wales) was introduced in 1990 in response in large part to the reasonable complaint from businesses that two identical businesses in identical premises on opposite sides of the same street could be paying vastly different "non-domestic rates" to different councils. This unfair competitive factor was one among many that made this rate unpopular with small business in particular. And now Mr Pickles tells us that it is in response to small business demands that he wants to effectively put the clock back.
Now admittedly Maggie's writ didn't have long to run in 1990 and the Poll Tax, possibly her daftest idea, was soon to lay her low. But really Eric, don't you think it would be a good idea to learn something from history? If you must tinker then at least be innovative and not simply re-create the errors of the past. And please try not to trample Maggie's reputation - you'll startle the horses in the shires.
The UBR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_rates_in_England_and_Wales) was introduced in 1990 in response in large part to the reasonable complaint from businesses that two identical businesses in identical premises on opposite sides of the same street could be paying vastly different "non-domestic rates" to different councils. This unfair competitive factor was one among many that made this rate unpopular with small business in particular. And now Mr Pickles tells us that it is in response to small business demands that he wants to effectively put the clock back.
Now admittedly Maggie's writ didn't have long to run in 1990 and the Poll Tax, possibly her daftest idea, was soon to lay her low. But really Eric, don't you think it would be a good idea to learn something from history? If you must tinker then at least be innovative and not simply re-create the errors of the past. And please try not to trample Maggie's reputation - you'll startle the horses in the shires.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)