March 21, 2007

If That's How "We" Are Then Include Me Out

In this week's London Review of Books, the culture critic John Lanchester writes about, and around, global warming. He declares:

Electric light and power, and television, and computers, and fridges, not to menton cars and planes and lasers and CD players and dialysis machines and wireless networking and synthetic materials, are things we take on trust; we don't know how they work but we're happy to benefit from them.


Who is "we"? I am neither a professional scientist nor an engineer but I understand perfectly well how these things work. All of them. I suppose Mr Lanchester means, by "we", people of a liberal humanities background who overwhelmingly occupy the media and most of politics; people who not infrequently pronounce upon a science or technology of which they know little and understand less, while proudly waving their ignorance as a badge of their refined sensibilities and social standing. In a world which is run more and more through technology, the sort of chap who says "Oh, I barely know how to turn the damn thing on, let alone how it works" seems less like the elevated being he imagines himself to be, and more like an idiot, in both the modern and the ancient Athenian senses of the word.

I suspect Mr Lanchester knows perfectly well how his stuff works and is just pretending he doesn't, in order not to seem common or blokeish.

But that approach leads him to make remarks like: "there is one school of thought, and a few nutters".

Tell that to Copernicus or any other scientists ("nutters") involved in serious paradigm shift. The truth about science is that, first, there's only a
model, which it's everyone's duty to throw rocks at to see if it falls over, and, second, science being emphatically not a democracy, it's perfectly possible for one person to be right and everyone else wrong.

To us caring, egalitarian relativists, that may seem tough. But it's a tough world, and may do for us yet.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

December 07, 2006

Oh THOSE Training Purposes...

From the Daily Telegraph email disclaimers:

Emails sent and received may be read by people other than the intended recipient and may be monitored to ensure efficient operation of our email systems.

Ah, "efficient operation". I see. So... if I send someone an email and it doesn't arrive -- i.e., the email system isn't operating efficiently -- nobody will know. Very good.

Incoming and outgoing telephone calls to our offices may be monitored or recorded for training and quality control purposes and for confirming orders and information.

Training whom? To do what? Controlling quality of what, come to that? My accent? Grammar? Excuse me? I mean to say, is this how stupid you think we are?

Technorati Tags: ,

December 03, 2006

Another. Damned. Disclaimer.

The Burger King "I'm a man" commercial? Where Men in muscle vests and hard hats show how Manly they are by eating 20,505,321 calories of meat? Have you noticed how, halfway through, a subtitle flashes up which says:

"FILMED ON A CLOSED ROAD

?

What it should say is:

Most MEN in muscle vests and hard hats are actually GAY ICONS and
LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES and
eat
LETTUCE

It Was The Voices In My Head That Made Me Do It, Honest

If the corporation is a legitimized psychopath[1] then the advertising industry is a schizophrenic; behaviour associated with schizophrenia includes confabulation (making up stories to fill in the blanks), associative looseness, neologisms, clang association, word salad, and echolalia...

ADDENDUM: The redoutable Seamus McCauley accuses me of supporting the film of The Corporation and Bakan's thesis in general. Just to clarify, I haven't seen the film [2] and I think Bakan's thesis is, in essence, bollocks - largely because it houses, at its very core, a nasty little category mistake.

[1] Bakan, Joel. The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.(First published in the USA by Free Press - Simon & Schuster, 2004). London: Constable, 2004.

[2] But am now going to have to see, thanks to McCauley's attack on it and me. Sodding blogosphere.

Technorati Tags:

October 09, 2005

Give It To Me, Big Montage

The Independent on Sunday. My journalistic alma mater. October 9th, 2005, page 10. "The lonely minister, the blonde and the honey trap". David Blunkett and a rodent-faced estate agent. You know the story. And there's the photograph of the two of them together, she standing in front of him in a Little Black Dress, circled fist at Blunkett crotch-height as though miming a quick mercy-toss. Ugh.

But wait. She may be in a Little Black Dress, but he is in a suit, overcoat, and scarf. Is he preternaturally sensitive to the cold? Is she warmed by the inner fires of lust? Or greed? Or—for we must think the unthinkable— could the IoS have (I hardly know how to say this) faked the picture?

They faked the picture. Look closely and you can see the tell-tale borders of a piece of incompetent PhotoShopping, done by an intern who knows not of blending, the healing brush or the <feather> setting.

Truth in journalism. A picture is worth a thousand words. Or, in this case, sixteen: "This newspaper is telling a lie and, what's worse, isn't even bothering to tell it convincingly."

Technorati Tags: , , ,

My Photo

January 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31