Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
A relative of some teaching experience and an interest in kids books has passed on a certain frustratio with the Potter phenomenon - mostly I think that there are things in the same genre out there (I'm thinking of Diana Wynne Jones).
I supposes it might be a bit like teletubbies, in terms of pitching well to a limited target audience.
-
<i>Stardust</i> would be a good Gaiman book to flirt over I'd have said.
-
pulp with classic covers
I recall recently seeing for sale some blank books in old pulp fiction covers. Also some penguin classics with blank (draw-your-own) covers. Although if you combined those you would get the opposite of your suggestion. Though it might make good conversation if somebody did ask...
One of the guardian comments on Dan Brown reminded me: I would at least recongise a kindred spirit if I saw someone, perhaps 20 pages from the end of <i>Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix</i>, look up and exclaim, "Wait a minute - this is bollocks," before casting the wretched thing away forever.
-
His key objection seemed to be that some hidden group of people would become crazily rich if the US instituted such a system. He wasn't able to explain who these people would be, except to say that wherever government intervenes someone becomes rich.
I can understand how an American might get that impression. Greg Palast probably keeps a master list of social interventions actually designed to make somebody rich. I'm sure it's not beyond their ingenuity to rort a socialised medical system.
The point that leaps to mind is that if you were going to fix it so people were happy to provide healthcare free when they hadn't before, they'll cheerfully take all the money you have. For some reason private preschool care leaps to mind as a comparison.
I can't see a US government getting away with "here's what we think is a reasonable price - take it or we'll nationalise you".
-
parliament website announcement on the webcast.
begins 17 JULY. you can has a archive, but that would be about all we know
-
<self promotion>
Mind you, I was blogging dubya as sub-machiavellian back in oh-four.
</self-promotion> -
Machiavelli's Prince was supposed to be smart.
There are also regular nods in Machiavelli, as I remember it, to all of this cynical action being in the interests of the state (as Machy saw it anyway) rather than the individual.
-
Ta, Graeme. I was listening on the radio and obviously became confused when Nandor said
Like Mr Rodney Hide, my personal view is that people should be able to film what they like.
... i had the impression someone had interjected just then and thought it was rodders.
I don't know if the final vote was something to do with the tradition of consensus in the standing orders committee - with MPs more likely to stand by rules they voted for...
Which doesn't make it unsuck.
Lord what lessons we might draw when the media doesn't attend even when it's about them (and the public, for whom I have more sympathy).
All the ones who weren't there missed that glorious business with winston and his unreleased tabled documents, too. Karma.
-
Oh, and I was toying with the idea of organising a boycott.
Anywhere where you would have used footage of parliament, you instead re-enact the scene with figerpuppets and silly voices.
This would continue until politicians realise allowing free use of the feed is not the worst option.
I would be prepare to supply the 'talent' side of this operation at or near cost.
Of course they'd probably miss the point and, y'know, take it personally (The hanging "They also seem to generally think" was going to refer to the ideas expressed in the debate that the sleepy-pictures thing was an indication of what the media was really after - I considered it a protest against the rules and the pomposity).
Who's with me?
-
There was a thing on 3(?) last(?) night making the australia comparision.