Jeremy Paxman continuously Flabbergasted

 Posted by  Comments Off on Jeremy Paxman continuously Flabbergasted
Jun 032009
 

Harriet Harman

For the last week or so, the highly paid Paxman has become obviously annoyed at the continuous devious behaviour from every politician he’s interviewed.  They all say “we understand the public’s anguish” – but, as Paxman notes, they do fuck all about it.  As many have noted, if you go into a shop and steal a bag of sugar and get caught, just giving the sugar back to the shop isn’t the normal chain of events – but that’s what MPs do!

Nicky Campbell and Harriet Harman

Two days ago, stuck in my bed, I had to suffer the even-paced utterances of Harriet Harman as she shape-shifted around Paxman’s questions.  This followed an earlier episode on the same day when she did the same on a live phonein on early morning Radio Five Live with the effervescent  Nicky Campbell.  Listen here to the full 45 mins

      5lnpi_20090601-1143a

Paxman versus Harman

Paxman’s interview is here for a week or so until it’s pulled;  news.bbc.co.uk…8078715

If you can survive it, just watch the whole Harman (and other pieces) in the full programme, and wait for the round-up which you can see here;

www.bbc.co.uk…b00kwqxx_01_06_2009/

At precisely 35:30 into the show (you can fast-fwd if you like), Paxman tries to summarise exactly what Harman had just said in the monotonous sanctimonious ramblings…. Funny as fuck.  Here’s what he said:

“Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman told this programme… er, I don’t exactly what she told us… er, that public support… we haven’t got exactly what… we can’t tell precisely what we are proposing to repeat of what she said, but it was very interesting”.

The Guardian’s Media Monkey also picked up on this here, Harman’s all too forgettable for Paxo.  In total that day, I had 1.25 hours of Harman’s drifting and side-shifting.  And like Paxman, I can’t remember a single word or any single point that was made because of the verbal force-field in place.

William Hague versus Paxman

The latest episode of  tax sorry, question, sorry ‘tax question avoidance’ from Paxman was by ‘Don’t be Vague, ask for’ William Hague.  See all two minutes of smirking squirming here:

news.bbc.co.uk…8080379

Paxman’s interview with Hague has now made it onto YouTube:

I still remember him as young twat at an old Tory conference…

And this is exactly the problem that the public have with the politicians.  See my posting yesterday on this.  It’s just continuous rampant corruption, denial and avoidance.  Paxman is right to be flabbergasted.  If he can’t get an answer, then what hope Joe Bloggs (Joe the Plumber for my US readers).  Most military and police force members feel the same way.  Without their backing, if they don’t sort themselves out, we can easily bring in a guillotine.  We’ve had a civil war here.  We’ve chopped the heads off monarchs.  Britain isn’t such a nicey-nicey place to be when it’s riled up.  There are 30 million that think like this and 30 million too scared to disagree.

Conclusion

I don’t think Paxman’s losing it.  He is overpaid for what he does but I don’t think his powers have gone.  The problem is the politicians’ behaviour and Paxman’s exasperation at their intransigence at coming anywhere near to the public’s expectations.  It’s on their heads in the long run.  They’ve been told enough.

Murderous, Stupid, Boy

 Posted by  Comments Off on Murderous, Stupid, Boy
Apr 252009
 

ZackThis is the full text of an ‘article‘ posted on the Michigan State University (MSU) news section by ‘the State News opinion writer’ apparently.  Zack (for it is he) has his own particular version of personal rights and responsibilities, somewhat at odds with US law.  His article worked though – he has had a shed load of comment…

Black 2001 Saturn SC2. That’s the car I drive – and if you’re a bicyclist on the road but not in a bike path and you see my car, I hope you’re wearing a helmet, because I might run you over.

Maybe not intentionally.

But you see, with all these things I can do in my car nowadays, such as choose a different song on my iPod, send a text message while driving or fall asleep at the wheel because I had to wake up for a worthless 8 a.m. biology lab, I might not notice you.

And, considering you are where you should not be, I might hit you.

The simple fact of the matter is, MSU has so kindly provided sidewalks for people on foot and Rollerblades, and MSU’s ordinance should be revised to require bicyclists be there too. The university has outlined bike paths on certain roads, but bicyclists can’t just create imaginary bike paths like they do.

I cannot drive my car on the sidewalk, so why must you ride your bicycle where I drive?

Many of my friends ride bicycles on campus, so I’m not trying to berate a whole demographic of students. I appreciate bicyclists who advocate environmentalism, since they are making up for the damage I do with my car.

I respect bicyclists who use bicycles as a form of exercise, since people certainly can never get enough fitness in their everyday routines.

But for as much as I respect and appreciate bicyclists, I will not hesitate to honk at them when they are interfering with the roads.

My concern is not merely about inconvenience.

Bicyclists on the road are a driving hazard to people in automobiles, since many bicyclists make turns without using hand signals and ride too close to other vehicles when there is no designated bike path.

For example, I was driving to work Tuesday when a bicyclist pulled up in front of my car in the right lane on Farm Lane going northbound where it intersects with Shaw Lane. There is no bike path at this portion of the road, and I needed to be in the right lane to avoid the left turn only lane, but the bicyclist was in the way.

Instead, I had to speed ahead and veer away from the fast-approaching rear end of the car in front of me, just barely making it into the right lane.

Some will say I could be more patient on the road.

But roads are for cars, not bicyclists. The bicyclist should not have been in the car lane.

It’s possible some bicyclists are trying to live out their dreams of being Lance Armstrong, and the smooth terrain offered by the roads where big, people-killing cars are designed to travel on are more desirable than the sidewalk pavement.

I get it, bicyclists – you’re in the Tour de France. Well, in your head at least.

But in reality, my gas-guzzling, carbon footprint-leaving car is trying to get around you, the bicyclist. And you, the bicyclist, prefer to coast, not along the side of the lane but in the exact middle.

Maybe in your head you are actually driving a car. Maybe that’s why you believe you should be behind a pickup truck and in front of 15 other cars trying to pass you.

And maybe you are Armstrong, so talented and in shape and able to pedal so, so fast. But Armstrong’s average speed in the 2001 Tour de France was 24.9 mph, which is 0.1 mph less than most of the speed limits on and around campus.

Plus, I’ve had difficulty finding students who actually obey the speed limit anyway.

It’s common for motorists to drive at least 5 mph above the speed limit, which makes your task to out-pedal Lance Armstrong all the more daunting. And considering you’re not actually Armstrong (even if you do wear a skintight yellow bicycle uniform), you likely are not going 24.9 mph.

And, oh yeah, Armstrong is competing when he is bicycling – your leisurely ride through campus might not even register on a police radar.

But, hey, snap out of it. You’re not Lance Armstrong.

And those are the headlights of my black 2001 Saturn SC2 bearing down on you.

Zack Colman is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at colmanz1@msu.edu.

Published on Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Zack’s piece is a prime example of why there are no such things as ‘accidents’. All crashes and killings are someone’s fault – maybe it’s inattention, but it’s everyone’s duty to be attentive. If you can’t do it, get off the road.

© 1977, Strangely Perfect.