Monday Moan 9

 Intellectual indolence

And there I was, thinking that the i-paper (mini Independent) must be as uninteresting as its grown-up brother.  But I was wrong.  A train journey to Leeds was the catalyst for purchasing the i-paper on Friday and I'm not sure if reading it did much more than suggest to me that it resembles nothing other than a Daily Mail-like publication for people who think they are too clever and refined to read the Daily Mail.

I could put forward any number of examples to demonstrate my point, but two should be sufficient.

Amol Rajan writes in the column 'FreeView from the editors at i'.  In an otherwise interesting article broadly about Mitt Romney and his visit to London (see elsewhere in this week's Moan) he fails quite miserably to make the leap for the moral and intellectual high-ground when he argues that headlines describing Romney's comments as 'gaffes' are written by stupid people. Gratuitous insults are not the mark of intelligence. And his repetition of the tortuous explanation from "the excellent Mark Ferguson" which purports to show why failing to call Ed Miliband by his name was actually a sign of respect is something that will have many reaching for the sick-bags.  But save some space in those receptacles for your reaction to his parting shot that people who see gaffes in what Romney said are guilty of "intellectual indolence".  My, my, it would be hard to come up with a better example of the intellectual indolence he so decries in others.  

And then we have a letter from Val Gaize, apparently one who has not succumbed to the general feeling of goodwill towards the Olympics.  Instead, this reader suggests that we have turned London into a police state ruled by Mammon and that this has been done to allow a middle-aged former Olympic gold medallist to fulfil his ambition.

What a ridiculous and unfounded collection of accusations.  Poor old Val.  Maybe she could hibernate for the next two weeks in order to avoid the possibility that she might explode, Mr Creosote-like, as her righteous indignation ferments relentlessly whilst wall-to-wall coverage of the Games dominates all of our lives? 

Thanks for the advice, Buddy?

A long train journey provides a good opportunity to catch up on a bit of reading - once you have selected your seat from amongst those still unreserved.  Why is it that if two individuals, unknown to each other, reserve seats then the train company will place them next to each other, rather than giving them some space?  Hence the need to select your seat even if you have gone to the trouble of reserving one.

Anyway, on my way back from Leeds last week I had time to read The Economist. I read the leader on the American Presidential campaign and it got me wondering who writes these things, since they are never attributed.  What expertise and knowledge do leader writers have on the topics they write about? Should we take them as serious and authoritative contributions to debates on the topics concerned, or are they no more worthy of note than the thoughts of that lonely and rather sad bloke who props up one corner of the bar in your local pub most nights of the week?

This particular leader in The Economist was telling America what it needed to be debating about the role of Government, suggesting that at the moment neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney seemed "to understand the central domestic challenge of the next presidency".

Pretty damning stuff.  However, I can't help wondering whether we would be universally delighted and grateful if the boot was on the other foot and we received similar strictures from some American magazine.

Maybe we would. Or maybe we would suggest that they butt out of matters they don't understand.

Britain at its best?

 

So, the Opening Ceremony.  That's a tough one.  Do you want to join in with the general applause for all that is good about Britain and it's wonderful imagery that was admired all over the world?  Or do you feel compelled to say that, actually, you thought that the few good bits in the show that never seemed to end did not make up for the boredom and embarrassment of the rest of it?

According to the Daily Express,  Wayne Hemingway (fashion designer and tv personality) said: "The musical bit was perfection from the wit and the guts to put Tiger Feet among the Beatles and the Who and then to give pretty much the whole of Pretty Vacant. Normally it would be brushed over, but the punk spirit which is in Britain was written through the ceremony. Anyone cynical about this has no lust for life, it's just bloody brilliant. I don't think anyone could find a fault. He deserves a knighthood."

OK.  First, I guess I have to declare that I have no lust for life - on Wayne's measure of such things.  Second, it is prefectly possible to express a view at odds with those of Wayne, or anyone else wanting to praise Danny Boyle, without being cynical.  It's called having a different view. And third,  whether or not the "musical bit was perfection" is really not an objective issue on which there is a right or wrong answer.  Would I have chosen different music to represent the best of British culture?  Of course I would - and I'd like to think that everybody reading this blog would have come up with their own, different list.  See, that's the beauty of free will and having opinions.  We don't all have to pretend in the Emperor's New Clothes.

Rush to judgement?

All those empty seats over the first couple of days for the Olympics were bound to create a storm of protest.  The media lapped up the opportunity to be indignant and slam the organisation - thank goodness there was something like this, given that transport and security have not turned out to be be problems so far (watch this space though for transport once people return to work and, if all still goes smoothly, once the main stadium is in use during the athletics).

So we had Jeremy Hunt popping up on our screens to say that the problem seemed to be that the sponsors were not using their tickets and something would have to be done about that.  The media duly repeated this and then in interviews with the public we had it played back from them - confirming that the 'message' had been received. 

Trouble is that a bit of further investigation seems to have revealed that the sponsors were not to blame after all, but that the problem lies with the tickets set aside for the 'Olympic family' - national Olympic Associations, competitors and the like.  Moreover, they don't appear to have actual tickets that can be resold to the public if the seats remain empty, since they are merely reserved areas that members of the 'family' can chose to sit in if they wish.

No doubt Jeremy Hunt was briefed that what he said was true - such a shame that he hasn't been back on our screens so far to apologise for his error in pointing the finger in the wrong direction.