I spent last evening losing at Ludo with
matgb and
burlesque_bunny and her other half, and therefore didn't get around to backreading. Thus, today's linkspam of random things that caught my magpie eye is HUGE! Also, if I haven't hat-tipped you for the link, it's because I forgot who linked me to what. This is because I are a scatty old bint. For which, I apologise. A fair few of them came from
m'colleague Douglas over at LC, though.
First up,
Ros Scott is unsure that too much choice is a good thing. I certainly agree that in terms of schools and (particularly) hospitals, people don't want choice, they just want their local one to be good. If someone is bleeding to death, the last thing you want to have to do is to decide whether St Luke's or the BRI would suit your needs better.
However, it's not just about whether or not people have the ABILITY to make choices, it's about whether or not there aren't better uses of their time, IMHO. A lot of the time I don't want to choose between a set of things because I'd rather be doing something else. Choice of beer is great, choice of buses to get to the pub is not. I just want a bus that's frequent, prompt, and stops where I want it to, not a choice of three, none of which go at convenient times, or stop at the stop I want.
Via
Neil Gaiman:
No to age banding on books.
I agree, to an extent, with age restrictions
(but emphatically not censorship for 18-rated films) for violence on films and computer games
(less so for sex), because you don't need to put any actual effort into perceiving the violence of a film or computer game, and it could cause some serious trauma to some children. Books? No. I first read the bible cover to cover aged seven (after the Hobbit but before LotR), and you'll be hard pushed to find a book more stuffed with violence than that. I still think it was a worthy use of my time. Reading books that are "unsuitable for children" is an im;portant part of any child's intellectual development.
Similarly, I loved, and still love, books which are clearly aimed at much smaller people than me. Why should I be castigated for this by over-prescriptive publishers?
el_staplador makes a good point about feminism, inspired by
this article on the BBC:
Feminism, the way I learnt it, isn't about voting for the woman because she's a woman; it's about voting for the best person for the job because of them being the best person for the job. Where the feminism comes in is that, should a woman be the best person for the job, there should be nothing more standing in her way than there is standing in an equivalent man's way. I must admit that I haven't been following the campaign terribly closely, so can't give a considered opinion on the question. (In any case, it's too late now and I have no influence upon it whatsoever.) But honestly, it should be simple: which of the two could do the job better? They're both human beings, no?
I'd go further than the sainted El S. I think that voting for a woman just because she's a woman and not because she's the best person for the job DAMAGES feminism, just as "positive" discrimination is a patronising pat on the head from the patriarchy. YMMV, of course.
Much hilarity abounds about Tony Blair's new plan to foster peace and stuff by
not invading other nations getting people of different faiths to talk to each other. Like the author of
jesus_and_mo, and I think the result of this is
rather predictable:

OTOH, maybe
cabalamat2 is right, and
this will result in more questioning of the overweening power of religion in general. Which would possibly be a good thing. I don't mind religious folks doing whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes, but I don't want them present in my legislature, and I don't want them indoctrinating my child. Shame this still seems to be too much to ask.
I originally did the "wife" version of this, and, somewhat predictably,
I was atrocious. However:
This contrasts nicely with my result for this test, I feel:
|
What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com |
| You scored as Hedonism Your life is guided by the principles of Hedonism: You believe that pleasure is a great, or the greatest, good; and you try to enjoy life’s pleasures as much as you can.
“Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!”
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
( percentages and stuff under here )
Big hurrahs for the really, REALLY old guy! I particularly like that the secret to his longevity is "cigarettes, whisky and wild women".
An organ which definitely disapproves of wild women, especially in conjunction with whisky and fags is the Daily Hate. Here's a couple of links to stuff about their misogyny and how it negatively affects the whole of society.
Via the incredibly talented ginasketch, today is Drawing Day. So get your pencils, or Wacom tablet, out.
Via shishmish on the TGT, someone at the BBC has seen the woeful Brainiac: Science Abuse on Sky, and thought that's not a bad idea, but the execution is terrible... I bet we could do better! Am really looking forward to this, even though Hamster is my least favourite of the TG3.
And finally, guaranteed way to get me to accept your Facebook, friends request? Unashamed fanboying of this humble blog! As a reciprocal measure, I'd like you all to go and have a nosey at ottenfeed, which is being added to lcreadinglist as we speak ;)
|