nod to the past, look to the future...

Like this article on Hogmany, always find it a pity they don't sing Auld Lang Syne here in Austria, more moving and fitting than the traditional Blue Danube. Whereas that is a nice, dainy celebratory marking of the new year, there's something about the scottish tradition that captures the birth and death of the years together; replacing a slightly mounrful but steadfast lament with a stately waltz is wine where there should be whisky.

So, raise a cup of kindness yet, for the sake of those auld lang syne, and then raise another to the fine art of getting on with tomorrow!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/29/hogmanay-new-year

to quote:
"I have decided that this is a metaphor for Christmas and the oppressively affectionate layers of traditions and obligations that restrict your movements during the festive season. I love Christmas, but I generally collapse, like a slightly worn bouncy festive castle, when it is over. The past stacks up on top of you, distant years materialise with clarity, chains clanking like Marley's, as each ornament is unwrapped, as each card is opened. My life is made up of nothing but Christmases past, and achievements and maturity disappear under tinselly demands to "do it the way we always do it".

"Thank goodness for Hogmanay. Where Christmas is about family, New Year is about friends; where Christmas locks you into the past, New Year frees you to look forward. It is not a cosy holiday,"

"New Year is a time to get rid of layers. Shrug off the last 12 months, raise a glass to loves lost, then get yourself a refill, count the chimes, and raise another to the fine art of getting on with tomorrow."

In public, you lose your right to be an idiot

I never could stand Jeremy Clarkson, with his puerile humour and bravado and the smug conservative views that only a man with more cars than cares could have. So I would normally never waste my time or digital ink on him, but the recent controversy over his comments is with commenting on.
Two of his comments have caused "controversy" this week, one that striking public sector workers should be lined up and shot (in front of their families for good measure) and another that people who throw themselves under trains are selfish because of the inconvenience this causes others.
Is it right that he be condemned for these statements, or is it an example of what is claimed to be faux-indignation coupled with infamous "political correctness gone bad"?
There are two different issues here I think. With the first one, to be fair to the unfair, it's the sort of hyperbolic comment plenty of people might make in casual conversation, and while imbecilic in its ignorance of how such language, like racist jokes, has real negative effects, we can't really condemn him for being an idiot,in private that is. But, and this is a very big but, it wasn't in private, nor in a private role coincidentally on tv, but on a public tv channel, by someone paid for and made famous by that same channel, which is funded by the public, which makes it about as un-private as one can get. And saying such things, which will cause offence directly (and not indirectly as in "sachsgate" where people were more offended on behalf of Sachs than he himself was), and to people who pay his wage through their licence fees, is despicable.
While can't complain about him being an idiot in private, acting one in public is unacceptable.
However far more offensive, and corrosive, was his comment on suicides. The best way to characterise It is I think to ask how offensive it would be if he had said disabled people are selfish, with their slow wheelchairs, or cancer sufferers are selfish, with their slower deaths. The point is anyone driven to suicide is also sick, and it is just as disgusting to blame them for their condition as to blame someone with cancer. Of  course this is a modern understanding and unfortunately having advanced cars doesn't prevent someone having primitive attitudes.  Again, Clarkson has every right to act the idiot in private, but this can't be tolerated on the national stage, and he should lose the job paid for by the national purse.
Now I'll try and forget him again!