Skip to main content

It is a catastrophe

Here we go. It is winter and it is getting cold, freezing cold, shiver your timbers cold. It  is winter. That is what I expect in winter.  But when I read the newspapers or watch television you would not think so. Now is the time for headlines. Winter is no longer sufficient. It has to be 'record low temperatures', 'lowest since records began', 'the big freeze'. It isn't of course. It is winter, and when I look at the story under the headline we find that it is the lowest temperature recorded in some obscure part of the Britain.

Headlines. We live by them. There is that phrase I hear used often 'the headline figure'. Beware of them is what I say.  It is all designed to make us feel that something awful is happening, when it is simply winter.

Now this isn't to say I don't believe it when we are told that environmental change is causing changes in weather patterns - more stormy weather, more floods, more heat waves, more...snow. Winter. Since records began is a wonderful phrase. I have no idea what it means. Sometime ago they started recording somewhere, and things have changed ever since.  It is the wettest, it is the driest, it is the coldest, it is the warmest, it is the worst, since records began.  Hardly anything is better. It is worse - worse than when 'records began'. But when did records begin? That differs depending on the story. Where did records begin? That differs depending on the story. It is a catastrophe, it is a disaster. Catastrophic is a wonderful word. Of course it is. But what does it mean? An event causing great and usually sudden damage or suffering; a disaster. It is winter. It is the New Year. Well, almost.  We like to look back on the year past as the 'worst on record'.

Some newspapers have totted up the number of aged rock stars who have died. Apparently this year has been the 'worst on record' for that. One after the other, we lost them.  Of course we did. And next year will be the worst on record. And eventually none of them will be left - and that will be a catastrophe.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As