since I guess that there are not too many Guardian readers on this forum I thought ia would share with you all this mornings editorial on the subject of potholes.
Fair enough comment don't you think?
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/10/unthinkable-leaving-pot-holes-alone
|
|
Only in the heads of orange haired tree huggers with a king sized chip on their shoulders.
|
|
As soon as little imogen and moonfruit starlight break an ankle crossing the road, Mumsy and dadsy will be demanding them filled with reconstituted coconut matting and bamboo shoots.
|
Don't be unkind. It's the Guardian
Makes the Daily Mail and the Sun look intellectual.
The Guardian is written by people with lots of money - who all went to public school and decry toffs. But if you mention their background they get all prissy and delete the post..
Bunch of hypocrites writing for people with a guilty conscience to assuage.
|
There's also the tradition to uphold of slightly 'off the wall' editorials on a Saturday.
|
i got to the second line and stopped reading
drivel for drivel by drivel
bet they wear sandals as they type it too
did i mention glasses on a string
or val doonican jumpers?
|
Yes, the 'In praise of..' editorial epilogues are quite often a cross between left field & tonqgue-in-cheek - usually meant to provoke a wry smile but with an interesting point to make.
It's also fairly obvious that many (if the above selection of comments is indicative..) here
prefer their newspapers' more pre-digested & predictable - especially when it concerns the
means, motives & contributors to the Guardian. Not many, I'd predict, would imagine right-
wing thinkers/commentators being frequent guest columnists, or editorials giving fair (and
sometimes positive) appraisals of Conservative manifesto gambits or proposals.
The oddest criticism here seems to be that the Guardian is staffed by 'Toffs' & that by their criticisms/attitudes they're somehow class traitors or hypocrites - does that mean that positions & opinions are only valid if drawn against fiercely defined class lines?
|
|
Good idea. Filling potholes gives a wonderful excuse for traffic-light happy councils to put up yet more sets of temporary lights. I'd rather just drive round the potholes and keep the money.
|
The potholes in my area are awful and on one windy steep road are dangerous as the tyres lose traction and can't brake the car properly. ABS and TC/EPS lights come flashing on light Blackpool illuminations.
In general terms an appealing idea, but on relevant in certain areas.
What you all need to know about the Guardian is that it is not allowed to fail. It is owned by a self perpetuating trust whose other business assets are there solely to permit the bankrupt Grauniad to stay afloat. If it was a real business it would have sunk years ago together with its hateful political thoughts. If you post anything pro-Israel or pro-Jewish on its forum it is immediately removed or attacked by hundreds of other posters.
Don't get me started - I will just rant for the rest of the day.
|
> attacked by hundreds of other posters.
Are they all wrong?
|
It is remarkable that suddenly there is this massive attack on a single post - as if the call goes around off-line to denounce a post the paper does not agree with. The Guardian has been known for decades as anti-semitic and its forum operations do not disabuse me of that notion.
I prefer the balanced view of the Times and Telegraph. At least both sides get to air their points and permits neutrals to make a reasoned judgement. Something the left-wing papers do not permit. Have your the Mirror recently? Viciously anti-anything not Labour without reasoned comment. Makes Pravda look positively benign.
|
Yes - and the sun, which suddenly turned further right wing than a Spanish inquistion
At least the Mirror has never switched allegiance and remained true to its pravdaness.
|
Ah the Sun, they still believe the blues are right wing, what will they do if gord gets in again..swift back peddle...would half their readers notice?
|
And the "Torygraph" is balanced. Yeah right!
Why has the emergence of so many potholes happened this winter. I remember the winters of 30+ years and do not remember the same amount of degredation as I have seen on the roads. Is it poor workmanship when laying the tarmac in the first place. Is it the amount or mixture of grit used. Whatever the answer someone needs to look into it, no not the holes, and investigate why this has happened.
Surrey are patching up holes here and there and quite poorly. LB Hounslow on the other hand are replacing larger areas and completely re-tarmacing a stretch at the worst bits. Good on them. It seems hit and miss with repairs and hence my wheels and tracking are going to hit my pocket at some stage.
Last edited by: Cpt. Flack on Sun 11 Apr 10 at 13:33
|
>> And the "Torygraph" is balanced. Yeah right!
Torygraph and others know where their breads buttered and stay loyal, buy it 25 years ago or tomorrow it'll be the same shade of blue.
As for the Sun i never could stand turncoats, not to be trusted.
|
|
Well it's not balanced then. Is it.
|
>> The Guardian has been known for decades as anti-semitic and its forum operations do not disabuse me of that notion.
Really Espada? I must say I am a little shocked to read that coming from you. Because you must know a lot better than many here that anti-Semitism - a specific form of racism - and a critical view of Israeli foreign and domestic policy are not the same thing at all. I know you would not claim that the many Israelis and other Jewish people who criticise Israeli policies and military actions are 'anti-Semitic'. So why accuse the liberal, bien-pensant and generally anti-racist Grauniad, a paper that annoys me quite a lot when I read it - but not for those reasons -, of anti-Semitism? It's quite a poisonous accusation and very nearly the opposite of the truth.
|
Just to lighten things up a bit and maintain the topic drift, how many of you noticed the Adams political cartoon in yesterday's Terrorflag? I've never liked him much, preferring the more literary Garland, but yesterday's effort was masterly: the three party leaders as the Sex Pistols, in a fitting tribute to that fey hustler, the late Malcolm McLaren.
Superb. I've cut it out to keep. But it can probably be found on line.
|
I have to say, my old and grizzled friend, that is a very nicely constructed summary, and one with which I share your viewpoint.
The State of Israel far too often and far too easily pleads the "anti semetic" card to answer criticism of its sometimes appaling foreign and domestic policies and actions.
I understand the problem of maintaining state security within a hostile environment, but all too frequently pours petrol on fires rather than damp them with water. There is probably a fair element of crisis genereration going on, in order to maintain crisis governance within the government, which as we know allows almost carte blanch.
Funnily a tactic the german national socialists employed. .
|
As AC says, having a pop at the political policies of Israel, the country, is not in any way anti-semitic.
I have noticed that some members of some groups, semites and catholics included, think the world is conspiring against them.
Any opposing view is taken as a massive personal sleight.
I speak from a neutral standpoint, foreign news bores me, so I have no idea and couldn't care less about what is happening in the Middle East, or any other east for that matter.
|
>> I speak from a neutral standpoint foreign news bores me so I have no idea
>> and co>> As AC says having a pop at the political policies of Israel the country is
>> uldn't care less about what is happening in the Middle East or any other
>> east for that matter.
Alas you cant be neutral beause it does directly affect you. From the fuel you put in your car to the security checks at the airport you fly from.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 11 Apr 10 at 16:06
|
The oddest criticism here seems to be that the Guardian is staffed by 'Toffs' & that by their criticisms/attitudes they're somehow class traitors or hypocrites - does that mean that positions & opinions are only valid if drawn against fiercely defined class lines?
Nope..
The Guardian are full of writers who decry private schooling as it gives people an unfair advantage in life. They do not like to admit that the writers and editorial staff are almost all privately educated .. and they delete any and all posts which refer to that point.
As for the Daily Telegraph, supporting the Tories, Mary Liddell (sp?) and Eric Heffer are two regular contributors. One is a Labour supporter and the other a UKIP supporter and a man who deplores Cameron and his effect of Tory party policy. The fact that his ideas woul make the Tories totally unelectable matters not. The Telegraph run regular articles against Nadine Dorris , a Conservative MP. She dared to sue them.
For years the Telegraph supported Gordon Brown...
Last edited by: madf on Sun 11 Apr 10 at 22:08
|
Note to Mods: This may well test your levels liberal moderator-ship, i.e. it's about as OT & inappropriate to a car discussion forum as it's possible to get - so I won't be offended if you move it (or even delete it!). In light of some of the above postings though, I felt it an appropriate response.
The Guardian are full of writers who decry private schooling as it gives people an unfair advantage in life. They do not like to admit that the writers and editorial staff are almost all privately educated .. and they delete any and all posts which refer to that point.
Perhaps you could try this link into Guardian CiF Madf? Looks like a list to me.
tinyurl.com/ybdsrzd
There are also several posts in that particular thread that refer to that very point you make.
Although this thread has morphed a long way from potholes(!) - I'd like to respond to Espada's point vis-a-vis the Israeli-Jewish-Arab debate (with the Mods' indulgence!).
It is remarkable that suddenly there is this massive attack on a single post - as if the call goes around off-line to denounce a post the paper does not agree with. The Guardian has been known for decades as anti-semitic and its forum operations do not disabuse me of that notion.
It seems to have become very difficult indeed to make generally critical or contrary points in the above debate without becoming embroiled a battle to prove your neutral or unbiased credentials.
Indeed, some interest groups, organizations & individuals etc. appear to want to make any debate a 'no go' area - much like the debate about immigration has been since its hi-jacking by far right groups in the past 20-30 years & its subsequent near 'off limits' status in mainstream politics until fairly recently.
Just as the immigration debate isn't necessarily the 'saimese twin' of rabid racism, neither,
it seems to me, is the questioning of Israeli state's policy necessarily a twin to anti-
Semitism. I don't doubt there is anti-Semitism in this country - just as I don't doubt there is
a more general racism or unreasonable europhobia out there.
My reading of the Guardian (editorials, articles & blogs/CiF) gives me the impression of overall balance, if overall balance means seeing opposing views expressed that is, in all those areas. I think the charge of anti-Semitism in that case is way over the top, I've never read or seen anything approaching that in all my years of readership. I won't post another link, but would urge anyone to check out (any) current debate/CiF threads and see for themselves.
|
Potholes - the alternative view - Robin O'Reliant
