Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
annwfyn: (Mood - owl raised brow)
Goodness. One obnoxiously smug article refuted by another. Actually, I think the second article annoys me more. Mostly because people being happy is generally less irritating than being bitter. But both seem pretty certain that everyone wants the same things.

How about we take away from this the following life lessons.

Read more... )
annwfyn: (Mood - Sally fits)
Oh Guardian. Oh, Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/12/millennial-baby-boomer-trade-places-stab-envy

1) I'm not entirely sure that life in the 1950s and 1960s was actually all that awesome. Yes, there was free university education. And around 25,000 young people per year took that up, the vast majority of which came from a private school background. There were a number of bright kids from council estates who passed the 11+ and went to Oxford, but they were always a small minority, who's voices have been massively over-represented. And yes, house prices were a lot cheaper, but for most of that time period, that only helped men, as married woman, in particular, weren't even allowed a mortgage for most of that period. I'd also suggest that for a lot of people, the 1950s and 1960s were pretty shitty. If you were queer and your sexuality was illegal. If you weren't white. If you were a woman who had got pregnant unexpectedly before 1967, or a woman who wanted to say "no" to sex with her husband, as marital rape actually only became a crime in 1991.

Oh, and people had MH problems in the 1950s and 1960s too. Only back then, there wasn't much in the way of decent treatment. Lithium, the oldest and clunkiest of the bipolar treatments, wasn't approved for psychiatric use until 1970. Until then, you could stay at home and your family could do their best to look after you, or, if you had a major episode, you could be institutionalized, possibly for a very long time. Most anti-depressants weren't about and if you had hallucinations or delusions you got a blanket diagnosis of schizophrenia and long term incarceration. Yes, millennials suffer from high levels of anxiety. But they have WAY more options when it comes to dealing with them.

2) I'm also unconvinced that artistic and not-techie people are confined to the over-60s now. There are young people running stalls in craft markets. I've met them. There are young people working as teachers, as artists, as writers. And there are points which can be made about job insecurity/comparative salaries/cost of living etc but I don't think this article makes them. It just says "the baby boomers could be artistic. We can't". Well, actually, a lot of people do. Also, Lucy writer person, you are a journalist. You have a creative job. Stop citing your friend who works in customer service.

3) This article is achingly London centric and I think it is massively undercutting the entire point. London isn't the whole of the UK. What is true in London is not a deeply profound point about the state of the generations. I bow to no one in my deep seated affection for our capital. I think it's an awesome city and also not populated by puppy kickers. But I do think the narrative that is pushed about housing/wages etc is massively skewed by London. London housing prices are insane. And yes, they screw everything up. But that's not a comment on baby boomer vs millennial. It's a comment on the fucked up London housing market. Lucy and her boyfriend have to pay £1500 per month for a room in a shared flat? THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN HUGE SWATHES OF THE COUNTRY! IT IS NOT A GENERATIONAL ISSUE! IT IS A LONDON ISSUE! BE HONEST ABOUT THIS FACT!

The housing market in London is scary. That it is causing a ripple effect throughout the south east is scarier and it is something that should be discussed. But discuss it for what it is. Don't say "millennials can't buy houses because they have to pay £1500 per month for rent". The rent on my last flat (which was a lovely three bed in a perfectly nice bit of Glasgow) was £620 per month.

4) Why are the Guardian incapable of writing these articles comparing the lives of people from different demographics who aren't, you know, also middle class London dwelling Guardian journalists? It is always two of their columnists who compare lives and that surely is a pretty rarefied demographic to begin with.

5) University fees and housing costs are a massive issue and I think are going to contribute massively to increasing class immobility. I do think that. Please don't think I am not. But writing stupid articles about how everything was lovely and easy for the happy Bohemian types who went to university in 1955 compared to the put upon and oppressed kids born after 1985 is annoying. Each generation has its own crosses to bear, its own mountains to climb. And that doesn't mean that those problems aren't problems, and should be addressed, but address them for what they are. I like accuracy in my journalism, not emotional manipulation.

(That was rather long. Sorry. You may now all tell me why I'm wrong.)

Argh!

Sep. 11th, 2009 04:27 pm
annwfyn: (Mood - blue snarl)
Cut for (a lot of) swearing )

Argh!

Sep. 11th, 2009 04:27 pm
annwfyn: (Mood - blue snarl)
Cut for (a lot of) swearing )
annwfyn: (mood - shetland)
So, I'm watching Cold Case. And right now it's an episode in which the detectives are investigating the murder of a woman from 1989, and an important plot point is that she's big, plain and could never attract a handsome man unless he had some kind of angle. And therefore the handsome boyfriend she acquired just before she died had to be evil/a con artist/a serial killer/very dodgy.

Would you like to see a picture of the woman that prime time TV tells us is so very large and unattractive that it has to be suspicious if any handsome man ever wanted to date her?

Pic below )

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this story?
annwfyn: (mood - shetland)
So, I'm watching Cold Case. And right now it's an episode in which the detectives are investigating the murder of a woman from 1989, and an important plot point is that she's big, plain and could never attract a handsome man unless he had some kind of angle. And therefore the handsome boyfriend she acquired just before she died had to be evil/a con artist/a serial killer/very dodgy.

Would you like to see a picture of the woman that prime time TV tells us is so very large and unattractive that it has to be suspicious if any handsome man ever wanted to date her?

Pic below )

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this story?
annwfyn: (mood - bear snarl)
OK.

I know there are a few conservative/republican types out there.

Can anyone explain to me why it is reasonable to charge rape victims $1200 for their own rape kits?

Because I can't think of a single way it makes sense. It penalises victims of crime, means that those without financial means simply can't afford justice, and means that violent criminals are far more likely to get away scot free.

It's insane.

And it's also a policy implemented by Sarah Palin in her time as Mayor of Wasilla.

Oh, and just while I'm posting up links, I read this article on a charity which achieved fame for sending pregnant cows to Uganda. The article paints a very rose tinted view of this charity - does anyone know what it is missing? It mentions that there are criticisms of this scheme out there, but then dismisses them all very firmly, and that has vaguely put my hackles up for some reason.
annwfyn: (mood - bear snarl)
OK.

I know there are a few conservative/republican types out there.

Can anyone explain to me why it is reasonable to charge rape victims $1200 for their own rape kits?

Because I can't think of a single way it makes sense. It penalises victims of crime, means that those without financial means simply can't afford justice, and means that violent criminals are far more likely to get away scot free.

It's insane.

And it's also a policy implemented by Sarah Palin in her time as Mayor of Wasilla.

Oh, and just while I'm posting up links, I read this article on a charity which achieved fame for sending pregnant cows to Uganda. The article paints a very rose tinted view of this charity - does anyone know what it is missing? It mentions that there are criticisms of this scheme out there, but then dismisses them all very firmly, and that has vaguely put my hackles up for some reason.

So angry!

Apr. 16th, 2008 12:16 pm
annwfyn: (Mood - blue snarl)
I just got a stroppy letter from Southwark County Council.

It appears that there was a system error two years ago, which resulted in the 3QoD household being undercharged £300 on our final council tax bill when we moved out.

This error was only picked up 15 months ago.

They only bothered writing to me to demand the £300 on April 9th.

They would now like the £300 asap. In fact, they need it by the end of April, or they will have to take further action. I may appeal this in writing, but normally they don't accept staggered payments on closed accounts.

I spoke to someone called Jennifer at the Call Centre. She wouldn't give me her last name. I think I may have shouted at her rather a lot.

Still seething in anger.

I want to kill them. I want to kill them all.

So angry!

Apr. 16th, 2008 12:16 pm
annwfyn: (Mood - blue snarl)
I just got a stroppy letter from Southwark County Council.

It appears that there was a system error two years ago, which resulted in the 3QoD household being undercharged £300 on our final council tax bill when we moved out.

This error was only picked up 15 months ago.

They only bothered writing to me to demand the £300 on April 9th.

They would now like the £300 asap. In fact, they need it by the end of April, or they will have to take further action. I may appeal this in writing, but normally they don't accept staggered payments on closed accounts.

I spoke to someone called Jennifer at the Call Centre. She wouldn't give me her last name. I think I may have shouted at her rather a lot.

Still seething in anger.

I want to kill them. I want to kill them all.
annwfyn: (Mood - Sally fits)
Is there an obvious way to save documents in Microsoft Office 2007 that I don't know?

Because right now all I can find is the little disk symbol shortcut which doesn't let me give the document a name or say where I'm saving them.

Basically, where the hell has 'save as' gone?

And why have Microsoft released a product which leaves me asking this question? Why isn't it REALLY BLOODY OBVIOUS?
annwfyn: (Mood - Sally fits)
Is there an obvious way to save documents in Microsoft Office 2007 that I don't know?

Because right now all I can find is the little disk symbol shortcut which doesn't let me give the document a name or say where I'm saving them.

Basically, where the hell has 'save as' gone?

And why have Microsoft released a product which leaves me asking this question? Why isn't it REALLY BLOODY OBVIOUS?
annwfyn: (mood - bear snarl)
I was reading this this morning and felt the usual wrench in my stomach.

I hate articles like this. I hate them with a fiery passion.

Maybe there are people out there, who skive off every Monday, but I know way more people who struggle into work whilst every muscle in their body is aching, and they are shivering slightly with fever because 'I've already had too many days off sick'. Maybe there are people who just don't bother, who would be vastly motivated by the abolition of sick pay, but I think there would be more people suffering from serious conditions like cancer who's illness were being seriously worsened by the stress of not being able to pay their rent/mortgage. Maybe the majority of sick days do come from people who are just lazy, as this article suggests, but I think I've seen more people take time off because they had pneumonia, or a fever of 103 degrees, or couldn't actually talk and could only make little croaking noises.

I hate articles like this because I don't think we are a nation of skivers. I think we're a nation of workaholics, with a vastly distorted notion on the importance of work.

I think the kind of 'drag yourself into work, no matter what' culture will actually lose businesses a lot more money in terms of decreased productivity, when it becomes the norm for every virus to go all the way around the office, and to keep going as people insist on coming in, sitting listlessly at their desk for the day, and then staggering home, never quite getting better and passing the disease on to everyone they know.

And finally, I am fairly sure that in the world that that writer lives in, it wouldn't be possible for anyone with long term health problems to get a job at all. Why would any of these tough go getting companies with no tolerance for human weakness hire someone with arthritis, or chronic asthma? And who the hell is going to pay for those people to eat if that world came to pass?

Gah! And argh!
annwfyn: (mood - bear snarl)
I was reading this this morning and felt the usual wrench in my stomach.

I hate articles like this. I hate them with a fiery passion.

Maybe there are people out there, who skive off every Monday, but I know way more people who struggle into work whilst every muscle in their body is aching, and they are shivering slightly with fever because 'I've already had too many days off sick'. Maybe there are people who just don't bother, who would be vastly motivated by the abolition of sick pay, but I think there would be more people suffering from serious conditions like cancer who's illness were being seriously worsened by the stress of not being able to pay their rent/mortgage. Maybe the majority of sick days do come from people who are just lazy, as this article suggests, but I think I've seen more people take time off because they had pneumonia, or a fever of 103 degrees, or couldn't actually talk and could only make little croaking noises.

I hate articles like this because I don't think we are a nation of skivers. I think we're a nation of workaholics, with a vastly distorted notion on the importance of work.

I think the kind of 'drag yourself into work, no matter what' culture will actually lose businesses a lot more money in terms of decreased productivity, when it becomes the norm for every virus to go all the way around the office, and to keep going as people insist on coming in, sitting listlessly at their desk for the day, and then staggering home, never quite getting better and passing the disease on to everyone they know.

And finally, I am fairly sure that in the world that that writer lives in, it wouldn't be possible for anyone with long term health problems to get a job at all. Why would any of these tough go getting companies with no tolerance for human weakness hire someone with arthritis, or chronic asthma? And who the hell is going to pay for those people to eat if that world came to pass?

Gah! And argh!

I am Vexed

Jan. 26th, 2008 10:12 am
annwfyn: (Mood - blue snarl)
A ranty Sally swears and curses )

I am Vexed

Jan. 26th, 2008 10:12 am
annwfyn: (Mood - blue snarl)
A ranty Sally swears and curses )

Education

Nov. 30th, 2007 09:40 am
annwfyn: (Misc - hedgehog & fox)
This is why I loathe Labour with a passion.

This is why I will not vote Labour, under any circumstances, and would almost welcome David Cameron, just to put a stop to this.

There is no way this is reasonable! Why the hell are children being introduced to this hideous industrialised version of childhood. It's not acceptable. It's not reasonable. It's a systemic attempt to end childhood, and create this nasty little conveyor belt, which will suit a small percentage of children at the cost of the rest. It completely undermines parental choice, and won't even be good for most children in the long run.

From what some of the experts are saying, it's one step away from state mandated child abuse.

Gah!

Education

Nov. 30th, 2007 09:40 am
annwfyn: (Misc - hedgehog & fox)
This is why I loathe Labour with a passion.

This is why I will not vote Labour, under any circumstances, and would almost welcome David Cameron, just to put a stop to this.

There is no way this is reasonable! Why the hell are children being introduced to this hideous industrialised version of childhood. It's not acceptable. It's not reasonable. It's a systemic attempt to end childhood, and create this nasty little conveyor belt, which will suit a small percentage of children at the cost of the rest. It completely undermines parental choice, and won't even be good for most children in the long run.

From what some of the experts are saying, it's one step away from state mandated child abuse.

Gah!
annwfyn: (mood - avarda kedavra)
I just read a rant on LJ, in which someone said (and I quote) "I am not Native American, but I am of Great Celtic descent* and and the rising Christian Europeans** did the same thing to those people as they did to the Native Americans***. That is why it angers me"

Now, obviously there are a number of problematic things about this statement. However, the one thing in this which really irritates me is the following.

THE IRISH AND CHUNKS OF THE SCOTS WERE CHRISTIAN BEFORE THE FRICKING ANGLO-SAXONS WERE! THE ANGLO-SAXON CHURCH WAS PARTIALLY FORMED BY MISSIONARIES FROM IONA IN SCOTLAND. THERE WAS AN IRISH DELEGATION AT THE SYNOD OF WHITBY.

(yes, those capital letters do mean I'm shouting)

For some reason there is this demented faith amongst a certain type of American than the collective peoples of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Brittony (actually, I think they mostly forget about the Cornish and the Bretons. Probably because the Bretons are French) were the Native Americans of Europe. Really, they weren't!

Scotland was a sovereign nation until the 17th century when it's king became king of England as well. It always had its own aristocracy. Ireland had its own episcopal church structure when England was run by large men called 'Wulfgar' who were busy worshippping Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. There was a lovely wealthy Christian church in Ireland until the pagan Vikings decided to come and pillage with gay abandon, thus destroying almost all the written records of that period (the vikings basically created the concept of the 'dark ages' by destroying all the records of this period, meaning we know next to nothing beyond a few single documents and a few bits and pieces from the oral tradition). Do any Americans rant about how the Evil Pagans destroying their lovely Celtic culture?

No? Instead they whitter inanely about some nebulous 'European culture' which allegedly came and colonized them.

Why?

Why do people feel the need to go there.

Gah!




*I don't think anyone has told him that 'Great Celtic' is not an ethnicity.

**I also think someone needs to explain that 'European' is also not a homogenous cultural grouping.

***I think he means 'make them Christian and then kill them. I must say, as a White Anglo-Saxon Christian I'm shocked to hear this. How could we have let our standards fall since the 5th century? Why are the Welsh not safely locked away on a reservation right now?
annwfyn: (mood - avarda kedavra)
I just read a rant on LJ, in which someone said (and I quote) "I am not Native American, but I am of Great Celtic descent* and and the rising Christian Europeans** did the same thing to those people as they did to the Native Americans***. That is why it angers me"

Now, obviously there are a number of problematic things about this statement. However, the one thing in this which really irritates me is the following.

THE IRISH AND CHUNKS OF THE SCOTS WERE CHRISTIAN BEFORE THE FRICKING ANGLO-SAXONS WERE! THE ANGLO-SAXON CHURCH WAS PARTIALLY FORMED BY MISSIONARIES FROM IONA IN SCOTLAND. THERE WAS AN IRISH DELEGATION AT THE SYNOD OF WHITBY.

(yes, those capital letters do mean I'm shouting)

For some reason there is this demented faith amongst a certain type of American than the collective peoples of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Brittony (actually, I think they mostly forget about the Cornish and the Bretons. Probably because the Bretons are French) were the Native Americans of Europe. Really, they weren't!

Scotland was a sovereign nation until the 17th century when it's king became king of England as well. It always had its own aristocracy. Ireland had its own episcopal church structure when England was run by large men called 'Wulfgar' who were busy worshippping Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. There was a lovely wealthy Christian church in Ireland until the pagan Vikings decided to come and pillage with gay abandon, thus destroying almost all the written records of that period (the vikings basically created the concept of the 'dark ages' by destroying all the records of this period, meaning we know next to nothing beyond a few single documents and a few bits and pieces from the oral tradition). Do any Americans rant about how the Evil Pagans destroying their lovely Celtic culture?

No? Instead they whitter inanely about some nebulous 'European culture' which allegedly came and colonized them.

Why?

Why do people feel the need to go there.

Gah!




*I don't think anyone has told him that 'Great Celtic' is not an ethnicity.

**I also think someone needs to explain that 'European' is also not a homogenous cultural grouping.

***I think he means 'make them Christian and then kill them. I must say, as a White Anglo-Saxon Christian I'm shocked to hear this. How could we have let our standards fall since the 5th century? Why are the Welsh not safely locked away on a reservation right now?

Profile

annwfyn: (Default)
annwfyn

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
234567 8
9101112131415
16 17181920 2122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 02:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios