What Do You Think Today?

[Avatar]

Haha, yeah, the superlative has become the common descriptor, leaving precious little room for true expression of praise/whatever. I blame American TV.

--A

[peter]

Rumour mongers in the British press speculate that the Beckhams are about to split and the shite-hounds rub their hands in glee at the prospect of a good kill. I am sad however. They both strike me as pretty decent people and for any relationship to hold out against the backdrop of continual temptation and scrutiny that those guys face is a hard ask at best. I hope they can pull things together [assuming the story has any truth] and confound those who would feed on their demise. Good luck to the family.

[aliantha]

Haha, yeah, the superlative has become the common descriptor, leaving precious little room for true expression of praise/whatever. I blame American TV.

--A

That's outrageous!

[Avatar]

It's the same reason that people no longer think you're happy or excited if you're not jumping up and down screaming.

--A

[peter]

Part of the general increase in infantilism across much of the population of the Western world I'd say (which of course with my games consoles, liking for graphic comics, sorry novels, and cgi loaded films doesn't affect me at all ).

[Avatar]

Is it a reaction to the growing seriousness of everywhere else?

Or caused by something else entirely? Certainly I think my generation is the first who never stopped playing games etc. when "growing up." In fact, my generation my be the first who never did grow up.

--A

[peter]

I wondered whether it has any connection to the brutality of the two world wars which so affected my parents (and their parents) generation. The sixties with its outburst of freedom and rise of rampant consumerism seems itself to have spawned this Peter Panism that we see in the generations subsequent to it.

[JIkj fjds j]

World Wars! And why did the Americans drop two Atom Bombs on Japan. Two!
Did Japan really believe America was only capable of building one bomb?

[I'm Murrin]

Not that I agree with the bombing, but the logic is that the second one demonstrated they hadn't put all their resources and funds into just the one bomb, implying that they can make more easily enough that they're willing to keep dropping them. People could look at a single bomb and think it's too expensive and difficult to make more. Two bombs close together? Totally different story.

[JIkj fjds j]

Well yeah, of course. Another D-Day landing on the Japanese shores would have meant the loss of thousands more American soldiers. The Bomb was probably just the lesser of two evils. And any demostration of fire power was likely to have been aimed more towards Russia than it was Japan.

It may have been the unexpected fall-out casualties that explains the bombing of Nagasaki. If Truman knew the consequences of radiation poisonning and the slow horrifiying death it caused would he really have issued a second bomb?

Japan has around a thousand islands. Some were heavily fortified. Why mainland Japan? Okinawa or Iwo Jima would easily have driven home the point.

[Seareach]

I think I haven't been here in quite some time!

[aliantha]

Hiya, Sea! We've missed you!

[peter]

Hi Dear each ....... that is my Android's impression of what I was actually trying to say instead of Seareach, so it just shoved it in any way!

I'll try again.

Hi Seareach!

(PS I think I'd better get up and go to work.)

[Avatar]

I think yesterday was quiet day...

--A

[peter]

I think the National Lottery using multiple successive payouts on consecutive scratchcards on a given roll all of which equal the purchase value of the cards on that roll (ie not wins at all -just getting your money back so you purchase another card immediately) is a cynical ploy designed to get people hooked on scratchcards.

[Avatar]

I think that they type of people who get hooked on scratch cards will do so even without such a ploy.

I also think that it was bloody quiet in Gen disc.

And that the referendum is tomorrow.

--A

[peter]

The calm before the storm perhaps?

[Avatar]

Well, we can hope.

--A

[peter]

George Osbourne kept a low profile in the days following the referendum result [like Brer Fox in the briar patch he "lay low and said nuffin' "]. He then came out this morning saying how well the UK was placed [thanks to his chancellorship was the unspoken message] to deal with the forthcoming Brexit negotiations, and that it was now the responsibility of politicians to follow the mandate as laid down by the British people in the referendum result.He would he said, be making an announcement pertaining to his own position in the forthcoming days. No prizes for guessing what that will be [hint - the top job is going to be vacant in a few weeks time].

Tory leadership contests are notoriously bloody affairs, so be prepared to witness some egregious displays of naked ambition in the coming weeks as contenders line up to have a go at the greasy pole. [Don't fancy Corbyn's chances of surviving for long either - which is a shame really because even his most ardent opponents concede that he is that rare breed of bird, a politician with honour who actually believes what he says rather than just saying it with one eye on the polls.

[I'm Murrin]

Osborn and Cameron passing the buck to the next administration is a move calculated to destroy the political ambitions of Boris Johnson, as he'll be left dealing with the mess he never thought would happen in the first place. Johnson as PM will be stuck either taking us out and breaking up the UK, or keeping us in and breaking his promises.

Everything from the announcement of a referendum to Osborn's speech has been all about Tory internal politics, which says a lot about what they think of their responsibilities to the people of this country.


Corbyn I think is going to be around at least until after the general election. That crisis is more internal politics from the Tory-lite branch of the Labour party - the reason none of them have offered any plan to replace Corbyn or brought forward a challenger is because they know he will win a leadership election; that's why they're all pressuring him to resign instead. This is probably going to end with a big exodus of MPs from the party, and a resulting shift leftward for what's remaining (which is actually what the party members want). It will make it hard for the Labour party to win elections, though.