Tuesday, 5 February 2008

don't be distracted

another hectic day - spent 4 hours after work at a strategic planning session for one of the organisations i volunteer with. at least it was a productive meeting, with free pizza at the end of it!

i'd like to thank all the people who've provided feedback, on the blog or by email. really appreciate your support. i'm still trying to figure out how it all works, and i think i've made it easier to post comments now. i'm moderating comments because i really want to avoid the trolls and other generally nasty people out there. maybe i'll stop moderating once i get a bit more confident...

i'm too tired to write anything very serious today. but one thing that did cheer me up was this morning report news item http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/sarkozy_married. no, don't worry, i'm not celebrating the wedding of the president of france. what i am celebrating is the reaction of the french public. the fact that they just don't want to hear about it is very refreshing.

don't know about you, but i am totally sick of the celebrity culture, the endless stories about britney spear's miserable life etc etc. i loved hearing people interviewed saying they were more interested in the issues and how sarkozy is managing (or mismanaging it seems) the economy. maybe the french will start a worldwide culture change, and we don't have to hear so much about paris and her friends. what is really annoying though is when the media finishes deluging us with the latest banalities, they then have to run the mandatory "why are we so interested in britney/ paris/ oj simpson/ anna nicole/ [latest fallen star]".

of course if the ratings stay high when they dish up this kind of stuff, it shows people are interested. the only way to combat it is to stop buying the gossip magazines, or clicking on "entertainment" internet stories. it's only when we refuse to be distracted that the serious issues will get the attention they deserve.

finally, i couldn't resist mentioning this conclusion from tracey watkins' latest op-ed (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4386772a1861.html). talking about national's policy flip-flops, she writes "it's a form of pragmatism that the remaining hardliners in national's caucus might find hard to swallow - but they've been out of government too long now to worry overly much about standing on principle..." so she's basically saying that it's ok for national to ditch any principles they have in order to get elected? this is somehow a good thing? i would think that voters would prefer a party that states its principles clearly, and stands by them.

2 comments:

Kowhai said...

Could you be a darling and add an RSS button, then I could subscribe.

Deborah said...

I love the "stargazer" handle, 'though for quite different reasons from you. My daughters were all posterior presentations - head first, but facing upwards rather than down, which makes for long and difficult labours. But my older brother told me that sometimes posterior babies get referred to as stargazers, because they come out looking at the stars.

Best wishes for the blogging.

Deborah