Extrapolations (Apple TV)

Extrapolations. Thin characterisations, dubious moral – I’m not a fan of the “you’re either with us or against us” school of thought (when did activism become so totalitarian?) and a real damp squib of a final episode that made very little sense. For some reason our villain of the piece needlessly decides to provide all the evidence to furnish his downfall to two people who in all probability would one day want to help in his downfall.

I still liked it though. In part it benefited from the “law of expectations”. I expected it to be awful, and it wasn’t. Neither was it good, at least not “very” good, but it provided a few moments for thought. It just could have been better, it could have been so much better, exceptional even, but either the writers weren’t very good or in pushing the message they forgot about the story, and thus lost the message in the process.

Sonos Roam

Cutting edge as I ever plan to be, a review of the first Sonos Roam which came out years ago, and not version two which, as it turns out, does fix one of my main bugbears with their first attempt.

Bought just over a year ago, the excuse was needing a Bluetooth speaker for an upcoming holiday – as such I used it twice. It has Alexa and (after a recent update) Google voice assistants. It fits in nicely (very nicely) if you have other Sonos speakers.

It has a multi-function button for switching on/off and switching between WiFi or Bluetooth, and appears to operate based on how long you press that button down. Probably I should have read the manual but from what I’ve seen, even the people who have read the manual think it’s a terrible design, awful, and the main improvement between this version and its successor.

You want to leave that button alone.

It would periodically (every week) disconnect from the WiFi, forcing a reboot – which given the “one” button problem (did I mention how bad that was?) is a trial. You really want to leave that button alone. It felt like a bad purchase, I can’t abide tech. not working, not knowing if it’s going to work the next time you try to use it. The problem in this case appeared to be an issue the Roam has with mesh networks, certainly my mesh network. The solution was to stop the Roam from roaming, tie it to one point, as it were. I’m not sure that all mesh networks give you this feature.

Another issue on returning from a recent holiday (where I didn’t use the speaker once!) was the difficulty reconnecting to my Sonos system so that I could group speakers for playback. In this case it turned out the system software had been updated for my other speakers whilst I was away. I’d blame that one on Sonos in general rather than the speaker itself. They do seem to drop the ball from time to time.

All-in-all, not a purchase I’d recommend. Maybe a somewhat generous three out of five. Should I be giving ratings? I’ll have to think on that.

I used to write

I have a strong suspicion that this will be a short revival. I used to write, and it did have some useful benefits of the kind that, had I kept it up, I’d be more easily able to explain now. Something to do with presenting a coherent case, or keeping your mind sharp, or…

Anyway, whilst this may be short-lived, I shall give it another go. Only this time, somewhat less pompous, more eclectic, random with more spelling mistakes and some questionable grammar.

This is just to say (Brexit remix)

This is just to say

I have taken
the votes
that were on
the referendum

the one
you were probably
thinking
you had won

Forgive me
you were wrong
so impecunious
and so discounted

Abuse, and the Remain voters who enable it

There are numerous examples of European projects from which, we’ve been told, mainly by the EU, we’ll get nothing should we have the conceit to (Br)exit, never mind the much-anticipated problems with our food and medical supplies. Were we to use the marriage/divorce analogy these threats should strike us as the kind of relationship where one partner says to their disenchanted other “if you leave, you’ll get nothing, not even that for which you’ve so clearly contributed; life will be (made) difficult.”

I voted Remain (I’m a little tired at feeling the need to say that), I was upset at the result, yet what to think of those whose anger at an impending separation is such that they blame the victim of the abuse, rather than the actions of the abuser? This is clearly an abusive relationship, and you know what they say about those. At least I thought I did.

Distracted boyfriend

Kinder, gentler politics

Sound and fury

If it takes you two years to specifically address anti-Semitism without hiding behind “all forms of racism”, and then only when you’re cornered…

If your deputy one day promises to “eradicate” anti-Semitism, and the next claims to be unable to address the issue of a prominent member of the NEC questioning the suspension of an alleged holocaust denier...

If after promising to act, you have local Constituency Labour Parties threatening an MP with deselection or, in the case of Bristol West, being called in to explain their actions in supporting the Jewish community by attending an anti-racist demo…

I’d say that counts as enabling the behaviour that you claim isn’t in your name. The rest is just noise, signifying nothing.

You can have any representation you want

Democracy, the great leveller. It cares not for education, nor wealth; no one vote is more important than the other. In this, if only this, we are all equal.

The poor, the uneducated, are - we are told - more likely to have voted Leave. Conversely this means the educated and the wealthy are more likely to have voted Remain. Despite my somewhat questionable academic achievement, and my even more questionable finances, I voted Remain too. I think leaving the EU is a mistake.

Yet were the referendum result somehow overturned what does this say? That some people don't count, that - despite what you've been told - some people don't matter. If the result is overturned, I hope we’ll all have the good grace to stop asking why some feel disenfranchised, when the cause should be obvious. It simply doesn’t cut it to say you can have any representation you want, so long as it’s the EU.

Sovereignty

Fellow remain voters tempted to snark at ‘Leavers’ complaints that sovereignty won is now being (mis)used by parliament – along the lines of “isn’t this what they asked for?”, and presumably followed by much self-congratulatory guffawing at their own cleverness – are rather missing the point. That is that sovereignty lies somewhere along the line of existing only within the people, to something granted to parliament through the express wishes of the people. Either way it suggests to me that whether by accident or otherwise, your Leave voter’s position on this particular detail is more nuanced; or, in other words, correct.

This is just to say

This is just to say

I have wrapped
the presents
that were in
the cupboard

and which
you were probably
thinking were
for you

Forgive me
yours were not
so important
and so forgotten.

We see what we want to see

I know nothing. I was reasonably sure of Remain, more confident that Hilary would clout Trump, and convinced that people would see through Corbyn. And now I wonder where the percentages lie; how many voted for the party despite their leader, how many ignored or denied his past, or accepted his own warped history of those troubled times, or, worryingly, how many see no shame at all.

Sorry, not sorry

Not so long ago I described something as being “a bit mental” and it’s quite possible I will do again. I probably shouldn’t, we’re better than that and in the wrong context (every context?) it can be construed as offensive.

There is though - and I may be flattering myself here - a big gap between my fault and that of Ken Livingstone. Today, the former Mayor of London described a political opponent as being “obviously very depressed and disturbed” and needing “psychiatric help”. And all because Kevan Jones (same party, but it’s difficult to tell) had suggested Ken wasn’t up to his new job. This would sound like the usual rough and tumble of politics were it not for Jones’s known history of depression; something he had spoken about in the House of Commons.

Livingstone did apologise, but only after much strong arming from Jeremy Corbyn, then watered it down in a television head-to-head with the standard “sorry if you’re offended” non-apology, suggesting that, anyway, the other guy had started it. I could have left it at one politician saying something unpleasant about another - it happens all the time, it’s a democracy in ‘rude health’ - were it not for an earlier claim to be unaware of Jones’s mental health condition. This was plausible enough in itself, but when accompanied with some vague reference to not having been around Parliament for some years felt like an embellishment too far.

The function of prayer

"The function of prayer", wrote Søren Kierkegaard, "is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays". Maybe, just maybe, that's why some choose prayer in times such as these. So enough with the snarking over "pray for Paris"; it may not be my way, but if it helps others it would be intolerant of me to say "no". And I'm pretty sure that, if anything, it's intolerance, not religion, that's at the "root of all evil".

Jeremy Corbyn Top Trumps

Isis and the U.S military (on state-controlled Russia Today), the World Trade Centre and Bin Laden's death (on Iran’s Press TV), the IRA and the British army... One would be bad enough, but the soon-to-be-leader of the Labour party, often using/used by the state apparatus of some dubious regime, has a serial inability to condemn one without the other, and in doing so is surely condemning his own party to ignominious defeat in 2020.

Were it not for his election on the back of a large number of recent ‘registered and affiliated supporters’ I’d say they deserve it. As it is, I will actually feel sorry for them. They might be the official opposition, but it will be a joke opposition akin to Militant Tendency in the 1980s. And the Government, or the more stupid elements within, emboldened by the clear path before them, will become more intemperate. I don’t think that was the plan.

Remembering

It might have been the first time we met, it was dinner at his house, in total we were four and at one point he stood up behind his chair to tear into the Conservatives, party and supporters alike, before adding with a gesture in my direction “present company excepted”. I turned to my partner and remarked “Do you know, I think he’s beginning to warm to me!” Maybe, but it was certainly true to say I’d warmed to him.

We met many times, often talking politics, occasionally agreeing, always enjoying the sparring involved. Most recently was the Saturday after the election for one of the most enjoyable evenings I can remember.

The following Wednesday he died, and every sentence since is charged with unintended meaning. I'm sensible to the obvious truth that others will be hurting more, yet I will miss my new friend.

Julian Barnes wrote “the fact that someone is dead may mean that they are not alive, but doesn't mean that they do not exist”. Paul cared about the things that matter; there was a genuine concern for the disadvantaged, love for his family, compassion underneath an acerbic wit. That first night as we were leaving he said to his wife, and loud enough for all to hear “Make sure they’re gone”.

He can still make me smile.

Fighting one silly argument with another

If I suggested that our current record levels of employment were related to equality legislation then some might call me out on such a ridiculous claim. And my offence wouldn’t be lessened if it were in response to a claim from a less reputable source that some UK employers aren’t hiring due to said legislation.

There is some anecdotal evidence for the latter, but whether the problem is perceived or real isn’t really the point. Every time you make a foolish point arguing against UKIP, it has the unfortunate effect of making UKIP look less foolish.

Ed the Brave

Worrying though it is to see television broadcasters attempting to dictate the terms of democratic debate – in that they must be on television – I could hardly blame a leader of the opposition in attempting to make capital of the Prime Minister’s refusal to dance. I do however object to his latest promise to enshrine in law such a requirement. This is an idea so stupid that the silence on Twitter, whose left-wing contingent are certainly not reticent in backing stupid ideas, was deafening.

Not even an article in The Guardian newspaper, whose loyalty in towing the party line is something to behold, was enough to save Ed Miliband, and this despite finding (and one can only imagine how hard they must have tried) a professor in support. Unfortunately said professor fatally undermined their argument by mentioning Prime Minister’s Question Time, which despite the raucous and occasionally vacuous nature of such occasions provides exactly what’s being asked for, only differing in being less polite, albeit a more accurate representation of our political representatives.

What’s really frightening though is how easily an irrelevant issue such as this can show the authoritarian side of the Labour party. If they’re prepared to legislate on something that the public are more than capable of judging for themselves, one wonders what other decisions they’ll decide to take out of our hands.

Herman Van Rompuy versus The Cat in the Hat

Immortal Diamond

...all the past mistakes must be included as teaching moments and not just something to hate.

As befits one who seems to spend most of his days sat in the bedroom working on his laptop - I work from home, honestly - when I recently (or should that be finally?) finished reading Immortal Diamond I updated the status on Goodreads, which being linked to my Facebook account posted an update there. And then I had this extraordinary thought, given the subject matter should I add a comment to the effect that I’m not “one of them”.

I’m only half joking too, such are the negative connotations associated with religious belief amongst many of those I know. Nevertheless I’ll occasionally feel duty bound to correct the extremes, when feeling particularly bullish to remind some that atrocities supposedly in the name of religion (and there’s an argument to be had there too) pale in comparison to those of the last century, the bloodiest we’ve yet managed; it’s an old repeated argument I know, but theirs is much older. Still, even then I’ll sometimes mitigate my offense; I’m not “one of them”. Is this to add weight to my argument or am I sometimes the coward?

It was interesting, though a difficult book to read. Those moments that made me stop and think were outweighed by those of frustration at repeated references to scripture. I was disappointed, as if being excluded from the obviously decent and inclusive nature of Richard Rohr. Well, it is a Christian book so I can hardly complain. Was I any better than those silly people who interpret the Bible literally rather than spiritually or, if you will, metaphorically? Next time, if there is a next time, I must try harder.