There are some words whose meaning stretches far beyond the intended definition; such words provoke emotions and touch raw nerves that somehow seemed rather sclerosed on the surface but remained just as tender below. Some words are almost causalgic; they short circuit their regular meanings and take on new ones, opening the floodgates to memories that don't seem to fade with time - each time you polish away the dirt the memory seems to reflect your inner thoughts more vividly than ever before.
'Almost' is one of those words. When you 'almost' made the grade, 'almost' finished the task, 'almost' stopped the bullet. Almost - but not quite. Just not quite there. Never quite enough.
'Home' is another one that weighs on the mind heavily. Life is an adventure but home is where the heart is. Sometimes 'home' and 'the past' seem to get confused with each other, especially with the passage of time. I would give a king's ransom (if I had one to give) just to be able to re-live that once again. To sit cross-legged on a parquet wood floor gazing at the thunderclouds pouring heavy drops of rain as the afternoon wind blows. To smell the smell of home once again. The mere thought sends a tingle of ectopic beats slithering through me. Thing is - airline tickets aside - I don't have to pay for the privilege; somehow I'm paying to stay away. Is five years really such a long time? The clouded mind plays cruel tricks but it is no trick to be almost - but not quite - home.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Friday, February 17, 2006
Bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo
I am shocked and appalled. Listening to doctors rant about having to meet ridiculous NHS 'targets' is one thing, reading about government learning targets for five year-olds is quite another. Terms like "foundation stage profile" are now in use.
Statistics claim that
52 per cent had not reached their "early learning goals". The Department for Education said that meant that they had "failed to achieve a good level of development" between the ages of three and five and this raised questions about their "future potential to enjoy and achieve".
Who pays people to come up with, enforce and compile statistics about such ridiculous 'targets' anyway?
Somebody ought to launch a common sense campaign...this is just going too far.
Statistics claim that
52 per cent had not reached their "early learning goals". The Department for Education said that meant that they had "failed to achieve a good level of development" between the ages of three and five and this raised questions about their "future potential to enjoy and achieve".
Who pays people to come up with, enforce and compile statistics about such ridiculous 'targets' anyway?
Somebody ought to launch a common sense campaign...this is just going too far.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Something to be angry about
I'm a medical student.
Call me naive - but our little world would be much better off if governments had fewer lawyers/bureaucrats running them (yes, my long-running antipathy/downright hatred for all forms of 'bureaucracy') and more doctors or scientists calling the shots. What I am referring to, of course, ladies and gents, is TOBACCO smoking. It's sooooo very simple. Ban it. Ban it. Ban it. Blah blah blah freedom of expression blah blah blah. You don't allow people to sell ecstasy on the streets because it is a POISON. Likewise, smoking cigarettes is POISONOUS - to you, to others around you and to the environment. Sure - you could be pedantic and declaim conventional medicines as 'poisons' - what is a poison if not something given in a large enough dose for toxic side effects to overwhelm the body? By the same token, alcohol would thus be a 'poison' - but that's perfectly legal. Don't give me that pathetic excse. Your liver metabolises alcohol and detoxifies the products of metabolism, which you then proceed to excrete. Your lungs, on the other hand, are poisoned from the word 'go' the minute you take that first puff. No detox, not cool. Abuse of anything - medicines, fatty foods, alcohol - will make you sick and probably kill you, but they can all be enjoyed within moderation - even to excess, most of the time. Smoking one cigarette probably won't kill you - but smoke one a day, the same way you eat one caviar blini or drink one pint of beer - and you'll definitely mess something up - even if it's 'just bronchitis'...IT'S COMMON SENSE, PEOPLE!!! Alcohol isn't a PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD (alright, drunks and cirrhosis aside) - banning alcohol won't make as big a difference as banning smoking.
In fact, there's only one way to stop this - law courts don't work (money talks); governments are in the pockets of big tobacco firms - tax revenue, jobs, etc - and smoking lobbies delude the 'free world' into trying to protect their freedoms. Rubbish. Nonsense. What's lacking here is COMMON SENSE. Burn a little stick of poison and breathe in the toxic fumes - poison yourself and fill your lungs with tar (I think you actually have to be quite STUPID to smoke - that too is a 'choice' - one that reflects a depressingly low level of good sense). Just don't fumigate those around you. So, why do I care so much if I'm just a selfish twit who doesn't like smoke blown in his face? Simple - I'm a medical student... patients who, when questioned reply that they smoked 50 cigarettes a day for 42 years are pretty much shifting the blame to the little sticks of poison. If they don't have the will to protect themselves, somebody has to destroy the incredibly intelligent profiteering murdererous manufacturers who hold the smoking world hostage (1 billion smokers...on earth). So - what are we to do? I'm going to keep it secret until I've finally set my little plan in motion...
I'm not motivated by pure altruism - those who know me can testify to my cold-blooded bile-spewing cerebrospinal-fluid-leaking antagonism of 'the great and the good' - but hear me now - it is just SICK and WRONG to sell people poison. "Here - smoke this - it'll make you feel better but will make you suffer and die!" This has got to stop.
Call me naive - but our little world would be much better off if governments had fewer lawyers/bureaucrats running them (yes, my long-running antipathy/downright hatred for all forms of 'bureaucracy') and more doctors or scientists calling the shots. What I am referring to, of course, ladies and gents, is TOBACCO smoking. It's sooooo very simple. Ban it. Ban it. Ban it. Blah blah blah freedom of expression blah blah blah. You don't allow people to sell ecstasy on the streets because it is a POISON. Likewise, smoking cigarettes is POISONOUS - to you, to others around you and to the environment. Sure - you could be pedantic and declaim conventional medicines as 'poisons' - what is a poison if not something given in a large enough dose for toxic side effects to overwhelm the body? By the same token, alcohol would thus be a 'poison' - but that's perfectly legal. Don't give me that pathetic excse. Your liver metabolises alcohol and detoxifies the products of metabolism, which you then proceed to excrete. Your lungs, on the other hand, are poisoned from the word 'go' the minute you take that first puff. No detox, not cool. Abuse of anything - medicines, fatty foods, alcohol - will make you sick and probably kill you, but they can all be enjoyed within moderation - even to excess, most of the time. Smoking one cigarette probably won't kill you - but smoke one a day, the same way you eat one caviar blini or drink one pint of beer - and you'll definitely mess something up - even if it's 'just bronchitis'...IT'S COMMON SENSE, PEOPLE!!! Alcohol isn't a PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD (alright, drunks and cirrhosis aside) - banning alcohol won't make as big a difference as banning smoking.
In fact, there's only one way to stop this - law courts don't work (money talks); governments are in the pockets of big tobacco firms - tax revenue, jobs, etc - and smoking lobbies delude the 'free world' into trying to protect their freedoms. Rubbish. Nonsense. What's lacking here is COMMON SENSE. Burn a little stick of poison and breathe in the toxic fumes - poison yourself and fill your lungs with tar (I think you actually have to be quite STUPID to smoke - that too is a 'choice' - one that reflects a depressingly low level of good sense). Just don't fumigate those around you. So, why do I care so much if I'm just a selfish twit who doesn't like smoke blown in his face? Simple - I'm a medical student... patients who, when questioned reply that they smoked 50 cigarettes a day for 42 years are pretty much shifting the blame to the little sticks of poison. If they don't have the will to protect themselves, somebody has to destroy the incredibly intelligent profiteering murdererous manufacturers who hold the smoking world hostage (1 billion smokers...on earth). So - what are we to do? I'm going to keep it secret until I've finally set my little plan in motion...
I'm not motivated by pure altruism - those who know me can testify to my cold-blooded bile-spewing cerebrospinal-fluid-leaking antagonism of 'the great and the good' - but hear me now - it is just SICK and WRONG to sell people poison. "Here - smoke this - it'll make you feel better but will make you suffer and die!" This has got to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)