I feel like I've been reading No Logo for ages, and I'm only at page 124 of 446. It's not that it's particularly hard going, or that I'm disagreeing with it all (though equally, I'm not buying her arguments 100%). The problem is that I'm too easily diverted - Klein's sources chime so many chords with me that I'm constantly going off to check them. She quoted from Susan Sontag's Notes on Camp, for instance, which sent me off rereading Sontag for the first time in about 10 years. I can see a few of her books being added to my next Amazon order.
I'm giving up on Channel 4's The Truth About Gay Sex - It's all a bit woefully predictable. And I can't help but think that all the people who make use of "The Jewel in the Crown of London's cottages" are probably a little annoyed that it's been identified as such on national television.
The Guardian magazine on Saturday contained a couple of items I thought I'd share.
The first is an interview with Stockard Channing by Zoe Williams, which shows the gifted and challenging actor as intelligent, honest, and down-to-earth. All refreshing qualities in a Hollywood personality.
The second is a fairly lightweight analysis of the 24 phenomenon by Charlie Porter. It seems clear that 24 has had a greater impact in Charlie's circle than in mine, but nevertheless the comparisons with Twin Peaks do hold some water.
Today's Metro reported that Tim Henman is stripping off as part of a new campaign designed indirectly to promote young people taking up tennis and directly to promote sales of a well-known washing powder. Am I the only one who doesn't quite see the connection between nudity and professional tennis? The Guardian also reports it but without the salacious photos (note - 'salacious' is used in this context to mean 'not salacious at all').
Well, it's been relatively chilled and rested, which is nice.
Things you don't hear (or at least I never have) in London:
In reply to a request for a half of lager, a barman's response to the man beside me was, "Would that be in a lady's glass?"
My horribly-delayed train journey back into London was made slightly more entertaining by the row with the man sitting opposite me reading Life newspaper. I'll generally respect someone arguing with me, even if I don't agree with their argument, but I tend to regard someone who won't even condemn people who blow up clinics and assassinate doctors as pretty fair game.
I should point out that I was not the one who started the argument.
But I was more than happy to finsh it 
UPDATE - I should make it clear that the paper he was reading was the 'pro-life' publication Life, not Life Magazine - Barnaby's just mentioned that the limited description above might be confusing.
The news of the horrific school shooting in Germany prompted a predictable response on Metafilter, which was to take all of three comments to commence a retreading of The Standard MeFi Discussion on Gun Control(tm). In among the woefully predictable bickering off the back of a tragedy, I thought the following stood out. Any thoughts, anyone?
"Here is an alternative perspective:
1. If there were zero guns there could not be gun related crime.
2. If there were precious few guns, then they'd be too difficult or expensive to obtain that there would be practically no gun related crime.
3. If guns were available but not ubiquitous then mostly criminals would have them and a few law abiding citizens. Gun related crime would be relatively high because of the proportion of guns owned by criminals
4. If society was saturated with guns, then nearly everyone including children either has one or has access to one. But, gun related crime is about the same as in #3 with only the added cases of kids/postal workers going crazy.
Right now the US is in condition #4. The rhetorical argument "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" refers to the shift from condition #4 to condition #3. To make a difference we need to go at least back to condition #2 and the only way to do that is to legislate at the source: gun manufacturers. Shut them down, or limit them to a certain "precious few", tax them heavily or legislate a minimum price per gun the manufacturer has to charge, then cut gun importing completely. Then wait a couple decades for the existing guns to gradually become lost or inoperable and maybe, just maybe we might see a substantive decrease in gun violence.
Also, it wouldn't hurt to stop making toys that teach kids guns are fun and exciting and saturating the media with depictions of guns being used to solve problems. But hey, I'd settle for condition #2"
Well considering it was so miserable earlier, the sky above London this evening was so beautiful I wished I had my camera with me.
I'm off out of town for some family-visiting first thing in the morning, so I'll be posting over the weekend in either chilled and rested mode, or tense and irritable mode - with my family, it could go either way....
Courtesy of the protracted dryish spell, it's been a while since I've emerged in the morning in the rain, and this morning, it's *raining*. I quite like rain in a "it's nice sometimes to stand outside and deliberately get soaked to the skin" way, but when it's more like the "I now have to sit in wet trousers until I dry out" model, I'll be honest and say that I'm not so keen....
I've been relearning about the Peters Projection World Map, which makes for an interesting study. The 'standard' world map, that we're all familiar with (properly referred to as the Mercator map) was developed in the 16th Century, and has formed the basis of most people's understanding of the 'shape' of the world ever since. It suffers, as must all maps including Peters', from the inability accurately to reflect a curved surface on a flat plane, and certain physical phenomena give it real trouble, such as the way things are distorted the further away from the equator they are.
The Peters projection bases itself on area, and demonstrates the inherently Euro-centric view of the Mercator map. It's been seized upon by campaigners for social equality, because it makes clearly visible some of the facts about our world that the traditional view hides, like the relative sizes of the countries in the world, especially those in the Third World.
It's caused quite a bit of controversy since it was introduced in 1973, but among the things Peters recognised that I can't help but agree with, is that maps are inherently political, and that all the claims mapmakers make for their science only representing the facts are subject to some scrutiny. You couldn't use a Peters map to navigate by, but you could use it at least to show that the equator is actually in the middle of the map....