The lucky “writer’s block” post
It’s seems to be one of blogging’s unwritten rules (now, of course, written) that to declare that blogging will be light on one’s blog due to lack of inspiration, writer’s block or some other malaise or ennui means that one is then immediately deluged with inspiration and masses of material to write about. Here’s hoping.
I can’t even be bothered to moan about Tony Blair’s latest speech in which he outlined his new, disturbing Mystic Meg doctrine for international affairs:
[W]e have to act not react; we have to do so on the basis of prediction not certainty…
How the predictions will be made, Blair didn’t say. He could try the I-Ching as espoused in Philip K Dick’s “oh-shit-I’m-trapped-in-the-wrong-reality” tale, The Man in the High Castle. He certainly sounds increasingly divorced from reality, talking about chucking his weight about on the basis of guesswork, however well informed.
Anyway. This post is the blogging equivalent of going for one of my lucky wees when watching a football match: something always happens when I’m away from the action.
Back soon.
Posted on May 29th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
| See also • The best of both worlds • Watching them watching us watching them shooting us • Sellafield seagulls |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Pooterism |
Tell me about it. Part of the problem, I think is that a lot of the time you already know what most of the objections/responses to a particular post is going to be. Pre-empting half the discussion in your head is sometimes a good way to get a better argument, but if you forsee an impasse, the whole thing gets abandoned.
The Blair quote is true, of course, but trivially so. Most decisions are based on likelihoods. If you think a given decision at work is tricky, the best thing to do is clear it with your superiors. If they jump the same way, and it turns out wrong, at least it was a collective decision.
In Blair’s case that means presenting such problems to the House of Commons. giving them all the facts, and taking a vote. He’s not good at this.
It will be a very, very long time before I stop getting amused at the words “Check Against Delivery” which the press office always puts at the top of these transcripts. We will, Tony, oh yes we will.
The thing is Dave, it’s a monumentally stupid thing for Blair and his “it’s what I believe” schtick to say. He’s not the man to present a case based on predictions any more. Or to advocate “progressive pre-emption” (Unspeak if ever I heard it).