Sunday, April 02, 2006
Good Cod, I've Haddock Enough Of This Plaice!*
I have before me a copy of Thursday's 'Metro' (I know I'm way past the reasonable day to still be angry about this, but bear with me okay, I've been busy) and a couple of parts of it got me pretty riled up:
1) From the 'Letters' page:
'I can't believe Bev Bishop (Metro, Wed) blames seals for endangering Atlantic cod. Cod are being wiped out by human over-fishing, not seals. We would do much better to cull humans (the least endangered species of all, with a growth from 1.7 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000) if we don't want humans to be the only animals left on the planet 100 years from now.'
Simon Smith, London SE13
I am literally fascinated with the cognitive process Mr Smith had to go through to get to his conclusion here.
First of all, he had to be bothered enough by an admittedly naive letter in a tatty, free newspaper to actually write in at all, something that most of us, even those who agree with his first point, wouldn't do. It also has to be said that his point is in some doubt - even this writer, aiming to prove that seals do not represent a danger to cod stocks, is forced to admit that there is evidence either way - so it mightn't have done him any harm to research his argument before commiting pen to paper.
Now it starts to get bizarre. He next had to measure man against whitefish - and find man wanting. I personally suspect this bizarre predilection for our piscine cousins will end when his girlfriend finds him humping the Friday night halibut, but even if there isn't something faintly perverted about this preference, it's still sickening.
I'll give you three guesses as to why this one's looking so surprised. Oh, and you've got something on your lip mate . . .
Finally, he has to measure his dislike of the human race, and, apparently without qualm or qualification, advocate genocide as an appropriate means of protecting cod stocks.
Even his last point might not be true. Humans probably aren't 'the least endangered species of all.' I should think that the rat, which produces ten offspring that will live long enough to breed per female, is probably just as secure.
I suspect that the reason people are getting tired of animal rights protesters (see, for instance, the Oxford demo) is not because of any dislike amongst Britons for animals (remember the whale?). Britons love animals. The NSPCC was founded long after the RSPCA, and it was only an offshoot organisation of the latter. Instead, what we are getting tired of is their misanthropy. Their love for animals is fine, but do they have to hate humans so much?
2) This was much less annoying, but it still grated a bit. From a report on the Grand National, where Paul and Nina Carberry will both be racing:
'When you were younger, didn't you just hate it when your little sister followed you everywhere?'
'But did she ever tag along with a whip in her hand on a big horse?'
'Spare a thought then for Irish jockey Paul Carberry, who will be up against his younger sister Nina in the Grand National at Aintree next month.'
Now, I appreciate that this is just an attempt to use a familiar register in order to engage with the readers, but don't you think it's just a little patronising? The language is positively loaded with phrases - 'little sister', 'followed', 'tag along', 'big horse' - that, maybe unintentionally, give the impression that she is nothing but a helpless little girl with no real right to be there. In fact, she is riding a horse at 40-1, while her older brother is riding one at 33-1, so really, the punters think she has nearly as much chance of winning (although odds are almost meaningless in the National).
Hopefully, the 'Metro' journalists will remember to give her a glass of warm milk and a hug before she joins the men at work.
*Please don't shoot me for that.
1) From the 'Letters' page:
'I can't believe Bev Bishop (Metro, Wed) blames seals for endangering Atlantic cod. Cod are being wiped out by human over-fishing, not seals. We would do much better to cull humans (the least endangered species of all, with a growth from 1.7 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000) if we don't want humans to be the only animals left on the planet 100 years from now.'
Simon Smith, London SE13
I am literally fascinated with the cognitive process Mr Smith had to go through to get to his conclusion here.
First of all, he had to be bothered enough by an admittedly naive letter in a tatty, free newspaper to actually write in at all, something that most of us, even those who agree with his first point, wouldn't do. It also has to be said that his point is in some doubt - even this writer, aiming to prove that seals do not represent a danger to cod stocks, is forced to admit that there is evidence either way - so it mightn't have done him any harm to research his argument before commiting pen to paper.
Now it starts to get bizarre. He next had to measure man against whitefish - and find man wanting. I personally suspect this bizarre predilection for our piscine cousins will end when his girlfriend finds him humping the Friday night halibut, but even if there isn't something faintly perverted about this preference, it's still sickening.
I'll give you three guesses as to why this one's looking so surprised. Oh, and you've got something on your lip mate . . .
Finally, he has to measure his dislike of the human race, and, apparently without qualm or qualification, advocate genocide as an appropriate means of protecting cod stocks.
Even his last point might not be true. Humans probably aren't 'the least endangered species of all.' I should think that the rat, which produces ten offspring that will live long enough to breed per female, is probably just as secure.
I suspect that the reason people are getting tired of animal rights protesters (see, for instance, the Oxford demo) is not because of any dislike amongst Britons for animals (remember the whale?). Britons love animals. The NSPCC was founded long after the RSPCA, and it was only an offshoot organisation of the latter. Instead, what we are getting tired of is their misanthropy. Their love for animals is fine, but do they have to hate humans so much?
2) This was much less annoying, but it still grated a bit. From a report on the Grand National, where Paul and Nina Carberry will both be racing:
'When you were younger, didn't you just hate it when your little sister followed you everywhere?'
'But did she ever tag along with a whip in her hand on a big horse?'
'Spare a thought then for Irish jockey Paul Carberry, who will be up against his younger sister Nina in the Grand National at Aintree next month.'
Now, I appreciate that this is just an attempt to use a familiar register in order to engage with the readers, but don't you think it's just a little patronising? The language is positively loaded with phrases - 'little sister', 'followed', 'tag along', 'big horse' - that, maybe unintentionally, give the impression that she is nothing but a helpless little girl with no real right to be there. In fact, she is riding a horse at 40-1, while her older brother is riding one at 33-1, so really, the punters think she has nearly as much chance of winning (although odds are almost meaningless in the National).
Hopefully, the 'Metro' journalists will remember to give her a glass of warm milk and a hug before she joins the men at work.
*Please don't shoot me for that.
Comments:
<< Home
I must say you are a writing MACHINE! I have a hard time keeping up with your blog because every time I visit it it seems as if you've posted another four pages!
Anyway, I answered a question you posed me in an earlier post.
I'll be back to finish THIS post later!
See ya, Dr Feeelgood.
Anyway, I answered a question you posed me in an earlier post.
I'll be back to finish THIS post later!
See ya, Dr Feeelgood.
SafeT - it's because I've just moved back to my hometown for a bit, and remembered why I love being away - it's so boring in this half-a-horse town.
Happy - I confess it, it is shamelessly plagiarised from mon pere. Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't used it before now.
Ill Man - That was my first reaction, but if so, why the information in brackets? Anyway, as you say, wholly unsuccesful.
Post a Comment
Happy - I confess it, it is shamelessly plagiarised from mon pere. Frankly, I'm surprised I haven't used it before now.
Ill Man - That was my first reaction, but if so, why the information in brackets? Anyway, as you say, wholly unsuccesful.
<< Home
