Abut a week ago today I climbed off a plane in Philadelphia, and took the little train to 30th street station where I was going to catch a larger train to New York. Somewhere in 30th Station I passed a news stand; outsde it stood three soldiers, looking ridiculously young and gawky: a blonde girl, a white guy and a hispanic. They had baggy green uniforms, the usual guns and so forth. I don’t know what they were doing there, and they didn’t seem to, either. So far as I know, they were about 6,000 miles from anyone who might seriously be trying to kill them. As I walked towards them, a middle-aged couple ahead of me walked right up to the soldiers, shook their hands, all three of them, and said something about how proud they were.

This confused Andrew Brown, and it also confuses me. It just seems such a strange thing for someone to do. Maybe it’s seen as polite and proper to thank every member of the army you come across for their service – but why do it when they’re on duty? Maybe it’s a strange sign of respect? I certainly don’t get it.

A very neat, albeit Greek, example of rapid lexical degredation (of the word ‘kudos’ in this case). From now on, I shall only use it in the traditional sense. Yeah, right. Though actually, a quick search reveals that I have never before used that word on the blog, so I’ve not done badly thus far!

Movies. In ASCII art. That’s quite impressive – though you might not be able to ‘see’ it unless you’re familiar with the films in question. Thanks to BackBytes for the link.

I do love stories like this, where you just know that the Daily Mail is going to pick it up and have a field day ranting about ‘wars on motorists’ and ‘rip-off Britain’, and at the same time the broadsheets will pick it up to have a bit of fun with it.

The Dublin Airport Authority has voiced regret after an ambulance waiting for a seriously injured patient was clamped by airport police.

You have to love how seriously the Daily Mail takes itself. The thrid story on it’s homepage right now is Help! My son’s locked in a suitcase. And the copy reads just like a parody:

To a boy of three playing hide and seek, the suitcase in the corner seemed like the ideal refuge.
But it turned out to be a prison.

As Tiger Fawley climbed into the rigid, watertight case, the lid slammed shut, trapping him inside.

The fourth story under the clearly widely defined category of news is about teens not knowing the price of milk. Oh, and it’s £1.51 for six pints at Tesco, so put me in the ‘knows’ category please. Also making a front-page appearance is The man who is allergic to his girlfriend.

The top story, as if you need to ask, is about Michael Jackson’s influenza.

There’s nothing on the front page of the site at all about the suicide bombing in Beirut, Tory immigration plans, or the latest in the Ken Livingstone row. Can’t imagine why they wouldn’t want to cover the latter. What was it he said?

Although we uniquely have some brilliant newspapers and first-rate journalists, their standing is dragged down by what must be some of the most reprehensibly managed, edited and owned newspapers in the world.

They have a disgraceful record, none more so than the Daily Mail

When it was first set up [in 1896] its first campaign was against Jewish refugees coming to London from the pogroms. It continued its anti-Semitism in the 1930s, fighting any proposals that Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler should be admitted to this country.

Had Britain lost the war and had the Nazis controlled Britain, Lord Rothermere and his cohorts would have been at the front of the queue of collaborators.

In truth, my problem with the Daily Mail is not its politics, nor even what it covers (which is lucky, because otherwise I’d be close to agreeing with Ken Livingstone). The Sun, The Mirror, and the Daily Star cover very little actual news as well, yet I have no problem with any of those. The Daily Mail gets my goat because it likes to present itself as well above its station. The red-tops do their job, and they’re aware of their role and have a slightly tongue-in-cheek attitude. The Daily Mail likes to present itself as a respectable paper, when, in actual fact, it is clearly anything but. This is no more clearly displayed than in their celebrity coverage, where they are frequently outraged and appalled at the celebrity culture, whilst also covering it in the closest detail (as I’ve already discussed in relation to Big Brother – in fact, if you do a search on ‘Daily Mail’, you may begin to wonder whether I’m unhealthily obsessed). And that’s the secret of its undeniable success, and also why it is so dangerously powerful.

Back to the quality media: Having read The Times a couple of, erm, times recently, it has picked up somewhat from its quality for the first few tabloid (sorry, compact) editions. It’s still very much in the deplorable format of one story per page, hung around a graphic, but at least the journalism is back at the standard where it should be, and the front-page banner creep has been stopped. And the Murdoch obsession seems to have been reigned in just a little (though it’s still clearly present).

The Grauniad is making the best move in the down-sizing game, by becoming a midi. That way, it carefully side-steps the problems with the tabloid format, whilst also being a bit more manageable. The problem is the considerable length of time this is taking them. The only thing that’s been worrying me since the announcement was made last September is this:

Most importantly, from the reader’s point of view, it will not leave the Guardian’s journalism untouched, particularly in the manner and tone of presentation.

The Guardian’s tone is one its great strengths. To change it would be suicide.

Someone has stolen my name and started writing for the Times! My name is depressingly common (well, no, it’s Simon Howard, which is a depressingly common name. Don’t start calling me ‘Depressing’, or ‘Mister Common’, or I might get annoyed very quickly).

You will probably have noticed the appearance of the MakePovertyHistory white band on the site. I plan to keep it there for the rest of the year, to show my support for this particular campaign, which I have been following closely since Christmas.

Regular readers will know that I’m normally quite cynical about large charity events, but it’s worth noting that the MakePovertyHistory campaign does not want money, it simply wants to raise awareness of an issue, and garner public support for a very worthwhile cause. I urge you to visit the website, read about the campaign, and, if you think it is worthwhile, then show your support.

Roses are #FF0000
Violets are #0000FF
All of my base
Are belong to you

I don’t know what’s worse: the fact that someone has been geeky enough to make a t-shirt with this on it, or that I actually understood it. I worry for my personal health and sanity. Thanks to this blog for pointing me in the direction of the t-shirt link, so that I could prove this is (unfortunately) for real.

For those unfamiliar with blogging (what I do on this site) as a concept, then check out this marvellous Cheat Sheet from silicon.com, which will fill you in a bit, and even explain how to enter the ‘blogosphere’ yourself.

This Guardian piece hits very close to home at the moment. If I hear this on my voicemail again, I think I’ll scream:

Hi there. My name is David Williams. I’m calling you because one of my colleagues has been trying to get hold of you because someone in your household entered our draw last year and we’ve been trying to let you know you’ve won a major prize.

I didn’t think anyone would be silly enough to actually call them back, though. Obviously I’ve misjudged the great British public once again.

But the scheme will give travel headaches to commuters in Stockton for 65 weeks from February.

Project organisers say road closures and diversion are unavoidable.

It looks like driving around my area is about to get a lot tougher for a long while. It’s not exactly jam-free at the moment, but it’ll be a nightmare to have to get to all these hospitals from August if the roads are going to be so congested. Lucky me.