#As much as I despise myself for giving any time and head-space to the Prince-Harry-in-Afghanistan non-issue, sometimes my big mouth won’t keep shut. So here goes. He’s been fighting against an enemy combatant. Well yes, that’s what soldiers in the army do. And the military bosses are saying they’re not happy about this news breaking out, not least because it puts Harry and his fellow-soldiers at risk . . . makes them a target. Well it’s the bloody army! It will always be a target. And soldiers will always be at risk. I realise that to bag a British Royal would be a pretty cool trophy for the Taliban but I would also expect that the military strategists or whatever they call themselves would provide the same security defences etc for all their soldiers at all times – with or without a Prince on duty.
And I’m also half-inclined to wonder whether the leak was a PR job. I mean the minute the news leaked out, we saw Prince(I’m just a normal guy)Harry doing photo shoots and press calls, right there on the job. His hair was looking rather stylish and I swear there was a squeeze or two of hair gel in there somewhere. Could I be forgiven for thinking it might have been a stunt? He got to play war for a bit but now they tell us they have no choice but to send him home because the enemy knows he’s there. Convenient or what? Good result though. A few months ago he was a boozing party animal and now the British public love him for being such a brave soldier. Our Prince, the hero. Give me a break.
#The Children’s Society has produced the results of an opinion poll as part of its Good Childhood Inquiry. From the results they were able to find that there are growing concerns that the commercialisation of our children is damaging their well-being.
I think it’s true that children are increasingly materialistic and are much more ‘brand aware’ than their previous generations. And parents are blaming the advertising companies for selling their children a lifestyle that costs them dearly and turns their kids into logo-loving brand loyalists.
The advertising industry defensively argues that parents are responsible for regulating their own children and to some extent they’re right. But it really is an almighty struggle. We can’t keep our children sheltered from every aspect of the media and we can’t keep them away from their buddies who turn up in Converse trainers and clutching their mini iPods and their all-singing, all-dancing camera-phones.
Top and bottom is, no-one can deny their adverts influence our kids. Why else would they spend multi-millions on producing them?
#And finally (whispers of thank goodness have been heard and duly noted), last night I eventually got round to watching Michael Moore’s Sicko.
You can read more about it here so I won’t elaborate suffice to say that although Michael might have flowered up the British NHS which isn’t as perfect as he portrayed, I heartily believe that some artistic license is justified if it helps to make an honest point hit the target. And I think it did in this film.
Of course, in the usual MM style, he opened up more issues than just healthcare, cleverly slipping in other social issues which eventually intertwine, but the healthcare theme was unmistakeably predominant.
Thing is, sickness is no respecter of poverty. It doesn’t discriminate between the wealthy and those who can’t afford health insurance. It can – and will – strike anytime, anyplace, anyone. But the sad thing is, the poor are more vulnerable.
Like I’ve said before . . . there but for the grace of good fortune, go I . . . and I would truly hate to be an American on the financial borderline.