Last Christmas Eve, we contemplated what might happen if Santa had got hold of a motor car in the early days of internal combustion engines (I’m still wondering if poor old unemployed Rudolph would qualify for Jobseekers Allowance, what with him being a reindeer and all).
Hunting for Christmassy stuff this year, I discovered this wonderful cover image from the December 19th 1909 edition of the New-York Tribune. I can just imagine the havoc caused on that Christmas Eve when fly boy Santa took off for his rounds in that precarious plane…
From all this, I can only conclude that Santa is an enthusiastic early adopter of technology – you know the type – he’s gone from a car in 1896 to a plane thirteen years later (and only a mere six years after the first powered flight by the Wright brothers at that).
These days, he’s probably got an iPad, sat nav, and checks his list in the cloud. He’s also annually tracked by the modern satellite technology of NORAD (which is possibly a little worrying if you think about it too much…).
However thoroughly modern Santa has become with his transportation (personally, I’d argue that reindeer are much more reliable that Siri in the long run), he’s still using old school magic tech to physically get down all those chimneys and deliver your presents. It’s hard work being an omnipresent semi-mythical gift-bringer, so I hope you’ve left out some mince pies and a shot of something warming for the poor guy!
And I really hope poor old Rudolph has finally got to put his hooves up…
For much more festive reading, follow the links here.
Paid for by Amnesty International supporters, this ad was due to run in today’s Financial Times (basically the house paper of the City), to coincide with the Shell shareholders’ AGM in London. At the very last minute, the FT decided to pull the ad. Here’s what Amnesty International had to say:
Financial Times’ late call thwarts Amnesty’s campaign
Amnesty International UK expressed its immense disappointment today at the Financial Times’ decision to pull a new hard-hitting advertisement at the last possible moment. The ad was due to appear today as Shell held its London AGM.
The advertisement focused on the appalling human rights record of Shell in Nigeria. It compared the company’s $9.8bn profits with the consequences of pollution caused by the oil giant for the people of the Niger Delta.
Numerous oil spills, which have not been adequately cleaned up, have left local communities with little option but to drink polluted water, eat contaminated fish, farm on spoiled land, and breathe in air that stinks of oil and gas.
Tim Hancock, Amnesty International UK’s campaigns director, said:
“The decision by the Financial Times is extremely disappointing. We gave them written reassurances that we would take full responsibility for the comments and opinions stated in the advertisement.
“Both The Metro and The Evening Standard had no problems with running the ad.”
Tim Hancock added:
“The money to pay for the advertisements came entirely from more than 2,000 individuals online, who we’d asked to fund an ad campaign targeting Shell’s AGM – and it really caught their imagination. And I am sure these supporters will share with us our sense of deep disappointment.”
No FT, no comment?
Britain doesn’t have much in the way of a progressive mainstream media, and part of what little we do have is currently under threat. Russian businessman and current owner of the rather unpleasant London Evening Standard, Alexander Lebedev is currently in talks to buy out The Independent, which has been struggling financially for a while now.
And as if that wasn’t worrying enough, it seems that Lebedev plans to replace the Indy’s current editor Roger Alton (whose style, admittedly, hasn’t been particularly popular with many readers) with the controversial ex-editor of Radio 4’s Today programme, Rod Liddle.
If you’ve never encountered Liddle, count yourself lucky; he’s not the most pleasant of people – and he would be, in my view (and that of many others) just about the worst possible choice to edit the Indy, which is well-known for its progressive stance on many controversial issues.
Why? Well, there’s the racism for a start – and, despite the fact he seems to think he’s being clever and witty, this is racism of the most ignorant, lazy kind (as evidenced here and here). Either he really doesn’t get how offensive he’s being, or he’s attempting to be controversial for the sake of being controversial, which isn’t particularly clever, witty or grown-up either.