A bridge not far enough
20th March 2010
In September 1944 my father found himself swept up in the battle for Arnhem, the allied army’s great doomed attempt to hasten war’s end in Europe. Dad awoke one morning to the thunder of aircraft and the sight of hundreds of American paratroopers descending into his small Dutch village. Their objective was a bridge spanning a narrow canal, an unremarkable structure that momentarily assumed significance by lying along a road leading to the campaign’s prize, the bridge over the Rhine at Arnhem, gateway to Hitler’s Germany.
Bridges matter. They dissolve barriers, disrupt borders, allow the mixing of ideas and commerce. They become hubs around which people gather, villages form, cities muster. A bridge defeats gravity, enables us to become airborne, to sail over insuperable barriers. Bridges can be pretty or plain but are always romantic, where we can gaze down upon water or lift our eyes to a broader horizon. Sometimes they are worth fighting over.
The battle for Arnhem achieved fame on the screen in Richard Attenborough’s movie A Bridge Too Far. This week has seen the opening shots of our own bridge epic with the announcement of the District Council’s plans for a second bridge over the Ashburton river, although for the residents of Carters Terrace and Grove Street it’s a matter of A Bridge Not Far Enough.
As a Carter’s Terrace resident myself I can report that the announcement has been met with howls of dismay at the leafy end of Tinwald. Querulous mutterings of “why us?” issue from Grove Street while up and down Wilkins Road household appliances are being sharpened into swords, or perhaps ploughshares.
To complete our discomfort Fulton Hogan descended upon Archibald Street on Wednesday in one of their periodic frenzies of disrepair, turning our sole means of egress into a chaos of shingle and orange plastic cones in arrangements that would baffle even our heroic young paralympian snowboarder. Tinwald has become an enclave, a Sarajevo of the south. From behind the lines I can report that the mood here swings between defiance and despair. In Grove Street there is talk of bunkers and barricades while on my own street there are dark rumours of “Carter’s last stand.”
To be honest the malcontents are confined to the immediate area lying in the path of the proposed bridge. Civic progress, so prized by us all in its generality, suddenly becomes malign when it settles its bulky shape across our driveway. After 25 years of free market dominance our view of democracy has become distorted. It’s fine as long as I get my own way but if it intrudes on my peace of mind or - God help us - my property values, look out! On these occasions my behaviour is reduced to a single, needle-sharp acronym – NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard!
Tonight the NIMBYs are gathering on Grove Street, determined to resist this damnable blight. What they fail to appreciate is that democracy, while occasionally noble (my father may have thought this as the paratroopers descended), is mostly a messy business of negotiating narrow self interest. Everything is NIMBY and somebody always loses.
How can I remain so philosophical as a resident of the afflicted zone? It’s simple: I happen to live a block further down Carters Terrace. Option D-E leaves me smiling. Had the council gone for option F – Thompson Street – I’d be banging my drum up and down Baring Square with the best of them.
My advice to the guerrillas of Grove Street is to be positive. Consider how the bridge will draw together Tinwald and Hampstead. It will allow trade to flourish between these two great districts. Cultural exchanges will bring line dancing south of the river while we in turn will introduce our Hampstead cousins to Tinwald’s colourful drinking customs.
In time some of us may marry our daughters to the noble families of Chalmers Avenue and Eton Street, cementing bonds of brotherhood that will ring through the ages. Happy thoughts!
And if plummeting property values destroy our equity be comforted that it will also lower our rates.
On the other hand there will be the small matter of paying for a bridge…
Monday, March 22, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
Weight Watchers in a bun fight
6th March 2010
Dieters have rushed to defend the decision by Weight Watchers to approve several McDonalds’ popular meal items. The move, which allows the fat-conscious to clip their ticket under the golden arches for the first time, has been scorned by dieticians and sundry other spoilsports but Weight Watchers clients give it the thumbs up.
Tracy (name withheld), a Weight Watchers client, was revelling in her first visit to Ashburton McDonalds last night. “Oh, this is like heaven! Y’know, I was never allowed into this place and used to hang outside while my friends came in. They’d pass me a couple of fries through the window and then I’d be over my points and I’d be so upset I’d go home and eat half a loaf of fried bread.”
McDonalds and Weight Watchers have worked secretly for over a year to develop the low-calorie meals. There are several items, from burgers to salads, all with catchy titles drawn from the boxing lexicon. We found Rachel (real name Beryl Flutey, from Dunsandel) tucking into a McFeatherweight burger and McFlyweight salad. “Well it’s basically a chicken burger with some feathers in it. I think the feathers kind of stop you from wanting to eat it all so it keeps your points down. And the salad’s called the Fly-thingee because it’s so light. I don’t think it actually has any flies in it.”
McDonalds’ food development manager, Bill ‘Tupper’ Knight, says the breakthrough was in the cooking oil. “We were experimenting with different kinds of low-cal oils and eventually stumbled on a linseed-based furniture polish. It’s a good hot cooker and it also makes the food really shiny, which is good from the marketing side.”
Weight Watchers believes the move will give it an edge in the increasingly competitive dieting industry. Difficult economic times and dieter turn-off had seen a slump in the sales of its own branded diet meals. Tracy agrees that the Weight Watchers meals are hard to stomach. “Honestly, I used to eat them at work because all the girls did and, y’know, you don’t want to be left out. But there’s a limit to the amount of shaved cardboard and tiny designer tomatoes you can put up with.”
Rachel agrees. “They taste like crap and they don’t really work. I’ve been dieting for 22 years and if I’d met all my targets I’d be, like, 18 kilos by now.”
“Same,” says Tracy, “and I’m still, y’know, really short too. So I may as well enjoy myself.”
Critics say the move will place dieters under pressure. “McDonalds is the evil empire for people trying to lose weight,” argues Chris P. Wafer of Sweet Fatties Anonymous. “Sending dieters into McDonalds is like setting up a chocolate wheel in a casino and telling all the compulsive gamblers they can go in there safely and use it.”
Weight Watchers claims the strategy marks a shift in the fight against obesity. In a press release it argues, “for too long we have told dieters to stay away from the temptation of fatty food. But the reality of daily life is that we live in a high-cal world. It’s important that dieters are exposed to temptation and are supported to rise above it with some safe food options.”
Chris P. Wafer rubbishes this argument. “Here at Sweet FA we believe this move is like setting up a soda stream in a public bar and telling all the alcoholics they can go in there safely and use it.”
Rachel has no problem with the temptation to eat McDonalds regular food items. “Yeah, of course I will. I mean I’ve eaten the healthy things so my diet’s sweet and now I can get into this apple pie. And I’ll need a thick shake to wash down the feathers.”
The move has attracted wide interest from other sectors. Gambling support groups and Alcoholics Anonymous are reported to be investing in chocolate wheels and soda streams.
6th March 2010
Dieters have rushed to defend the decision by Weight Watchers to approve several McDonalds’ popular meal items. The move, which allows the fat-conscious to clip their ticket under the golden arches for the first time, has been scorned by dieticians and sundry other spoilsports but Weight Watchers clients give it the thumbs up.
Tracy (name withheld), a Weight Watchers client, was revelling in her first visit to Ashburton McDonalds last night. “Oh, this is like heaven! Y’know, I was never allowed into this place and used to hang outside while my friends came in. They’d pass me a couple of fries through the window and then I’d be over my points and I’d be so upset I’d go home and eat half a loaf of fried bread.”
McDonalds and Weight Watchers have worked secretly for over a year to develop the low-calorie meals. There are several items, from burgers to salads, all with catchy titles drawn from the boxing lexicon. We found Rachel (real name Beryl Flutey, from Dunsandel) tucking into a McFeatherweight burger and McFlyweight salad. “Well it’s basically a chicken burger with some feathers in it. I think the feathers kind of stop you from wanting to eat it all so it keeps your points down. And the salad’s called the Fly-thingee because it’s so light. I don’t think it actually has any flies in it.”
McDonalds’ food development manager, Bill ‘Tupper’ Knight, says the breakthrough was in the cooking oil. “We were experimenting with different kinds of low-cal oils and eventually stumbled on a linseed-based furniture polish. It’s a good hot cooker and it also makes the food really shiny, which is good from the marketing side.”
Weight Watchers believes the move will give it an edge in the increasingly competitive dieting industry. Difficult economic times and dieter turn-off had seen a slump in the sales of its own branded diet meals. Tracy agrees that the Weight Watchers meals are hard to stomach. “Honestly, I used to eat them at work because all the girls did and, y’know, you don’t want to be left out. But there’s a limit to the amount of shaved cardboard and tiny designer tomatoes you can put up with.”
Rachel agrees. “They taste like crap and they don’t really work. I’ve been dieting for 22 years and if I’d met all my targets I’d be, like, 18 kilos by now.”
“Same,” says Tracy, “and I’m still, y’know, really short too. So I may as well enjoy myself.”
Critics say the move will place dieters under pressure. “McDonalds is the evil empire for people trying to lose weight,” argues Chris P. Wafer of Sweet Fatties Anonymous. “Sending dieters into McDonalds is like setting up a chocolate wheel in a casino and telling all the compulsive gamblers they can go in there safely and use it.”
Weight Watchers claims the strategy marks a shift in the fight against obesity. In a press release it argues, “for too long we have told dieters to stay away from the temptation of fatty food. But the reality of daily life is that we live in a high-cal world. It’s important that dieters are exposed to temptation and are supported to rise above it with some safe food options.”
Chris P. Wafer rubbishes this argument. “Here at Sweet FA we believe this move is like setting up a soda stream in a public bar and telling all the alcoholics they can go in there safely and use it.”
Rachel has no problem with the temptation to eat McDonalds regular food items. “Yeah, of course I will. I mean I’ve eaten the healthy things so my diet’s sweet and now I can get into this apple pie. And I’ll need a thick shake to wash down the feathers.”
The move has attracted wide interest from other sectors. Gambling support groups and Alcoholics Anonymous are reported to be investing in chocolate wheels and soda streams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)