I've been disappointed by the high number of America. "academics" teaching at Scottish universities these days - if radio interviews are anything to go by. My reading has led me to form a very low opinion of US faculty members. I resent the time I've wasted finishing the drivel most of them produce. I have a theory as to why they are so piss-poor. It goes back to the Vietnam War and the fact that draft dodgers like Donald Trump could avoid service by enrolling in higher education. The demand for college and university places from spoiled rich brats meant the teaching faculties were expanded too rapidly. Folks who couldn't teach a toddler to tie a shoe lace ended up being taken on. The consequences are still with us - if you're taught by an idiot......... And as those students become professors themselves in succeeding generations the damage was perpetuated. The other sad part of this influx of Yanks is that it also suggests that like US higher education in the mid-60s through to the early 70s the Scottish system has been expanded too rapidly. No surprise these days when kids need a university degree in catering get a job laying tables in a greasy spoon cafe.

When I was a Boy Reporter, editorial and advertising were kept very strictly segregated. Things have obviously changed. Now on commercial radio I can hear a programme host interviewing some local news maker and then seconds later the same woman is extolling the services of some plumber. Can I really take anything she says seriously when she is so obviously prepared to act like a shill*? What is the price of allowing a doubt to be cast over a person's credibility and integrity? I don't think a plumber could pay me enough. In fact, no-one could pay me enough. *Shill: Accomplice of a hawker who acts an enthusiastic customer to entice others.

I'm fairly sure the author Charles Dickens was sceptical when it came to organised charities. He thought the first call on money donated was for the charity's supposed expenses. And I'm fairly sure too that a reasonably recent survey of major charities showed only about 10% of the money they collected actually went to helping people. The rest went on wages for themselves and administrative costs. It would not surprise me. Certainly, watching the charities in my area I have come to the conclusion that the welfare of those in need of help comes way second to the welfare of those employed by the charity. For instance, I don't think administrative talent is hereditary, so mother-daughter management teams causes my eyebrow to raise. Now I'm sure there are some genuine charities out there who really do want to help and don't use other people's misfortunes to line their own pockets. So, how about this - to be a registered charity an organisation must pay no more than minimum wage to any of its employees. That should weed out a lot of the profiteers. As one man who genuinely wanted to help once said There's A Lot Of Money In Poverty.

A while back an acquaintance asked me to help shift a table from her flat to ground floor of her towerblock. Why not. It would get my good deed of the day done before lunch. Now, a lot of people would show their appreciation with a five dollar bill - less than the cost of a pint of beer these days. I'd decided to reject the offer. It's not a good deed if you get paid. But there was no offer. I think she'd mentioned I wasn't the first person she'd asked that morning to help move that table. Maybe the others had helped her move tables before.

There have been a lot of exiles on my radio recently -Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Lebanon. The thing is that many of them don't represent opinion or feeling in their home countries. They are not drawn from the massive columns of refugees crowded at border fleeing war or an oppressive regime with all their possessions balanced on their heads. They are mainly from the most privileged sections of society and in some cases have had to leave their country because they were involved in trying to reinstall a nasty right-wing regime. A number of Iranian exiles were on the radio lamenting the supposed ceasefire in Iran. They wanted the airstrikes to continue until the Islamic regime is ousted. Easy for them to demand. Back in Iran there were certainly people who initially welcomed the attacks. Then they realised that the American plan is to free them by trying to kill them. Now they are not so keen. I wish the radio would stop giving these privileged, usually politically extremist, exiles so much of a platform.