The next Tolpuddle Martyrs

Back in the real bad old days before protective associations and Trades Unions were allowed to exist. A bunch of 19th Century agricultural labourers in Dorset, so ticked off with their treatment, formed a 'Friendly society', refusing to work for less than a set rate. The leading members of this association were James Brine, James Hammett, George Loveless, James Loveless, Thomas Standfield, and John Standfield. For their 'crime' of standing up for themselves, they were arrested and sentenced to Transportation in 1832. Their trial and sentences were essentially a warping of the law to serve a vested interest, seeing as the legislation forbidding such associations was repealed in 1825 (But what's really new about that, eh?).

History has a tendency to repeat itself in slightly different ways, because the mistakes made have a tendency to be forgotten by those who consider themselves to be in authority. In like fashion I see this 'Lawful rebellion' thing sizing up to be the basis of a similar movement. Of course the Martyrs were only one of many such groups looking to protect themselves from overweening authority, but they put their checkmark in the History box before all others.

In similar fashion, Ranty and his growing band of like minded people are busy using the legal system to fight everything from excessive council tax bills to a parking ticket. Facing arrest, Bankruptcy and other serried consequences, they have picked up the mostly quenched torch of liberty and blown on its embers. I foresee their actions making great changes sometime in the future. So long as they stay on topic and don't alienate people by wittering on about stuff better left in the X-Files.

However, I make this one caveat. It took generations before the Martyrs actions brought about a better life for their heirs and successors. Their beginnings changed the socio economic landscape between employer and employee, master and servant. In some ways for the better. In others, their nascent movement was hijacked by those with a more sinister, destructive political agenda.

To conclude; There is a paradigm shift beginning. Away from the inefficient, incompetent collectivist ideals of the 19th and 20th centuries, perhaps towards a more 'people centric' future where grass roots movements hold the balance of power. I'm not sure where the 'lawful rebellion' movement is going to end up, but I have the distinct feeling that a smart young politician who hitches his coat tails to this particular comet will go far.

Fear and loathing

Now I've been drinking, so the following post may be even less lucid than my usual febrile ravings. However, I think I'm at that nexus that falls under the category of 'in vino veritas'

One of the problems I currently see with humanity in general is that we live in a near perpetual state of fear. We're trouser fillingly terrified about everything. There are some folk so scared that they can't set foot outside their own front door. We're scared of what the neighbours think of us, what our parents or family think. We're petrified for future generations or shitting ourselves about the state of the planet, which incidentally can do quite well without us.

Well the Bill Sticker take on it is; "Auchtahellweit!" Mind you, that's easy for me to say. I've faced my fear and stepped on its twinkling little toes. Not that I'd readily do it often - jeez louise - I'm not bloody stupid. Had I been an old scaredy puss, me and Mrs S would never have even considered emigration.

The problem is that we let irrational fears rule our lives. Fear of strangers; most surprisingly nice - providing you aren't going to try and be all huggy with the weapon toting basket case from the bad neighbourhood. Fear of the future? Well, you know; the future is the end result of good or bad decisions. Good or bad can come from both - depending upon how you as a person are willing to look at the outcomes. As far as irrational fears go, my two biggies are spiders bigger than my fist, and sheer drops over two hundred metres straight down. Also not terribly chuffed about people sticking guns or knives in my face with menaces. Not scared about media driven scare stories like Bird / Swine / Whatever Influenza, Cancer (Been there, done that), Pain (Likewise) and big earthquakes. I've trained myself to be competent in various survival techniques if everything goes pear shaped, and if pressured into a real scrap I'm no pushover.

This is not to say I wouldn't be scared, this isn't about the fear, it's about how you react to any given problem. You 'pull your big girl panties on and deal with it'. So instructs one of those amusing motivational sayings my Sister in law has posted on the wall at her place up in town. Anything new can be scary, but if you're going to do the old Rabbit staring at headlights trick, then unfortunately (For you) you might be bucking for a Darwin Award. From whatever standpoint.

Fear makes you vulnerable. Mostly to the next Snake Oil Salesman who says his / her product is the answer to all your ills, real or imagined. Understanding your fear makes you capable of kicking said Snake Oil Salesman in the metaphorical crotch and walking away whistling a happy tune.

As I said, I've been drinking.

Time for bed.

Money for nothing

By their own admission, the Ministers and high up panjandrums in charge of taxing future generations into slavery mitigating 'Climate Change' really haven't a fucking clue are unsure of the effect, spending $280 billion of taxpayer dollar on policies that don't and can't work decisions to prevent a highly disputed predicted global temperature rise based on fucking useless climate models.

Now we hear that one such in England is having a steel wire fence put around his property to prevent angry members of the public and disaffected party members storming his house and doing him harm. Personally I am in great favour of this high level protection; it is my deeply held conviction that all UK politicians and personnel in charge of climate mitigation measures (Of whatever stripe, let's not be partisan about this) should have this level of protection. They should have the 'right' to be free from violence.

Now I'm not for a moment suggesting that perhaps if some clever dicky were to say, wire the new security fence to the mains and drop an extra secure extra padlock with a crop resistant shackle on the gate (or even weld the gate shut), the politician in question would have to stay in the warmth and comfort of their own delightful home, safe within the bosom of their nearest and dearest. Safe from the angry majority of the population, and not being able to make any half assed decisions that further messed up said populations lives. A small jammer would might stop his cellphone and Internet access and stop the bleeder person in question doing any more economic damage. However, this is just my idle speculation, and in no way an incitement for anyone to actually do this. Although I'd be laughing like a drain if they did.

To quote the wise words of the fictional General Tacticus (From Terry Pratchett's Jingo); "If your enemy retreats into an impregnable fortress - see that he stays there."

Then, with the benefit of some inadvertent but perhaps welcome purgatory 'quality' time spent with their demanding children and impatient spouses lovely families perhaps they might think twice about spending money the taxpayer doesn't have.

Correction: It's not a home it's a whole party conference. Still, the same principles apply. 'Rings of steel' work both ways.

'Flux ropes' and power generation

Two Russian researchers, Boyarchuk and Pulinets, posited back in 2004 that flares and associated Solar electromagnetic phenomena might induce Earth tremors and perhaps extra heat within the Earth’s nickel iron core. More recently, (2007) the NASA THEMIS experiment detected things dubbed 'flux ropes', or concentrations of electromagnetic force linking the Sun and the Earth. The net effect of these variations has, so I'm told, a minor effect on the inner Earth, and increasing convection of magma within the inner and outer mantle, rather like happens in boiling water. The extra energy venting itself via various volcanic outlets like ‘black smokers’ down in the various oceanic spreading zones, Volcanoes, and the melting of rock in subduction zones. At present there are no certain proofs in the public domain although such an induced heating effect is in line with electromagnetic theory, and can be observed under experimental conditions.

As an aside; this core heating effect is probably also why Venus has such a hellish corrosive soup for an atmosphere. Venus is, like Earth, thought to have a nickel iron core, and this is thought to be heated vigorously by its passage through the more tightly packed magnetic field closer to the Sun. As I've posted previously, volcanism is the culprit for Venus' atmosphere, definitely not CO2. For example if CO2 was the culprit, Mars would be a lot warmer than it is, having a similar concentration of atmospheric CO2 (About 95.32%) to Venus (96.5%).

To get to the crux of the matter; my friend Delcatto asked the question; “Could we harness the electromagnetic force from the Sun to provide power?”

My answer is ‘No’.

For the following reasons;

1. The concentration of electromagnetic force, even at the poles, does not appear strong enough. If it were, then our biosphere would not be habitable, at least to us.
2. Why? Because the Earth needs to have a molten core. Without it our fecund little world would be as dead as Mars. Life as we know it depends on a complex interplay of energies and forces requiring heat from both above (the Sun) and below (the Earth), which is what allows our fragile little 10 kilometer deep biosphere to exist, sandwiched between a figurative heaven and hell. Significantly reduce the heating effect of the Earth’s core, as would happen if enough of the electromagnetism at the poles were diverted for power generation, and, to put it bluntly, life on Earth would be (Eventually) buggered.
3. To get sufficient concentration of force lines for power generation, you have to divert them from somewhere else into some kind of collector ring. It would not be a good idea to stick such a device over the polar regions of Earth, see reason 2, but near Venus to power something like a wormhole portal for interstellar travel? There’s an intriguing thought. If such a device were possible, power transmission issues would render transfer to Earth less than useful (Until some clever dicky rewrites the physics of power transmission that is). Venus would ‘benefit’ from the reduction in volcanism due to a cooler core and perhaps eventually become borderline habitable, or at least not quite so hostile as at present. However, such a cooling process would require (at the very least) a couple of million years. So, no panic there, then.

Which just gave me an absolutely spiffing idea for another science fiction story. Ta muchly.

What's so great about freedom anyway?

A simple man's discussion of liberty and freedom.

In the workshop the other day, working on a couple of small projects I found my mind wandering as it sometimes does when my hands are busy. Nothing much, just a little combination carpentry and engineering, general workaday stuff I do as a volunteer. I found myself wondering in the wake of the various Middle Eastern protests, what is freedom? What does it mean and who does it really benefit? Is it really in the words of the song; “just another word for nothing left to lose”? Why is it preferable (or not) to the alternatives? Why are people prepared to fight and die to attain it? Why do we make such a fuss?

What do the words ‘freedom’ and / or ‘liberty’ mean?

Here are some dictionary definitions for ‘Freedom’

• Freedom is the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
• Freedom is exemption: immunity from obligations or duties
• Political freedom is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression.
• Freedom is commonly known as a state of being free from government oppression.
• Self ownership

Similarly for ‘Liberty’

• Autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
• Freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think, feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes"
• Personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression
• Shore leave: leave granted to a sailor or naval officer
• Familiarity: an act of undue intimacy. As in “A downright liberty”
• Liberty is a concept of political philosophy identifying the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will. In feudal times, a liberty was an area of allodial land in which regalian rights had been waived.

So those are the dictionary definitions, but does being ‘free’ mean freedom from want or hardship? No. If anything it means you work a bloody sight harder to earn your daily crust. Longer hours, and there’s no extra money in it. There’s no magic support moolah from the state if work dries up. You’re pretty much on your own.

Does it mean freedom from fear?

Well yes and no. Fear is pretty subjective anyway. Having walked mean streets without body armour, with what often seemed every voice turned against me, I know that fear only gets in the way of dealing with daily risks. To be free of fear, you just have to look into your inner mirror and say; “Yes of course that scares me, but not so much that I can’t or won’t do anything about it.” Otherwise you’re just a soon to be ex-rabbit staring into onrushing headlights.

Does freedom mean having no ‘rights’?

Depends what you call a ‘right’, doesn’t it? Some contend that only an institution like a state or statutory body can grant ‘rights’. What these Statist ‘rights’ tend to be are generally along the lines of; “Whatever I want given to me for free, for doing nothing in return, right now.” Such as the ‘right’ to ‘free’ services like medical cover and education or the ‘right’ to safety (Whatever that means). For me a ‘right’ derives not from what I want from the state, but from what I should be free to choose for myself, providing I promise not to whine if I screw up and it all ends in tears.

Put simply, the Statist wants a free lunch in exchange for a reduction in their liberties and increase in everyone else’s taxes. Contrariwise, the Libertarian doesn’t want the lunch, the extra tax, or the loss of choice. They just want to be able to run their own lives without having to ask permission all the time, or to have to pay for the choices of others.

Freedom can also be viewed as a balance between rights and obligations. You may have a right, but you have an obligation not to abuse that right to the detriment of others. Who also have exactly the same rights as everyone else. In a free society there should be no private law or privilege for the wealthy or famous. No ‘superior’ rights, such as in the case of vociferous minorities. No handicaps or positive discrimination to make things ‘fair’. Because any such bias in a truly free society is ‘unfair’. If you don’t understand that, well, you don’t ‘get’ the concept of fairness or freedom at all. We all have limitations, it's what you turn them into that counts.

Freedom also means not being subject to summary arrest or detention without evidence or charge. It means being able to voice an opinion without intimidation, physical or otherwise, or any form of detention. That means no one is allowed to thump you, or threaten to do so, for speaking your mind on a topic. No one is allowed to harass you or yours for not agreeing with them. It also means you can’t do that to others if you disagree with them.

Freedom also means the right of self defence. So if you tell someone to leave you in peace and they either threaten you, or attempt physical harm, you can take such steps as are necessary to negate the threat. In this situation, your right to prevent yourself or others being harmed should out weigh their right to disagree with you, should they escalate to violence first.

So what good is freedom anyway if you don’t really get anything out of it?

Ah, the question of the born slave. In a word; motivation. Freedom, or the self determination that comes as part of the package means you are master of your own destiny. It means choice. On the simplest level the power to make decisions for yourself without having to ask permission, with all the chances and thrills that brings. Once you’ve gotten past the fright of finding yourself firmly at the controls of your own life, it’s a remarkably refreshing experience, and not one you’ll give up without a bloody good fight.

So why are people willing to die for freedom?

A nice easy one, this. See also last sentence of previous paragraph. Self volition, freedom of choice and suchlike are fundamental human needs. I could trot out a whole bunch of buzzwords like ‘empowerment’, but that implies the power in question wasn’t an option in the first place. No one, apart from a slave, and not even then, likes being bossed around and told what they can think, say and do. Given enough provocation by an uncaring elite, even the most downtrodden worm will turn.

Looked at from an historical viewpoint it’s almost inevitable that an enslaved population will revolt. Chronicles from ancient civilizations to the present day are littered with such events. From Spartacus and before to the 20th Century Civil Rights movement and beyond. Having the ability to decide your own fate, at least for humans, is as natural as breathing. We are not a herd animal. Tribal yes, herd, no.

Hang on, this freedom thing just sounds like chaos, no one really wants that do they?

Whilst a state of absolute chaos where no rules apply, is undesirable, rigid enforcement is just as undesirable. All rules have circumstances in which an exemption is desirable for the benefit of others as a whole.

Humans, and just about every organic life form on the planet follow rules which can be ascertained by simple observation. The ‘simplest’ tribal society has a raft of rules governing dress, behaviour and diet. Yet what is right for them would most definitely not be appropriate for the average Western city dweller, and vice versa. Yet even in supposedly chaotic situations there are rules. Arbitrary and eccentric, but rules nonetheless.

There are certainly those who cannot function outside of a tightly defined set of rules. I’ve met a few and I understand one thing about them. Rules give them certainty. Rules define their tight little comfort zones. Rules are their security blanket. They long to dictate to others simply because it gives them a feeling of power which has been attained without first attaining either merit or ability. They want everyone to be the same as them, and can’t tolerate those who are different.

There is a saying that one man’s Anarchy is another’s business opportunity. For those who are prepared to ‘wing it’, the looser the system is the better. Yet even such a system has rules, which can be learned and worked within. All that you really need to know are the absolute boundaries beyond which you may not go.

Yeah, but this liberty thing, it’s just people being selfish isn’t it?

Is it selfish to think of and for oneself, and allow others to do likewise? To quote Oscar Wilde from ‘The soul of man under socialism’;

“It is grossly selfish to require of one's neighbour that he should think in the same way, and hold the same opinions. Why should he?………….…A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose. It would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses.”

From De Profundis he quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson;

“It is tragic how few people ever 'possess their souls' before they die. 'Nothing is more rare in any man,' says Emerson, 'than an act of his own.' It is quite true. Most people are other people”

Freedom and liberty, if they mean anything at all, are about the sense of possession of one’s own spirit. To own oneself is by turns exhilarating, exasperating and exhausting, but a hell of a lot more interesting and enervating than the simple trudging existence of modern human bondage. Who was it that said. “The unexamined life is not worth living”? Oh yes, according to Plato, good old Socrates.

Baiting the 'righteous'

They don't like people who smoke, who drink a little more than a single glass of wine every other day, or who like the odd bit of red meat now and again. Light heartedness is an alien concept, as is imagination. They don't think you have the right (or ability) manage your own affairs or bring up your own children. They want to dictate what information others have available, how much exercise they take, and look upon themselves as the arbiter of all that is 'moral'. They have no 'live and let live' about them and judge others only by their own narrow standards. You must do as they do, believe as they do. All else is anathema. These are people who serve vegetarian cuisine at dinner parties and never provide for those who prefer a little meat or fish with their meals. Many believe in the evil of Eugenics and that 'Global Warming' is real. They exert a disproportionate influence upon our daily lives.

These are the new puritans. UK local and central government is plagued both by and with them.

I believe Longrider was first to dub them the 'Righteous'. I may be wrong, but his blog is where I first recall seeing the term. Although Longrider in the comments says it was Leg Iron of 'Underdogs bite upwards'. Thanks for the correction.

Synonyms and adjectives include bigot, chauvinist, diehard, doctrinaire, dogmatist, enthusiast, extremist, fanatic, fiend, maniac, Malvolio, monomaniac, nimby, puritan , racist, sectarian, segregationist, sexist, stickler, zealot. Other worthy descriptions are; grinch, misery, wet blanket, scourge, shrew, self righteous, misery guts.

My personal choice is the term used by the Aussies and Kiwis; 'Wowser'. Far more appropriate, and carries just the right balance of pejorative disdain without treading the unimaginative trail of Anglo-Saxon four letter invective. Even if that is where temptation leads.

You can even use the word in polite society without legitimate censure; as in.
"You're a bit of a Wowser aren't you?"
"He's a complete and utter Wowser."
"Wouldn't date her. She's a complete Wowser."
"Don't be such a Wowser." ....and so on.

Although our friends south of the 49th parallel apparently think 'wowser' is an adolescent term of approval.

I prefer the Anzac version.

Psychic disease

Over at EU Referendum, Richard North posits;

I am being increasing attracted to the idea of "psychic disease" – not mental disease, as such, but a corruption of the intellect which allows otherwise sane people to do dangerously stupid things.

I think what Richard is referring to is known as 'Cognitive Dissonance', or perhaps more correctly 'Cognitive Bias' which is common to just about every belief system / religion ever invented.

We all do it. Especially when at the theatre or at the movies, we ignore glaring inconsistencies in appearance, reality and plot for the sake of being entertained. Mostly this is quite harmless, and helps take the edge off the vicissitudes of real life. The real problems begin when certain people start to take it seriously. Go to a science fiction convention when the 'hard core' fans are there and you'll understand what I mean.

As humans we indulge in such behaviour to 'fit in' with a family or peer group. To be part of something bigger than ourselves. To not stand alone in the crowd, or even to look as though you're standing alone and trying to look really tough / intellectual / appealing to whichever sex you prefer. Been there, done that, not telling..

A classic example might be otherwise sane, productive people who learn Klingon like it's a real language (and fail to see the joke). What starts as good old fashioned healthy escapism somehow twists into obsession. Similarly, the Animal Rights movement is widely supported by people who believe that animals think and feel as humans do, even when it is patently obvious that said animals don't. They wouldn't be animals otherwise. These are only two examples of legion and often end up as self reinforcing Möbius loops of ideas. Such loops of thought are so commonplace we rarely give them a moments attention. If we do, we dismiss them as mere personal eccentricity, or more darkly "Well everybody else thinks so". Even when nobody has bothered to ask 'everybody' even though somebody said they had. Yet when even the slightest examination of the idea in question demonstrates that logic, deduction and proof have little to do with it, white hot denial by the believer will be the result. It's very human. I've seen it a lot.

Sometimes the decisions made whilst under the influence of cognitive bias (Hands up those with an embarrassing / now unwanted tattoo) runs away from whoever made it, and before long consequence has taken over. Rather like not getting on terribly well with one specific person, turning it into a rabid hatred for everything they are, down to burning down the entire street they live in. The problem being that even if it is decided at some point that said person isn't so bad after all, by that time matters are so far advanced there's nothing that will stop his street being burned down and his neighbours slaughtered, because that will mean the decision makers were 'wrong'. Most people don't like to be seen as 'wrong' because that is a direct attack upon their self esteem, their self confidence. They would rather topple civilisation and create a new dark age than be exposed as a purveyor of simple personal cock-up. The higher up any hierarchy you go, the more accurate this statement becomes; mostly.

Notwithstanding, 'Belief' is a curious and wonderful force. It can drive people to do and achieve seemingly near impossible tasks. Continents have been crossed, Oceans navigated, massive edifices raised, all on the back of belief. So it is not a force to be despised. Yet belief is what happens when we don't understand, so we hide our lack of understanding behind a comfortable fictional construct, or 'lie'.

Despite our wealth of knowledge about the planet we inhabit, many of its processes are still very much a closed book, so we make stuff up so as not to look ignorant or stupid. Others believe what they're told because they don't want to look ignorant or stupid. Hence we're currently in the mess we're in.

In this specific instance, Richard is referring to the continued apparent belief amongst UK (and other) politicians that 'renewable energy' is somehow environmentally friendly, and that man made CO2 emissions somehow (Through an incorrectly demonstrated mechanism) rule the climate. This article rather blows that meme out of the water, and confirms what I've always suspected to be the truth. That we in the 'developed' West have cleaner air and water because much of the manufacturing for our bright shiny consumer toys has been offshored to China and elsewhere. Rather like a great deal of livestock production for the UK has been offshored to Middle Europe, where they aren't so picky about Animal Welfare, and Animal Rights activists don't know, or as in the case of Halal slaughter, are often too frightened of being called 'racist' to care about.

Seen one way, Richard's contention of an endemic 'Psychic disease' is all too real. Looked at from another, such blatant cognitive bias appears closely woven into the basic fabric of humanity, with the law of unintended consequences following like a shadow. It drives and motivates, just not very often in the right direction, that's all. If there is one lesson the careful study of History can teach us, it is this.

Please note; None of the above has been 'peer reviewed' but has been through extensive real-time axiom destruction testing. Empirical proofs can be made available, or made up to suit, whatever......

Real life and learning

Eldest on Skype this morning was tearful because she'd performed poorly (For her) in a test. She's passed, but she wanted to do better, and being who she is was getting pretty wound up. Mrs S began the talkdown, and I pitched in with some helpful hints upon how to address the issue. Go talk to lecturers and markers, we advised. Find out exactly what they want, not do the 100 metres conclusion jump and end up stuck in some emotional slough of despond. Eldest calmed down a little and we talked her through the process.

This triggered a number of memories about my own college studies and mentoring Mrs S through the last two years of her degree course. Now I went to Technical college and night school, not University, to get my inch thick stack of work related certificates. I'm a working stiff who expects to pay his own way, but I digress.

One of the first modules Mrs S got bogged down on was on system security. On the first test in the module, she scored a disappointing fifty six percent, and just like Eldest, got all emotional and tearful about it. She knew she had all her facts right, she could backtrack to the source information, and yes, it said exactly what she wrote down in the essay. The facts were definitely there. In our estimation the test mark should have been far higher. It was down to me to give her a hug and do the 'there, there' thing even when I should have been doing my own stuff. I pointed out that maybe it wasn't the core information, it was her presentation that was at fault. "But that way it doesn't make sense!" Mrs S protested. "I've tried that in my job and it doesn't work!"
To which I replied; "Yes dear, but perhaps that's the way they want your information presented."
"We did that two years ago. It's crap!" She said angrily.
"You know it doesn't work. I know it won't work, but this is University, not real life." I responded, wondering idly if the off licence was still open so I could buy more Whiskey. What with the emotional fallout from the course and teenage stepdaughters I tended to need the odd large drink during those years.

After a great deal of grumbling, I got her to ask her course advisers a number of pointed questions specific to the text in the low mark essay, and together we formulated a strategy. Mrs S restructured her subsequent submitted pieces of work to the required format and guess what? After a couple of tries her marks shot up to eighty six percent. A clear thirty percent increase, all because she asked the Lecturers how they wanted the essay submissions structured. Her marks throughout the next two years never dipped below seventy nine percent per essay (Including finals), for which she got a respectable 2:1.

After that, Mrs S went back to her job and carried on as she had before. The degree certificate is mounted in a nice frame, but the learning it took to get is hardly used. Mainly because the gulf between academia and real life is often quite a broad one.

As an apprentice, I recall working alongside those more academically gifted and looking at the work they turned out. Oft was heard the plaintive cry of; "Yeah, but that's what the textbook said!" When flinty-eyed Managers asked why this or that had gone pear shaped. As a lowly apprentice, I hid my smirk and learned to trust the input of my senses, developing my 'Engineers feel' of metals and measuring tools. Happy to be a lowly Technician and not a high flyer. We used to reckon it took a good three to five years at least to get an Engineering graduate to a reasonable standard of competence, such were some of the howlers our graduates designed. A 12ft long, unsupported lateral shaft was one such classic (Massive vibration due to microscopic changes in material density would have shaken it apart), critically overloading phases in electrical plant another. Mostly these were fundamental errors we Technicians had learned about in our first year. You could almost hear our eyes rolling up into heads sometimes. However, as lowly spanner and screwdriver wielders, our opinions were not required because we weren't educated enough. Indeed.

This of course was in the days pre Blair's 'Ejucashun, educayson, edcashun' when academic rigour was more, well, rigorous. This is not to disparage Degree courses, but my point is that academic excellence does not always equip one for the outside world, which has let's say, broader boundaries. The world is a far more complex place than University alone can prepare you for. Rather like not every member of MENSA being a millionaire.

Ergo, it is my contention that not everything that emerges from say purely academic 'peer review' should be taken as gospel. Particularly studies based upon pure statistics. Interesting? Yes. Worth discussion and evaluation? Of course. Implementation without testing? Definitely not. That is what 'Science' is for, a process of weeding out the unworkable and just plain impossible to produce something that works. Axioms must be tested, dogmas challenged. All else is Alchemy, which produces nothing but some odd smells, lost fortunes, and perhaps some heavy metal poisoning.

Yet every day the media leaps on some published academic 'study', which should be no more than the starting point for discussion and testing, and posits that this is the answer to life, the Universe and everything. From medicine and disease to mass extinctions and our ever changing climate. No matter how many times cataclysmic predictions fail, like a legion of zombies they are dusted off, stood up again, and sent lurching back into the public domain. A whole stage of the scientific method is bypassed by scientifically semi literate campaigners, a sensationalising media and grant-hungry researchers. Guess who our politicians react to in their ignorance? Got it in one.

It's probably why the UK has a plague of near-useless Wind Turbines, why unvaccinated children die of otherwise preventable diseases, basic liberties have been eroded, and people take pills that may be doing more harm than good.

Looking East

Based as we are on the West coast, China and the Sinosphere in general are major players when it comes to BC's economy. So it was not with a happy pair of eyes that I viewed the pessimism alluded to here. There're also concerns over the current high price of gold, which some are predicting will go 'pop' in the near future.

Now such economic doom and gloom is rather like the tide and winds. It comes and goes, and whoever watches carefully may, and indeed do make fortunes.

Regarding China, I look at the current economic boom and wonder how long it can last. Also, what are the ramifications for when it does go belly up? My reasons for thinking so are as follows;

1: China Manufactures, and is dependent for its increasing wealth on how much it can sell to everyone else.

2: China's biggest market is the USA. The presses at the US mint must be running red hot to supply enough dollars to pay for the consumer goods China produces.

3: The only reason 1 & 2 happen is because the US Dollar is the World's reserve currency. It is the 'Gold standard', and with it all else rises or falls.

Now;

4: China is the biggest buyer / holder of US sovereign debt. Which means it is effectively keeping the US economy going.

5: If the US Dollar, for whatever reason, ceases to be the worlds reserve currency, where is a market for China's goods big enough to replace it?

6: Given that if the Dollar does go haywire (All right, more haywire than at present) and the Chinese dump their massive Dollar holdings, what happens? The USA goes bust and can't afford any more lovely shiny consumer goods from the busy Chinese manufactories, the Dollar gets sidelined, and the landfill hits the windfarm. Bingo! From first to third world in five seconds flat, taking the interconnected economies of the West (and East) down with it.

The Russians will be laughing, as they have massive reserves, and Europe has increasing energy needs. Canada will take a big hit because our markets are mainly south of the 49th parallel. Australia might find their Coal exports to china sitting on the dock, or taking a big (20%+) hit in price. Because without a mass market, the Chinese, who are the Aussies biggest market for coal, won't need the power. India will suffer a similar fate. So it's reasonable to assume that the economic path we are currently on leads to the edge of a very steep cliff.

Okay, so what's the solution Mr Oh-so-clever Bill Sticker?

Here goes. My thinking on the matter follows this route; massive deficits are being run up by various Western nations which are unsustainable. Huge vote buying social programmes (including Social Security) eat up the fiscal budget. I include health care, and all (Which is most) associated funding. There are too many people in the public sector who have been taking too much for too long. Too many people not actually producing or trading anything. A whole Golgafrincham 'B' ark full. They need to be productive, not just chair polishers. Administration alone will be the economic death of the West.

So, what's the solution? Am I saying that we need a massive human die-back or something? No, nothing quite so drastic, as there is one currently in progress from the 'Baby boom' of the 1940's and 50's, although there will be a 20 year lag before the effects of this will be felt. A return to more traditional 'extended family' dwelling, with three or even more generations living in the same house, might ease the pressure on living space. This will be the lot of the less economically active.

Okay, so no real answer yet. However, there is one, and I'm afraid at this point I can already see the eyes rolling up into heads at "Oh, that old chestnut". Something more tangible than the movement of small green pieces of paper. Finance for finance sake is rather like Fantasy Football, the numbers rapidly become just a way of keeping score, and any reference to the real world evaporates. Finance, at least in my world view, is the equivalent of electricity. It powers the making of the tangible. Perhaps that's too simplistic a weltanschauung, but there you go.

Like most species on this planet we are expansionist. Humans need new frontiers and empty space to expand into, or else conflict, famine, and mass death result. This is the biggest lesson of human history. Apart from the extreme Neo-Malthusian faction of Environmentalists, I think none of us want to see that happen. Well, at least no-one who isn't a complete Sociopath with all the social development of a thirteen year old testosterone freak.

My long-term solution to the coming Sino-Western crisis is this; Per ardua ad astra. Investment in properly funded international programmes to get at least some of mankind seriously off this rolling ball of rock across to another. In the process providing productive employment and sustenance for those with their feet still on the ground, including a continuing market for Chinese and other manufactured goods, and spin off technology for everyone. Our (humankind) future gets a reasonable future. Win-win I think.

The alternative really doesn't bear thinking about.

Just thinking....

At the risk of veering into tinfoil hat 'conspiracy' territory, I'd like to explore a thought if I may. The components of the thought have been provided by coverage of recent events in both the lamestream and the more sceptical news outlets, and my recent fruitless foray in writing to politicians. Sorry to bang on about this climate thing, but this blog, as I've occasionally mentioned is my toxic thought dump. This is a toxic thought, this is where it gets dumped. Simples.

Having gone through the patronising garbage thrown back by the various UK and EU politicians I contacted, the consensus was that they knew best, and no, they were going to keep throwing taxpayer dollar into the 'You're all doomed' propaganda effort, as personified by the offensive 10:10 video. Which considering there is no empirical evidence to link man made carbon dioxide emissions with increasing temperature, is a bit strange. Surely they must have sought the opinion of experts who don't share Hadley CRU's version of events. Just to check that they were doing the right thing. Yet despite a veritable sceptical cacophony of well informed voices, UK politicians respond by carrying on with the same shit, different day.

Now, here's my thinking; could it be because they have got so used to the tax money extorted from the working public, that like some hopeless junkie they'll do and rationalise anything not to lower 'green taxes', or is there an element of something else?

Now just for the sake of argument let's make the following assumption; that people like Cameron, Clegg and Huhne are no cleverer than the average businessman. This is not an unreasonable assumption. There once was a saying that the 'fool of the family' entered the church, now the same dictum is applied to politicians. Now this is average dinner table talk when our clan get together, and sets me to thinking, why do politicians create more problems than they solve? A politician needs to have a little bit of something about them to get elected, well, apart from a well-oiled party machine in a notoriously partisan constituency. So no, you can't be totally thick. Axiom destruction test - Fail.

Right, so having established that politicians aren't that stupid, what else could account for their failure to accept what's really going on? Could it be the money? After all, there's a hell of a lot of moolah tied up in this climate / carbon trading malarkey. Although not so much since the North American Carbon trading market tanked, and the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsed into a fiscal black hole. Yes, well I'm sure some have, and fortunes have been made by selling up ahead of the collapse, and short selling during the rapid decline, but at the moment, no. Same for the tax thing. Sure, the tax dollars prop up the UK and EU exchequers during this economic downturn, but it's not the whole story. There's something missing. If it was purely the money, then the recession would have been the big wake-up call. Ditch the green taxation because it's a massive drag on economic activity, but the reverse has been true. Instead of fading into the woodwork as you might expect, the 'It's all mankind's fault' propaganda machine has been in overdrive. On the taxpayer dollar. Greensleaze and a host of other, similar parasitic growths on the body politic are still doing nicely thank you. So why? Economic logic would dictate that they would be the first bunch of mindless jerks up against the fiscal wall when the downturn came. Yet for them it's business as usual while others freeze under stationary windmills.

Okay, so we've established that it's not always the money, and it's not complete stupidity; so what is the answer. Watch John Hurt in great form as a ranting demagogue and the answer unfolds.

Yes, but why do we need so many of these people? Is that part of the incessant droning propaganda behind the man made climate meme? Some form of job justification exercise for the otherwise unemployable? Having had contact with my local constituency MP, I wouldn't hire him to scrub floors, because I'd have to send another worker in to go over the bits he'd missed. Competent is an adjective he does not merit.

Let's face it, when EU legislation gets cut and pasted straight onto the UK statute books, why do we need many UK politicians? Especially those in ministerial roles. They blithely disrespect the voices of their constituents and talk about 'nudging' people in the 'right' direction. Yet these politicians are following the self same policies that took the UK, and much of the Western world nosediving into penury, as the last lot. Yet they have the temerity to tell others what to do?

Climate change as a political job creation programme? Hmm. Now I've explored the thought it makes a weird kind of sense. Why do we need them? Police don't need politicians to enforce the law. The guys who fix the roads don't need politicians to tell them where the potholes are. Doctors and Nurses don't need to be told how to treat sick people. People don't need to be verbally bludgeoned about healthy lifestyles. You don't live healthily (For you), you get sick. If the EU is in charge anyway, why does the UK need people like Cameron, Clegg, Huhne, and that buzz cut blockhead Milliband anyway? Except to fix stuff which ain't really broke.

Rather reminds me of that old Flanders and Swann comedy song; 'It all makes work for the working man to do' a.k.a. 'The Gas man cometh'. Only several orders of magnitude more expensive.


Just thinking....

Posession?

Was chatting to a work buddy today about this and that. I mentioned about recently finishing my perusal of the novel 'Madame Zee' by Pearl Luke. Now the main character of the account was a real live person involved in a local scandal during the late 1920's and early 30's. For anyone who's interested I'm linking to the tale of the notorious 'Brother XII' and his founding of the Aquarian Foundation. Quite the local legend.

The conversation drifted as conversations do, and we light heartedly discussed various associated items like Aleister Crowley. As well as the profanity associated with much UK television comedy.

It was then that a number of my thoughts collided with a big chilly iceberg of a notion. What if the UK is possessed, as in demoniacally? It would explain quite a lot of my experiences there. Why people there seem so quick to turn into yapping, snarling junkyard dogs at the least provocation. Neighbours who take revenge for imagined slights. Screaming children everywhere you turn, the 'rights' culture which brings people out in rash incontinent abuse if you have the temerity to even politely aver to their loutish or unreasonable behaviour. My goodness! So that's what it is! You poor buggers in the the UK are under Demonic possession!

No wonder everything there seems to have gone down the toilet.

Wonder how that happened? Did Tony Blair sell the nations souls to Satan to win three elections on the trot? Does Gordon Browns head revolve and exude green slime in unguarded moments? Has David Cameron inherited this curse? By the look of some of the people I ran into whilst there this year, could Satan have rejected them because they would have lowered the tone of Hades?

All things are possible. Now I'm off to bed and I'm leaving the light on, thank you.

Having visited the valleys of the Trolls

Oh what fun. I pay a couple of daily visits to the UK Daily Telegraph comment threads between tasks for a little light entertainment. The most entertaining are James Delingpole and Christopher Booker, not so much for the articles, but for the silliness of a small number of trolls, including I think a couple of Turing 'bots.

Just for fun, I like to do a little hit and run posting, but I just don't have the stamina for the stuff like Richard North's heavy duty anti-troll sniping, or the near continual presence of contributors like Reality Returns or the ubiquitous Horace. One can only admire their persistence against a horde of hostile commenters.

The thing that nudges my curiosity button is why do those espousing leftist views spend so much time there? They only end up getting roundly ridiculed for their half assed attacks on the articles and their general poor understanding of the world. They convert no one and convince even fewer. If the left of centre philosophy were so superior it would be self evident. It would have produced the perfect society by now; but it hasn't and it won't. There are mass graves as memorials to such hubris.

At present the Libertarian movement is being equated with being 'right wing' and bad. As one whose sympathies lie with greater individual freedom, I find a lot of the trollish assertions baffling. Their pervading view appears to be 'Individual choice = bad and state intervention = good'. My reasoning is as follows; given that the 'State' is remote from an individuals day to day life, isn't the expectation of cradle to grave intervention a bit well, over optimistic? To me the greater state is very much a blunt instrument which is unable to react in a timely and relevant matter to specific circumstance.

Dealing with such an entity always reminds me of the old analogy of kicking the tail of an Apatosaurus to stop it eating all your trees. It takes a metaphorical week for the message to arrive at said slow Saurians brain, which then only has a limited number of options available to it. Then it takes another week for the message to travel back before you get slapped sideways by a flick of said tail. Which is the only way it has of responding. Spend any time trying to talk to UK local Government, or any large bureaucracy for that matter, and you'll understand what I mean.

Based on the above, does it make sense to put your trust in a large, amorphous organisation which only deals in a limited number of one size fits all solutions? Or to leave the problem solving to smaller, more autonomous units closer to the issue in question? The Leftist trolls don't understand that small can not only be more beautiful, but far more reactive and efficient. However, that won't keep them in non-jobs or cosy little sinecures, which is what they really desire. Those kind of jobs are predominantly the purview of an enlarged, bureaucratic state or large corporate entity which can afford such luxuries.

However, the days of these jobs are rapidly coming to an end unless some bright spark can come up with a new way of generating money, apart from trying to tax the very air we breathe or water we drink, or the cost of travelling. There are too many people in the Western world who think the world owes them a living. Too many who do not produce something tangible but deign to tell others who can, what to do. This is the lesson waiting to be learned. In the valleys of the trolls.

Risk and fear

Out and about yesterday, bargain hunting for kitchen gear in the sales. Mrs S had baggsyed the drivers seat, so I'm relaxing in the co-pilots position letting my mind wander. Found myself thinking about the mechanics of the risks we all take on a daily basis. For example, sitting in the front passenger seat in traffic at some eighty kph could be compared with falling face first off a wall. Say there was no engine, windscreen, seat belt or airbag in front of me and I came to an abrupt halt, there is a distinct chance that I would not survive. Particularly if that sudden halt was occasioned by a solid concrete wall. Yet many people take equivalent risk daily without even a single nod towards the consequences. To even fully consider the consequences would mean you'd spend your days in a permanent state of abject grovelling terror.

A century ago such a mode of travel would have been inconceivable. Yet today most of us shrug off even the merest notion that we are an eyeblinks inattentiveness from serious injury or death. Then you see the self same people worrying themselves sick over stuff with an infinitesimal risk factor, like pesticide residues, mobile phone radiation, or having the occasional drink. As they say over here, go figure.

For my own part, I'm rather glad that I never listened to the worry warts who said moving to Canada was foolish; "No Bill, you'll never make it, not qualified enough" (Shows how much they knew about me, eh?) Mrs S and I stepped up to the plate, and despite a couple of strikes (If you'll forgive the Baseball metaphor), made it along with the rest of our little clan.

There's a saying that the unexamined life is not worth living. It occurs that part of that examination must come from serious tests of the mind, body and spirit. A simple physical challenge like a Marathon is not sufficient to qualify. Any such experience must leave an indelible mark between the ears, and destruction test a persons self doubt to be truly valid. Needless to say, this entails considerable risk, especially financial.

Sometimes I've been given to thinking that if I'd known what the immigration road ahead had been like; I'd have thought twice back in 2001 before giving my solemn oath to Mrs S that we would emigrate. Instead of taking a deep breath, nodding, and saying; "Though hell itself should bar the way." Let me tell you, there's a considerable downside to this trying to do the right thing all the time. In the intervening nine years we've pretty much destruction tested our relationship and both become more than we were. All because we decided to confront our natural fear of the unfamiliar and manage the inevitable risk of taking a chance.

I'm enjoying it so far. I think.

Electric cars

This post has been generated by three cross currents of thought. The first was seeing one of those conspiracy theory 'Documentaries' about how wicked 'Big Oil' killed off some whizzy super electric vehicle supposed to replace all those pollution spewing Internal Combustion Engine propelled cars and trucks. The second was a piece in the Tellytubbygraph about subsidies for Electric cars. The third was a conversation I had about practical technologies with a work buddy.

Now electrically powered cars have been around a long time. Over 100 (One hundred) years. The technology is relatively simple. Electro Magnetic Force (Electricity, or plain old 'leccy' as the transfer of electrons along a conductor is known) translated into rotary motion by magnetism acting on coils and windings. Yes I know that's an over simplification, but this is a blog, not an encyclopaedia, for goodness sake.

Electric motors work. So long as there is sufficient electricity, they work very well indeed, and quite efficiently. Ideal for driving a vehicle you might think. Well, yes and no. The thing is, that while electric motors are a relatively efficient means of converting power into motion, independent electrical storage media (a.k.a. batteries) have not attained this level of utility. The major issue is recharge, and the time it takes to recharge the storage media without it blowing up.

Batteries are in their simplest terms Electro-chemical devices used to store and release electrical energy. They do this by a chemical reaction which releases electrons from atoms, which in their turn barge into the electron shells of other conductor atoms, thus creating a 'flow' of electricity. Again, this is an over simplification of the process, but my previous point about this being a very generalist blog still applies. It may surprise my reader that power storage devices of this nature have altered little over the past couple of thousand years. Two differing conductors and an electrolyte are all that is required. Modern batteries have come a long way from the old Lead / Acid contraptions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. but they still rely on the same principle. Charging too fast will overstimulate the chemical reaction within the battery and make it overheat, and even explode. So recharge times must be adhered to, lest you end up with a recharge station full of toxic chemical sludge and fast moving shards of metal and plastic. Short of some form of fast electrolyte recharge, where the old fluid is pumped out and replaced with fresh (Which doesn't replace / repair corroded anodes and cathodes incidentally), there is the major issue with electric cars. Not function, but recharge and recharge system longevity.

Perhaps some other process which 'refreshes' the electrolyte and shifts those pesky ions (Charged particles) to the correct end of the battery might be an idea. Whether such a process could be made to work or not would be down to whomsoever could crack the chemistry. Then you've opened the environmental can of worms about what you do with tonnes of exhausted battery electrolyte, which would be a by product of all those chemical recharges.

Until the electrical storage issues I have outlined above are resolved, the truly practical Electric Car will remain an expensive short range vanity item not worth spit in cold weather. As far as I'm concerned, the five thousand pound subsidies are worthless because the batteries need to be replaced for around $9000 (about six thousand quid) a pop after five years (or even less). God alone knows what the resale value of such vehicles might plummet to.

There's also a big question mark over how much pollution these things are responsible for. As far as I can see they simply defer, rather than produce no emissions. Power will still need to be generated to drive the things, and that will require a more robust energy grid, should the recharging business ever be solved. Then there is the pollution from Rare Earth production that goes into making modern batteries. Maybe that was why GM etc crushed all those leased EV1's, because the cost of battery replacement outweighed the economic benefits of leasing, and the future state-imposed costs of recovery / recycling. When it comes to the Electric Car, I still think Edison had it right over a century ago.

The various screw ups and bad curry-like repetition of the Electric car idea is what happens when people who don't understand technology manage high tech projects, or make ill-informed rules to buy votes. No conspiracy, just everyday human cock-up.

Jante Law

1: Don't think you're anything special.
2: Don't think you're as much as us.
3: Don't think you're wiser than us.
4: Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
5: Don't think you know more than us.
6: Don't think you are more than us.
7: Don't think you are good at anything.
8: Don't laugh at us.
9: Don't think anyone cares about you.
10: Don't think you can teach us anything.
11: Don't think there's anything we don't know about you.
12: Don't even try or we'll pull you down.

Described in the 1933 novel A Fugitive Crosses His Tracks by Aksel Sandemose

Does this sound awfully and creepily familiar? A classic insight into the trollish mentality?

A.K.A. "Crab bucket Syndrome". Endemic in the UK. An excellent exposition of which is outlined in Terry Pratchett's 'Unseen Academicals'

Hottest year on record......... Not

Keep on hearing that this year is apparently the 'hottest on record'. Where? Certainly not locally or in the UK, despite hearing that politicians with all the intellectual nous of roadkill are committed to the 'low carbon economy'. Or should that read 'should be committed'. What with the current cold snap, the declarations that it's been the 'hottest year ever' look increasingly like someone's 'avin a larf.

Summer was definitely cooler this year, both in the UK and on Vancouver Island, not to mention in the southern hemisphere, where sub tropical rivers lost half their reptile population to the cold. Sorry guys, I just can't see this global warming that's going to kill my grandchildren. I can forsee them having to take up Winter sports for much of the year, but drowning because the sea levels are rising, or dying of heat exhaustion? No.

Tell you the truth, I'm more concerned that the North Korean business will turn into a real shooting war with genuine value added nuclear fallout with a side order of Iranian attack and Israeli pre-emptive strike. That Ahvegottadinnerjacket character with all his talk of 'Ambassadors of Death' might just prove nutty enough to pull the nuclear trigger, as might the North Koreans. The fallout from that little show would definitely put a crimp in everybody's day.

Although having looked at the situation a bit more closely, I get the impression that the current North / South Korea spat is one of those high testosterone bits of sabre rattling that the North Koreans appear to be fond of. Same for the Iranians.

Perhaps we'll all get lucky and one of their cheap 'n nasty missiles will detonate on the pad, demonstrating to the world how flaming dangerous these things truly are, and why little boys should not play with such fireworks. A few square kilometres of vitrified landscape might prove a sober reminder to such regimes that Nuclear war is the biggest lose-lose scenario going, and besides dahlings, it's sooo twentieth century.

On the upside, such an event would certainly put the whole global warming bandwagon on the back burner. With even the loony Huhne in Cancun and cohorts might be given pause. Additionally I'm told the weather down there ain't so hot as it usually is. Currently cloudy and wet all week, according to the local forecast. Those delegates who'd planned to hit the beach are in for a disappointing stay methinks.

You know, on reflection, it would be even more apposite if Al-Quaeda managed to smuggle a warhead into the climate conference and set it off. A bit of a shame for Cancun, as I'm told it can be very nice down there, but getting rid of all those delegates would mean that the average intelligence of politicians might go up a percentage point on average and take people's minds off the current wikileaks scandal.

Hmm. There's a thought to conjour with. Think of it as evolution in action.

What use is a dog?

Now I'm a 'dog' person (I also like cats, but that's by-the-by), I grew up with a dog in the house, and feel that a dog is the best barometer of a household. I've also formed the opinion that a place where people live is less of a home without a dog. They are a symptom of life and useful gauge of happiness. Especially a crossbreed or 'Mutt'. Pedigrees are a bit more tricky, having been bred mostly to a specific function and generally speaking host to a temperament which can be best described as 'Mercurial'.

Notwithstanding, my own preference is for a 'Mutt', with all their eccentricities. If dogs can be used as a reflection of their owners nature, then mine is a friendly and sometimes over enthusiastic goofball. However, when it comes to being useful, that ball of fur slumped in the office doorway earns his home and comfort just by being who he is.

My dog more than earns his keep as guardian and friend. Apart from his predilection for silent but deadly farts when Mrs S and I decide to watch a little televisual entertainment, he makes a great footwarmer on cold evenings. His hearing is many times more sensitive than a humans, warning of visitors before they get halfway up the drive. His sense of smell has an acuity many times more than the most accurate human, and possibly way more discriminating than any man made device. Although what is Chanel No 5 to him (Bear and Deer droppings) are something he and I will have to disagree on. Yet his sense of smell has prevented household fires and several other potentially hazardous situations. Yes, a good mutt is hard to beat, and mine is a good 'un.

It matters not that his lifespan is much shorter than mine, and that I will grieve terribly when he dies at the age of 17 or so years. More so because it will be me who finally has to hold him in my arms as he draws his last doggy breath. We will have had the shared joy of life, and a new pooch will have been found before then both to give him company and for him to train in the ways of master and house in his declining years, and so our parting will not be such a yawning chasm of loss.

On a slightly connected topic, having watched the growing furore over the invasive and insensitive TSA body searches and scans wonder why the hell more dogs have not been employed in US airports. Yet for all their shortfalls, as a first line of defence they are the best tool in the box. Instead of the tiresome 'everyone has to be scanned' mentality, why aren't the Yanks using a more layered response? At Vancouver airport there's always a dog or two on patrol, and being walked past a trained animal who can detect explosives more readily than a human with a backscatter x-ray device should be more effective. One or two animals walked around the departure gates are not only a first line alert for filtering out the bad guys, but also get round the massive queuing issues that make air travel such a chore.

I'm sure there are people out there who are cynophobic, or have a cultural bias against dogs, but they are in a minority and would have to go through the body scanner regardless. I know dogs aren't infallible, but they're a good first line of defence. If everyone goes through the metal detectors anyway, the airport queues move faster and still filter out the nutters who think that blowing aircraft out of the sky with them on board is somehow very intelligent. This may be unfair to some, but far better a little unfairness to a few, than a great deal to many, as at present.

A well placed dog can help get round quite a number of security issues on a number of levels. Either as a detector or deterrent. So, dogs are useful. Even flop eared, goofy, and occasionally smelly pets like mine. We need more of them. Especially when the enemy doesn't like them much.

Winging it

Well, if you listen to some sources, those who believe in the sovereign rights of the individual are filthy 'right wing' scum. Ookay, does this mean that the following tenets of liberty are evil, such as the right of individuals to;

a) Control their own lives and bodies
b) Own pretty much what they want from their own efforts
c) Talk to who they like, when they like
d) Go where they want

So long as no one does witting harm to others, and makes reparation for same if they do.

So that belief set is somehow very bad, eh?

Hmm....... Yet when you weigh up the alternatives, like;

a) Cradle to grave subjugation by others
b) Collectivisation, regardless of contribution
c) No right to opinions or associations but those approved by 'superiors'
d) Travel and recreation only if sanctioned by 'superiors'

Well, that doesn't seem so great to me. Besides, hasn't this type of society been tried several times during the 20th century and failed miserably? If it was so great, then why did the Soviets need Gulags for dissidents?

No, if Liberty and belief in the rights of the individual is 'right-wing' then I'm a filthy right wing scumbag (Swivel-eyed only when specifically called upon - as my Mum said; "If the wind changes you'll stick like it") and proud of it.

Here endeth the Sunday sermon.

Reading, Rioting and Arithmetic

Having watched footage of rioting students in London, I'm minded to make one of my 'modest proposals' with regards to University education. Whilst I never had the privilege of going to University, for privilege it is, I've formed the opinion that some things are best taught at University and others are just a waste of classroom time.

Universities down the centuries have nurtured great minds and helped make superb advances in some subjects, but in others, I wonder why they bother. Now subjects like Medicine, Law, Physics, Geology, and all the 'hard' science courses, even Engineering, can be taught to degree level. No problem there. I even think there is a very sound economic case for free education for those who will contribute to the wealth and well being of society far better for having had highly specialised teaching. Even commercial courses should have some discounted fee structure, this is only sensible and proper. It also makes sound commercial sense. Certain cultural courses like Languages, History, and what are called 'The Classics' are not without value and should likewise be well funded by the public purse.

On the other hand, there are subjects which Universities should receive no funding for whatsoever, and no grants or loans should be available for them. The ones I have in mind are PPE's (Political Science) and the various 'soft' subjects such as the 'Social Sciences'. Whilst there will always be a need for Physicists and other scientific researchers, Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and Business Managers, the rest can go hang. Why should the University system be used to fund what are little better than vanity degrees? It merely devalues the degree as a mark of academic excellence.

I'm in favour of a free higher education for those of an academic and / or high level technical bent. What I'm not in favour of is sending the world and his / her / it's partner of choice through a system better suited for the brightest and best.

A change in the tide?

Today, with a light frosting of snow on nearby mountains, I'm taking time out to briefly review what is happening that may be cause for real hope and change, not the ersatz stuff promised by a certain politicians speechwriters.

The infamous Digital Economy act, one of the last spasms of the much despised UK Labour Government, is up for judicial review.

All around, the proponents of man made Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change / Disruption have discovered the feet of clay attached to their god. The consensus that never was is shown up for the fraud it always has been.

In the US, the statists have found themselves dethroned by a loose coalition of activists. The advocates of individual freedom and responsibility, long despised and disparaged, are gaining mainstream credibility.

It's more a feeling than anything else, but I'm hopeful enough to think that this is an 'El Alemain' moment. Not a victory. For the war against the statist busybodies is far from over, but a turning point nonetheless. The statist bandwagon, having reached its highest ebb, has run out of money. It has no choice but to retreat.

Now that is hope and change I can believe in.