Saturday, September 12, 2009

[thought for the day] saturday evening


It's been a long time since this was run, mainly, I suppose because I ran out of good quotes, I got bored wie-it and Deogulwulf runs a cottage industry in it. However, a real rip-snorter came up today and here it is:

Women often boast about whom they could kill but, in my experience, when faced with even the remotest risk of injury they tend to hide behind the men. Women talk of killing, safe in the belief that they are unlikely ever to have to kill. Men live with the knowledge that one day they may have to hazard their own lives to take that of another, and so killing has less appeal for them. Nevertheless, men willingly take on the dirty work that women, ever 'prepared' to kill, fear to do.

[William Gruff, Kentish Man, now of Lancashire [now corrected], c.2009]

[late evening listening] two halves - part two

This is my late contribution this evening. I ask only that you give it a chance.

Street waif/homeless child [Беспризорник]. Hi Fi combined modern pop with Russian accordion, particularly after 3:03, a blend of old and new. The group sent strange signals - in the video clip, they come on as street-hardened youths but the lyrics undercut it:

I'm alone, like the wind, I drink what the earth offers; after a difficult day, towards evening, the light also wishes to sleep. Where are you, my guardian angel? Take me, if you can, to heaven. I ran away from home to wander in fairytale places. Take me home, Mama, I want to go home. I'll be a good boy.

As you can see, the lyrics and the video clip don't match. This was one reason they didn't take off - their mixed signals put them in neither one camp nor the other, not unlike this blog and yet the song is good:





One of the most respected crooners in Russia but with an eccentric edge was/is Valerie Meladze. He had some great hits and this was one of his staples - Oh, how beautiful you are today [Как ты красива сегодня]. Here is the last verse and refrain:

Perhaps time can help me get you to return; each evening I shall remember you this day. How beautiful you are today; there is, in my heart, neither pain nor trouble. Oh how beautiful you are today, how brightly you shine.

A Russian would smile at the liberties I took with the translation but it was to smooth it out. Why don't you try to follow the words below as you listen to the last verse and refrain? There are two verses and one refrain before this:

Может быть, время кого-то и лечит
Только мне помощь его не нужна
Ты возвращайся, а я каждый вечер
Буду тебя вспоминать

Как ты красива сегодня
Нет в моем сердце ни боли, ни зла
Как ты красива сегодня
Как ты сегодня светла


[late evening listening] two halves - part one

From the Titanic Captain [The Economic Voice]:



"The video is by Soul Savers, it is an ambiguous song that one would think is a Christian Gospel hymn by a quick listen which it may have aspects of but the cleverness of the simplistic lyrics shows that there is far more to this song than just praise the lord...infact it doesn't say praise the Lord at all but it is reminiscent of King David's psalms where he is crying out to God and questioning his existence....Many things can be read into this piece of music and video.

There is a journey within scenes cutting back to previous events in the main characters life that suggest a dark journey and searching for redemption. That redemption is the main ambiguous question. Does he seek redemption from a woman or from God or Both? his sins are briefly mapped out in the video.....Oh I don't bloody know but its a great song and Video so please enjoy."

[hunting ban] to repeal or not to repeal

Fox - predator or lovable varmint?

Spectator yesterday, [and note their emotive photo], on the repeal of the hunting ban:

However, there is an idea doing the rounds in Conservative circles as to how the party could get around this problem. Rather than a bill devoted exclusively to repealing the hunting ban, there would be one that would concentrate on a whole host of civil liberties issues including ID cards.

Hunting would merely be a section of it, with a free vote on the issue. This way the party would avoid the appearance of spending a considerable amount of time on the relatively fringe issue of hunting and would get to frame repeal of the ban as a civil liberties issue.

Your not-so-humble blogger has no real opinion on this but was struck by the amount of emotion displayed against him when a fox ran in front of his car on a northern road years ago. It's certainly an emotive issue.

[ripping day] go for a walk, come back and write a letter


Fabulous down by the water though we have quite a breeze over our way. I've just got back and it was a nice ride and walk today. Apparently they have a festival over in Hull and good luck to them - big crowds were never my thing.

Reports are coming in from friends that the weather is superb across Britain ... oops ... England ... oops ... Albion [?] ... and it's too nice to blog. So let's handwrite instead.

When was the last time you wrote a letter to a friend, addressed and sealed the envelope, then went for a wander and dropped the letter in the post box? When was the last time you wrote on plain paper, using copperplate [see pic below]. That's an interesting pic because the writing is on mathematics paper, not writing paper.

There is such rubbish in google images about copperplate - people claiming it is when it is actually cursive and sites purporting to teach handwriting and saying things like: "You might think that handwriting involves buying a fountain pen ..."

Well actually it does and for good reason. If you look at the script below, you'll see heavy strokes [downstrokes] and light strokes [upward flourishes]. To achieve the thick/thin effect, your pen nib must at least be able to spread on the way down and close up on the way up. A fountain pen does this best but a brush will also achieve this. Some felt-tips partially achieve it. A ball point simply doesn't cut it.

The whole point of copperplate, in addition to the distinctive f, j, q, r, s and z, is the straight downstroke and the looped flourish, which involves not only your fingers but your arm, shoulder and mind to make smooth. The essential thing is not to be pedantic about the tricky letters and your idiosyncratic way of doing them but to be pedantic about smoothness and consistency.

Copperplate brands you and writing letters by hand also brands you. Whilst your humble correspondent is a fan of the electronic post, put yourself in the position of the recipient. How would you feel getting a handwritten letter in a good quality envelope tucked in amongst all the bills and such like? How would you feel opening it up with your prize letter opener, lifting out the parchment and reading the six or seven pages scripted by a close friend?

Personally, I'd be delighted.


[infantile] the new watchword for governments

This is a fabulous pic of the cockpit of an Airbus. Click the pic to get the big layout.

Here they go again, governments.

I don't know anything about the Australian political scene nor who this Minister is but his rhetoric sounds quite familiar:

Mr Albanese [Labor Government] used question time to blast the [Conservative] Opposition and the pilots' union for opposing a regulation that would restrict cockpit access to authorised personnel and make pilots responsible for breaches. In a stinging broadside, Mr Albanese said governments and not the pilots' union should determine aviation safety.

The Transport Minister said it was ''completely unsatisfactory'' to have pilots regulating who could enter the cockpit. ''I am of the view that the government, not the pilots on the plane, should decide regulation on aviation security and safety,'' Mr Albanese told Parliament yesterday.

''That is my view and that is the view of the airlines - it is completely unsatisfactory for such an important measure in such a vital security regime to rely on industry self-regulation.'' Mr Albanese tried to ratchet up pressure on the Opposition and crossbench senators by raising a plane hijacking incident in Mexico this week.

The defeat of the regulations followed a strong lobbying effort by the politically influential pilots' association, which was concerned that its members could be held responsible for inadvertent breaches. But the Opposition said it defeated the regulations because they were too draconian and would have imposed unacceptable liability on pilots.

"Making a pilot criminally liable if a door is inadvertently left open by a flight attendant, even if the pilot is trying to land a plane or deal with a crisis, is bizarre in the extreme," said Opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss. "Regulations should not turn pilots into flying doormen and force them into spending more time checking that the cockpit door is closed than flying the plane."

Well, he's right of course but I wouldn't trust the Opposition's motivation either. The pilots' motivation is equally clear. Is the Labor Government really interested in stopping terrorists or, as stated, in more draconian regulation to drag all aspects of society into an overregulated, bureaucratic dystopia as in Britain, one of the more repressive regimes in the world, possibly after Italy?

And isn't it interesting a Labor Government blasting one of its unions? And isn't it interesting the childish fit of peak when it didn't get its own way? While infantilizing society, it acts in an infantile manner itself.

I find all that more than interesting.

[british values] just as other nations embrace theirs


This post is cross-posted at Tom Paine's The Last Ditch. Does Tom need any introduction? Maybe to non-Brits. He's a Top 100 Blogger, geographically based in Moscow but primarily blogging on UK issues, he's a lover of fine machinery but above all else, he is a fellow Mac user. I consider it an honour to have been allowed to spread my verbage over there as well as here - don't know what he was thinking at the time. :)


There's an interesting group called Nothing British and the words I liked in their blurb were:

We believe in addressing the concerns of those people who feel alienated from their society by government failures on issues like immigration, Europe, religious extremism and job insecurity. This means campaigning for policies that work ... the British values of democracy, tolerance, fair-play and respect for one another.

In the light of the current state of our society, this is a conservative stance or rather "reversionist" stance, wishing to re-establish values which have been lost. Well, that part I embrace, as far as I can interpret it because it might mean different things to different people.

For example, tolerance and fair-play. I think I know how these particular gentlemen see this and they are as close to absolutes as one can get. However well the British did or did not embrace these values throughout the past three centuries, one need only go to people outside of Britain to have these values defined.

I wrote a post some time back, partly on British values and of the difficulty the relativists amongst us have in defining these, in terms of the new multi-cultural "tolerance" [that word again]:

Well, come with me and let me enrol you for a month in any English department in schools of extended English learning in Russia and you can learn what British values are, if you happen to have forgotten them. Because in these schools, in texts written by British educators from Cambridge et al, is set out quite clearly what British values are.

That's the thing - people outside have no problem defining them - it's only half of those inside and the government inside who have no idea at all. A look at the citizenship test and in there are things which were not taught at any school I know of and things omitted which really should have been in there.

I'm not tolerant of these things in the least and I'm even less tolerant of the tail wagging the dog, as in Imams and other extremists dictating alien policies to our elected government. This is our country, not theirs and they either assimilate or depart, as far as I'm concerned.



Let your not-so-humble blogger pause for one moment and state something about himself. I've had, in the last 13 years, a close to unique experience in having lived in Russia and embraced their values whilst I was there, whilst retaining my Englishness - in fact, it was required of me in my work to be more English than I'd ever been.

Thus I was an "Anglichanin", not a "Britaiski". In that sense, the language I taught was English. As it is really only us who get tied up in the Westlothian and the Barnett, which require resolution, it was certainly mentioned whenever the idea of British arose but at the same time, there is a common tradition in many ways, not least in the armed forces and in education.

Angus McIvor's First Aid in English is one of the prime texts of the last generation and that says something about our common traditions but of course, there are the differences and to speak of British values will annoy a Scot when we're speaking of English values much of the time. Again though, if you look at a Scottish town like Aberdeen, you don't see a huge difference, architecturally in layout to, say, Stevenage and ........ well, let's not get into this endless loop which doesn't help the foreigner understand.

For all our differences and don't forget that I am a Witanagemot member and believe in an English parliament, it is possible to go back into our history and point to certain outlooks, character traits and common upbringing which are maybe English but are also found in the Scots and Irish. My best mate is a Scot - not a 2nd generation but a "real" Scot, taken neat. He is just as much disgusted with this government as I am and as he can't very well call himself English, he's been here all his life and so calls himself British.

Britology Watch says:

I’m not totally, negatively opposed to any attempt to affirm and rally round the things that are positive in the British tradition, history and character. On the contrary, I’m proud to be English and, by that token, British.

As he also says, "Britishness" is being used by this government to slip other ideas over to newcomers to these shores under the banner of "British" but are really nothing to do with that and disguise other, nasty agendas.

This post can't encompass all of that - it tries to leave our own internal issues to one side and present to the foreigner what British is, as distinct from what Chinese is or what French is, the positive aspects we all embrace, the ones taught in foreign schools as to what it means to be from here.



One of those British values is how we muddle along and how this has been cynically played upon and twisted and quite frankly, to have departed these shores, leaving one Britain behind and to return to find a divided land was soul destroying, to put it mildly. Changes of the very worst sort had taken place.

I was the hobbit who departed The Shire and returned to find Sharkey's men ransacking what had been a realtively good place, give or take a few issues.

The paradox is that extremists can seize on our spirit of welcome and tolerance, more a state of mind than a set of government policies and when they start sounding off about what they themselves want then, when we oppose those things, there is this ludicrous situation where we are actually the ones accused of extremism, intolerance and racism.

One right prat who's good at pulling this kind of stunt is a man called Sunny Hundal who writes for some rag that another relativist, Polly Toynbee, also writes for. Their game is to call themselves "progressive", as if this is a good thing in itself. Yep - progress to a police state and the breakdown of Britain as a nation, Brown's chosen policy.

So tolerance is a double-edged sword, isn't it?

Ecclesiastes had it right when it spoke of "a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing". It's quite possible that many, especially those born in this country yet coming from an alien culture, don't know our values and once again, I say - go to English language schools around the world and you'll soon discover what these are.



Some of our homegrown lot too, whose family history goes back into the mists of time on these isles, have lost the plot and are coming out with this rubbish that there is no such thing as a Brit, that we actually come from Africa or wherever.

What $%^&*(&*!

Anthopologically, perhaps a few thousand years back but since that time, I'd like to remind these people, we've actually created a society which has been recognized for one and a half millennia as being Anglo-Saxon and Celt and in recent centuries - British, by the common wish of those houses. That's what we are and that's what we've built. Even our very confusion over what is British ... is British.

What other nation has this problem? I also count myself a Northumbrian or Yorkshireman, for goodness sake but if I can put that to one side for the moment and look at these isles, there is something quite distinct from Namibia and Vietnam.

We're more than tolerant of new ideas, of innovation, of culturally diverse experiences - the Brits are well known for settling in other lands themselves - look at those in Spain and France for a start and I don't mean the summer yobbos. Cuisine is an area, for example, where there's been a distinct local cultural cringe for years. Readers of this blog know me to be a Europhile in where I've lived and in the culture of those places but that does not mean I'm going to be party to the totalitarian Europeanization of our home soil and the loss of all identity, something this government has worked so hard to bring about.

That's even why I have a lot of trouble on this very blog because it matters not whether you are a jailbird, Member of Parliament, white, black, Lib Dem, BNP or indifferent - your view can be put as long as you are not being extremist yourself. Telling someone I'm not putting up with their extremism is in no way, shape or form tantamount to me being extreme in not tolerating these things.

It's not extreme - it's being a brick wall and a stubborn bstd. That I plead guilty to.

There are absolutes, including moral absolutes and there is a thing called Britishness or even Englishness. It's how we were brought up, it's the values we embraced and the modes of conduct we adopted. Yes, I'm C of E, in the traditional sense and why not? Why should I apologize for that? In which other denomination can one have a good snooze on the back pews during a sermon?



It was once and shall be again, respect for G-d, Queen and country although the former is now denied by ostriches, The Firm is subject to much scrutiny these days and the latter has been decimated by the socialists. It has also always been the dissenting tradition of Defoe, the British philosophers, cricket and a cup of tea which define us.

So what's this rubbish about no Shakespeare in schools, no heritage, no pride in our nationhood? Have the French lost their Frenchness? Have the Russians lost their Russianness? Well why should we lose our Britishness and in our neck of the woods, our Englishness? Just look at the breakup planned for the poor old United States by Them and shudder because we're headed down that path as well.

One aspect of our Britishness is the bulldog strain and thus my chin juts out and says - you've very welcome here and we'll learn from you, we'll eat your food and read your literature, let me buy you an ale but if you live here, if you settle here, then it's our way or you're on your way.

Further reading on this topic from Tom here.

Friday, September 11, 2009

[u.s.a.] twilight's last gleaming


Last word on America's Day of Remembrance, appropriately, from an American.

Vox Day:

America isn't coming apart, America is dead. Ideally, the remains would be divided in three.

There would be two coastal nations where the Left could celebrate diversity, experiment with godlessness and homosexuality, experience the true joys of vibrant multiculturalism, and enjoy the economic advantages of open immigration and socialism.

And there would also be a third nation in the middle, a White Christian conservative hellhole that would guarantee the right of immediate and permanent expatriation to the liberal paradises to the east and west for any of its citizens who yearned for the panoply of "rights" on offer.

Would-be emigrants attempting to leave paradise for the reactionary hell would be shot on sight, of course. The lessons of Californication and Mexification were already old when Alaric was attempting to settle his Goths in the Eastern Empire.


[late evening listening] something lighter for 911

We've spent the day in respect. Time for a bit of fun:







[obama] when two sides come from different directions


There is a debate going on over at Alex Goodall's place where I am the lone hand putting the other point of view. Alex is a reasonable chap [and the only official "follower" of my blogrolling site, so he can do no wrong in my book] who tries to get at the truth ... but on this we disagree.

He began with:

Given all this, I’m going out on a limb. But I’m tempted to say that Barack Obama’s speech to congress yesterday night was one of his best. In terms of emotional range and sophistication of argument, I honestly can’t remember a speech like it. The intensity of the moment was no doubt magnified by the fact that its messages were delivered directly to an audience of people intimately involved in the process of negotiation.

I came in and said:

It's fascinating watching someone actually defend Obama and his policies. This shadowy figure whose antecedents are shrouded in mystery shows his dedication to the truth in this little exchange:

“I’ve always been a Christian,” the Illinois Democrat responded. “I have never practiced [Islam].”Note: The newspaper editors had to add the word, “Islam.”

In his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama mentions studying the Quran. He was enrolled in two Jakarta schools as a Muslim.

That's one little snippet.

This was intended to show that the man lies. One of Alex's readers came in and answered me this way:

James? Who gives a rat's ass what the man's religion is? And what does that have to do with health care reform? And NOW you have a problem with "debt"? Not a WORD about the trillions of dollars in debt his predecessor "plunged" us into in order to start a war with a third-rate dictator who posed no threat to America?

... then:

"Avoiding strong commitment" is not the same as lying ... But I'm a Christian. Does that make ME a liar? I would say your logic is full of holes, but then that would be assuming you employed logic in the first place.

You'll get an idea of the logic being employed by that esteemed reader. I replied:

Gentlemen, on this issue, I fear you have been deluded. Vox Day, of WND [Libertarian]:

"As for the "You lie!" comment, well, all I have to say is that there is no question that Obama was clearly lying about illegal immigrants receiving government health care. If Obama doesn't want to risk being interrupted, he should give a speech without a live audience. If he knows he's giving a speech to a live audience, perhaps he should consider not saying things that everyone knows is not true."

Slate said it and that's before we even start on the conservatives.

That did not go down well and so I posted this:

The thing is that we are arguing cross-purposes here.

DPD does not argue to the evidence [I've included in my comments what I base my view on but he bases his view on Obama's rhetorical ability, which I did not challenge.

I did challenge the word "good", as in "good speech" because a speech containing lies does not, to our side of politics, represent a good speech. I have a quote in an article on climate change later today which says:

"We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner."

Similarly, to misread the example of the religion [above] and call my argument religious is interesting, particularly when the person then attacks my logical faculties. In other words, a rush to judgement on a misreading then dropping straight into ad hominem ... and he calls that logical.

There are a great many people who do not buy Obama, particularly in America, less so in Europe, where he comes over well. His costing of the health plan was going to see health care workers initially out of work, to be compensated on the promise of dollars.

Those workers dispute Obama's figures and that they plunge the country into more debt. When a country is deeply in debt and borrowing from the IMF to stay afloat, when its citizens are suffering, one does not come in with a trillion dollar health plan where the money must come from more overseas borrowing.

One concentrates on getting industry, small and medium business back to full speed, thereby creating employment and thereby the ability to afford health insurance, without plunging the country into more debt before the green shoots become plants.

This is the fallacy of that side of politics which believes there is a "cake" to be cut and the only question is who gets what. That cake is an illusory thing, like the Cheshire cat's smile - as has been seen in the recession, with this government's policies, the cake has become a crumb.

A political view which does not encompass the notion that the productive capacity of the businesses needs support is always going to be unsustainable. To redistribute wealth, there must first be wealth.

There will always be fat cats, even under a socialized system - the apparatchiks etc. and there'll always be a poor. The question is the people in the middle. If the legal right and the facility to earn is removed by decree, then the society collapses, which is what's happening to us now.

Now to Obama. He is pursuing policies which assume a cake to distribute but he does not show how he is going to rebake that cake. His proposals include distribution but not creation of wealth. Borrowing does not equal wealth.

By his own admission, he will tax the top 1%. Fine. But he can legally only tax them so much and then they will go offshore. People like that work on incentives. It will not cover 270 million people for health care.

This is the crucial issue here. Even in our country, where are people going who can afford it? To France. The government then loses even more revenue. This is the thing the other side of politics can't seem to grasp. Capital flees.

So how does Obama's speech look, in the light of this? Quite rhetorical.

Therein lies the argument about Obama.

[politicians] write the job specifications


Every job has it's specifications and it's skills requirements. A doctor should know something of how the body works and an accountant should have a nodding acquaintance with numbers.

If you had to write the standing orders for the job of Member of Parliament/Legislature, what would be your prerequisites?

For example:

1. honesty;

2. professional qualification of some form

3. ?

4. ?

... and so on.

Treat this one seriously - what would you really require?

[sherlock again] the trouble with 100


Holmes was occupying the basket chair and Watson the armchair closer to the fire, musing on how he'd challenge his friend's mental powers. He couldn't think of any brain teasers so he simply chuckled:

"Holmes, could you add up all the numbers from one to a hundred in under a minute?"

Sherlock took the wind out of the good doctor's sails by pausing in his reading, answering, "Let me see, Watson," thinking for ten second seconds, his brain barely moving into gear, before replying:

"5050."

Watson's eyes almost popped out, as he expostulated, "But how? How? How could even you do that in such a short time?"

"Elementary my dear Watson and that's the question I leave you to puzzle over - how did I do it?

Answer

There are fifty pairs of numbers that add to 100 (100+0, 99+1, 98+2, 97+3, etc.) with the number 50 as an unpaired leftover.

[match tricks six] try before you check

Now this one doesn't easily spring to mind. You need to think laterally but it does make sense:

First arrange 12 matches to make 3 squares.

Take away 1 match, rearrange 2 matches and leave one.


Check the solution here.

You might like to try these too:

Matchtricks 1
Matchtricks 2
Matchtricks 3
Matchtricks 4
Matchtricks 5

[good news day] plus the sun's out


Good news day.


1. About 7 a.m. there was a fog over the hills and dales [I live out of town] and it was magnificent, atmospheric, the first for autumn and a portent of the beauty of England in that season, that unique phenomenon which is only found in this England. I've been in Wales, been in Scotland and Ireland and each has its own beauty. This one today made one want to go for a brisk walk.

2. The site boss came in and looked at the boiler. That was one thing but he phoned an engineer and guess what - the man not only phoned me but actually came here! Can you believe that and he repaired the fan, bled the central heating and generally did all these jolly things but we still need the timer changed.

The best part is that he left one tool behind and so he has to come back to do the other job. Plus he explained everything clearly and he was the boss of the firm, his two lads being on holiday.

3. I bought a new line from my corner shop - a salad in a plastic tub [the firm is Windsor]. So what, you might think? This salad was only £1.69 and it was not filled with lettuce leaves to make up the space - it had six or seven slabs, not wafer thin slices, of chicken, two eggs in slices and a quarter of a tomato [can't expect too much there] plus onion rings and the lettuce of course.

The container was 15cm x 11cm x 5cm and you can get a lot of food inside those dimensions. I was full after it and I'm going to tell my shopkeeper to keep that line going.

4. The sun is beaming down outside.


[climate change] there are other issues interwoven with it which are more immediate


As with so many issues but particularly with this one, people rush to judgement, according to predisposition, then seek out authoritative sources to back that view, eventually falling into "camps".

What follows is a whole jargon, complete with buzzwords and one or two word insults for the other point of view but worse than that, an intractable commitment to one's own side, which gets more and more deeply entrenched, so that any new evidence is either skipped over or else the devotee gives a shout of anger and desperately seeks for the refutation in a google search.

In this, there is no attempt to find the middle way, to lay everything one set of scientists say and everything the other set of scientists say, side by side, in one place and to try to find the truth somewhere in there. There is only a determination not to concede anything to those bstds on the other side.

The scientific method? Hardly.

Now, this climate business is clearly one where this process is in operation and someone who tries to steer a middle course gets both "climate loony" and "ostrich" thrown at him. Your humble blogger has used the ostrich pic himself so who's innocent here?

It comes down to perceptions in the end, not scientific evidence because these days, it's almost rent-a-scientist in this respect. The BBC is pushing hard to get people to accept man-made climate change, in order to enable the governmental programme to blame both the people and international pressures for everything the government has done and at the same time to further enslave us.

To this end, they say that the sceptics are more usually:

# Men more than women
# Rural more than urban
# Older people
# High earners
# Conservative voters more than Lib Dem voters; Lib Dem voters more than Labour voters

I ran this post on anecdotal evidence from Canada and as you see, it was virtually ignored, compared to my other posts, neither comment referring, except in passing, to the issue. I'm sure if I'd run "further evidence of government climate fraud", it would have got twenty comments or so.

There is very much a geographical consideration in this.

Having been back in England now through a full set of seasons, it is true that there's little to establish, on these islands, whether there has been change or not, let alone whether it is man-made. Therefore the battles I was having on the issue, from Russia, with Brits, now shows me that we were arguing at cross purposes. There is very real evidence, not in Moscow, which has its own micro-climate but further inland and north. There's little observable evidence in Britain as yet.

There has been a shift in seasons by a few weeks in Russia and it has certainly warmed up - the snow is later and less. This is supported by the Canadian findings as well, so the northern regions seem to be getting it first. They'd hardly notice it near the Equator.

There has always been wild weather in Australia but now there seems far more weird weather and that's one to watch. I've read of some places that actually seem to be cooling, if anything. A warming-sceptic paper makes some good points here, before talking demonstrable rubbish. It speaks of those predicting cooling as "good scientists" and those predicting warming as "failing to appreciate".

It slips these judgementss in under the radar because of the article's overall appearance of a scholastic tone, which the uninitiated will take as "scientific", whereas a scientist would know that one should not seek to convince by rhetoric. As I.A. Richards said, in Science and Poetry [1926]:

We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner.

Hence I trust no report from either side quoting "good scientists" and this is a case in point:

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.

That's rubbish. In Russia, it is quite observable, as it is in the Arctic and Canada. In fact, it is conceded in the statement:

The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers.

So, in other words, there is change.

Oh yes, they say but not man-made. That is not what they said in the previous quote. You see, it's not so much the arguments one way or the other I'm annoyed about - rather, it's the shoddy manner, slipping judgements into the discussion which have no place being there.

Now, let's get down to the issue:

This says:

"The warming during a transition from glacial to interglacial period is due (more) to solar forcing (increased temperatures caused by more sunlight) than to CO2 forcing (increased atmospheric CO2)," Nicolas Caillon, a climatologist at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego, told United Press International.

This says:

A straightforward calculation reveals that when the CO2 in the atmosphere reaches twice the pre-industrial level, the enhanced greenhouse effect alone (i.e., neglecting any response by the earth to the enhanced greenhouse effect) will warm the earth by 1.2 to 1.3˚C. There is no significant controversy among scientists about this part of global warming. The earth will in fact respond to the increased temperature. This is called “feedback.” There is controversy about the magnitude of the feedback.

All I get out of that is that there is no case for bloggers leaping on one or the other views because it seems a whole lot more complicated than simplistic positions would have us believe. It also seems most unevenly distributed - cooling in the south, warming in the north.

It seems to me is that there is change, to a large extent blamable on the governments but also on Chinese coal burning, the North American automobile and also on the industrialization which has implications, not just for climate but for the quality of the atmosphere and on governmental policies which, for political reasons, allowed the situation to develop.

We either have no governments and are responsible for our own affairs or else we do have governments and they are expected to justify themselves by not fiddling about, signing protocols but by taking measures, such as investment incentive in viable new technologies.

Then there is sheer population, a point conceded and indeed promoted by Them themselves. Prince Phillip's foot-in-mouth at least has the positive effect of him blurting out truths. Population increase is the single greatest threat we face because on this turn all the questions about water [governments and Them controlling the supply of potable water to an extent not seen since ancient times], Sicily being a case in point, as well as food and living space.

So, it seems to me that the questions of:

1. industrial and automobile pollution;
2. governmental control and constriction of water and food supplies;

3. sheer population increase ...

... are the major factors at this time. Climate change is not so good for many species but human impact, to any significant degree, is in a second wave further down the track. Yes, people will need to be moved from the coastal rim, yes, there are changes needed there and yes, it is terrible that salmon and bears and other animals are dying out, not to mention the flora.

It is terrible that fish supplies will be from farms because farms are controllable, as are other food supplies. Point two just above is a most significant problem right now but nothing to what is down the track when the big squeeze comes.

Where I live, it is not possible to do one's own farming [local government zoning regulations] so we are dependent on supermarkets, controllable by governmental regulation - the disappearance of carrier bags is directly attributable to government, as is the disappearance of certain medicines and certain foodstuffs.

We are living artificially, at the whim of the government and on the big chains which are themselves dependent on government largesse, in other ways, e.g. planning permission, carparks etc.

So yes, climate change is an issue but there are other issues interwoven with it which need addressing more immediately.

[911] by the dawn's early light

At a time when America is being sold down the drain, when its citizens are losing their freedoms, this dawn in Britain is when I shall remember 911 and say to the American people that our thoughts are with you.


It's that day again, another year on. Ours not to get into THAT debate today about who knew and who didn't. The thing was, many people died or were hurt and the psychological scar will always remain in America's mind, the terrorists not having taught America any intended lesson at all but only producing anger inside and a determination never to succumb.

Lord Nazh summed it up in 2007:
This is the day to say to your children that the U.S. will NOT back down; will NOT lightly lose 3,000 of its precious people. On this day, 6 years ago, the country became one like it has only a few times in the history of this great land. That should be remembered ... and mourned.


There is no justification for the killing sprees of malcontents and for people whose own concerns have a far higher priority than that of other people's lives. These debased people live in ignominy but the ordinary citizen will hold his head high and rise above it. Malcontents - you will always lose in the end.




When Politics Meets My Favorite Hockey Team

For non-American continent people, this is what the Stanley Cup is about.

Matt, of Buckeye Thoughts, guestposts this night [British time], on the way Barack Obama tried to push his political agenda by aligning with what the Stanley Cup winners did in outreaching to the community, on their own and without any political connotations. Matt:

This is what happened.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama welcomed the 2009 Stanley Cup champion Pittsburgh Penguins to the White House on Thursday and celebrated the hockey team for its performance on and off the ice.

The Penguins won the best-of-seven series in June, defeating the defending champion Detroit Red Wings. They then took the cup on a road trip to thank their fans, an act that earned the players the thanks of a grateful president.

"They took it on fishing trips and stopped by neighborhood barbecues. They visited elementary schools and brightened the days of children recovering in the hospital," Obama said during a ceremony that was moved indoors to the East Room because of threatening skies.

"I think this Cup has even held a baby or two. So this is a team that understands that being a champion doesn't end when you step off the ice," Obama added. His administration is making an effort to encourage volunteerism and public service nationwide.

Before arriving at the White House, the team held a hockey clinic for local children that was part of the administration's United We Serve summer of service. Some of those kids were in the audience to see Obama hoist the large trophy, accept a team jersey and pose for pictures.

"That's what the Stanley Cup is all about. Not just having your names engraved alongside the best players in history, but also giving back to others along the way," the president said. "And this spirit of service helps to strengthen our communities, it strengthens our country, and I know the team gets a lot in return for it as well."

Wow, Barry, really? The Stanley Cup is about proving you are the best in the NHL. I'm all for a team having good outreach to the local community and what not but do not, do not, attempt to change the meaning of the sport/or the Cup! Do not attempt to act all buddy buddy with my favorite team!

You know what this reminds me of? This.

[the combi boiler] a dark tale of the night



British homes have these contraptions called Combi-Boilers, sent to drive us round the bend. There's quite a little industry in their repair. The only domestic horror which could rival it is the Double Glazing salesman but that's another story.

Late at night, when the shadows from the EU bulb were cast long, when a short burst of heat was in order, with coffee at the ready, the boiler ... did not respond, did not fire up, failed to obey it's command, decided to go pear shaped.

As if to underscore its point vigorously, the pilot light also went out and there was no turning it back on.

Brilliant.

This is an ongoing story and the next stage will be brought to you right here. It's of course of absolutely zero interest to you, the reader, what my boiler does but I can tell you it's of great interest to me being without hot water or heating and in the night now, it's getting a fraction chilly where I am. So the Higham is feeling a bit cranky this morning.

LATE UPDATE: Having swapped Friday and Thursday, taking the day off on the promise of repairs being done, he didn't turn up, did he? Phone call at 18:15 and guess what? He'd forgotten about me. Easy to do, of course, Higham's boiler is of a low priority in the scheme of things.

Kill!

UPDATE FRIDAY 11:00: Fan's knackered; also the hot water regulating mechanism is reducing flow and therefore the burner's not firing. Engineer's coming out today but when? He has my number and I have his.

The saga switches to a new post.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

[mercedes gullwing] simply gorgeous

Powered by a specially-tuned 420kW version of Mercedes-Benz’s fire-breathing 6.2-litre V8, the retro-styled SLS AMG promises to sprint from 0-100km/h in just 3.8 seconds.



The launch is September 15th and goes through to September 27th. I wonder if Tom's ordered one.

[late evening listening] battle of the sounds

In days of yore, with Bandstand, Ed Sullivan and so on, many radio stations ran Battles of the Sounds or something with a similar name. They were always doing "versus" competitions, e.g. Elvis v The Beatles and so on.

Well let's try one of these. Here are four for your delectation. Which do you vote for?

Mac the Knife's contribution [I want a hairstyle and lips like that]:



Dearieme's contribution:



The Economic Voice's contribution:



My contribution - a lilting ballad for the sensitive:



Oh gosh, which one?

[continuous story 2] contribute your paragraph

Last time we tried this, it was a bit of a risk. There was the blogger's natural reticence to leave more than a line or two and the self-consciousness factor, plus Dearieme continually going on and on about his bloody Koala Liberation Front but still ... I think most voted it a tentative success.

So here's the second story, as promised [threatened?]

Remember the guidelines? You're asked to contribute one paragraph or two, of normal length, in order to keep the story running and not to close it down. You can return as you wish but always take the previous thread and run from there in any direction you fancy.

Our story:

Kipling the Kangaroo was a pretty laid back sort of guy as a rule but this day, resting up on the dried grass, he had two things on his mind.

He'd been reading Wiki on the cave walls and this had startled him:

"Unusually, during a dry period, males will not produce sperm, and females will only conceive if there has been enough rain to produce a large quantity of green vegetation."

As any self-respecting male kangaroo knows, he only has 4-6 years to live anyway and during that time, he needs to keep all the females he can find in a permanent state of pregnancy. Now, there'd been quite a drought of late so he wasn't going to hang about and put up with that.

Which brought him to his next cause for anxiety - they were also culling kangaroos at this very time. He'd heard the shots ringing out each night for the past four days and didn't fancy ending up in the soup pot.


Right, he thought, I'm off to America or maybe Britain to try my luck. "I've heard everyone's welcome in Britain, at the government's expense and it looks like America's going that way too. The only problem with America is they're even more trigger happy than over here."

Anyway, he made it to the air terminal on time, boarded Qantas QF399, settled into the exit row and was about to relax when .............

Go to it and the best of luck.

[r.i.p.] compose your own epitaph


If you were allowed from 9 to 11 words, what would be the epitaph you'd like to see on your tombstone?

Well, it seems to have started well. Remember, if you can't think of your own epitaph, then write one for someone else, not one of the commenters on the thread.

Click here to leave that epitaph!

[stats quiz] tied up in numbers


1. The typical person breathes ? cubic metres of air in his or her lifetime.

a. 250 000
b. 370 000
c. 540 000

2. Over ? of the world's population lives north of the Equator.

a. 64%
b. 79%
c. 85%

3. For every 100,000 girls, 223 will become doctors and ? will become nurses.

a. 17,475
b. 58,625
c. almost all of them

4. Around ?% of murders occur during arguments.

a. 15%
b. 25%
c. 40%

5. One's lifetime risk of dying due to living with a smoker is 1 in 4,200. Getting struck by lightning over the course of a lifetime is more likely, with odds of ... ?

a. 1 in 2,000
b. 1 in 2,700
c. 1 in 3,000


Source.



Answers


370,000 ... 85% ... 17,475 ... 40% ... 3000

[thoughtful thursday] dot dot dot

[identity] when blogs become news centres [2]

A few days back, I ran a post on blogs which are more like news centres. Here are three more I'd like to mention:

1. The Spectator - what is it, apart from very old and not having a bar of popular culture? The online version is quite bloglike in layout and yet it is a magazine. It's still quite prestigious:


2. The Register - what is it? A blog? Nope. A magazine? Possibly. A newspaper? No:


3. Scott, of Blue Contrarian. Certainly a three column blog but a most unbloglike blog, looking more like a magazine, through clever placement of photos, creating a four-column effect:


All of which raises the question - when is a blog a magazine or newspaper and if it is one of those, does it need more than one contributor? Is there a purpose to multiple-contributor sites? Who sets the parameters? How broad is their remit?

[the wedding] bit of a giveaway

One of the better ones. The Youtube contributor gives the game away but it's still a hoot. Have a look, at Hooky's place.

[duelling stats] mean that anecdotal evidence is needed


Similar to the way that real Christians are judged by the same bad press that pseudo-Christians deservedly get is the environmental issue.

The debate has been polarized by the entry of both government [in the form of Gore and others] and by Greens who are more intent on ushering in a NWO than by genuine concern for the environment.

This is terrible because there really are ecological changes, attested by those on the ground but there's also a mindless anti-ecology mentality, especially in the blogosphere, which sees blogposts like "climate change, my a--e" and "more loony greenery" and so on.

So, in these people's eyes, any concern for the environment, any at all, is lumped in with the government's agenda of bringing in stringent measures on the back of any environmental report and this has polarized bloggers into extreme positions where any question raised, of whatever nature, is howled down and the questioner called a loony.

Is this rational debate? Is this examining what evidence there is?

It's got to the point where one side brings out stats showing temperature increase and the other side brings out stats showing temperature decrease. So all we're left with is the evidence at ground level and there is enough to cause concern.

Last year in Russia was the first winter where the snow did not "stick" before New Year. It had been building up to this over a twelve year period and no Russian was in any doubt about what was happening. It was getting warmer. One didn't need to theorize or bring out hockey sticks and play with them. It was simply happening. It is happening.

Some blogger brought out meteorological statistics which "proved" to me it wasn't happening. Yes it effing well was happening - we could see it with our own eyes. In 2001's winter, we had four temperatures under minus 33 where we lived. In 2007's winter, there were none! Same the next year and it was a steady progress, year by year. I had the thermometer in the window. I saw it and I recorded it so don't go telling me that some meteorological report said it didn't happen.

Same with other environmental concerns. In their mania to deny anything, anything at all which could possibly help the government impose harsher restrictions on us and take more of our money [an aim, as you know, this blog is completely in accord with], too many bloggers were denying anything which was happening.

Here is one of them - the salmon are getting fished out and the bears are dying.

Now ... if I have to choose between a statistic which says that bear numbers are increasing and this type of anecdotal evidence:

“I've never experienced anything like this. There has been a huge drop in the number of bears we see,” said Doug Neasloss, a bear-viewing guide with the Kitasoo-Xaixais tribes in Klemtu, about 180 kilometres south of Kitimat.

Mr. Neasloss said in recent weeks that he and other guides have visited 16 rivers where they usually encounter groups of bears feeding on spawning salmon.


“I've been doing this for 11 years and this is the worst I've seen it,” he said. “Last year on the Mussel River, I saw 27 bears. This year it's six. That's an indication of what it's like everywhere.”
Ian McAllister, Conservation Director of Pacific Wild, a non-profit conservation group on Denny Island, near Bella Bella, said he's heard similar reports.

“I've talked to stream walkers [who monitor salmon runs] who have been out for a month and have yet to see any bears,” he said. “There are just no bears showing up. I hear that from every stream walker on the coast.”


Mr. McAllister said it used to be easy to visit salmon streams in the Great Bear Rainforest, a large area of protected forest on the central coast, and see 20 to 30 bears a day feasting on salmon.


“Now you go out there and there are zero bears. The reports are coming in from Terrace to Cape Caution … the bears are gone,” he said. “And we haven't seen any cubs with mothers. That's the most alarming part of this,” Mr. McAllister said.

... then I'm sorry but I'm going to believe the people on the ground.

[ecommerce] face to face in the high street is better


The figures are significant, if they are to be believed:

A survey by enforcement agencies in 27 European countries found that 55% of some 370 websites showed irregularities. On most of these websites consumers were not informed about their right to return goods within seven days without giving a reason.

Consumers were also misled about whether they could receive cash rather than credit, or about their entitlement to have faulty products replaced. In nearly half of the problem sites online retailers appeared to obscure address and contact details.

I'm not sure about you but I've only once bought anything online because years ago, I went over to debit cards and got rid of the credit. With a service not involving shipping, e.g. an electronic service, I might buy it online but physically sent equipment - no.

That one time involved Real Player, which was flawed in a few ways but how to even prove that to someone in America?

Of course, you could ask how I could guarantee that an item would work, just by seeing it in a store and you'd be right but still - if they were physically in the High Street I could more easily get consumer rights fulfilled than if the vendor were in, say, Sarajevo.

You could press the point and ask, "How? How could I enforce this?"

Well, right, with great difficulty unless it was major chain, if I knew the ropes and there was a good consumer watchdog. I can only say that whenever there's been a problem in the past, it's been resolved face to face better than on a phone or online that one time.

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

[rip] compose your own epitaph


If you were allowed from 9 to 11 words, what would be the epitaph you'd like to see on your tombstone?

If that's too difficult, compose one for some fitting person who is not a fellow commenter here.

UPDATE: Classic - Tom Paine's even gone so far as to have his tombstone done.

[mortality stats] always a good read

Here's a good one: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. That should be a real barrel of laughs. And while we're on death statistics, here are some good ones pertaining to the U.S.:

# The odds of being killed during a scheduled airline flight are about one per million -- nearly four times greater than the odds of being killed in an automobile ride.

# Per passenger mile, an automobile ride is 10 times more likely to result in fatality than an airplane journey. (Airplane fatalities occur most frequently during takeoff & landing -- especially takeoff.)

# Buses are safer -- per passenger mile an automobile is 25 times more likely to lead to death than a bus.

# Motorcycles are 35 times per passenger mile more likely to cause death than automobiles.

# Boat travel is hard to compare per passenger mile, but the risk of death during a boat trip is far more dangerous than one in a car. Most boating deaths are due to drowning -- with 80% of those dying not wearing life jackets.

# 44% of non-motor vehicle accidents occurred in the home.

Odds summarized in the journal NATURE give the following lifetime odds of dying of the following causes:

1:90 for motor vehicle accident
1:9,000 for drowning
1:30,000 for airplane crash (not just scheduled airlines)
1:130,000 for earthquake
1:600,000 for fireworks accident
1:720,000 for asteroid impact
1:8,000,000 for shark attack
1:300,000,000 for food poisoning by botulism

[NATURE; Harris,A; Volume 453; page 1178; 26 June 2008].

Don't think I like that asteroid impact stat.

[late evening listening] dearieme presents chopin and liszt

The midweek pause begins with Chopin:



There is doubt that this actually is Busoni but enjoy it anyway:



Mac, you have not been forgotten.

[match tricks five] try before you check

A farmer needed 13 hurdles to make these 6 enclosures.

Now make 6 enclosures of equal size using 12 hurdles.


Check the solution here.

You might like to try these too:

Matchtricks 1
Matchtricks 2
Matchtricks 3
Matchtricks 4

[sherlock again] whom to question


One snowy night, Sherlock Holmes was in his house sitting by a fire. All of a sudden a snowball came crashing through his window, breaking it.

Holmes got up and looked out the window just in time to see three neighborhood kids who were brothers run around a corner. Their names were John Crimson, Mark Crimson and Paul Crimson.

The next day Holmes got a note on his door that read "? Crimson. He broke your window." Which of the three Crimson brothers should Sherlock Holmes question about the incident?

Answer

Mark Crimson. "?" = question MARK, so the note on the door reads "Question Mark Crimson. He broke your window." H/T Braingle