Wednesday, March 21, 2007

[old poll down] new poll up

[old poll down] new poll up

Results for the last poll: The 2012 London Olympics are way over budget. Should Britain:

# Pull the plug now? 85%
# Run them anyway? 12%
# Run cheap games? 4%
# Fourth alternative ? 0%

52 votes total pollcode.com free polls


New poll: Should people who won't assimilate be:
# deported
# executed
# incarcerated
# re-educated
# other

[blogfocus wednesday] curmudgeonry training

1 The Man in a Shed is one of my favourite curmudgeons, which he'd probably take exception to, which is as it should be:

So Blair has won his Trident vote. I can hear newsnight in the background with Kirsty (I'm a real leftie) Wark leading up. Some of the Labour MP's wanted to delay a decision - they have local parties to appease. I'd assumed that Blair wanted the vote out of the way before Brown got in. However one of the few clear commitment Brown has given is to Trident.

So why have a vote now ? Given that in the future there will be less Labour MPs - its hardly going to get more difficult is it? Well perhaps you know something is coming that would make this vote very had to win afterwards ...

2 Liam Murray is the new kid on the block, according to his February, 2007 start date but he writes like a pro - is there something I've missed here?

Cover story in this months Prospect magazine ask the question 'what will replace the left/right schism in the 21st century?' They asked 100 thinkers and commentators (it's a shame 'profession' no longer appears on passports - what would such people put?) for their view and it's worth a read. A few of my favourites (either because I agree or they make me laugh with derision, I'll let you speculate which is which) below in no particular order:

You'll have to click on the link to read the list. Liam has a way to go in the curmudgeonry stakes.

3 Colin Campbell, not noted for his curmudgeonry, neverhteless has a quite passable shot at it in presenting academic corner all the way from Glasgow this evening:

SCOTTISH MODERN MATHEMATICS PAPER 2007
DRAFT HIGHER GRADE MODERN MATHEMATICS PAPER 2007
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
GLASGOW REGION

Name...........................................
Nickname....................................
Gangname..................................

1. Shuggie has bought half a kilo of cocaine to sell. He wants to make 300% on the deal and still pay Mad Malky his 10% protection money. How much must he charge for a gram?

2. Wee Davie reckons he'll get £42.50 extra Marriage Allowance a week if he ties the knot with Fat Alice. Even if he steals the ring, the wedding will cost him £587. And he'll have to start buying two fish suppers at £3.95 each every night instead of one. How long will it be before Davie wishes he'd stayed single?

… and so on.

Another nine bloggers here.

[uk budget] is this as bad as it looks

[sound of music] cast of bastards


Confession time - I always liked The Sound of Music - the sets, Julie Andrews, Edelweiss, the happy memories with my own parents and so on. The hills were certainly alive - that is, until today. I've just read the most curmudgeonly, cantankerous, ornery blogpost on the film by Jack Marx and while it was a chuckle, still, it got me thinking about just how good the film was after all. Jack opens with:

While it's true that there may be more important issues to be addressing today … I fear I may never be able to discuss that which troubles me greatly about what went on in The Sound of Music … a fine piece of entertainment for which director Robert Wise deserved his armful of Oscars. It is my belief that the talent and good looks of the cast, the toe-tapping melodies, the edge-of-seat drama of the plotline and the occasionally witty volleys of dialogue in the production have, for more than 40 years, successfully masked a very awful truth: that every single character in The Sound of Music is a bastard.

Here are some of his comments on a few of the characters:

Maria assumes the role of Liesl's defendant by insisting "she and I have been getting acquainted tonight." This is a downright lie, told by a woman entrusted with the safety of another's children to the very man who has vested that trust in her, and had the Captain known the truth - that his daughter, far from safely chatting with her new governess, had been outside in the dark getting slippery with a Nazi - he'd have been forgiven for suspecting his new governess was not only a "flibbertigibbet", but a fascist collaborator who'd sell his children to the Third Reich for a song [and not a very good one at that].

Rolf is a Nazi and there's nothing redeemable about that. Furthermore, blind Freddy could see that he's gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but his denial of the truth is grossly unfair to Liesl, who's so hot for it she probably wouldn't notice if it were the guy from Little Britain who was spinning her round the rotunda.

The Children There is so much wrong with the von Trapp children that I dare not discuss it, and I know perhaps you don't want to hear it, but you've got to ... Louisa, I'm not real sure about ... and the little ones just want to be loved. But I don't love them. I hate them.

One commenter remarks: "I think this person [Jack Marx] & the article stink. The film was, is & will always be a classic! Films are just not made like that these days ... what a pity. Posted by: Ligia

Another disagreed: Personally, I’ve always thought the Captain was a bit of a nasty piece of work: while the Baroness isn’t the most interesting woman around – rather more style than substance - the way he strings her along while eyeballing the hired help is a rather poor show indeed. And tempting the ire of the Nazis by tearing their flag off his house, while seemingly heroic, is irresponsible and selfish in the extreme considering he is the sole provider and caretaker for those children. In regard to Maria, you forgot to mention how she deliberately manipulates the children in order to pit them against their father in her struggle for power in the household - a spot of psychological abuse, anyone? Posted by: sausage

And finally: I take issue with your statement that "there may be more important issues to be addressing today". Posted by: James


What is it with people called James?

[technology] only as an adjunct to experience

Have a look at Nigel Sedgwick's business site and I think you'd agree - the man knows what he's talking about when it comes to technology. Predictably then, he was never going to be enamoured of this Luddite post of mine.

He argues that technology, after all, is only working to make life more livable for the average person, to streamline his daily commitments and that, of course, all the ramifications are factored in. In the case of the TGV, the whole product solution necessitates the purchase of new land to provide straighter tracks, a complete re-thinking of safety aspects and so on and so on.

All that is so but it still doesn't eliminate key concerns:

1] The bigger the project and the more teams involved in it's realization, the greater the chance of error and the more disastrous the consequences when it does happen;

2] The more that the technology replaces human intervention, the greater the reliance on the human intervention which created that technology in the first place - it just transfers the onus retrospectively;

3] The moment there is an agenda, e.g. first to the moon, the Great Race, the fastest train and so on, the more a gung-ho corner cutting and sometimes unreasoning demand for completion-by-date and mania to run it under budget seeps in - there are reputations involved. Reputation was very much part of the Tenerife disaster, for example.

4] Many disasters are the consequence of a chain of circumstances, rather than due to any one cause. Take the BC ferry disaster, for instance:

The Queen of the North sank about one hour after running full tilt into rocky Gil Island, 150 kilometres south of Prince Rupert, where it had left for an overnight passage to Port Hardy on Vancouver Island. How could the Queen of the North have strayed so far off course without anyone in charge of navigating and steering the ship noticing?

A report from B.C. Ferries' own inquiry into the mishap is expected to solve large parts of the mystery when it is released Friday, or Monday at the latest. But company investigators were hampered by the refusal of two key union crew members to answer questions.

Reports have suggested the ship may have been on autopilot when it ran into Gil Island, without a crucial course correction having been made to swing the vessel safely into mid-channel.

An early finding by the Transportation Safety Board also revealed that the monitor on the ship's new electronic chart system had been turned off because crew members did not know how to reduce its glare.

Sometimes, that's all it takes - glare - which wouldn't have entered the boffins' heads who'd designed the state-of-the-art chart system in the first place. How could it, with them not being in an operational capacity? This then comes down to project managers and team leaders. They can learn from the debacle so that it never occurs again but can't reverse the disaster itself.

A 320 kph TGV, French pride and one or two random factors such as glare is all it takes for a whole lot of failure analysis to ensue. Sorry Nigel but this Luddite remains unconvinced.

[george w bush] rarely is the question asked

"No, Sonny, hold it like this when you read."

Love this one from the Asia Times:

President George W Bush's reading tastes - which have been a remarkably good predictor of his policy views - are moving ever rightward. Apocalyptic titles now on his bedside table - such as America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It - suggest we'd all better finish our books before it's too late. - Jim Lobe

This is even more poignant when compared to his previous reading efforts:

In the summer of 2002, for example, Bush was seen carrying a just-published copy of Supreme Command by neo-conservative military historian (and recently appointed State Department counselor) Eliot Cohen. The book argued that the greatest civilian wartime leaders, notably Abraham Lincoln and Churchill, had a far better strategic sense than their generals.

An entertaining read. Apocalypse when?