[bloggers say] thursday, march 29th [2]

Mr. Eugenides is looking at the cost to the EU of climate change legislation:

The EU bloc must find €1.1 trillion from its coffers over the next 14 years, if it is to fulfil ambitious climate change goals, a new study has indicated.

Of course, "its coffers" is code for "our pockets".

One of the reasons I'm convinced of climate change, apart from it being bleedin' obvious and the scientific evidence, is the vehemence with which the evil pollies have latched onto it.

Far from this issue being effectively opposed, what the sceptics are really opposing is the pollies hijacking of the issue for their gain. One needs to look at the minds of the cynical elite. They're not going to back a losing argument. They're going to back one which stands up and makes them billions.

[bloggers say] thursday march 29th [1]

Justin Martyr, about whom Chris was probably not thinking when he wrote his post

Chris Dillow writes of incentives taking effect only in the long term and concludes:

"But that's all it is - a hunch. As Bryan says, it's hard to say for sure using formal empirical methods . And this raises a question. Why, when the full effects of policies are so uncertain, are so many people so dogmatic about their likely effects? Are introspection and common sense really sufficient to justify strong beliefs?"

To me, this really says it all and applies as equally to climate change and its sceptics, Christianity and its sceptics, everything and its sceptics.

One is then reduced to following indicators - trails, if you like, of cause and effect. To take snippets of evidence of something working or not, along with records that it has or has not. This is one of the key reasons I think the Christian explosion of the first three centuries AD was something more than a great idea, remembering, of course, that it was not initially spread by the sword.

[mybloglog] why you should consider it

Let's face it - some of us have got ridiculously long blogrolls now. In my own case, I must use BlogRolling [without which I wouldn't survive] to deal with this but another scheme which also helps is MyBlogLog [both these are in the sidebars here].

The thing is, with the best will in the world, I try to get to the Blogpowerers first, followed by Regulars and then I rotate the rolls and tackle a whole roll at a time. That's the theory. In practice, when I come online, I can instantly see, in visual form, who's been in, it reminds me and I tend to click on the photo immediately, intending to return to my plan later.

Now if one clicks on, say, Guthrum, it brings up his site and sidebar and there's Toque, whom I've never visited and so on. You know how it is. Now if we were all doing this, it would be so much easier.

Where it breaks down is when someone who runs MyBlogLog himself, like Tom Paine, of The Last Ditch, comes in to view other blogs invisibly [don't know how he hides himself] and so one doesn't know if he's been in or not. Each to his own.

[wc fields] never give a sucker an even break - part 1

What to say about this film? Newsday says:

Younger audiences, conditioned to the present-day's affection for the slam-bang sight gag, may be impatient with the elaborate handiwork and polish applied to such bits by comedians of Fields' vintage. But if they sit still long enough, they may find something akin to poetry in these slow-cooking routines.

Slow-cooking, dated, with a star who's no Valentino - what's to love? For those who like their comedy exquisite - a lot. This film is truly surreal in a Pythonesque way, with the plot mirroring the behind the scenes situation, plays within plays, total lack of concern with either the laws of physics or continuity and the constant flow of wry observations, sometimes to the camera itself. Plus the roguishness of Fields, the master of timing.

Now you can get it on DVD, I think a new generation of discerning filmgoers is going to discover why this film is on so many people's Top 100 list.

From the Filmsite:

Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941) is a tour de force of W.C. Fields' off-beat humor, double-takes, broad comedy and priceless lines and sketches. The screenplay by John T. Noville and Prescott Chaplin was based upon Fields' own original material (under the nom de plume Otis Criblecoblis).

The film is absurd, irrational, surrealistic, innovative and wacky, with no real plot - it was cut so severely that it appears to be an erratic hodge-podge, without cohesion or continuity. W. C. Fields' last starring role in a feature-length film, it consists mainly of a series of flashbacks (the script's action is read by a film producer played by Franklin Pangborn) and a number of disjointed, funny and bizarre scenes spoofing his own cinematic career, Hollywood and the filmmaking industry.

The film itself is covered here.

[blogfocus wednesday] some surprises this evening

Straight into it, in the middle of this very busy week and it's an early Blogfocus today [hideous day tomorrow for yours truly]:

1 Winfred Mann is new on our block and her post is so different to the ordinary blogpost it is arresting. Here she relates when she first saw G-d and I for one take this quite seriously:

It was about 5:30 AM, and it felt very cold. The early morning sky was tremendously dark hanging like an enormous blanket over the city; no stars were visible on this still windless early morning. I carefully made my way down the driveway onto the sidewalk noting the shadowy tree figures created by the single lamppost at the corner of the block. I began staring upward into the darkness thinking about how unusual everything appeared, almost black on black. The light from the lamppost, without which I’m sure I would have seen nothing, almost resembled a wayward moon disrupting the magnificent stillness of the moment. I intentionally avoided looking directly at the glaring sphere and focused on the stark black sky. It was beautiful.

2 Celia Green is another interesting character, a retired academic and she's writing about a subject I had a bit of a problem with in 1994:

When I say that I could never draw social security however hard up I was, because I had been left without any usable qualifications, I mean not merely hard up relative to the cost of remaining physically alive, but hard up relative to the cost of providing myself with the equivalent of a residential college (hotel) environment and the secretarial and other facilities that might have been provided by the sort of academic career which I should have been having, as well as a Professorial salary.

3 Paul Burgin, at Mars Hill, is extraordinary. Not only does he like Gordon, he says so in no uncertain terms. When he apologizes, he also does so in no unceratin terms:

Seems like I was totally wrong when I wrote this post, since this happened. I could say more, but it's kinda late and Iain Dale has (unusually) written something political where I agree with not just one part of the entry, but just about every single word he says!

Nine more bloggers here.

[fresh fields] new daily series for a few weeks

WC Fields polarized opinion - you either loved his comedy or hated it. My plan is to present one of his scripts, "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break", over a period of days and to run a daily quote by him.

Often quite surreal, he wasn't everyone's cup of tea and he's most definitely dated but rather than that detracting from the charm, it seems to enhance it and give it a 'period' flavour. Some of his witticisms even smacked of great wisdom.

He based his comedy on being a lush and a sponger and hating just about everyone - but particularly children and dogs. His attitude towards women was ambivalent - he could be a charmer but he was also quite impossible. I think he neatly fits into the 'curmudgeon corner' of the blogosphere and so to today's quote:

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again. Then quit - no use being a damned fool about things.

[us] being alone versus loneliness

Isn't the blogosphere amazing? Despite the tat, the porn, the dire politicking, sometimes humanity breaks through and it's a reaffirmation of things good. I get a huge buzz when that happens, better than anything artificial.

Just found a blog by chance, Ruthie Zaftig, single mom, and it was her birthday. She posted on her day alone and concluded:

"Today, like most days, no one had occasion to speak to me. I've been at this school for a year and a half, and I still only know a handful of people. It never fails to amaze me how I can be surrounded by so many people and still feel so alone."

Ruthie, I have the opposite problem. I am speaking to hundreds each week and 50% are ladies your age [it's my work] and it's the same effect. I need to just get a break at the end, which is why I make it so difficult for anyone to reach me.

We have a triple system of doors and I've disconnected the domaphone and the bells to our place. I'm also protected by a 'grandmother army'. As I'm in the net, no one can get me by phone. I have no mobile. I'm alone but never lonely. It's all in the head, girl and you can be as alone or not as you choose.

There are people who want to know you but they're far flung. There is also the power of the blogosphere. Mine is a humble site but people do come to visit and if each one of them reading this were to visit you, and if some of our big guns like Ellee or Mr. E or Tea and Margaritas closer to home would also do that, it could get something moving.

And these are not people wanting something from you or letting you down or putting you down. Hope you get some new friends out of this.

[mile high club] frinton goes bonkers

Tim Worstall started it with the news item concerning this radio station contest:

It basically concerns the English coastal town of Frinton, some 60 miles northeast of London, which is inviting winning couples for the next week to go to Atlanta, Georgia aboard a private plane equipped with champagne and a double bed. Tim is naturally apoplectic on missing out.

L'Ombre de l'Olivier has now taken it one step further:

Frinton is not normally a place where one discusses sex, and indeed given the average age of the inhabitants this is probably a good thing. Fortunately for the blood pressure of numerous retired gentlefolk, such as my dear parents, the radio station's address is outside the gates - i.e. not within the proper upper class part of the town and thus presumably serves the more plebian surroundings such as Walton on the Naze. I shall be visiting the place this weekend so an on the spot blog exclusive about the rock concert is entirely possible.

This is indeed astounding news and though L'Ombre states quite clearly that "an on the spot blog exclusive about the rock concert is entirely possible," I don't believe a word of it. I think I know precisely why he's chosen to visit the olds on this particular weekend.

I'm also ashamed to say that I know something of this particular sport, flying Garuda at the time. And lastly, L'Ombre has also posted on the Segie and Sarko thing. It's a good read, close to the action.

Stay tuned.

[the political spectrum] any ideas

Have you ever had to explain the western political spectrum to a foreigner? I was found sadly wanting at this today. If you start with Left, Centre, Right, what exactly do they mean? Where do you put the BNP, the Communists, the Finance [monopolists] and other extremists?

Then the term Classic Liberal [e.g. Tim Worstall]. What does that mean? John Stuart Mill type free or Libertarian? And what is a Libertarian? Does that mean licentious, as in indiscriminate sex with anything that moves, with Stern Moralists at the other end or does it mean 'believing in Freedom of Association, Trade, Religion' and all that?

Where do you put the average small to medium businessmen? I already know where to put the big ones - behind bars. Where does a truly charitable Christian go? Or a 'regulate everyone and tax the hell out of them' PC devotee? I've devised a working model which might work:

Centrists: Believe in family, small business, free trade, value system etc.

State altruists: State regulates people's altruism e.g. there must be 50% women on all football teams.

What do you think?

[courageous faith] church rises in arabia

Work has begun on the construction of Qatar's first purpose-built church in the desert outside Doha. Although the country's native inhabitants are entirely Muslim - and are prohibited by law from converting to another faith - the new Catholic church will cater to the large number of Christian migrants who have come to the Arabia Gulf state in search of work.

It is costing about $15m and overseeing the work is Paul Hinder, the Catholic Church's Bishop of Arabia. A Christian in the heart of the Muslim world, his diocese is the entire Arabian peninsular, encompassing six countries.

He oversees churches in Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen and even in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam where Christianity is practised behind closed doors. Speaking about the Christian communities in Saudi Arabia, he said: "It's not an open church. Privately the Christians may gather in their houses in a very discreet manner."

Hinder told Al Jazeera that often people are more active Christians during their one or two years labouring in the Arabian peninsular than they are when they are back home. The majority of the two million expatriate Christians who attend these services are Filipinos, Lebanese and Indians who have come to the Gulf for work.

Jesus would surely approve of the church but would he approve of the Church and its $15m price tag? Still, if the congregation is paying out of their own pockets, why not? It would be more than interesting to have a chat with Paul Hinder about things. Has he been on national television in Britain or America, does anyone know?