[april 23, 303] happy st george's day to you all

For Toque, for Tony Sharp, for Gavin Ayling, for Theo Spark, for the people of England - this day is for all of you. May all your dreams for the nation be realized.

In a very nice post, Paul Kingsnorth addresses some of the issues of this day.

[french elections] in case you're interested

Nicolas Sarkozy veut dégonfler le front des "anti-Sarko" Le candidat UMP veut faire donner ses soutiens contre la "diabolisation". Bonne chance, Sarko!

The programme:

• 1600 GMT - 22 April: Polls begin to close
• 1800 GMT - 22 April: Early exit polls
• 1800 GMT - 25 April: Official results
• 27 April: Campaigning restarts
• 6 May: Second round poll
• 10 May: Final official results

[immigration] a response on the issue

To my admittedly gung-ho [until you read it] looking post on Immigration, Tiberius Gracchus has posted a reply. I'd like to address this now.

Tiberius is a learned and erudite historian. Personally, I don't know that I've ever met a kinder and more supportive chap and he's also a Blogpowerer. I can say he's a most important person in my life and if his blog ever disappeared, there are so many people who'd agree the blogosphere would be so much the poorer for it.

Having said that, Tiberius' easy learned-ness, if I could put it that way, does lead him into an accepting, tolerant, refined and urbane world view. Therefore, a 'gung-ho' post such as my Immigration manifesto would certainly offend his sensibilities.

And yet that outlook does not serve in all situations. My former military and my headmaster experiences have shown that there are situations where the only response is the 'brick wall'. We were trained to follow the maxim:

Fair, firm and friendly.

... and this has served well all my working life. This is what I'm advocating - not a frenzy of race hatred, not extreme reactions. Just fair, firm and friendly, on a case by case scenario.

It was John Arbuthnot Fisher, in a lecture around 1899, who wrote:

The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.

In an amusing episode of Ripping Yarns, the natives were attacking the British compound and the colonel said to his wife something along the lines of:

'I'm going out to offer them a cup of tea. We need to be kind to them.'

Of course the result was a foregone conclusion.

Retaliation is not what I'm writing of here. Nor punishment. Nor incarceration. And yet, those very nasty specimens who preach violence and are trying to overthrow our society cannot be dealt with by a hug and a kiss. Their agenda is otherwise.

Tiberius and I cannot agree on this because we have differing experiences of people and I have seen some most unreasonable ones in my time.

To Tiberius' comments:

The official religion? James that's Anglicanism- do you advocate that catholic Irishmen and Orthodox Russians should abandon their faiths and convert to Anglicanism in order to live in the country.

This is an officially Christian country which tolerates denominations other than Anglicans. It is a measure of the British that we do. So extreme scenarios don't wash here.

Should we be able to close down this blog unless you profess your allegiance to the Christian sovereign of the British isles and the Archbishop fo Canterbury?

Again, extreme scenarios are not what were being discussed.

Why should people be thrown out for demonstrating? It isn't illegal, say if they demonstrated about a road going through a place of natural beauty should they really be thrown out of the country.

If they were joining with other Brits to protest this, fine. It would be a local issue. But if they were protesting as a group of a different nation or culture - yes. They should go.

Second generation should be thrown out? If they later behave badly say ten years after never speaking to thier families before should everyone be thrown out. Furthermore where should they go- particularly if they don't have citizenship elsewhere and can't speak another language.

They should realize in this situation they are an immigrant family. Their decision to leave it is no consideration if they are involved in violence on the grounds of their former culture. You've answered your own question here. If they're estranged, then there IS no other family to throw out with them.

The purpose of saying 'with their families' was so that the family takes responsibility for the ne'er-do-well. Family pressure is going to work a thousand times better than official pressure.

Last question- we wouldn't torture and would discard people but what about sending people to places where we know that they would suffer barbaric tortures or even death.

If they knew the score and the rules by which they're in this country, then the thought of deportation back to such a situation is a very strong deterrent. But in all your assumptions here, we're not speaking of the average person with average life issues but with malcontented ne'er-do-wells and these people need to know the consequences quite clearly.

Sorry James I don't buy this post at all. I think there are all sorts of unresolved issues at the centre of it.

Of course there are. It's a first manifesto, which I stated at the end is modifiable to changed circumstances. Thanks, Tiberius, for your patience.

[business round-up] cityunslicker is at it again

The CityUnslicker has his excellent business round-up up. Get over there if you haven't already done so. My vote for the post of the day:

Arsenal next on the block for US investors - something for Newmania to wring his hands about.

Oh how I'm chuckling at the thought of Iznewmania wringing his hands - don't want to be cruel or anything, you understand.

[terrorism] lord nazh has had enough - me too

Lord Nazh:

Fox news reports on new fighting in the West Bank between Israel and the Palestinians:

Gaza Strip — Hamas militants called Sunday for a fresh wave of attacks against Israel after troops killed nine Palestinians in weekend fighting, straining a five-month-old cease-fire.

It's extremely hard to strain a cease-fire that has not stopped any fighting yet. Of course this has never stopped the terrorists of Palestine or the MSM from reporting it.

In response to the bloodshed, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' more moderate Fatah movement urged him to consider breaking off contacts with the Israeli government, despite his pledge to the United States to hold regular meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Hamas and Fatah are partners in a coalition government.

One of the best things that could happen is that Israel stop talking to the 'moderate' terrorists. It does not matter what Abbas promises, the terror mindset is too deeply imbedded with Hamas and Fatah.

Among the nine Palestinians killed in the weekend upsurge of violence were two gunmen and a 17-year-old who died Sunday in the West Bank. The fighting also included a Palestinian rocket attack on the southern Israeli town of Sderot that damaged a home.

Israeli officials defended the killings as part of operations that have drastically reduced the number of attacks against Israelis. Palestinian officials, however, said that the deaths jeopardized their efforts to expand the Gaza truce to the West Bank.

Any peoples that are governed by violence and beholden to terrorists will find a way to have violence if they cannot get to their 'enemies'. These people deserve a home, but not a state. There is no way that they can seriously be considered 'humane' enough to be given a state (note: if they already had a state, ex. N. Korea, then they'd simply be a horrible country) of their own.

They simply cannot govern themselves. If the 'people' truly want a state, they will show it by getting rid of the terrorists. Unlike 'most' worldwide terrorism where the perpetrators are shadowy figures rarely known until they strike, in this land, there is common knowledge of who's who.

The Cityunslicker commented [modified for grammar and spelling only]:

I say this as a very pro-Israeli supporter. I agree with you in the way that [the Palestinian?] agenda is twisted; however Israel has achieved none of its aims recently and the lives of its people are blighted, as are those of the Palestinians.

My comment to CityUnslicker:

CityUnslicker, these are a people whose menfolk are off their brains - they're malcontented ne'er-do-wells. If they took a hoe and shovel instead of some Iranian weaponry and dug and worked and planted and grew and created a state with tourism and trade, that would be the best thing for their people.

But they don't. All they want to do is wipe Israel off the map. Really clever people.

They could well say that Israel and the U.S. would never let them develop their country - that the Israelis would always attack on some pretext or other, to keep the whole thing unstable.

So - try it. Make no provocative statement, fire no rocket into Israel, get on with building your country, with the eyes of the world on you and on Israel. Then you'll get your sympathy and support.

[manifesto] an addition on immigration

[This was modified on May 1st as a result of rethinking, itself as a result of the comments below which might not apply to the new post.]

Immigration

# Immigrants of quality should be encouraged but illegal immigrants should be identified, assessed for quality by panels of local authorities and if found wanting - deported immediately, along with all members of the extended family. No pussyfooting around.

No torture, no long drawn out litigation - simply out of the country and then they can re-negotiate their re-entry from over there.

# If they are poor people escaping an oppressive regime, say Mexico to the U.S.A., then holding camps for assessment, conducted humanely, seem logical.

# Immigrants entering a country should observe the adage: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Immigrants' primary purpose is to integrate with the society whilst pursuing their own goals. However, if those goals include encouraging discord in the state they've entered or clearly divergent ideas and modes of behaviour, this should have them before the panel.

Whilst resident in the country, their mores, social norms and the like should loosely conform to those of the native inhabitants. It's a simple test as to what those mores etc. are. If a major proportion of the community cry out over this, then those mores are not suitable.

If youths take part in street demonstrations and the like, then it depends if the issue was local or religious/ethnic. If the latter, then they go with parents to the panel.

# Britain is a broadly Christian country, at lest nominally. It's one thng not to follow this religion - that's their right - but it's not OK to act directly against it. Same goes for parliament.

If they act against the traditonal values of the country, they go before the panel.

# If their religion or home society is known for its corrosive, destructive nature and has a history of intolerance, e.g. oppression of women and being spread by the sword, then the panel would naturally take this into account.

[worstall watch 5] don't mess with the hart

Entertaining today:

Alan Hart Via Blognor Regis, Mr. Alan Hart.

Clearly deranged, quite possibly from the amount of hairspray required to maintain the Donald Trump hairstyle.

Hart's supposed response [via Ross F.]:

Anyway here is my 'to sue' list, complete with the amounts I want from them.

• Tim Worstall, £50 for claiming that I, a former Panorama journalist, am deranged. Also £3000000 for claiming that I use hairspray.

and so on ...

Tim's response:

My First Libel Suit

I'm so proud.

[horse's gaits] now we know

From Wiki [abridged]:

Walk

The walk is a four-beat gait that averages about 4 mph. When walking, a horse's legs follow this sequence: left hind leg, left front leg, right hind leg, right front leg, in a regular 1-2-3-4 beat. At the walk, the horse will always have one foot raised and the other three feet on the ground, save for a brief moment when weight is being transferred from one foot to another.

Trot

The trot is a two-beat gait that averages about 8 mph, or roughly the speed a human can run. A very slow trot is sometimes referred to as a jog. An extremely fast trot has no special name. In this gait, the horse moves its legs in unison in diagonal pairs. From the standpoint of the balance of the horse, this is a very stable gait, and the horse need not make major balancing motions with its head and neck.

The trot is the working gait for a horse and is the main way horses travel quickly from one place to the next, sometimes for hours.

Canter

The canter is a controlled, three-beat gait that usually is a bit faster than the average trot, but slower than the gallop. Listening to a horse canter, one can usually hear the three beats as though a drum had been struck three times in succession. Then there is a rest, and immediately afterwards the three-beat occurs again. The faster the horse is moving, the longer the suspension time between the three beats.

In the canter, one of the horse's rear legs – the right rear leg, for example – propels the horse forward. During this beat, the horse is supported only on that single leg while the remaining three legs are moving forward. On the next beat the horse catches itself on the left rear and right front legs while the other hind leg is still momentarily on the ground. On the third beat, the horse catches itself on the left front leg while the diagonal pair is momentarily still in contact with the ground.

Gallop

The gallop is very much like the canter, except that it is faster, more ground-covering, and the three-beat canter changes to a four-beat gait. It is the fastest gait of the horse, averaging about 25 to 30 miles per hour, and in the wild is used when the animal needed to flee from predators or simply cover short distances quickly. Horses seldom will gallop more than a mile or two before they need to rest, though at a moderately-paced gallop can sustain it for longer distances before they become winded and have to slow down.

Like a canter, the horse will strike off with its non-leading hind foot; but the second stage of the canter becomes, in the gallop, the second and third stages because the inside hind foot hits the ground a split second before the outside front foot. Then both gaits end with the striking off of the leading leg, followed by a moment of suspension when all four feet are off the ground. A careful listener or observer can tell an extended canter from a gallop by the presence of the fourth beat.

[trimaran] une certaine sécurité

The Danish Dragonfly 1000 trimaran

Un trimaran est un bateau à trois coques: 2 flotteurs situés de part et d'autre d'une coque centrale plus volumineuse mais dépourvue de quille. Le gréement est situé sur la coque centrale. Les flotteurs sont reliés à la coque centrale par des bras de liaison qui peuvent être de simples poutres ou être en partie habitables. Les plans anti-dérive sont situés généralement sur les flotteurs. Ce type de bateau est principalement utilisé pour la plaisance et la course à la voile.

Cette formule apporte une certaine sécurité en navigation par rapport à celle du catamaran : lorsque le vent forcit, le flotteur sous le vent s'enfonce en freinant la progression et il faut surtoiler ce type de voilier pour arriver à décoller la coque centrale. Si le chavirage n'est pas exclu sur les engins de course, il est beaucoup moins fréquent que sur les catamarans.

There are three main western configurations, apart from sailboards:

1] monohull [one hull];

2] catamaran [two hulls];

3] trimaran [pictured above].

The most stable is the latter but it is also the most expensive and the heaviest and this requires the carrying of more and more sail which then reduces the initial advantage in stability and so on.

All my designs utilize a "tri" configuration but with accommodation in the outer hulls as well, which increases weight and requires greater canvas.

To overcome this, I go for low aspect sail plans such as the gaff and the Chinese junk rig. The result is performance below the cat and way above the monohull. The advantage, though, is in the buoyancy, stability and large accommodation - surely requirements for successful cruising.

[alexander] did he understand his legacy to be

Tiberius Gracchus has a really interesting take on Alexander the Great and the bits which touched me were:

Alexander, Green conjectures, built his empire in conscious emulation of the Homeric hero, of Achilles and Hercules with whom he identified and whose blood he beleived that he bore within his veins.

... this:

He showed little concern about who would succeed him- he didn't marry until he reached India and even then waited before he had children. Alexander was always planning further conquests

... and this:

But such an empire was achieved at the price of permanent instability - no sooner did Alexander leave a region than revolution sprung up behind him. Even his own appointed satraps might swiftly rebel as did Harpalus, his own treasurer, in Babylon towards the end of his reign.

So where does the Hellenist legacy fit into this scenario? Tiberius answers this and more. Have a look.