[child mentors] oh dear, here we go again

The logo itself sounds the warning bells.

I really don't wish to make too much of this and have to confess I didn't actually know it was going on but do you see something mildly worrying about a semi-governmental body calling itself Friends of the Children or Western Wellness [with the tagline Best Friends] compulsorily taking your child once a week for "mentoring"?

Wouldn't you feel it was the teensiest, weensiest bit presumptuous of them attempting to make your child "well" again?

Of course, some will say they only target children form dysfunctional families or families where the parents see this as a way for their child to escape poverty. In other words, children where the parents are neither going to say no nor put up any resistance to the move.

Now, if you google "child mentors", you'll see, page after page, how rampant this thing is across the United States. In other words, thousands and thousands of children are getting government "mentoring" to make them "well" again.

Is it the merest coincidence, just a quirk of fate, that in April 1972, in his keynote address to the Association for Childhood Education International, Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine at Harvard University, said:

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being. It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future."

In one school where I once taught, there was a 30ish woman who was the Special Needs mentor. Uh-huh, so the idea was that we selected the children from our class who needed extra help - let's call a shovel a shovel - remedial help and they went to her twice a week.

Now she and I did not see eye to eye. She thought I was altogether to harsh and I thought she was full of s--t. My reason for this latter were the reports she'd compile, using statistical "percentiles" and quoting authorities in remedial education and the whole thing was unreadable to the average teacher.

I showed one of her reports to a colleague and asked him if it was me that was the moron but I, for the life of me, could make neither head not tail of it. He laughed and said no one understood what she wrote and that was the general idea - she was justifying her position in the school.

Trouble was - she had a twice weekly meeting with the boss and was one of those who didn't let her professionalism stand in the way of getting her dig in about those she didn't like [the boss told me this later]. She was one of those who smiles a lot and says little to the person she's commenting on later.

So, one boy we'll call Matt went to her and in the first week or so, all was well. Then, slowly, I noticed a change in him. He'd been dying to get to my class for a year and so there was an initial connection between the two of us.

Now I'll play fair here, for the purposes of the post and say that I was and am strict. The work has to be done and I've no time for stirrers, who are a waste of space. So I'm always going to have trouble from that quarter. On the other hand, the remainder reported, through their parents, that they enjoyed my class. That's about all that can be said on that.

To cut a long story short, Matt slowly changed and eventually became disruptive, sullen and withdrawn but adored going to Special Ed. I visited her a couple of times and there was a most definite conspiratorial silence when I did, as if I was spying on them.

I raised it with the boss and he told me, with a big grin on his face, thank goodness, that it was being reported to him that I was a tyrant, that everyone hated my lessons and that I was unfair to Matt in particular. I suggested that Matt be shifted to the parallel class if that was the case but it seems that neither the boy nor his parents wanted that.

Now the woman's not here to defend herself but a couple of colleagues warned me not to antagonize her as she could make considerable trouble for anyone who got on the wrong side of her. Well, that cuts both ways - I can do that too. So I went to her and invited her to come into a couple of lessons and see for herself how tyrannical my lessons were.

She never did but she was mightily surprised that I'd utilized that term "tyrannical".

I'm not going to tar all "mentors" with the same brush as this woman but I am going to say that these people do have a certain mentality which I didn't understand way back then but now, in the light of last year's blogging, I understand it perfectly well.

All I can say is that, unless it was legally compulsory, I wouldn't let one of these people within speaking distance of my child. Whether that is right or wrong, surely it's a parent's prerogative.

[zep concert] we did it, ahmet

Some comments:

A truly amazing concert. The band all performed with awesome energy for two and half hours, it blew everyone away. If these guys rock like this at 60 years old, I wonder how amazing they were in their prime! Anyway, it was worth every penny. This was the best concert I have ever seen! [Paul, London]

Quite simply the greatest gig I have ever had the pleasure of attending. 'Kashmir' and 'Dazed...' were the highlights of an outstanding set list. £83k a ticket? Worth every penny I'd say... [Mark Franklin, Witney, UK]

Straight from the groin, no messing about, and no playing safe. They did it without a net and proved they are THE best band ever. I just hope they don't do it again. [Bert Priest, Kidderminster, UK]

They were a great band, but now they're old men. Plant can't hit and hold the same notes, Page looks like old father time. Please don't play another gig. Don't ruin your legacy (like the Stones have). Wess, Notts

Champs will always be champs but I wonder when it's time to hang up the plectrum? Watching dinosaurs like Nazareth, The Boss and Rod Stewart and self-parodies like the Stones today strutting around to the horror of the younger generations, should they say to the youngies: "Stuff you!" and just keep strutting or should they move into more mellow music, more befitting their years?

Don't get me wrong, there's the rager inside me which breaks out all the time and I think the little ladies like it in small doses as a break from the usual fare, so maybe Zep did it right - coming back for a one off, which I don't believe was just for the money.

Perhaps, in the end, the only criterion was whether people felt they had their money's worth and whether they came home afterwards feeling satisfied. To hell with the detractors.

[happy birthday] lil bit

[the grand tour] now a gap year

Way to go in the 1880s

The Grand Tour was really something. Poor transport, impassable Alps, the food question and also:

The Grand Tour was also well known as a chance for its participants to sow their oats as they were "generally young, healthy, wealthy and poorly, if at all supervised". Due to the rampant spread of venereal disease, sexual exploits while abroad were frowned upon by those back home, but regarded as just another aspect of the trip.

And yet it was cultural and the young men did not return wholly ignorant. The 1800s opened up rail travel but the idea of a long tour was still for the rich, such as with the exciting Orient Express, which I've walked past but not been on:

The original route, which first ran on October 4, 1883, was from Paris, Gare de l'Est, to GiurgiuRomania via Munich and Vienna. At Giurgiu, passengers were ferried across the Danube to Rousse in Bulgaria to pick up another train to Varna, from where they completed their journey to Istanbul by ferry.

Incidentally, this excellent article on the various trains bearing the name shows that the Orient Express, in one of it forms, still runs Paris to Istanbul, if you have the money for it.




There's something about those days never to be recaptured, even so. Fast forward to modern times:

... the first 'Gap Years' actually started in the UK in the 1960's when the baby-boomer generation in the midst of the 'Swinging sixties' headed off to India on the infamous Hippie Trails, inventing the 'independent travel market' ...

Now it's become far more mainstream and even desirable to have taken that year:

“It's important to differentiate yourself in today’s competitive graduate job market,” says Paul Lyons, the managing director of recruitment specialist Ambition. “And a gap year lets you do that.”

According to Lyons, apart from helping you stand out from the crowd, a gap year also has the professional advantage of demonstrating your life skills and positive personality traits.

“For example, a self-planned, self-funded year spent canoeing down the Amazon is likely to be better regarded professionally than a structured year, funded by parents, spent learning Spanish in Barcelona.”

I never did it like this - I suppose I was a Bill Bryson type "flashpacker". That pack is sitting under the cupboard here now as I type and it does bring back pleasant memories. But all my travelling was done well after uni days when I was earning my own crust and I confess I was using a first class eurail pass.

Finland was the closest I ever got to being a bona fide backpacker when for one night I stayed at a dreaded hostel and was appalled by the whole scene.

Next day I marched into the info place in Rovaniemi, asked for a billet with a family, hired a bike and tootled across the river and visited the people. They just happened to possess a 25 year old unmarried daughter of nordic beauty who invited me to use her sauna so that was far more my thing.

No need to mention breaking my wrist two days later on the luge.

Of course, it doesn't have to involve travel - there might be other things you'd do. Did any of you have a gap year and what did you do?

[economic forecast] not from me

You can always trust a banker.

Would you like my economic forecast for the west 2007 through 2011?

No, I don't blame you for your reticence - I'm an amateur, after all. Would you read one from Morgan Stanley then? They appear to know what they're talking about. They conclude, in the final paragraph:

One risk is that both our outlook and the Fed’s are too optimistic, because they pay too much attention to the economic resilience of the past, and not enough to the future effects of financial and economic headwinds and the dynamics of the downturn. Dramatically slower growth in domestic demand leaves it vulnerable to shocks.

Insufficient Fed action could again threaten a deeper economic slowdown. A contrasting risk is that we’re swayed by Wall Street pessimism and that things may be better on Main Street.

In our view, downside risks still dominate.

[yorkshire europe] are we missing something here

John Trenchard has latched onto this - click on each pic below, one by one, to enlarge it:

Excuse me? Yorkshire and Humber Assembly? A funded legislature? And getting its funding from whom? Oh, it's a Regional Assembly - but they all died, didn't they, when the British people fought and rejected them? Click on the pics below to enlarge:

What the F is going on here? As John says:

2010 appears to be a deadline of sorts. And the mention of "Regional Ministers" is interesting. I wonder who'll they'll be reporting to.

The Fundamental Interconnectedness of All Things

Quite frankly, there is so much that I'm not very good at that one tends to avoid these things like the plague.

Weak, I know but there it is.

Playing tennis, dancing, suffering fools gladly [which is a bit rich because I've done so many foolish things in my time] - these are just a few. For example, I've always underestimated the human capacity to overcome the direst of circumstances and adapt or win against all odds; it's often turned out I was wide of the mark.

Perfect example here is predicting football results or betting on a horse - better I just don't try.

But in other aspects of human nature and group behaviour, especially if not emotionally involved with the person and abandoning all modesty here - I'm rarely wrong [the Poirot inside] and this can be put down to a Miss Marple quote in A Christmas Tragedy:

[How few people] ever stop to think. They really don't examine the facts. Surely, the whole crux of the matter is this - how often is tittle tattle, as you call it, true. I think if, as I say, they really examined the facts, they'd find it was true nine times out of ten. That's really what makes people so annoyed about it!

"The inspired guess," said Sir Henry.

"No, not that, not that at all. It's really a matter of practice and experience. An Egyptologist, so I've heard, if you show him one of those curious little beetles, can tell you by the look and feel of thing what date BC it was or if it's a Birmingham imitation. And he can't always give a definite rule for doing so. He just knows. His life has been spent handling such things.

And so, you see, superfluous women, as you might put it, get to become what you might term experts. Now young people nowadays, they talk very freely about things that weren't mentioned in my young days but on the other hand, their minds are very innocent. They believe in everyone and everything. And if one tries to warn them, ever so gently, they tell one that one has a mind like a sink.

... My nephew Raymond tells me that I haven't a shadow of proof but I knew ...

As a superfluous man, with a certain amount of the feminine in the psyche, certain things have always been so obvious and when I've discussed them with people, expecting they'd find them equally obvious, I've been amazed that something simply stops them seeing it. Or else they have an agenda in not seeing and accepting unpleasant truths, especially about those they revere.

Me, I have no sentiment this way, as Miss Marple didn't. Anyone can be foolish or crooked, no matter how high or low. Unfortunately, this breeds a certain distrust and often people are reticent to talk, for fear of what it will reveal. That was especially so as a Headmaster. I'm sure they realized I'd never make use of it, except to try to help but still - they'd be trying to put certain constructions on things which were quite simply not so or else missed the main point.

And they'd resent that I didn't accept their constructions and they'd often quite savagely turn on me as if to say: "Well, what makes you so special? Why should truth reside in you and not in me?"

It doesn't.

As Holmes might say: "You see just as far as I, Watson but you don't observe." Arrogant bstd? Not at all. There's just a history of keen interest in and the honing of these particular skills, that's all. You do it in your field, I do it in mine. But you'd call me a smug bstd, all the same.

Tangentially, there's one thing I know to be an absolute lie and one of the cleverest lies ever perpetrated on the world. And that's that there is and must always be, a dualistic "balance" between good and evil in the world. The idea is so simple and combines a number of universal truths but in a most destructive, twisted cocktail.

This theory long ago ingratiated itself into and is integrated into certain Eastern religions, drawing on what is a truth - and the Australian koori know this full well - that there must be a balance of eco-systems, of the earth and its inhabitants and that people must continually aspire to wisdom and nirvana.

Then, in that spirit of balance, tolerance and compromise, laced with religious terminology and an all-seeing pseudo-wisdom, there is introduced a single evil thought - that there must also be war to "balance" peace, that there must be cruelty to "balance" kindness and that there must be perversion to "balance" purity.

They can point to ancient, frail texts to support it all but it's a lie just the same, simply because of the eventual fruits of the idea - the idea does not promote harmony on earth at all but seriously unbalances the environment and eco-systems and why? Because this particular dualism takes the metaphor out of context, takes the analogy too far into unsupportable and unsustainable territory and relies on its debunking being so complex and difficult.

Because to debunk this notion, one must unravel each thread, one by one. One must refer to a model of living which does not and never has been given a chance to exist because the other model, being childishly simple to grasp, is thus grasped by barely sentient young people who find it much easier to come to terms with than the truth. And then they grow older and tacitly pass this model down.

You can test the truth out in a micro-environment. Put one thousand people in one square kilometre. Every time one feels like berating another or issuing an ultimatum, don't. Do a kindness instead, though it goes against the grain. Do the hard thing each time and then, as with physical exercise, eventually the hard thing becomes easier and easier to do.

Realize there are just too many people in that square kilometre and that a spirit of compromise is the only sustainable way. Take your destructive urges out by breaking a stick or kicking a rock but these become less and less anyway, the less you utilize them.

Every time you need something, ask if it is really necessary. Every time you need a kilo of this, buy 0.7 of a kilo instead. Practise a certain frugality but not in generosity. On the road, if there is one space and two cars going for it, hold back and let him have it. And so on. In this model there is no "balance" between good and evil.

There is simply no evil.

And what of the rogue element who doesn't play by the spirit of the game? Nothing - as long as everyone else is tenaciously clinging to the model, knowing full well that happiness and security only come through a spirit of give and take, the rogue element will eventually die off.

And this brings us to the second thread - no compulsion.

Disdain is your strongest tool here, non-inclusion of the destructive behaviour, not of the person himself. Every parent knows that you don't dislike the child - you dislike the behaviour. No need to incarcerate, no need to attack, let the rogue element dash itself to pieces on the rock or else come to its senses and rejoin its mates. Always hold out the olive branch and always hold up the sustainable model to follow.

And where are excitement, fun and really wild things under this model?

Here is another lie to debunk - why can't there still be rollicking fun and raucous laughter? Dost thou think there'll be no more cakes and ale? Even a bawdy joke - for goodness sake, is no bad thing. We're sentient, sensual beings, we're sexual. Physically towards one woman because the ultimate pleasure is growing into and upwards with one another, though we notice many others along the way and have a laugh. We are passionate - so let's act passionately. What's the problem?

The problem is the lure of obsession and excess.

You think I don't know deep anatomical exploration, paralytic drinking, tangerine dreams of penguins at dawn and psychic paradise, the thrill of speed and black humour? You think these words are coming out of a sheltered churchgoer? The thing is, there are even higher things than these and the exquisite pleasure in these depends on your ability to regulate your intake of everything, in your capacity for finesse and passion at the one time.

So if a person urges you to indulge your libido or your anger without limit, to substitute substances for higher pleasures, then he's twisting the human quality of constraint and sufficiency, suppressing the equally human qualities of loyalty and trust and seriously unbalancing the psyche. The road he's leading you down leads only to a weakening of the character and eventual desolation.

It's the law of diminishing returns, the law of excessive consumption demanding greater and greater kicks to get the same buzz. Or greater and greater perversion of the real balance in one's life. It's the Emperor Palpatine urging, urging, urging Vader and Skywalker to give way to the misnamed "dark side".

Misnamed because there are no "sides". Again, this suggests a balance between two equal and opposed forces, whereas, in fact the sustainable model is quite different.

The true balance is between all living things and inanimate things in the world [Australian aborigines again or if you prefer - Dirk Gently's fundamental interconnectedness of all things] but humans need to regulate themselves, hone their hardness and ability to survive, through self-denial, through exercise, through controlling the will, through pleasure - just enough of it and once or twice too much, for artistic effect.

Passion should be poured into projects rather than destructive behaviours, anger should be directed at those who would nobble this model, rather than at fellow humans.

In a species which has the capacity to overcome its base instincts and has the capacity to reach for higher things, what then will rein in it's excesses? There has to be something.

In this model of the world, evil is seen for what it really is - not a glorious counterbalance but a sad, tacky cancer entering from without, making its home in the human host [like in Alien], a virus trying to nibble at the edges of a powerful model - simple affection - and trying to pervert it.

It's a wolf trying to separate the lamb from the flock, it's a mentally sick entity trying to turn everyone else into equally mentally sick entities and gaining some short-term comfort from doing so.

So the person calling for all people to give way to their worst excesses and urging them to call it pleasure, this person has become a sad shell, his humanity suppressed [whereas he believes it is shining]; he's being used by a powerful force for its own purposes and ends up calling white black and black white].

There's no reasoning because shells can't be reasoned with.

But the door's always open and this human is always welcome back, if only he will come. I'm referring to NO one person here but to a type, all too common these days. I'm referring to an idea which has taken root [to switch metaphors] and is spreading like a vine across the world. I'm referring to a false model which, as Miss Marple indicated, if people would just sit back and think it through, they'd see through.

But more positively, it is presenting a different model, a more sustainable one and one more appropriate for this time of year.

[patek philippe] signe de richesse et de folie

Кликете фото

Fondée en 1851 par le polonais Antoine Norbert de Patek et l'horloger français Adrien Philippe, la marque fut reprise par la famille Stern en 1932 qui en est à ce jour toujours propriétaire. Maintenant:

Plus que les heures, les montres alignent des records de prix. Une Patek Philippe de 1944 s’est ainsi récemment vendue 1.5 million d’euros, une somme inégalée pour une montre en acier. A ses côtés, la Breguet de l’impératrice Joséphine ferait presque pâle figure, avec ses 913 810 euros.

En clair, les nouveaux riches d’Asie et de Russie dopent particulièrement le secteur du luxe, de même que les marchés traditionnels, Etats-Unis et Europe, restent fascinés par le faste de ces produits.

Besonderer Beliebtheit erfreuen sich insbesondere Modelle mit Ewigen Kalender und mit Chronographenfunktion was sich auch deutlich in den Auktionsergebnissen älterer Modelle zeigt. Ebenso hält Patek Philippe bis dato auch den Rekord für die teuerste im Rahmen einer Auktion versteigerten Armbanduhr, das Modell "World Time" aus Platin erzielte einen Preis von ca. 6,5 Millionen CHF.

И не забудьте Millionaire Fair 2007. Амстердам - Дата: 07.12.2007 — 11.12.2007. Ваш самелот готов!

[bomb quiz] how you learned to stop worrying

In some questions, more than one answer might be possible:

1. The first nuclear test bomb was exploded in New Mexico and was called:

a. The gadget
b. Trinity
c. The logos

2. The second, dropped on Hiroshima, was called:

a. Thin Man
b. Fat Man
c. Little Boy

3. The plane used to drop it was:

a. Bockscar
b. Enola Gay
c. Trinity

4. The third, dropped on Nagasaki, was called:

a. Thin Man
b. Fat Man
c. Little Boy

5. The plane used to drop it was:

a. Bockscar
b. Enola Gay
c. Trinity

6. The project used to develop the bomb was called:

a. Manhattan Transfer
b. Manhattan Project
c. Trinity

7. Which of these did not work on the project?

a. J. Robert Oppenheimer
b. Frank Oppenheimer
c. Werner von Braun

8. Which of these did not drop a bomb on a Japanese city?

a. Major James I. Hopkins, Jr.
b. Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr.
c. Major Charles W. Sweeney

9. Which of these was the original target?

a. Nagaoka
b. Hitachi
c. Kokura

10. Who said: "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds?"

a. The Bhagavad Gita
b. Frank Oppenheimer
c. J. Robert Oppenheimer

Answers

1a, 2c, 3b, 4b, 5a, 6b, 7c, 8a, 9c, 10a,c

[blogfocus monday] snow

Snow begins this first Focus ever on a Monday and ends it too:

1. Richard Havers' new header [above] is fabulous and here are his thoughts on jazz too:

I’ve been a jazz fan for just about as long as I’ve been a music fan. Amongst the many 78s my Dad and I bought at jumble sales were big band jazz, as well as trad jazz records. I’ve also loved the sound of great piano playing. Both my maternal grandparents played piano, my grandad was a piano tuner - it’s the one instrument that I’ve always wanted to play.

2. Mopsa has an unusual approach to fashion:

The bags we are told women are buying in their zillions, cost more than feeding a baby for a year. Or a complete household depending on your lack of taste. Now, I have been known to stroke a Mulberry bag longingly. I am not completely immune to loveliness and I admire craftsmanship.

And I like their messenger bags (intended for men) precisely because they are made fit for purpose, are low key and avoid being swaddled in painful buckles or slathered in eye watering pink patent leather. The cost, although BIG treat time, could not feed the five thousand.

3. The Monkey with a Blue Rosette has a spot of bother:

Last weekend, in Barmpotsby, Yorkshire, one of my campaign team, Johan, made a comment about the case of the teacher Gillian Gibbons, who was jailed in Sudan for calling a teddy bear Mohammed.

Whilst helping me canvassing, he spoke about the case and said to a voter on the doorstep: "It's the first time that anyone's ever called for the early release of a Scouser from prison."

4. Finally, the Fake Consultant discusses an issue close to my heart:

My current snow shovel is my favorite ever: about a foot wide (30cm), thick, plastic (aluminum shovels always seem to bend at the corners or the rivets fail-I hate that), and able to easily slide, even full of the heaviest snow.

The less you lift the better in this job, so sliding the full shovel as much as possible is a good thing. Of course, at some point you still have to lift the snow to remove it, but as of now that’s not a big problem.

After half an hour or so a good third of the work is done; and it’s time for a break. The snow is still powdery, and it’s changing from big, fluffy flakes to an icier, more granular flake. Not an ice pellet...but instead more like the difference between sorbet and granite. Still 26-28 degreesF.