[brazil air crash] again, a combination of circumstances

The Brazil crash was not the same as the Tenerife crash, which I've studied in some detail, but only touched on in blog posts and yet there's at least one common element - the combined force of a number of small errors which led to it:

1. The reverse thruster had been switched off during regular maintenance [though why it could not have been switched on again, I'm not sure];

2. The runway had been recently resurfaced;

3. It was too short;

4. There was heavy rain that day;

5. The geography of the runway and surrounding area had a fuel depot immediately to the left near the end of the runway;

6. That same plane had had problems landing the day before.

That was for starters. The critical point following that was that the jet appeared to be trying to take off again but only veered left and crashed into the fuel storage facility. Thus the 200 or so died.

Trying to look into the pilot's mind, imagine his thoughts as he touched down, presumably at the correct speed but instead of the thrusters working, they didn't. Now he had a set of safety procedures at this point and he would have employed them but to no avail.

The aircraft was still travelling at three times the correct speed. At what point he changed his mind and wanted to abort the landing and take-off again, on a short runway, is the crucial point - the earlier the better, of course. I'm also thinking of traction issues on that slippery runway.

With the runway being so short, wouldn't it have been in the pilot's mind that the instant he realized the thrusters weren't working he should have aborted there and then and attempted a takeoff?

Everyone was to blame - from the runway designers, through the officials, to the crew at the end. And always there was the commercial pressure, with soaring prices, to delay solutions just that little bit longer.

When we take that car to the airport, we have other issues on our minds - the meeting, the holiday, whatever. We worry about the weight of our baggage, the delay in traffic, we make that call on the cellphone. We check in and then have to run the gauntlet of the screenings on the way through.

Then comes the boredom of the wait, the boarding procedure and the putting of things in the overhead lockers. The last thing on our minds is that this particular plane had problems yesterday or that the runway we are to be landing on is too short.

There's a lot of trust in this thing, isn't there?

[try these blogs] thursday diversion

Today:

Methodius

Orthodox deacon, freelance writer, editor, and teacher.

Waking Hereward

Designer and appreciator of Black Cat.

Mark Wadsworth

Chartered tax adviser and conservative [?] who wishes to legalize cannabis.

[black is white, white is black] a golden compass will get us back

Oh my goodness, there's no stopping this thing, is there? We're indeed in the times when they don't even bother disguising the message any more but a quote from Isaiah puts it in perspective:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

There's a war raging and it's an unknown war yet for most people still tied to their shopping centre lifestyle and credit card debt, the loss of all values except "do as you will" and the slow slide into the new feudalism.   Into this comes a film which would never have been made for children twenty years ago and it's straight black theology - the Golden Compass.

Where to start within the constraints of a blog post? 

In this heavily symbolic film [the first indicator], each person has no soul but a personal daemon beside them. The daemon is good, a protector [second indicator] and the Catholic Church is the Magisterium. Superimposing the clinical white torture chambers of the future [third indicator] on the "evil" church, all dissent is suppressed, everything is based on a lie, the black priests contrast with the fair-haired and white clad daemons, whose allies, the witches [fourth indicator] come to the rescue.

The evil church is experimenting on children, reducing them to spiritless robots called gobblers and it is up to the heroic gypsies, polar bears, witches and the star child to rescue them from the clutches of the church and their Russian speaking cossack guards. The dastardly deed is:

... cutting away the child's dæmon by a process called intercision which is equivalent to disconnecting their souls from their bodies [fifth indicator] ...

... precisely the aim of the dark side in RL and the diametric opposite of the aim of Christianity which is the synthesis of the spirit and body. But no one knows that any more, do they? No one has been brought up any more with any knowledge of the old scripture, which states this as clear as day.

This is meant to be a kids' film?  Bl--dy hell.   The kids learn to love black and distrust white.  Yeah, right on.

What impression did the film makers hope to make on kids? Nicole Kidman, Eva Green, Daniel Craig and many other stars should have ensured a perfect reception in kids' minds. "As of July 6, 2008, it had earned $372,234,864 worldwide."   

Not quite what they'd hoped for.

Near the end of the film, the high witch Eva Green, [my, she loves these roles, doesn't she], explains to the star child that the Magisterium is trying to take over the whole world and other worlds too, stifling free speech, regimenting people and that a war is coming which will consume everyone.

Now, that rhetoric and modus operandi is straight from the Illumined Ones and the world elite - has anyone ever heard a Christian church preaching that, even the Catholic Church? And yet because the ground has been made fertile over three decades now, with education, the media and the arts all white-anted, the anti-truth will be received wisdom for the zombified but for mavericks of the old school - it's going to be an uphill battle.

A blog post like this will only convince people that the blogger is off his brain, won't it?    Should this blog just lighten up and watch everyone sleepwalk to oblivion?   Not much else it can do.

[the right to bear arms] in a changing society

You'll recall the 2003 Canadian law requiring all firearms to be registered and Canadians' reluctance to do so:

The grace period to register rifles and other long firearms ended yesterday with about 1.6 million shotguns and rifles — about one of every five such weapons in the country — still outside of the national database. But the federal government is not rushing to track down and charge people with unregistered long weapons.

Despite being past the deadline, Canadians will not face punishment if they voluntarily contact the Canadian Firearms Centre to register a weapon in the coming weeks. They run the risk of a fine or jail sentence only if they are caught by police with an unregistered weapon.

Canadian law regarding firearms can be seen, in summary, here. My reading of the government strategy is that they must bend over backwards to show reasonableness in this matter before they start the prosecutions. There can be little doubt that the ultimate purpose of the registrations is to enable the weapons to then be surrendered. Australia has already begun proceedings this October. Britain started down this road in 1999, utilizing the Dunblane Tragedy to demand gun surrender.

In the U.S.A, the situation is a little different. They've ended the gun-surrender program implemented by former HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, on the grounds that it was too costly and might have been illegal. Americans are openly discussing not only buying in weapons but which ones:

I’m thinking a 9mm since that is standard issue around the world and the bullets would be cheap for practice. Anything you’d recommend? I’m leaning towards a sub-compact because I like the element of surprise. I’m looking at this…

The Americans are even taking an interest in our situation:

It's interesting to note that as recently as 1996, there were fewer than 600 annual homicides in Britain. Once more, and in direct contrast to the assertions of the gun control crowd, it is demonstrated that fewer legal guns indicates more crime. In this case, 30 percent more lethal crime. Britain would have done much better to keep its guns and ban the migration from the third world.

This is logical. If a citizen wants to kill someone and guns are legal, then that would be his weapon of choice. If you ban guns, then the whole thing moves one rung down and people start using, say, knives. The difference is that a knife is far easier to conceal and explain away if you were found with one. Ban knives and then people would take to acid or poison or whatever.

You're not going to stop a person determined to kill anyway but that's not the real point of the government. The difference between the gun and the knife is the citizen militia. That must never be, say the government and significant portions of the population, who believe the government is on their side, cite the British tradition of not carrying firearms.

Philip Luty was the test case over here and he was jailed for possession. Apparently it is legal to advertise plans on how to build your own gun but illegal to build and carry one from those plans.

Returning to the U.S.A., the right to bear arms means, in Bob G's words:

I feel safe when taking care of my own protection, something they cannot assure. To listen to this bunch, the NRA [not the rifle association but the regulatory authority] makes the Illuminati look like pikers.

The increase in weapons sales since Obama got in illustrates the American view that patriotism means loyalty to the flag and constitution but not particularly to the government of the time. To carry weapons in defence of yourself, your family and the people is a second amendment right.

This blog is certainly not advocating it and its owner can't remember when he last saw a gun but it seems, as the British people observe more and more the resemblance of their nation to a police state, that more and more they are probably going to start thinking about the necessity of the right to bear arms.

[bnp list] a hypocrite pontificates

The BNP matter. It is outrageous that they were outed.

A completely unprincipled blogger who is well-known for publishing whatever he damn well likes on those who oppose him said that he opposed the principle of personal information being published [I choked on my coffee when I saw that, the freakin' hypocrite] but that in this particular case dot dot dot ...

What a tosser. You either have a principle or you don't. You either say it's OK to out or you don't. In this case, it is not. Data Protection Act et al.

UPDATE 21:17:  I apologize for the tone of this post - hypocrisy really gets on my nerves and so the tone is a bit wild.  I even apologize to the target of the post - I'd have hoped to have remained more even-tempered.  Still, what's done is done.

UPDATE  00:18:  You know, this post has received such massive traffic since it was posted, I wonder why, when far better posts were put up today and generated nice but steady traffic.  Why would anyone be interested in my opinion on the BNP?  Maybe it was the word "hypocrite" which brought people in, thinking I might be dredging up an old issue.  No such luck.  That one's over.

[try these blogs] wednesday diversion

Try these:

Over the water

A misplaced scouser seemingly living in San Francisco and involved in construction.

Writing on

South Florida writer with a mystery persona.

Infidel 753

Portland, Oregon accountant with specific views.

[new members] can past history be looked at

There is apparently a proposal at a blog group [not Bloghounds] which runs roughly along these lines:

That the criterion by which new blogs are decided for membership should in no way take into account the blogger himself, his past history or his "private life" nor if it is being used for "recruitment" purposes.

In other words, members must decide on the blog, excluding what they already know of this blogger or what subsequently comes out.

Thus, if he is a known troll or a stalker or has a history of trouble-making, this must not be taken into account in deciding if the blog itself is fit for membership.

Put another way, the blog itself becomes a member, rather than the blogger.

I think that is the case in a nutshell - correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, at Bloghounds, we simply don't yet have a formulated policy but there is an unwritten principle that it is the blogger who applies, nominating one of his/her blogs as his/her main vehicle. We do look at history and the membership decides on that basis, after first looking at the quality of the blog.

An aside about my blogrolls

I've just added The Far Queue, Damon Lord, Letters from a Tory and Angus Dei to my personal roll. This is my N2 roll, my main one being the Bloghounds roll. They'll be transferred there pending membership approval. My blogrolls in general are going to be revamped soon.

Some people have been wondering why they were there but now aren't. The reasons are two - either they don't link to me or they do link to a person [who shall remain nameless] whom I refuse to link to. You can call that petty but I call it my right on my blog.

[blogging] and a sense of perspective

Angus Dei, a pending member at Bloghounds, has done the statutory blogger thing and looked inwards at why he blogs. The message is remarkably consistent with what other bloggers have also felt:

Blogging enables people to communicate, it enables discussion, and a chance to join together against the things that really irritate us, or things that are wrong. I know why I blog, I do it to keep sane, I do it because I want to get a message out to people and perhaps just maybe make a tiny difference to this tortured world and all the tortured souls in it.

Good and that's the spirit within which most people blog and so we fisk away and blithely post. As it's usually Gordo or the NHS on the receiving end, who are in no position to fight back, everything is hunky-dory. Where it starts to falter is when the wrong 'un is apparently another blogger - then the thing gets murky and the right to freedom of expression is suddenly withdrawn by the accused. Suddenly suppression and threats are on the agenda.

I take the point of view that if you're willing to dish it out and willing to justify it with supporting evidence, then you have to be willing to cop it in return. You'll be posted on in none too flattering [and in your view - unjustified] terms. Ho hum. The principle of the blogosphere has always been freedom of expression and as most of us have relatively small readerships, it's pretty pointless worrying ourselves too much over it, once the hue and cry is done. Voltaire once reportedly referred to it this way:

What a fuss over an omelette.

In the end, a bit of common sense and a thick hide are the required attributes of a good political blogger. We do find ourselves spammed and trolled at times though; unpleasant types also wish to hijack our comments sections.

Comment moderation is a pretty effective deterrent there, when used sparingly. I don't particularly like to use it, as it depersonalizes the whole blogging experience but sometimes it's necessary - there are some crazy people out there in the sphere.

So yes, blogging's largely a rewarding thing but keep an eye peeled over one shoulder, all the same.

UPDATE WEDNESDAY MORNING: I continue the theme in the comments section. Ordo has also posted on a blogger whom some Welsh MPs have tried to silence.

[in defence of romance] new era dawneth

It need not be retro, it need not even be nostalgic, it can even incorporate the new technology, as in this blog post but one thing I know we need in this world now is a new era of romance.

In the coming era of adversity, in the black goth ascendancy and current atmosphere of disillusionment, in the current loss of all human dignity and sense of hopelessness, there are two things missing this time round - the creativity such as blossomed during the jazz age and the return of elegance.





We need the fashions of yesteryear to be borne in mind and a new fashion for the times created, a new rush of possibilities, a new code of social relations, loosely based on chivalry and respect.

We need men to be men, rather than frightened, emasculated disrespecters of women and for women to be women, not the carping "I can do anything better than you" sisterhood but people a man can respect and adore. I see fewer and fewer of each today.


We need a cranking down of our lifestyle to one of more simplicity and sheer enjoyment, embracing the new technology and going forward, rather than some luddite stopping of all progress. Let's redirect the current direction rather than stop it in its tracks.

We need a new family deal, where parents do the things parents should do without blaming society and for schools to expunge themselves of entrenched revisionists who have led the children astray, away from their roots and from the core values of a sane society.


Above all, we need hope and confidence. Hope that we will always defeat this new negativity and confidence that we will prevail under the assault of destitution and social engineering. We need to wrest our nation back from those who have hijacked it. As Winston said:

You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."

[the boss] lonely life at the top

I've had two main brushes with being isolated and lonely - one involving me and one involving being at close quarters with another who was there. As well as that, my little consulting practice brought me into contact with CEOs and they all had the same outlook, the same melancholic quietness, punctuated by irritation and annoyance.

This piece on Barack Obama was quite interesting in that context. A thousand levels above anything I ever experienced, nevertheless it meant something to me personally.

CEOs used to come to visit, always with a cheery greeting but over coffee they'd unwind to the point that they could reveal how wound up they were. The sessions with me were a sort of relief from the hurly burly and yet they couldn't relax, didn't want to sacrifice any advantage. All steps had to be forward and upward.

One chap said that his friend had just died the day before at 57. He'd been a workaholic, couldn't delegate, had had a lovely wife and family he rarely saw without business issues intruding and he'd then stressed himself out so far that he'd shuffled off. My own client wasn't that far off this either, I surmised at the time.

It's lonely for a CEO and it's a slightly different thing for a man and a woman. The women I've known in those positions have been just as driven but lived in golden cages, in goldfish bowls. They had no life to speak of and couldn't have. Known in the town, the chances of a man wanting her just for herself was mighty small and so the defences were permanently up.

Meetings with friends for a drink were timed and then concluded. Novels were glanced at last thing before bed. There was never real respite. In the Min's case, he came in about 10 or 11 a.m. but was pretty constantly on the go, chairing meetings, entertaining dignitaries, visiting the free economic zone, travelling, travelling, called to audiences with the PM until 8 or 9 p.m. Then he'd go through his dispatch boxes at home.

Looked glamorous and every one of these people didn't shy away from the position when it was offered. It had many perks which I prefer to call "things which make the job possible to do". Yet all of these people were under stress the whole time because even one false decision was going to cost deeply. I have no time for people who envy what they see as the cushy life of such CEOs - it's a lonely game up there and it is very hard work.

In my own case, in our organization, I had two roles and they had me on call from about 6 a.m. until about 11 p.m. It wasn't that which burnt me out in the end but the constant issues needing resolution which never, ever let up, even on weekends. Yes, the money was good and I could run two cars but the stress outweighed that significantly. I think I got out in time.

So yes, I can oppose Obama, politically, from this blog, as the best choice for America but one can only respect the job he's taken on.