Friday, May 08, 2009

[russia one year on] has anything changed


My eyewitness information is now [coming up to being] a year out of date but primary source material still comes in from Russia as to what’s happening in that great land – I’m pumping one girl for as much as I can about the current state of play.

As is often the case with eyewitness and primary sources, they’re of less use than what researchers can offer, being specific to the situation those sources find themselves in. However, there are enough different sources currently coming in to my inbox, to attempt a comparison between Russia and Britain.

Both are facing depression and both have interesting set-ups at the top but one difference, it seems to me, is that not only are prices artificially kept in check over there, they are able to be. By this, I mean that Russia is still not sufficiently part of the market economy that it feels the strictures of process.

Here, if Darling says it is so, there are a thousand pundits to point out that he’s either in cloud cuckoo land or telling porkies. Everyone knows Britain’s debt. In Russia, everyone knows it is oil and gas which keep things afloat and when the Duma says, ‘This is,’ usually it is, until next week at least, when they may have changed their minds. Either way, the pan-Russian public just accepts it and puts it down to being Moscow’s doing.

The original model for our UKSSR, soviet Russia left a legacy of red tape and criminalization which put the average punter into a position, long ago, of having to ignore the million and one tiny regulations but to concentrate instead on the ‘regulation of the week’ which the powers that be happen to be pushing.

For example, everyone knows when the police have been instructed to pull over drivers for having half a wheel on a white line and with the state of the roads over there, it’s impossible to take any journey without four or five times committing that particular breach. Therefore, one doesn’t travel by car that day or else takes a route where the GAI are not likely to be. Usually these things happen when the coffers are low, at certain significant moments in the year.

Another difference is that apparently the mini-skirt is back in fashion and over there, the young women are absolutely everywhere, on every street, in every shop, anywhere you try to turn - there they are. It would be difficult for a man in the main shopping streets just at this point. Over here, women are only just de-rugging.

There’ve apparently been changes to tertiary education over there and I’m trying to get my friends to fathom those and be a little more than mono-syllabic in their replies. More on that at a later time.

I suspect that things are not a great deal different to what people can remember in the ‘bad old days’, a debatable question over there as to whether they were the bad old days and Russians are uniquely placed to cope with deep privations and dire circumstances in general. Over here, only the war generation would be prepared for what is coming up in late 2009 to mid 2010.

Having siad that, the Brits are perhaps halfway between the Americans and Russians for being able to batten down hatches and live on a shoestring, to shamelessly mix metaphors, as is my wont.

There’s a popular joke in some quarters in Russia and it goes a little like this:

There was a tank broken down in the desert. An American was sent out to assess it, he got to the core of the problem and ordered the part from Pittsburg, waiting time six weeks.

Two Brits came out to assess the problem, looked over, under and around, one raised his eyebrows, muttered, ‘Typical, in’it?’ to which the other said, ‘Big job, that. American tank. We’ll need to make a list of parts and we’ll sort it tomorrow, at 2.55 p.m.’

They departed the scene to get the requisite gear, for which they’d need to submit a Form SQ23-4h5, a J7D/347/T27 and possibly a K43 in triplicate plus they’d have to check that the officers authorized to do the repairs possessed the relevant NVQs. They’d be back tomorrow at 2.55 p.m and if a Brit says it won’t be sorted before 2.55 p.m. then, barring someone being called onto another job, in which case they’d need to reassess the return time, it will be sorted at 2.55 p.m.

A Russian came out, looked over, under etc., then broke for a cigarette. Two more Russians arrived, all shook hands and they discussed the matter, handing ciggies around. Four more, including two women, saw this group, came over, shook hands, cigarettes were passed round again, at which five more came upon the scene, cigarettes etc. etc.

Half swarmed over the machine and the other half remained smoking, for moral support. Dima called out, from under the tank, for someone to throw him down some chewing gum and one of the girl’s hairclips. After some time, he called out for Sergei to try the ignition.

The tank spluttered but wouldn’t start.

They broke for cigarettes and another brainstorming conference began, at which they discussed the two eternal Russian questions, in this order: ‘Who’s to blame and what to do?’

Time to break for a nip of vodka. Someone had brought some dried fish and khlep [bread].

In a better frame of mind now, everyone staggered back and then Misha saw the crux of the problem, common sense really, where before all had been fog. One of the girls’ panyhose, a hairclip and two chewed pieces of gum later, Sergei tried the ignition, it growled and spluttered, then suddenly sprang into life.

They all broke for a couple more nips and some ciggies, a good day’s work having been put in and some super lovemaking coming up late evening. Then they piled into, onto and around the tank and drove back to camp.

On Monday - why it is still possible to starve in Russia.


Good Trance

Sometimes I find it amusing to be looking for a song on YouTube and then finding another one, completely by accident. Usually, the accidentally found one turns out to be quite good.

Such was the case last night when I was looking for "Ibiza Sunrise" by Labworks:



One question I've always had, since I never have been to Ibiza, (even during my six month sojourn in Spain) is why do they have these chicks in two piece swimsuits? You look at any, and I mean any song on YouTube that is from the electronica genre and you will find one version of the song (if it's only the song) that has an avatar or a real photo of some chick in a two piece. It's as if the two piece swimsuit and chick are symbols of the place.

A brief primer (please don't take this as the definitive word, as I'm just now learning although I've dabbled in the genre for a number of years now) on electronic sub-genres:

house - a genre that usually (but not always) has vocals and is generally listened to in (where else?) your house

trance - a genre that employs usually only methodic beats without vocals, very popular in clubs

dance - a genre that is easy to dance to (usually remixes of pop songs from what I've found)

Back to my story, last night I searched for Labworks' "Ibiza Sunrise" by typing in "sunrise on Ibiza" on YouTube and this came up



It is now my new favorite trance song. Enjoy!

PS: Did I mention I just finished my last final of my undergrad epoch? Joy!

[copyright] shows you have to be careful

That header of the shoreline and boat at sunset came about this way. I had the large picture and trimmed it to header size, accentuated and did bibs and bobs, then had it hosted.

Fine. The original had been in my store for years, I couldn't recall from where but as i thought about it, it seemed to look like one of Gary Dierking's boats [he's known for that super-smooth strip-planking]. So today I thought I'd check his site out again and what a shock. Not only did he crop the way I did but he used the Papyrus font, as I do in many pics I use.

If you were to compare the two, it looks as if I've just come along and lifted his pic whereas I can assure anyone it was not so. Anyway, look through his site, he's a nice chap that I've had correspondence with from time to time.

[opera] elite test

To be a true member of Them, you’ll need to display an appreciation of opera. Supply the name of the composers from the initial letters:

1. Eugene Onegin…..1879…..T
2. The Tales of Hoffman…..1881…..O
3. Prince Igor…..1890…..B
4. La Boheme…..1896…..P
5. Salome …..1905…..RS

Answers

Tchaikovsky, Offenbach, Borodin, Puccini, Richard Strauss

[staying together] or taking the easy way out


This article by Cate Russell makes some good points about why people break up:

When I was in college, I was shocked when one of our psychology teachers
told the class he didn't expect his marriage to last. He had concluded that two people just aren't able to stay together forever as they change and grow. I was twenty years old, in love for the first time, and horrified at his defeatist attitude.

I now know from personal experience that it can be really rough going to keep a relationship strong, but I still disagree that marital failure is inevitable. I believe that a relationship is worth the love, energy, time and history which is invested in it, and all avenues to improve it, rather than abandon it, should be taken unless it is abusive or dangerous.

Once the passion and newness of a relationship has died down many disappointments do surface, and they take a lot of effort to come to terms with, and rebuild around. You may not treat each other as tenderly or considerately as you did before. The romance may have died, or the affection may have dwindled. There may be financial pressures, unemployment, sickness, the stresses that the arrival of children bring, or serious problems with other family members.

The internal pressures of realising that Mr Right is Mr Average, and isn't the white knight you thought he was going to be, coupled with the external problems you both face, can lock the greatest love story of all time in a pressure cooker to see how long it can handle boiling point! It is painful. Some couples stay together, and adapt and cope as best they can as a unit. Others become disillusioned and feel robbed. They pull apart and retreat to safer territory.

According to the experts who study relationships, the greatest predictor of divorce is how close the couple feel to each other. This is displayed in black and white when a couple faces conflict. When you watch couples fight, it is like watching a love meter which registers where they are really at. Do they get nasty and try and score points off each other? Do they avoid the problems? Are they defensive or critical? Do they bring up past hurts, whether they have been resolved before or not? If so, that couple could very well be headed for a break up within two years.

The decision to split up doesn't come because of differences in each partner's expectations of the other, domestic annoyances like leaving the cap off the toothpaste, or differences in personality. Splits happen when there is a loss of love, intimate sharing and connection. As human being we all need connection.

This is what holds families and societies together, and what can make or break a marriage. Attacking, criticising and being defensive in conflict, show that the emotional connection between the two parties is lacking. They may not feel loved or valued. Communication on a deep level is often missing, and there is more tension present than togetherness.

Couples that still show consideration for each other, even in a tense, hurtful situation, are far more likely to pull through and find a way to resolve their problems. They may use humour to break the tension. They don't blame and criticise, but rather, they acknowledge each other's viewpoint while not backing down from their feelings, or withdrawing just to escape facing up to what is going wrong.

Using kindness and honesty in a conflict, no matter how much you are hurting, is not only an indicator of an individual's maturity and relationship skills, but also how much they respect and are bonded to the other person. Kindness can prove that they see the relationship as a worthwhile investment, and they want to keep it alive.

So how do you know if you're headed for a break up? If you feel dissatisfied, even if you don't know why. If you don't share things with your partner the way you used to: big and small, daily and life changing decisions included. If you feel like you don't know each other, and are living together as two isolated, separate individuals rather than a unit.

The biggest warning sign is whether you are going ahead making decisions about what you want to do with your life without consulting with, or considering the needs of your partner.

However, just because you are in trouble doesn't mean break up is inevitable, and nothing can be done. If you are willing to work at it, and risk some failures while you are aiming for the successes, you can build a better quality more loving relationship, built on communication, genuine sincerity and trust.

The commitment to stay in a relationship is not just made at the beginning. It is re-evaluated periodically as the value of your loved one and their relevance to your life is reconsidered in tough moments.

Successful long term partners have been studied, and often it was found that they didn't consider splitting up or divorce to be an option. They had made a commitment, and the preciousness of their partner overrode the highs and lows they knew they would face.

All couples experience pain and dissatisfaction with each other at various times. Some days it may seem so intense that breaking up is the only escape. Yet life too throws us the same hand, and we choose to keep trying.

All couples are closer emotionally at some times and not others. There will always be demands on us which will alter our priorities, and conflicts and crisis' will always arise. It's our decision whether to give in and quit, or find a way forward and stay together.

Essentially, whether you break up or not is your decision. It is an act of your own free will, no matter what the circumstances are, or how hopeless and damaged the situation may seem at the time. As the slogan of one Australian bank neatly puts it, "Make It Happen."

Cate Russell, 26th August, 2001

Her point about:

Successful long term partners have been studied, and often it was found that they didn't consider splitting up or divorce to be an option. They had made a commitment, and the preciousness of their partner overrode the highs and lows they knew they would face.

… is an excellent one and reveals the extent to which society today goes for the soft option and the easy way out. However, the article above doesn't take into account some other factors, such as:

1. The global external pressures present today, e.g. internet, alternative youth 'culture', gaming, clubbing, permissiveness, the 'me first' mentality and of course – the economic depression. Money is a major factor in breakups for people fixated on acquisition of material goods.

2. Nagging. This is a word you never read of in articles written by women and yet it is a major factor in break-ups. That shopping list of faults and the sour-faced look do more to drive a man away than almost anything else, under the guise of 'trying to talk' or 'improving him'. In the article above, this does not appear as a prime cause.

In a similar way, non-gender-specifically, one of the killers of a relationship is the partner who says, 'Let's talk,' or 'Let's work together,' by which he/she means, 'Let's agree to do things my way.' The Beatles song We Can Work It Out addresses that directly. 'We' here means that you must see it my way. Why is it that the person who calls for dialogue is often the one less able to accept the other's position?

3. The refusal of boys today to accept responsibility for impregnating girls or even just committing to a partnership and the refusal of girls to say no or to be discerning and by so doing, allowing the boys to refuse to accept responsibility and so on.

A more recent phenomenon is the widespread, parallel refusal of girls to commit and thus the seeds have been sewn for a gomorrah type situation in the not too distant future, ushering in Huxley's Brave New World.

4. Cate Russell makes another good point: 'When you watch couples fight, it is like watching a love meter which registers where they are really at.'

It comes down to why they're together in the first place. Was it because she was pregnant, because they were genuinely in love, both of them, because they were frightened of being alone … what?

Thursday, May 07, 2009

[science and technology] five questions for you



1. Mrs. Thomas Smith of Ryde, NSW, Australia, produced a new variety of fruit in 1868. What is it called?

2. Name anything that happened in Britain on September 3rd, 1752.

3. The prefix mega- is a millionfold in the SI units and giga- is a billion. Tera is a trillion but what is the quadrillionfold (10 to the power of 15) prefix?

4. Truth, beauty, strange, charm, up and down are types of what?

5. If the camel with one hump is called a dromedary, what’s the other type called?

Answers

The Granny Smith apple; nothing happened - after September 2, the next day was September 14, due to the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, peta, quarks, bactrian

[illegal immigrants] why post when someone already has

Deogolwulf can be slightly inaccessible at times to those without that sort of mind but this is one everyone can comprehend:

Illegal immigrants gathered openly in Trafalgar Square yesterday to protest against the “injustice” of not being British citizens, and yet for some reason they were not rounded up and put into camps ready for deportation. Still, I suppose the sight of the authorities taking seriously the integrity of the country and its laws might scare the voters away, millions of whom haven’t even arrived yet.

[darling's pisstaking] tyburn hill


Eamonn Butler:

When the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee asked how he decided to impose the new rate on everyone earning £150,000 or more, he replied: “There was no science behind it. It was simply my judgment.”

My mate just said:

'If that was private organization and someone [the one payrolling me] came to me and said there was a recognized mechanism for determining these things and I stuck two fingers up to tell him where to go, I'd be sacked on the spot. And it's not the first time he's ignored the recommendations of committees, just because he doesn't like those recommendations.'

I can't improve on that, nor on this comment by a fellow blogger on the Adam Smith site:

Lord T, May 06, 2009
It would take more than a day to work out the true level of public sector debt we have. I would:

Bring back Capital punishment for a day for Treason. Hang Blair, Gordo and his entire cabinet as well as every MP who voted for the Lisbon Treaty. Pref in a slow way. Televise the event and move the May day holiday to this day to remember it.


Then just cancel everything this lot has ever done. Repeal all the laws, cancel all the contracts and fire all the new staff. Don't forget to cancel capital punishment as well.
Make it so every second year in May we vote for a new Government. No MPs to serve more than 4 years. Fix them so they are unchangeable.

Any new laws would be put on a web site and voted for by the public where their inputs are considered if above a certain number of voters. Any will automatically expire after four years unless approved again in which case they become permanent.
Retire. You now have the PM's pension. Whoo Hoo.

My own comment is that if Eamonn Butler's words can be taken at face value, then Darling is taking the piss, quite openly. I do believe that, on the grounds that he is bringing that attitude to the disbursement of public monies, he should either resign henceforth or be up on treason charges, on the further grounds that he is, with malice aforethought, combined with criminal negligence, attempting to dismantle the British economy.

I mean really up on treason charges, not just blogger words of ire.

[chavs rule] rise of the new ignorance


Paul Trout, in Student AntiIntellectualism and the Dumbing Down of the University, wrote, in 1996:

Students demonstrate the anti-intellectual mindset in a number of ways: by not reading the assigned works; by not contributing to class discussions; by complaining about course workloads and lobbying for fewer assignments; by skipping class; by giving low evaluations to instructors with high standards or tough requirements; by neglecting to prepare for class and tests and not bothering to do extra-credit work or take make-up exams; by not consulting material placed on reserve or picking up class handouts; by refusing to learn any more than is necessary to get a good grade; by boasting about how little time is spent studying; by ridiculing high achievers; by being impatient with deliberative analysis; by condemning intellectual endeavors as "boring"; by resenting academic requirements as an intrusion on free time, etc., etc., etc.

There are a number of comments and questions:

1. Has it got any better or worse since 1996? The truth is, the problem has always been present in the student, in his/her self-actualizing tendency and one has only to read Evelyn Waugh, Douglas Adams, Pink Floyd and others for anecdotal evidence that it is a ‘base instinct’ of students to be that way.

The question then is whether the universities and staff are any better or worse these days. Trout:

Faced with growing numbers of high-school graduates who resent and resist the rigors, demands, and pleasures of higher education, colleges and universities have lowered standards to keep students happy and enrollments up. The reason, of course, is obvious: body count equals money. As long as larger enrollments mean larger budgets, and larger budgets mean administrative success, enrolling and retaining as many students as possible, regardless of their attitudes or aptitudes, is more important than making sure students achieve, learn, and produce. This explains why administrators monitor credit hours and student evaluation ratings, but not how much students actually learn. There is no economic incentive to do so. So, over the long haul, enrollment-driven funding weakens commitment to high academic standards (Stone 20-21).

Faculty, of course, are complicit in the dumbing down. Few ever question the recruitment, enrollment, or grading policies that ultimately bring money to their departments. Most department heads and chairs champion educationally fraudulent policies and practices, even when they are ultimately ruinous to staff morale, as long as they believe such policies and practices strengthen the department and protect it from being cannibalized. So, as long as administrators control the purse strings, "there is a great incentive for faculty collectively to support the administrative emphasis on growth" regardless of its negative impact on academic quality and standards (Stone 15).

This explains, in part, the phenomenon of grade inflation, for which faculty must bear most of the blame. "The incentive for institutions to emphasize rigorous grading standards is minuscule" because grade inflation--higher grades for lower achievement--keeps more students on campus, and more students on campus means larger budgets for all (Stone 10). "In essence, there is a substantial body of informed opinion suggesting that grade inflation has come about mainly because enrollment-driven funding has made grade inflation bureaucratically profitable" (Stone 9).

Lower standards and grade inflation make campuses safe for students who have little hunger for knowledge, little love of learning, and almost no appetite for hard work. Although students have many reasons for going to college, a very large number--71.3 percent of the entering class of 1995--do so not to enrich their minds but their pocketbooks. "The only reason most of us are going to school is society says, 'this is your meal ticket'" (Sacks 139).


You can read the rest of these excerpts here. So my answer would be yes, it is worse now and my post not so long ago looked at it from the research perspective. The combination of the students’ base instincts, the commericalization of higher education to a degree not seen before, the socialist hijacking of the curriculum and the accompanying social dislocation of young people and there is the recipe for disaster for the next generation or two.

2. Is it any different in, say, Russia? Well no, in fact it might be worse. Russia is a country of extremes and when I arrived, they were still in the throes of authoritarian soviet education, which nevertheless produced the goods in terms of intellectualism. I’ve mentioned one Russian student who was below average over there, she came to our school in 1996 and swept the board.

Yet the process had already begun, it seems, in some parts of the country, as early as 1993 [all attribution in the Trout addendum]:

Andrei Toom, an adjunct math instructor from Russia, reports his dismal experiences trying to teach anti-intellectual undergraduates consumed by the consumer mindset. "As soon as I started to explain to them something which was a little bit beyond the standard course, they asked suspiciously: 'Will this be on the test?' If I said, 'no,' they did not listen any more and showed clearly that I was doing something inappropriate" (Toom 125). When asked by students why he gave math problems unlike those in the textbook, Toom responded: "Because I want you to know elementary mathematics." Immediately an imposing train of students "stood up and tramped out" (Toom 127). A colleague of Toom's was also criticized for asking his students to learn more than students in another section (Toom 127). Students viewed this not as better teaching but as an iniquity.

I can’t say I found this in the early years but it certainly was so in the later stages.

A broader view

Swinging away from education itself to the broader picture, Trout asks:

Sad to say, the problem of anti-intellectual students is … the result not only of misguided educational policies and practices K through 16, but of vast social and cultural forces well beyond the classroom. These forces include family dysfunction and divorce, disengaged and permissive parenting, peer pressure to regard education derisively, youth-culture activities that militate against serious and sustained intellectual engagement, a widespread deligitimation of reading and print culture, and, an ambient popular culture that glorifies triviality, coarseness and mindlessness. How is it possible to overhaul the entire system--from popular culture and family life to the educational establishment--simultaneously?

That puts it succinctly. Many argue that things are no better nor worse than in previous generations and in previous eras. Some have this cyclical view of society which holds water to a point.

However, we’ve never before had the rampant prostituting of under 18s across all western nations and many eastern ones, down to such young ages, we’ve never had the nightclubbing culture where youth goes out en masse, without parental strictures to be bathed in dark, primaeval entrancement [I should know because I’ve listened to enough of it], supported by drugs, we’ve never had the level of alienation, we’ve not seen the gaming culture completely supplant the officially transmitted mores to this extent.

In ASDA recently, I overheard three girls of around fourteen discussing a fourth and how she’d just got pregnant recently. They were laughing about which boy it might have been. I wasn’t privy to the rest of the discussion as we were passing by at the time but I caught the tone and it was along the lines that it was par for the course for their entire sub-group to be doing it, the only demarcator being whether the girl got pregnant or by some miracle, didn’t.

It’s a question of percentages – there was always a proportion into this but not to this extent. Some say that with the advent of the internet, we simply know more of what’s going on now than before and in fact it went on just as much earlier.

I have to disagree. In a previous post, the point was made that the age of the girls and the much harder nature of the acts they’re expected to do in pornography is completely different today than in previous years. Again, the percentages doing those shoots is small but that doesn’t mean it’s not going on in real life.

I call this process evil. It’s a debatable point whether we can sheet this home to Them or not, to the socialists or not or to whomever but the fact is - it’s wrong. Some point out that Polynesian societies have relations at very low ages and there’s the example of Mohammed of course but I challenge that it was accompanied, in those societies, with the breakdown of the whole infrastructure and dark values driving this dystopia on, as it is here.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

[handguns] protecting your future or boys with toys


They love their guns in the U.S. of A. and with good reason. Apparently the fear of Obamamerica is about and suppliers are running out of stock. Here in the U.K. of course, guns are illegal, which leaves us all defenceless and at the mercy of Gordo's troopers but one man who did something about it [see pics above and below] was f-ed over real well.

Now, my legal advice is that you can show how to make a gun on a blog, as long as you don't encourage anyone to make it and you don't make it yourself. That's how they got him. If it's the issues you're interested in, Joe Huffman is your man.

Pity this debate is dead in the water in this country because it is more relevant now than ever before.