Well there is at least one good thing about the Eurovision Song contest. It is a useful reminder of exactly how low the esteem in which much of Europe holds the UK actually is - and curiously places outside Europe like Russia and Israel hold the UK. There seems to be some following for the Contest in Australia, maybe they should participate, they are surely just as 'qualified' as Israel or Russia.
Still, covering 40% of the costs together with only France, Germany and Spain is a steep price for this knowledge. Italy sensibly decided Enough was enough. It could be the automatic qualification for the final when better songs do not make it this massive expenditure buys us probably does not help.
Of course Russia does not like us at the moment, due to the diplomatic row over some mysterious unidentified party killing off Russian dissidents on British soil. The Balkan states know what side their bread is buttered, but it does have to be said the UK entry this year was not, by objective standards, by any means the best, or most likely to do well on it’s ’Euro’ merit.
By the new Eurovision standards the Russian entry was good, but despite the voting probably not the best.
It would be interesting to see how well the UK would perform if the psychology of the Euro sound were to be analysed and a group and song were to be crafted, specifically designed to succeed, rather than relying on the proven inability of the British public to judge current, heavily East European influenced, ‘Euro’ taste.
It would also be interesting to see a complete change in the voting system where all the votes were pooled. It is simply ludicrous that a country with the population of Andorra has the same voting clout as one with a population the size of Germany.
Maybe it would be much better if an arrangement were found where all participating countries paid their fair percentage share, based on their population and no one automatically made the final too.
If these changes can not be made in time for next year’s contest then surely it would be better if the UK followed the Italian example, withdrew from the contest and took it’s cash with it.
Tuesday 27 May 2008
Saturday 24 May 2008
The Eurovision song 'contest' rolls round once again
Tonight is the night of one of the greatest wastes of British TV taxpayer’s money in the entire year. The Eurovision Song Contest.
It is saved, mostly by the fact that watching the often frankly amazing performances appeals to the sneaking desire to watch a curiosity, combined by Terry Wogan’s gentle micky taking on behalf of us all.
Humourless European officials decry his efforts, whilst failing to grasp he is probably the only thing that keeps the opinion of the UK public in a mood of benign amusement - as opposed to outright contempt.
The 'contest' is intrinsically silly and unfair, it always has been. He does not need to make it look that way, he just uses the fact that it is to entertain us...
We all know we have very little chance of even doing well in it. We know we are not particularly popular with Europe as a whole, given our relationship with the US. But mostly it is the voting system and the blocks that doom all the old large western European nations.
Namely the Baltic and Balkan voting blocks.
Firstly each group tends, by accident, or design, to vote the high points largely exclusively for other members of ‘their’ block.
This, combined with the fact that a microscopic country that consists of several small towns, has the same voting power as a huge country with a population of multiple millions. Tends to give them a lock on the contest, no matter how good or more likely bad the particular entries happen to be.
It’s as if you were to give each county in the UK an individual vote and they all voted for the UK, and Irish entries.
How different would the results be it it were down to a simple total of all the votes cast for each entry, with no country being able to vote for it's own entry?
One suspects it won’t be much different for Andy Abraham tonight. One fears how good the song, or the performance, is will only have a peripheral impact on how well it actually does. The fact that I don’t come right out and predict it is more a triumph of optimism over experience than anything else. We shall see on the morrow…
It is saved, mostly by the fact that watching the often frankly amazing performances appeals to the sneaking desire to watch a curiosity, combined by Terry Wogan’s gentle micky taking on behalf of us all.
Humourless European officials decry his efforts, whilst failing to grasp he is probably the only thing that keeps the opinion of the UK public in a mood of benign amusement - as opposed to outright contempt.
The 'contest' is intrinsically silly and unfair, it always has been. He does not need to make it look that way, he just uses the fact that it is to entertain us...
We all know we have very little chance of even doing well in it. We know we are not particularly popular with Europe as a whole, given our relationship with the US. But mostly it is the voting system and the blocks that doom all the old large western European nations.
Namely the Baltic and Balkan voting blocks.
Firstly each group tends, by accident, or design, to vote the high points largely exclusively for other members of ‘their’ block.
This, combined with the fact that a microscopic country that consists of several small towns, has the same voting power as a huge country with a population of multiple millions. Tends to give them a lock on the contest, no matter how good or more likely bad the particular entries happen to be.
It’s as if you were to give each county in the UK an individual vote and they all voted for the UK, and Irish entries.
How different would the results be it it were down to a simple total of all the votes cast for each entry, with no country being able to vote for it's own entry?
One suspects it won’t be much different for Andy Abraham tonight. One fears how good the song, or the performance, is will only have a peripheral impact on how well it actually does. The fact that I don’t come right out and predict it is more a triumph of optimism over experience than anything else. We shall see on the morrow…
Wednesday 21 May 2008
Quote of the day
" Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.”Benjamin Franklin
Threat of yet more laws and another huge UK State database
New-Labour’s developing fascist state moves a little closer as it’s Ministers consider plans for a vast and intrusive database of electronic information. A real move in the direction of a sinister total surveillance society.
Their plan is for New-Labour to legislate to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telephone companies to pass the details of all emails and telephone calls to them to be stored in a gargantuan database.
Their current justification is national security, a marvellous excuse to make the gullible grateful for their own oppression, but if they couldn’t talk that up then they would probably look to find some other reason.
A Home Office ‘spokesman’ claimed retaining communications information is now apparently essential for protecting national security. He also insisted that powers to hold information were subject to strict safeguards.
Yes, but somehow with other legislation and systems it has still resulted in things like local councils spying on ordinary people over schools admissions, people getting criminal records for putting a little too much rubbish in their bins and the private data of huge numbers of people being lost, or given away, or even published on the internet. These safeguards and promises are clearly utterly worthless.
In fact the prime minister’s personal representative has publicly admitted that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", so it is curious they expect us to actually believe any such lesser assurances.
The state claims that if only they can bring in this law, restrict that freedom, then they can make the citizen safe. It is a lie. They can not guarantee safety, not from chance, not from natural disaster, not from crime and not from terrorism. They can even genuinely try, but sooner or later they are sill bound to fail.
Quite frankly I would rather take the chance of not making it easier to catch and more problematically convict terrorists (because they are easier to foil than catch and easier to catch than convict) than to allow them change my society to the point where it no longer reflects values I would be willing to defend. That is one of the aims of terrorism.
Are we are reaching the point where the state is in danger of becoming a greater menace to out liberties, values and way of life than terrorism.
Their plan is for New-Labour to legislate to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telephone companies to pass the details of all emails and telephone calls to them to be stored in a gargantuan database.
Their current justification is national security, a marvellous excuse to make the gullible grateful for their own oppression, but if they couldn’t talk that up then they would probably look to find some other reason.
A Home Office ‘spokesman’ claimed retaining communications information is now apparently essential for protecting national security. He also insisted that powers to hold information were subject to strict safeguards.
Yes, but somehow with other legislation and systems it has still resulted in things like local councils spying on ordinary people over schools admissions, people getting criminal records for putting a little too much rubbish in their bins and the private data of huge numbers of people being lost, or given away, or even published on the internet. These safeguards and promises are clearly utterly worthless.
In fact the prime minister’s personal representative has publicly admitted that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", so it is curious they expect us to actually believe any such lesser assurances.
The state claims that if only they can bring in this law, restrict that freedom, then they can make the citizen safe. It is a lie. They can not guarantee safety, not from chance, not from natural disaster, not from crime and not from terrorism. They can even genuinely try, but sooner or later they are sill bound to fail.
Quite frankly I would rather take the chance of not making it easier to catch and more problematically convict terrorists (because they are easier to foil than catch and easier to catch than convict) than to allow them change my society to the point where it no longer reflects values I would be willing to defend. That is one of the aims of terrorism.
Are we are reaching the point where the state is in danger of becoming a greater menace to out liberties, values and way of life than terrorism.
Tuesday 20 May 2008
Quote of the day
" Know that although in the eternal scheme of things you are small, you are also unique and irreplaceable, as are all your fellow humans everywhere in the world.”Margaret Laurence
" You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."Mohandas K. Gandhi
A thought for the Citizens of China
This blog has been critical of certain policies of the Chinese State in the past and still disapproves of those policies. Leaving that aside for the moment, this is a small gesture of solidarity for the citizens of China in their troubles.
There can be very few anywhere who are unaware of the tragedy of the massive earthquake and the accompanying aftershocks still unfolding there, or the dreadful loss of life, especially amongst so many children.
It is a hideous blow to those who have lost loved ones, parents, children, their homes and possessions, families riven. For them right now it may well be difficult to go on. Even for those not directly impacted upon by the quake there will be a mental impact.
There will inevitably be questions about building quality, codes and standards.
And no I have not forgotten about the Burmese cyclone, but the contrast between the reaction of the Chinese State and the Burmese State, in their efforts on behalf of their people is stark.
I heard a General being interviewed yesterday and he was questioned about the loss of some lives amongst the rescuers and he replied that they had been serving the people, so it was worth it. I expect something may have been lost in translation, but I still found myself tending to agree with him.
We seem to expect these days to be coddled and protected by the state from all possible threats. An obsessive health and Safety culture. It distorts our perceptions. No one is capable of doing that. If they tell you they are they are lying. If you believe it you are deluded.
The world is a dangerous place. Sometimes dangerous because it has people in it who don’t see other people as people, or are stupid, selfish and greedy - but also dangerous because there are vast impersonal forces that can snuff any of us out in an instant. And face it who of us are immortal?
Life is a battle against entropy, that sooner or later, individually we will all loose. The trick is to get ahead of the game for long enough to make a difference and springboard the next generation.
It is part of what makes us human that in the face of death and disaster people will risk their own lives to save others, without counting the cost. We often see it in the emergency services, we see it in the armed forces, we see it in individuals. We admire it. Ultimately it is a survival instinct for humanity as a whole. So the General was right.
Here then is a thought for the Citizenry of China. In the end though we may be superficially different in many ways deep down we have much more in common. Many of the differences are learned.
So this post is to express solidarity and sympathy with them.
There can be very few anywhere who are unaware of the tragedy of the massive earthquake and the accompanying aftershocks still unfolding there, or the dreadful loss of life, especially amongst so many children.
It is a hideous blow to those who have lost loved ones, parents, children, their homes and possessions, families riven. For them right now it may well be difficult to go on. Even for those not directly impacted upon by the quake there will be a mental impact.
There will inevitably be questions about building quality, codes and standards.
And no I have not forgotten about the Burmese cyclone, but the contrast between the reaction of the Chinese State and the Burmese State, in their efforts on behalf of their people is stark.
I heard a General being interviewed yesterday and he was questioned about the loss of some lives amongst the rescuers and he replied that they had been serving the people, so it was worth it. I expect something may have been lost in translation, but I still found myself tending to agree with him.
We seem to expect these days to be coddled and protected by the state from all possible threats. An obsessive health and Safety culture. It distorts our perceptions. No one is capable of doing that. If they tell you they are they are lying. If you believe it you are deluded.
The world is a dangerous place. Sometimes dangerous because it has people in it who don’t see other people as people, or are stupid, selfish and greedy - but also dangerous because there are vast impersonal forces that can snuff any of us out in an instant. And face it who of us are immortal?
Life is a battle against entropy, that sooner or later, individually we will all loose. The trick is to get ahead of the game for long enough to make a difference and springboard the next generation.
It is part of what makes us human that in the face of death and disaster people will risk their own lives to save others, without counting the cost. We often see it in the emergency services, we see it in the armed forces, we see it in individuals. We admire it. Ultimately it is a survival instinct for humanity as a whole. So the General was right.
Here then is a thought for the Citizenry of China. In the end though we may be superficially different in many ways deep down we have much more in common. Many of the differences are learned.
So this post is to express solidarity and sympathy with them.
Monday 19 May 2008
Quote of the day
" You do not have to change: survival is not mandatory."Dr. W. (William) Edwards Deming
" A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them."P. J. O'Rourke
What is wrong with the UK's NHS?
Some readers will be familiar with Calum Carr’s battles with the NHS simply looking to get adequate treatment for his wife and this prompts me to wonder.
It is an illustration of some of the problems with the NHS on a human scale.
According to the State’s own statistics, never exactly a source to be trusted in recent years (if ever), 6,000 people died in 2006 after contracting the superbug Clostridium Difficile, a massive increase over recent years. At the same time MRSA increased over a third, the infection featuring in almost 1,700 death certificates in 2006..
One suspects in many cases it contributes but is not mentioned. In many other cases the patient thankfully survives.
Even Hospitals that have isolation policies do not follow their own procedures. I personally witnessed an instance where a patient who had contracted MRSA whilst in hospital and who had been isolated was visited by administration staff who could not be bothered to follow any of the precautionary procedures posted outside, that we, as visitors had followed. No wonder these bugs spread.
Over the same period money has been thrown at the NHS hand over fist with little discernable improvement. There has been a drop in the last quarter, but often where things get better in a few instances they seem to get worse in many others. We should have seen a much greater impact much sooner. In fact the problem should not have become such a problem if the trusts had actually followed recommendations.
Health spokesman Norman Lamb said the State had failed to ensure recommendations from their own experts were followed.
It seems that the Sate is simply not competent to oversee the NHS. The same would appear to be true of the vast and expensive army of administrators recruited by the state to administer it.
The experience of the NHS, for far too many people is inadequate, incompetent ineffective and uncaring. It is to the credit of those who work in the system who do still manage to provide a caring service that this poor experience is not universal.
More administration and more targets seem to only result in a worse service. Something seriously needs to change.
It is an illustration of some of the problems with the NHS on a human scale.
According to the State’s own statistics, never exactly a source to be trusted in recent years (if ever), 6,000 people died in 2006 after contracting the superbug Clostridium Difficile, a massive increase over recent years. At the same time MRSA increased over a third, the infection featuring in almost 1,700 death certificates in 2006..
One suspects in many cases it contributes but is not mentioned. In many other cases the patient thankfully survives.
Even Hospitals that have isolation policies do not follow their own procedures. I personally witnessed an instance where a patient who had contracted MRSA whilst in hospital and who had been isolated was visited by administration staff who could not be bothered to follow any of the precautionary procedures posted outside, that we, as visitors had followed. No wonder these bugs spread.
Over the same period money has been thrown at the NHS hand over fist with little discernable improvement. There has been a drop in the last quarter, but often where things get better in a few instances they seem to get worse in many others. We should have seen a much greater impact much sooner. In fact the problem should not have become such a problem if the trusts had actually followed recommendations.
Health spokesman Norman Lamb said the State had failed to ensure recommendations from their own experts were followed.
It seems that the Sate is simply not competent to oversee the NHS. The same would appear to be true of the vast and expensive army of administrators recruited by the state to administer it.
The experience of the NHS, for far too many people is inadequate, incompetent ineffective and uncaring. It is to the credit of those who work in the system who do still manage to provide a caring service that this poor experience is not universal.
More administration and more targets seem to only result in a worse service. Something seriously needs to change.
Friday 16 May 2008
Quote of the day
" It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellow men."George E. MacDonald
" Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."Thomas Jefferson
Is it time to shrink the state to more manageable proportions?
The Telegraph asks an interesting question today “Who is the 'right leader' for our hard times”? Sparked by Broon’s waffle about providing the right leaderhip.
Even more adventurously they ask: “Do we need a politician running Britain at all”?
Maybe the question they should really be asking is: “Do we need anyone running Britain at all”?
Personally I am not really sure I want much so-called leadership at all. Belgium seems to have managed well enough with no parliament recently. Could we manage mostly at a county level?
We have after all a perfectly good royal family to represent the country. The queen probably knows more about politics than any two prime ministers put together. They are certainly more in tune with practical environmentalism than the average politician.
So combine the Royal family with a parliament that has responsibility for maintaining the legal system, the armed forces and the currency. Claw back every last parliamentary privilege and power ceded to the unelected EU commission.
Have a watchdog to police MPs propriety and finances. Make it impeachable to renague on election promises. These people should be the servants of the Nation, not it’s patrician ruling class.
Given that we have had a millennium’s worth of very, very, bad legislation in the last decade let's make it as difficult as possible for them to ever pass any new legislation again. Without at least 75% in favour.
The state should be kept very firmly away from telling the citizen what to do.
Let local democracy, take care of all the other details.
Works for me…
Even more adventurously they ask: “Do we need a politician running Britain at all”?
Maybe the question they should really be asking is: “Do we need anyone running Britain at all”?
Personally I am not really sure I want much so-called leadership at all. Belgium seems to have managed well enough with no parliament recently. Could we manage mostly at a county level?
We have after all a perfectly good royal family to represent the country. The queen probably knows more about politics than any two prime ministers put together. They are certainly more in tune with practical environmentalism than the average politician.
So combine the Royal family with a parliament that has responsibility for maintaining the legal system, the armed forces and the currency. Claw back every last parliamentary privilege and power ceded to the unelected EU commission.
Have a watchdog to police MPs propriety and finances. Make it impeachable to renague on election promises. These people should be the servants of the Nation, not it’s patrician ruling class.
Given that we have had a millennium’s worth of very, very, bad legislation in the last decade let's make it as difficult as possible for them to ever pass any new legislation again. Without at least 75% in favour.
The state should be kept very firmly away from telling the citizen what to do.
Let local democracy, take care of all the other details.
Works for me…
Thursday 15 May 2008
Quote of the day
" Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."Laurence Peter
" The manipulation of statistical formulas is no substitute for knowing what one is doing."Hubert M Blalock Jr
Lies, damned lies, and - Government Inflation Figures
Inflation has been much in the news recently. It will probably feature frequently enough it the months and years to come. It is of course an official government measure despite it’s (probably intending to) sounding like it could be done by Which. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), Apparently annual inflation – the Government’s target measure – was up from 2.5% in March to 3.0% in April.
Not all that much one might imagine. And what is inflation anyway? Inflation is rising prices and costs. Anything that puts up a cost, such as an increase in road tax, or the cost of electricity, or the cost of your mortgage. Effectively it means your money is worth slightly less. You can also get the reverse.
So an accurate measure of inflation really tells you something about what is going on in the economy. The only trouble is the government figures are effectively a lie.
In almost standard New-Labour operating rules the measure and the target have become all important. Reality seems to come a poor second. They are basically fiddling the figures, like they do with ‘A’ level passes and it seems, almost everything else.
The official measure of inflation depends on what particular prices and costs are being officially kept track of. If they aren’t being measured then they don’t contribute to official inflation figures. If you only kept track of the price of video recorders and Ladas for instance inflation would probably be pretty low, maybe falling.
The real inflation experienced by us all in our daily lives bears little resemblance to what the New-Labour amusingly attempt to claim are accurate figures. I expect they will have arguments marshalled to justify why they leave some things out and measure others, probably almost as good as those Gordon Brown used to deny the promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
As disposable incomes become squeezed, people are increasingly forced to limit their spending to essentials like food, energy, housing. These are the things going up the most steeply. As our spending shifts more towards “non-discretionary” items and services our experience of inflation also get worse. If you spend a larger portion of your income on energy bills, for example, you will then also experience a much higher rate of inflation.
The index is also biased towards relatively cheaper goods like clothing, CD players, etc. rather than more expensive services like transport and childcare.
Who cares how much a new flat screen TV costs when they can put the purchase off, you have to buy groceries and have the energy to cook them. You may not be able to avoid paying for child care if you want to work. You need petrol to get to work. The rate of inflation as experienced by many households in the UK is probably multiple times more than the official figure.
Probably the CPI's worst omission is that it doesn’t factor in domestic costs like council tax and mortgage interest. There will not be many people who’s council tax has not risen well over inflation over the past 10 years.
Oh – and if you try to save for a rainy day inflation slowly (or maybe not so slowly) eats into your savings.
At just 2% it will reduce the value of £5,000 put away to £4,712 after just 3 years and that's with inflation of 2%. Imagine what's happening to your savings if your personal inflation rate is running at 5%, or even 10%. If the return you are getting on your money is less than the inflation you experience you might as well spend it all now because it will have less buying power later.
Not all that much one might imagine. And what is inflation anyway? Inflation is rising prices and costs. Anything that puts up a cost, such as an increase in road tax, or the cost of electricity, or the cost of your mortgage. Effectively it means your money is worth slightly less. You can also get the reverse.
So an accurate measure of inflation really tells you something about what is going on in the economy. The only trouble is the government figures are effectively a lie.
In almost standard New-Labour operating rules the measure and the target have become all important. Reality seems to come a poor second. They are basically fiddling the figures, like they do with ‘A’ level passes and it seems, almost everything else.
The official measure of inflation depends on what particular prices and costs are being officially kept track of. If they aren’t being measured then they don’t contribute to official inflation figures. If you only kept track of the price of video recorders and Ladas for instance inflation would probably be pretty low, maybe falling.
The real inflation experienced by us all in our daily lives bears little resemblance to what the New-Labour amusingly attempt to claim are accurate figures. I expect they will have arguments marshalled to justify why they leave some things out and measure others, probably almost as good as those Gordon Brown used to deny the promised referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
As disposable incomes become squeezed, people are increasingly forced to limit their spending to essentials like food, energy, housing. These are the things going up the most steeply. As our spending shifts more towards “non-discretionary” items and services our experience of inflation also get worse. If you spend a larger portion of your income on energy bills, for example, you will then also experience a much higher rate of inflation.
The index is also biased towards relatively cheaper goods like clothing, CD players, etc. rather than more expensive services like transport and childcare.
Who cares how much a new flat screen TV costs when they can put the purchase off, you have to buy groceries and have the energy to cook them. You may not be able to avoid paying for child care if you want to work. You need petrol to get to work. The rate of inflation as experienced by many households in the UK is probably multiple times more than the official figure.
Probably the CPI's worst omission is that it doesn’t factor in domestic costs like council tax and mortgage interest. There will not be many people who’s council tax has not risen well over inflation over the past 10 years.
Oh – and if you try to save for a rainy day inflation slowly (or maybe not so slowly) eats into your savings.
At just 2% it will reduce the value of £5,000 put away to £4,712 after just 3 years and that's with inflation of 2%. Imagine what's happening to your savings if your personal inflation rate is running at 5%, or even 10%. If the return you are getting on your money is less than the inflation you experience you might as well spend it all now because it will have less buying power later.
The Sweet Tooth Gene
According to scientists in Canada, based at the University of Toronto, they had discovered a genetic basis for the sweet tooth a sweet tooth gene they are calling (appropriately enough), GLUT2 (though it apparently stands for GLUcose Transporter rather than gluttony).
It seems that those with the gene consistently consumed more sucrose (table sugar), fructose (simple sugar), and glucose, no matter their age or sex, than those without it.
The scientists discovered that those with GLUT2, in the older group consumed up to 30 grams of sugar a day more than those without it and those in the younger group with the variation drank up to five times more sugary drinks - and 20 times more sweets.
So it may turn out taking in more sugar and the corresponding tendancy to put on weight, rot your teeth and get diabetes may be genetic.
So for those of you with the genetic variant the good news is that there may be no need to feel guilty about having a sweet tooth.
The bad news is that there is still the need to deal with it - and it may be more difficult…
It seems that those with the gene consistently consumed more sucrose (table sugar), fructose (simple sugar), and glucose, no matter their age or sex, than those without it.
The scientists discovered that those with GLUT2, in the older group consumed up to 30 grams of sugar a day more than those without it and those in the younger group with the variation drank up to five times more sugary drinks - and 20 times more sweets.
So it may turn out taking in more sugar and the corresponding tendancy to put on weight, rot your teeth and get diabetes may be genetic.
So for those of you with the genetic variant the good news is that there may be no need to feel guilty about having a sweet tooth.
The bad news is that there is still the need to deal with it - and it may be more difficult…
Wednesday 14 May 2008
Quote of the day
" A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true."Demosthenes
The truth is out there…
It seems that secret files on Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s) seen in the UK are being released.
Now Unidentified Flying Objects just about sums it up. They are basically something that someone saw in the sky that they could not work out what it was.
Now even pretty sensible people can wonder what on earth they are seeing under the right circumstances.
I remember years ago whilst driving at night seeing what looked like a weird glowing object in the sky, that apparently changed shape between lenticular and globular. A surefire Alien Space ship you might think. We decided to investigate. After several miles we got close enough to see it was a blimp lit up and floating above a small airfield. The apparent change in shape a result of seeing it from different angles.
Of course we could have been reprogrammed by the alien occupants of a real space ship to think that - Cue twilight zone music, doo do doo do...
If you then factor in those who don’t think carefully, or those who really badly want to believe the earth is some sort of Watford Gap interchange for aliens … Then there the downright sad and loopy who just want attention. Well it is easy to see how these reports get generated.
Why were the reports kept secret? I would suspect, especially during the cold war, against the chance someone had spotted an experimental aircraft, or weapon, either ‘ours’ or ‘theirs’. If one was spotted and needed some disinformation to obscure the details the UFO enthusiasts might be an excellent tool for that too.
In the middle ages it was the dog heads, men with faces in their chests, monopods with big feet, devils and such now it is little green men. Now it’s greys and a whole collection of others to go with them.
The truth is out there - and it is probably far more mundane, at least when it comes to little green men, than many would apparently like.
Now Unidentified Flying Objects just about sums it up. They are basically something that someone saw in the sky that they could not work out what it was.
Now even pretty sensible people can wonder what on earth they are seeing under the right circumstances.
I remember years ago whilst driving at night seeing what looked like a weird glowing object in the sky, that apparently changed shape between lenticular and globular. A surefire Alien Space ship you might think. We decided to investigate. After several miles we got close enough to see it was a blimp lit up and floating above a small airfield. The apparent change in shape a result of seeing it from different angles.
Of course we could have been reprogrammed by the alien occupants of a real space ship to think that - Cue twilight zone music, doo do doo do...
If you then factor in those who don’t think carefully, or those who really badly want to believe the earth is some sort of Watford Gap interchange for aliens … Then there the downright sad and loopy who just want attention. Well it is easy to see how these reports get generated.
Why were the reports kept secret? I would suspect, especially during the cold war, against the chance someone had spotted an experimental aircraft, or weapon, either ‘ours’ or ‘theirs’. If one was spotted and needed some disinformation to obscure the details the UFO enthusiasts might be an excellent tool for that too.
In the middle ages it was the dog heads, men with faces in their chests, monopods with big feet, devils and such now it is little green men. Now it’s greys and a whole collection of others to go with them.
The truth is out there - and it is probably far more mundane, at least when it comes to little green men, than many would apparently like.
Tuesday 13 May 2008
Quote of the day
“ Beauty comes in all sizes - not just size 5.”Roseanne Barr
” Sex appeal is fifty percent what you've got and fifty percent what people think you've got.”Sophia Loren
Booty is in the eye of the beholder…
Now there surely has to be a biological reason why, contrary to fashion magazine hype, the average guy (according anecdotal evidence) actually prefers a girl with a little padding especially on the derriere. I have long assumed that many of the features men find attractive in women are actually reasonably reliable indicators of good health and fertility. Signs they might make a good mate. The reverse is probably also true.
Now, according to a study published in the journal ‘Cell Metabolism’ by the Harvard Medical School, moderate amounts of subcutaneous fat on the buttocks and thighs may actually be good for you.
It seems this sort of fat decreases insulin resistance, a cause of diabetes and may produce hormones known as adipokines, which boost the metabolism.
The National Obesity Forum’s Dr David Haslam, suggested the report cast further doubts on the usefulness of Body Mass Index (BMI) as a way to assess whether someone was unhealthily overweight, as it does not differentiate between different types of fat.
Weight Concern’s Dr Ian Campbell, remarked: "If there is something about subcutaneous fat which is protective, and actually decreases insulin resistance, this could help open up a whole new debate on the precise role fat has on our metabolism."
Women have a tendency to lay down more subcutaneous fat, particularly on their legs and buttocks than men. So ladies there is probably a sound biological reason why men tend to look favourably on a j-lo stylie rear end - so wear that bootylicious padding with pride.
Now, according to a study published in the journal ‘Cell Metabolism’ by the Harvard Medical School, moderate amounts of subcutaneous fat on the buttocks and thighs may actually be good for you.
It seems this sort of fat decreases insulin resistance, a cause of diabetes and may produce hormones known as adipokines, which boost the metabolism.
The National Obesity Forum’s Dr David Haslam, suggested the report cast further doubts on the usefulness of Body Mass Index (BMI) as a way to assess whether someone was unhealthily overweight, as it does not differentiate between different types of fat.
Weight Concern’s Dr Ian Campbell, remarked: "If there is something about subcutaneous fat which is protective, and actually decreases insulin resistance, this could help open up a whole new debate on the precise role fat has on our metabolism."
Women have a tendency to lay down more subcutaneous fat, particularly on their legs and buttocks than men. So ladies there is probably a sound biological reason why men tend to look favourably on a j-lo stylie rear end - so wear that bootylicious padding with pride.
Monday 12 May 2008
Quote of the day
“ The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”Winston Churchill
Social Care for elderly in UK set to take a turn for the worst
Gordon brown apparently wants to make social care for the elderly in the UK ‘fairer’. If only that were indeed the case – actually really fairer.
The sad fact is that, based on easily duplicated empirical observation of New-Labour’s efforts to make things ‘fairer’ in other spheres of life, is that ‘fairer’ is New-Labour-speak for, crap and getting worse, but an enforced equally crap for all treatment. Preferably at the same time suppressing any proof that things could be better. It is unlikely to be any different in this case.
The fact is that because there is never any actual money invested behind these schemes, because they are instead funded directly out of taxes there is looking to be a rather large gap between what is available to fund care in the next 20 years and the numbers requiring it. Oh and Gordon helped make sure the country is brassic by selling off half our Gold reserves when the price was at a historic low. You have got to hand it to the man with the financial acumen…
You can easily understand why this has caught new-Labour and Gordon’s vaunted financial acumen flat footed, after all it was only predictable since they came to office. It’s not like the baby boomer generation is a state secret, or the fact that people get older as time goes by, any more than the names and addresses of every recipient of child benefit is – now…
The sad fact is that, based on easily duplicated empirical observation of New-Labour’s efforts to make things ‘fairer’ in other spheres of life, is that ‘fairer’ is New-Labour-speak for, crap and getting worse, but an enforced equally crap for all treatment. Preferably at the same time suppressing any proof that things could be better. It is unlikely to be any different in this case.
The fact is that because there is never any actual money invested behind these schemes, because they are instead funded directly out of taxes there is looking to be a rather large gap between what is available to fund care in the next 20 years and the numbers requiring it. Oh and Gordon helped make sure the country is brassic by selling off half our Gold reserves when the price was at a historic low. You have got to hand it to the man with the financial acumen…
You can easily understand why this has caught new-Labour and Gordon’s vaunted financial acumen flat footed, after all it was only predictable since they came to office. It’s not like the baby boomer generation is a state secret, or the fact that people get older as time goes by, any more than the names and addresses of every recipient of child benefit is – now…
Saturday 10 May 2008
Quote of the day
“ If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”Joseph Goebbels
What’s the point of petitioning the UK PM?
The state was petitioned to withdraw from the European Union (EU) on the grounds that it is of no benefit to the UK any longer, being a gross waste of money that should not be funded by the taxpayer any longer. That it was an unelected, bureaucratic bloc constantly infringing national sovereignty. It attracted several thousand signatures and is by no means the only petition making similar points.
The State’s response demonstrates a certain contempt for the signatory’s ability to detect bullshit. They say:
“Membership of the European Union has brought significant benefits to the UK, in terms of wealth, jobs, peace and security.”
But fail to actually back this claim with any facts whatsoever.
Security - We are expected to believe that it was the presence of the EU and not, to pluck a random example out of thin air, say... N.A.T.O. that has guaranteed the peace in Western Europe since WWII? Very amusing…
They go on:
”Through the EU, we belong to the world's biggest trading bloc. Over half of British trade is with Europe. An estimated three and a half million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU,
They fail to mention that prior to this through the Commonwealth we belonged to the world’s biggest trading bloc. Much of our trade was with its members and staggeringly huge numbers of British jobs were linked to exports to it. As were countless jobs throughout the Commonwealth. We shall not dwell on the detrimental impact the effective dismantling of much of this trade had, or how much persists to this day
They witter on…
“..and our membership allows us to live, work and travel across Europe and to receive free medical care if we fall sick on holiday.”
Of course Brits were never allowed to travel to Europe or live there before this – Not.
Curiously enough many British people went to live and work in other commonwealth countries and similarly nationals of those countries did as well, Brits to Canada and the antipodes, Aussies to the UK, Canada, etc. etc.
As for free medical care if you do travel to Europe you would be a fool not to have travel insurance - including medical cover.
They continue ”Improved maternity pay, strengthening of rights to paid holidays and now the reduction in mobile phone calls when abroad are just some of the practical benefits the EU has helped deliver. And as part of the EU, the UK is better able to deal with global issues like environment and world trade, and tackle problems like crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.”
Phone calls! Get real… Maternity right, paid holidays.. Get real. The fact is being in the EC massively limits our options to improve things because either we gave up the power or it would be trading on euro toes.
Finally the stench of bovine faeces becomes almost overwhelming…”T he question of whether we should remain in the (then) EEC was put to a referendum in 1975, which passed convincingly. The government sees no case for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU today.”
They fail to point out that this was spun at the time as a trading partnership and noting more. No Superstate ruled by unelected commissioners were mentioned then, not EU ambassadors or embassies. That vote was on something else, the British public were conned with false information.. It is a probability approaching certainty that if they had so much of an inkling of what they were actually voting for at the time they would have rejected utterly.
”It is clear that by working together with other European countries, we can achieve much more in terms of promoting peace and stability, economic prosperity, environmental protection and a range of other important issues than we could achieve by ourselves.” an entirely unsupported set of claims here…
They go on to inform us disingenuously that: ”Successive opinion polls show that public support for a total withdrawal from the EU is relatively low. An ICM poll in August showed that - showed that approximately 21% of respondents favoured a total withdrawal from the EU.”
They fail to point out that the vast majority wish to halt any further integration and claw thing back to pre EU, EEC levels.
They also fail to mention that New-Labour are currently badly governing the UK on the basis of the support of a mere 22% of the British electorate at the 2005 general Election. Based upon the results of the recent local elections we may suppose it is now considerably more precarious than that…
On that basis it is easy to argue that public support for New-Labour is little greater than it is for total withdrawal from the EU
So is there a point to the government’s petition website? Or bothering to post, or sign the petitions? Not much by the look of it…
The State’s response demonstrates a certain contempt for the signatory’s ability to detect bullshit. They say:
“Membership of the European Union has brought significant benefits to the UK, in terms of wealth, jobs, peace and security.”
But fail to actually back this claim with any facts whatsoever.
Security - We are expected to believe that it was the presence of the EU and not, to pluck a random example out of thin air, say... N.A.T.O. that has guaranteed the peace in Western Europe since WWII? Very amusing…
They go on:
”Through the EU, we belong to the world's biggest trading bloc. Over half of British trade is with Europe. An estimated three and a half million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU,
They fail to mention that prior to this through the Commonwealth we belonged to the world’s biggest trading bloc. Much of our trade was with its members and staggeringly huge numbers of British jobs were linked to exports to it. As were countless jobs throughout the Commonwealth. We shall not dwell on the detrimental impact the effective dismantling of much of this trade had, or how much persists to this day
They witter on…
“..and our membership allows us to live, work and travel across Europe and to receive free medical care if we fall sick on holiday.”
Of course Brits were never allowed to travel to Europe or live there before this – Not.
Curiously enough many British people went to live and work in other commonwealth countries and similarly nationals of those countries did as well, Brits to Canada and the antipodes, Aussies to the UK, Canada, etc. etc.
As for free medical care if you do travel to Europe you would be a fool not to have travel insurance - including medical cover.
They continue ”Improved maternity pay, strengthening of rights to paid holidays and now the reduction in mobile phone calls when abroad are just some of the practical benefits the EU has helped deliver. And as part of the EU, the UK is better able to deal with global issues like environment and world trade, and tackle problems like crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.”
Phone calls! Get real… Maternity right, paid holidays.. Get real. The fact is being in the EC massively limits our options to improve things because either we gave up the power or it would be trading on euro toes.
Finally the stench of bovine faeces becomes almost overwhelming…”T he question of whether we should remain in the (then) EEC was put to a referendum in 1975, which passed convincingly. The government sees no case for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU today.”
They fail to point out that this was spun at the time as a trading partnership and noting more. No Superstate ruled by unelected commissioners were mentioned then, not EU ambassadors or embassies. That vote was on something else, the British public were conned with false information.. It is a probability approaching certainty that if they had so much of an inkling of what they were actually voting for at the time they would have rejected utterly.
”It is clear that by working together with other European countries, we can achieve much more in terms of promoting peace and stability, economic prosperity, environmental protection and a range of other important issues than we could achieve by ourselves.” an entirely unsupported set of claims here…
They go on to inform us disingenuously that: ”Successive opinion polls show that public support for a total withdrawal from the EU is relatively low. An ICM poll in August showed that - showed that approximately 21% of respondents favoured a total withdrawal from the EU.”
They fail to point out that the vast majority wish to halt any further integration and claw thing back to pre EU, EEC levels.
They also fail to mention that New-Labour are currently badly governing the UK on the basis of the support of a mere 22% of the British electorate at the 2005 general Election. Based upon the results of the recent local elections we may suppose it is now considerably more precarious than that…
On that basis it is easy to argue that public support for New-Labour is little greater than it is for total withdrawal from the EU
So is there a point to the government’s petition website? Or bothering to post, or sign the petitions? Not much by the look of it…
Wednesday 7 May 2008
Quote of the day
“ Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?”Bill Hicks
Just how illegal should cannabis be?
Cannabis is illegal. You might not think so from general observation, but it is.
The Authoritarian State in the form of New-Labour’s Jacquie Smith wishes to make it more illegal (Class B) than it currently is (Class C), despite advice to the contrary from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Probably as much from a desire to try to pretend to be decisive, after the electoral thrashing they have just had. Dave the Bloke’s fluffy, environmentally friendly, Conservative party, hinting at it’s less fluffy antecedents, is apparently solidly with New-Labour on this.
One suspects the police would, on the whole, rather leave it where it is,
Given that the State’s policy on drugs effectively makes criminals out of (one suspects) a majority of the population - the otherwise law abiding, the question that occurs is: “What impact does this have on the population as a whole’s respect for the law?”.
One fears much the same as prohibition in the US, almost entirely negative – except for organised crime. One imagines they might pump a fair bit into lobbying for Cannabis to remain illegal…
The Authoritarian State in the form of New-Labour’s Jacquie Smith wishes to make it more illegal (Class B) than it currently is (Class C), despite advice to the contrary from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Probably as much from a desire to try to pretend to be decisive, after the electoral thrashing they have just had. Dave the Bloke’s fluffy, environmentally friendly, Conservative party, hinting at it’s less fluffy antecedents, is apparently solidly with New-Labour on this.
One suspects the police would, on the whole, rather leave it where it is,
Given that the State’s policy on drugs effectively makes criminals out of (one suspects) a majority of the population - the otherwise law abiding, the question that occurs is: “What impact does this have on the population as a whole’s respect for the law?”.
One fears much the same as prohibition in the US, almost entirely negative – except for organised crime. One imagines they might pump a fair bit into lobbying for Cannabis to remain illegal…
Saturday 3 May 2008
Quote of the day
“ The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”Ronald Reagan
What’s wrong with New-Labour
I was listening to some of the spin and damage limitation over New-Labour’s pretty disastrous showings in the local and London mayoral elections on Sky News this morning.
They were speaking to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, (she of being afraid to walk the streets after dark fame).
She was articulating all the excuses New-Labour seem to be developing while Gordon gets up the courage to show his face in public again and avoids the initial heat. Need to take the lesson on board and listen to the electorate, etc.
Any way she said something cut out of later repeats and I paraphrase as best I recall, about providing the leadership the electorate needed. It struck me as a bit of a Freudian slip. That’s just it – we don’t want to be told what to do by them we want to be left to live our lives in peace the way we wish to.
That is part of the whole problem with New-Labour and their natural bedfellows who seem to populate social services, education and local government, some of the upper echelons of the medical profession, etc. They seem so convinced that they know best and they will damned well force us to follow their will for our own good and we will all be grateful in the end really…
They want to control and regulate us keep record about everything and force us to prove who we are. Watch us all the time, tell us how to raise our children, what we can eat, drink and do in public and private. Make every thing illegal unless they have given specific permission, preferably controlled by expensive permit or licence that we have to pay for.
These are many of the reasons New-Labour did so badly, do they see it? Hell no! It seems the beast will never change.
They were speaking to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, (she of being afraid to walk the streets after dark fame).
She was articulating all the excuses New-Labour seem to be developing while Gordon gets up the courage to show his face in public again and avoids the initial heat. Need to take the lesson on board and listen to the electorate, etc.
Any way she said something cut out of later repeats and I paraphrase as best I recall, about providing the leadership the electorate needed. It struck me as a bit of a Freudian slip. That’s just it – we don’t want to be told what to do by them we want to be left to live our lives in peace the way we wish to.
That is part of the whole problem with New-Labour and their natural bedfellows who seem to populate social services, education and local government, some of the upper echelons of the medical profession, etc. They seem so convinced that they know best and they will damned well force us to follow their will for our own good and we will all be grateful in the end really…
They want to control and regulate us keep record about everything and force us to prove who we are. Watch us all the time, tell us how to raise our children, what we can eat, drink and do in public and private. Make every thing illegal unless they have given specific permission, preferably controlled by expensive permit or licence that we have to pay for.
These are many of the reasons New-Labour did so badly, do they see it? Hell no! It seems the beast will never change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
