I bought a new laptop about two years ago which came pre-installed with Windows Vista, surely the most abysmal piece of software known to humankind. I have spent the past two years struggling with this wheezing piece of junk before last night taking a leap into the unknown and installing ubuntu.
It is as if someone had put a Lamborghini engine into a Mini Metro. Suddenly my computer does what I ask it do instantaneously, it opens files in a moment, it reads Windows files - something Microsoft programs resolutely refuse to do, it migrated over all my favourites from my web browser. It looks good and, quite simply, it works, which is surely all any of us wants from a computer.
Of course this is still the wacky world of computers so the process wasn't seamless and there remain some niggles. My e-mail system is not yet up and running - ubuntu has a new program called 'evolution' which does not seem to want to find all my old records, which could be a product of the first installation having gone slightly awry.
It also loaded up all my old Microsoft documents and is happy to open them but it has made most of them read-only, a minor annoyance which can be remedied at the effort of saving each document as a new one.
Also, currently Firefox does not seem to want to run the BBC iplayer, which is odd as I used Firefox with Windows. This is annoying since I use the iplayer a lot but it is not exactly a reason to condemn ubuntu. Given that the world runs to Microsoft's tune the odd incompatibility is inevitable until a critical mass is reached and the dead hand of Windows is finally wrenched from the world wide web.
I've therefore only been a convert for a matter of hours but so far I would give ubuntu 9/10 for its general common sense approach to getting me up and running. I finally have a computer that works and if I ever see a version of Windows Vista again I might have to turn to drink.
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Thursday, 26 March 2009
WHY RICHARD DAWKINS IS AN IDIOT
With regard to Richard Dawkins (see the end of the last post) I thought I would try to understand so I went to the library and got out 'The God Delusion'. I tried very hard to read it but I lost the fight in the first chapter.
The preface told me what a great guy he was and how he had single handedly saved the world from evil faiths. The first chapter increased the volume further and, I assume, set the tone for the rest of the book.
The best bit of this first chapter was when he told me and other religious nutters how we must practice our religion. Apparently it is not good enough to interpret faith as we see fit because that makes it worthless. Oh no, Dawkins sets out how we should follow our faith. Now, isn't this a classic circular argument along the lines that religion is rot and must be condemned but Dawkins only seeks to condemn religion which is done properly.
That is my problem with Dawkins. He purports to be a scientist and as such he should dispassionately examine evidence to support theories he has developed, or develop new theories based on his examinations. He doesn't do this: he simply raves and thus he loses the argument within a few phrases. In this fashion he demeans science in general.
Typical Scorpio.
What is most amusing about this whole argument is how zealous he is about it. He has taken his anti-religious protests to the level of a proto-religion. I hope he can see the irony of that but I doubt it.
The preface told me what a great guy he was and how he had single handedly saved the world from evil faiths. The first chapter increased the volume further and, I assume, set the tone for the rest of the book.
The best bit of this first chapter was when he told me and other religious nutters how we must practice our religion. Apparently it is not good enough to interpret faith as we see fit because that makes it worthless. Oh no, Dawkins sets out how we should follow our faith. Now, isn't this a classic circular argument along the lines that religion is rot and must be condemned but Dawkins only seeks to condemn religion which is done properly.
That is my problem with Dawkins. He purports to be a scientist and as such he should dispassionately examine evidence to support theories he has developed, or develop new theories based on his examinations. He doesn't do this: he simply raves and thus he loses the argument within a few phrases. In this fashion he demeans science in general.
Typical Scorpio.
What is most amusing about this whole argument is how zealous he is about it. He has taken his anti-religious protests to the level of a proto-religion. I hope he can see the irony of that but I doubt it.
REASONS TO HATE THE TORIES, PART 37: THE SECOND HOMES DEBATE
Astounding to listen to the discussion between Tory Kirstie Allsop and LD Matthew Taylor about second homes affecting local communities and their services. According to Allsop, the responsibility for maintaining these services and stopping dwellings being sold for second homes rests with the local community. It is for the owners of thse properties to say no to prospective buyers and instead to hold out for other people to come along who won't simply be treating the property as a summer bolthole.
And this from someone who has made her name advising people on buying and selling homes. Well forgive me Ms Allsop but having had two quite difficult experiences of buying and selling even when the market was buoyant you take whatever reasonable offer you can get and you generally don't ask prospective buyers to complete a questionnaire about their intentions regarding the local school.
Quite frankly she's on another planet, the magic Tory planet where everyone is minted and can afford to pick and choose who they sell to. If only she'd stay there and not come back to earth so often...
Allsop made a lovely point that she has three homes and her family is a positive boon to the community since they have employed local builders and they use the pub whenevcer they are resident. What a wonderful human being.
I live in the Cotswolds in what a LD councillor brilliantly described as a 'working' village since we don't have very many second homes at all. We also have a thriving shop (my pride and joy since I helped re-open it) an excellent school and a creditable bus service. As a result we have 'people' in the village, children playing on the streets, countless pushchairs being wielded like chariots, families walking at weekends and even talking to each other.
You only need to go a few miles to the west to find villages full of very rich families and second homers which have no services at all. Some have pretty pubs but beyond this they are sterile, chocolate box wastelands where the chance of coming across people walking about is close enough to zero to render the numbers irrelevant.
No, Allsop, you have no answer other than the cliched Tory one of seeking to transfr the blame to others. By contrast Matthew Taylor made useful suggestions in his report from last year, including considering a tax for properties in rural areas which are only occupied a small percentage of the time. It may not be the answer but then neither is the usual Tory blather about such problems simply resolving themselves by peoiple being more sensible and voting for Dave and his nebulous nirvana of nothing.
Thank Christ (or the appropriate figure in your religion, or a secular replacement if your faith is atheism) for the Tories. Opposing them is a pleasure which never palls.
And this from someone who has made her name advising people on buying and selling homes. Well forgive me Ms Allsop but having had two quite difficult experiences of buying and selling even when the market was buoyant you take whatever reasonable offer you can get and you generally don't ask prospective buyers to complete a questionnaire about their intentions regarding the local school.
Quite frankly she's on another planet, the magic Tory planet where everyone is minted and can afford to pick and choose who they sell to. If only she'd stay there and not come back to earth so often...
Allsop made a lovely point that she has three homes and her family is a positive boon to the community since they have employed local builders and they use the pub whenevcer they are resident. What a wonderful human being.
I live in the Cotswolds in what a LD councillor brilliantly described as a 'working' village since we don't have very many second homes at all. We also have a thriving shop (my pride and joy since I helped re-open it) an excellent school and a creditable bus service. As a result we have 'people' in the village, children playing on the streets, countless pushchairs being wielded like chariots, families walking at weekends and even talking to each other.
You only need to go a few miles to the west to find villages full of very rich families and second homers which have no services at all. Some have pretty pubs but beyond this they are sterile, chocolate box wastelands where the chance of coming across people walking about is close enough to zero to render the numbers irrelevant.
No, Allsop, you have no answer other than the cliched Tory one of seeking to transfr the blame to others. By contrast Matthew Taylor made useful suggestions in his report from last year, including considering a tax for properties in rural areas which are only occupied a small percentage of the time. It may not be the answer but then neither is the usual Tory blather about such problems simply resolving themselves by peoiple being more sensible and voting for Dave and his nebulous nirvana of nothing.
Thank Christ (or the appropriate figure in your religion, or a secular replacement if your faith is atheism) for the Tories. Opposing them is a pleasure which never palls.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
UP STEPS KEN CLARKE WHILE OSBORNE LOOKS ON NERVOUSLY
So finally the Tories have a Shadow Chancellor who knows his onions and has stated that the Blues would not introduce their Inheritance Tax changes to benefit a small number of the richest families. The new Shadow Chancellor was decried for his comments by no less than Boris Johnson and Lord Tebbit.
Well, I know whose opinion I would trust out of Boris, Tebbit and Ken 'I've been speaking my mind for 40 years and I see no reason to change now' Clarke. Boris is professionally posh and little else, Tebbit was an arsehole who brought some grit to Thatcher's government but Clarke actually did stuff, even if much of it was unpopular. At least he actually did stuff.
Clarke could be Dave's secret weapon if he finds himself thrust into power next Spring and actually has to do something. He's demonstrated his loyalty to his chum George Osborne thus far but you have to feel that when push comes to shove and grown up work starts, Osborne's posh behind is no more likely to touch a ministerial seat than that of Chris Moyles.
So more of the same please. Let those lovely Tory fissures offer up the polyfilla they have been concealed with and let's all watch the results with unalloyed pleasure.
Well, I know whose opinion I would trust out of Boris, Tebbit and Ken 'I've been speaking my mind for 40 years and I see no reason to change now' Clarke. Boris is professionally posh and little else, Tebbit was an arsehole who brought some grit to Thatcher's government but Clarke actually did stuff, even if much of it was unpopular. At least he actually did stuff.
Clarke could be Dave's secret weapon if he finds himself thrust into power next Spring and actually has to do something. He's demonstrated his loyalty to his chum George Osborne thus far but you have to feel that when push comes to shove and grown up work starts, Osborne's posh behind is no more likely to touch a ministerial seat than that of Chris Moyles.
So more of the same please. Let those lovely Tory fissures offer up the polyfilla they have been concealed with and let's all watch the results with unalloyed pleasure.
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
EUROPE, DAVE'S UNCOMFORTABLE ELDERLY COMMITMENT IN THE ATTIC, WANTS TO COME OUT
The Independent has surprisingly attacked Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the EC, for his comments expressing 'regret' that Dave is planning to take the Tories out of the European People's Party to align them with more xenophobic parties from further east. The paper has a point as it seems to think Barroso should be above national politics.
However, I think Barroso was spot on and his comments were quite mild. Dave is making a mistake and it seems he knows he is as he has delayed this action for years. He pledged to leave the EPP in 2005 during his leadership campaign and he seems to feel that he must honour it.
Now it's good for politicians to stick to their promises but it is also the mark of a seasoned politician to recognise that something you said in the past was wrong in the final analysis and to change course when it is appropriate - as long as you don't make a habit of this.
Dave wants to run our country, which is a long-standing member of the EU and which is seen as one of the major players in the organisation. However, Dave also wants to reduce his party's influence to the point of irrelevance in one of the key decision-making bodies in Brussels.
If he carries out this proposal his party is marginalised but of course if he doesn't the delicious [for the rest of us] can of worms that is the Tory Party debating Europe is once again opened.
This boil still needs to be lanced. At present - to continue the analogy - it is merely covered by a plaster. It seems to me that Dave could show a bit of gumption by cancelling this plan and explaining to his party that he was wrong in 2005 and that he believes the Tories are better off in the tent pointing outwards. That would be the mark of a strong leader but I'm afraid that, for all his qualities of persuasion and accommodation, Dave simply won't do any such thing.
That means that if the Tories do somehow manage to scrape to victory in 2010 our country as a whole is weakened in Europe. What a pyrrhic victory that will be.
Naturally there is an alternative. People could be persuaded to vote LD in June this year to maintain our influence. However, we need to make a lot more of our efforts to be more argumentative in what is still a woefully inefficient organisation generally. The EU needs root and branch reform and I wish we would shout this a bit more loudly. We might pick up some votes if we did.
However, I think Barroso was spot on and his comments were quite mild. Dave is making a mistake and it seems he knows he is as he has delayed this action for years. He pledged to leave the EPP in 2005 during his leadership campaign and he seems to feel that he must honour it.
Now it's good for politicians to stick to their promises but it is also the mark of a seasoned politician to recognise that something you said in the past was wrong in the final analysis and to change course when it is appropriate - as long as you don't make a habit of this.
Dave wants to run our country, which is a long-standing member of the EU and which is seen as one of the major players in the organisation. However, Dave also wants to reduce his party's influence to the point of irrelevance in one of the key decision-making bodies in Brussels.
If he carries out this proposal his party is marginalised but of course if he doesn't the delicious [for the rest of us] can of worms that is the Tory Party debating Europe is once again opened.
This boil still needs to be lanced. At present - to continue the analogy - it is merely covered by a plaster. It seems to me that Dave could show a bit of gumption by cancelling this plan and explaining to his party that he was wrong in 2005 and that he believes the Tories are better off in the tent pointing outwards. That would be the mark of a strong leader but I'm afraid that, for all his qualities of persuasion and accommodation, Dave simply won't do any such thing.
That means that if the Tories do somehow manage to scrape to victory in 2010 our country as a whole is weakened in Europe. What a pyrrhic victory that will be.
Naturally there is an alternative. People could be persuaded to vote LD in June this year to maintain our influence. However, we need to make a lot more of our efforts to be more argumentative in what is still a woefully inefficient organisation generally. The EU needs root and branch reform and I wish we would shout this a bit more loudly. We might pick up some votes if we did.
Monday, 16 March 2009
THE TORIES ARE STILL IN A PICKLES
The Independent has a regular feature in which readers send in questions for celebs and politicians. This week it is Eric Pickles and anyone seeking subtle clues about a future Tory government need look no further.
Apparently the mastermind of the Tory Euro campaign plans to 'bring about much needed change'. So that's a whole election to a body which makes and amends British law dealt with in a sentence - and not a very good one.
I wonder if the 'much needed change' will include a craven acknowledgement that the Tories took us into Europe, that the Tories signed us up to the Single European Act and that the Tories agreed the Maastricht Treaty which created the European Union? Yes, I wonder...
And given that it was Tory governments which signed most of the major treaties it seems a bit of a leap to accept that, having apparently screwed up so badly, they now seek a further mandate to sort out problems of their own creation.
Moving on, another reader asks how Pickles will cut Council Tax without devastating local services. In response Pickles nails the Tory flag firmly to the Council Tax mast rather than acknowledging that it has been pitiful and that it was only introduced because the Poll Tax was so unutterably disastrous.
Pickles also pledges to reintroduce weekly waste collections across the country. This will be news to the numerous Tory councils which have or which are introducing fortnightly waste collections - including my own in the near future - for perfectly sound reasons such as the need to reduce waste, increase recycling and generally move away from a culture of forgetting about our rubbish as our tiny island fills up by the hour with our own detritus.
I forgot to mention that my Council is also Dave Cameron's council. Dave doesn't want fortnightly collections either but his local Tories are going ahead anyway. Three cheers for Tory consistence and unity!
Pickles was asked about Michael Ashcroft's involvement in bankrolling the Tories and he answered it well, although unfortunately not properly addressing his residency status and his peerage, following on from Dave's pledge that 'Lord' Ashcroft would return to the UK. I expect Pickles simply forgot...
A reader in Leeds asked if the Tories really are behind Dave's 'sunshine' changes [my phrase] or if the party will revert to being the nasty party after it is elected. Pickles responded that Dave is universally loved and supported, that under Dave tractor production has risen 400% per cent and that beetroot yields in the Essex collectives are at an all-time high. Or some such Stalinist tosh. Sometimes you can be just a bit too fulsome in your praise for comfort...
He was also asked about the Miners' Strike and the devastation it wrought on the communities involved. This is perhaps the most telling response because Pickles is foursquare behind Thatcher's response to the situation. He did not address the issue of the communities affected, he merely defended the Prime Minister of the day.
Now, I would fight to be in the front of the queue to ridicule Arthur Scargill for being about as democratic as Kim Jong-il and for bearing equal - possibly greater - responsibility for the catastrophic dispute and its consequences but I would also expect a 'New Tory' to be a little less dogmatic in response to a question on this issue. It did scar many communities and if our blue-tinged brethren wish to win one or two seats in the north any time soon you would have expected them to be ready to acknowledge this.
Alas, Eric Pickles seems to confirm just about every prejudice normally held about the Tory party, which is nice in one way but also disturbing, since more and more people are leaning in their direction simply because they are not the government.
Plus ca change, plus c'est the same tired old story year in, year out. Which is why we should focus entirely on beating the Tories. They have not changed. They have no new ideas. Beneath the rictus grin in Dave's direction they are about as modern as Metternich.
For all these reasons they are uniquely vulnerable and can be fatally weakened next year. I hope we focus on this above all other plans.
Apparently the mastermind of the Tory Euro campaign plans to 'bring about much needed change'. So that's a whole election to a body which makes and amends British law dealt with in a sentence - and not a very good one.
I wonder if the 'much needed change' will include a craven acknowledgement that the Tories took us into Europe, that the Tories signed us up to the Single European Act and that the Tories agreed the Maastricht Treaty which created the European Union? Yes, I wonder...
And given that it was Tory governments which signed most of the major treaties it seems a bit of a leap to accept that, having apparently screwed up so badly, they now seek a further mandate to sort out problems of their own creation.
Moving on, another reader asks how Pickles will cut Council Tax without devastating local services. In response Pickles nails the Tory flag firmly to the Council Tax mast rather than acknowledging that it has been pitiful and that it was only introduced because the Poll Tax was so unutterably disastrous.
Pickles also pledges to reintroduce weekly waste collections across the country. This will be news to the numerous Tory councils which have or which are introducing fortnightly waste collections - including my own in the near future - for perfectly sound reasons such as the need to reduce waste, increase recycling and generally move away from a culture of forgetting about our rubbish as our tiny island fills up by the hour with our own detritus.
I forgot to mention that my Council is also Dave Cameron's council. Dave doesn't want fortnightly collections either but his local Tories are going ahead anyway. Three cheers for Tory consistence and unity!
Pickles was asked about Michael Ashcroft's involvement in bankrolling the Tories and he answered it well, although unfortunately not properly addressing his residency status and his peerage, following on from Dave's pledge that 'Lord' Ashcroft would return to the UK. I expect Pickles simply forgot...
A reader in Leeds asked if the Tories really are behind Dave's 'sunshine' changes [my phrase] or if the party will revert to being the nasty party after it is elected. Pickles responded that Dave is universally loved and supported, that under Dave tractor production has risen 400% per cent and that beetroot yields in the Essex collectives are at an all-time high. Or some such Stalinist tosh. Sometimes you can be just a bit too fulsome in your praise for comfort...
He was also asked about the Miners' Strike and the devastation it wrought on the communities involved. This is perhaps the most telling response because Pickles is foursquare behind Thatcher's response to the situation. He did not address the issue of the communities affected, he merely defended the Prime Minister of the day.
Now, I would fight to be in the front of the queue to ridicule Arthur Scargill for being about as democratic as Kim Jong-il and for bearing equal - possibly greater - responsibility for the catastrophic dispute and its consequences but I would also expect a 'New Tory' to be a little less dogmatic in response to a question on this issue. It did scar many communities and if our blue-tinged brethren wish to win one or two seats in the north any time soon you would have expected them to be ready to acknowledge this.
Alas, Eric Pickles seems to confirm just about every prejudice normally held about the Tory party, which is nice in one way but also disturbing, since more and more people are leaning in their direction simply because they are not the government.
Plus ca change, plus c'est the same tired old story year in, year out. Which is why we should focus entirely on beating the Tories. They have not changed. They have no new ideas. Beneath the rictus grin in Dave's direction they are about as modern as Metternich.
For all these reasons they are uniquely vulnerable and can be fatally weakened next year. I hope we focus on this above all other plans.
Friday, 13 March 2009
DAVE SAYS SORRY, A NATION YAWNS
Dave is good at saying sorry and he has just done so again for the Tories execrable failure to spot any issues arising with the economy and the banking sector in the past year. Thanks Dave, that's nice to hear.
The problem is that, as ever, he says nothing about what he would actually do if, by some terrible misfortune probably arising from the inavctivity of good people on polling day, he became Prime Minister. Saying sorry is fine and dandy but it isn't worth a bean if the man at whose desk the buck could ultimately stop doesn't actually know what to do.
So the question remains: yes, but what would you do?
The problem is that, as ever, he says nothing about what he would actually do if, by some terrible misfortune probably arising from the inavctivity of good people on polling day, he became Prime Minister. Saying sorry is fine and dandy but it isn't worth a bean if the man at whose desk the buck could ultimately stop doesn't actually know what to do.
So the question remains: yes, but what would you do?
RED NOSE DAY GETS OFF TO A FLYING START
...chiefly because the abysmal Fearne Cotton is nowhere to be seen. Thank the gods of all the religions.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
WE DON'T NEED NO COALITION
Irfan Ahmed talks about coalition with Labour. Can I go on the record in stating categorically that I don't want us to go into coalition with either the Tories or Labour. Labour is finished and doesn't believe in anything other than getting Labour elected. The Tories don't have any policies.
If we go into coalition with either of them we are finished for a generation, probably more.
If we go into coalition with either of them we are finished for a generation, probably more.
DON'T PERSUADE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR US, BORE THEM INTO IT.
Steve Richards in the Independent wrote a useful article, which I read after the blatherings of Simon Carr, rendering Richards' words even more erudite thn they might first have appeared.
He discussed the point Peter Hain has made that Labour lacks a 'big picture' approach to politics and he said that there hasn't really been one of these since Margaret Thatcher who, whatever her faults, knew what she wanted based on her own rather skewed view of the world.
Putting aside my sneaking regard for Peter Hain, who I have alway thought would make an excellent and more interesting Labour leader, this related to some comments made over the weekend about the LDs lacking that big idea. We have policies on goldfish and ferrets travelling in the EU but when asked in the street what we believe in, its always nigh on impossible to give a clear, punchy answer.
Our people in London have over recent years produced a slew of interesting policy documents (is that feasible? Ed.) and they have all had pretty titles. The one which has stuck with me since it came out was 'Freedom, Fairness, Trust and I'd say this comes closest to encapsulating what we are for in a simple phrase.
Others have been good and all have tried to promote us but the key problem for me is that we change them like most of us change our undergarments.
If you think about any of the really massive advertising successes they have stuck to a key message for decades. Beanz still do mean Heinz to most people. Is there a single person who doesn't repeat in their mind when buying a Mars that it will help them work, rest and play. Bisto? Aaaahhh!
We remain the only party with any fresh thinking and with a core set of beliefs which continue to guide us but we might perhaps look to these cliched but successful ad campaigns for some guidance about how we sell ourselves.
I would like to see us put across a simple message and keep repeating it until bored voters can do nothing else but parrot it back at us and my vote would be 'Freedom, Fairness, Trust'.
Nickers is doing the business in repositioning us to oppose the meandering Tories but he won't get the support of disinterested voters until he dumbs down a bit more. Otherwise they simply don't hear him.
He discussed the point Peter Hain has made that Labour lacks a 'big picture' approach to politics and he said that there hasn't really been one of these since Margaret Thatcher who, whatever her faults, knew what she wanted based on her own rather skewed view of the world.
Putting aside my sneaking regard for Peter Hain, who I have alway thought would make an excellent and more interesting Labour leader, this related to some comments made over the weekend about the LDs lacking that big idea. We have policies on goldfish and ferrets travelling in the EU but when asked in the street what we believe in, its always nigh on impossible to give a clear, punchy answer.
Our people in London have over recent years produced a slew of interesting policy documents (is that feasible? Ed.) and they have all had pretty titles. The one which has stuck with me since it came out was 'Freedom, Fairness, Trust and I'd say this comes closest to encapsulating what we are for in a simple phrase.
Others have been good and all have tried to promote us but the key problem for me is that we change them like most of us change our undergarments.
If you think about any of the really massive advertising successes they have stuck to a key message for decades. Beanz still do mean Heinz to most people. Is there a single person who doesn't repeat in their mind when buying a Mars that it will help them work, rest and play. Bisto? Aaaahhh!
We remain the only party with any fresh thinking and with a core set of beliefs which continue to guide us but we might perhaps look to these cliched but successful ad campaigns for some guidance about how we sell ourselves.
I would like to see us put across a simple message and keep repeating it until bored voters can do nothing else but parrot it back at us and my vote would be 'Freedom, Fairness, Trust'.
Nickers is doing the business in repositioning us to oppose the meandering Tories but he won't get the support of disinterested voters until he dumbs down a bit more. Otherwise they simply don't hear him.
Monday, 9 March 2009
REDUNDANCY IS A TEN LETTER WORD...
I have today entered the wacky world of unemployment as my charming employer made me redundant on Friday. I'm not on the breadline but I am facing the prospect of ekeing out a fixed pot of money over coming weeks, which will be interesting.
I've always been clerical, stuck in an office generally staring at a computer screen for far too much of the day. In that respect redudancy is an absolute blessing. My time is my own for the first time in many years. However, I will obviously have to find some gainful employment in due course and it will no doubt be in a related field. Thank Heaven for James Purnell therefore!
The government has announced extra help for 'professionals' and managers who find themselves out on their ear during the current recession. Apparently this loose group makes up 8% of the workforce and this proportion is rising. This may perhaps be considered an 'initiative', except it seems once more to be facing away from the problem.
It reminds me of the old statistic that apparently during the School Run in the morning something like 18% of the vehicles on the road are parents driving their children to school. The horror! This of course ignores the obvious fact that 82% of vehicles on the road at this time are not parents driving their children to school.
Similarly, the government offer of help for the 8% of 'professionals' and managers on the dole kind of misses the blindingly obvious fact that the other 92% probably deserve similar, if not more, help. You might, if you were not a Labour government minister and therefore capable of independent thought, expect that these 'professionals' and managers are actually the most capable of knocking up a CV and scouring the jobs market for new openings, whereas non-clerical factory workers are likely to find their options much more limited.
But hey, I shall troll along to my local office to be patted on the head by a doubtless well-meaning person, all the time pursuing my own avenues into employment. I do recognise the importance of what they do. I just don't think I should be their priority.
Brother can you spare a Daim (as I can't get to IKEA any time soon...)?
I've always been clerical, stuck in an office generally staring at a computer screen for far too much of the day. In that respect redudancy is an absolute blessing. My time is my own for the first time in many years. However, I will obviously have to find some gainful employment in due course and it will no doubt be in a related field. Thank Heaven for James Purnell therefore!
The government has announced extra help for 'professionals' and managers who find themselves out on their ear during the current recession. Apparently this loose group makes up 8% of the workforce and this proportion is rising. This may perhaps be considered an 'initiative', except it seems once more to be facing away from the problem.
It reminds me of the old statistic that apparently during the School Run in the morning something like 18% of the vehicles on the road are parents driving their children to school. The horror! This of course ignores the obvious fact that 82% of vehicles on the road at this time are not parents driving their children to school.
Similarly, the government offer of help for the 8% of 'professionals' and managers on the dole kind of misses the blindingly obvious fact that the other 92% probably deserve similar, if not more, help. You might, if you were not a Labour government minister and therefore capable of independent thought, expect that these 'professionals' and managers are actually the most capable of knocking up a CV and scouring the jobs market for new openings, whereas non-clerical factory workers are likely to find their options much more limited.
But hey, I shall troll along to my local office to be patted on the head by a doubtless well-meaning person, all the time pursuing my own avenues into employment. I do recognise the importance of what they do. I just don't think I should be their priority.
Brother can you spare a Daim (as I can't get to IKEA any time soon...)?
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE? YES PLEASE!
It is very interesting reading the increasing number of articles in newspapers and on blogs which question the logic of the green scare. For several years now we have been told that the planet is dying and that we must act now to stop global warming by adopting all sorts of lifestyle changes. Hideously self-righteous people have told us how we can do all sorts, including buying greener cars, cutting air travel, recycling more and living better.
Now, I like this approach to life as I think it makes a lot of sense. I haven’t flown since 2001, though largely for economic and family reasons, I recycle as much as I can and I get fed up when my wheelie bin fills up – and pleased when it is a third full on collection day, as it was this week. I drive an old banger with a small engine, since I never bought into the nonsense about Toyota Priuses being better for the planet. I also try to get the train when travelling longer distances, although living in a small village means that this is not always practicable. It is also ludicrously, stupidly expensive to get the train on many routes.
My ‘green philosophy’ has always been based on common sense rather than idealism. It is pretty stupid to put more and more rubbish into holes in the ground since there must logically be a finite number of holes. It is far more practical to reduce rubbish but also to be sensible about the modern lifestyle we all lead. I like green beans and it is nigh on impossible to buy beans that are not in a plastic wrapper. The result: I buy plastic wrapped green beans from Kenya and don’t worry unduly. I could go to some poncey shop and pay through the nose for veg which is not in plastic bags and is grown by Alan in Somerset but supermarket veg is cheaper and I have a family and an average income. Also, the food miles myth is rapidly being exploded. Growing beans in an African country and importing them can produce significantly less carbon than veg grown in England and it is supporting a developing country. Whats to feel guilty about?
On energy, I like windmills. I think they look good and the principle of using all the free wind we have to make electricity seems a no-brainer. Windmills will never replace coal- and gas-powered stations but they can reduce our reliance on them and diversify our energy supply. That's common business sense.
Wave power is another idea which is so obvious the real issue is why we haven’t got it already and why we are not leading the world in this technology. British governments of every stripe should be thoroughly ashamed that they have not put a lot of money into this technology, which will be hugely lucrative in future. For that is the key: it is good business, plain and simple.
Nuclear power is a joke: it is expensive, dangerous and the waste is one of the most dangerous substances on earth. It is dangerous for hundreds of times longer than human beings have existed. Any scientist or government minister seeking to justify nuclear power needs to answer this one: what happens to the terrible waste that is produced and with which nothing can be done. If they say it is a small amount and it can be dealt with safely, the follow up question could be when will the beach in Scotland near to Dounreay which is off limits and will be for decades due to a nuclear accident up there many years ago be opened to the public? And what kind of cast iron, copper-bottomed guarantee can they give that there will not be a nuclear accident in future with all this waste?
We may have nuclear power in future – I am sure fusion will come along eventually – but fission is laughably poor value and until all the clever scientists around the world can come up with a safe, sensible solution to dealing with the hideously dangerous nuclear waste, we just shouldn’t go there. It's crap.
It is therefore good to see a healthy dose of common sense invading the green agenda from all sides. The key problem we must now face is how to stop the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction. May the Gods preserve us from ‘Clarksonworld’. May the gods take him back to the underworld from whence he came sometime soon...
What we need is the development of green technology which makes money. Then everyone wins, normal people can benefit and the preachy media Ruperts and Arabellas of this world can f**k off in their flip flops and their big houses with lovely solar panels to fight another battle, hopefully a long way from me.
My prediction [everyone does it so why shouldn't I?] is that the climate will change/is changing but that those plucky scientists, ably assisted by the businesses which want to cash in on the change – will find numerous ways to address the changes. I just want British businesses to lead the way, perhaps aided by a little government lucre before we are eclipsed by the ambitious Chinese, who are already devoting more resources than anyone to the issue, and the Americans, who are ever on the lookout for the main chance. Oh, and of course the French, who would doubtless want to set up a European institute - with its HQ in Paris, no doubt - to try out large, expensive projects for three times the price of anyone else's.
Here’s heresy: climate change is an opportunity as well as a threat.
Now, I like this approach to life as I think it makes a lot of sense. I haven’t flown since 2001, though largely for economic and family reasons, I recycle as much as I can and I get fed up when my wheelie bin fills up – and pleased when it is a third full on collection day, as it was this week. I drive an old banger with a small engine, since I never bought into the nonsense about Toyota Priuses being better for the planet. I also try to get the train when travelling longer distances, although living in a small village means that this is not always practicable. It is also ludicrously, stupidly expensive to get the train on many routes.
My ‘green philosophy’ has always been based on common sense rather than idealism. It is pretty stupid to put more and more rubbish into holes in the ground since there must logically be a finite number of holes. It is far more practical to reduce rubbish but also to be sensible about the modern lifestyle we all lead. I like green beans and it is nigh on impossible to buy beans that are not in a plastic wrapper. The result: I buy plastic wrapped green beans from Kenya and don’t worry unduly. I could go to some poncey shop and pay through the nose for veg which is not in plastic bags and is grown by Alan in Somerset but supermarket veg is cheaper and I have a family and an average income. Also, the food miles myth is rapidly being exploded. Growing beans in an African country and importing them can produce significantly less carbon than veg grown in England and it is supporting a developing country. Whats to feel guilty about?
On energy, I like windmills. I think they look good and the principle of using all the free wind we have to make electricity seems a no-brainer. Windmills will never replace coal- and gas-powered stations but they can reduce our reliance on them and diversify our energy supply. That's common business sense.
Wave power is another idea which is so obvious the real issue is why we haven’t got it already and why we are not leading the world in this technology. British governments of every stripe should be thoroughly ashamed that they have not put a lot of money into this technology, which will be hugely lucrative in future. For that is the key: it is good business, plain and simple.
Nuclear power is a joke: it is expensive, dangerous and the waste is one of the most dangerous substances on earth. It is dangerous for hundreds of times longer than human beings have existed. Any scientist or government minister seeking to justify nuclear power needs to answer this one: what happens to the terrible waste that is produced and with which nothing can be done. If they say it is a small amount and it can be dealt with safely, the follow up question could be when will the beach in Scotland near to Dounreay which is off limits and will be for decades due to a nuclear accident up there many years ago be opened to the public? And what kind of cast iron, copper-bottomed guarantee can they give that there will not be a nuclear accident in future with all this waste?
We may have nuclear power in future – I am sure fusion will come along eventually – but fission is laughably poor value and until all the clever scientists around the world can come up with a safe, sensible solution to dealing with the hideously dangerous nuclear waste, we just shouldn’t go there. It's crap.
It is therefore good to see a healthy dose of common sense invading the green agenda from all sides. The key problem we must now face is how to stop the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction. May the Gods preserve us from ‘Clarksonworld’. May the gods take him back to the underworld from whence he came sometime soon...
What we need is the development of green technology which makes money. Then everyone wins, normal people can benefit and the preachy media Ruperts and Arabellas of this world can f**k off in their flip flops and their big houses with lovely solar panels to fight another battle, hopefully a long way from me.
My prediction [everyone does it so why shouldn't I?] is that the climate will change/is changing but that those plucky scientists, ably assisted by the businesses which want to cash in on the change – will find numerous ways to address the changes. I just want British businesses to lead the way, perhaps aided by a little government lucre before we are eclipsed by the ambitious Chinese, who are already devoting more resources than anyone to the issue, and the Americans, who are ever on the lookout for the main chance. Oh, and of course the French, who would doubtless want to set up a European institute - with its HQ in Paris, no doubt - to try out large, expensive projects for three times the price of anyone else's.
Here’s heresy: climate change is an opportunity as well as a threat.
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE - FOR ONCE THE HYPE IS RIGHT
I watched this film yesterday and it completely blew me away. Not since the Commitments have I seen a film so well crafted, good looking, engaging and simply enjoyable - even if it was far more hard hitting than I had expected.
There is nothing like a good movie to forget real life to and this had everything - even a brilliant dance scene. Americans can make good blockbusters but they lack depth. only the British can make films which rely on a little more grey matter while also entertaining.
10 out of 10 to Danny Boyle. I thoroughly recommend watching it.
There is nothing like a good movie to forget real life to and this had everything - even a brilliant dance scene. Americans can make good blockbusters but they lack depth. only the British can make films which rely on a little more grey matter while also entertaining.
10 out of 10 to Danny Boyle. I thoroughly recommend watching it.
PAKISTAN, A FAILING STATE
The attack on Sri Lankan cricketers in Pakistan is deplorable, that’s clear. The problem is that this is not an isolated incident in Pakistan and the reassuring, honeyed words (they generally have great radio voices) of various politicians and police chiefs will not solve the fundamental problems in Pakistan.
Essentially it is a failing state with large parts of the country ungoverned and lawless, with the kind of religious nutters the bin Ladens would have round for tea taking control in the areas not under government control and with guns and other weapons widely available throughout the country. Plus they have a pretty abysmal attitude to women, which just doesn't make sense.
The problem seems to be that Pakistan cannot be criticised for its abject failure since 1947 for a whole range of reasons. Firstly, there are large numbers of Pakistanis in this country who unsurprisingly support their country quite vocally. There may be a joke here about the notorious ‘cricket test’ of Norman Tebbit but it may not be appropriate at this the time...
Secondly, Pakistan is crucial in the laughable ‘war on terror’ and is a key ally to the USA in those moments when the USA is not bombing Pakistan itself.
Thirdly and perhaps most telling is that Pakistan is a muslim country and muslims, feeling understandably aggrieved with the abysmal policies of the USA and UK in recent years, are generally sensitive about any criticism of muslims anywhere. This is a shame since, as the 'Wit and Wisdom Patented Pop Philosophy Number 1' has it, most change to the politics of particular countries comes from within, it cannot be imposed.
Which leaves me very dubious about the long term health of Pakistan. It would be good to think that a muslim country could step in to give some guidance and support to Pakistan, aided by cash from others, no doubt. Perhaps the focus of world leaders should be on encouraging Malaysia, Indonesia or Turkey along this path, rather than seeking to introduce liberal democracy in five years, whether the countries concerned like it or not.
Now there's a thought.
Essentially it is a failing state with large parts of the country ungoverned and lawless, with the kind of religious nutters the bin Ladens would have round for tea taking control in the areas not under government control and with guns and other weapons widely available throughout the country. Plus they have a pretty abysmal attitude to women, which just doesn't make sense.
The problem seems to be that Pakistan cannot be criticised for its abject failure since 1947 for a whole range of reasons. Firstly, there are large numbers of Pakistanis in this country who unsurprisingly support their country quite vocally. There may be a joke here about the notorious ‘cricket test’ of Norman Tebbit but it may not be appropriate at this the time...
Secondly, Pakistan is crucial in the laughable ‘war on terror’ and is a key ally to the USA in those moments when the USA is not bombing Pakistan itself.
Thirdly and perhaps most telling is that Pakistan is a muslim country and muslims, feeling understandably aggrieved with the abysmal policies of the USA and UK in recent years, are generally sensitive about any criticism of muslims anywhere. This is a shame since, as the 'Wit and Wisdom Patented Pop Philosophy Number 1' has it, most change to the politics of particular countries comes from within, it cannot be imposed.
Which leaves me very dubious about the long term health of Pakistan. It would be good to think that a muslim country could step in to give some guidance and support to Pakistan, aided by cash from others, no doubt. Perhaps the focus of world leaders should be on encouraging Malaysia, Indonesia or Turkey along this path, rather than seeking to introduce liberal democracy in five years, whether the countries concerned like it or not.
Now there's a thought.
BURN THE MUSEUMS!
The attack on the Science Museum for hosting a day celebrating Israeli science is rather mediaeval in its outlook. The same group of academics who attacked universities for their links with Israel institutions are now turning their sights on this hotbed of militancy and support for the occupation, a museum. The reasons given for this latest attack are that Israel science is largely focused on its military machine and the economics of occupation.
Now, I would challenge anyone for the right to be Israel’s fiercest critic but this smacks of a witch hunt. Doubtless Israel will have a good proportion of scientists working on its secret nuclear weapons project or other aspects of its military machine but I bet there are also scientists in Israel working on better non-stick pans or longer lasting scourers. There are probably scientists in Israel working with NASA on traffic satellites. Doubtless there will be Israel scientists involved with CERN and I expect that just down the road from me at Harwell in Oxfordshire there will be at least one or two Israel scientists doing rather dull experiments to find mythical particles of unbelievable mundanity.
The idea that they are all secretly planning to crush the Palestinians is just tosh. Some of them will no doubt have unpleasant political views on this topic since they will come from a normal cross-section of Israeli society but I would put a lot of money on the fact that their science has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
I read an interesting book a few years ago called ‘It ain’t necessarily so’ which dealt with Israeli archaeology and the problems they have had with discoveries which challenge the accepted biblical account of that country’s history but which are either suppressed or changed to support the stories of Jewish religion and nationhood. The author made the point very clearly that Israeli archaeology is not at fault, it is the people who get hold of the findings who seek to twist them. I suspect the same is true of Israeli science.
Wouldn’t it be lovely if the government’s draconian anti-terror laws could be turned towards extremists in this country who seek to go against centuries of - generally truculent - accommodation in the interests of free speech and expel people such as Jonathan Rosenhead, who is leading this outcry over the Science Museum event.
Israel won’t be forced to peace, it must be persuaded and engagement with Israel civil society will help this process immensely.
Now, I would challenge anyone for the right to be Israel’s fiercest critic but this smacks of a witch hunt. Doubtless Israel will have a good proportion of scientists working on its secret nuclear weapons project or other aspects of its military machine but I bet there are also scientists in Israel working on better non-stick pans or longer lasting scourers. There are probably scientists in Israel working with NASA on traffic satellites. Doubtless there will be Israel scientists involved with CERN and I expect that just down the road from me at Harwell in Oxfordshire there will be at least one or two Israel scientists doing rather dull experiments to find mythical particles of unbelievable mundanity.
The idea that they are all secretly planning to crush the Palestinians is just tosh. Some of them will no doubt have unpleasant political views on this topic since they will come from a normal cross-section of Israeli society but I would put a lot of money on the fact that their science has nothing whatsoever to do with this.
I read an interesting book a few years ago called ‘It ain’t necessarily so’ which dealt with Israeli archaeology and the problems they have had with discoveries which challenge the accepted biblical account of that country’s history but which are either suppressed or changed to support the stories of Jewish religion and nationhood. The author made the point very clearly that Israeli archaeology is not at fault, it is the people who get hold of the findings who seek to twist them. I suspect the same is true of Israeli science.
Wouldn’t it be lovely if the government’s draconian anti-terror laws could be turned towards extremists in this country who seek to go against centuries of - generally truculent - accommodation in the interests of free speech and expel people such as Jonathan Rosenhead, who is leading this outcry over the Science Museum event.
Israel won’t be forced to peace, it must be persuaded and engagement with Israel civil society will help this process immensely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
