"These are a few of my favourite things . . . .

*












As development is billed as the dirtiest of words and sustainable its contemporary default l'd like to put the case for development with a capital D. Without wishing to sound alarmist the current environmentalist message is the message of the doomsayer although flies in the face of reality. People have progressed remarkably over time yet current thinking seeks to constrain that. Far worse seems to be the hatred of any solution offered and the preferred choice is to slow down (1). Maybe that suits those who have attained a level of comfort and prefer their experiences authentic but others wanting better creature comforts not so.

Call it what you will, the developing world needs better than to exist at the level of charity handout, subsistence farming, hand pump and smiley photo. Hot and cold running water, abundant electricity, decent housing, hospitals and roads wouldn't be a bad start. And we in the west ought to be able to get on with something a bit more progressive than sifting through our rubbish or living like battery tenants.

What is particularly alarming is the stranglehold that green thinking exerts everywhere. lsn't this tantamount to humanity throwing in the cloth and giving in? We uphold primitive developments such as Stonehenge, the pyramids or Machu Picchu but eschew true development today. Telling that the Incas averaged more roadbuilding than New labour (2).

We get excited when we stumble over the remains of previous human habitation - the broken pots and other earth covered remnants as to how they lived a 1000 years ago but seem to despise the current version.

There are those that say that the planet is changing because of our impact upon it and that the under-developed world suffers disproportionately, yet devastation disproportionately effects those that don't have the benefits of development.

Green thinking seeks an imagined harmony with natural forces that just don't exist in holy equilibrium. lsn't nature just a series of happenstances? Doesn't the march of history tell us we live on a planet that is constantly changing? Without advanced technological solutions we confine ourselves to wishful thinking and an ahistoric view of the world.


'You say Matterhorn, I say materials . . . '

The hills really ought to be alive with the sound of development, as do the valleys, plains and oceans. it'd be good to see a more progressive humanity, one that turns back the tide of ecodoomsayers and offers genuine solutions to what lies ahead. We ought to be gladdened that our endeavours can be seen by satellite - more of it please!


A non exhaustive (and in no particular order) list of my favourite things -

Kirk Leech presents an excellent website concerning the row over true development at Rosia Montana, Romania. It seems that the greens are in full evangelical mode and want nothing but a peasant existence for the locals - how quaint. The bulk of the locals seem to have better ideas. See www.goldenmyths.comIs this worth preserving and for whom?
(A cheap holiday in other people's misery . . . )

Mirna, Siberia.



Building the 3 gorges dam.

They didn't just dig a hole at Kennecott, Utah, they mined away a mountain.



*Female astronaut courtesy of NASA.
(1)Every silver lining has a cloud. Stuart Blackman
(2)Transport innovation: slowing to a standstill. Woudhuysen, Both www.spiked-online.com>Environment
The Incas: The South American empire lasted just 100 years from 1438AD (began 1200?), and built 22,530km of road
New labour averaged 64km a year since 1997.

One man's mince . . .

ls Peter Tatchell being a poof?

Tatchell whinged about Chris Moyles and Rio Ferdinand's interchange on Radio 1 , recently when Ferdinand disputed being a 'faggot' after saying that Peter Crouch was something of a looker (or words to that effect) then followed something of a discussion of homme et homme, etc.

One doesn't have to be gay to appreciate the merits of our fellow man in whatever shape or form. Blokes may be envious of a fellow's good fortune, see a bloke and think - 'l wish l could be something like that', etc. Blokes don't generally openly acknowledge this sort of thing as it doesn't befit the form we reckon we're supposed to adhere to - gruff, heroic, macho, etc, etc.

Butt really, does Tatchell represent the bulk of gay opinion? l doubt it - in day to day parlance people take the mick in many forms and with little of real consequence. Sure, some may take offence only to end up with egg on there faces as their colleagues rip the the piss even more - pretty much par for the course. lf we were to take offence at every sleight presented then we probably wouldn't get through our day.


Peter Tatchell was supposed to be appearing at the Battle of ideas (see below), Chris Moyles perhaps not.
(prev unpublished)

Open reply to Green taxes letter, Wakefield Express.

David Speight presents some good argument for scrapping green taxes.
l don’t own a car but see, like everyone else, the shoddy state of public transport - often overcrowded, too hot, bumpy ride and poor shelter when waiting all weathers. At 42 yrs old this presents little problem. Others not so - the elderly or those with kids in tow and shopping plus, love ‘em or hate ‘em, our blessed schoolkids. All cramped up in poorly designed buses and an inefficient network. Somehow we daily manage our way through this mayhem with muted protest. True, some are darn right disrespectful in their protests but can you really blame them? There are better ways to register complaint with our lot.

Doesn’t all the transport system need upgrading for public and private use? Many of us prefer the freedoms associated with our individual means of transport, car or otherwise. For instance in these days of DIY we couldn’t manage repeat trips to suppliers for our materials by bus. Plus of course the freedom to roam - on a whim and for pleasure.

Britain has masses of countryside and a wealth of offerings in other villages, towns and cities. Yet investment in roads is pitiful if not generally anti-motorist.
There’s a duality here in that our Townmasters seek to encourage visitors for revenue yet limit the mobilities of inhabitants (low wages, high house prices, taxes, fines and traffic schemes.) lnstead we are offered a sense of ‘place’. An identity chaperoned by selective nostalgia.

As for London’s transport system being up to the job then Mr Speight is very much mistaken. London has all the benefits and pitfalls as anywhere else but in concentrated form. Too much haphazard design and based on similar faulty logic of minimizing our footprint and sticking with an imaginary past.

It’s not just cars. All consumption is up for consideration - clothes, activities, food, socialising, holidays, energy; our daily lives and wastes.
We put so much effort into saving by products that are worthless that the whole exercise becomes one of going backwards. This stuff comes from the ground and could easily compress and go back there. Or what of machine processed separation or clean burn incineration as a power source? If there’s a case to be made for our rubbish being useful then surely it lies on the larger scale and not at the level of the individual householder.

Which ever way it is looked at retail is to feature heavily as everywhere ‘regenerates’. Yet we are set to be guilt tripped and green taxed by some pretty naive and disingenuous thinking. This from people who have often benefited the most from society’s abundance.

There is a good argument for redesign of homes as they are generally built today guided by a lack of forward thinking - nostalgia and environmentalism. There are some fantastic looking developments on the Leeds waterfront and Wakefield also making an offering. But too much crowded in. This may suit hard working, hard living city types all well and good but not so those with families or wishing peace and quiet or different lifestyle.

This overcrowding is happening everywhere. Wakefield, as well as anywhere else, is experiencing a building boom. More of a whimper given low build rates and the state of housing stock old and new.

Plots of land are being taken up and high rise and compacted dwellings abound. People are offered relatively huge sums of money to sell off their gardens for new housing. Tales abound in these parts of offers in the region of £50 - 70,000. Houses are expensive due to the cost of land, not materials or labour. High profits are generated by the demand for limited stock and our desire for a place of our own.

Good plots of land are hard to come by because of artificial restraints. Supposedly overcrowded Britain is just 10% built, 75% farming that is held back by environmentalist sentiment and 13% ‘other’.

So whilst we are constantly upgrading and patching up the old, living increasingly cheek by jowl in expensive and inefficient housing and getting taxed for the benefit of maintaining this we could actually be looking at pastures new - our out moded, subsidised and romanticised countryside.

Britain is in crying need of regeneration. Regeneration writ large and not this small scale, anal retentive stuff.

Great efficiencies and improvements in housing and living will only happen on the larger scale - at the level of town and country planning and a consideration of our place in that.
There are fantastic, easily built house types looming on the horizon and new materials and techniques that offer more. All held back by petty, contradictory convention and regulation.
These design types will make the best efficiency savings rather than small scale and expensive energy generation. Energy absorbent materials are constantly being developed and certainly have a part to play though still reliant upon the weather and thus requiring back up. Retrofitting is expensive and offers diminishing returns for intermittent power.

Why kid ourselves? A developing economy needs masses of cheap, reliable and clean energy.That can only mass generation and nuclear power. We need to ditch our aversion to the ‘big monster’ and embrace our capacity to improve all situations. l’m pretty sure that if something as inefficient as a windmill can be made elegant then something as useful as a nuclear power station can be made a thing of beauty.

This could well set the alarm bells ringing ringing with some who would believe that the country will become one big housing plot. Not really so. Better living standards seem to lead to a decrease in the size of families. This coupled with the marvelous news that we live longer (despite all our bad habits) is leading to the requirement for immigrant labour - and we all came from somewhere.

Regardless, Britain’s glory days of empire and assumed superiority are long over. We may still be an island but that is purely in geographical terms. Despite the protests of Greens and Little Englanders our destiny will always be reliant on interacting with the outside world. How can it be otherwise?

Despite maintaining something of a bargaining chip by looking both ways, the UK is part of Europe and rightly so. As well as the benefits of increased immigration to this country - new culture, outlook and determination to progress there is also opportunity abroad. Europe is a two way thing and many opportunities await the willing. Many take advantage of cheap travel and low costs abroad to set up there and why not?

Even our good friends at the BNP say (somewhere) that there should be no problem with migrant workers developing skills to take back home with them to rebuild their country. We can discern their reasons for saying so but perhaps something a bit more progressive than our green chums?
Our eastern european chums are taking full advantage of opportunities offered whilst the predominant outlook, particularly in the UK, is an entrenched one. People from developing cultures have little of the self loathing impressed upon us and are keen to develop.

We should be pleased that many choose to come to the UK out of choice. Perhaps they were attracted by our sense of tolerance and fairplay, or that Britain once stood for something to be proud of - the cradle of the industrial revolution, scientific endeavour and ingenuity. All sadly things that are out of fashion at present as the west looks backwards at its peril.

Open reply to Cllr. Roberts, Heckmondwike. (The Press (1)

l'm not overfamiliar with Cllr. Roberts stance on funding English teaching to, it's presumed he means, foreigners. But judging by your article in last week's Press he seems to want it both ways. How can you argue for the withdrawal of funding and then expect 'foreigners' to speak it as their main language? Would you argue the same for 'homegrown' kids that need their rudimentary understandings guided in the classroom? Perhaps funding and the runnings of education are further matters for discussion.

What is 'english' anyway? It does seem to be a form that can adopt others and continuously adapt itself. Spend some time checking the roots of words, their meanings and use and we find that they come from all over. This continues today and new words and expressions are always arising. Not sure whether this is the case with other languages though - l recall a welsh speaking couple sounding completely alien until hearing 'supermarket'. Likewise Croatia's Franjo Trudjman coming out with 'device for holding up trousers' when divorcing Serbo-Croat.

l take the point that English should be the main language when used in this country. This is even established in much of global trade and in diplomatic circles, having replaced French.
But what of when we 'Brits' go abroad? How many of us speak the lingo? Erm . . . ? not many. Even when some of us do make the attempt we find our efforts appreciated but generally our continental counterparts speak more than adequate english, french, spanish, etc. This seems to be even more so at the lower end of the jobs market. I wouldn't put myself high up the pecking order but have often been embarassed by those of lower 'status' who demonstrate command of many languages and myself struggling with the basics.

Bloody tourists, eh?

l'd counter Roberts' point about a reluctance on the part of others to learn and say it's more one of traditional resistance to the 'other' in this country. Compounded today by the multicultured approach to societal realtions accepting the 'other' as 'always other'.

Given Cllr. Roberts leanings it's presumed that his bottomline is 'they' should go home yet immigration to this country and the mobility of its occupants has always been a feature of its make up. lf any of us trace our family hisory then we find it's been a long and winding road to get to this point.
Despite geographically being an island Britain cannot be other than part of the bigger picture. We have a global economy with goods and people travelling far and wide. (The latter should be considered to be the most basic of freedoms.)

Regardless of Cllr Roberts' approach and the shilly-shallyings of mainstream politicos immigration and mobility will always make the world go around with benefits and challenges for all. lt seems that despite a wealth of cultural differences we find there are more things that bind us than not and assumptions made about people expected to conform to tradition don't actually fit the stereotype.

Maybe there are forms and nuances of expression that just don't translate via language so an understanding of other forms of expression enhances our own to the point that words or phrases become accepted, thesaurusised (made that one up) or adapted. Our understanding and language given some ad hoc je ne sais qois, so to speak.
Much can be learnt from the study of other language and culture. l profess to not having much understanding of other languages let alone script. Looking at eastern forms with odd symbols written fom right to left is incomprehensible to me but does suggest another side to learning. Perhaps the mere ability to read in this manner has an effect on comprehension and the ability to do both in many languages opens up far more than the seperation. Which ought to go without saying really.

Maybe in the future language will reflect an absorption and filtering of the lot into one common but enriched 'english' or other. Further than that though, our eastern contemporaries seem a lot less encumbered by the insularities of mainstream western thought and the world may come to speak in a modern eastern form. Somehow doubt that but Cllr Roberts may yet speak from the other side of his mouth.

(1)http://www.thepressnewspaper.co.uk/NewsDetails.asp?id=801

Public service Fightback!

Volunteers required . . .

The National Health Service is undergoing considerable change at present. Changes big on promise, all the right boxes ticked - but on the ground service becoming a nightmare and staff and patient care suffering.
We're sold stories of bright new shiny hospitals which are definitely needed but scratch beneath the surface and we're getting a lot of self-congratulatory hype from people whose vested interests lie elsewhere.

We face job cuts, closures and cutbacks - a diminished service replaced by one ran to quotas, an attendant bureaucracy of well paid consultancies, managers and sub managers, privatisation for the sake of it and practically a licence to print money.

In real terms these cuts are unnecessary. There is no real reason - or the reasons stated are various and incoherent. Part slap in the face and taste of things to come and part due to Labours fixation with targets.
Even in the Govts own cheesy cliche-speak of ‘best practice’ and ‘value for money’ this makes no sense as many of the services up for grabs are set to be more expensive. In fact many business analysts are baffled as to the Govts actions stating that the figures are nothing to be alarmed about. And they are a fraction of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are the actions of an administration trying to look dynamic at our expense and reveal nothing but contempt for the public.
We are being sold short by a bunch of goons that get by on spin and hype but with no effective opposition to challenge them. People that get off on telling us we drink, smoke and enjoy ourselves too much and ram patronising and hypocritical sermons down our throats as to how we should live our lives. This is a parliament stuffed with lawyers and ‘fairplay’ rulemakers with no direction other than to see society stifled and stepping to their tune.

Whether we like it or not this period is one undergoing substantial change, much of it seemingly without direction. Changes are afoot in the economy, labour market and beyond and we can no longer afford a head-in-the-sand approach.
If we allow this period to fester with, at best, hopeful gestures and placing faith in foot-draggers and sellout merchants then they will wriggle out of it in one form or another, something else will replace it - immigration, criminality and general bad behaviour likely to the fore. Expect stories of unscrupulous care workers, scamming immigrants and general unfeeling, uncaring and self-interested behaviour. Basically, how crap we all are and that we need decisions making for us.

Too often this is where we fall down. We allow a mood to fester, individuals and groups picked off, others keep their heads down, regulations follow and we’re stuffed.

So what do we do?

Merely ask the bosses to be nice to us whilst we leave them to do their jobs? Their jobs being nothing more than to whip us into some indeterminate shape and in real terms our paymasters. ln very real terms they have little to do with actually running the health service.

Despite 'bending over backwards' to minimise the harm of cuts in the Health service it's fairly obvious that with the appointment of two new turnaround directors Mid-Yorkshire Health trust are determined to see through some nasty treatment. Therefore anything we do will have to be determined.
Health workers need to be able stick up for themselves day to day and to be comfortable that others will genuinely support them - us, the general public as users and fellow workers with an interest in our livelihoods. If we do this we prove that there is nothing to fear by making a stand.

lt’s suggested that staff adopt a policy of non compliance with unnecessary paperwork, refuse to comply with target driven initiatives that allow management to please their political masters (but do nothing for patient care) and break the 'vow of silence'. Professionalism is nothing to do with speaking out against a drop in service, in fact quite the opposite.
And no victimisation. Management and their friends will do everything they can to win this - everything from soft soaping to disciplinary action for petty reasons and more.

*
By now the current swathe of redundancy notices will have been handed out and staff worried about their livelihoods. Management have said they will do all they can to minimise redundancies yet haven’t ruled out the option as a continuing part of their plans. There shouldn’t be a single one. lf the principle of us losing jobs to save their necks is accepted then how long before one becomes 93, 450, 1100? And remaining staff carrying an increased workload.

*
Even at low levels of growth, the nation’s wealth is predicted to double over the next 40 years. Advances in medical science and practice mean more and better treatments are constantly being developed yet held back by red tape, underfunding and an aversion culture. Notwithstanding groundbreaking new technologies, today we face the rundown of essential services and health staff, effort and resources diverted into meeting quotas and targets. The results of this are well known - people are dying and losing out on basic healthcare whilst all the time we are told things are getting better.

The NHS has never been perfect and we should be clear that ‘nationalising’ it, ie. keeping it in public ownership, is a limited call. What is meant by public ownership? In truth we own precious little of it although our collective labours create it. Usually it means run by the state yet it is state policy to stitch up the NHS and private entrepreneurs are merely doing what they do best.
Further, in a globalised economy shouldn’t we be thinking of an international health service? To some extent it already is - staff, products and patients from all over the world.

*
To stand any chance of stopping the rot we need to make a determined stand and stick up for ourselves. For that we need to recognise the general nature of this battle.
No job cuts, no closures and no loss of services should be the most basic stand taken - for decent employment and a health service worthy of the name.

*
This leaflet aims to help set up health worker support groups to discuss further actions and activities. Every inch forward will be a hard fought one as despite overwhelming anger and public sympathy there is little that people believe can be done under the present circumstances.
ln the past people have been motivated into action for various reasons - good and bad. Isn’t it time that we consider something worth fighting for today - before we get caught up in events?

Health workers need support now.

*

Unison are coordinating other aspects - 01924 212335



(psf! *3)

*A case of the shovel calling the spade a nigger?

(letter handed to Wakefield anti-fascists)

Should we be bothered by 'fascists'?

Are we to believe that the BNP and their like are a problem? Sure they have a handful of Councillors and gain a reasonable enough vote in elections but what does this mean? lsn't it the case that they merely occupy the arse end of politics adding a twist to the outpourings and actions of mainstream politics? At the end of the day these are the people with the say-so. For instance when so-called respectable mainstream politicians go on about the level of immigration or asylum seekers and pander to ideas of being overcrowded and under resourced, yet in the eyes of many do little about it, then the BNP hit home by giving a populist twist to the argument.
Let's not forget that it is state authorities that make the decisions to inter and deport people or even invade foreign countries.

White supremacist ideas may not be that strident anymore but appear in soft-core form under the guise of multiculturalism at home and humanitarianism abroad - 'we are different' still being the message. Though perhaps inverted here whereby any and every other 'culture' is promoted and home grown tradition is sanitised - though not at the request of immigrant groups.
These ideas are evolving under the pressures of globalisation yet in island Britain there is a smug remnant of complacent superiority.

The BNP's popularity is something of a myth - many decent people have voted this way purely out of anger at what they see as ineffectual politicians and not out of any support for what they stand for. Pretty much the way that most voting goes ie. loose affiliations that are acted upon every four or so years with no genuine commitment to 'the cause'. The BNP at best are seen as something that will do what they say and seemingly a logical response to problems posed by elements of the mainstream.

Perhaps we confuse the BNP with fascists from times past when these labels meant something and people had an active involvement with their political parties. Not so today - people on the whole have little faith in active involvement with politics and go along with the loose belief that voting an outfit into power can change things.

In effect the BNP are a pisspot* outfit and we do ourselves no good by campaigning against them. Surely their are bigger and better ways to operate than picking this seemingly easy target? lf we go around telling people not to have any associations with them then we only make the case that there is something remotely coherent about them.

What is good about the BNP is that they give ground level expression to ordinary every day anger and propose means to deal with problems that people perceive - however crap that may be. Most of us in our daily lives come across sentiments that the BNP echo ie, their 'ideas' are commonplace. We should relish the challenge that these arguments present as it is often here that we can make headway and build a true expression of ground level politics.

Sadly if we concentrate our fire on 'fascists' then we let the real culprits escape and they carry on reinforcing the shaky ground that the BNP occupy. Worse, if we adopt the slogan that even mainstream politicians are better than 'fascist scum' then we dig a hole for ourselves too.
Shouldn't we be a bit more daring and find ways to channel that muted anger into meaningful expression?

The left should seriously be just that little bit braver. The BNP may occasionally fight a bit dirty but they are good at it - and after a significant section of the same audience as us. They may be reactionary in some circumstances but they are at least brave enough to stick their necks out. And they do set a standard, of sorts. Can we say the same about ourselves?

"We' well outnumber 'them' yet concentrate too much effort in being scared. Turn all this around and hit the audience instead of leapfrogging it by thinking they can be won over to our cause by 'celebrity' figures. If we don't understand our arguments or at least work to principle then how do we think others can be convinced by celebrity?

l'd actually go further - we should attempt to win this lot over. Why? As mentioned before their arguments are commonplace - amongst our workmates, friends and family. If we say don't speak to the BNP then we deny their arguments can be countered - unless Sting or someone says so. If we can't counter these arguments and promote something our closest can believe in it's probably because we're not too sure of our arguments. We'll only find out by putting them to the test.

Recruit from the BNP!?!

Quite serious. Whatever their faults they do seem to believe in something and put in good effort. The days that they seem to hanker for are long gone, arguments incoherent and a just a bit hypocritical. Misguided Nazis? Hmm

If that is to be met with apoplexy the the left should at least defend - to the hilt - the BNP's right to free speech, not seek official sanction to quieten them, side step or simply deny their arguments.

Land wanted . . . .

According to the CIA factbook (1) there are 6,525,170,264 (6.5 billion) people in the World occupying a total of 148,940,000 square kilometers of all available land (global surface total is 510,072,000 km2). Laid out as a square block this gives a grid with sides of 12,204 km. Placed on this grid we would be in 80,778 rows and 80,778 columns and each occupying 0.0228km2 (22,826m2) every man, woman and child.


This doesn't sound a lot especially as it equates to a square with sides of 0.151km, or 151 metres. For comparison, regulation football pitches range from 90 x 45m (surface area of 4050 m2 and squared off to 64m sides) to 120 x 90m (10,800 m2 and a square of 104m sides). 


In the UK with a land mass of 244,820 km2 and 60,609,153 people we get 4040m2 - equivalent to our smallest football pitch of 64m sides. Unlike the grid example, and fairly obviously, the world's population is not evenly distributed. Africans would have 50,000m2 and box sides of 224m, Australians get a third of a km2 each and box sides of 577m, Chinese have 7,097m2 with box sides of 84m and so on.


In the UK almost 85% live in England, just 12% of UK land is built/urban, 75% cultivated and 13% other. The UK is fairly densely populated as far as statistics go yet take a flight with Google's Earth programme or even a road or train journey and there is plenty of countryside. 
Even in 'overcrowded' England you can travel miles without hardly seeing a soul.


It's expected that human population on the planet will peak as development grows and living standards raise. However true this may prove to be it is frequently given as sop to shrill environmentalists, is part denial and admits that we need to put the brakes on. But what about an expansive humanity? Panics aside about a shrinking landmass and encroaching oceans but shouldn't we be thinking the more the merrier and see our progeny scattered far, wide and developed? For instance, the UN calculates that Africa could support a population of 32 billion if developed to western standards. 








' . . . lies, damned lies and statistics'



Spread out like a gas (or virus if one adheres to some contemporary views regards human beings) there is surprisingly little room for each of us. Yet, according to Alan Coren the entire population of China - 1.3 billion plus people and counting - could fit on the Isle of Wight (2). This at the rate of three per square yard. Using the same calculation then the entire global population could fit on the island of Maui, Hawaii. By 2030 it's estimated that the World's population will reach 8.3 billion and the same exercise could be held in Luxembourg (which to some could prove a good enough reason to limit population growth . . . ). Of course on the whole we would choose neither to live in isolation from one another nor could we live cheek by jowl; all the above merely being a consideration of space.




The final frontier?


Considering that Planet Earth is actually quite small even within our own solar system (3) that there are billions of other galaxies and countless billions of other stars, planets and God only knows what else 'out there' then the contemporary outlook of reigning in human aspiration and minimising our footprint on the world is pathetic. lt's safe to assume that we are alone in the universe - it's our universe just as much as it's our world. 


Human beings are the unique product of naturally occuring events specific to Earth's composition and existence in time and space - 4,550,000,000 years, a tilting axis, hurtling through space in an expanding universe, etc. The Universe as much as natural life on Earth operates to no plan and unless a planet has evolved under the exact same circumstances then there is nothing else out there remotely like us. 
I'd go as far as to suggest that the 'sci-fi community' and their search for intelligent extra-terrestrial life is merely pseudo-scientific wishful thinking to find answers about ourselves and replacement for religion. Both are human constructs. 


Our ability to understand things has not been God-given. We are The superior being; we stood out from the rest, developed to the point of being able to understand everything else and to make it fit for our purpose.


In the unlikely event that humanity disappears - choose from any 'popular' scenario be it a colliding asteroid, avian flu, nuclear war, climate change, the slow death of lowered horizons, etc, etc, etc - then what we call Mother Nature will, over time, eradicate all traces of our existence on the surface leaving only fossilised remains, artefacts, etc that nothing else will have any interest in. 'Mother Nature' will carry on as it always does - organisms will develop that can survive and thrive in certain conditions and evolve into other creatures - unconcerned, no game-plan, no sigh of relief and no possible means of comprehending events; arbitrary. Knowledge would exist at the level of primal intuition and history would have no basis until intelligent life resumed.


Should the ultimate prophecies of eco-miserablists prevail and, God forbid, we 'destroy the whole planet' that again in the grand scheme of things would only ever matter to the human race. Really, it seems, we are talking about life in our time, for us and ours. Nothing else can mean anything unless we reclaim a progressive view, can project ourselves forward and make things fit for a better humanity - above all else.


Today ideas of human progress are severely limited. Environmentalism now the mantra and humanism its nemesis. Like most creatures just by existing we impact upon that that occupies the same space. Every step we take impacts on some aspect of life yet creates as much by accident as it destroys. Like new growth after fire, oilspill, earthquake then our footfalls or even scratching an itch wipes out life forms but creates space for new life to flourish.


Plain fact is our bodies teem with life-forms other than our own (4) -


'Of the trillions and trillions of cells in a typical human body — at least 10 times as many cells in a single individual as there are stars in the Milky Way — only about 1 in 10 is human. The other 90 percent are microbial. These microbes — a term that encompasses all forms of microscopic organisms, including bacteria, fungi, protozoa and a form of life called archaea — exist everywhere. They are found in the ears, nose, mouth, vagina, anus, as well as every inch of skin, especially the armpits, the groin and between the toes. The vast majority are in the gut, which harbors 10 trillion to 100 trillion of them. “Microbes colonize our body surfaces from the moment of our birth. They are with us throughout our lives, and at the moment of our death they consume us.” (5) Eeeeuww indeed . . .
Which kind of makes trying to preserve every bug and critter's habitat intact a non-starter.

Environmentalism severely impedes 'boldly going' - at present no end of development projects are being held up on the say so of misanthropes. Anything from vast damming projects to telescopes (6), Arctic drilling and so on. Such things would have an impact on the lives of millions immediately and billions far off into the future. The last one particularly gets me - explorative drilling stopped because the lubricant could contaminate an unknown environment. But then that one opening provides a treasure chest of discovery and yes the environment will change - we'll be there poking, prodding and cataloguing anything that moves.
Otherwise we prolong the day of understanding or lose the opportunity entirely.


What next? Space exploration stopped because we may harm possible habitats of beings unknown, infect them with our germs? What if . . . . the world is ultimately doomed? Do we meekly hope that reducing, reusing and recycling our carrier bags we could prevent it? This static, orderly, textbook world of ours where everything fits neatly in a box . . .


Every creature 'contaminates' its environment. For it to exist there has to be something to sustain it and things of itself it leaves behind. In the UK there are efforts to make a more 'British' wildlife, to eradicate or curtail the march of invasive 'foreigners'. What period in history do we take as a starting point and where do you stop - Chinese Mitten crabs that threaten to erode the river banks, since the 30's (?) (and considered a delicacy), sunfish, dolphins, American crayfish? Rabbits, hares, mink? Do we bring back the boar, bear and wolf? What about migrating birds leaving 'exotic' seeds in their droppings?
ln truth nature knows no national boundaries and neither should we - national or natural.



Any creature new to an environment sinks, swims or gets out of there. Likewise the weed. Wheras nature merely adapts to itself we can adapt endlessly, bring in ideas from any angle, transform things and increase knowledge. Whenever the world does 'go' - a catastrophic 500 years or we may just squeeze another couple of billion out of her - everything else that matters goes with it should humanity decide to rein in aspiration. All life would have been meaningless . . pff.
Nothing else can do anything about that. 


Really shouldn't we be considering bombarding planets with bacteria, etc that could form the building blocks of life? Future generations may be better grateful for that than us cowering before an uncomprehending and everchanging nature.





On the eighth day . . .

Human comprehension of the natural world not only benefits ourselves but also that being studied. Karl Marx remarked that one day food may be produced in the laboratory and recent advances in agro technology, sport and medical supplements certainly point that way (it's assumed he didn't mean Quorn). Over time foodstuffs could be developed to feed all of God's little creatures so that they don't have to eat each other and nature exist in sweet harmony. Which is nice but then it would cease to be nature and we've better things to do.


A more enlightened humanity could unravel planetary physics, possibly manipulate or even re-engineer them to create idealised environments - get to grips with the secrets of the universe and extend them further. Of course something of the sci-fi/religious there but consider the manpower and effort going into destructive technologies then surely that could be put to positive use? Perhaps something of turning tanks into ploughshares and naive but given the justifications for war and the lack of direction in the west it just might fly. (7)


Current global figures for military spending are to the tune of $950 billion with the US on top at $466 billion (8). How much of this represents a true figure is unknown but, despite the conception of the good ol' US deemed to be an all out military machine, that comes out of an economy operating to the tune of over $2 trillion. Depending on how well you know your 'illions that is a lot of money and suffice to say there's plenty of other things going on in America.
Although merely seeing this as a redistribution of finances is perhaps the wrong way to consider. More concerning is the effort, ingenuity and resources that goes into devices to kill people or restrain them. Seeing that put to constructive use and more people free to prosper and develop opens vast new horizons. This can't be done without viewing humanity in a more positive, universal and expansive light. Today's ideas of treading warily, overcrowding and overuse of resources do the opposite.



Weary old west?

lt came as a surprise to hear of China's involvement with Kyoto as it was assumed to be an expression of western political exhaustion. But perhaps 1.3 billion people with upwardly mobile aspirations will doubtless be good but ultimately bring pressures to bear on the State (and possibly the Isle of Wight . . )
It's probably safe to say that dynamism in eastern economies will encourage a greater worldview amongst our eastern neighbours and rising confidence. This at a time when the west offers little positive vision and all previous influential institutions are on shaky ground. Should for instance the Chinese leap ahead then hopefully this translates into new developments in science, technology and arts and a positive influence to the developing world (as yet a long way off as 'they' haven't fully ratified Google). lf the west only offers 'save the world' efforts and the east - development and prosperity and a loosening of the shackles - could there be any real contest?



Whatever does happen in the future it is highly unlikely that humanity will disappear. Society in one form or another sputters on as new events and movements arise. We've moved on from considering that the earth is flat but now mainstream western ideas seem to be in danger of sinking down the plughole.


lt doesn't have to be that way. Just as history is constantly being rewritten then neither is the future set in stone.




(1)www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html
(2)www.geocities.com/heartland/valley/8414/china.htm
(3)Google search Universe, solar system, Galaxy, etc.
(4)www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9812/fngm/index.html
www.andrewlost.com/hair_k1.htm
(5)www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/magazine/13obesity.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&en=091c29f788379524&ex=1171771200&excamp=mkt_at4
(6)www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1573/
(7)www.battleofideas.co.uk>

NIMBY

Whilst there is no objection to the developer building (particularly as he is a generous donor of a football team once 'hung around' with . . ) it’s more that we should be a bit more selfish about what goes on in our backyard. After all our houses have considerable influence in our lives and possibly set to be even more so. Therefore isn’t it timely that we consider what informs house building practice and its relevance to us?


*

This open letter forms the basis of an objection to planning application No. 06/99/484444/B - an outline proposal for the development of 27 apartments, off Millfield Road on land previously used as factory space.

This is a NIMBY complaint and deliberately so, although it aims for a wider remit. Versions of this letter will be widely dispersed and a housing survey is forthcoming.

As yet this letter forms no public campaign. Given the choice the local community would likely prefer housing instead of a working factory and all its busy comings, goings and 'intrusions'. Why not do everyone a favour and move the remaining industry to the ex-Bombardier works?

This objection is based on the notion that this type of housing and its siting is unnecessary, overpriced, old hat, based on false premises and represents a disservice to us, the taxpayer, and the wider community. More so than that, it neither bodes well for the would be occupants nor the notions behind it for the economy paying for it.
Overpriced rabbit hutch housing plus an economy aiming for diminished wants, the creation of erstatz heritage and legalised community.

Unnecessary because there is no actual shortage of land - merely a question of how it is used as a resource. In supposedly overun Britain we are merely 12% 'built", the rest - 75% Agriculture, and the other 13% preserved, relic and other.
'Other' including such gems as The Yorkshire Dales National Park. Something of a favourite of mine. Wide valleys carved by glacier , natural forestry removed for sheepfarming and early source of Yorkshire prosperity, inclusive of many a ruin of earlier occupation, development and industry; erratics and other features. Now, farmed and preserved in some incoherent view of history.

Constant gains in agriculture mean that what we view as a traditional farming landscape is obsolete - a romantic idyll; a man-made, inefficient patchwork, and all supported by the taxpayer.

Ah, the taxpayer!
5% of the population in this way own 95% of the land, the EUs farming budget eats 40% of the total and we live in old and/or expensive houses.

Even the Royal family receive farming rebates (of one form or another) and farmers are paid compensation to leave land to return to the wild.
Telling figures - African farmers receive $200 conditional subsidy per year whereas european cattle are subsidised to the tune of $937. Here too domestic influence is reflected by its continental counterpart and the vision of restricted development for what is ironically refered to as the developing world.
A developing Africa would unlock huge land and other natural resorces/raw materials. That is if it shakes off the white man's burden in the phantom of sustainable development.


Back home.

At home this deliberate restriction of land means that prices are unnecessarily high and for what can be poor quality. And the resultant houses and landworks 'jerry built' as what is known as The building lndustry goes gung-ho to make its rapacious gains.

l don't think they're rapacious enough. Design criteria and density regulations mean that they are forced to operate within narrow confines and UK design and build though capable of remarkable things is largely haphazard at best but outmoded and inefficient in the main.
Bearing in mind the central role that housing plays in the economy methinx this doesn't bode well for the long run and Britain will be outpaced by external developments.

This at a time when there is plenty of room for maneouvre but just a niggardly view of our impact on the environment. As such it displays intellectual bankruptcy, moral cowardice and a lack of will.

Practical objections to this proposed development are the quality of land and accompanying infrastructure that is archaic and overburdened - this in 'affluent' Horbury.
This type of build needs rejecting everywhere as an unneccesary intrusion and the developments returrned to open areas, parkland and amenities - living room.
My own pet project is landscaped parkland down to the riverfront. Perhaps a floodplain bay area and boathouse.

There is neither a genuine objection to housing going on any of this land. l'd be happier if experimental forms in housing were tried, maybe with landscaping; either as temporary exhibition and showcase for UKs latent design capacity and to act as fillip for industry.

Perhaps it's worth considering how we live positively affects further innovation and development.

Coxley Valley is a local area of some 'natural' beauty and is an attraction for many. But anything special? Other than mud, trees, babbling brooks, wildlife and swooping farmland, not really.
Officially it's use is limited yet it has long been a playground for the rambler, cyclist, dogwalker and dambuilder - we do like the countryside and many of us dream of living nearer or in it. And why not? Coxley Valley could support some highly desirable residences and very nice locations; or perhaps landscape more Coxleys with housing.

A transitional program could see the destruction of swathes of old stock housing, bulk modernisation of others with more open spaces and a rebuild program. Newer developments in housing, urban and rural planning could also reinvigorate road and transport design and drive the UK out of its demoralising slumber.

A huge undertaking? Possibly so, but the UK, for whatever reason, still features large in the world. Apart from the negatives there is the 2012 Olympics, the possibility of a World cup and who knows what else in the pipeline?

Many happy returns of the day . .

. . . Elizabeth, my dear.

l wouldn't want to spoil the party as obviously many of us enjoy the pageantry of the Royal occasion and it is a birthday after all. Although figures are set to change it seems that 'a reasonable crowd of some 20, 000 came to cheer the Queen and some '17,000 emails and 20,000 cards' were sent. Not to mention how many other countries, associations and individuals are duty bound to honour and promote this spectacle.

ln footballing terms that's pretty crap. An average side in the championship/premiership commands that (and is vastly more entertaining) and the original march against the war in lraq drew a sympathetic crowd of 1-2 million. As institutions go monarchies nowhere near get the attention, affection or passion of, say, football or even politics. The assumed collective 'we' - the people may have an affection for our monarchs and their charmed lives. A fact that will be beamed around the world and appear endlessly on TV and in the press. One young girl from West Yorkshire spoke affectionately of meeting the Queen (before and after as it seems), England football fans sing the national anthem (although am not sure whether it's all the way through - yet), etc, etc. (and quite possibly we wonder what it's like to lead such a pampered life).

Her majesty even drew a crowd out in Wakefield where she distributed maundy money to the deserving. At the time it caused something of an outcry in the local press when a set or two was sold off for some £70 (someone obviously preferring the real thing) and Mick Griffiths of the Socialist Party getting arrested for attempting to shake a collecting box in front of the Queen.

Our figureheads are not what they seem. The loyal and faithful cling on and attend to the duty of serving and promoting privilege whilst all around we, the people, see our jobs cut, wages curtailed and many a barrier put in the way of getting on with our lives - often by the same people.

But then, as Queen, Elizabeth Windsor must have a particularly awkward life. Sure the holidays, homes and retainers, etc is likely fantastic, but the endless formality, dutiful appearance and fawning attention must take its toll. Although given now that the Royal family are discussed in terms of tourist revenue as much as anything else it could be considered nice work if you can get it.

l associate myself with a tradition that had its Royal family executed and mashed up their bones. Although that was a long time ago and may have been grudge motivated. Our Royals don't serve the same function as the Romanovs did and merely rubber stamp the nations approval.

What is objectional is that normal people - the doers and makers - are treat so shabbily and this empty institution is upheld and paraded before us as something holier than thou and worthy of maintaining.




See/hear also -

BBC radio 5 live coverage
Most local press

www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000687F4/103-8178019-9456643?v=glance&n=130

RRRRs

I love the countryside - its sights, smells and away from it allness. Having said that l think we give all this mud, trees, rocks, insects and animal life too much reverence - something we should see as a resource rather than something to be preserved as is and forever. Environmentalist thinking seeks to do just that - put a stop to real development and settle for, or hark back to, some imagined equilibrium with nature, minimize our footprint and then tread warily.

Wakefiled Metropolitan District Council's 4Rs campaign takes this up - reduce, re-use, recycle, repair.

I was brought up in a make-do-and-mend environment, grew to love the great outdoors, became a teenage vegetarian and avid reader of John Seymour's Self sufficiency books (1). Like many others, the great escape from the ratrace beckoned - if today it was the allotment then tomorrow it was most certainly a farflung croft. . .

. . . growing your own food, rearing your own livestock, the natural cycle and handicrafts. Idyllic, the work seemingly its own reward and the chance to sit on some red-skyed hilltop basking in some romantic oneness with it all at the end of a back-breaking day's toil. But then the quest to make it all work seemed to involve writing books for romantic urbanites with evermore ridiculous advice as to how to be more self sufficient.

Such pearls as chopping wood for fire is of double benefit as you get warm chopping it as well as burning it. And another being a way of getting free hot water on a sunny day - chopping the bottoms out of bottles, sliding these over a hosepipe with slow-running water passing through and goodbye gas bill. Other heating beauties were the use of woodburning stoves (no, not the trees!) or peat - erm? . . . ancient flora and fauna. In the end it all appears to be 'let's see how many things we can produce for ourselves' - self-sufficiency for the sake of it; a microcosm of life in one family plot, all very nice hard labour and getting nowhere fast. If ever subject to a risk assessment most allotments and smallholdings would be shut down. Although many an opening for insurance services, licensing and hot air carbon offsetting schemes.


The four Rs prove to be just as much romantic erm? . . . rubbish really.

For starters 'reduce' would seem to be at odds with the consumerist nature of even our uncertain society. We do like to shop and, considering Big Business is becoming unfashionable, retail looks to feature heavily in most's plans.

Even the most ardent environmentalist benefits from an abundance of consumer goods and services, most pay lipservice and are well stocked up even if it is with organic 'alternatives'.


'Recycle'

I hate rubbish. Kids casually dropping litter as they idle along their way, bad boy racers chucking MacDonalds/KFC/etc. packaging out of their car windows, man-made detritus strewn along river banks . . . . and the lack of bins in public places. The last point first noticed umpteen years ago in Leeds rail station. Nowhere to put an apple core. Pocket? Walk around with it in my hand until l find a bin? Yeah, right.
Noticing the same lack of bins in Wakefield Westgate station l was informed by a very dapper station attendant that bins were no longer provided due to Terrorism. Hmm . .

It gets worse, in London we have the anally retentive bin inspectors making sure us punters put our rubbish in the correct bin - or risk a hefty fine. Apparently someone recently received a £5o fine for putting a letter in a street litter bin and obstructing other litter. Some people ought to get proper jobs.

l do hate litter and am not opposed to recyclng per se. One of the last Tomorow's World programmes l saw featured a massive processing machine that with use of magnets, cyclones, blowers and filters, etc. seperated household wastes into a few basic elements, all of which were apparently useful. The technophobe l was thought that like the washing machine/tumble dryer combo of the time this was a snarl-up waiting to happen. True, they did and even full scale industrial processes have their breakdowns and hold-ups where one operation failure holds up the whole process - but also provides a chance to get ahead with other parts of the operation. Likewise modern machines like the car carry many interconnected operations; complex machinery works and even with down time is superior to previous operations.

Instead though recycling is done inefficiently in the home. Every process carried out indepently - washing, seperating, storing and transporting to the correct bin and arguably wastes more resources, time and energy than is saved by recycling.

And what of the end products? Aluminium (and possibly plastics and glass) maybe the only real candidate as all the other stuff is likely produced cheaper or more efficiently from raw materials. Much of the other stuff is recycled into material that then has to have a use found for it or is a compromise or expensive - and thus requiring our extra labour to purchase; our labours seemingly the only thing considered to be abundant.


Consider that all of the American waste of the 21st century will fit into a single landfill, using just 26% of Woodward County in Oregon. Of the entire US landmass, the landfill would take up about one-12,000th or less than 0.009 percent (2). That's America and without using other methods of waste disposal.

'Reuse' covers quite some remit - everything from our houses, body parts and materials. To the homeowner it can be any number of tips from Viz or erm . . women's mags. Anyone familiar with the hoarding of things that may come in handy will be blessed with sheds, attics and/or cellars full of things that can be repaired or used for something else. lf you can find, fix or match them up that is. Frustrating, arduous and inefficient.

The beachcomber/skiprats amongst us may pick up the odd find or draw some personal pleasure out of fixing something up or improving it. But then for that one there are plenty of others that disappoint, many an oddly patched up item and nothing matching.
lt is interesting being inventive but any product worth fixing usually becomes mass produced, has many forms and develops and older stuff becomes obsolete. The original intentions behind extending something's use being to make a saving become lost and the path taken becomes the focus.

Part of the argument seems to concern the cheapness of an item and its disposability, that nothing is built to last. . . .




tbc . . .

(1)http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Environment/WasteServices/facts.htm

(2)http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0751364428/qid=1137940226/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_3_2/026-8287842-2278834
http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Politics/Quotes/Lomborg.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article340238.ece
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA841.htm

No such word as can't

(Google 'Canute')

I'm smoking a fag . . . .

*
Never really considered myself to be a smoker until always making sure l had some on me (otherwise end up tapping).
There are many things that make me want to stop - morning 'dog-breath' (nothing beats it more than another fag), being out of breath on the football pitch if l've overdone it too recently, the cost in my impoverished state (extradoubly guilty when monies are owed) but the kickback came when signing on at my new doctors' surgery.
Amongst other questions were - how many cigarettes do you smoke?
At a guess 50-100 a week, but l don't really count.

This was viewed with some alarm by the practice nurse who went on to inform me that l would be a burden, particularly as l got older.
I was mildly apoplectic with this. Considering my own injuries (l'll spare you a full blokeish account) then they are all through work, sport and misadventure but likely par for the course and significantly less than what older generations put up with. For instance, there are very few people walking around with couldn't-stop-a- pig-in-a-ginnel legs or bent double retired binmen of yore. Ergo despite all the gripe we are doing quite well.

ln our productive lives and fag taxes we contribute plenty and on the whole don't mind doing so.

Further - l actually enjoy a fag. Not always, but then do we always enjoy football, sex, food, work or the company of our friends or family?

Fags are a small but significant part of my life - night out, breaktime, when writing this stuff and as offering to the god of late buses. They are an icebreaker in social situations; in fact, the most sociable people l know tend to be smokers - in the smoking carriage on trains there was a genuine easy-going camaraderie; almost a bond. This particularly now as we stand (huddled outside stations, etc) enjoying a defiant puff or two with anyone from scabby youth to old ladies, and my favourites - healthworkers, catering staff and, actually, business types. All of 'em really, and now semi-united in tacit recognition that we may be a dying breed. FKoff!


Band of smokers.

Smoking performs a variety of small tasks, often it seems to do with connectivity -

a last request and penultimate act of humanity at the firing squad,
troops in squalor making tabs out of teabags,
a peace offering after a petty squabble or run-in with a perp,
a sole light for an ex-inmate from a long term institution.

The fagtapper, friend-in-need-pain-in-the-arse or easy going bonhomie, sharing yours with those who are closest to society's arse-end, merely asking someone for a light - 'you hev fire?' of the immigrant worker, 'thanks, love' from the doll uptown, the please and thankyou, cheers and ta of it all - Smoking! the musical, perhaps.

Other people aren't all that bothered either by the scourge of the smoker. Sure, some have taken on their privilege to play oneupmanship, others recognise its use as a disciplining tool and many go along with the prevailing climate and succumb but people on the ground and in many pubs and clubs aren't all that bothered about the smokers evil habit.
Actually, when asked, as is the polite thing to do these days, people are quite civil (maybe always are but never really noticed - could be a sign of the times) and don't mind. Especially, for instance, when bus stops are cold, cramped and uncomfortable. One lady told me that she has never smoked but likes the smell which brought some ironic cheer.

l'd be happier if we smokers didn't leave our detritus everywhere but in amongst the rest of the trash, poor facilities, boarded up and degenerated social fabric then it's nuisance and odd charm is lazy rebellion.


What is perhaps more annoying is the continual barrage of public service broadcasts - truly antisocial and a pet hate. Uncomfortable stations with piss-poor toilets (alright when new but inadequately ventilated and disgusting in summer and aged. See Dewsbury bus station for details of the 'old' and Wakefield ought take note for the coming years).
What about accepting that people who occasionally smoke are actually civilised and provide ventilated areas? And proper ashtrays.

Some of the hardest working, get-on-with-it type people l know are or have been smokers - no big deal.
Of course not all the best people are smokers and smokers themselves do other things - there is no community of smokers, it's just that smoking is the easy target in the ongoing health war.

Smoking is stupid, irresponsible, a waste.
Smoking leads to the big C . .
. . smokers are cunts.


You can't say that.

It wouldn't surprise me if some environmentalist fag-hag or govt thinktank linked cigarette smoke with climate change. Factor in all the industry involved, alleged co2 emissions from growing plants and transport, etc. then it's enough to create an industry around or at least commission an audit.

l'd wager though that could be more than offset by the cumulative effect of various health and safety concerns output - itself a runaway monster of self-fulfilling function, a gold mine for the legal and advisory professions and a brake on forward motion in the wrong hands.

l've said previouly that we generally don't go about life or work attempting to injure ourselves and in our normal activies encounter what could, if broken down, become a health and safety nightmare of Matrix proportions . Ooh, all those hazards!
Butt stupid as we are we to tend to make our way through them, indeed, oblivious to the harm, potential trauma and terror around us, absorbed in our selfish, consumerist fug.


See -

Hmm . . .
Smoked
The smoking ban is shit
Pfff . . .

* Don't think so - some of the smokingest people come across are shag merchants. Though by no means all.



Pfff!

Smoking makes little sense when analysed objectively. Obviously physically unhealthy and not pleasant for the non-smoker in a smokey environment - tears used to stream from my eyes on the odd occasion visiting my Dad's Navy social club, ameliorated only by the then rare treat of ice cold lemonade and crisps. My first ever puff on a cigarette, from an uncle at Christmas time, left me puking up and brought forth howls of laughter from assembled relatives - 'that'll learn 'im!'.

And so it did. Like olives, sprouts, sex, alcohol and many others the youthful mind meets many a stepping stone in progression to adulthood. Once you get to find out that your bits are for more than pissing out of and a source of crude humour then all manner of things fall by the wayside. Alcohol, no longer the liquid sustenance of necessity, became a socialising brew of choice. Initially distasteful but perhaps a preparation for all the other rites of passage to maturity and things that are alien to the youthful mind.

There are of course modern fixes to smokey or other 'poor air' environments -

www.purennatural.com
www.truveo.com
www.tornex.com
www.sharp.ca/products/ion/video.html
www.smokefreesystems.com
www.guardiantechnologies.com

Info provided by Bill Gibson of freedom2Choose

Rethinking Earth.

Bad Days?

Quite enjoyed BBC2s Meltdown and was encouraged most of the way through. l nearly even dropped my bacon sarnie when they brought on the Danes and all the talk of longer glaciers, ie. we've been here before, the climate changes for whatever reason and conflating the two our Viking forebears coped and part got us where we are today. What would a contemporary Viking do today? I'd say the cnutters anongst them would be eyeing up the planets. When you consider their technology and the conditions and then consider ours today then it ought make us wonder. There may have been some berserkers amongst them but l dare say the odd clever bastard.

Instead today we're incontinent with fear; the skies falling in and it's all our fault, we're in for some very stormy weather and can't go on as we are, etc.
The name should have given it away really - Meltdown; and l was expecting gloom. After what appeared an objective opening, the final third of the programe seemed to go slightly awol all of a sudden and take up a less optimistic view. It seemed to read too much into just 2000 years of human history, skipped over changes in how climate has been recorded, didn't allow for the fact that we are still developing our understanding of the world and superimposed the perceived effects of the industrial revolution into one hockey stick when there have been quite relatively sudden changes in the earth's climate over it's existence as much as the longer gradual ones and anomalies within them. Whole species and life forms have been wiped out and the conditions for others have arisen, continents have shifted and so what if the earth and indeed heavens move?

Maybe we should get back to calling the planet The World as it is far more than just 'earth'. And likewise the solar system - various other planets and things we don't even know about yet and couldn't possibly imagine with our current navel-gazing, backward looking and anal retentive outlook - liquids, solids, gases, detritus, maybe even other forms of life.
But then no real spirit of adventure anymore?

Not seemingly so amongst our western leaders. l hope the east does rise; if l could draw cartoons l'd have a Hyundai Moonweekender c/w bumpersticker saying 'the other pod's a Honda' flying past a clapped out spaceshuttle. One day spaceshuttles may even be the equivalents of Volkswagen camper vans and the preserve of doom-mongering, unwashed space-hippies - "No! stoppit - you'll destroy the universe!'

That's not to say that the The World is doomed and we need to get off it. It will likely resemble something different over the following millenia; whatever. Even at todays worst predictions of, l think, a 70 metre rise in sea level there would still be a huge amount of land available; and if it was warm as well then hello watersports and new environment. And if it gets cold we have the technology. . . .
That's assumed of course that any of these worse-case scenarios bear out. Given that these are various hypothesis based on unknown unknowns and a liberal splash of doom and gloom mongering then the outome is likely to be more of the same.
Others have said that these bleatings merely add to the catalogue of gloom and misery everywhere - SARS, birdflu, asteroids, obesity, smoking, pervs, paedos and other assorted weirdos and god only knows what else can be summonsed.


So what if our activities effect the planet? Part of discovery and enterprise is dealing with side effects and quantifying their importance and if necessary developing the means to deal with them. Usually we find that other innovations come as a result. Further than that though is the recognition that if we can effect such things as climate by accident then we can also do so by design.

If it really was the case that we are heading for a catastrophe of our own making then surely the most powerful people on earth, the great and the good, would hold a moratorium of sorts and discuss the most beneficial way to take things forwards.

Oh, they are trying/ Those who cry Kyoto . . .

They talk of leaving a legacy for future generations, a cleaner, more habitable environment and a vision of heaven on earth whilst all the time telling us that we're hellbound if we don't mend our ways. This is a time standing still argument and one that is not likely to arm our future generations with the capacities to deal with a world that has, is and will change and sometime may even die out.
That doesn't mean humanity has to though, which arguably it would if the current argument was taken to its logical conclusion.

Many others have said todays pessimistic outlook likely originates from the elite (?) running out of steam. Yet seeing as how it's business as normal and there are bills to pay and all of the rest of it this doom-mongering effects all of our actions, how business operates or not and represents a pitiful legacy.

Our future generations may look back on this period as one when the western world entered a dark age of its own choice rather than one that put humanity at the forefront and heralded a brighter future. As such climate change represents an apt metaphor for the ever decreasing circles that our leadership set out for us but also themselves.


Meltdown? Read on -

(1)http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/programmes1.shtml
(2)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4753876.stm

F*cking Welsh!*

The Welsh Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority has decided that 'intimate physical contact' is to be ruled out with regards to schoolplays - just in case anyone gets any ideas. I never read Romeo and Juliet at school but did experiment with Lorraine Ferriday under the table, likewise I gawped at Andrea Belkus' mottle- skinned chest (just because it was 'rude' most probably (5-6 yrs old or thereabouts).

Like most other living creatures we are likely genetically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex (unless you're a slug or something). And a good job really, considering. Further, our own life experiences prove that a) babies come from ladies and b) men have something to do with them getting there. The former becomes apparent by the lady in bloom and the latter - 'all the mucky stuff that we don't talk about' but do, thankfully. My innocent enquiries as to why is that lady so fat copped for a clip 'round the ear - people were likely even more uptight back then.

It seems mighty strange that this most animal of instincts is sought to be codified, certificated, given a clean bill of health and hidden . . . . sometimes.

Even the great and the good will use whatever 'appeal' they have hence - Tony '5 times' (one often wondered why the missus seems to walk sideways).

Call me a prude - porn, eroticism and the like have their place but the act itself - one of intimacy - suggests that it is no one else's business other than those involved. As novelty in drama it titillates, too much and it's commonplace, gratuitous and boring. There's no doubt that emotion and portrayal of intimate acts are fundamental to drama but I wouldn't fancy some great Dionysian sexual-gymnastic display. Maybe I am a prude.

Others have chortled at this bout of political correctness and rightly so. Kids aren't stupid yet this latest notion treats them so - and everyone else.

Where will it end?



(*I have enjoyed many visits to Wales.)

Something rotten in Islam?

Whatever the reasons for the Jutland Post's publication of 'offensive' imagery in the form of what are really some quite crappy cartoons (proving that whatever else the Danes make they probably don't do the best cartoons in the world) it does add to the discussion of Religion. If I were a muslim I'd be offended at worst or perhaps disappointed. If I had true belief in my religion then I'd probably pity the infidel and his philistine ways. But then if I lived in the land of the infidel and enjoyed the benefits of innovation in all forms then I may question what my religion says and how people interpret it. As such there are as many varying interpretations of Islam as Christianity.

Others have said that religion is meant to be a way of being good, at its most simple interpretation, and one that no-one should really have complaint with. However, in practice, this covers anything within a very wide remit - being squeaky clean and expecting others to be also, praying that nothing bad will befall your family or friends or those in faraway places, the capitalist kerching of religious businessmen (the lord helps those who help themselves), claiming that however badly your voters think of you then at least you'll have a go at twisting the arm of the almighty (although He didn't elect you). Maybe I'm paraphrasing, but then l wouldn't be the only one.

There is no more Unity in Faith than there is a true Muslim Brotherhood or that I see eye-to-eye with my own brothers or colleagues; or for that matter amongst our own communities (of whatever description). All these things imply a muted desire for something to unify us but based on what?

Can 'Our Muslim Brothers' really have that much to complain about? Not really it would seem, not as far as the cartoons go.
In the west we lampoon pretty much everything - everything from the weakest to mightiest, man-made* or not. At its most basic it is a critique, it finds chinks in the armour. It can slap the hypocritical false prophet around the face or punch one square on and undermine the lot. Humour itself is even used to get The Lord's message across or to laugh at those deemed to be against one's faith. Our muslim friends are as guilty here as they make out our Danish cousins to be.

Are we to suppose that images of Allah's name in arabic appearing in everything from fruit and fish to cloud formations are miraculous apparitions yet scorned when they appear in bastard form in trainers or even the inverted wisps of a coffee advert? What god is this that writes his name everywhere yet denies us imagery, enquiry and progress? Likewise it's likely the case that all manner of hidden words, scripture, pictures and messages can be read into any object. Are they signs?
What if the sign said something disagreeable? or appeared on a pig?, is it the mysterious workings of Allah? (1)

The most offensive of the cartoons - those depicting Allah or Mohammed as terrorists and thus having a swipe at the whole notion of Islam can be said to be disagreeable but no more so than claiming that ranting mullahs endorsing jihad represent all muslim opinion or that Allah's name appearing on a fish has any more relevance than Elvis' image appearing on a slice of toast.

l find the idea that any religion can forbid the graven image (from engraved ie. man-made) truly offensive. I'd assumed previously that it was the 'craven image' until reading Anila Baig in The Sun newspaper (2) - " . . (T)he Muslim religion FORBIDS hand-drawn pictures of any person or animal. It might sound old-fashioned and alien but this was laid down by our Prophet to stop idol worship.
Islam is not the only religion that forbids pictures. Christians and Jews also had the same restriction and the second Commandment tells followers not to make any graven images."

Going out on a limb here l'd say some 84.2% of muslims (and any other faith for that matter) that have ever put pen to paper are probably 'guilty' of graven imagery or have benefitted from them. At its most fundamental it denies progress in medical science, human and animal biology, art, fashion and expression - quite a large chunk of what makes us who we are. And likely fundamental to whether faith is put in humanity or the workings of some higher hand inasmuch as only God knows the answers and humans cannot or shouldn't ought to.




(Links to follow)

(1)www.miraclesofislam.com
*Man as per Balderdash and Piffle 'M'. In Old English, the word 'man' meant 'human' and did not become gender-specific until much later. Moreover, it goes back thousands of years to Sanskrit, and (rather wonderfully) is cognate with the same root as the word 'mind'. (Wording lifted from http://carlanayland.blogspot.com/2006/01/balderdash-and-piffle-tv-review.html)
(2)http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006050636,,00.html

No nukes?

What possible legitimacy can western officials now have in their efforts to bring other countries into line?

Iran's peaceful or otherwise development of nuclear technology seems to be a bridge too far for our current crop of leaders.
But surely what is being missed is all that is positive about developments in nuclear power. To quote Jeremy Paxman (Newsnight, 16th January (1) 'Iran is floating on oil' so, why the interest in another energy resource?

Why not? Oil may be abundant in Iran (the world's 4th largest supplier) but what self respecting country would want all it's eggs in one basket? Why not Iran use it's current wealth to invest in what ought to be one of the most exciting developments in power supply? Oil may be plentiful, but it won't last for ever. It is also limited in future oriented applications ie. spaceflight and going ever further. There are many other uses for nuclear applications - medicine, for instance.

Western leaders have got the jitters over Iran and their bold defiance.
In Colin Powell (et al)'s opinion Iran could develop Nuclear weapons. Given the level of interfering by the US and others it would hardly be surprising should Iran desire to protect itself. Or, indeed, to spout off over Israel - not uncommon amongst middle eastern regimes and many that have been on the receiving end of western sponsored (or ignored) Israeli attack.

Many have commented on the Iraqi debacle and the all-too-willing coalition's poor handling of every aspect of it. This unfinished business should be what our government's are held to account over before they even dare threaten another country.

And lay off the sport as the beginning of the slippery sanctions slope. Sport should perhaps be a unifying element and celebration of human physical skill and prowess and not a political football used at the whim of dodgy politicians - hands off!

A positive case for the development of nuclear power would be better for international relations.

Of further interest -

(1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4617704.stm
http://www.newstatesman.com/nslibrary?qs=iran&x=9&y=10