As a matter of course none of us condone acts of violence or destruction of property, it is the code we all choose to live by. Equally none of us should condone the Police's control, barricading and kettling of the protester's march. In a civilised society you do not attack your citizens with an militarised and organised force nor bludgeon the head of your citizens with a truncheon. Yes it is very irritating, inconvenient and a highly volatile situation when groups of our citizens get together to protest against some perceived miscarriage of justice. What would you rather have? That anyone with a contrary view and opinion is stifled, given no voice, prevented from joining up with like minded people to discuss the grievances as seen? Suppress all non-conforming opinion? No of course not, the majority is not always right and certainly those given power do not as a matter of course exercise it wisely. There has to be a vital, lively vehicles for dissent.
The problem is that when there are no channels for voicing and debating what to one side seems self-evident wrong ideas then frustration build up. Supporters gather around that frustration and when, as is the norm now, they are denied access to the places and the people that count in making those wrong decision, our elected representatives after all, no some magical remote elite, then understandably frustration can well up into violent reaction. The Police have to take responsibility for this outcome. Since that woman used the Police as an armed force to break the Union Movement they have lost touch of their true role. To be our elected force to police conduct between ourselves, not an arm of the government to ensure the establishments will over its populace. So by brandishing its total control, by denying access, dictating terms and limits, by bottling up groups so they can control and retain dominance, all this just adds fuel to the fire of frustration. There is a wrong that is not being addressed. There has to be an outlet, a safety valve to express the passion and quantum of the dissent. A protest march is one of the few vehicles left to the populace but even this the authorities want to control and dictate form to.
Of course in any democratic society there is always dissent, by definition not everyone can be pleased and satisfied. But that never was the objective. The objective remains as always that all opinions are seen by all to have been fairly considered and weighted and a resolution arrived at that acknowledges contrary concerns, puts them into a context and a rationale offered for why the majority have chosen a contradictory position. The common goodsense of the country will then see and understand why the dissidents are nothing more than trouble makers and can be safely ignored. Gagging dissent, railroading perceived minorities and attempting to demonise any group that does not agree with your agenda is only going to exacerbate a grumbling disbelief and lead to ever more and more violent protests to break out of the increasing authoritarian chains trying to contain them. Reasoned discussion, even passionate argument is the only viable answer.
So when the occupants of that stretched chav display vehicle, the Royal car, are picked on, it is only fitting. They of all people represent the affluent, self-indulgent, smug, disproportionately influential members of society indifferent to and remote from the harsh economic realities that everyday citizens actually experience and struggle to cope with on a day by day basis. What a more fitting accolade than to call for, symbolically, his head.
.
Sunday 12 December 2010
Thursday 9 December 2010
Celebrity endorsements
It is not my personal bag, but I do understand there is wide spread interest and fascination in the doings of those considered celebrities. The BBC in catering for the wider public has to provide a constant supply of items about celebrities. Understood, but I do take considerable exception when, over the course of a couple of days, you follow the celebrities progress from one studio to another to appear on a succession of TV or radio programme, with varying degrees of reluctance to talk about themselves and can scarcely hide their impatience to push their products, film, book, DVD or whatever. There is a delicate dance to be done here. The celebrities will not make themselves available, unless needing to promote a failing career, without being given an opportunity to promote their latest offering. The BBC is unable to maintain a supply of non-altruistic celebrities to be consumed by the public without allowing that product promotion. Have you noticed, the bar has lowered considerably over the latter years?
There is a greater reluctance to speak off product by the celebrities, there is a much more blatant display of the product and the BBC has slipped well into the mire of commercial advertisement. The stakes are very high, without access to high volume audiences the commercial enterprises fail, there are no sales. Gain access to a large audience and your commercial product can take off astronomically, if packaged right. None of this is any place where the BBC should be, their charter is not about the promotion of commercial products. What really gets my rag and I do mean really, when a supposed world celebrity dictates terms to the BBC as to the when and how! They want free access to the best and biggest audiences in this country then they have the temerity to specify terms and cannot be bothered to attend a studio. Come off it! Often to then fail to deliver a plausible off product performance. Where has the BBC parked its balls?
The BBC must get back its belief in itself and trust that is able to deliver interesting product. So okay some supposed high-lister does not get to appear in a programme. Whose loss is that in the long run? Not the BBC's and that is for sure. They are able to give access to large audiences across all the age ranges, they can actually call the shots. They can actually call the tune and decide whether the product is or is not displayed and the extent of product promotion to off product discussion takes place. I really do not think this is a youth or a changing media issue. One of the many BBC roles is to provide entertainment and that includes opportunities for celebrities to show off their talents, aires and graces or lack off them as may be. Other alternative outlets will provide for exhaustive product promotions. Get it right and I know where the benefit of audience viewing figure will lie! Just sell a product and the audience either buys into it or switches off mentally. Rather seize the opportunity of public exposure, on a non-commercial platform, to enhance the image making that supports and sustains the cult of celebrity and you are on a winner and in for the long ride. That is what the media savvy celebe understands.
The BBC in offering so many different audience platforms does have problems of tripping over its own feet. Just which audience to make available and what role the appearance is to follow. Not easy when a celebrity can be appealing to a wide audience range. Providing they keep well in check any tendency to hold a celebrity in awe, to be too overtly grateful that their flagging show is going to be boosted by this celebes appearance, I actually believe they do have the necessary skills. Skills to keep using the celebrities in a number of varying ways extracting differing tibbits from them to appeal to the appetite of their audiences and keep the product promotion as a very secondary issue. It is a dance after all of two consenting adults. both with shared and contrary objectives.
Which point does the courtier pass beyond and becomes a whore?
There is a greater reluctance to speak off product by the celebrities, there is a much more blatant display of the product and the BBC has slipped well into the mire of commercial advertisement. The stakes are very high, without access to high volume audiences the commercial enterprises fail, there are no sales. Gain access to a large audience and your commercial product can take off astronomically, if packaged right. None of this is any place where the BBC should be, their charter is not about the promotion of commercial products. What really gets my rag and I do mean really, when a supposed world celebrity dictates terms to the BBC as to the when and how! They want free access to the best and biggest audiences in this country then they have the temerity to specify terms and cannot be bothered to attend a studio. Come off it! Often to then fail to deliver a plausible off product performance. Where has the BBC parked its balls?
The BBC must get back its belief in itself and trust that is able to deliver interesting product. So okay some supposed high-lister does not get to appear in a programme. Whose loss is that in the long run? Not the BBC's and that is for sure. They are able to give access to large audiences across all the age ranges, they can actually call the shots. They can actually call the tune and decide whether the product is or is not displayed and the extent of product promotion to off product discussion takes place. I really do not think this is a youth or a changing media issue. One of the many BBC roles is to provide entertainment and that includes opportunities for celebrities to show off their talents, aires and graces or lack off them as may be. Other alternative outlets will provide for exhaustive product promotions. Get it right and I know where the benefit of audience viewing figure will lie! Just sell a product and the audience either buys into it or switches off mentally. Rather seize the opportunity of public exposure, on a non-commercial platform, to enhance the image making that supports and sustains the cult of celebrity and you are on a winner and in for the long ride. That is what the media savvy celebe understands.
The BBC in offering so many different audience platforms does have problems of tripping over its own feet. Just which audience to make available and what role the appearance is to follow. Not easy when a celebrity can be appealing to a wide audience range. Providing they keep well in check any tendency to hold a celebrity in awe, to be too overtly grateful that their flagging show is going to be boosted by this celebes appearance, I actually believe they do have the necessary skills. Skills to keep using the celebrities in a number of varying ways extracting differing tibbits from them to appeal to the appetite of their audiences and keep the product promotion as a very secondary issue. It is a dance after all of two consenting adults. both with shared and contrary objectives.
Which point does the courtier pass beyond and becomes a whore?
Tuesday 30 November 2010
Bankrupt Nation
The huff and puff of finding, naming and persecuting the source of the leaked diplomatic cables misses the point by many a mile. We simply cannot live by dual standards, a private life separate from and to a public life. They are simply the one and the same, cross feeding and influencing one to the other. What you say and think in private must be no different to what you say in public. Otherwise you are living a lie that always has and will come out. This is a lifestyle of a high calibre that requires integrity and high moral standards.
Nations, and big corporations if it comes to that, are but people except that their characteristics are hugely simplified, coalesced to the centre middle ground and losing all subtly and nuances along the way. The bigger the Nation, or corporation, the less subtly and the grosser the reactions and responses. That is just how it is. A Nation that positions itself as of world class and claims to lead the world, must, to justify those claims, set itself to exceed the highest of standards and exhibit the conduct of an exemplary citizen. Not on occasional high profile events but in its every day in day out mundane conduct.
To even attempt to justify water-boarding is intolerable. It is self-evidently beyond any acceptable code of conduct to contemplate let alone implement such actions on another human being. There are no justification. Period. Any more than there are not any justification whatever for assuming rights to seize and lock up persons of the world, deprive them of all decency, humane care, deny them a trial, refuse to specify the laws by which they are held against their wishes so others may challenge, and continue to do so for multiple years. Not just an interim short period whilst a collective view is taken, no consigned to a limbo beyond reach.
Utterly, totally deplorable. These are the actions of a bankrupt nation. One that has lost its integrity, lost any sense of values and without a single moral fibre left, bereft and clueless. So the news that it holds views in private that it tries to conceal from the world whilst pretending to promote some other false vision comes as no shock or surprise. The only surprise is that any other Nations cares. A bankrupt is down and out and any pleadings not worth a moments notice.
Nations, and big corporations if it comes to that, are but people except that their characteristics are hugely simplified, coalesced to the centre middle ground and losing all subtly and nuances along the way. The bigger the Nation, or corporation, the less subtly and the grosser the reactions and responses. That is just how it is. A Nation that positions itself as of world class and claims to lead the world, must, to justify those claims, set itself to exceed the highest of standards and exhibit the conduct of an exemplary citizen. Not on occasional high profile events but in its every day in day out mundane conduct.
To even attempt to justify water-boarding is intolerable. It is self-evidently beyond any acceptable code of conduct to contemplate let alone implement such actions on another human being. There are no justification. Period. Any more than there are not any justification whatever for assuming rights to seize and lock up persons of the world, deprive them of all decency, humane care, deny them a trial, refuse to specify the laws by which they are held against their wishes so others may challenge, and continue to do so for multiple years. Not just an interim short period whilst a collective view is taken, no consigned to a limbo beyond reach.
Utterly, totally deplorable. These are the actions of a bankrupt nation. One that has lost its integrity, lost any sense of values and without a single moral fibre left, bereft and clueless. So the news that it holds views in private that it tries to conceal from the world whilst pretending to promote some other false vision comes as no shock or surprise. The only surprise is that any other Nations cares. A bankrupt is down and out and any pleadings not worth a moments notice.
Thursday 25 November 2010
Conundrum
As a government initiative, I, like most men over the age of 60, have been prescribed Simvastatins to take for the rest of my life inorder to reduce the levels of the 'wrong' cholesterol and thus reduce the risk of heart attack or a stroke. After considering a number of side issues which are not relevant here and inview of my position, see philosophy of death, it will come as no surprise that I have stopped taking them.
As the official health policy is to safeguard the health of all males over the age of sixty by reducing their risks of heart attack or stroke, by this action, I am now acting and choosing to live a style of life contrary to good practice and advice. I therefore, following on from my position on the allocation of resources, see An aside - Born Equal, have put myself where the care resources allocated to me, have to be scaled back and reduced below my otherwise full entitlement. I have become a victim of my own policies. Fair do's, my Advance Directive excludes expensive resuscitation and recovery operations in the aftermath of a stroke or heart attack. That my care entitlement for other non-life threatening minor coughs and wheezes or even general support in the community might also have to be scaled back, becomes the price I have to pay to choose to live outside of society accepted norms. No matter how wrong I may think that particular norm is. You either choose to live with and go along with the grain or not. It not, then you just have to accept that one consequence is that you might end up as an outsider. Hey that's democracy at work.
As the official health policy is to safeguard the health of all males over the age of sixty by reducing their risks of heart attack or stroke, by this action, I am now acting and choosing to live a style of life contrary to good practice and advice. I therefore, following on from my position on the allocation of resources, see An aside - Born Equal, have put myself where the care resources allocated to me, have to be scaled back and reduced below my otherwise full entitlement. I have become a victim of my own policies. Fair do's, my Advance Directive excludes expensive resuscitation and recovery operations in the aftermath of a stroke or heart attack. That my care entitlement for other non-life threatening minor coughs and wheezes or even general support in the community might also have to be scaled back, becomes the price I have to pay to choose to live outside of society accepted norms. No matter how wrong I may think that particular norm is. You either choose to live with and go along with the grain or not. It not, then you just have to accept that one consequence is that you might end up as an outsider. Hey that's democracy at work.
Wednesday 17 November 2010
Revolution - addendum
Kate and William came across as a nice sincere level-headed couple and I wish them well, as ordinary citizens. Having already been sold a sham marriage at least twice before (Margaret then Charles) by the royal firm I am not prepared to buy into this one. I do ooze sympathy at their plight in having to plan a bean feast in time of economic hardship. Perhaps if his Dad was to fore go claiming all the Euro money intended for small struggling farmers my sincerity might be more palpable. The biggest lesson the royals need right now is for the British public to turn their united backs on their celebrations and just ignore it. It is over time the royals woke up and realised that have to treat their 'subjects' with respect and actually earn the trust they seem to think they can take as a birth right.
Thursday 11 November 2010
Philosophy of Death
You do eventually reach a point in your life when death is no longer that distant abstraction but a reality coming up over the horizon. It make you think and you take time to reflect on this and that aspect of life, it meaning, purpose and for this particular blog the manner of death. I have written an advance directive as to the how and what of my care in the event that I am incapable of agreeing to any planned treatments. What we as a Society are struggling to come to terms with is our technical skills are keeping people alive for much longer. One consequence is that more and more people are experiencing a lingering, distressing, humiliating and undignified existence before death finally relieves them. A gradual loss of physical control is one end and the other end is a loss of almost all conscious control. Even the gradual creeping infirmity of old age is so badly handled in this society of ours, robbing them of any self-respect and side-lining them into oblivion. An inconsequential shell that has to be serviced to a minima 'quality of life' until it expires. Not a very flattering view of the end game ahead.
Until the twentieth century the older generation were held in respect. They had carved out a way of life that enabled their genes to pass on, and provided sufficient shelter and sustenance for those gene in tum, to make their own way. All the while they were the depository of the collective and received wisdom and experience of their own life but also the life of the genes that bore them. They were a point of stability and a continuum that could provide assurance and direction in all of life's hurlyburly. Nowadays the role is reversed. Having provided the initial resources to enable the genes to be passed on, their continuing life is now a draining and diverting of resources away that would be better placed with the successor genes. Their cumulative wisdom and experience can longer keep up with rate of change and progress of the society around them, so as to be irrelevant. Any residual possible common ground of a deeper insight into the ways of man gets tossed aside along with all the other 'so called' outmoded insights.
So the older generation is left to reverie to its own age group about the past and how it was and have nothing to offer about what might be that anyone considers worth giving any attention. It is only a matter of perspective and creating time to assimilate, but as it happens those are the two missing ingredient in today's headlong rush. Robbed of the historic role in society, what is the point of living on? It terms of contribution into the family and society, nothing in reality. An offer of a historical viewpoint when the preoccupation is grasping and managing the change all around? The old really do not have a role to play. Sure, if they are lucky they are familiar worn fixtures, a cosy habit to accommodated, enjoyed for old times sake, providing they don't get to be too demanding. Not really significant.
What I see ahead is a gradual decline in my faculties and nothing ahead to make the increasing struggle worth the contemplation. One horror scenario for me would be to live to be one hundred. Why, what for? The only reason is the absence of options. Yet this is the fate ahead for increasing numbers of the present baby-boomers, like me. So the question I am circling around is, if we cannot choose the manner and timing of our death, why accept remedial medical interventions? The interventions offered are the 'easy cures' to reduce the risk of mortality. Take way death by causes that can be easily cured and you are left with death, because that is inescapable, by some incurable, hard to treat cause. A cause more likely to rob you of that dignity we all want in the final stages of our life. Until such times as assisted suicide becomes the norm and accepted, for me, the answer is to refuse all interventions and let life roll whatever dice is my lot. I am not looking for it, not seeking it, more than content to continue as things are but I don't want mankind trying to play God and intercept death dice rolls, even if it is nice and easily preventable with minimal consequences. I'll take my chances. Any one got spare tickets for Switzerland?
Until the twentieth century the older generation were held in respect. They had carved out a way of life that enabled their genes to pass on, and provided sufficient shelter and sustenance for those gene in tum, to make their own way. All the while they were the depository of the collective and received wisdom and experience of their own life but also the life of the genes that bore them. They were a point of stability and a continuum that could provide assurance and direction in all of life's hurlyburly. Nowadays the role is reversed. Having provided the initial resources to enable the genes to be passed on, their continuing life is now a draining and diverting of resources away that would be better placed with the successor genes. Their cumulative wisdom and experience can longer keep up with rate of change and progress of the society around them, so as to be irrelevant. Any residual possible common ground of a deeper insight into the ways of man gets tossed aside along with all the other 'so called' outmoded insights.
So the older generation is left to reverie to its own age group about the past and how it was and have nothing to offer about what might be that anyone considers worth giving any attention. It is only a matter of perspective and creating time to assimilate, but as it happens those are the two missing ingredient in today's headlong rush. Robbed of the historic role in society, what is the point of living on? It terms of contribution into the family and society, nothing in reality. An offer of a historical viewpoint when the preoccupation is grasping and managing the change all around? The old really do not have a role to play. Sure, if they are lucky they are familiar worn fixtures, a cosy habit to accommodated, enjoyed for old times sake, providing they don't get to be too demanding. Not really significant.
What I see ahead is a gradual decline in my faculties and nothing ahead to make the increasing struggle worth the contemplation. One horror scenario for me would be to live to be one hundred. Why, what for? The only reason is the absence of options. Yet this is the fate ahead for increasing numbers of the present baby-boomers, like me. So the question I am circling around is, if we cannot choose the manner and timing of our death, why accept remedial medical interventions? The interventions offered are the 'easy cures' to reduce the risk of mortality. Take way death by causes that can be easily cured and you are left with death, because that is inescapable, by some incurable, hard to treat cause. A cause more likely to rob you of that dignity we all want in the final stages of our life. Until such times as assisted suicide becomes the norm and accepted, for me, the answer is to refuse all interventions and let life roll whatever dice is my lot. I am not looking for it, not seeking it, more than content to continue as things are but I don't want mankind trying to play God and intercept death dice rolls, even if it is nice and easily preventable with minimal consequences. I'll take my chances. Any one got spare tickets for Switzerland?
Tuesday 9 November 2010
Disposable crutches
In a caring society we help and look after those amongst us that get into difficulties and we support the weak that are unable to look after themselves. That's the minimum. Of course what we do not want to do is for these self same people to become dependant on us for ever more, and there is the rub. It is a fact of life that when offered a crutch we quickly adapt to it and become dependant on it and fearful if there is any suggestion they are going to be taken away. As a Nation we just cannot afford to provide comfortable reassuring crutches to who so ever needs them. But we do want to be caring.
There are no simple answers and several aspects to this particular conundrum. First we all have to accept that a utopia where everyone can have their expected three bedroom detached house in the countryside, yet close to family and friends, and free of pollution just is not attainable. As a bottom live we have to come to terms that as a constrained Nation, as we are, without a vibrant growing commerce or industry, we just cannot afford anything like that utopia as a minimum standard for all our citizens. A more realistic scenario has to prevail, shelter from the weather extremes, basic sanitation perhaps short of a personal bath or shower, basic cooking facilities perhaps no more than a microwave and a sink, a room where families can keep together again short of separate bedrooms and maybe having to share in communal living spaces. Grim compared to the vision of what we expect as our birth right but sufficient to keep us together, warm safe and hygienic.
The difficulty is in giving generous support for sufficient time to let a person or family in crisis recoup and recover yet not undermine the need for them to take stock of their new circumstance and find a path out of their difficulties for themselves. No reliance on those crutches so easily given. First off the support has to be immediate and untainted with labels of scroungers, cheats or fraudsters, so loved of government departments. Given but implicit of payback of any assistance given in cash or kind. We help you so you can help others is the deal. Given but with the support, encouragement and finally judge and jury of a mentor, to coax, advise, offer special training or group sessions, whatever to assist during that recovery period. A period that does have a finite future end date, but constantly adjusted and redefined according to the mentors assessment of the efforts being made.
Yes our citizens must stand on their own two feet, be confident and independent and not constantly nagged, bullied and harassed into submission by government policy. However that is true for those successfully finding their own way, when you have to ask for help, help is ring fenced and bring some loss of personal freedom and other compliance with others jurisdictions. So the mentor is an individual volunteer not some anonymous official concerned with throughput, formal procedural documentation and statistical targets. As individuals there will be great variety in the way mentors see their role and the support their people need. So mentors must be subject to monitoring and receive day to day updates in best practises and comparators from their local patch. I have greater faith in any citizen to see through a bleeding heart pitch than some official having the sense to understand the blatantly obvious. That is the safety net for me. On a one to one mentor to person in need basis, better targeted necessary help and an living overview of all the ups and downs progress made. Mentors making life or death judgements to scale down the help if recovery falters or is not happening, extend it if the prospects are bright or there is a temproary setback to be overcome and a slowing taper off after when recovery is in place to let the person/family recover before the claw back begins.
Not perfect, open to abuse, yes, but that person on top of the clapham common bus has a lot more nounce about try-ons, tales of woe and unfairness than all the official organisations put together.The stumbling block for all persons in crisis comes down to employment. If only they could get an appropriate job, there would be income to buy answers and their self-esteem would shoot up. Employers have a right to expect self-discipline and performance. Employees have aspirations to sustain a life-style, follow a particular skill or interest and to hang on until that cushy job everyone else has turns up for them. The employment market is rife with mismatched expectations. A mentor is better placed than any other organisation to best see and understand the opportunities and needs for those they are directly involved with. If there is no employment to be had, full stop, there are no options left. Then the bottom line is, if they do not, cannot help themselves out of the crisis then bit by bit their claims on 'normal' living standards are whittled away until they are left with just the bottom line. We as a society still need to care for them and we still need to help them as best as can with the utmost skill we can bring to bear. No person is beyond hope but it may be a long and costly road to retrain a broken life lived over many many years back into a useful citizen. That is our ultimate challenge as a society. To care enough to make it happen.
If there is no employment then this Nation is broken and there is no help available to anyone no matter how needy. I doubt this is or ever will be the case. More usually it is a matter of coming to terms with the adjustments necessary before that only job that is on offer is acceptable and is better than other options. But any job without hidden claw-back penalties where it is better to take state aid than to work, we have to move well away from that. Employers also have to face up to their social responsibilities too. Paying the minimum wage or less may get them cheap labour but that is only short term gain. They need to invest into people, not just as grunts to perform on command but really motivated to help the industry they are working in to grow and prosper, as a partnership, not some archaic lord and servant relationship. Ah well Nirvana come tomorrow.
There are no simple answers and several aspects to this particular conundrum. First we all have to accept that a utopia where everyone can have their expected three bedroom detached house in the countryside, yet close to family and friends, and free of pollution just is not attainable. As a bottom live we have to come to terms that as a constrained Nation, as we are, without a vibrant growing commerce or industry, we just cannot afford anything like that utopia as a minimum standard for all our citizens. A more realistic scenario has to prevail, shelter from the weather extremes, basic sanitation perhaps short of a personal bath or shower, basic cooking facilities perhaps no more than a microwave and a sink, a room where families can keep together again short of separate bedrooms and maybe having to share in communal living spaces. Grim compared to the vision of what we expect as our birth right but sufficient to keep us together, warm safe and hygienic.
The difficulty is in giving generous support for sufficient time to let a person or family in crisis recoup and recover yet not undermine the need for them to take stock of their new circumstance and find a path out of their difficulties for themselves. No reliance on those crutches so easily given. First off the support has to be immediate and untainted with labels of scroungers, cheats or fraudsters, so loved of government departments. Given but implicit of payback of any assistance given in cash or kind. We help you so you can help others is the deal. Given but with the support, encouragement and finally judge and jury of a mentor, to coax, advise, offer special training or group sessions, whatever to assist during that recovery period. A period that does have a finite future end date, but constantly adjusted and redefined according to the mentors assessment of the efforts being made.
Yes our citizens must stand on their own two feet, be confident and independent and not constantly nagged, bullied and harassed into submission by government policy. However that is true for those successfully finding their own way, when you have to ask for help, help is ring fenced and bring some loss of personal freedom and other compliance with others jurisdictions. So the mentor is an individual volunteer not some anonymous official concerned with throughput, formal procedural documentation and statistical targets. As individuals there will be great variety in the way mentors see their role and the support their people need. So mentors must be subject to monitoring and receive day to day updates in best practises and comparators from their local patch. I have greater faith in any citizen to see through a bleeding heart pitch than some official having the sense to understand the blatantly obvious. That is the safety net for me. On a one to one mentor to person in need basis, better targeted necessary help and an living overview of all the ups and downs progress made. Mentors making life or death judgements to scale down the help if recovery falters or is not happening, extend it if the prospects are bright or there is a temproary setback to be overcome and a slowing taper off after when recovery is in place to let the person/family recover before the claw back begins.
Not perfect, open to abuse, yes, but that person on top of the clapham common bus has a lot more nounce about try-ons, tales of woe and unfairness than all the official organisations put together.The stumbling block for all persons in crisis comes down to employment. If only they could get an appropriate job, there would be income to buy answers and their self-esteem would shoot up. Employers have a right to expect self-discipline and performance. Employees have aspirations to sustain a life-style, follow a particular skill or interest and to hang on until that cushy job everyone else has turns up for them. The employment market is rife with mismatched expectations. A mentor is better placed than any other organisation to best see and understand the opportunities and needs for those they are directly involved with. If there is no employment to be had, full stop, there are no options left. Then the bottom line is, if they do not, cannot help themselves out of the crisis then bit by bit their claims on 'normal' living standards are whittled away until they are left with just the bottom line. We as a society still need to care for them and we still need to help them as best as can with the utmost skill we can bring to bear. No person is beyond hope but it may be a long and costly road to retrain a broken life lived over many many years back into a useful citizen. That is our ultimate challenge as a society. To care enough to make it happen.
If there is no employment then this Nation is broken and there is no help available to anyone no matter how needy. I doubt this is or ever will be the case. More usually it is a matter of coming to terms with the adjustments necessary before that only job that is on offer is acceptable and is better than other options. But any job without hidden claw-back penalties where it is better to take state aid than to work, we have to move well away from that. Employers also have to face up to their social responsibilities too. Paying the minimum wage or less may get them cheap labour but that is only short term gain. They need to invest into people, not just as grunts to perform on command but really motivated to help the industry they are working in to grow and prosper, as a partnership, not some archaic lord and servant relationship. Ah well Nirvana come tomorrow.
Thursday 4 November 2010
News Propoganda
It worries me more than just a little that months after the event, having absorbed all the various media reports on an event and having formed a considered opinion about the course and substance of those events from the media reports, drip by drip a more truthful account appears. All the warty misjudgements come to light, changing entirely the summation of cause and justification. Need for secrecy or National interest or delicate negotiations could be derailed, or some such are rolled out as justification as to why the public should be mislead, misinformed at the time.
By my reckoning, to set out to mislead, misdirect, to encourage a false assumption to be arrived at, is tantamount to lying. I know by the strict definition it is not a lie. But to set out to leave a person with a wrong impression and not to take steps to limit or correct that false impression, an impression that you are fully aware will be formed from the limited and coached words you have used to convey the information, is a lie. What can be worse for a country than to be routinely lied to by their leaders? Nothing destroys trust or being prepared to over look an occasional transgression faster and more completely, than being lied to.
We are told that it is an essential and inescapable facet of modern life. Inorder to complete complicated and delicate negotiations and to arrive at a solutions which best benefits out Nation it is unavoidable. The Nation cannot be told the whole truth at the time, it might costs lives, we might lose an important deal, our competitors will gain a commercial advantage, our enemy will be forewarned as to our moves and have time to thwart them or any number of other very persuasive and compelling reasons. Except we are left with this sour taste in our mouths, we are being lied to by our leaders.
In a wheely dealy commercial world, getting one over your adversary, is the name of the game, it kind of makes sense and certainly has become the daily yardstick of judgement. Except this is not how I want to be ranked, I really do not want the esteem I am held in to be based on how clever I have been to outsmart, out bluff, out perform in some brinkmanship game, how I managed to beat a weaker opponent down by a couple of points. These are not the principles of my life and certainly not for the country I want to stand proud of and promote.
There really is an alternative manner to conduct our everyday lives. It harks back to the old professional qualities we, as English, used to be world renowned for. Honesty, integrity, men of their word who would rather stand by their word than break it just make a deal or win a profit. Being prepared to set aside robust codes of conduct for a short-term goal can only have one conclusion. Sacrificing decency inorder curry favour with an evil dictator so to bolster your position against a mutual 'enemy' can only have one inevitable conclusion. The evil dictator will only gain strength from your support and in the end you will be mired and what is even worse, your own standards will become corrupted, by association. The short-terms gains are never worth it. A sales deal stolen at the last minute from a competitor, by nefarious, means will not win long term support or loyalty of your customer, that in the long-term you need to survive. Better by far to win a contract straight on quality, delivery and service even if you 'lose' out to competitors who are prepared to cut more corners than just a discount price. In a dog eat dog world, we should all learn to eat dog? No of course not, better to live a poorer life but proud of your standards than to root in the gutter. Not a universally supported position but without doubt the only position that has any long-term prospect for trust and growth.
So lets start here and now, no more lying, no more concealing to the public on any issue by our political leaders. Tell the public and the rest of the world exactly how it is. Accept that we might lose ground to rival Nations in the short-term but our stature in the longer lasting term will be so much greater and at least we will be able to live with each other in trust and respect.
By my reckoning, to set out to mislead, misdirect, to encourage a false assumption to be arrived at, is tantamount to lying. I know by the strict definition it is not a lie. But to set out to leave a person with a wrong impression and not to take steps to limit or correct that false impression, an impression that you are fully aware will be formed from the limited and coached words you have used to convey the information, is a lie. What can be worse for a country than to be routinely lied to by their leaders? Nothing destroys trust or being prepared to over look an occasional transgression faster and more completely, than being lied to.
We are told that it is an essential and inescapable facet of modern life. Inorder to complete complicated and delicate negotiations and to arrive at a solutions which best benefits out Nation it is unavoidable. The Nation cannot be told the whole truth at the time, it might costs lives, we might lose an important deal, our competitors will gain a commercial advantage, our enemy will be forewarned as to our moves and have time to thwart them or any number of other very persuasive and compelling reasons. Except we are left with this sour taste in our mouths, we are being lied to by our leaders.
In a wheely dealy commercial world, getting one over your adversary, is the name of the game, it kind of makes sense and certainly has become the daily yardstick of judgement. Except this is not how I want to be ranked, I really do not want the esteem I am held in to be based on how clever I have been to outsmart, out bluff, out perform in some brinkmanship game, how I managed to beat a weaker opponent down by a couple of points. These are not the principles of my life and certainly not for the country I want to stand proud of and promote.
There really is an alternative manner to conduct our everyday lives. It harks back to the old professional qualities we, as English, used to be world renowned for. Honesty, integrity, men of their word who would rather stand by their word than break it just make a deal or win a profit. Being prepared to set aside robust codes of conduct for a short-term goal can only have one conclusion. Sacrificing decency inorder curry favour with an evil dictator so to bolster your position against a mutual 'enemy' can only have one inevitable conclusion. The evil dictator will only gain strength from your support and in the end you will be mired and what is even worse, your own standards will become corrupted, by association. The short-terms gains are never worth it. A sales deal stolen at the last minute from a competitor, by nefarious, means will not win long term support or loyalty of your customer, that in the long-term you need to survive. Better by far to win a contract straight on quality, delivery and service even if you 'lose' out to competitors who are prepared to cut more corners than just a discount price. In a dog eat dog world, we should all learn to eat dog? No of course not, better to live a poorer life but proud of your standards than to root in the gutter. Not a universally supported position but without doubt the only position that has any long-term prospect for trust and growth.
So lets start here and now, no more lying, no more concealing to the public on any issue by our political leaders. Tell the public and the rest of the world exactly how it is. Accept that we might lose ground to rival Nations in the short-term but our stature in the longer lasting term will be so much greater and at least we will be able to live with each other in trust and respect.
Tuesday 26 October 2010
Gung-ho Politics
The decent society that I live in does not need or want our civilian police armed with automatic weapons. Their role is the civil control and moderation of us in and about our normal life. That does not entail rapid fire-fight to see off suicidal terrorists intent on mayhem where the only conceivable outcome can be large numbers of 'collateral damage', that is slaughtered husbands, wives, children, neighbours and friends to you and me.
If it comes to that neither do I want to be part of a society where it is normal and appropriate for policemen, armed with automatic fire weapons slung in their arms as they, patrol our crowded civilian airports. After weeks and weeks of doing nothing, how do you imagine they could or would respond to a sudden threat within the airport lounge? One single shot to resolve the situation and all returns to normal, or is general carnage a more apt expectation?
There is no disagreement, we do have a need to be very concerned about the rise of terrorism but the answer is not follow the american macho gung-ho approach of massive weapons and over-kill fire power. It is all very dramatic, it appears to be decision action and total control of a challenging situation. In reality this is just a media placating hype. A hail of bullets, even if yours are bigger, faster and more explosive power per bucks than your opponents, really does not answer the terrorist threat. If anything it actually makes it worse and just spreads the consequences wider. We do not want an arms race with terrorists. Nor do we do want to encourage them to target softer and more vulnerable mass gatherings. We actually need to play down our reaction and responses to their threats, to minimise our concerns, to allay their anticipation and preparations.
The police's daily expectation is not that of going out for another days gun fight, their mental preparation leaves them singularly unsuited to respond appropriately and accurately should they have to respond to fire. No matter what training they get in the use of weapons, once the school room is left behind within hours outside of real combat situations, time will dull the lessons of control and disciple. The adrenalin kick-in will inevitably lead to over-reaction, reflex firing with low target selection and accuracy threshold. A million miles away from a controlled careful sighted shot to 'take out' (kill) an armed threat that we are presented with, to reassure our nervous concerned citizen selves. That is not the way it happens in real life, setting well aside the fantasy movie images we are all weaned on. Bullets kill in a brutal haphazard way. We do need containment of any threat but not enlargement. Actually our old image of the policeman, quiet, determined, firm and fair, prepared to sacrifice himself for the public good, is a far better role model for resolution of a terrorist threat than the frenzied testosterone driven macho over-kill techniques promoted by the singularly unsuccessful american role. Quiet containment, diffusion, appeasement is a better and more measured response. It does not make for heroic kill headlines but is more likely to be successful in the longer term.
If it comes to that neither do I want to be part of a society where it is normal and appropriate for policemen, armed with automatic fire weapons slung in their arms as they, patrol our crowded civilian airports. After weeks and weeks of doing nothing, how do you imagine they could or would respond to a sudden threat within the airport lounge? One single shot to resolve the situation and all returns to normal, or is general carnage a more apt expectation?
There is no disagreement, we do have a need to be very concerned about the rise of terrorism but the answer is not follow the american macho gung-ho approach of massive weapons and over-kill fire power. It is all very dramatic, it appears to be decision action and total control of a challenging situation. In reality this is just a media placating hype. A hail of bullets, even if yours are bigger, faster and more explosive power per bucks than your opponents, really does not answer the terrorist threat. If anything it actually makes it worse and just spreads the consequences wider. We do not want an arms race with terrorists. Nor do we do want to encourage them to target softer and more vulnerable mass gatherings. We actually need to play down our reaction and responses to their threats, to minimise our concerns, to allay their anticipation and preparations.
The police's daily expectation is not that of going out for another days gun fight, their mental preparation leaves them singularly unsuited to respond appropriately and accurately should they have to respond to fire. No matter what training they get in the use of weapons, once the school room is left behind within hours outside of real combat situations, time will dull the lessons of control and disciple. The adrenalin kick-in will inevitably lead to over-reaction, reflex firing with low target selection and accuracy threshold. A million miles away from a controlled careful sighted shot to 'take out' (kill) an armed threat that we are presented with, to reassure our nervous concerned citizen selves. That is not the way it happens in real life, setting well aside the fantasy movie images we are all weaned on. Bullets kill in a brutal haphazard way. We do need containment of any threat but not enlargement. Actually our old image of the policeman, quiet, determined, firm and fair, prepared to sacrifice himself for the public good, is a far better role model for resolution of a terrorist threat than the frenzied testosterone driven macho over-kill techniques promoted by the singularly unsuccessful american role. Quiet containment, diffusion, appeasement is a better and more measured response. It does not make for heroic kill headlines but is more likely to be successful in the longer term.
Monday 4 October 2010
Who needs Education?
The question is of course rhetorical, we all know we need education. The debate that has continued to rage over the past four hundred years is what form this education should take. Should it be practical, about life skills, or academic, exploring the furthest reaches of human endeavour.
For me the issue is simple. Industry is best placed to know what it wants and needs from the workforce and pay for its training. It is for them to take the raw talent and turn them into the skilled operative best suited to their particular industry. It is not for government to best guess their ever changing needs and skills expectations. We do need a new take on the old apprenticeship model however. It needs to be a lot more inclusive and wider ranging. For example the building industry now needs operatives that have a background understanding of working with concrete, steelwork, masonry and carpentry and all their associated specialist tools and equipment before specialising in their chosen trade. Likewise a machinist needs to develop the hand-eye coordination skills working with a range of materials from wood, plastics to specialist metals, at nanoscale through to massive and all the attendant specialist machine operations before further training in their chosen work area. That is for industry to fund and focus on.
Aside of that the Nation needs to develop its raw talent intellectually to the fullest extent possible, utilising all the available technology to encourage each young citizen to reach for their limits.
What we all have to face up to is the logarithmic expansion of the knowledge we have to encompass inorder to utilise our everyday skills. In any particular subject as the frontier of knowledge pushes ever forward, so the bandwidth of knowledge that has to be covered also increases. To make sense of a small specific item entails an absorption of a huge background of related information together with all its attendant sideways interrelated matter, necessary to make sense of, to fully understand and be able to manipulate the subject at hand. Subjects have not for some time been discrete packets that stand alone in isolation. Not for a long time is it sufficient to just learn by rote the times tables or the spelling-bee lists of words, life's complexities have broadened and spread out. We need to educate all of our citizens to the limits that they can reach for. That means galvanising and exciting our students to push on further and faster, grabbing every technological aid available. Yes there will be loss of precision at the small scale, faltering mental sums, grammatical or spelling errors. Better by far to reach forward knowing that life's harsh expediency will ensure these small scale loss of accuracy can and will be picked up later. The overriding challenge is to excite them to reach forward as only then are impossible targets suddenly attainable. That is what we so desperately need as a Nation . Every single student should be encouraged to reach for that limit, a university degree should be everyone's free birth right and expectation. For these citizens are our torch-bearers for all our futures and hopes. This has to be our single most important and vital investment into our Nation's future, without limitations of financial resource or fear of future debt or hardship. Without a proven provenience into a solid dependable life career. We simply need skilled citizens to cope with the incomprehensible complexities lurching just around the corner. The Nation and its citizens will have to fast on their feet and quick in mind to survive all of tomorrows great uncertainties. Invest upto the hilt in our stock, our citizens, now, as we just don't know what is coming next.
No better time than right now to redefine our education qualifications and notch them up a gear, expect more of everyone. I see more of an AO exam leading to a degree course similar in structure to a six-form college, acquiring the fundamentals, slowly focusing on the particular area of interest, but broad based, covering all the inter-related skills necessary to be an adroit citizen. Only then moving to a redefined University course with a much higher expectation in both input skills and output, say more of an upgraded Master, applying and extending a initial overview of a subject into a narrowly focused specialisation. These graduates would then leave with a degree of competence at the leading edge of their chosen subject. Our Nation will the beneficiary or not as these citizens use their new-found enthusiasm with perhaps some entrepreneurial flair thrown in to exploit and incidentally create wealth with their new found knowledge and skills. No guarantees of pay back to the Nation, but with such an uncertain future ahead and no clear path to follow this is our best chance of survival. One we must grasp it confidently and pool all our financial resources into it.
For me the issue is simple. Industry is best placed to know what it wants and needs from the workforce and pay for its training. It is for them to take the raw talent and turn them into the skilled operative best suited to their particular industry. It is not for government to best guess their ever changing needs and skills expectations. We do need a new take on the old apprenticeship model however. It needs to be a lot more inclusive and wider ranging. For example the building industry now needs operatives that have a background understanding of working with concrete, steelwork, masonry and carpentry and all their associated specialist tools and equipment before specialising in their chosen trade. Likewise a machinist needs to develop the hand-eye coordination skills working with a range of materials from wood, plastics to specialist metals, at nanoscale through to massive and all the attendant specialist machine operations before further training in their chosen work area. That is for industry to fund and focus on.
Aside of that the Nation needs to develop its raw talent intellectually to the fullest extent possible, utilising all the available technology to encourage each young citizen to reach for their limits.
What we all have to face up to is the logarithmic expansion of the knowledge we have to encompass inorder to utilise our everyday skills. In any particular subject as the frontier of knowledge pushes ever forward, so the bandwidth of knowledge that has to be covered also increases. To make sense of a small specific item entails an absorption of a huge background of related information together with all its attendant sideways interrelated matter, necessary to make sense of, to fully understand and be able to manipulate the subject at hand. Subjects have not for some time been discrete packets that stand alone in isolation. Not for a long time is it sufficient to just learn by rote the times tables or the spelling-bee lists of words, life's complexities have broadened and spread out. We need to educate all of our citizens to the limits that they can reach for. That means galvanising and exciting our students to push on further and faster, grabbing every technological aid available. Yes there will be loss of precision at the small scale, faltering mental sums, grammatical or spelling errors. Better by far to reach forward knowing that life's harsh expediency will ensure these small scale loss of accuracy can and will be picked up later. The overriding challenge is to excite them to reach forward as only then are impossible targets suddenly attainable. That is what we so desperately need as a Nation . Every single student should be encouraged to reach for that limit, a university degree should be everyone's free birth right and expectation. For these citizens are our torch-bearers for all our futures and hopes. This has to be our single most important and vital investment into our Nation's future, without limitations of financial resource or fear of future debt or hardship. Without a proven provenience into a solid dependable life career. We simply need skilled citizens to cope with the incomprehensible complexities lurching just around the corner. The Nation and its citizens will have to fast on their feet and quick in mind to survive all of tomorrows great uncertainties. Invest upto the hilt in our stock, our citizens, now, as we just don't know what is coming next.
No better time than right now to redefine our education qualifications and notch them up a gear, expect more of everyone. I see more of an AO exam leading to a degree course similar in structure to a six-form college, acquiring the fundamentals, slowly focusing on the particular area of interest, but broad based, covering all the inter-related skills necessary to be an adroit citizen. Only then moving to a redefined University course with a much higher expectation in both input skills and output, say more of an upgraded Master, applying and extending a initial overview of a subject into a narrowly focused specialisation. These graduates would then leave with a degree of competence at the leading edge of their chosen subject. Our Nation will the beneficiary or not as these citizens use their new-found enthusiasm with perhaps some entrepreneurial flair thrown in to exploit and incidentally create wealth with their new found knowledge and skills. No guarantees of pay back to the Nation, but with such an uncertain future ahead and no clear path to follow this is our best chance of survival. One we must grasp it confidently and pool all our financial resources into it.
Tuesday 10 August 2010
Prepare for Revolution
On balance I am in favour of the monarchy, with a few adjustments and three additional functions it could be a powerhouse for the advancement of this country. Apart from one critical concern. The Prince Consort, the King to be in waiting, is not fit for purpose. Unfortunately his upbringing has left him self-obsessed and self indulgent. Enjoying the highest position of privilege and a wealthy life-style, protected from the harsh realities of everyday life whilst surrounded by a fawning coterie of advisers and assistants, that all comes with responsibilities and limitations. Unfortunately he has failed to live up to this expectation in two major irredeemable ways.
Firstly, to stand before his loyal, enthusiastic and ready to be devoted people; to enter into an oath before them, witnessed all around the World, an oath to love and cherish this woman he had chosen to marry; when it is already a palpable lie, an undertaking he never had any intention to honour, having already found the mistress he preferred, it was outrageous, exploitative and unforgivable. A shameless exploitation of public goodwill and expectations to enter into what was always going to be, from his already fulfilled desires, a shame marriage. All done to capitalise on public support for a dynasty, to conform to some outmoded convention but without a shred of honesty of intention. You cannot get more corrupt than that. It cannot be shrugged off as a young mans escapades, nothing worse than what his ancestors had done before him. This is now, the position of the monarchy is no longer absolute but as head of our country, it is the most visible and remarked representation of it. As such it must be expected to promote and present high moral standards and integrity. All woefully lacking in the Prince Consort.
Secondly, surrounded by and with access to all the best minds, research, opinions and guidance the Prince Consort could play a vital galvanising role in developing a common perception for a future Britain. Unfortunately he lacks the intellectual capacity to contain his own maudlin, romanticised retrospective view of Britain so promotes that rather than instead, choosing the best and most realistic of the opinions surrounding him, and use them to promote a new vision of Britain. Disappointing as it always is when a golden opportunity is missed by small minds unable to rise to the higher challenge, at least it is forgivable. Unfortunately our Prince Consort cannot not contain himself but must be proactive and see his simplistic historical biased view on life implemented. He actively sets out to pervert the democratic process and in doing so deny his people their opportunity to decide for themselves the outcome, in this case the Planning process. The monarchy does not and has not had direct power for a long time and for good reasons. Unfortunately our Prince lacks the sensitivity to comprehend this and, by using his privileged access to key players and opinion takers, usurps the democratic process to ensure his vision of a future Britain overturns that that his people might choose. This is a dangerous naive man who already shows he lacks the sensitivity to govern wisely and lacks the common sense to realise there are real limitations to his actions that he has to impose on himself.
The House of Windsor is not going to willingly give up their accustomed wealth, power and influence and I just cannot see a mother deciding against her son. So people, we are left with no other choice. When the Queen dies or retires it is not 'God Save the King' but rise up now and put an end to these years of servitude. Take back that which has always rightly been yours. Long Live the Revolution!
Firstly, to stand before his loyal, enthusiastic and ready to be devoted people; to enter into an oath before them, witnessed all around the World, an oath to love and cherish this woman he had chosen to marry; when it is already a palpable lie, an undertaking he never had any intention to honour, having already found the mistress he preferred, it was outrageous, exploitative and unforgivable. A shameless exploitation of public goodwill and expectations to enter into what was always going to be, from his already fulfilled desires, a shame marriage. All done to capitalise on public support for a dynasty, to conform to some outmoded convention but without a shred of honesty of intention. You cannot get more corrupt than that. It cannot be shrugged off as a young mans escapades, nothing worse than what his ancestors had done before him. This is now, the position of the monarchy is no longer absolute but as head of our country, it is the most visible and remarked representation of it. As such it must be expected to promote and present high moral standards and integrity. All woefully lacking in the Prince Consort.
Secondly, surrounded by and with access to all the best minds, research, opinions and guidance the Prince Consort could play a vital galvanising role in developing a common perception for a future Britain. Unfortunately he lacks the intellectual capacity to contain his own maudlin, romanticised retrospective view of Britain so promotes that rather than instead, choosing the best and most realistic of the opinions surrounding him, and use them to promote a new vision of Britain. Disappointing as it always is when a golden opportunity is missed by small minds unable to rise to the higher challenge, at least it is forgivable. Unfortunately our Prince Consort cannot not contain himself but must be proactive and see his simplistic historical biased view on life implemented. He actively sets out to pervert the democratic process and in doing so deny his people their opportunity to decide for themselves the outcome, in this case the Planning process. The monarchy does not and has not had direct power for a long time and for good reasons. Unfortunately our Prince lacks the sensitivity to comprehend this and, by using his privileged access to key players and opinion takers, usurps the democratic process to ensure his vision of a future Britain overturns that that his people might choose. This is a dangerous naive man who already shows he lacks the sensitivity to govern wisely and lacks the common sense to realise there are real limitations to his actions that he has to impose on himself.
The House of Windsor is not going to willingly give up their accustomed wealth, power and influence and I just cannot see a mother deciding against her son. So people, we are left with no other choice. When the Queen dies or retires it is not 'God Save the King' but rise up now and put an end to these years of servitude. Take back that which has always rightly been yours. Long Live the Revolution!
Tuesday 3 August 2010
A Broken Society
We can make exceptions for the occasional neglected old person, we might even make excuses for the odd child that is battered or starved to death. For me the bottom line is reached when a disabled dependant child dies in the following two weeks for lack of want or care after the death of their elderly carer. Surely the one thing we can all agree on is that we are a caring society. As such we are all concerned for and want to look after those vulnerable people amongst us at jeopardy.
There is a burgeoning bureaucracy with many well paid managers defending their ever increasing budgets so their front staff are out there looking after and protecting the weak and vulnerable. There are a plethora of agencies all looking after various specialist sub-groups of people in need and their particular problems. We in turn all give up many civil rights and liberties to enable these other organisations to sweep up those at risk, make arrangements for their well-being or put them in a place of safety. So how come we are falling down at such a fundamental level?
Sure all manner of excuses can be paraded; irascible, uncooperative, fiercely independent, not on my watch list, another department's concern, refuses all offers of help. It really doesn't matter what excuses are being thrown up because that is not the point. The point is very simple. In a decent civilised society a disabled child is not left to die on their own for two weeks without help.
For me it yet a further nail in the coffin of centralised top down government. As you will have gathered from other posts at this site it is over time for us to redefine how our society operates. We need to reclaim back our society and put ours selves central in the arrangement and management of the functions we need to survive and, most importantly, take back responsibility for how others are affected by our actions. Human relationships are too complex and varied to be delegated, least of all to a bureaucracy which by definition has to be detached, objective and remote. We all have to interact directly in the process, as we from time to time, interface with events and then use our own skills to achieve consent and ensure what needs to be done is done. This would included knowing about, caring for and directly supporting as necessary at risk people within our community.
It is not idealistic, just a rebuttal of centralised top down control.
There is a burgeoning bureaucracy with many well paid managers defending their ever increasing budgets so their front staff are out there looking after and protecting the weak and vulnerable. There are a plethora of agencies all looking after various specialist sub-groups of people in need and their particular problems. We in turn all give up many civil rights and liberties to enable these other organisations to sweep up those at risk, make arrangements for their well-being or put them in a place of safety. So how come we are falling down at such a fundamental level?
Sure all manner of excuses can be paraded; irascible, uncooperative, fiercely independent, not on my watch list, another department's concern, refuses all offers of help. It really doesn't matter what excuses are being thrown up because that is not the point. The point is very simple. In a decent civilised society a disabled child is not left to die on their own for two weeks without help.
For me it yet a further nail in the coffin of centralised top down government. As you will have gathered from other posts at this site it is over time for us to redefine how our society operates. We need to reclaim back our society and put ours selves central in the arrangement and management of the functions we need to survive and, most importantly, take back responsibility for how others are affected by our actions. Human relationships are too complex and varied to be delegated, least of all to a bureaucracy which by definition has to be detached, objective and remote. We all have to interact directly in the process, as we from time to time, interface with events and then use our own skills to achieve consent and ensure what needs to be done is done. This would included knowing about, caring for and directly supporting as necessary at risk people within our community.
It is not idealistic, just a rebuttal of centralised top down control.
Tuesday 8 June 2010
Vegetables
What on earth, vegetables? Stay with me, a long time ago we started buying our vegetables from a livestock market stall that went on to become our town's only surviving fruit and vegetable shop, Granny Smith's. Recently the freshness of the produce on display has become more and more of an issue. The logistics for the greengrocer are hard, buy what is available and cheap in the food market and then sell it, gauging local demand just right and you make money. Get it wrong and you have moulding stock on hand or over priced against competitors or just as bad, you run out and have to turn customers away. Don't shed too many tears there was always a high mark-up to cover the inevitable stock wastage which is why, the good ones who knew their customers always used to make money.
Times have changed and now money is tight. The Supermarket have changed all the ground rules. They cream off the top quality stock. They set a roughly even price all year round, priced high to cover costs off season but not too high for when prices dip in mid-season. The traditional greengrocer has to compete against that scenario, seeking the just off prime stock or that price that will knock the socks off the Supermarkets pricing. A tough competitive world but it does not stop there, only the good can survive.
Once upon a day the produce came off the field into the market, sold and was in the shop that day or the next, fast turnover. Things are no longer like that, Supermarkets buy from around the world, move produce around, distribute from vast central warehouses, splitting into orders for individual shops and they must have certainty that the produce will last and be fresh for the days shelf time they have set. The producers are under enormous pressure to provide produce that will stay fresh for the shelf time dictated by their 'only' client, the Supermarket.
I have never managed to grow tomatoes where all the fruit were evenly ripe, none over-ripe, none under-ripe and all on the same truss but now they are everywhere, vine ripened trusses. Stay firm for weeks then suddenly collapse in a way I have never experienced before. Conspiratory theory or is this indicative that our food is no longer what it used to be be, straight off the fields. English apples on sale in March that after a couple of days go from crisp to woolly inedible? Peaches, to ripen in basket, that just sit and do not ripen and then collapse in a soggy mess. A long time ago I discover by chance that cauliflower is not straight off the field but is routinely dipped so it keeps better. I think that is the current state of our food, processed to keep and make profits for the seller.
Not so good for the consumer, you cannot trust your eye to spot fresh food from food that had been manipulated to stay "fresh".
Times have changed and now money is tight. The Supermarket have changed all the ground rules. They cream off the top quality stock. They set a roughly even price all year round, priced high to cover costs off season but not too high for when prices dip in mid-season. The traditional greengrocer has to compete against that scenario, seeking the just off prime stock or that price that will knock the socks off the Supermarkets pricing. A tough competitive world but it does not stop there, only the good can survive.
Once upon a day the produce came off the field into the market, sold and was in the shop that day or the next, fast turnover. Things are no longer like that, Supermarkets buy from around the world, move produce around, distribute from vast central warehouses, splitting into orders for individual shops and they must have certainty that the produce will last and be fresh for the days shelf time they have set. The producers are under enormous pressure to provide produce that will stay fresh for the shelf time dictated by their 'only' client, the Supermarket.
I have never managed to grow tomatoes where all the fruit were evenly ripe, none over-ripe, none under-ripe and all on the same truss but now they are everywhere, vine ripened trusses. Stay firm for weeks then suddenly collapse in a way I have never experienced before. Conspiratory theory or is this indicative that our food is no longer what it used to be be, straight off the fields. English apples on sale in March that after a couple of days go from crisp to woolly inedible? Peaches, to ripen in basket, that just sit and do not ripen and then collapse in a soggy mess. A long time ago I discover by chance that cauliflower is not straight off the field but is routinely dipped so it keeps better. I think that is the current state of our food, processed to keep and make profits for the seller.
Not so good for the consumer, you cannot trust your eye to spot fresh food from food that had been manipulated to stay "fresh".
Wednesday 26 May 2010
Government, the Right to Rule
Now, depending on their business acumen, a sole principle can really fly a tight, lean ship and be very adaptive to changing circumstances. Their weak vulnerability is that they cannot grow beyond around the thirteen subordinates whose out and inflows can be safely monitored and should they become incapacitated, for even a brief period, it all falls apart.
To manage a big enterprise the leader, the top dog, has to delegate day to day running to sub-ordinates. The really successful managers, enpower their sub-ordinates to make their own calls, enthuse them with ever higher objectives and pick them up and encourage them when the inevitable stumble occurs. Top managers possessing these skills and qualities are rare, very rare to extent of almost being exotic.
Your President cum Prime Minister having been plucked from the street with no particular credentials and having won a beauty contest is unlikely, if not quite inconceivable, to possess such attributes. Likewise Cabinet members selected for favours given or clout within the rulings ranks have no firsthand experience of the departments they are left to run for a couple of years before being switched to another department incase they become too skilled.
So contrary to the public perception of a country led and run by their elected politicians the whole gargantuan hydra-headed government of this country is actually run by civil-servants who play a cat-n-mouse game of wrapping their day to day operational procedures in the current flavour of political party speak. Life really does just carry on same as before, just the words to describe it change.
Lets set this charade behinds us and accept that our political representatives just do not have nor ever will have the expertise, charisma or experience to actually manage and run a booze-up along the river let alone a District Council or the country! What they do have is a political view of how the disparate sectors of our communities may come together and be better able to live in some sort of goodwill and mutual benefit. The Civil Servants really must be left to run the country for the long term and not be beset by short term political goals which is today's norm. We desperately need a committed long term dispassionate governance that can lead us to be a more successful nation, run by the Civil-Servants who do actually do know all the ins and outs of how the country is managed, have the keys of access to minds and information that can keep this country running at full tilt, given a fair wind.
Which is not to say that the Civil Servants therefore have a freehand, far from it. Firstly they must be accountable, no more hiding behind a politicians skirt. If they initiate a course of action and it fails then that is the end of their career. Parliament alone sets or refines the political gaols and in consultations agrees the yardstick measure of achievement and gets to decide whether the set yardsticks have been met. The Civil Servants deliver the gaols and offer evidence of achievement and advise on amplification needed.
This seems to put the relationships back into a better and truer balance, the politicians, within their actual competence levels, set the moral or social agenda and the Civil Services adjusts its on-going long term strategy to show how it is meeting that agenda. A stable governance with a long term view but able to adapt to changing perceptions of societies wants and needs. Of course the Civil Service is more than capable of drowning any government, politician, Prime Minster or President in shed loads of obscuration, obstruction, delay, you name it, any machiavellian devices and they are sure to have employed it and no doubt will continue to do so as long as they exists as an organisation. But that is not the point. The point is, as is already rooted in the very soul of the Civil Services, their sole purpose is to run the country efficiently. At the moment they duck and dive behind the politicians that they use as Aunt Sallies, I want them to be out there in the open and answerable. It may even bring a new purposefulness to their operations.
To manage a big enterprise the leader, the top dog, has to delegate day to day running to sub-ordinates. The really successful managers, enpower their sub-ordinates to make their own calls, enthuse them with ever higher objectives and pick them up and encourage them when the inevitable stumble occurs. Top managers possessing these skills and qualities are rare, very rare to extent of almost being exotic.
Your President cum Prime Minister having been plucked from the street with no particular credentials and having won a beauty contest is unlikely, if not quite inconceivable, to possess such attributes. Likewise Cabinet members selected for favours given or clout within the rulings ranks have no firsthand experience of the departments they are left to run for a couple of years before being switched to another department incase they become too skilled.
So contrary to the public perception of a country led and run by their elected politicians the whole gargantuan hydra-headed government of this country is actually run by civil-servants who play a cat-n-mouse game of wrapping their day to day operational procedures in the current flavour of political party speak. Life really does just carry on same as before, just the words to describe it change.
Lets set this charade behinds us and accept that our political representatives just do not have nor ever will have the expertise, charisma or experience to actually manage and run a booze-up along the river let alone a District Council or the country! What they do have is a political view of how the disparate sectors of our communities may come together and be better able to live in some sort of goodwill and mutual benefit. The Civil Servants really must be left to run the country for the long term and not be beset by short term political goals which is today's norm. We desperately need a committed long term dispassionate governance that can lead us to be a more successful nation, run by the Civil-Servants who do actually do know all the ins and outs of how the country is managed, have the keys of access to minds and information that can keep this country running at full tilt, given a fair wind.
Which is not to say that the Civil Servants therefore have a freehand, far from it. Firstly they must be accountable, no more hiding behind a politicians skirt. If they initiate a course of action and it fails then that is the end of their career. Parliament alone sets or refines the political gaols and in consultations agrees the yardstick measure of achievement and gets to decide whether the set yardsticks have been met. The Civil Servants deliver the gaols and offer evidence of achievement and advise on amplification needed.
This seems to put the relationships back into a better and truer balance, the politicians, within their actual competence levels, set the moral or social agenda and the Civil Services adjusts its on-going long term strategy to show how it is meeting that agenda. A stable governance with a long term view but able to adapt to changing perceptions of societies wants and needs. Of course the Civil Service is more than capable of drowning any government, politician, Prime Minster or President in shed loads of obscuration, obstruction, delay, you name it, any machiavellian devices and they are sure to have employed it and no doubt will continue to do so as long as they exists as an organisation. But that is not the point. The point is, as is already rooted in the very soul of the Civil Services, their sole purpose is to run the country efficiently. At the moment they duck and dive behind the politicians that they use as Aunt Sallies, I want them to be out there in the open and answerable. It may even bring a new purposefulness to their operations.
Tuesday 25 May 2010
Saddle of Venison
In haste before life empties the memory banks. We have just had our first and the most fantastic saddle of venison last Wednesday. Pre-ordered we picked it up from our local traditional butcher, http://www.stillmansbutchers.co.uk (cannot recommend as they put cheapness before quality). It was the last of the season's Red Deer and had been hanging for about three weeks. Great, the meat had a deep red without the puddles of water from a fresh carcasses. We settled on the front six ribs, they cut back the skirt ribs to the line of the eye of the loin and trimmed the ends. It was much larger and heavier joint than we anticipated.
Liberally peppered, salted then seared all sides in oil, (Anna cannot take butter) the saddle was placed it into a hot oven on a pan of roughly chopped onion, carrot and celery with half a bottle of red wine. Oven temperature was 220°C and the temperature probe set to 57°C. It took about an hour and 40 minutes.
Taken out of the oven kept warm and rested for at least half an hour. Very important. Meanwhile 10 juniper berries, sprig thyme and flour (buckwheat as Anna has to avoid wheat) were put in a pan with the oven vegetables and all juices, blended, then reduced, then sieved.
Finally the saddle was carved, cutting down all along the line of the spine and then along all of the ribs,the loin piece was then removed and cut on the diagonal. We have often had venison, (usually farmed) but this joint was truly fabulous, a distinct flavour without being gamey or over strong and so very butter smooth to eat. Probably the best piece of meat I shall ever eat! Have I said enough?
Liberally peppered, salted then seared all sides in oil, (Anna cannot take butter) the saddle was placed it into a hot oven on a pan of roughly chopped onion, carrot and celery with half a bottle of red wine. Oven temperature was 220°C and the temperature probe set to 57°C. It took about an hour and 40 minutes.
Taken out of the oven kept warm and rested for at least half an hour. Very important. Meanwhile 10 juniper berries, sprig thyme and flour (buckwheat as Anna has to avoid wheat) were put in a pan with the oven vegetables and all juices, blended, then reduced, then sieved.
Finally the saddle was carved, cutting down all along the line of the spine and then along all of the ribs,the loin piece was then removed and cut on the diagonal. We have often had venison, (usually farmed) but this joint was truly fabulous, a distinct flavour without being gamey or over strong and so very butter smooth to eat. Probably the best piece of meat I shall ever eat! Have I said enough?
Thursday 29 April 2010
Police Beyond the Law
We put a lot of trust in the Police giving them the rights over citizens to stop, question, bugger, hold a person without contact for seven weeks or use their discretion an issue a warning. Those are very special powers and privileges granted to individuals who are selected and trained to understand and uphold the law of our land.
We as citizens in a free democratic society are expected to do our bit to uphold the law and keep our society safe. To report behaviour outside of the law, to answer questions and freely give information that will assist in every way possible the exercise of the Police's work to keep law and order. It is our civic duty, necessary to keep our society safe for all of us.
However individual Policeman do not seem to think this obligation applies to them. When questioned as to who it was within their own ranks that killed a person, suddenly the law that applies to everyone else doesn't apply to them and they can choose to remain silent and not incriminate a friend, a fellow officer.
What? They are in some special protected elite above and beyond the law? Any Officer self-evidently refusing to freely supply information they are clearly known to have that will help determine who was there at the time a citizen was killed by a member of the Police Force should be immediately stripped of his uniform and any residual privileges. This is contemptible and he is an insult to the force and the community that put him their to uphold the law our our land. There is no greater obligation than to serve your society.
We as citizens in a free democratic society are expected to do our bit to uphold the law and keep our society safe. To report behaviour outside of the law, to answer questions and freely give information that will assist in every way possible the exercise of the Police's work to keep law and order. It is our civic duty, necessary to keep our society safe for all of us.
However individual Policeman do not seem to think this obligation applies to them. When questioned as to who it was within their own ranks that killed a person, suddenly the law that applies to everyone else doesn't apply to them and they can choose to remain silent and not incriminate a friend, a fellow officer.
What? They are in some special protected elite above and beyond the law? Any Officer self-evidently refusing to freely supply information they are clearly known to have that will help determine who was there at the time a citizen was killed by a member of the Police Force should be immediately stripped of his uniform and any residual privileges. This is contemptible and he is an insult to the force and the community that put him their to uphold the law our our land. There is no greater obligation than to serve your society.
Monday 26 April 2010
To Burqa or not
Rightly we pride ourselves on our tolerance, whether Rockers, Goths, Punk, hoodies or religious extremists. If a woman wishes to wear a burqa, foregoe her individual freedoms and is happy for her male escort to provide any necessary assurance and to vouch for her then fine, no problem.
If on the otherhand she does want to enjoy the freedoms our society offers all women and to go about on her own, in her own right but still wear a burqa that provides her with a cloak of complete anonymity then we have a cake and eat it type of problem.
It is not a matter of facial recognition at high security risk locations, airport lounges but a simple matter of the assumptions we all hold on how we move about in this society of ours. When you enter a public space, you, knowingly or not, monitor your surroundings and the people present within it. If it has more hoodies than you are comfortable with you may well choose to withdraw or you will enter cautiously with a safe retreat in mind. That public space maybe anything, a bus, pub, restaurant, shop, a park or its bench. You are always alert to your surroundings and aware of the feel of the people you will be mixing with.
In big spaces with large congregations of people we are accustomed to tolerating a wide band of oddities, people we are unsure about when can choose to skirt by them of make sure we are in the thick of people we are comfortable with. People who conduct themselves within the norms of the society you are in.
As the spaces get smaller and the density of people gets less so the criteria for feeling comfortable increases. We need a face we can recognise again, we need to be able to form a view whether someone is relaxed, fearful, calm or kicking off, the sex of a person and whether the person is of the type and nature that the clothes worn suggests. We do a lot of visual inspection as the price we pay to move freely and comfortably around in those non-private spaces.
This is the contract we all subscribe to, so we can enjoy the freedoms that our society offers us. That is why hoodies seem threatening, so difficult to assess their facial state of emotions and that is why the burqa is an confrontational assault on our tolerance. It goes against the grain of our culture. Not rascists, not religious bigottism, just simply challenges the basis on which we are free to move around. Whether born here, recently arrived, new convert or centuries old custom, all are welcomed, but just live within the norms of the communities you choose to move around in.
So certainly not outlawed but it is unreasonable to wear a burqa and still expect the full rights and privileges of those who do conform to the norms of society. Therefore in all those small shops, restaurants, pubs do not be surprised if your custom is declined nor no one choose to join you in a bus of train whilst you go about arrogantly wearing your burqa in defiance of the society you live within. It is not for you to decide to bend your country and society to suit the personal whims no matter what religious, cultural or racial justification you call on.
In big spaces with large congregations of people we are accustomed to tolerating a wide band of oddities, people we are unsure about when can choose to skirt by them of make sure we are in the thick of people we are comfortable with. People who conduct themselves within the norms of the society you are in.
As the spaces get smaller and the density of people gets less so the criteria for feeling comfortable increases. We need a face we can recognise again, we need to be able to form a view whether someone is relaxed, fearful, calm or kicking off, the sex of a person and whether the person is of the type and nature that the clothes worn suggests. We do a lot of visual inspection as the price we pay to move freely and comfortably around in those non-private spaces.
This is the contract we all subscribe to, so we can enjoy the freedoms that our society offers us. That is why hoodies seem threatening, so difficult to assess their facial state of emotions and that is why the burqa is an confrontational assault on our tolerance. It goes against the grain of our culture. Not rascists, not religious bigottism, just simply challenges the basis on which we are free to move around. Whether born here, recently arrived, new convert or centuries old custom, all are welcomed, but just live within the norms of the communities you choose to move around in.
So certainly not outlawed but it is unreasonable to wear a burqa and still expect the full rights and privileges of those who do conform to the norms of society. Therefore in all those small shops, restaurants, pubs do not be surprised if your custom is declined nor no one choose to join you in a bus of train whilst you go about arrogantly wearing your burqa in defiance of the society you live within. It is not for you to decide to bend your country and society to suit the personal whims no matter what religious, cultural or racial justification you call on.
Wednesday 14 April 2010
Ready for Duty
Damned if you do and damned if you dont. The Army accepts recruits from either sex but (surely this is another case for sex discrimination) females cannot be used as canon fodder as can the males recruits. I would have thought that it was self-evident that the Army does not offer a safe 9-5 Monday to Friday job. By definition the job requires being posted at short notice to anywhere in the world and then doing 24/7 what it takes to meet objectives set including putting your life at risk. This applies equally to support staff asto frontline soldiers.
So in a joined up society how can a single mum be excused from army duty because she has the care or her child to sort out! Seems a bit of a cake an eat it syndrome. Yes I want the pay, perks and security of an army job but excuse me leave me out when the going get tough.
Yes we want a caring and supportive society that looks out for those at risk and vulnerable. Nothing more vulnerable than a sick child and of course it needs its mother and its mother is wired to prioritise the care of her child. Maybe choosing the Army as a career move was a square peg into a round hole misfit. Nothing to do with sex discrimination, just the Army is not right place to be if you have a child to bring up, on your own. A single dad in the Army would be in the same place, conflict of interest, humanity says he must give the time to his child as and when needed and that is incompatible with the demands of a go anywhere do anything army fighting unit. You cant fudge over it, the issues just dont mix.
Sex discrimination has nothing to do or say about sexual equality. What it does say is any woman should not be denied an opportunity just because of her sex. Fair enough the Army should accept all applications irrespective of sexual orientation but that doesnt mean to say that all persons that could apply should apply. They must make their own judgements on whether they can meet the demands and expectations of the employer whoes benefits, employment, that want to take up.
No doubt the Army is riddled with chauvinist, sexists pigs who take pride in their contempt of all things girly and child minding. Maybe our Mum Soldier ran into one when she asked for compassion and consideration from her employer whilst she sorted out a sudden unanticipated problem with her child and didnt get an appropriate response. A horrid response and has to be routed out but that does not mean she has a right to expect that of her employer and it is stark staring bonkers that the legal system has supported her. Employers do not have any duty to support their employees social short-comings. If they choose to to widen their employment catchment, well done and goodluck. But it is not a right nor a right that a sane society would ever enforce.
No doubt the Army is riddled with chauvinist, sexists pigs who take pride in their contempt of all things girly and child minding. Maybe our Mum Soldier ran into one when she asked for compassion and consideration from her employer whilst she sorted out a sudden unanticipated problem with her child and didnt get an appropriate response. A horrid response and has to be routed out but that does not mean she has a right to expect that of her employer and it is stark staring bonkers that the legal system has supported her. Employers do not have any duty to support their employees social short-comings. If they choose to to widen their employment catchment, well done and goodluck. But it is not a right nor a right that a sane society would ever enforce.
Tuesday 6 April 2010
The Political No Vote
Politicians are besotted with their own narrow view of how democracy works. They think the People vote for a Party and therefore the Party Leader. Not true.
To forego my independence I need assurance and the trust that someone speaks for me, I am even prepared to give up my own limited view and accept the majority decision as to who is best to speak for all of us, including me. Not a Party. Not a Party Leader. A person, of our community, a person who reflects my own society and the people within it, who understands the working lives and concerns of all those around me in my locality. That is called democracy. Someone selected and able to speak on my behalf and my concerns.
Of course the Political Parties put forward a 'local candidate' but the candidate's first and primary loyalty is to the Party that sponsors them and the Whips ensure they pay their dues. I don't get or want to vote in a political party. That is a convenience for those once elected to arrange and organise their business once elected, nothing democratic about that. The Party is selected, elected and organised by party faithfuls, nothing to do with representation of the wider community there. The Party Leader is selected from within the faithful circle by the faithful as the person most likely to bring them electoral success. Nothing to do with democratic representation there either. The Party and the Leader are only about the promotion of a narrow view with a populist brief to make it attractive to a wider audience. Nothing about promoting a vision of the community I live within.
To win over voters and to give them the power they desire, a manifest is offered with a commitment, if successful, to fulfil it during their five year term of office but it is worthless, worse than worthless as it raises expectations of objectives impossible to ever realise. You cannot commit yourself to a course of expenditure today when tomorrow you might discover you are unemployed, divorced, made homeless or win a million pounds on the lottery of life. Life is just too uncertain to be able to offer any such meaningful commitments. As soon as they take up power they discover the actual position inherited is of a totally different magnitude than they envisaged and its a certainty that other world events will throw all their best intentions completely awry during the course of their term. But the 'manifestos' are easy on the ear sound bites that can promoted and taken up in simple terms by the various media where differentiation can be marked out and maybe win over those elusive voters.
This is a long way down from the path origins where men with a strong political view and vision on how society is and might be shaped offered to promote that goal whilst sustaining the community putting him forward. It was an administrative convenience that men of similar view grouped together, formed a collective, which became a Party. That Party found it had access to money, power and influence, something they never relinquished and subverted the men of vision in the process.
This total domination of the electoral process by non-representative Political Party's and now more recently quasi-Presidential leaders, (no longer collective decision taking then) have usurped my rights to democratic representation. Not from apathy or lack of political interest, this is why I shall not be voting.
To forego my independence I need assurance and the trust that someone speaks for me, I am even prepared to give up my own limited view and accept the majority decision as to who is best to speak for all of us, including me. Not a Party. Not a Party Leader. A person, of our community, a person who reflects my own society and the people within it, who understands the working lives and concerns of all those around me in my locality. That is called democracy. Someone selected and able to speak on my behalf and my concerns.
Of course the Political Parties put forward a 'local candidate' but the candidate's first and primary loyalty is to the Party that sponsors them and the Whips ensure they pay their dues. I don't get or want to vote in a political party. That is a convenience for those once elected to arrange and organise their business once elected, nothing democratic about that. The Party is selected, elected and organised by party faithfuls, nothing to do with representation of the wider community there. The Party Leader is selected from within the faithful circle by the faithful as the person most likely to bring them electoral success. Nothing to do with democratic representation there either. The Party and the Leader are only about the promotion of a narrow view with a populist brief to make it attractive to a wider audience. Nothing about promoting a vision of the community I live within.
To win over voters and to give them the power they desire, a manifest is offered with a commitment, if successful, to fulfil it during their five year term of office but it is worthless, worse than worthless as it raises expectations of objectives impossible to ever realise. You cannot commit yourself to a course of expenditure today when tomorrow you might discover you are unemployed, divorced, made homeless or win a million pounds on the lottery of life. Life is just too uncertain to be able to offer any such meaningful commitments. As soon as they take up power they discover the actual position inherited is of a totally different magnitude than they envisaged and its a certainty that other world events will throw all their best intentions completely awry during the course of their term. But the 'manifestos' are easy on the ear sound bites that can promoted and taken up in simple terms by the various media where differentiation can be marked out and maybe win over those elusive voters.
This is a long way down from the path origins where men with a strong political view and vision on how society is and might be shaped offered to promote that goal whilst sustaining the community putting him forward. It was an administrative convenience that men of similar view grouped together, formed a collective, which became a Party. That Party found it had access to money, power and influence, something they never relinquished and subverted the men of vision in the process.
This total domination of the electoral process by non-representative Political Party's and now more recently quasi-Presidential leaders, (no longer collective decision taking then) have usurped my rights to democratic representation. Not from apathy or lack of political interest, this is why I shall not be voting.
Tuesday 30 March 2010
Parenting
Fashions come and go but the one irrefutable constant is that parents have to prepare their child for entry into their society. As communal animals, whilst other aspects may or may not be true, to be socially acceptable as a minima the child has to acquire the skills of knowing when and how to get what it needs and judging when to let others have their way and to fit into this society to be able to queue and wait for a turn.
How best to pass on those skills depends on circumstances and absence of economic necessity. A well provided for parent with boundless time, energy, patience and an overwhelming passion for mothering may well be able to devote 24/7 to explaining, educating and showing the child by example how to progress, to the career mother who may only be able to grab a five minute slot to cram in the maximum impact into the child's development. Neither is right or wrong, one just driven from pure necessity and the other from an obsessive maternalism, with others occupying every possible degree inbetween these extremes.
Whatever the approach the inescapable factor is the child mind is not a mature adult mind. I will have to leave it to better authorities to mark out the development phases of the developing mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development Suffice to say as the child grows so do the skills of recognising space limits, reasoning, understanding of the unseen, awareness of others and their objectives, to the explosion of emotional responses, through to the blossoming of planning and strategy to, I would argue the final unrecognised phase of contemplative experience. A child cannot respond to the adult world until it has developed adult mind skills. A child can and does from within the womb, to the trauma of birth, from the earliest cries to the eagle eyed teenage exploitation, experience the outer world and learn how to manipulate it to its singular benefit and advantage. Woe betide the starry-eyed mother besotted with visions of immaculate innocence!
The good parent will be responsive to the child's manipulations and divert it to support the parents own agenda. Though there haven't been blind controlled trials and therefore it isn't science, therefore not proven, therefore can be tossed aside, the one thing all experienced successful parents do agree on is that all children respond best to regularity, consistency, quality attention and affirmation.
Makes sense, from the child's perspective the world is huge, unfathomable and full of weird unexpected and often unpleasant experiences. What you need as a child to cling onto, as your solid rock, is certainty and security from which you venture out to explore and make sense of this world or retreat back to to recover. With luck getting encouragement and appreciation for the explorations safely negotiated and quite time to reflect and blend into to past adventures. The best sacrifice the parent can offer is to postpone their pleasures and indulgences so that their child can enjoy regularity and consistency.
Simple but effective.
How best to pass on those skills depends on circumstances and absence of economic necessity. A well provided for parent with boundless time, energy, patience and an overwhelming passion for mothering may well be able to devote 24/7 to explaining, educating and showing the child by example how to progress, to the career mother who may only be able to grab a five minute slot to cram in the maximum impact into the child's development. Neither is right or wrong, one just driven from pure necessity and the other from an obsessive maternalism, with others occupying every possible degree inbetween these extremes.
Whatever the approach the inescapable factor is the child mind is not a mature adult mind. I will have to leave it to better authorities to mark out the development phases of the developing mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development Suffice to say as the child grows so do the skills of recognising space limits, reasoning, understanding of the unseen, awareness of others and their objectives, to the explosion of emotional responses, through to the blossoming of planning and strategy to, I would argue the final unrecognised phase of contemplative experience. A child cannot respond to the adult world until it has developed adult mind skills. A child can and does from within the womb, to the trauma of birth, from the earliest cries to the eagle eyed teenage exploitation, experience the outer world and learn how to manipulate it to its singular benefit and advantage. Woe betide the starry-eyed mother besotted with visions of immaculate innocence!
The good parent will be responsive to the child's manipulations and divert it to support the parents own agenda. Though there haven't been blind controlled trials and therefore it isn't science, therefore not proven, therefore can be tossed aside, the one thing all experienced successful parents do agree on is that all children respond best to regularity, consistency, quality attention and affirmation.
Makes sense, from the child's perspective the world is huge, unfathomable and full of weird unexpected and often unpleasant experiences. What you need as a child to cling onto, as your solid rock, is certainty and security from which you venture out to explore and make sense of this world or retreat back to to recover. With luck getting encouragement and appreciation for the explorations safely negotiated and quite time to reflect and blend into to past adventures. The best sacrifice the parent can offer is to postpone their pleasures and indulgences so that their child can enjoy regularity and consistency.
Simple but effective.
Tuesday 16 March 2010
Right of passage
It would seem in this unwritten democracy of ours, our historic rights are being whittled away by those seeking to have greater control over us. Once it was a matter of pride and the object of considerable efforts to keep the Queen's highway open to movement, at all times. The unwritten right of passage at all times was acknowledged as a binding obligation. Unfortunately nowadays we have no champions of our freedoms left as we succumb unquestioningly to the tottering towers of control, constraint, restriction and retribution.
To 'protect the public' the police now routinely close off the motorways at slipways either side of an serious incident. If a life is at risk or a helicopter has to be brought in, fine, no-one would raise an eyebrow knowing passageway will be opened as soon as the situation is resolved, but no, it is a 'crime scene' that has to be investigated and the risk of rubber-necking accidents on the opposite carriageway means it is expedient to close the motorway until the police investigations are complete and wreckage removed, in two hours, five hours even twelve hours as it suits them.
At vast expense this country has invested in a motorway system to take the increase in traffic, spare our congested towns and villages from the heavy lorries and ensure the essential life of this country can continue to move quickly and efficiently from one place to another. Not every trip is essential but amongst all those trips of convenience are life changing trips for some, a last chance interview, completion on a once in ten year contract, a birth, an organ exchange, all the varied minutia of every day life that is dependant on quick reliable transport between our towns. Without which our country would grind to a halt, suffocate and stagnate. It is an absolute need for modern life. Yet a policeman on some spurious justification can just close this life line, leave people stranded without any clue as to whether for one hour or twelve hours, re-route traffic which is not trapped through routes which seize up as they cannot cope with the flow and be indifferent to all the personal tragedies and traumas that ensue, left alone the huge costs that have to be suffered by the motoring public. But that is alright because they are motorists and its all their fault, if they drove properly there wouldn't be accidents, seems to be the mentality. Wrong, we have a right of passage and a right to be spared the costs and inconveniences of extremes delays.
Its a balance, inconvenience to a great many to save a life or avert a national crisis. A crime scene report! When has any report been issued that illuminates the sequence of events upto an accidents or leads to all those numerous arrests of criminal drivers? Public rights and goodwill has been usurped by bureaucracy abusing what should be essential last resorts, because they can get away with it unchallenged.
It gets worse. Now roads are being closed for a day, a week, five weeks so it can be repaired. There must be the odd stretch of road where the only option is closure, exceptional. Most do not have to be but it is a money thing. Cash strapped council can save really large sums out of very hard pressed budgets by giving themselves and their contractors a closed road to work with. All those additional costs such as converting a stretch of road to two-way flow, traffic controls or night time working, all magically saved. Except of course the real cost is hidden, off anyones budget and can therefore be disregarded, it is huge and is borne by all those motorists and companies reliant on good transport and whose journey has now becomes a nightmare, trying to squeeze the diverted traffic through tight restricted congested towns with huge delays. By an administrative stroke denied their right of passage along the Queens highway with not a whimper in protest.
Friday 5 March 2010
Insurance Scam
For any one type of risk, over a timescale the number of events and the costs to settle are averaged out and for a given pool of contributors the premium necessary to make a profit and pay out on the claims that will arise are calculated. Some years will be good with few and small claims and some years will be bad with many or very expensive claims. Just like roulette, over a period of time the banker, or in this case insurance companies, will always win because that is how the figures are stacked up. Fine.
Not content to make the just profit they anticipated increasingly nowadays the insurance companies are now arranging to cream off more than just a fair share of profits. If you tilt the average occurrence of events in your favour, by for example excluding know frequent or costly occurring events, cracking or water ingress in a property, young drivers or cancer, they win hands down. Just like stacking good cards into a hand, they can even further improve their profits by playing hardball with the small print, "fully reveal whatever reasonably might influence decision to insure", "only securely locked and alarmed premises or cars are insured against a break-in", "providing you have never ever discussed with your Doctor any health issue are you insured for a health problem". Even worse still, having put every word and clause firmly into their favour now, if you have to claim, your renewal premium will go through the roof, forget about protected no-claims discounts, in todays world they have become meaningless.
Is it so unreasonable that when an insured person experiences something extra-ordinary they should be able to claim in a supportive, not openly hostile and adversarial climate, for a speedy settlement, of, no more than what the words offered to do at the time the insurance taken out? Surely that is why they took out insurance, paid insurance premiums, all for the peace of mind that they are covered incase of the dreadful unexpected event actually occurring, even if, horrors of horrors, the event was triggered by an act human error. We do after all, all make mistakes from time to time and look to insurance to protect us from our own culpalbilty.
Now we know there are people who set out to abuse and claim for far more than their entitlement and make it their life's work to create and extort extravagant insurance claims. There are no doubt solicitors out there that will aide and abet them in their extortion. I fancy the insurance companies have the nonce and legal clout to see off multiple claims from self-evidently fraudsters but why should the ordinary man in the street be made to suffer and endure the harsh treatment metered out to cheats as if they too were a cheat.
It has reached such a pass where, if you have the misfortune to experience a claim event, your claim will be refuted, or even worse your insurance will be retrospectively invalidated, by hindsight manipulative interpretation of words, hiding behind a host of concepts such as "prior knowledge", "exclusions", "failure to follow notification procedures", "lack of corroborative evidence" or "failure to maintain or implement security".
A compassionate, supportive and a fair appraisal, all gone. Instead narrow and mean minded wriggles to find only the get out words and not that sympathetic look at the whole holistic picture. So instead we have total absence of certainty and full doubt whether the cover anticipated actually exists and will replace the loss. Why indeed pay the premiums, why take out insurance if, when it is needed, it fails to deliver the glowing all-embracing rosy promises of the insurance offer. Better off putting the premium money in a sinking fund and hoping your averages wont turn up for a few years, scarcely worse than taking out an insurance that, odds on, isn't going to pay out in anycase.
Not content to make the just profit they anticipated increasingly nowadays the insurance companies are now arranging to cream off more than just a fair share of profits. If you tilt the average occurrence of events in your favour, by for example excluding know frequent or costly occurring events, cracking or water ingress in a property, young drivers or cancer, they win hands down. Just like stacking good cards into a hand, they can even further improve their profits by playing hardball with the small print, "fully reveal whatever reasonably might influence decision to insure", "only securely locked and alarmed premises or cars are insured against a break-in", "providing you have never ever discussed with your Doctor any health issue are you insured for a health problem". Even worse still, having put every word and clause firmly into their favour now, if you have to claim, your renewal premium will go through the roof, forget about protected no-claims discounts, in todays world they have become meaningless.
Is it so unreasonable that when an insured person experiences something extra-ordinary they should be able to claim in a supportive, not openly hostile and adversarial climate, for a speedy settlement, of, no more than what the words offered to do at the time the insurance taken out? Surely that is why they took out insurance, paid insurance premiums, all for the peace of mind that they are covered incase of the dreadful unexpected event actually occurring, even if, horrors of horrors, the event was triggered by an act human error. We do after all, all make mistakes from time to time and look to insurance to protect us from our own culpalbilty.
Now we know there are people who set out to abuse and claim for far more than their entitlement and make it their life's work to create and extort extravagant insurance claims. There are no doubt solicitors out there that will aide and abet them in their extortion. I fancy the insurance companies have the nonce and legal clout to see off multiple claims from self-evidently fraudsters but why should the ordinary man in the street be made to suffer and endure the harsh treatment metered out to cheats as if they too were a cheat.
It has reached such a pass where, if you have the misfortune to experience a claim event, your claim will be refuted, or even worse your insurance will be retrospectively invalidated, by hindsight manipulative interpretation of words, hiding behind a host of concepts such as "prior knowledge", "exclusions", "failure to follow notification procedures", "lack of corroborative evidence" or "failure to maintain or implement security".
A compassionate, supportive and a fair appraisal, all gone. Instead narrow and mean minded wriggles to find only the get out words and not that sympathetic look at the whole holistic picture. So instead we have total absence of certainty and full doubt whether the cover anticipated actually exists and will replace the loss. Why indeed pay the premiums, why take out insurance if, when it is needed, it fails to deliver the glowing all-embracing rosy promises of the insurance offer. Better off putting the premium money in a sinking fund and hoping your averages wont turn up for a few years, scarcely worse than taking out an insurance that, odds on, isn't going to pay out in anycase.
Saturday 27 February 2010
Self Image
Yet another chorus calling for government controls! The adverts, leisurewear, music videos and playstation games are all too sexually extreme for our children and we need some morale-master to control, restrict and limit what our children can have access too. First things first, parents bring up their children, it is upto them to set the boundaries of what is or is not acceptable for their children. In our complex society they may have to have some dialogue with the schools but essentially the buck stops with them. It is a cop-out to say the Government must. The Government has no idea what is best for you, your community, its children and how you relate to it with your child.
The commercial world has gotten very clever in plucking our deep, sub-conscious, basic instincts and responses to sell its wares. It knows exactly what works and how to play it to get the maximum effect that suits its purpose, to sell. It is time we grew up, too stock of ourselves and managed these gut basic instincts more maturely and not just accept being manipulated by others.
For girls it has been about appearance, just look "good" and people will like you and want to be friends with you. Stop presenting yourself and your daughters on such a crude and simplistic ideological model. It is really not what they look like but how they respond that matters, respond to dialogue and respond to companionship. Yes first impression do matter, and a lot, but that is not the end of the story, only the start. So throw away lipstick, hair-do's and sensuous clothes and just present yourself well that others might think you have something (other than sex) to offer but only so you can begin to engage but not by aping some idealised sexual desire phantom. Really the answer is that simple, ladies stop presenting yourself as a sexual desire object and start to value yourself. Present what you have to offer as a person not an object. Then your daughters will pick up on your clues and follow suit. And never, never ever project your failed aspirations of sexual allure onto your daughter, she can do without that guilt trip. Chances are in your new asexual look the males around you won't pick up on your underlying sensuality, probability is that they will no matter what.
For the boys it is a similar story but from that other dynamic. The perception is that to be 'attractive' to women, you have to be to seen to display wealth images and be assertive so others defer to you. Simple, crude and basic but denies the real story. You actually have to present yourself as someone worth engaging with, with something to say and with a confidence to manoeuvre your way around this challenging society.
Conduct yourself from these mature perspectives and the commercial world will follow you, giving up on those previously so successful gut reactions.
We do have to grow up as a society and begin to deal maturely with all those fraught aspects of sexuality. It is not about sticking the plumbing bits together. It is not about the momentary high following on from an ejaculation or orgasms but about nurturing the companionship that follows in the slow after glow. It is about building a relationship that will survive and gather strength through life's lows.
We also have to stop treating teenagers as adults able to handle complex inter-sex relationships, they simply cant. Their minds have not matured and they don't have enough experience to cope with the challenges and they still haven't found how to manage their hormonal responses to sexual arousal. We, the adults in society, have to tell them square on to grow-up and ensure offers of guidance are not brushed aside as an irrelevance. We adults have to re-discover our confidence and not be over-whelmed by their exuberance.
With the surge of hormone that the teens brings on and the weirdness of frequent sexual response daily encountered, we as a society to have to think how we suggest they handle it. We need to face up to the problems of life and not try to hide, restrict or control them . Maybe we as a society have to start and talk openly without embarrassment of distraction, relief, or even masturbation as a way of gaining control over those so urgent teen physical responses until the emotional control over relationship evolves and matures.
Better that than surrender to some arbitrary morale judge with a limited agenda deining for each every varied one of us what we can or cannot see, at what times, in which places.
The commercial world has gotten very clever in plucking our deep, sub-conscious, basic instincts and responses to sell its wares. It knows exactly what works and how to play it to get the maximum effect that suits its purpose, to sell. It is time we grew up, too stock of ourselves and managed these gut basic instincts more maturely and not just accept being manipulated by others.
For girls it has been about appearance, just look "good" and people will like you and want to be friends with you. Stop presenting yourself and your daughters on such a crude and simplistic ideological model. It is really not what they look like but how they respond that matters, respond to dialogue and respond to companionship. Yes first impression do matter, and a lot, but that is not the end of the story, only the start. So throw away lipstick, hair-do's and sensuous clothes and just present yourself well that others might think you have something (other than sex) to offer but only so you can begin to engage but not by aping some idealised sexual desire phantom. Really the answer is that simple, ladies stop presenting yourself as a sexual desire object and start to value yourself. Present what you have to offer as a person not an object. Then your daughters will pick up on your clues and follow suit. And never, never ever project your failed aspirations of sexual allure onto your daughter, she can do without that guilt trip. Chances are in your new asexual look the males around you won't pick up on your underlying sensuality, probability is that they will no matter what.
For the boys it is a similar story but from that other dynamic. The perception is that to be 'attractive' to women, you have to be to seen to display wealth images and be assertive so others defer to you. Simple, crude and basic but denies the real story. You actually have to present yourself as someone worth engaging with, with something to say and with a confidence to manoeuvre your way around this challenging society.
Conduct yourself from these mature perspectives and the commercial world will follow you, giving up on those previously so successful gut reactions.
We do have to grow up as a society and begin to deal maturely with all those fraught aspects of sexuality. It is not about sticking the plumbing bits together. It is not about the momentary high following on from an ejaculation or orgasms but about nurturing the companionship that follows in the slow after glow. It is about building a relationship that will survive and gather strength through life's lows.
We also have to stop treating teenagers as adults able to handle complex inter-sex relationships, they simply cant. Their minds have not matured and they don't have enough experience to cope with the challenges and they still haven't found how to manage their hormonal responses to sexual arousal. We, the adults in society, have to tell them square on to grow-up and ensure offers of guidance are not brushed aside as an irrelevance. We adults have to re-discover our confidence and not be over-whelmed by their exuberance.
With the surge of hormone that the teens brings on and the weirdness of frequent sexual response daily encountered, we as a society to have to think how we suggest they handle it. We need to face up to the problems of life and not try to hide, restrict or control them . Maybe we as a society have to start and talk openly without embarrassment of distraction, relief, or even masturbation as a way of gaining control over those so urgent teen physical responses until the emotional control over relationship evolves and matures.
Better that than surrender to some arbitrary morale judge with a limited agenda deining for each every varied one of us what we can or cannot see, at what times, in which places.
Wednesday 10 February 2010
Review: An Education
The 'serious' newspaper reviews rated it worthy, best film of year (2009) so far and there is this Oscar buzz about it. Worth a visit, no not really, just much better than all the other dross out there.
Just light and frothy.
There was a scatter gun of cliches covering most of the familiar 60's issues. Poised at the brink of the changes the sixties swept in, they are all there, challenge to establishment, woman emancipation, life aspiration, sexual revolution, 'pop' culture, material consumerism, exploitation of the vulnerable, racism but in true soap-operaesque, having klaxtoned the emotional hook limply failed to get beyond or beneath the trite superficial observation, leaving us just with tabloid headliners.
Light and fluffy.
What a waste of talent and effort as the actors struggled to imply meaning deeper than the script offered them. It was not hammy but might as well been for all the absence of content and lack of conviction or empathy generated. I'm afraid no matter how well acted twenty three years doing seventeen does not adequately carry conviction in close-up and the snappy facing out of authority figures dialogue struck me more as wane nostalgia of a wistful middle-age woman looking to self-justify her lack of younger judgement than youthful emergent woman coming to terms with her sexuality, life and opportunities.
Light and fluffy.
Nothing wrong in light and fluffy, a bit of escapism, great, a soaring adventure, great, a fresh camper around familiar scenes, maybe, a step back in time to re-assess our path, maybe. It doesn't always have to have lasting impact getting deep under the skin of relationship issues but we, who have turned out and paid the front office, do deserve something to immerse ourselves into, to get carried away or taken to a fresh place or given a fresh view. A bit more than this soap-opera offering.
Light and fluffy, but lacking in substance.
Surprisingly perhaps our thin audience was fellow late middle-aged couples hoping for a nostalgic look back at their missed opportunities? All in all a couple of hours of pleasant but so wide of the mark missed opportunities.
Just light and frothy.
There was a scatter gun of cliches covering most of the familiar 60's issues. Poised at the brink of the changes the sixties swept in, they are all there, challenge to establishment, woman emancipation, life aspiration, sexual revolution, 'pop' culture, material consumerism, exploitation of the vulnerable, racism but in true soap-operaesque, having klaxtoned the emotional hook limply failed to get beyond or beneath the trite superficial observation, leaving us just with tabloid headliners.
Light and fluffy.
What a waste of talent and effort as the actors struggled to imply meaning deeper than the script offered them. It was not hammy but might as well been for all the absence of content and lack of conviction or empathy generated. I'm afraid no matter how well acted twenty three years doing seventeen does not adequately carry conviction in close-up and the snappy facing out of authority figures dialogue struck me more as wane nostalgia of a wistful middle-age woman looking to self-justify her lack of younger judgement than youthful emergent woman coming to terms with her sexuality, life and opportunities.
Light and fluffy.
Nothing wrong in light and fluffy, a bit of escapism, great, a soaring adventure, great, a fresh camper around familiar scenes, maybe, a step back in time to re-assess our path, maybe. It doesn't always have to have lasting impact getting deep under the skin of relationship issues but we, who have turned out and paid the front office, do deserve something to immerse ourselves into, to get carried away or taken to a fresh place or given a fresh view. A bit more than this soap-opera offering.
Light and fluffy, but lacking in substance.
Surprisingly perhaps our thin audience was fellow late middle-aged couples hoping for a nostalgic look back at their missed opportunities? All in all a couple of hours of pleasant but so wide of the mark missed opportunities.
Friday 5 February 2010
War-Mongering
To start with I am a pacifist, no surprise there then? The one scenario that I doubt I would ever come to terms with was if I took someones life by a careless act of mine.
There is no justification, no provocation, no military goal, no realm that makes the taking of one, two, twenty, two hundred or two million lives excusable any more than I can make a distinction in the mode of taking a life whether by a car, knife, rope, bullet, gassing or nuclear bomb. The only pause for thought is the length and degree of distress experienced before the life taken finally expires.
Setting that aside I can still be objective, take an overview on war-mongering and be relevant. Here is the proof or lie to that!
We are now in a similar position to that that the great powers found themselves just before WWI and WWII. The mechanics of war had moved on by a considerable degree but they were still nostalgically and fatally bound to the war mechanics of their last great victory. So too now. The whole war dynamics has changed. Now nationstates are held to ransom by small highly mobile groups of people and a few readily accessible materials, providing those people have the support of their community.
Which city or field are your tanks to surround, or planes to bomb or army hoist their flag in to prove you have finally subdued that irritant rebel group that constantly depletes your artifacts of war. You might sweep in, replace one governance with your own style but the peoples mind you want to control remain, despite your worst, their minds that they control. In the end you have to deal with them and in doing so your own ethics become corrupted. In the global scale of things what is the point?
The bigger the ordinance, whether it is tank, bomber plane or aircraft carrier the greater the resource cost and the greater the significance in your fighting effectiveness if you lose it. So to protect your big ordinance you have to support them with a host of lesser ordinance with the sole goal of defending the big ordinance. A great lumbering war machine. Not exactly light footed, fleet of foot, bobbing ducking and weaving around those highly mobile groups of people out to scupper your every attempt.
Anything other than a national defense is political suicide. Scrap or more realistically hire out to Europe all the big ordinances, save a vast amount on your budget and replace with light, highly mobile vehicles. Train your people in the mechanics and psychology of sabotage and civic disobedience. Invest in disperse communications. But and a big but make sure your style of government is all inclusive, emphasises the united people so they never experience the need to rebel against you.
There is no justification, no provocation, no military goal, no realm that makes the taking of one, two, twenty, two hundred or two million lives excusable any more than I can make a distinction in the mode of taking a life whether by a car, knife, rope, bullet, gassing or nuclear bomb. The only pause for thought is the length and degree of distress experienced before the life taken finally expires.
Setting that aside I can still be objective, take an overview on war-mongering and be relevant. Here is the proof or lie to that!
We are now in a similar position to that that the great powers found themselves just before WWI and WWII. The mechanics of war had moved on by a considerable degree but they were still nostalgically and fatally bound to the war mechanics of their last great victory. So too now. The whole war dynamics has changed. Now nationstates are held to ransom by small highly mobile groups of people and a few readily accessible materials, providing those people have the support of their community.
Which city or field are your tanks to surround, or planes to bomb or army hoist their flag in to prove you have finally subdued that irritant rebel group that constantly depletes your artifacts of war. You might sweep in, replace one governance with your own style but the peoples mind you want to control remain, despite your worst, their minds that they control. In the end you have to deal with them and in doing so your own ethics become corrupted. In the global scale of things what is the point?
The bigger the ordinance, whether it is tank, bomber plane or aircraft carrier the greater the resource cost and the greater the significance in your fighting effectiveness if you lose it. So to protect your big ordinance you have to support them with a host of lesser ordinance with the sole goal of defending the big ordinance. A great lumbering war machine. Not exactly light footed, fleet of foot, bobbing ducking and weaving around those highly mobile groups of people out to scupper your every attempt.
Anything other than a national defense is political suicide. Scrap or more realistically hire out to Europe all the big ordinances, save a vast amount on your budget and replace with light, highly mobile vehicles. Train your people in the mechanics and psychology of sabotage and civic disobedience. Invest in disperse communications. But and a big but make sure your style of government is all inclusive, emphasises the united people so they never experience the need to rebel against you.
Friday 29 January 2010
Requiem for the Alpha Male
We are social herd animals and within such a social grouping the alpha male position is constantly challenged. He has to assert his authority over the territory he lays claim to, be protective to and see off suitors for his female entourage, be vigilant to upcoming nubile females to add to his group, ensure there is food and shelter, decide when his male heirs can no longer be tolerated within his arena and keep himself fit, active, alert and ready for the next challenge.
Over the eons the alpha male within his herd group has evolved to carry those characteristics necessary for taking up an alpha position. Characteristic such as aggression, dominance, individualism, risk-taking, spray marking, confrontation and display.
In this human world that alpha male has had to sublimate his inherited characteristics to fit in with the ever expanding society he now has to move within. As the space gets ever more crowded the area the alpha male can claim authority over shrinks and the more the overt display of dominance must be subverted. So the out-stretched hand of welcome, the invitation into the home, the dominance over the TV controller and the parade of teen stick models on the cat-walk are all manifestations of this sublimation of the old old alpha male responses.
Trouble is all the essential characteristics that make an alpha male an alpha male are now out of favour. Individualism, challenge, dominance or aggression are definitely now taboo in this world of political correctness and sexual equality where we seek and only encourage the feminine side in the male. The alpha male has no where to go, his innate responses are wrong and unwelcomed in today's society.
Will we miss him? Will the girls miss the strong male that knew his ground and place? Will society be able to forge ahead without those individuals with the courage to stand aside from the crowd? Will society be that happier and peaceful place without his aggression? It is almost impossible to see the alpha male characteristics taking an even further and deeper sublimation to reappear in a new incarnation. I for one hope he makes it.
Over the eons the alpha male within his herd group has evolved to carry those characteristics necessary for taking up an alpha position. Characteristic such as aggression, dominance, individualism, risk-taking, spray marking, confrontation and display.
In this human world that alpha male has had to sublimate his inherited characteristics to fit in with the ever expanding society he now has to move within. As the space gets ever more crowded the area the alpha male can claim authority over shrinks and the more the overt display of dominance must be subverted. So the out-stretched hand of welcome, the invitation into the home, the dominance over the TV controller and the parade of teen stick models on the cat-walk are all manifestations of this sublimation of the old old alpha male responses.
Trouble is all the essential characteristics that make an alpha male an alpha male are now out of favour. Individualism, challenge, dominance or aggression are definitely now taboo in this world of political correctness and sexual equality where we seek and only encourage the feminine side in the male. The alpha male has no where to go, his innate responses are wrong and unwelcomed in today's society.
Will we miss him? Will the girls miss the strong male that knew his ground and place? Will society be able to forge ahead without those individuals with the courage to stand aside from the crowd? Will society be that happier and peaceful place without his aggression? It is almost impossible to see the alpha male characteristics taking an even further and deeper sublimation to reappear in a new incarnation. I for one hope he makes it.
Thursday 28 January 2010
Retire at 70+!
The logic is faultless. A burgeoning aged population and a shrinking working force generating income. Something has to give to square the equation, delaying the age when pensions are first paid is an obvious solution, no one can argue with its sweet reasonableness. Except it doesn't join up the dots to complete the shape of life's realities.
With age you lose the thrust and energy of youth, become burnt-out in coping with crisis or novelty and struggle to absorb the relentless expansion of knowledge and the body no longer copes with heavy burdens. The extra benefits of maturity and experience do not expand in direct proportion to the daily task's growth in demands. By all judgements an older man cannot keep up with a younger self and this discrepancy increases faster the further past the meridian of life the older man is.
Yet a man's position in any society is judged, by those he encounters and by his own self-worth, by his working roll. So how are we going to manage the scenario when the line manager is deemed to no longer be able to cut it, not sharp enough, not sufficiently uptodate, network contacts no longer relevant to the current market? Who is going to relegate him to the post room with a two third pay cut and how is that going to work with staff morale? Or who decides that craftsman can longer produce a satisfactory quantity of output and is growing dangerous with his lack of flexibility in a hazardous industrial workplace? So what happens to him and all his kind? There can only be a finite number of aged supermarket shelf-fillers and is this role a dignified end for a working career of a previously admired manager or craftsman?
The reality is that for most, they cannot continue indefinitely at their chosen work and at huge loss of self-esteem and self-respect will be forced to take some other menial work, just to survive until pension time is finally called by some remote actuary. This is not a multi-career choice that is lightly banded about, this is an ignominious shuffle off into a backwater job nobody else with any respect or modicum of skills would contemplate. That is life's reality to extending the retirement age to 70, or 75 or even eighty. What sort of fresh employment do you really think is plausible for a person at that age? Can you begin to imagine the personal humiliation of being forced to accept such low-grade work after a previous successful career?
This does not sound like a caring compassionate society to me. There just has to be another way to pay our way through this age bottleneck.
With age you lose the thrust and energy of youth, become burnt-out in coping with crisis or novelty and struggle to absorb the relentless expansion of knowledge and the body no longer copes with heavy burdens. The extra benefits of maturity and experience do not expand in direct proportion to the daily task's growth in demands. By all judgements an older man cannot keep up with a younger self and this discrepancy increases faster the further past the meridian of life the older man is.
Yet a man's position in any society is judged, by those he encounters and by his own self-worth, by his working roll. So how are we going to manage the scenario when the line manager is deemed to no longer be able to cut it, not sharp enough, not sufficiently uptodate, network contacts no longer relevant to the current market? Who is going to relegate him to the post room with a two third pay cut and how is that going to work with staff morale? Or who decides that craftsman can longer produce a satisfactory quantity of output and is growing dangerous with his lack of flexibility in a hazardous industrial workplace? So what happens to him and all his kind? There can only be a finite number of aged supermarket shelf-fillers and is this role a dignified end for a working career of a previously admired manager or craftsman?
The reality is that for most, they cannot continue indefinitely at their chosen work and at huge loss of self-esteem and self-respect will be forced to take some other menial work, just to survive until pension time is finally called by some remote actuary. This is not a multi-career choice that is lightly banded about, this is an ignominious shuffle off into a backwater job nobody else with any respect or modicum of skills would contemplate. That is life's reality to extending the retirement age to 70, or 75 or even eighty. What sort of fresh employment do you really think is plausible for a person at that age? Can you begin to imagine the personal humiliation of being forced to accept such low-grade work after a previous successful career?
This does not sound like a caring compassionate society to me. There just has to be another way to pay our way through this age bottleneck.
Free-Loaders Pt2
There are periods when there just is not time to spare for community services, but these periods do pass. To make amends we must make opportunities for these former free-loaders to pay back into the society they have been feeding off for free. Our contributions into our community needs to be continually monitored and evaluated by our peers. That stint as governor to the school, all those years trimming the hedges, keeping the play ground clean, picking litter, seeing the children cross the road, that period standing as parish councillor, all need to be recorded and a value-back to the community allocated. By our peers, by the people we live within and amongst an not by some bureaucrat in a remote disconnected office. We know who amongst us is making the effort and those who posture and only talk the talk.
That value should then return to the individual to be traded in for extra over care and resources as an when life emergencies descend. The longer time of contribution the bigger the benefit accrues. Late comers wanting to make amends for free-loading having to make significantly bigger contributions in kind or by bequest of a classroom or medical investigative procedure to earn back a comparable benefit.
That value should then return to the individual to be traded in for extra over care and resources as an when life emergencies descend. The longer time of contribution the bigger the benefit accrues. Late comers wanting to make amends for free-loading having to make significantly bigger contributions in kind or by bequest of a classroom or medical investigative procedure to earn back a comparable benefit.
Thursday 21 January 2010
An aside - Born Equal
At the moment of birth and that first cry we are all equal, just a helpless bundle but with a tenacity for life. Then our genes, environment and situation kicks in and we progress rapidly in different directions depending on degrees of poverty or priviledge, protection or exposure we endure. After the nursery phase we increasingly take bolder steps that mark out our own individual route through life. Some times we make bad decision that will scar our future well-being, mostly we get it about alright and comparatively we do more or less as well as the next person. A sort of normality. Just fine for society, no extremes, no over-promotion of any one position, just a nice cosy muddle within the middle band of acceptability.
Question is what should Societies response be to those who despite being alerted to the dangers, despite all the good information about the risk choose to ignore the recommendations and carry on systematically pursuing a dangerous high risk path, be it extreme sports, binge drinking, a first pregnancy at 50 or just grazing on high fat, sugar and salt comfort foods?
It is not right that individuals should be prevented from taking what are seen as high risk routes, who knows with hindsight they might even be seen as forging and a new and successful role model . They must have the right to choose, good or even bad, for themselves. No one else is better placed to make judgements on their life than they are. And to take the consequences if it goes wrong. It is not for Society to gather up the broken bones and divert scarce resources to mend a failed and doomed enterprise. Whether it is the all to predictable consequences risks for child and mother from a late pregancy, a life of smoking, drinking or eating to excess or just jumping off a tower block. Yet Society has an over-riding non-judgemental duty of compassion, care and concerns for all of its citizens.
Here I would like to introduce the idea of degrees. The care and most of all the resources we lavish on a young adult caught in misfortune does not necessarily have to be the same degree of resource or perhaps even care we lavish on an elderly person who has had a fall. There is a difference of degree. Why should a smoker or obese person claim full rights to resources and care when they encounter the very outcome predicted. They have a responsibilty for their own life and have to accept the consequences of choices they took. It is not for others around them to sacrifice and forego to buffer them from the consequences of the decisions they freely took.
So degrees, degrees of resource and degrees of care. Bottom line, no matter what each and every individual in our Society has to be taken in and looked after to provide a minimal comfort and shelter. Maybe not a grand single room hotel shelter in a hospital, maybe not a team of highly qualified technicians to monitor, supplement and promote health, maybe not the costly operation but shelter, pain management, minimal hygiene, basic food and yes the care due to any person in need.
Those who have not put their lives needlessly at risk, not ignored the counsel and caution about a hazardous life style then they continue to enjoy the full benefit of all the skills and resources society can offer. Once a life quality outturn assessment has been made. These must not be remote bureaucratic procedures but hands-on by those charged with the daily care and treatment and having full knowledge of past history. There seems to me to be ample scope of an on-going dialogue which leads up to judgements that the point has passed when full resources are no longer appropriate. We cannot escape the consequences of our own decisions, rage as we may against the injustice and unfairness, in the end society always judges us and we know we can be found wanting.
What is not sustainable is full-blown technology and panoply of associated support for all equally without distinction. Better to know and have the chance to work within stated limitations than be an end process of covert judgements beyond reasoning with.
Question is what should Societies response be to those who despite being alerted to the dangers, despite all the good information about the risk choose to ignore the recommendations and carry on systematically pursuing a dangerous high risk path, be it extreme sports, binge drinking, a first pregnancy at 50 or just grazing on high fat, sugar and salt comfort foods?
It is not right that individuals should be prevented from taking what are seen as high risk routes, who knows with hindsight they might even be seen as forging and a new and successful role model . They must have the right to choose, good or even bad, for themselves. No one else is better placed to make judgements on their life than they are. And to take the consequences if it goes wrong. It is not for Society to gather up the broken bones and divert scarce resources to mend a failed and doomed enterprise. Whether it is the all to predictable consequences risks for child and mother from a late pregancy, a life of smoking, drinking or eating to excess or just jumping off a tower block. Yet Society has an over-riding non-judgemental duty of compassion, care and concerns for all of its citizens.
Here I would like to introduce the idea of degrees. The care and most of all the resources we lavish on a young adult caught in misfortune does not necessarily have to be the same degree of resource or perhaps even care we lavish on an elderly person who has had a fall. There is a difference of degree. Why should a smoker or obese person claim full rights to resources and care when they encounter the very outcome predicted. They have a responsibilty for their own life and have to accept the consequences of choices they took. It is not for others around them to sacrifice and forego to buffer them from the consequences of the decisions they freely took.
So degrees, degrees of resource and degrees of care. Bottom line, no matter what each and every individual in our Society has to be taken in and looked after to provide a minimal comfort and shelter. Maybe not a grand single room hotel shelter in a hospital, maybe not a team of highly qualified technicians to monitor, supplement and promote health, maybe not the costly operation but shelter, pain management, minimal hygiene, basic food and yes the care due to any person in need.
Those who have not put their lives needlessly at risk, not ignored the counsel and caution about a hazardous life style then they continue to enjoy the full benefit of all the skills and resources society can offer. Once a life quality outturn assessment has been made. These must not be remote bureaucratic procedures but hands-on by those charged with the daily care and treatment and having full knowledge of past history. There seems to me to be ample scope of an on-going dialogue which leads up to judgements that the point has passed when full resources are no longer appropriate. We cannot escape the consequences of our own decisions, rage as we may against the injustice and unfairness, in the end society always judges us and we know we can be found wanting.
What is not sustainable is full-blown technology and panoply of associated support for all equally without distinction. Better to know and have the chance to work within stated limitations than be an end process of covert judgements beyond reasoning with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)