Category Archives: current affairs

The Truth is Out – or Maybe Not

Now I don’t normally buy the Daily Telegraph, but then I don’t normally buy a daily paper at all – it’s all just too “Meh” and tedious. But I broke with tradition yesterday as I had a hospital appointment and time to waste. And I have to say that I wasn’t disappointed; the general standard of journalism to interest me was, as expected, sadly lacking – I couldn’t even get a decent start on the crossword.

However the “Torygraph” did contain an absolutely scathing OpEd piece by Simon Heffer about the upcoming election and the usefulness (my word) of the main protagonist parties under the banner “The only thing you won’t hear in the next 30 days is the truth“.

Being the paper it is you would expect the piece to be anti-Labour, the ruling whatever-the-opposite-of-an-elite-is. And it was. And anti-Lib Dem. And it was. And pro-Tory. Was it heck as like. The Tories came in for a mauling as well. In fact the headline for the piece almost says it all; it is completed really only by the sub-head: “The parties’ cosy consensus will leave millions of voters effectively disenfranchised”. Let’s sum it up by saying that Heffer is not impressed. Not at all he isn’t. Try this …

[…] election campaigns are about assertion and not fact. Much of what you encounter in the next 30 days will be propaganda, and should be treated accordingly. Your intelligence will be insulted in a most insolent fashion. The truth will be kept from you on every possible occasion. Artifice will entirely overpower substance.

And that’s just the opening paragraph. Let’s read on …

The Labour Party has failed utterly in government. It has not merely wrecked the economy, with long-term consequences: it has taken a path of repairing the damage that will, through its emphasis on high taxes, borrowing and public spending, cause more harm before it does any good – if it does any good. It has also been derelict on matters of such significance as our schools, our universities, law and order, immigration and our Armed Forces. It lies about its record […]

Yet, despite this atrocity, the Conservative Party has, in the five years since its last debacle, done remarkably little to convince the public that it understands what is going on, let alone that it has any concept of how to make our country more prosperous, better run and generally happier […]

And the Liberal Democrats? They have a flexibility of principle that leaves even that of Mr Cameron standing; a record of opportunism and incompetence in local government (the only place they have had any power) that puts Mr Brown’s moral and intellectual inadequacies in the shade […]

Oh dear! And yet it gets worse …

All that is certain […] is that we shall end up being governed by a social democratic government of some sort […] because the likely programmes and conduct of another Labour or a new Conservative administration will be broadly social democratic. By that, I mean that the state will play a large role in the management of our country; there will [be] a strong redistributive element to policy; levelling down, whether through the education system or the welfare state, will continue. What this means is that a significant proportion of the electorate that wants none of these things will have been effectively disfranchised. [my emphasis] […]

For the frustration of the non-social democratic majority […] has only just begun. No one from the main parties will tell the truth about the need to sack hundreds of thousands of people on the public payroll in order to ensure we live within our means. Nobody will tell the truth about how lower taxes increase revenue, because there are too many cheap votes in bashing bankers who earn lots of money. Nobody will properly defend capitalism as an essential ingredient of a free society. Nobody will champion selective education, which gives such a chance in life to bright children from poor homes, and nobody will be truthful about the pointlessness of much university education.

Nobody will dare to be radical about the corrupt effects of the welfare state. Nobody will take the radical approach needed to counter the results of unlimited immigration. Above all […] nobody will confront the public with the realities of our membership of a European Union governed by the Treaty of Lisbon […]

All these things matter to people who are honest, hard-working, love their country, and seek only to be allowed to get on with their lives, undisturbed by the state, and to keep more of what they earn […]

And finally …

That still leaves the problem of how Britain will ever be run properly, whether by a tribal introvert who wishes to suffocate us with his “values”, or a PR spiv whose “big idea” is to appoint 5,000 commissars to assist the development of “communities”. There will be more absurdity yet.

As one of my friends on Facebook said the other day: in a month from now a different set of the wrong lizards will be running the country. After all, whatever they say and whatever they stand for, they’re all lizards and they’re all wrong. It’s called politics. Meh!

Welcome to the Quinquennial Donkey Derby

So at last they’re not only under starter’s orders but the race for the next parliament has begun. No more jostling at the starting tape, this is for earnest now. And already the mud-slinging has started, albeit in a muted way.

There’s an interesting 10 point guide from the BBC on what to watch for during the race. Watch the race with our indispensable guide …

It really matters this time. So we’re always told. Guess it does matter more this time given the fact that the country is bankrupt.  Or does it matter?  (See “policy” below.)

The TV debates will dominate. Yes, dominate the boredom, most like.

The internet will also dominate. Yes we’ll all die under a welter of email, SMS, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other such spheroids. That’s in addition to the usual sheaf of paper stuffed through our letterbox, less than nothing in the papers (no, not even fish & chips; nanny banned them, remember!) and extra drivel on the airwaves.

Slogans will matter less. Did they ever matter more? At all? Mind this could be true; the sound-bite may be less important because lots of people are learning to see through them.

Policy will matter more. Oh, really? You mean any of them have a clue what their policies are? Or how to implement them? And even if they do know, are one lot really much different from the others? Aren’t they all their to feather their own nests?

The battle of the wives. I hear the bottom of a large barrel being scraped. Or are they auditioning for “Sex and the City”? Or to replace Kim and Aggie? Or Nigella Lawson? Someone pass the bucket please.

It could get personal. Delete “could”; insert “will”.

The local factor. It never made much difference before; don’t see why it will now. We’re much more global now; much more knowing about what our masters (tell us) they’re up to. Seems to me that means there’ll be even more voting for the party rather than on local issues.

Lies will be told. This is probably the only certainty here. But wait …

Nobody knows the result. This should be a certainty too. But do fat ladies sing? Will anyone even know the result when the results are in? As the BBC says, it’s going to be a bumpy ride. My money’s on a hung parliament and nothing being able to be done for about 2 years until it all crumbles, by which time the country will be in even deeper doo-doo.

Goggles down for a full house!

Nudity, Sex and Sex Education,

I started this post with a dilemma. Do I write it as one long “review” post or split it into several so I can write more in depth about each topic. In the end I decided on the former if only to ensure that the articles I highlight actually get air time and not consigned, by default or laziness, to Bin 101.

In the last week or so there have been a number of items on the intertubes about nudity, sexuality and sex education. Regular readers (What? You mean I have regular readers?) will be aware of my liberal views and my belief that we need to break down society’s taboos in these areas (very much in the Dutch-mode) so my choice of items should come as little surprise.


We Need to Stop Circumcision
Written by Christine Northrup, herself an obstetrician and gynaecologist, this item in the Huffington Post makes a passionate case for not circumcising infant boys, as well as girls. Here are few extracts:

In the weeks ahead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are likely to publish a recommendation that all infant boys undergo circumcision. This is a huge mistake. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that is painful and can lead to complications, including death. No organization in the world currently recommends this. Why should we routinely remove normal, functioning tissue from the genitals of little boys within days of their birth?

[C]ircumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation.

Routine female circumcision, which has been practiced in some cultures, is completely unacceptable … the United Nations has issued a decree against it. Circumcision is a form of sexual abuse whether it’s done to girls or boys.

[M]isleading medical information has begun to surface (yet again) in support of circumcision. This information supports the belief that men with foreskins are more likely to get viral or bacterial infections and pass them on … these are justifications that science has been unable to support. Nor is there any scientific proof that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases.

The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The “experiment” of using circumcision to stem HIV infection [as has been done in Africa] has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?

Circumcision also has profound implications for male sexuality. Studies document that the amount of pleasure a man can receive during intercourse is greater in uncircumcised males. That’s because the male foreskin, like the clitoris, is richly innervated for maximum sexual pleasure. Sexual researchers have determined that men with [their foreskin] are more likely to feel the most pleasure when they make love.

More Sex Education Please, we’re British
This was an article in the Times on 24 February, in which Alice Thomson argued that we (the British) have the highest rate of teenage STDs, abortions and pregnancies in Europe and that the only way this will be reduced is by very open and frank sex education conducted in an adult way. Sniggering behind the bike-sheds, as we British always have done, has gotten us into this mess and won’t get us out of it. Again a telling quote or two:

British children shouldn’t be getting their sex education from Ashley and Cheryl [Cole] but from their parents and teachers. I was once one of those prissy, prudish parents pussyfooting around the question until I was sent to the Netherlands by this newspaper to discuss procreation.

As I walked to De Burght junior school in Amsterdam to talk to the headmaster about his policy, I bumped into eight-year-old Carla carefully balancing a dish. It was a sample of her father’s sperm for “show and tell”. [I bet that had Tunbridge Wells choking on its Shredded Wheat! – Ed.]

In the Netherlands, sex and children aren’t a taboo subject. As pupils play mummies and daddies in the playground they know exactly what they might have been doing last night … a 12-year-old at the senior school showed me how to roll a condom on to a broomstick while her friend asked me if I masturbated.

The British, meanwhile, expect their children to learn about sex and relationships from the playground, internet porn, WAGs and celebrities, and are amazed that we have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases and abortions among the under 21s in Europe.

We need to talk about the subject until we can say various anatomical parts without sniggering.

For the first time, I found myself agreeing with Ed Balls [same here – Ed.], the Schools Secretary, on the Today programme yesterday [23 Feb] that sex education should be compulsory in all schools. Of course five-year-olds need to learn about sex, the earlier the better, and from parents as well as teachers.

The Dutch are more religious than the British and still manage to reach consent among Calvinists, Catholics and Muslims that children should be provided with all the facts to make their own informed decisions, not just lectured on morality and the missionary position.

Thoughts on the “hook-up culture,” or what I learned from my high school diary
This appeared on Scarleteen (an excellent site which addresses all sorts of sexuality questions and is aimed at teens and young adults, in a mature and adult way) and elsewhere on 2 March. In it the female writer discusses dating, sex and relationships and how they relate to our current views of feminism and gender roles. A couple of comments particularly struck home with me.

We need to admit as a culture that teens are sexual beings, and that more often than not, sexual maturity has a completely different timeline than emotional maturity. This is, to be sure, skewed by sexism and restrictive gender roles to make sexual coming-of-age worse for girls. But beyond that, maybe discovering what you want sexually and emotionally is just part of growing up – and that’s okay.

Girls deserve to discover themselves sexually at their own pace, to be neither rushed into having sex nor shamed into not having it. They deserve to have their very own “This is bullshit” moments without wearing a chastity belt.

My only comment is something we’re in danger of forgetting: that (despite all the machismo) just the same applies to boys!  If anything it is more important for boys as they first have to slough off that machismo.

Psychology and the Shock of Nudity
This item on the Academic Natuirist weblog addresses the problem of guilt surrounding being discovered naked. For most people the one discovered appears to carry the guilt, which in the view of the writer (and me) is stupid. Again a couple of excepts:

Naturists have a different attitude … You’ve seen me naked? Good! That means I don’t have to get dressed next time you come over …Why should Alice feel bad about seeing Bob naked, if Bob didn’t care at all about it? Alice is not guilty of embarrassing Bob. 
[Equally why should Bob feel guilty at being seen naked if Alice doesn’t care about it? – Ed.]

Getting textiles to not feel guilty about seeing nudity would be a good step for general acceptance [of nudity] … Maybe we’re wrong about how we notify others? The signs … warn “ATTENTION – BEYOND THIS POINT YOU MAY ENCOUNTER NUDE BATHERS” Perhaps the right approach is something like “There’s friendly naked people beyond this sign, and we won’t mind if you stop over and chat with us!”

Naked People – Your Version
Finally a challenge. On 18 February Dairy of a Nudist invited us to take part in a new phase of Sebastian Kempa’s ongoing Naked People project: Naked People Your Version. All you have to do is to submit a pair of identically posed photos of yourself, one clothed the other nude. The idea is, of course, “to help further break down the barrier of clothing which society has imposed to imprison our natural bodies”. I’ve not yet submitted my photos, but I have every intention of doing so in the next week or so. Dare you? – For each one of you who convinces me you’ve submitted your photos (I may ask you for evidence; depends how well I know you!) I’ll make a small donation to charity.  Who’s up for it?

Tax Advice

Ken over at HMRC is Shite today highlights the apparent possibility of legislation which would ban anyone from giving tax advice which reduced the client’s tax bill. And the way the proposed legislation works this would mean no-one can do any tax work for anyone else.  Ken quotes the following clauses from the draft legislation:

“Tax agent
2 (1) A person is a tax agent if the person assists another person (a ‘client’) with the client’s tax affairs.
(2) A person may be a tax agent even if—
(a) the assistance is given free of charge,
(b) the assistance is given otherwise than in the course of business,
(c) the assistance is given indirectly to the client or at the request of someone other than the client, or
(d) the assistance is not given specifically to assist with the client’s tax affairs, but the person giving the assistance knows it will be used, or is likely to be used, for that purpose.
(3) Assistance with a client’s tax affairs includes assistance with any document that is likely to be relied on by HMRC to determine the client’s tax position.
(4) Assistance with a client’s tax affairs also includes—
(a) advising a client in relation to tax, and
(b) acting or purporting to act as agent on behalf of a client in relation to tax.
(5) If a client is assisted by more than one individual in a firm or business, each individual may be regarded as a separate tax agent.” 

This is craziness gone loony!  It is not just another long step towards a police state; I would put it in the very small class of things which I describe with a word I seldom use: obscene!  It would effectively mean that not only can I not discuss any financial matters with my 94 year old mother because even if all I say is “Put your money in an ISA” I am advising that she reduce her tax bill, which would now be an illegal act on my part.  Worse it means that I cannot even prepare my mother’s tax return for her even if she is unable to write or has dementia.  I’m sure that isn’t what is intended but that is certainly how I (and others; see Ken’s posting) read the words.  Now how crazy is that?!?!

WTF are they thinking?!?!?!

Mythbusters

The latest (March 2010) issue of the BBC’s popular science magazine Focus contains an article busting some of the world’s most common myths.  For example:

Goldfish have short memories. 
False; they have memories which last at least a week according to experiments.

Sugar makes kids hyperactive. 
Experimentally proven to be false.  But that’ll be about as popular a result as the finding that MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism.

Men with big feet have big penises. 
Sorry girls, also false, according to just about every survey ever conducted.  There is no reliable way to determine the size of a guy’s lingam without seeing it.  Enjoy!

At the end of the article they add a few new myths suggested by readers, including the following with rather zen qualities …

In the era of black and white films,the world was black and white.
According to which logic the world didn’t exist before films were invented.  Interesting idea for a thriller story though!

When you jump up, the world moves forwards a bit before you land, so you touch down in a slightly different place.
This is an old one and I’ll get into trouble with the science community here but I reckon this is actually true.  When you jump the world moves on, but so do you as you have angular momentum (essentially forward motion) from when you were attached to earth.  However you will, I suggest, be slowed very marginally by friction with (resistance from) the air and thus will land in a subtly different spot from where you jumped.  But this effect will be so tiny it will be unmeasurable even after a huge number of jumps.  So for all practical purposes this is also false.

People with outie belly buttons are more attracted to people with innie belly buttons because they fit together: like a jigsaw
Would that life were so simple.  But if it were around 80% of us would be single as outies make up only around 10% of the population.  And no-one knows why.

Every zebra, when scanned by a barcode reader, comes up as ‘frozen peas’.
Unless there is some strange default barcode which defaults to “frozen peas” (very unlikely) this can’t be true as a zebra’s stripes do not conform to the coding of thick and thin lines which make up a barcode.  But I love the zen quality of the idea.  Another good plot-line for a short story?

Anyone got any other new myths?

Law and Lawyers

Law and Lawyers is a new weblog, devoted to interesting UK legal things.  In the first post the writer quotes from Utopia by Sir Thomas Moore (1478-1535).  It bears repeating here:

They have but few laws, and such is their constitution that they need not many. They very much condemn other nations, whose laws, together with the commentaries on them, swell up to so many volumes; for they think it an unreasonable thing to oblige men to obey a body of laws that are both of such a bulk, and so dark as not to be read and understood by every one of the subjects.

They have no lawyers among them, for they consider them as a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters, and to wrest the laws; and therefore they think it is much better that every man should plead his own cause, and trust it to the judge, as in other places the client trusts it to a counsellor.

Every one of them is skilled in their law, for as it is a very short study, so the plainest meaning of which words are capable is always the sense of their laws. And they argue thus; all laws are promulgated for this end, that every man may know his duty; and therefore the plainest and most obvious sense of the words is that which ought to be put upon them.

UK government please note!

Advice for Pond Keepers

BBC News today has an item suggesting the the freezing over of ponds is actually good for them, contrary to apparent logic.

I see the basic logic behind the article, emphasising that freezing over could increase the oxygen levels in the water, although I would like to see some evidence of this being true.  However as a long-time pond keeper (aka. fish keeper) and as the moderator of an online aquatics forum, I would not agree with a number of the ideeas and suggestons made in the article which I think are potentially misleading (or worse) …

Received wisdom says that pond owners should break a hole in the ice to allow oxygen to reach the water.

NO!  Never break a hole in the ice.  They get it right later: “make a hole”.  Do this either by keeping an area clear (eg. with a football or a pond heater) or by melting a hole with hot water.  Never, never smash the ice if there are fish in the pond: the shock wave will likely kill the fish.

Making a hole in the ice makes very little difference to the amount of oxygen in this water

This is probably true, but a hole could make a difference if there is a concentration of other unwanted gasses in the pond water.

The only time that pond owners should intervene is if they own fish, or the bottom of their ponds are full of silt and dead leaves.  Then it is worth stirring up the water

Again I would disagree.  If you have fish, do NOT stir up the water.  The water may be layered into thermoclines with slightly warmer water at the bottom which will benefit the fish.  Moreover if you have fish and a silty bottom (!!) then disturbing the debris can release potentially toxic gasses like ammonia – it may also disturb hibernating amphibians.  If you’re going to stir up the bottom of your pond to remove detritus, then do it in mid-summer.

Flexible Working

Jilly, over at jillysheep, has touched today on the cultures which is part of current working life; cultures which mostly shouldn’t be there!  What follows is verbatim my comment to her post, reflectng my experience of this in a large IT company over the last 10-15 years.

I agree with your comments on working life. Flexibility should be a “no brainer” for most employers. It is 1991 since I worked in the same office as my immediate line manager; well over 10 years since I had my own desk; and 5 years since I went in the office out of routine. On average over my last year working I think I went into an office (not even my base office) just once a month. I could do everything from home with a laptop, broadband, instant messaging, phone, and audio-conferencing phone number (we didn’t even need video-conferencing!). In the rare instance I was sent hardcopy mail it was simply redirected to my home address; but 99.999% of everything (even payslips) was done electronically. And I was managing $5M projects with a team spread across the world – some of whom I never met face to face!

When you put the cost of the technology required against the cost of office space, employee morale (from increased flexibility), efficiencies, savings on travel (cost and time), etc. the payback is probably about 1 year, maybe less. Flexible and mobile/home working actually means you get more work done because people will do a bit extra here and there as long as they are trusted not to abuse the flexibility.

The killer is the long hours culture. And not just long hours in the office, but also people feeling that they have to work long hours at home too — evenings and weekends because it is always there. I used to regularly work a 50 hour week; easily done by starting a bit early, taking little time for lunch and working a little late. I was fairly disciplined about the hours I would and did work – and was still reckoned to be one of the most efficient and achieving project managers in the team! Anyone who needs to work 70 or 80 hours a week (and many of my colleagues did) is either very inefficient (=ineffective) or is being abused by their management with way too much work.

OK, there are of course jobs you can’t do remotely. Anything where objects, food, drink have to be handled (and that’s everything from factories and farms to hospitals and pubs) you need warm bodies on site. But that still doesn’t preclude flexible hours providing you can get the people scheduling right. But anything office based should be easily done from anywhere with current technology.

The challenge is the huge cultural change; let’s not underestimate that. Management have to learn to trust their people to do the hours to get the job done. The company has to be prepared to invest up-front in the technology (and some support staff); that’s an investment usually over several years but with significant paybacks in efficiency (not necessarily overall fewer jobs, just different ones). The people have to learn to do without the office; you have to find ways of allowing people to continue to have a virtual coffee together and gossip. People also have to learn to be trusted, which means not being closely supervised all the time and being a “self-starter”.

Of course, as with anything else, there are people who cannot hack the cultural change; who need the office because (typically) home is too distracting. And this is no respecter of age, gender, role or seniority. I know secretaries who happily work from home and senior directors who have to work in the office; and vice versa.

How the working word has changed even in the time I’ve been working! And what was the prime cause of all this? Ultimately I suspect the PC.

Professor Edward Schillebeeckx RIP

Yesterday’s Times carried a full page obituary of Professor Edward Schillebeeckx, who died just before Christmas at the age of 95.  Schillebeeckx was probably the greatest Christian theologian of our time and one of the influential thinkers behind the work of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

Although I’m now a non-Christian atheist, I was in my younger days for a while close to the Roman church and Schillebeeckx was certainly an influential thinker amongst more liberal and intellectual Catholics along with the even more controversial Teilhard de Chardin.

I am unworthy, indeed insufficiently knowledgeable, to make further comment and will leave you all to read the Times‘s most interesting obituary of Professor Schillebeeckx.

2009 Meme


2009 Meme, originally uploaded by kcm76.

This week’s Flickr meme is: For this coming New Year how about 12 pictures, one for each month of the old year (ie. 2009) to represent something about what happened to you that month. Here is my year in 12 pictures.

January: A new project boss; there were no prisoners taken
February: Snow
March: Daffodils; there’s hope at last
April: Spring blossom
May: Anthony Powell Society Collage Event
June: Attended the Garter Service at Windsor, thanks to our friend Richmond Herald
July: The company pension crisis broke, which has led me to early retirement from 5 January 2010
August: Was taken up with preparations for the conference and writing my conference paper
September: While in Washington DC for the Anthony Powell Conference we celebrated our 30th wedding anniversary — eeekkkkk!
October: Anthony Powell Society AGM at which Patric Dickinson (3rd from left in this old photo) spoke interestingly about Dorothy Varda
November: Beaujolais Nouveau est arrivée; an antidepressant is definitely required
December: More snow coincides with my last real working day
All in all an interesting year but a demanding and, at times, a stressful one.

As always the photographs are not mine (except for 3, 5, 10, 11 which are mine) so please click on individual links below to see each artist/photostream. This mosaic is for a group called My Meme, where each week there is a different theme and normally 12 questions to send you out on a hunt to discover photos to fit your meme. It gives you a chance to see and admire other great photographers’ work out there on Flickr.

1. Umm, Jack Hanna sure tastes good !, 2. Snow in the Chilterns, 3. Daffs, 4. Spring in Pink, 5. Power Collage, 6. Img0051768, 7. House of Cards, 8. Balloons just waiting to be blown up, 9. Flower Candy, 10. AP Soc Members at Wysall, 11. Anti-Depressant, 12. gloom, with more sheep

Created with fd’s Flickr Toys