We have long been able to take any form of transport and move holiday makers around the planet.
In the air with planes and airships and over land on trains and motorised vehicles and even over sea with ships, hovercrafts and boats.
One area that we don't seem eager to exploit is under the sea although we have long had the technology.
Submarines skim along under the water and are not affected by erupting volcanoes, high winds or snow yet apart from military purposes, we have not yet had anyone that has taken the submarine idea and turned it into a method to offer travellers to get from one point to another.
Possibly it is too expensive or there are other unseen reasons i have not considered why this has not been thought of but i see a great opportunity for someone to introduce a new form of transport that moves along beneath the waves.
If they do, remember who mentioned it first and i expect a mention in the history books.
.jpg)
Monday, 19 April 2010
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Iceland Erupting
There has been a long list of people who, while during difficult times, have burnt down there premises in order to claim on the insurance and clear themselves of debt.
Is it merely a coincidence that bankrupt Iceland now finds itself a burning mass of smoke and ash?
The biggest complication due to Iceland burning down is that the ash is being blown directly over Britain and most of western Europe forcing our planes to sit idly on the tarmac which is probably a good thing for air quality if it wasn't for the mass of volcanic outpouring filling the atmosphere instead.
Another drawback is that as no flights can get out or in, we are finding Brits stuck abroad and lots of other nationalities knocking about here moaning they can't get home.
The ferries are fully booked and the Eurotunnel is at capacity so unless you can get to mainland Europe and make your way to Spain or Southern France where the planes are still going, you are stuck here with us on this green and pleasant land for at least another couple of days.
It should be no problem for Americans because our television is pretty much full of American shows anyway and stranded Canadians can feel at home in any of the local zoo's which all have a seal enclosure. Please resist the urge to club them almost to death and skin them.
Any homesick Australians can just wander into any of our public houses and get as drunk as they would at home and Israelis can go along to White Hart Lane which has a large Jewish community and on most Saturdays you can also get to see a very shaky defensive wall just like you have back home.
Enjoy your time here and remember that the bit at the top and to the east are not England.
Is it merely a coincidence that bankrupt Iceland now finds itself a burning mass of smoke and ash?
The biggest complication due to Iceland burning down is that the ash is being blown directly over Britain and most of western Europe forcing our planes to sit idly on the tarmac which is probably a good thing for air quality if it wasn't for the mass of volcanic outpouring filling the atmosphere instead.
Another drawback is that as no flights can get out or in, we are finding Brits stuck abroad and lots of other nationalities knocking about here moaning they can't get home.
The ferries are fully booked and the Eurotunnel is at capacity so unless you can get to mainland Europe and make your way to Spain or Southern France where the planes are still going, you are stuck here with us on this green and pleasant land for at least another couple of days.
It should be no problem for Americans because our television is pretty much full of American shows anyway and stranded Canadians can feel at home in any of the local zoo's which all have a seal enclosure. Please resist the urge to club them almost to death and skin them.
Any homesick Australians can just wander into any of our public houses and get as drunk as they would at home and Israelis can go along to White Hart Lane which has a large Jewish community and on most Saturdays you can also get to see a very shaky defensive wall just like you have back home.
Enjoy your time here and remember that the bit at the top and to the east are not England.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Boring Debate #1
We have their toast, sticks and letters so i guess we may as well have France's Presidential debates as well and although i watched it, i'm not really sure what use they were.
The three politicians had their answers so polished they almost gleamed as they smiled in the right places and said the right things to the pre-picked questions.
Interestingly the programme that followed was Question Time where the audience get to fire questions at the politicians and generally give them a hard time which is much more informative to the viewer then the sterile talking shop we got.
Why Gordon Brown agreed to it is any ones guess because presentation is not his strongest point. He has the type of dour delivery that he makes everything sound like a particular boring shipping forecast.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg was always going to seem more interesting stood beside him, not because they are anymore entertaining, just by virtue of being alive.
The general consensus was that Liberal Democrat Clegg won the night with Gordon Brown a distant third although much of that was because while the Labour and Conservatives concentrated on trying to trip each other up, the cactus burning Clegg stood at the end and got away relatively unscathed.
As a sop to Rupert Murdoch, the next debate is on Sky TV which means the viewing figures for the second show will be disappointing although i do question how much use there is to watching the three of them repeat parrot fashion lines that they have been practising since the debate idea was first mentioned.
All i learnt was that when it comes to questioning members of Parliament, the public given a free hand, do it much better.
The three politicians had their answers so polished they almost gleamed as they smiled in the right places and said the right things to the pre-picked questions.
Interestingly the programme that followed was Question Time where the audience get to fire questions at the politicians and generally give them a hard time which is much more informative to the viewer then the sterile talking shop we got.
Why Gordon Brown agreed to it is any ones guess because presentation is not his strongest point. He has the type of dour delivery that he makes everything sound like a particular boring shipping forecast.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg was always going to seem more interesting stood beside him, not because they are anymore entertaining, just by virtue of being alive.
The general consensus was that Liberal Democrat Clegg won the night with Gordon Brown a distant third although much of that was because while the Labour and Conservatives concentrated on trying to trip each other up, the cactus burning Clegg stood at the end and got away relatively unscathed.
As a sop to Rupert Murdoch, the next debate is on Sky TV which means the viewing figures for the second show will be disappointing although i do question how much use there is to watching the three of them repeat parrot fashion lines that they have been practising since the debate idea was first mentioned.
All i learnt was that when it comes to questioning members of Parliament, the public given a free hand, do it much better.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Listen to Liam
When i was younger i would sit in the kitchen with my finger hovering over the pause button of the tape deck while Radio 1 played the Top 40. For most of my youth all my cassettes had songs with Gary Davis speaking on the end of them.
To me, this is exactly the same as downloading MP3's off the internet and i have never bought into the downloading is killing music shtick. Almost every record i paid for in the pre-digital era had a warning that home taping was killing music and as far as i can tell it never did.
Kids will grab free music anyway they can, we all did, whether it was taken off the radio or by swapping the Frankie Goes to Hollywood album for your friends Madness one so you can tape it.
This view brings me into an uneasy alliance with Liam Gallagher who today launched into a rant at stars who moan about illegal file sharing.
He said: ‘Downloading's the same as what I used to do - I used to tape the charts of the songs I liked (from the radio). I don't mind it. I hate all these big, silly rock stars who moan - at least they're f**king downloading your music, you c**t, and paying attention, know what I mean? You should f**king appreciate that - what are you moaning about? You've got f**king five big houses, so shut up.’
Not exactly eloquent but his gist is a lot more sweary version of how i feel.
The record companies are making massive profits and the stars are ridiculously well paid so why begrudge some kid getting their music for free rather than paying the 79p to download it of which the star would only make a tiny fraction of with the lions share going to the record company?
Yes Liam is a royal prat, but i'm with him on this one.
To me, this is exactly the same as downloading MP3's off the internet and i have never bought into the downloading is killing music shtick. Almost every record i paid for in the pre-digital era had a warning that home taping was killing music and as far as i can tell it never did.
Kids will grab free music anyway they can, we all did, whether it was taken off the radio or by swapping the Frankie Goes to Hollywood album for your friends Madness one so you can tape it.
This view brings me into an uneasy alliance with Liam Gallagher who today launched into a rant at stars who moan about illegal file sharing.
He said: ‘Downloading's the same as what I used to do - I used to tape the charts of the songs I liked (from the radio). I don't mind it. I hate all these big, silly rock stars who moan - at least they're f**king downloading your music, you c**t, and paying attention, know what I mean? You should f**king appreciate that - what are you moaning about? You've got f**king five big houses, so shut up.’
Not exactly eloquent but his gist is a lot more sweary version of how i feel.
The record companies are making massive profits and the stars are ridiculously well paid so why begrudge some kid getting their music for free rather than paying the 79p to download it of which the star would only make a tiny fraction of with the lions share going to the record company?
Yes Liam is a royal prat, but i'm with him on this one.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Arresting the Pope
In one of his series of lectures, Mark Steel tells of a 14th poll tax introduced by the monarchy of the day to pay for their ongoing wars with France.
The tax was levied on each person in England over the age of 14 but as the tax collectors didn't know how many people were in each household, a rule was passed so the tax collectors could decide if a person was over 14 by checking if they had pubic hair and to allay any fears, all checks carried out by the local Catholic priests.
Move on 650 years or so and it seems that the Priests are still doing it which is why the Catholic Church, and the Pope, finds itself under such attack today and rightly so.
Dismissed initially as petty gossip, a letter from Pope Benedict, then plain old Joseph Ratzinger and deputy at the Vatican doctrinal office, has emerged where he told Wisconsin Bishops to drop a Church trial for a priest with a record of molesting children to protect the reputation of the Church for which it would have grave significance if it become public.
Now Ratzinger has the top job and the pressure is on him to resign which of course he won't so i truly hope that the attempt by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to have the Pope arrested and put on trial for the covering-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church when he lands here in September succeeds.
The Vatican has already suggested the pope is immune from prosecution because he is a head of state but the duo are arguing that because he is not the head of a state with full United Nations membership (the Vatican has only observer status), he does not hold immunity and can be arrested.
As a German and former Nazi youth of the Third Reich, he should be fully aware that as an officer of state he is responsible for all actions carried out by those under his authority.
It should make it an entertaining September this year.
The tax was levied on each person in England over the age of 14 but as the tax collectors didn't know how many people were in each household, a rule was passed so the tax collectors could decide if a person was over 14 by checking if they had pubic hair and to allay any fears, all checks carried out by the local Catholic priests.
Move on 650 years or so and it seems that the Priests are still doing it which is why the Catholic Church, and the Pope, finds itself under such attack today and rightly so.
Dismissed initially as petty gossip, a letter from Pope Benedict, then plain old Joseph Ratzinger and deputy at the Vatican doctrinal office, has emerged where he told Wisconsin Bishops to drop a Church trial for a priest with a record of molesting children to protect the reputation of the Church for which it would have grave significance if it become public.
Now Ratzinger has the top job and the pressure is on him to resign which of course he won't so i truly hope that the attempt by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to have the Pope arrested and put on trial for the covering-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church when he lands here in September succeeds.
The Vatican has already suggested the pope is immune from prosecution because he is a head of state but the duo are arguing that because he is not the head of a state with full United Nations membership (the Vatican has only observer status), he does not hold immunity and can be arrested.
As a German and former Nazi youth of the Third Reich, he should be fully aware that as an officer of state he is responsible for all actions carried out by those under his authority.
It should make it an entertaining September this year.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Cause or solution?
Unless i am very much mistaken, the purpose of Capitalism is the use of wealth to create more wealth.
Of course this is most beneficial to the people who have wealth in the first place and a bit more of a struggle if you haven't got the proverbial pot to go in to start with.
The general idea is that the money will trickle down from the top and everyone will benefit, even those at the bottom.
Nice idea in theory but due to human nature which is basically selfish, it would be safe to say this hasn't really been happening and the trickle down has been at the minimum the wealth owners could get away with.
A classic example is the minimum wage here in the United Kingdom which was fought against tooth and nail by the bosses who refused to introduce it voluntarily until forced to by the incoming 1997 Labour Government.
The collapse of industry and wholesale closures that we had been warned would occur if a minimum wage was introduced didn't happen and now it is accepted that bosses can no longer offer insulting wages in the knowledge that they would still fill the vacancy.
What this shows is that we cannot trust businessmen to look out for the best interests of us and they need to be watched. The banks are finally being bought to book after years of treating their customers as cash cows with extortionate fees and the mis-selling of protection plans.
The bottom line is the same as my first line, the purpose is to use their wealth to create more wealth.
At some point there will be a crunch because as more of the money continues to go upwards, there will be less left to go downwards and we are already in a position where people are actually dying because they can't afford to heat their homes in winter and scandalously, we are not rioting in the streets about it, just seem to accept and see where we can trim back to accommodate the hike in our utilities.
Maybe Capitalism has run its course and although it lifted many out of poverty initially, it seems that it now is the cause of more problems than it solves as it chases bigger profits at the expense of those benefiting from Capitalism the least.
Of course this is most beneficial to the people who have wealth in the first place and a bit more of a struggle if you haven't got the proverbial pot to go in to start with.
The general idea is that the money will trickle down from the top and everyone will benefit, even those at the bottom.
Nice idea in theory but due to human nature which is basically selfish, it would be safe to say this hasn't really been happening and the trickle down has been at the minimum the wealth owners could get away with.
A classic example is the minimum wage here in the United Kingdom which was fought against tooth and nail by the bosses who refused to introduce it voluntarily until forced to by the incoming 1997 Labour Government.
The collapse of industry and wholesale closures that we had been warned would occur if a minimum wage was introduced didn't happen and now it is accepted that bosses can no longer offer insulting wages in the knowledge that they would still fill the vacancy.
What this shows is that we cannot trust businessmen to look out for the best interests of us and they need to be watched. The banks are finally being bought to book after years of treating their customers as cash cows with extortionate fees and the mis-selling of protection plans.
The bottom line is the same as my first line, the purpose is to use their wealth to create more wealth.
At some point there will be a crunch because as more of the money continues to go upwards, there will be less left to go downwards and we are already in a position where people are actually dying because they can't afford to heat their homes in winter and scandalously, we are not rioting in the streets about it, just seem to accept and see where we can trim back to accommodate the hike in our utilities.
Maybe Capitalism has run its course and although it lifted many out of poverty initially, it seems that it now is the cause of more problems than it solves as it chases bigger profits at the expense of those benefiting from Capitalism the least.
Friday, 9 April 2010
No going back to vinyl
There seems to be a constant lament from music lovers of my generation for the demise of the vinyl record hence the Record Store Day where Parlophone are releasing 7" versions of some of their biggest bands.
Maybe i am alone but i had built up quite a large stock of vinyl records throughout my youth and i don't think i had a single one that didn't jump, hiss or stick at some point and it would drive me crazy.
My friend showed me that by blu-tacking a 2p coin to the top of the stylus, you could avoid all but the most deepest of scratches but it always seemed that no matter how careful you were, you would somehow get a nick on the surface and have to lift the needle over that part of the song.
I was more than happy when vinyl was replaced by Compact Discs where the sound was much crisper and i could actually listen to Two Tribes without hearing Holly Johnson stutter about how a point is all that you can sc-sc-sc-sc-sc-sc-sc-sc...
I put this down to selective memory from those wallowing in nostalgia for vinyl records. In practise they were clumsy things you had to cradle lovingly in order to work properly and no teenage bedroom was complete without these black circles thrown haphazardly around the place beneath discarded jeans, trainers and cereal bowls.
Just like the computers with cassette tapes and those large clunky VHS video recorders, you may look back fondly at them but you wouldn't want to swap your laptop or your DVD player for them.
Let's leave vinyl back in the past and stop pretending it was in anyway superior to today's formats.
Maybe i am alone but i had built up quite a large stock of vinyl records throughout my youth and i don't think i had a single one that didn't jump, hiss or stick at some point and it would drive me crazy.
My friend showed me that by blu-tacking a 2p coin to the top of the stylus, you could avoid all but the most deepest of scratches but it always seemed that no matter how careful you were, you would somehow get a nick on the surface and have to lift the needle over that part of the song.
I was more than happy when vinyl was replaced by Compact Discs where the sound was much crisper and i could actually listen to Two Tribes without hearing Holly Johnson stutter about how a point is all that you can sc-sc-sc-sc-sc-sc-sc-sc...
I put this down to selective memory from those wallowing in nostalgia for vinyl records. In practise they were clumsy things you had to cradle lovingly in order to work properly and no teenage bedroom was complete without these black circles thrown haphazardly around the place beneath discarded jeans, trainers and cereal bowls.
Just like the computers with cassette tapes and those large clunky VHS video recorders, you may look back fondly at them but you wouldn't want to swap your laptop or your DVD player for them.
Let's leave vinyl back in the past and stop pretending it was in anyway superior to today's formats.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
UK election decisions
The Queen has spoken and the UK election is finally underway sparking reams of items about how Labour is out on its ear or doing really well depending on which newspaper you read.
By nature i'm a Labour voter but since the Iraq War, i can't bring myself to vote for them until all remnants of that tainted cabinet have been expunged. It really irks me how they speak out afterwards but went along with it at the time. Good riddance i say.
David Cameron has sent everyone in my city a letter explaining just how great the Conservative candidate is and why we should vote for her but in the same postbag, a letter from the current Liberal Democrat candidate setting how just what he has done for the city during the last 5 years and why we should keep him. Labour are a distant third and the candidate doesn't even bother contesting it very hard.
It's all very confusing because i am of the opinion that they are all a bunch of shysters but i have to vote for one of them and politics is such a bad way that we are having to choose from which party has been the least corrupt and sleazy. The best of a bad lot where even the best is still rotten, but possibly not as rotten.
After the first term, Labour has been a disaster and Cameron strikes me as a Thatcher clone who will look after his rich pals before anyone else and the Liberal Democrats are just there to make up the numbers really.
What we need is a none of the above on our voting slips but the sad truth is one of them will be making the decisions for the next five years and i don't trust any of them to do it.
Democracy sucks when the only choices are between continuing to get shafted by one guy or to get shafted by the new guy.
By nature i'm a Labour voter but since the Iraq War, i can't bring myself to vote for them until all remnants of that tainted cabinet have been expunged. It really irks me how they speak out afterwards but went along with it at the time. Good riddance i say.
David Cameron has sent everyone in my city a letter explaining just how great the Conservative candidate is and why we should vote for her but in the same postbag, a letter from the current Liberal Democrat candidate setting how just what he has done for the city during the last 5 years and why we should keep him. Labour are a distant third and the candidate doesn't even bother contesting it very hard.
It's all very confusing because i am of the opinion that they are all a bunch of shysters but i have to vote for one of them and politics is such a bad way that we are having to choose from which party has been the least corrupt and sleazy. The best of a bad lot where even the best is still rotten, but possibly not as rotten.
After the first term, Labour has been a disaster and Cameron strikes me as a Thatcher clone who will look after his rich pals before anyone else and the Liberal Democrats are just there to make up the numbers really.
What we need is a none of the above on our voting slips but the sad truth is one of them will be making the decisions for the next five years and i don't trust any of them to do it.
Democracy sucks when the only choices are between continuing to get shafted by one guy or to get shafted by the new guy.
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Who is the real enemy?
In the Metro newspaper today, on the same page are two stories. At the top of the page is the headline, Seven killed in Taliban attack on US consulate. Below that story the headline, Ten dead in NATO attack.
Seems that when it comes to killing civilians, we are just a bit better at it than the Taliban.
Of course, the argument goes that the Taliban deliberately target civilians while our killings are horrible mistakes although that theory flies out the window with the video being played on Sky News that shows Americans in an Apache helicopter opening fire on a group of innocent Iraqi civilians, killing 12.
I'm not sure how seeing this would make an Iraqi feel but i'm not an Iraqi and i get angry as i watch it i wish there was somebody there with a RPG to take out the damned helicopter and stop the madmen with their machine guns.
The problem has been from the very start of both Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the invaders (us and America) just don't seem to have any regard for the people we went there to protect, bring democracy or whatever the reasons we were told we went there for.
We bomb from so far up, or away in the case of the drones, that it is inevitable we will kill many civilians and we have read countless reports on us killing civilians at wedding parties or firing upon houses because we assume some Taliban leader is holed up there only to later find he had nicked off earlier and the only people we killed were innocent bystanders.
I don't know the numbers but i would guess that we have killed just as many civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan as Al Qeauda and the Taliban in there respective countries since the whole mess began.
This is why both these tragic and misguided wars are unwinnable, because how can you get people to support you when you keep killing them?
Not only should we not be there, we are doing even more damage by sticking around.
Seems that when it comes to killing civilians, we are just a bit better at it than the Taliban.
Of course, the argument goes that the Taliban deliberately target civilians while our killings are horrible mistakes although that theory flies out the window with the video being played on Sky News that shows Americans in an Apache helicopter opening fire on a group of innocent Iraqi civilians, killing 12.
I'm not sure how seeing this would make an Iraqi feel but i'm not an Iraqi and i get angry as i watch it i wish there was somebody there with a RPG to take out the damned helicopter and stop the madmen with their machine guns.
The problem has been from the very start of both Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the invaders (us and America) just don't seem to have any regard for the people we went there to protect, bring democracy or whatever the reasons we were told we went there for.
We bomb from so far up, or away in the case of the drones, that it is inevitable we will kill many civilians and we have read countless reports on us killing civilians at wedding parties or firing upon houses because we assume some Taliban leader is holed up there only to later find he had nicked off earlier and the only people we killed were innocent bystanders.
I don't know the numbers but i would guess that we have killed just as many civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan as Al Qeauda and the Taliban in there respective countries since the whole mess began.
This is why both these tragic and misguided wars are unwinnable, because how can you get people to support you when you keep killing them?
Not only should we not be there, we are doing even more damage by sticking around.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Lance Corporal Beharry
Well done a big pat on the back to the figure of restraint that is Lance Corporal Beharry who has been telling of how he wanted to 'knock out' the Prime Minister for not showing enough respect for the armed forces.
It seems that the Prime Minister had the temerity to fidget during a two minute silence which so raised the ire of the obviously in control former soldier that he felt compelled to reach for the physical violence option.
What this intelligent and highly articulated response shows is that people like Lance Corporal Beharry are the last people we should be handing powerful weapons to and letting loose among other nations.
If he can't keep it together because somebody dared to fidget, then i'm sure he would be an amazing asset with such a cool head during a conflict.
The Sun newspaper, with it's tales of how Gordon Brown has broken Britain and it's scouring of the land for bad news to highlight, has now given it's front page to a violent thug who just happens to be a Lance Corporal.
If this came from any other profession, the Sun would be holding them up as an example of chav culture or violent Britain but then Rupert Murdoch must be getting a little worried because he threw his lot in with the Conservatives just as it's popularity plummeted.
It can't rag him over Iraq because the newspaper backed him, or rather Blair, at the time so it is having to get other people to fight their battles such as the very articulate Lance Corporal Beharry who has either been misquoted, has been wearing his helmet too tight or is presently handing out Chinese burns to anyone who doesn't move quick enough in the queue in Tesco.
It seems that the Prime Minister had the temerity to fidget during a two minute silence which so raised the ire of the obviously in control former soldier that he felt compelled to reach for the physical violence option.
What this intelligent and highly articulated response shows is that people like Lance Corporal Beharry are the last people we should be handing powerful weapons to and letting loose among other nations.
If he can't keep it together because somebody dared to fidget, then i'm sure he would be an amazing asset with such a cool head during a conflict.
The Sun newspaper, with it's tales of how Gordon Brown has broken Britain and it's scouring of the land for bad news to highlight, has now given it's front page to a violent thug who just happens to be a Lance Corporal.
If this came from any other profession, the Sun would be holding them up as an example of chav culture or violent Britain but then Rupert Murdoch must be getting a little worried because he threw his lot in with the Conservatives just as it's popularity plummeted.
It can't rag him over Iraq because the newspaper backed him, or rather Blair, at the time so it is having to get other people to fight their battles such as the very articulate Lance Corporal Beharry who has either been misquoted, has been wearing his helmet too tight or is presently handing out Chinese burns to anyone who doesn't move quick enough in the queue in Tesco.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)