The Alarming Cost of 'Green'

The news yesterday that the UK's Prime Minister and his government are considering reducing the tax on energy generators and suppliers because of the impact these have had on energy prices, is welcome, but it will not be popular among the terminally ideological 'global warming' promoters and their supporters. The problem is that all this effort to 'control' the climate is a waste of time, and worse, it is an expensive vanity project. One that is pouring taxpayers and energy users money into the coffers of certain "green" orgainisations. I recently learned that Greenpeace is the owner of a number of wind farms and has major share holding in several 'green energy' suppliers - all of whom are in receipt of major subsidies from various governments.

But energy is just the tip of a very large mountain these organisations are constructing for us. One which is already causing some severe damage to economies in the west.

Yesterday I got tired of hearing the likes of Al Gore, various Australian "Greens" and a Greenpeace 'spokesperson' spouting total garbage about the latest series of disastrous bush fires in New South Wales being definitely the result of Climate Change/Global Warming. My ire was really raised when that journal from which I have long derived so much pleasure and information, the National Geographic, prints an article of truly alarmist garbage which included the statement that we are 'on course for an average global temperature of 50 degrees', completely ignoring the fact that to achieve this  would require a uniform temperature distribution and probably an atmospheric concentration of Carbon Dioxide that would wipe out animal life.

What all of these commentators refuse to acknowledge on every issue, is that their refusal, in Australia, to allow regular and managed control of the highly inflammable vegetation the continent is infested by, guarantees that every ten years or so, there will be exactly these sorts of mega-fires. Coupled with the ever increasing exposure of property and people to these hazards, guarantees that there will be massive property losses and life risks. But, of course, it isn't the fault of not allowing sensible bush management. No. Not at all. In their minds, its all because of Anthropomorphic Climate Change.

In these people's speeches one never hears of the role the oceans play in the climate. Oceanographers, and a small number of climatologists know that the major engine driving the climate is the massive expanse of ocean covering the planet. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the matching Atlantic bodies move and their position determines who gets hot weather, where the rain and snow fall and so on. Similar engines in the Great Southern Ocean determine where the rain hits - either Australia or South America in the Pacific basin, or Southern Africa and the eastern side of South America in the Atlantic. Another similar circulation in the Indian Ocean decides who gets hammered by the monsoon rains.Talk to an oceanographer, not to a Greenpeace mouthpiece or Al Gore. Get the facts, look at all the evidence, don't just assume that because some 'expert' says it, its true - he or she may be vying for a nice research grant handout and will say whatever will secure it.

I get tired of hearing that the damage along the US East Coast as a result of Sandy, the super storm (it had ceased to be a 'Hurricane' by the time it came ashore) was 'proof' that sea levels are rising. If you build on the seaward face of a dune field, and there's a storm, expect damage. As for the sea levels 'rising' in New York, there is a geographic explanation. The surface load of buildings, people and traffic on Manhattan is actually causing the island to 'sink' slightly. The Tide Gauge used to detect the rise is over a 100 years old and has never been recalibrated. This is often pointed out by geologists, but always brushed aside by the climatists who prefer their version and whose intractably anti-human attitudes are costing western society its economies, jobs, technological development and the ability to move forward.

At every turn, if we examine the costs of "green" policies, actions and restrictions we find that the cost far exceeds any supposed benefit. Indeed, the actions are frequently making the problems worse, so what exactly is the point?

Frankly, I begin to think that the majority of those who support the 'green' cause are responding to emotive and selected propaganda, not to a balanced image of the facts. They often don't know that CO2 is a 'trace' gas and fall for Gore's hyped numbers which are at best misleading. They don't understand that more CO2 means more plant growth, thus addressing one of the 'concerns' they espouse of 'global famine'. They don't know that their favourite NGOs and protest organisations involving them in 'direct action' are multi-million pound enterprises, managed and directed by ideologues who draw down massive salaries and perks - frequently also radical anti-society campaigners with anti-capitalist credentials.

Why is Greenpeace so opposed to the cleanest energy available - nuclear? It wouldn't have anything to do with their top directors all having CND credentials now would it? Why no mention of the ecological damage and cost of building wind farms, barrages or solar panels? It wouldn't have anything to do with the millions they and Greenpeace et al make from their investments in these industries now would it? Perish the thought.

It is time to call a halt to this self indulgent campaigning by the ill-informed and misguided, manipulated by some very shady ideological figures who have taken control of some well-intentioned movements. There are vast amounts of money to be made - for them - and the rest of us are being fleeced by their scam. Mr Cameron wants to remove the tax on the energy companies, but instead of removing it entirely, he plans to shift it to the 'general' tax base.

Yes, the Directors of Greenpeace and all the other 'Green' organisations are laughing all the way to the bank. They have a Goose laying Golden Eggs for them, it's names are Climate Change and Anthropomorphic Global Warming, and, until those who believe their propaganda and rally to demand 'something must be done' at every turn wise up and start checking the facts - we're all going to pay to make a small group rich, and destroy our own economic position into the bargain.

The Young Person's Guide to the SATB Choir

The SATB Choir is the standard formation for choral work in most Churches, Oratarios and major classical works, and it does have a full, rich sound to it. But, how does it work, and how is it composed? I found the following recently thanks to a friend. I'm unashamedly reposting it here.

THE YOUNG PERSON'S GUIDE TO THE SATB CHOIR In any chorus, there are four voice parts: soprano, alto, tenor, and bass. Sometimes these are divided into first and second within each part, prompting endless jokes about first and second basses. There are also various other parts such as baritone, countertenor, contralto, mezzo soprano, etc., but these are mostly used by people who are either soloists, or belong to some excessively hotshot classical a cappella group (this applies especially to countertenors), or are trying to make excuses for not really fitting into any of the regular voice parts, so we will ignore them for now.
Each voice part sings in a different range, and each one has a very different personality. You may ask, "Why should singing different notes make people act differently?", and indeed this is a mysterious question and has not been adequately studied, especially since scientists who study musicians tend to be musicians themselves and have all the peculiar complexes that go with being tenors, french horn players, timpanists, or whatever. However, this is beside the point; the fact remains that the four voice parts can be easily distinguished, and I will now explain how.
THE SOPRANOS are the ones who sing the highest, and because of this they think they rule the world. They have longer hair, fancier jewelry, and swishier skirts than anyone else, and they consider themselves insulted if they are not allowed to go at least to a high F in every movement of any given piece. When they reach the high notes, they hold them for at least half again as long as the composer and/or conductor requires, and then complain that their throats are killing them and that the composer and conductor are sadists. Sopranos have varied attitudes toward the other sections of the chorus, though they consider all of them inferior. Altos are to sopranos rather like second violins to first violins - nice to harmonize with, but not really necessary. All sopranos have a secret feeling that the altos could drop out and the piece would sound essentially the same, and they don't understand why anybody would sing in that range in the first place - it's so boring. Tenors, on the other hand, can be very nice to have around; besides their flirtation possibilities (it is a well-known fact that sopranos never flirt with basses), sopranos like to sing duets with tenors because all the tenors are doing is working very hard to sing in a low-to-medium soprano range, while the sopranos are up there in the stratosphere showing off. To sopranos, basses are the scum of the earth - they sing too damn loud, are useless to tune to because they're down in that low, low range - and there has to be something wrong with anyone who sings in the F clef, anyway.
THE ALTOS are the salt of the earth - in their opinion, at least. Altos are unassuming people, who would wear jeans to concerts if they were allowed to. Altos are in a unique position in the chorus in that they are unable to complain about having to sing either very high or very low, and they know that all the other sections think their parts are pitifully easy. But the altos know otherwise. They know that while the sopranos are screeching away on a high A, they are being forced to sing elaborate passages full of sharps and flats and tricks of rhythm, and nobody is noticing because the sopranos are singing too loud (and the basses usually are too). Altos get a deep, secret pleasure out of conspiring together to tune the sopranos flat. Altos have an innate distrust of tenors, because the tenors sing in almost the same range and think they sound better. They like the basses, and enjoy singing duets with them - the basses just sound like a rumble anyway, and it's the only time the altos can really be heard. Altos' other complaint is that there are always too many of them and so they never get to sing really loud.
THE TENORS are spoiled. That's all there is to it. For one thing, there are never enough of them, and choir directors would rather sell their souls than let a halfway decent tenor quit, while they're always ready to unload a few altos at half price. And then, for some reason, the few tenors there are are always really good - it's one of those annoying facts of life.. So it's no wonder that tenors always get swollen heads - after all, who else can make sopranos swoon? The one thing that can make tenors insecure is the accusation (usually by the basses) that anyone singing that high couldn't possibly be a real man.. In their usual perverse fashion, the tenors never acknowledge this, but just complain louder about the composer being a sadist and making them sing so damn high. Tenors have a love-hate relationship with the conductor, too, because the conductor is always telling them to sing louder because there are so few of them. No conductor in recorded history has ever asked for less tenor in a forte passage. Tenors feel threatened in some way by all the other sections - the sopranos because they can hit those incredibly high notes; the altos because they have no trouble singing the notes the tenors kill themselves for; and the basses because, although they can't sing anything above an E, they sing it loud enough to drown the tenors out. Of course, the tenors would rather die than admit any of this. It is a little-known fact that tenors move their eyebrows more than anyone else while singing.
THE BASSES sing the lowest of anybody. This basically explains everything. They are stolid, dependable people, and have more facial hair than anybody else. The basses feel perpetually unappreciated, but they have a deep conviction that they are actually the most important part (a view endorsed by musicologists, but certainly not by sopranos or tenors), despite the fact that they have the most boring part of anybody and often sing the same note (or in endless fifths) for an entire page. They compensate for this by singing as loudly as they can get away with - most basses are tuba players at heart. Basses are the only section that can regularly complain about how low their part is, and they make horrible faces when trying to hit very low notes. Basses are charitable people, but their charity does not extend so far as tenors, whom they consider effete poseurs. Basses hate tuning the tenors more than almost anything else. Basses like altos - except when they have duets and the altos get the good part. As for the sopranos, they are simply in an alternate universe which the basses don't understand at all. They can't imagine why anybody would ever want to sing that high and sound that bad when they make mistakes. When a bass makes a mistake, the other three parts will cover him, and he can continue on his merry way, knowing that sometime, somehow, he will end up at the root of the chord.

Source: Choir Jokes from Comedy Corner

I'll confess to being a totally untrained Bass, often used as a 'filler' in a chorus (to make up the volume) who could, once, reach the lowest part of the Bass 'range' (Bottom F) but always struggled to get above Middle C ... Made it interesting leading worship sometimes!

Now there's a surprise ...

Over the last couple of days I have been reading reports of cars being damaged in the City of London, by sunlight reflected and focused on them by a new building under construction there. The building, nicknamed the "Walkie-Talkie" has fully glazed facades on all four sides. The difference between this building and other fully glazed structures in the City is that it has a concave profile to its outer walls. Those of my readers who have, in a misspent youth, played with a shaving mirror, will know that the concave reflective surface has an interesting property when one gets it to reflect sunlight onto something at just the right focal distance.

It seems that the architect has managed to achieve exactly the right focal distance between his building and the parking spaces in that section of Fenchurch Street. The result is some very expensive damage to luxury cars parked there. If the reports I've read are correct, someone in the construction team noticed this some time ago - because the developers aren't putting up a fight about it. They just pay for the damage and hope you'll not make a fuss. Now that it has reached the press of course, the City has reacted, and closed the affected parking area. The worrying part is this, no one appears to be considering the affect walking along the pavement there may have on someone should the reflected light hit their eyes, or the impact of such intense heating on the structures nearby.

We have long known that tall buildings, their services, the tarmac and concrete roads and pavements and the reflected light can cause local 'weather anomalies' around them. It is equally well known that more tarmac, more buildings and paved surfaces, cause a rise in local temperatures and, when it rains, increase the 'run-off' raising the risks of flooding. Since antiquity it has been known (Archimedes is reported to have built a weapon on the principle) that a mirror big enough and with the right curvature, can focus light to an intensity sufficient to blind and burn soldiers and - according to ancient reports - set ships on fire. As far back as the 1960s experiments showed that banks of mirrors could focus light on a 'target' - usually an arrangement of tubes filled with liquid - the produce steam and generate electricity with a turbine, so we really shouldn't be surprised that a building focusing light onto parked cars can melt the plastic trim. The surprise is that it 'only' melted it. Those 1960s experiments showed you could actually melt metals with that rig. It wasn't dubbed a "solar furnace" for nothing.

This development raises an important question for me, and perhaps it should raise it for the professions as well. The question is this: Does no one carry out an analysis of the impact of creating a structure which reflects light onto adjoining properties and surfaces? It does sometimes seem that almost everything else is considered (often in isolation and by different 'specialists' who often don't consider anyone elses reports or work), yet I have, in the past, often been astonished that some highly qualified professionals don't understand (or see) some fairly basic issues which can, and do, impact on what they propose.

Hopefully this Archimedian Mirror building will draw attention to the need to think a lot more carefully about the way so many today ignore every other discipline and focus only on their own comfort zone of knowledge. From the press I understand the designer and the developer are trying to find ways to 'mitigate' the problem. I'd suggest its a little late, this should have been identified at the design stage. Any 'mitigation' is likely to introduce some new problem somewhere else.

Who Built a Pyramid in the Sea of Galilee?

Archaeologists are trying to raise the money to examine a strange structure roughly half a kilometer from the shore of the Sea of Gaililee. The submerged structure is conical and apparnetly man-made. It is not entirely unknown to locals, and it appears the archaeologists have known about it for some time as well. The problem is that to examine it would require working underwater at depths down to 15 metres. That limits the time anyone can work and to complicate things, the Sea is full of fine silt. Any movement disturbs this and the already murky water becomes even more opaque.

The experts are convinced the structure is man-made, but that raises a number of important questions, not least being when? That's quickly followed by "why" and "who"?

What is certain is that none of these questions will be answered until someone does undertake a close examination of the structure - and that is going to take a lot of time and money. As I understand it, the Sea of Galilee has exosted within its present shoreline for roughly 15,000 years. The 'cone' is made up of around 60,000 tons of local stone, which will have taken a lot of manpower to shift. The base is buried in silt, but roughy 12 metres of it is above the silt and it rises to within 3 metres of the surface.

Although it has been 'local knowledge' for a long time, it was only recently that a sonar survey of the lake revealed its all too regular shape and structure. Now it remains only to raise the millions of Dollars, Dinar or Pounds it will need to carry out the careful and detailed examination it calls for.

More can be read at Talking Points under "Submerged Structure Beneath Sea of Galilee".

The Sins of the Fathers ...

In studying my father and grandfathers' histories I may have stumbled on something which explains a lot about my childhood relationships with all three and may, in fact, suggest a line of research into the  diverse responses in many western societies of the post-War generations. If someone reading this would like to give me loads of research funding and some research assistants, I'm sure I could develop a credible doctoral thesis on this theme.

Looking back at my father's problems health-wise, in relationships and in his dealings with people generally, I realised that quite a lot of these were directly related to his own childhood and then compounded by his experiences in World War 2 - three years of which were spent fighting the Japanese in Burma, the East Indies and the Indian Ocean. He saw all manner of horrors, starting right at the outset in his basic training when HMS Hecla, a submarine 'mother' ship, arrived in Simonstown after being mined. The Trainees, many of them barely 18, were sent into the flooded compartments to retrieve the bodies that had been in them for almost ten days.

Posted to the battleship HMS Barham, the experience on HMS Hecla was to be repeated when the battleship was torpedoed at Diego Saurez by a Japanese mini-sub and one of Barham's main magazines  caught fire and had to be flooded to save the ship. As she was 'closed up' to action stations at the time, the magazine was manned. The men in it drowned or were burned or both. It was two weeks before the ship could be brought into the floating dock in Durban and, once again, the junior rates got the job ...

My maternal grandfather had a very bad time in WW1, having run away from home to join up aged 15 (his father was Colour Sergeant of the Royal Irish Rifles), he was nearly killed on the first day of the Somme. He survived three days in a shell hole only because his wounds had become infested with maggots. When he and his lifelong best friend were eventually retrieved - having been found by chance by a burial party - they were not considered likely to survive and so did not lose any limbs, which the wounds they had would normally have been treated by amputation. They survived that to be judged 'unfit' for the infantry, but 'fit' to become Gunners. The slaughter of "Flander's Fields," followed by the Irish Civil War, left a deep and lasting mark on "Ada's" psyche, which impacted on his relationship with his daughter (my mother) and later on my brother and I.

The little I know of my paternal grandfather's history suggests that he also suffered a traumatic childhood. His father, an Army officer, was killed in Barbeton when grandfather was barely four years old. His mother's relatives descended on her and their farm like vultures and she, his sisters and himself endured a very difficult time thereafter. His relationship with his children is probably best described as volatile, his childhood compounded by the Anglo-Boer War and his service with one of the regiments sent out to deal with it, certainly didn't sit well with him either.

Based on my own relationships, and knowing my own reaction to many things as a result, I find myself convinced that their experiences have coloured my view of a wide range of matters, from politics, to war, to relationships. It is a matter of fact that I suffer from a degree of insecurity in myself, lack confidence in a number of areas and was a'late developer.' Some of this I have, by sheer 'bloody-mindedness' and at some cost to myself and some of those closest to me, been able to compensate for if not overcome. I know I'm not alone at this, and a great deal I've read recently about the experiences of some of my contemporaries and some of the children of men who fought in the US Forces in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, suggests that many of the social problems and inabilities among many younger folk today to accept discipline, or to accept a different point of view to their own, stem from the traumas their fathers suffered and the damage this did to the relationship with their children.

As I said at the outset, I think there's at least one PhD in this study, possibly several. Now, if someone wants to put up the money, I know several people who'd be interested ...

The Doomsday Age?

Two items have come to my attention today. The first is a news item proclaiming that some 'big name movie stars' are rushing to sign up to a new film punted to 'prove' that the destruction of the World Trade Centre in 2001 was a 'conspiracy' by the Bush Administration. One of the 'stars' claims he changed his mind on the official reports after his son showed him some 'new' evidence about the collapse of building 7. It seems the urge in Hollywood to believe their own illusional world exceeds any vesitiges they might have of common sense. As the saying is, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and they rush to prove it with their willingness to listen to any and every hair-brained doomsday merchant.

The second thing that caught my attention today is an article in Psychology Today entitled "This New Age of Anxiety." It touches on the plethora of movies rushed into creation immediately after the tragedy, perhaps the most pernicious being the Michael Moore manipulation of fact to create "Fahrenheit 911" which I note the BBC is still promoting as a "documentary." OK, so Moore and the BBC HATE G.W. Bush ut is this really an appropriate way to attack him? Through a tragedy and a deliberate act of terror?

Reading the article it struck me that we have a crazy situation. We live in an age of unprecedented access to knowledge and information, yet we seem to prefer to allow ourselves to be fed selective bits and to always bias toward believing the worst - and never doing a fact check. And, when we do, it is usually a "Google it" and pick the first article on the list if it agrees with or confirms our bias. In "This New Age of Anxiety" the author, Mathew J Edland MD, lists five common obsessive anxieties in our age: -

Political Anxiety
Economic Anxiety
Planetary Anxiety
Fear of the future, and
Information excess ...

Distrust of politicians has seen an explosion of growth in recent years, and with it a distrust of anything and everything a government tries to communicate. This is what drives the majority of people who refuse to accept that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were destroyed by terrorist action. The really fanatic followers of that school of thought don't care how much they damage the credibility of their nation abroad, or how much ammunition they hand their very real enemies in the Middle East - as long as they can air their views and bring down the Washington government. It's a dangerous mindset, the same sort of mindset, ironically, found among those who join organisations like Al Qaeda.

For another group of followers of the "it couldn't have been a terrorist attack" school of thought, it is their own perception of the position of the US as the most democratic, most free, most powerful nation on earth that blinds them. One of these 'truthers' as they call themselves, states that he doubts 19 Saudi Arabians (Fact check, 15 were registered as Saudi Arabian, the remaining four carried Egyptian or UAE passports) could have attacked the most powerful nation on earth. According to him, 'some of these people didn't even know how to fly.' Again, I'm not all all sure where that one has come from since most appear to have at least taken flying lessons, and once an aircraft like this is airborne, turning, aiming and crashing is probably the easiest thing in the world. All you really need to know is how to either guide it by adjusting the instructions to the autopilot - or turn it off and use the yoke and rudder pedals. As usual, Hollywood is falling for its own hype and imaginations are now in high gear.

Economic anxiety is rampant. No one trusts banks, bankers or government Economics Minsiters any longer. Certainly not after the economic collapse of 2007-8. A lot of people now spend a lot of time worrying about their incomes, the security of their possessions or their homes and the possible future their children and grandchildren face. One could say, "it was ever thus" but there does seem to have been a massive upsurge in people taking extreme measures to secure their wealth. On the other end of the scale are those who have simply given up and make little effort at all.

Then there is that favourite - Planetary concern. I've certainly addressed this one often enough. Nature changes, it always has, and I've no doubt it always will. It has changed us through evolution and it is still changing us, even though we are now changing nature as well - and I'm NOT talking about climate here. We are certainly changing the environment. Every paved street increases rainwater run-off, every white painted roof changes the local rainfall pattern (True! A recent study shows that this measure REDUCES rainfall in an area by up to 16%). The truth is man has been changing nature since we first discovered how to grow crops to feed ourselves instead of having to push mammoths of cliffs and gather berries and nuts. What has changed since the beginning of the 20th Century is that the human population has exploded - particularly in those countries where the ecological balance is probably at its most delicate. One can understand this 'concern,' but, as the article I linked earlier points out, for some it has become almost a phobia. I would say that for many it has become a religion, just as the distrust of politicians has led some to turn 'proving' events like 9/11 were 'The Government trying to trick us' seems to have taken on the status of a Credo.

As for fear of the future, the problem appears to be how much we know about events and possible events. I would also suggest this is further fuelled by the "Fourth Estate's" penchant for sensational headlines. "Near miss by Massive Asteroid" screamed a recent headline. The sub headline reported that scientisits had calculated it might collide. What didn't become apparent until almost the end of the piece was that the calculations showed a one in heaven knows how many, chance of a collision occurring in several thousand years. Other similar 'dire predictions' include one from last year that the €uro had less than two months of life left to it. I have to say its a pretty lively corpse, but I've not seen any retraction of that headline. We are constantly bombarded with messages regarding 'safety,' suggesting we are all likely to be maimed or killed getting out of bed. Our children are constantly told they are in danger of sexual abuse and we are told there are threats of terrorism, Islamification and probably little green men from somewhere outlandish as well. No wonder some people tell their physicians they "Can't see a future."

The information age has its drawbacks. We get far to much information thrust at us, and the human brain isn't good at processing out the 'noise' I don't need to be worried about - especially when a lot of it is about potential threats. We are also not good at checking our facts. Often we half hear something, or here it, but then process it through our bias filters and arrive at something less than what was actually said. This is a major problem. Throw in the fact that most of our "fact checks" are now a quick check on "Mr Google" and the problem is compounded. Not everything on the internet is factual, nt everything is correct, and there is probably as much misinformation out there as fact.

I agree with Dr. Edland, we do live in a new Age of Anxiety. I'd love to say to some of the angst ridden Doomsayers I encounter from time to time  - "Get a life! Grow up, there are no monsters 'under the bed'" - but I'd probably be breaching their "human right" to be paranoid ...

I just hope this excessive anxiety streak and obsession with Doomsday passes soon. Unfortunately, I suspect we need to evolve out of it - and that probably means a whole new human species. Oops, I think I've just started a new phobia for some folk ...

A Curious Form of Election

I have long come to realise that the US Federal Government system is based on the model of government that pertained in the UK in 1776. The President is in effect the "King" and his cabinet the equivalent of the 18th Century system whereby the King chose his ministers and Parliament graciously 'approved' them. The House of Lords Chamber then had a great deal of power and is replaced in the US by the Senate and the House of Commons is replaced by House of Representatives or "Congress" which is, in reality, both the Senate and the lower House.

Elections for the Senate and the Representatives or "Congressmen" (which includes woman) is direct and based on Britain's "first past the post" system. While I have personally come to believe that this is a deeply flawed system in the modern and much more complex society we have created, it is, at least, 'direct.'

So I find the system for electing the President of the United States extremely intriguing and not a little confusing. First of all it isn't, as most outsiders think, a simple question of the people directly electing him or her. Each of the State Legislatures actually elects a slate of Electors based on the popular vote for the prospective candidates in their state. In theory this will mean that the candidate that gets the majority vote across all the states - but not always. It is possible for a candidate who scores big in some states who have the right to appoint more "Electors" to "win" the election even if he doesn't actually poll a majority overall. This is because the number of "electors" is in part historic and in part based on population.

In addition there is a little wriggle called "faithless electors" which allows a State to take action against anyone who pledges to vote for one candidate - and on election day, votes for the other. How this can be enforced when the ballot is supposedly "secret" I'm not sure. The fact is that the President is, in the end, elected by a "College" of electors appointed by each State and their decision is "affirmed" by Congress. The system has an historic model in the "Kurfuersten" who elected the Germanic Emperors, originally, in Carolingian times, seven "Princes" who assembled in Frankfurt's Dom and decided who would succeed to the Imperial throne. It is also why some of the States in the US are such key electoral decision makers.

Think Florida in 2000. Two court cases and several recounts before the "State" outcome could be declared and Bush one by just 2 Electoral College votes. The fact that he polled fewer votes across the board didn't count - the Florida Electors held the election in their hands and not the people themselves. Twice in the history of the US, Congress has had to make the final decision on who won, and once the Senate made the final decision. My sources suggest that at least twice a President has been elected who actually polled fewer votes than his opponent, though there are some arguments about whether or not this included all the votes caste!

As I said, it is a curious system. No doubt when it was originally set up, it made sense to those who designed it, but I'm not sure its the best way to select a Commander in Chief or a President now. It certainly seems to create greater division than unity. I think one probably has to have been born in the US and raised through their system to understand it ...

UPDATE: Going through some more records I find that four Presidents have been elected to office with minority support. One was elected with 10% fewer votes from the electorate than his opponent, another with 3% and the remaining pair with margins of less than 1% (G W Bush actually had 0.51% less than Gore). Apparently each State has its own way to decide the distribution of votes in its "College of Electors" and most go for the "winner takes all" system. A small handful actually distribute their Electors on the basis of a proportional system reflecting the 'popular' vote. What it means in the end, is that some State legislatures have the power to determine the outcome whatever the "people' may have decided.

A Theatrical Interlude

Last night the Monk and Mausi visited the "English Theatre" in Frankfurt-am-Main, to see a production of a play about Alan Turing and the breaking of the Enigma Code.

We had superb seats, and the actors delivered a superb performance. Turng himself was brilliantly portrayed and the tragedy of his genius and finally his death came through. The caste of just nine actors played out the drama on a minimalist set with 'Turing' delivering to perfection, his famous address to his old school and 'explaining' how his concept of a 'thinking machine' was turned into reality to break the Enigma Code.

The performance captured beautifully just how genius on this level is, to some extent, on the other side of insanity. A fantastic play, a fabulous performance and a very accurate portrayal of the very real history this brilliant man played so great a role in.

Airships

Last week I joined my son and his partner on a little jaunt to Friedrichshafen on the Bodensee. Apart from the stunning setting, the big attraction was the Zeppelin Museum on the harbourside. The first of the photos below shows part of the full size recreation of the passenger saloon of the Hindenburg, which forms a part of the reconstruction of several other sections. One can see the sleeping cabins, dining room and even a part of the kitchen. The crew accommodation, by contrast, was extremely basic. The big attraction of these ships in the 1930s was their speed - two days from Hamburg to New York when the fastest ocean liner took five. 

On display are a couple of the hefty Maybach diesel engines which drove this huge 'lighter than air' superliner through the air. They didn't fly at a great altitude, usually under 5,000 feet, and flew round storms and other disturbances in the atmosphere. What is striking is the vast size of the ship, probably 90% of it occupied by the gas bags that kept it aloft. The re-creation of the accommodation includes sections of the framing which gives the visitor some idea of the construction. The animated displays, models and other information in the museum makes for a fascinating visit.

If one plans ahead, you can book a flight in a modern Zeppelin, the Zeppelin NT. It operates from the local airport and carries 15 passengers on a flight round the Bodensee. There are, we were told, three of these ships flying in Germany at present, and the company is planning expansion and perhaps some larger vessels. The new ships use helium in the gas cells, not hydrogen which used in the earlier ships and the direct cause of the Hindenburg's loss in New York in 1938.

I was interested to read recently that the concept of airships is far from dead. A company in California and even NASA are interested in developing large airships for cargo carrying. The latest design, I was surprised to learn, makes use of a principle I had pondered while watching the 'new' Zeppelin NT pass overhead.

It is now proposed to make an airship which has 'neutral' bouyancy or marginally 'negative' bouyancy when loaded. She would be lifted by jets or propellers which can be angled downward to lift her clear of the landing area and then gradually redirected to provide both lift and forward motion as it gathers speed. Stubby wings or 'lifting surfaces' would keep it stable and aloft as it travelled, once again at low altitude. The expectation is that these ships would be more economical than current cargo carrying aircraft and, because they are not subjected to the stresses of depressurising and repressurising within very short time frames, would be less costly to maintain.

I have to confess that there is something very appealling about travelling in one of these - as long as it isn't filled with hydrogen!

The end of summer?

On Saturday the Monk and Mausi witnessed an annual event in our little village. For some reason the roof of our home (we are the last house in our street and on the uppermost edge of the village) is the chosen assembly point for the swallows. At one point the roof was covered in these beautiful birds, hunkered down and their wings slightly spread as they soaked up the sun. Those not on the tiles were wheeling overhead in a swarming cloud and others perched on our satellite dish and TV aerial. It was an amazing sight.

Then, as if someone had fired a starting gun, the whole flock took to the air, wheeled a few times and then departed in a south westerly direction. Since then we have not seen a single swallow anywhere. Our neighbours tell me this is early for the migration, and I'll confess I have the impression they were much later leaving last year.

I wonder if they know something we don't?

Two days - New House ...

In under two hours this morning the builders added the upper storey of the house they started assembling yesterday. By evening, the roof was going on. The interior plastering, wiring connections and plumbing work will begin on Monday. The owner expects to be in at the end of October, the main delay is the installation of a very sophisticated 'heat pump' for the heating system. This draws heat from the air and the ground and uses it to warm the interior of the house. Vorschprung durch technik wieder ...

Talking to the owner and the team assembling the 'kit' I have learned that the firm that makes them and assembles the reult on site is based in Austria but deliver and work all over Europe. The 'kit' is to 'owner's specification' so each one can be produced as an individual layout and event the footprint can be adjusted to your requirements. They can supply a basic plan, which a buyer can modify and adjust to taste, and then, once the contract is signed, they build it in their factory. During that period - usually six to eight weeks - the groundwork is completed, the foundation prepared and then the assembly schedule prepared. 

Watching this exercise has been fascinating. The first semi-trailer arrives on site early and the team get to work. Just before that truck is unloaded, the second appears and that is just finishing its delivery when the next arrives. The piece being fastened in place in the last picture above is number 410. There are a total, I'm told, of 530 pieces to this house ...

Looking at the way everything interlocks, is secured in place and the whole is connected to the ground, these are going to be good solid homes for years to come.

Oh, and our local IKEA sells its own 'kit' house with a similar arrangement for the assembly thereof. Construction is certainly moving on from where it was in the old days.

Ready, steady - build ...

A couple of weeks ago I reported that the builders had started ground works for three new houses being built in our village. The first involved a massive excavation and the laying of some concrete, then nothing seemed to happen for a few days. Then, suddenly, there was a fully assembled cellar in the hole. Today some large semi-trailer trucks arrived with a crane.

Now there's the whole lower storey of the house there. The last two photos show the chimney being lowered into position through the prepared 'slot' in the floor slabs to link up with the boiler in the cellar. The upper picture is the lower section, the lower is the top part of the chimney which will be joined on as soon as the supporting roof structure is in place.

The walls are prefabricated, even the electrical conduits, wiring and fittings alreaddy installed. The builders simply assemble the whole thing as each piece is lowered into place. Windows and doors are all fitted already.

The second storey is a timber framed construction and the key elements of this are also prefabricated. Once these are in place - presumably tomorrow - the lining, insulation and the outer covering will go on. I am informed that these houses are essentially 'kits' which an owner can select from a catalogue, order and have assembled on the site of his choice.

House building has certainly moved on since I were a lad!

Beautiful Visitor

Managed to catch a stunning butterfly with the camera ...

Now there's one for the SciFi buffs ...

According to the BBC news site, one of the many radio telescope projects currently searching for siigns of extra-terrestrial activity, has stumbled upon what they are calling a Bounce Anomaly. Television signals broadcast on earth 47 years ago and being reflected back to us off something about 25 light years away. A search by NASA using the Hubble telescope has failed to identify what is causig it. The scientists speculate that it could be a cloud of asteroids. If it is it would have to be a pretty big one.

According to the report the signals have been de-noised and digitally enhanced and the shows are not only identifiable, but they include some for which the 'Master' tapes have long been lost here. Evidently the BBC is working with the Arecibo Observatory team to recapture and process as much as possible. The spokesman tells us it includes some original Dr Who shows. Oh dear. I can feel a "Cringe Factor 100" moment coming on ...

Evolution, Technology and Intelligence ...

An interesting article came my way today, courtesy the Postulant. Published in the Atlantic, it is by Professor Dennett of Tufts University. Under the title A Perfect and Beautiful Machine: What Darwin's Theory of Evolution Reveals About Artificial Intelligence, it explores some interesting aspects of what has become a much used and sometimes abused term in modern 'training' circles. He points out that both Darwin's theory of evolution and Turing' creation of the 'computational engine' are underpinned by the idea that competence does not require intelligence.

Yes, you did read that correctly. You see, as Turing proved, it isn't necessary for a computer to understand mathematics for it to carry out extremely complex calculations. Darwin also pointed out that the evolution or adaptation of any given species did not require a complex understanding within the species to make the necessary adaptations to become 'competent' for the new environment it faced. But therein lies a small problem. As everyone who has ever used a 'computational engine' to perform a complex calculation can tell you, when it goes wrong, it requires someone who understands how it does what it does and why it does it to repair it. That is one reason species sometimes become extinct - they can't fix themselves when something changes too rapidly, and adaptation takes far too long. Example, the various species of flightless birds which have vanished from habitats because they could no longer outrun, hide or eat the new species that hunted them.

The reality is, that without intelligence, it is difficult to pass on knowledge or understanding of complex matters. Computers are actually extremely stupid. They don't think, they can only regurgitate what is in their memory bank or what is fed into it to allow the processing of whatever formula it has been told to use. I can recall being incredibly frustrated when using an early sprinkler design and assessment program, that it would never tell me where something was wrong, only that the outcome was not correct. Something a bit more like Sir Terry Pratchett's Discworld "Hex" with its neatly written message of ***Out of Cheese Error***Reboot From Start*** would have at least told me it needed feeding!

Turing's great breakthrough in computing was to see that the machine didn't need to understand the process. Essentially the computing part is a mindless process. So is evolution. It happens, thinking about it doesn't speed it up, nor does it alter what is already in process. This is where modern computers and the whole concept of creating "Artificial Intelligence" part company. An AI 'computer' needs to think, not to compute. That is the nub of the problem.

For a computer to compute at present it doesn't need to 'think' in fact it can't, but that doesn't make it 'incompetent.' That is where, I believe, much of the modern 'thinking' on training has gone spectacularly off the rails. If I want a human to 'compute' things they must understand the mathematics. To be 'competent' they must think. Some of my readers will recall being told when a new 'training' scheme was forced onto the UK Fire and Rescue Service, that 'competence' didn't require thinking, you only had to be able to 'do' whatever it was. I'm happy to say that we, the dinosaurs of training, have been proved right, competence does require thinking, it does require knowledge and above all else it does require being able to learn from mistakes and correct them.

Darwin postulated, according to some (though I can find nothing of the sort in his words reading his book and his correspondence), that in order for us to have evolved, all that was necessary was a series of accidental changes in our genes over several billion years. No, I'm NOT a subscriber to 'intelligent design,' but I do believe that the whole evolution of all the diverse species and forms of living creatures that make up the biosphere and are all interdependent, cannot have been entirely accidental. Who knows, perhaps some ancestor of Darwin's finches did decide a different shaped beak would be advantageous and set about stropping his on a convenient rock. Then, perhaps having proved his point, convinced others to do the same... Sort of puts a different spin on evolution and intelligence, doesn't it.

As Professor Dennett says, Darwin and Turing both had to 'invert reason' to arrive at their conclusions. There is still a lot we don't understand about either computers or evolution, but we're getting there. I rather think the ultimate answers may hold a few surprises for everyone.

Bio-food gives us dirt ...

The Postulant sent me an interesting and, from my point of view, amusing article today. Essentially it suggests that so-called 'Bio Food' obtained at Farmer's Markets may be far better for us than the highly sanitised and quality controlled stuff we get in the supermarket. The reason?

It's loaded with dirt and bacteria which helps keep ur immune systems primed and ready.

This is something I've long argued. The current fetish with sanitised everything has laid us open to all kinds of infections for which we have, now, no immunity. Yet, in our parents generation, some of the things that currently kill children and even older folk, were common and certainly not killers - unless they happened to attack someone already weakened by something else. Salmonella was one such. It comes in eggs among other things and, if you had a dose of it in childhood, you'll probably notice a mildly upset stomach if you catch it again. But, no more. Because everything is now sanitised, we don't get mild doses of anything which would help us develop immunities. Now, when we do get an outbreak, it's usually a serious one.

I said I found this amusing, and, in a sense, I do. Having grown up in Africa, and having visited many Third World countries, I get a laugh every time I hear one of the earnest Food Hygene types banging on about 'Healthy food.' Frankly, they haven't a clue.

I think this is, once again, an area where well intentioned meddling has created a situation where the consequences are unintended, but include a loss of vital immunities to fairly minor ailments and the development of some pretty serious allergies because of dietary changes.

When will we learn ...

New Neighbours?

It appears that the State of Hessen is now home to a number of predators, animals moving in from the north and east. The country here is ideal for them since Hessen is the most forested State in Germany, a fact which surprises many people. Among the newcomers are Raccoons, known here as "Waschbären," one of which was photographed recently by one of Mausi's colleagues as it peered through his French Window and sized up his living room. It wasn't in the least bit phased by having its picture taken either.

According to today's newspaper though, we now have the European Lynx well established in the Aartal, the valley we overlook. And, if they're down there, they'll be up here as well ...

Around three times the size of a domestic cat, the lynx is a no nonsense predator and certainly not something to tangle with. It probably explains why most of the cats and dogs around here are staying indoors at night these days. 

We already had wild boar, fallow deer and red deer, so why not a few members of the small large cat family? Oh, and just to cap things off, Hessen is also now home to a growing wolf population. Thus far, however, they haven't reached us!

Information disinformation ...

Something said by a friend recently about the "Connected Generation" (Generation Z in education/social classifications) having an attention span of no more than 140 characters in reading length, got me thinking. A little digging around how some of the great myths of the late 20th early 21st Century have spread and become the new "truths" suggests that it is down to the use (or abuse) of modern electronic media to a large degree and to the lack of desire to check facts among a large part of the receiving population on the other.

The "tl;dr" (Too long; didn't read - for those not used to "txt spk") response kicks in as soon as someone does want to check facts and discovers that the reality is a lot more complex than the 'abridged' version they found on Twitter, FaceBook or one of the many newspaper feeds. The "big" story in the news here in Germany is the Bundes President's private financial arrangements. Listening to the various self-righteous politicians, media spokesmen and others you would think that having taken out a private loan from a friend to buy a house was a hanging offence. Yes, he shouldn't have gone that route, but there seems to have been 'lost' in the reporting of it, the fact that he needed a quick decision and the bank was dragging its feet. OK, there are other questions, such as holidays with friends and some arguments with various Media heads which also emerged, but again, we seem to hear only the self-righteous versions from those now squealing about how they were "abused" in this. There is always a great deal of filtering in any reportage in the Media, but when you add in the "secret" agenda of the reporter and the bias of the agency he/she works for, you get a very selective presentation of the facts.

Freedom of the information supply via the media is a vital part of any democracy, but so is accuracy of reporting and that flows across to all other information streams. Vast amounts of "disinformation" and blatant untruth is now swirling around the internet. Very few of those reading it on a daily basis actually check the veracity of it. I'm glad to say that The Postulant is one who regularly uses Snopes (and I have to thank her for pointing me at it) to verify material she gets forwarded to her. I wish others were as careful.

Sadly the disinformation-information becomes the new truth is also affecting academic circles. I have recently read several books which identify the origins of some of the anti-religion propaganda as 19th Century sources. When these are examined, they turn out to be "spin" - quite a bit of it refuted at the time, but which, because it is quoted by Bertrand Russel, Aldous Huxley or some other "thinker" of the 20th Century is now "fact" - yet a lot of this is pure invention. One particular example that annoys me is the statement that "the church" taught that the world was flat. This turns out to be based on a statement made by a "scientist" from the early 19th Century who based his assumption on his interpretation of the Mappa Mundi. The "Mappa" - a popular 14th -15th Century representation of the "Spiritual" connections of the places of pilgrimage and special holiness, was based on the known lands of the people making the map and placed Jerusalem at its centre - for the obvious reason that it is the heart of Christianity. Officially the church has always followed the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian understanding of the world as a sphere - the question for Europe was always what lay over the ocean in terms of lands and peoples. Columbus' journey ad route were chosen because his talking to fishermen who regularly ventured beyond the horizon, suggested that it might lead to the "East" from which Europe was cut off by the Muslim Empires in Turkey and Persia.

John Cabot set out from Bristol in the "Mathew" (A replica of his ship is to be seen and visited in the port there) armed with maps and information from the fishermen who regularly fished the Grand Banks and sometimes over wintered in Nova Scotia and the American East Coast. But all of this is swept aside by the repetition of the late Victorian anti-church factions who invented the flat earth story to promote their own "superior" reasoning.

Sadly the modern media and the speed of "information" transfer simply aids these and other myths in their spread and acceptance as "truth" by those to gullible or to ignorant to seek further and check.

Ah well, this post has already reached far beyond the limits of tl;dr ...

Christmas fun ...

One of the more fun bits of silliness at Christmas is the annual "NORAD Tracks Santa ..." fun and games usually reported on TV and Radio and sometimes even in the printed media. The Postulant sent me a link to the Wikipedia page that gives the background to this and that set me thinking...

The whole "NORAD Tracks Santa" event has its origins in a misprint in an advert inserted in a Colorado newspaper by the Sears department store. The intention was to let children talk directly to Santa (Their version of course, who could then encourage the kids to visit the stores Grotto ...). The accidental misprint gave the number instead for the Continental Air Defence System HQ - which found itself swamped with calls from children hoping top speak to Santa. The operators referred to their Commanding Officer, a Colonel in the USAF, who instructed the operators to "give the kids updates on where Santa is in the world distributing gifts ..." and so began the annual tradition of NORAD issuing minute by minute bulletins on Santa's whereabouts on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

I would like to think that the Colonel's response to the mistake was typical of the military attitude when dealing with children in particular. A Bureaucrat probably would have told the operators to respond with "Sorry, you have a wrong number." By contrast the Colonel figured out what had happened, realised there were a lot of bitterly disappointed children calling - and took a decision which resolved the potential for tears.

Interestingly the whole operation is now run by volunteers on the NORAD staff. Sophisticated software is used to analyse the volume and type of calls each year and to determine how many and when the volunteers will be needed. Long may it continue.

Earth shaking ...

Yesterday there was a tremendous double bang over a large area of the Rhinelands. Given the drama in Koblenz on Sunday, most people here were understandably very edgy. The ground shook, windows rattled and the horses in the paddock behind the Monk and Mausi's home were startled enough to get very nervous and fidgety from some time afterward. Police, Fire and news switchboards were jammed by people calling to know what had happened.

To give some idea of how big the bangs were, it was heard in Köln and in Mainz and everywhere in between - a distance of nearly 200 kilometers. Here in the Taunus it felt like a small earthquake. So what was it?

It was caused by a pair of Belgian F-16s breaking the sound barrier over Rüdesheim, about 15 km from where we live. They were flying at 11,000 metres, roughly 34,000 feet in pursuit of an Oman Air airliner that had broken radio contact in Belgian airspace. Under NATO rules this means the immediate launch of fighters to find the aircraft, make contact, and find out what it is up to. As the incident began in Belgium, it was their aircraft launched to intercept.

It is reported today that the flight was intercepted somewhere over Frankfurt/Darmstadt, the fighter pilots making 'visual contact' with the airliners Captain and then re-establishing radio contact. We are not told what the passengers thought when they looked out of the windows and saw two fully armed F-16's on the wingtips ... I suspect the cleaning crews at their destination may have had to work overtime.

Since the end of the Cold War, the sound of 'sonic booms' has become very rare over Europe, so this event was a sharp reminder of what could happen all to easily. It is reassuring to know that the NATO alert system works and that nothing like this goes unnoticed. There are, apparently, around 30 cases a year where airliners lose radio contact with air traffic control. It is usually due to a 'pilot error' such as setting the wrong frequency or to weather which affects the transmission and reception of VHF and UHF radio signals.

The double bang yesterday was a sharp reminder of the vigilance needed in these uncertain times ...