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.
Monday, 8 October 2012
Saturday, 6 October 2012
Claim and Counter Claim
A recent conversation with someone who opposes power generation from any form of fossil fuel, on the grounds that the heat transfer from the cooling towers to the atmosphere and the 'carbon' release is a major cause of 'global warming' raised some interesting assertions. We do have to acknowledge that no form of energy exchange is perfect, the laws of physics simply do not allow 100% efficiency in anything. The person I was talking to correctly pointed out that normal power stations have pretty efficient boilers and make good use of the energy released in the fire box to convert the water to steam, the real wastage lies in the recondesing of the steam back to water. When this is taken into account the 'efficiency is around 40-45% overall of converting the heat released in the firebox into electricity.
It is claimed that solar water heaters are about 65% efficient in taking your hot water or central heating water to a temperature of about 50*C when the ambient air temperature is around 10*C. However, there are some other considerations with these and they are expensive to install - I considered it a few years ago and the cost was prohibitive. There is also the question of manufacture, maintenance and 'end of life' disposal. Some of these systems draw on some pretty nasty materials to operate. Fine while they are sealed in the system, not so good during manufacture and disposal when they have to be removed or replaced for any reason. The laws of physics again - nothing lasts forever.
Solar panels convert about 20 - 27% of the light they receive to electricity according to one source. That is hardly 'very efficient' and, once again, the materials used in them are quite exotic, come from China and South America among others, are difficult to recover and pretty toxic. The ecological damage done in obtaining them, processing them and manufacturing them, doesn't, in my view, merit the rather meagre 'efficiency' they deliver. Nor has anyone, it seems, actually considered the effect of covering vast areas with these devices They reflect a lot of light back into the atmosphere, as any pilot can tell you who flies over them, and they shade the ground beneath them which prevents that from absorbing a great deal of the energy. OK, that may be a good thing, but, if a recent study is anything to go by, it may have another and entirely unwelcome effect. It has been found that the drive in the US to paint roof surfaces white to reflect the sunlight away and absorb less of the heat energy actually reduces the rainfall in those areas by up to 16%. Has anyone considered the impact of covering hectares of landscape - as they've done in Spain - with these things?
It is also commonly claimed that wind generators recover their cost in as little six months. I don't think this is true for a number of reasons, not least being it doesn't address 'end of life' removal and the environmental imapct that has, plus it relies on a hefty subsidy to achieve it. Theoretically, thanks to the rather complex drive shafts, gearing and inertia, a wind turbine converts about 59% of the wind energy it receives into electricity. The problem there is that the wind is not a constant stream running at precisely the same speed continuously. With a steam turbine the speed is constant, so the output from the attached generator is constant, with wind there are varations in wind speed and these must be 'smoothed' out to avoid surges in the current or sudden voltage drops. That means some rather complex kit is needed to regulate it. When you add that for less than a third of the time they are actually producing anything at all, you do have to question the economics of it all.
Like the solar panels, massive amounts of copper, nickel and other exotic materials go into making these things and then there is the massive ecological impact of installing one. Studies in the Baltic, and some more on North Sea sites, show that the impact on sea life may be a great deal more serious than has been claimed. Some North Sea sites are already showing signs of problems with the base foundations which may mean they have to be shut down or replaced at great expense long before the claimed 'life' span of 25 years. It is also seldom acknowledged, that, at present, these windfarms only make a return because their operators are in receipt of massive subsidies and the amount of electricity they actually contribute to the National Grid - according to national statistics - is pitifully small.
This could, of course, be due to the fact that they electricity generated is difficult to distribute and may well, as in Germany, require a completely different type of grid before it can be properly utilised. That, in itself, will cost billions, may well not deliver anything like what is needed, and leave us with a system which is too inflexible in the longer term.
Those who argue that adopting systems and energy sources that are incapable of meeting present, let alone future, demand on the grounds that we "must reduce the 'fossil carbon' released in energy generation," are not living with reality. I do not, as they often seem to think, subscribe to the 'do nothing' standpoint on emmissions. I do believe that reducing our carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and several other 'waste' gas emmissions is an object to be achieved. I do NOT believe that any price is worth paying to do it. We cannot deconstruct our technology and we cannot countenance a return to some pre-industrial idyll. The pursuit of wind turbines, solar panels and the imposition of "Green" policies detracts from the examination of real, positive and lasting alternatives to coal, gas and hydrocarbon consumption.
Finally, I do not like being patronised by anorak wearing "Greens" who believe they can create a Utopia if only I can be forced to agree with their religion of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. The climate is changing, it has been changing for something of the order of 15,000 years since the last Ice Age and for millions of years before that. The idea that by removing 0.01% Carbon Dioxide emitted by Western Europe and the US from the atmosphere will "save the planet" is rubbish. What does need to be looked at is how we can adapt effectively, how we can REDUCE world population in those areas were overpopulation is having the greatest impact and how we can make everything we do more efficient. Replacing one inefficient technology with an even less efficient and reliable one will not, cannot, save anything.
The climate is not a 'fixed' situation. The geological record, ice cores, and a number of other indicators tell us it is constantly changing. The dreams of those who think they can halt it are akin to the wishful thinking that led to the famous case of the king seated on the seashore commanding the tide to retreat ...
It is claimed that solar water heaters are about 65% efficient in taking your hot water or central heating water to a temperature of about 50*C when the ambient air temperature is around 10*C. However, there are some other considerations with these and they are expensive to install - I considered it a few years ago and the cost was prohibitive. There is also the question of manufacture, maintenance and 'end of life' disposal. Some of these systems draw on some pretty nasty materials to operate. Fine while they are sealed in the system, not so good during manufacture and disposal when they have to be removed or replaced for any reason. The laws of physics again - nothing lasts forever.
Solar panels convert about 20 - 27% of the light they receive to electricity according to one source. That is hardly 'very efficient' and, once again, the materials used in them are quite exotic, come from China and South America among others, are difficult to recover and pretty toxic. The ecological damage done in obtaining them, processing them and manufacturing them, doesn't, in my view, merit the rather meagre 'efficiency' they deliver. Nor has anyone, it seems, actually considered the effect of covering vast areas with these devices They reflect a lot of light back into the atmosphere, as any pilot can tell you who flies over them, and they shade the ground beneath them which prevents that from absorbing a great deal of the energy. OK, that may be a good thing, but, if a recent study is anything to go by, it may have another and entirely unwelcome effect. It has been found that the drive in the US to paint roof surfaces white to reflect the sunlight away and absorb less of the heat energy actually reduces the rainfall in those areas by up to 16%. Has anyone considered the impact of covering hectares of landscape - as they've done in Spain - with these things?
It is also commonly claimed that wind generators recover their cost in as little six months. I don't think this is true for a number of reasons, not least being it doesn't address 'end of life' removal and the environmental imapct that has, plus it relies on a hefty subsidy to achieve it. Theoretically, thanks to the rather complex drive shafts, gearing and inertia, a wind turbine converts about 59% of the wind energy it receives into electricity. The problem there is that the wind is not a constant stream running at precisely the same speed continuously. With a steam turbine the speed is constant, so the output from the attached generator is constant, with wind there are varations in wind speed and these must be 'smoothed' out to avoid surges in the current or sudden voltage drops. That means some rather complex kit is needed to regulate it. When you add that for less than a third of the time they are actually producing anything at all, you do have to question the economics of it all.
Like the solar panels, massive amounts of copper, nickel and other exotic materials go into making these things and then there is the massive ecological impact of installing one. Studies in the Baltic, and some more on North Sea sites, show that the impact on sea life may be a great deal more serious than has been claimed. Some North Sea sites are already showing signs of problems with the base foundations which may mean they have to be shut down or replaced at great expense long before the claimed 'life' span of 25 years. It is also seldom acknowledged, that, at present, these windfarms only make a return because their operators are in receipt of massive subsidies and the amount of electricity they actually contribute to the National Grid - according to national statistics - is pitifully small.
This could, of course, be due to the fact that they electricity generated is difficult to distribute and may well, as in Germany, require a completely different type of grid before it can be properly utilised. That, in itself, will cost billions, may well not deliver anything like what is needed, and leave us with a system which is too inflexible in the longer term.
Those who argue that adopting systems and energy sources that are incapable of meeting present, let alone future, demand on the grounds that we "must reduce the 'fossil carbon' released in energy generation," are not living with reality. I do not, as they often seem to think, subscribe to the 'do nothing' standpoint on emmissions. I do believe that reducing our carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and several other 'waste' gas emmissions is an object to be achieved. I do NOT believe that any price is worth paying to do it. We cannot deconstruct our technology and we cannot countenance a return to some pre-industrial idyll. The pursuit of wind turbines, solar panels and the imposition of "Green" policies detracts from the examination of real, positive and lasting alternatives to coal, gas and hydrocarbon consumption.
Finally, I do not like being patronised by anorak wearing "Greens" who believe they can create a Utopia if only I can be forced to agree with their religion of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. The climate is changing, it has been changing for something of the order of 15,000 years since the last Ice Age and for millions of years before that. The idea that by removing 0.01% Carbon Dioxide emitted by Western Europe and the US from the atmosphere will "save the planet" is rubbish. What does need to be looked at is how we can adapt effectively, how we can REDUCE world population in those areas were overpopulation is having the greatest impact and how we can make everything we do more efficient. Replacing one inefficient technology with an even less efficient and reliable one will not, cannot, save anything.
The climate is not a 'fixed' situation. The geological record, ice cores, and a number of other indicators tell us it is constantly changing. The dreams of those who think they can halt it are akin to the wishful thinking that led to the famous case of the king seated on the seashore commanding the tide to retreat ...
Friday, 5 October 2012
Electric Cars Increase Pollution ...
Well, well. Now there's a surprise.
The BEEB has an article headed 'Electric cars pose a Green threat' on their online news which quotes an extensive Norwegian study. Of course, it contains the obligatory picture of cooling towers belching steam to show the 'pollution' from the power station. I do wonder when someone at the BBC will realise that water vapour condensing above these things is naturally occurring water vapour and not 'smoke' or CO2 as they seem to think. Perhaps that's a step too far for the journalists to grasp.
To build an electric car requires a considerable amount of some pretty toxic metals, including nickel, cadmium, lithium, chrome, copper, manganese and lots of carbon. The ecological damage from extracting them, does, of course, happen somewhere else, so that's all right then. Then there's the batteries. Let's not go there - but again, they're manufactured somewhere else, so all the nasty stuff is spilled, mined and processed where it doesn't affect our 'green and pleasant' land - so that's also all right then. One problem though, disposal. These batteries last between 5 and 10 years (if you're lucky) and so far, no one has been able to find a way to recycle them.
Building a single electric vehicle has about twice the environmental impact of building a petrol or diesel car of the same size. Then there's the 'refuelling.'
No we really hit a problem. Wind power and solar power simply aren't going to provide the energy that will be needed if cars and small delivery vehicles are switched to electric power. For one thing the battery allows a range of between 100 and 200 miles at most. An assessment in Canada found that in winter, if the internal heater is used (and you'd have no choice in their climate) the car has a maximum range of 90 miles. Which means it is going to need recharging pretty frequently. Even in a sunnier climate, solar panels aren't going to give the sort of energy level necessary, and they are also extremely environmentally 'unfriendly' to produce. Again, it's those rare and rather toxic materials - but they happen elsewhere, right?
Even in Germany, where there are already a lot of the small 'town' cars built by Smart, on the roads, these are more or less city bound and there needs to be a huge investment in infrastructure to support them. And that isn't just a case of putting in a whole slew of 'recharging stations.' Already the rising demand for reliable electrical power in Germany has forced a retreat from 'all renewable' to a 'balance of renewable and reliable.' The truth is that the power generated by windmills simply isn't generated at the right time for demand and it can't be distributed when it is. So the Ecology Minister has authorised the building - to howls of dismay from Greenpeace - the building of a lot of coal fired power stations to support the 'renewable' stuff and replace the nuclear stations they shut down rather prematurely in response to the 'Green' outcry over Fukushima.
This is where, once again, a lot of journalists don't do their homework properly. I'm still reading reports that announce that burning coal causes acid rain, global warming (CO2 release) and the corker - 90% of the energy is 'lost' up the chimney. A modern station actually uses 97% of the heat released up the chimney in a whole range of very clever things which include pre-heating the water feed to the boiler, using less energy to produce steam. Carbon Dioxide is 'scrubbed' and captured and so is the other major cause of problems, Sulphur Dioxide. The CO2 is then pumped deep underground and 'stored' and the SO2 is recycled to a range of commercial uses. So these new coal fired power stations will, in reality, be a lot cleaner than anything else around - and probably ecologically less harmful than building wind farms or solar farms.
There are no clear-cut 'Green' solutions to the world's need for electric energy. Whichever way we go, we must accept there will be an ecological impact. The key is to make sure the impact is as small as possible. I still believe that nuclear offers probably one of the best solutions - but I also accept that there is a huge 'fear factor' thanks to irresponsible reporting of the few nuclear accidents we have had, lack of real knowledge of what and how it works among the wider public and the propaganda of those who see anything nuclear as some form of doomsday device.
I suspect that in the not too distant future we will have to choose between living with our technological society and culture - or slipping back to a poorer, less developed semi-aggrarian society of 'cottage' style industries. The idea that our current lifestyle and standard of living is sustainable with a 'return' to 'renewable' energy is misguided. It simply cannot be sustained without investing in ways to increase our technological edge and find workable substitutes for oil. Wind, solar, batteries simply aren't going to do it. Plus, the Middle East is currently able to hold us to ransom at the drop of a hat.
While the 'electric car' may not be the answer to our search, it does at least show that someone, somewhere, is looking for a workable solution rather than a showy one. Let's hope they succeed.
The BEEB has an article headed 'Electric cars pose a Green threat' on their online news which quotes an extensive Norwegian study. Of course, it contains the obligatory picture of cooling towers belching steam to show the 'pollution' from the power station. I do wonder when someone at the BBC will realise that water vapour condensing above these things is naturally occurring water vapour and not 'smoke' or CO2 as they seem to think. Perhaps that's a step too far for the journalists to grasp.
To build an electric car requires a considerable amount of some pretty toxic metals, including nickel, cadmium, lithium, chrome, copper, manganese and lots of carbon. The ecological damage from extracting them, does, of course, happen somewhere else, so that's all right then. Then there's the batteries. Let's not go there - but again, they're manufactured somewhere else, so all the nasty stuff is spilled, mined and processed where it doesn't affect our 'green and pleasant' land - so that's also all right then. One problem though, disposal. These batteries last between 5 and 10 years (if you're lucky) and so far, no one has been able to find a way to recycle them.
Building a single electric vehicle has about twice the environmental impact of building a petrol or diesel car of the same size. Then there's the 'refuelling.'
No we really hit a problem. Wind power and solar power simply aren't going to provide the energy that will be needed if cars and small delivery vehicles are switched to electric power. For one thing the battery allows a range of between 100 and 200 miles at most. An assessment in Canada found that in winter, if the internal heater is used (and you'd have no choice in their climate) the car has a maximum range of 90 miles. Which means it is going to need recharging pretty frequently. Even in a sunnier climate, solar panels aren't going to give the sort of energy level necessary, and they are also extremely environmentally 'unfriendly' to produce. Again, it's those rare and rather toxic materials - but they happen elsewhere, right?
Even in Germany, where there are already a lot of the small 'town' cars built by Smart, on the roads, these are more or less city bound and there needs to be a huge investment in infrastructure to support them. And that isn't just a case of putting in a whole slew of 'recharging stations.' Already the rising demand for reliable electrical power in Germany has forced a retreat from 'all renewable' to a 'balance of renewable and reliable.' The truth is that the power generated by windmills simply isn't generated at the right time for demand and it can't be distributed when it is. So the Ecology Minister has authorised the building - to howls of dismay from Greenpeace - the building of a lot of coal fired power stations to support the 'renewable' stuff and replace the nuclear stations they shut down rather prematurely in response to the 'Green' outcry over Fukushima.
This is where, once again, a lot of journalists don't do their homework properly. I'm still reading reports that announce that burning coal causes acid rain, global warming (CO2 release) and the corker - 90% of the energy is 'lost' up the chimney. A modern station actually uses 97% of the heat released up the chimney in a whole range of very clever things which include pre-heating the water feed to the boiler, using less energy to produce steam. Carbon Dioxide is 'scrubbed' and captured and so is the other major cause of problems, Sulphur Dioxide. The CO2 is then pumped deep underground and 'stored' and the SO2 is recycled to a range of commercial uses. So these new coal fired power stations will, in reality, be a lot cleaner than anything else around - and probably ecologically less harmful than building wind farms or solar farms.
There are no clear-cut 'Green' solutions to the world's need for electric energy. Whichever way we go, we must accept there will be an ecological impact. The key is to make sure the impact is as small as possible. I still believe that nuclear offers probably one of the best solutions - but I also accept that there is a huge 'fear factor' thanks to irresponsible reporting of the few nuclear accidents we have had, lack of real knowledge of what and how it works among the wider public and the propaganda of those who see anything nuclear as some form of doomsday device.
I suspect that in the not too distant future we will have to choose between living with our technological society and culture - or slipping back to a poorer, less developed semi-aggrarian society of 'cottage' style industries. The idea that our current lifestyle and standard of living is sustainable with a 'return' to 'renewable' energy is misguided. It simply cannot be sustained without investing in ways to increase our technological edge and find workable substitutes for oil. Wind, solar, batteries simply aren't going to do it. Plus, the Middle East is currently able to hold us to ransom at the drop of a hat.
While the 'electric car' may not be the answer to our search, it does at least show that someone, somewhere, is looking for a workable solution rather than a showy one. Let's hope they succeed.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Blindness of the Left?
The recent death of Professor Eric Hobsbawm triggered, for me, a reminder that men (and women) like him, often deliberately blind themselves to reality with the 'vision' of their ideological dream. As the Telegraph article says, Prof. Hobsbawm simply refused to see or acknowledge the evils of the Communist system and remained, to his death, an advocate of a 'soviet' style system of government. The writer of the Telegraph article, Michael Burleigh, himself a historian of note, identifies this as a particular failing of the 'left.' True, it is my observation, that the most ardent supporters of communism are often those of great intellect blessed with either a great deal of inherited wealth or a secure and well paid position in academia. At the other end of the scale are the 'foot soldiers' - those so inured in envy of the success and apparent 'wealth' of others, they firmly believe that they have a right to 'share' the rewards earned by the better off.
Listening to the News, an item repeated from an interview with Ed Milliband struck me as confirming both these points. Milliband first of all announced that a new Labour government would roll back the current austerity and raise taxes to spend more on 'public services.' That is exactly what got the country into the mess its in under the last Labour government. He then went on to say all the usual socialist mantras about 'capitalist greed' and 'the rich must pay more tax.' As ever he is demonstrating that he and his party are totally blind to the negative impact their ideology has on a nations economy. The last Labour government inherited a strong economy and low unemployment and left office with the country teetering on the verge of bankruptcy - but here they are still arguing that they are right and everyone else is 'selfish.'
Prof Hobsbawm has been quite influential, his ideas are trotted out as 'truth' and support for the arguments for socialist totalitarianist Utopia. What the good professor and his supporters overlook is that they, and their disciples are unlikely to retain control of this 'benevolent' socialist state. History - and human behavioural studies - show that in any totalitarian situation, the intellectuals are pretty quickly marginalised, kept as 'window dressing' to be displayed as the 'friendly face' - but the real power is in the hands of the most ruthless and often the least intellectual cadre of the party. Example, 'Uncle' Joe Stalin who ran rings round Attlee and his fellow socialists, pandering to their vanity and ruthlessly exploiting their naivete. Or Mao Tse Tung.
What I think the author of the Telegraph article missed is that the 'Left' tends to be blinded intellectually by the 'brilliance' of the ideology, but the 'Right' often suffers from a similar blindness. On the 'Right' however, I'm not sure the 'blindness' is of the same order. Often it is a refusal to address or acknowledge that certain things are unfair, but there is also a blindness caused by manipulation of information, and this is something both sides share. You can fool a lot of people for a very long time by managing the information they are permitted to access. Some would argue that the internet makes this less likely, but I would suggest that there is so much 'disinformation' and misinformation on the web many folk are reluctant to accept things which directly contradict a source they consider more reliable.
Having lived under a regime which, with the lens of hindsight, was 'totalitarian' I can attest to just how effective the management of information can be. It begins at school, children are taught that only the 'government' tells the truth. As Ignatius Loyolla once remarked, "Give me a child to the age of seven ..." and the lesson is not lost on politicians of all stamps. Much of the west, at present, has a situation in which the 'socialist ideologues' bred in the turmoil of the 1960s are the present crop of teachers, lecturers and professors in our schools, colleges and universities - particularly in the 'Arts' fields. That means their ideas and ideologies are being promoted in the classrooms and lecture halls to the exclusion of any other ideas. Who do we trust to tell the 'truth?' My late father-in-law made this precise point once when speaking about what it was like to grow up under the Hitler regime and I have a similar experience from my youth under the Nationalist regime in South Africa. Now, I don't trust any single source of information. Especially if it comes from one particular point on the political spectrum.
I do despair of the mindset that refuses to acknowledge the realities of life, political and personal. The world of human experience is not fair, it is not equal and it certainly isn't simple. You may regulate actions, you may impose discipline, but at some point some will start to demand a greater voice, or a greater share. Living next to what was the 'Socialist Paradise' of the GDR, it is fascinating to see how great is the deception that was perpetrated there. The ruling elite enjoyed the life of luxury while pretending they were no better off than the people they ruled - but the truth certainly leaked. Only problem, the leakers tended to get long jail terms somewhere unpleasant. They needed a really nasty police force, every bit as evil as the Gestapo it was supposed to be 'guarding against' and the longest and most heavily guarded frontier in the world to keep the unhappy people in.
People like Professor Hobsbawm delude themselves when they preach that they can or would create a different regime where everyone would be equal and everyone happy. Only they would be 'equal and happy' because they would simply shut their eyes to the unhappiness, decay and corruption around them. Even now, the former Communist Party of the GDR, now 'rebranded' as "The Left" refuse to acknowledge or admit how deeply unfair and oppressive their system was. As Michael Burleigh puts it -
Hobsbawm’s implacable refusal to recant his views when faced with their grotesque consequences tells us something about the belligerent mindset of the wider British Left. But the eminence that he and his fellow travellers have enjoyed also speaks to the bovine complacency with which, since Mrs Thatcher, the Conservatives have allowed such dubious figures licence to dominate the soft culture of the BBC and our universities.
As I said, the blindness is not exclusive to the Left, it is a symptom of all extreme ideology. Perhaps that is something we need to convey to the next generations.
Listening to the News, an item repeated from an interview with Ed Milliband struck me as confirming both these points. Milliband first of all announced that a new Labour government would roll back the current austerity and raise taxes to spend more on 'public services.' That is exactly what got the country into the mess its in under the last Labour government. He then went on to say all the usual socialist mantras about 'capitalist greed' and 'the rich must pay more tax.' As ever he is demonstrating that he and his party are totally blind to the negative impact their ideology has on a nations economy. The last Labour government inherited a strong economy and low unemployment and left office with the country teetering on the verge of bankruptcy - but here they are still arguing that they are right and everyone else is 'selfish.'
Prof Hobsbawm has been quite influential, his ideas are trotted out as 'truth' and support for the arguments for socialist totalitarianist Utopia. What the good professor and his supporters overlook is that they, and their disciples are unlikely to retain control of this 'benevolent' socialist state. History - and human behavioural studies - show that in any totalitarian situation, the intellectuals are pretty quickly marginalised, kept as 'window dressing' to be displayed as the 'friendly face' - but the real power is in the hands of the most ruthless and often the least intellectual cadre of the party. Example, 'Uncle' Joe Stalin who ran rings round Attlee and his fellow socialists, pandering to their vanity and ruthlessly exploiting their naivete. Or Mao Tse Tung.
What I think the author of the Telegraph article missed is that the 'Left' tends to be blinded intellectually by the 'brilliance' of the ideology, but the 'Right' often suffers from a similar blindness. On the 'Right' however, I'm not sure the 'blindness' is of the same order. Often it is a refusal to address or acknowledge that certain things are unfair, but there is also a blindness caused by manipulation of information, and this is something both sides share. You can fool a lot of people for a very long time by managing the information they are permitted to access. Some would argue that the internet makes this less likely, but I would suggest that there is so much 'disinformation' and misinformation on the web many folk are reluctant to accept things which directly contradict a source they consider more reliable.
Having lived under a regime which, with the lens of hindsight, was 'totalitarian' I can attest to just how effective the management of information can be. It begins at school, children are taught that only the 'government' tells the truth. As Ignatius Loyolla once remarked, "Give me a child to the age of seven ..." and the lesson is not lost on politicians of all stamps. Much of the west, at present, has a situation in which the 'socialist ideologues' bred in the turmoil of the 1960s are the present crop of teachers, lecturers and professors in our schools, colleges and universities - particularly in the 'Arts' fields. That means their ideas and ideologies are being promoted in the classrooms and lecture halls to the exclusion of any other ideas. Who do we trust to tell the 'truth?' My late father-in-law made this precise point once when speaking about what it was like to grow up under the Hitler regime and I have a similar experience from my youth under the Nationalist regime in South Africa. Now, I don't trust any single source of information. Especially if it comes from one particular point on the political spectrum.
I do despair of the mindset that refuses to acknowledge the realities of life, political and personal. The world of human experience is not fair, it is not equal and it certainly isn't simple. You may regulate actions, you may impose discipline, but at some point some will start to demand a greater voice, or a greater share. Living next to what was the 'Socialist Paradise' of the GDR, it is fascinating to see how great is the deception that was perpetrated there. The ruling elite enjoyed the life of luxury while pretending they were no better off than the people they ruled - but the truth certainly leaked. Only problem, the leakers tended to get long jail terms somewhere unpleasant. They needed a really nasty police force, every bit as evil as the Gestapo it was supposed to be 'guarding against' and the longest and most heavily guarded frontier in the world to keep the unhappy people in.
People like Professor Hobsbawm delude themselves when they preach that they can or would create a different regime where everyone would be equal and everyone happy. Only they would be 'equal and happy' because they would simply shut their eyes to the unhappiness, decay and corruption around them. Even now, the former Communist Party of the GDR, now 'rebranded' as "The Left" refuse to acknowledge or admit how deeply unfair and oppressive their system was. As Michael Burleigh puts it -
Hobsbawm’s implacable refusal to recant his views when faced with their grotesque consequences tells us something about the belligerent mindset of the wider British Left. But the eminence that he and his fellow travellers have enjoyed also speaks to the bovine complacency with which, since Mrs Thatcher, the Conservatives have allowed such dubious figures licence to dominate the soft culture of the BBC and our universities.
As I said, the blindness is not exclusive to the Left, it is a symptom of all extreme ideology. Perhaps that is something we need to convey to the next generations.
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
German Unification Day
Today is a holiday in Germany, to celebrate the reunification that followed the collapse of the Socialist Paradise of the German Democratic Republic, known in the west as "East Germany." I find it interesting that today's 'unified' Germany is territorially around 20% smaller than it was in 1939 and probably around 40% smaller than it was in 1914. The reason is that it's eastern provinces have been reclaimed or incorporated into Poland. One, East Prussia, has become a Russian enclave on the Baltic. Kaliningrad was formerly the East Prussian city and Hansastadt of Koenigsberg.
Until Bismarck's 'reunification' in 1848 - 71, "Germany" was more a concept than a reality (some idea of the 'lost' territory can be gained from the map on the Wikipedia entry). It was essentially a hegemony of some 300 independent states, principalities and mini-states, some no larger than the 'ruling' lord's personal estate. Equally the language diversity was pretty wide with a lot of 'local' variation which made unification tricky. Bismarck's solution was to impose 'Hoch Deutsch' - the modern 'pure' German language of literature and commerce. The 'local' variations still exist and to an extent thrive, but now, at least, everyone can understand (more or less) what everyone else is saying.
That reborn national spirit contributed to the two world wars of the 20th Century as the new "German Nation" tried to assert its status in the world. Geographically it suffered then (and now) by being sandwiched between France in the west and Russia in the East. Both traditionally see a strong Germany as a threat to their ambitions territorially and commercially. The orginal fragmentation of the German state in the late Middle Ages was in large part due to French and Russian interference and aggression. From the reign of Louis XIV onward the French attempted to gain complete control of all the territory along the Rhine and in the East Austria and Russia seesawed back and forth grabbing bits of Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania and other states along that front. Frederick the Great brought a level of security with his miltary campaigns against Austria and Russia, but Napoleon's invasions almost undid everything. It took the Prussians to lead the establishment of a stable state and the creation of a strong power in Europe.
Today the Germans celebrate the political reunion which followed the exposure of the charade of socialist Utopianism. There is still a huge difference between "East" and "West" in Germany. The cost of living is higher in the west than it is in the east, but unemployment is still higher in the east. Everyone in the west is still paying a tax surcharge for 'reconstruction' of the eastern infrastructure and lack of maintenance of everything the east suffered under communist rule lasting 42 years. Some of the damage is still visible. It will be interesting to see where the 'unified' Germany is in another 20 years.
Until Bismarck's 'reunification' in 1848 - 71, "Germany" was more a concept than a reality (some idea of the 'lost' territory can be gained from the map on the Wikipedia entry). It was essentially a hegemony of some 300 independent states, principalities and mini-states, some no larger than the 'ruling' lord's personal estate. Equally the language diversity was pretty wide with a lot of 'local' variation which made unification tricky. Bismarck's solution was to impose 'Hoch Deutsch' - the modern 'pure' German language of literature and commerce. The 'local' variations still exist and to an extent thrive, but now, at least, everyone can understand (more or less) what everyone else is saying.
That reborn national spirit contributed to the two world wars of the 20th Century as the new "German Nation" tried to assert its status in the world. Geographically it suffered then (and now) by being sandwiched between France in the west and Russia in the East. Both traditionally see a strong Germany as a threat to their ambitions territorially and commercially. The orginal fragmentation of the German state in the late Middle Ages was in large part due to French and Russian interference and aggression. From the reign of Louis XIV onward the French attempted to gain complete control of all the territory along the Rhine and in the East Austria and Russia seesawed back and forth grabbing bits of Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania and other states along that front. Frederick the Great brought a level of security with his miltary campaigns against Austria and Russia, but Napoleon's invasions almost undid everything. It took the Prussians to lead the establishment of a stable state and the creation of a strong power in Europe.
Today the Germans celebrate the political reunion which followed the exposure of the charade of socialist Utopianism. There is still a huge difference between "East" and "West" in Germany. The cost of living is higher in the west than it is in the east, but unemployment is still higher in the east. Everyone in the west is still paying a tax surcharge for 'reconstruction' of the eastern infrastructure and lack of maintenance of everything the east suffered under communist rule lasting 42 years. Some of the damage is still visible. It will be interesting to see where the 'unified' Germany is in another 20 years.
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
Anniversary ...
Today the Monk marks a significant anniversary. It is now six years since he clocked up his sixth decade, and he's still wondering how he managed to survive this long. His career has seen a lot of excitement in one form or another, with a few 'near misses' and a lot of very interesting opportunities, some good times and some tragedies.
Along the way he's made some terrific friends, met some fascinating people and visited some interesting places. He's looking forward to another few years and plenty more fun and laughter which he hopes to share with his friends and family.
Along the way he's made some terrific friends, met some fascinating people and visited some interesting places. He's looking forward to another few years and plenty more fun and laughter which he hopes to share with his friends and family.
Monday, 1 October 2012
It's those Pensioners again ...
An article in today's selection of 'Yahoo News' articles, implies that pensioners are ruining the British economy. Pensioners are, of course, a soft target. If you were to say the same thing about the people who have gone straight from school onto the dole, or have taken advantage of the idiocy of 'adopting' the 'unplanned' offspring of their teenage daughters in order to secure bigger, better housing and more and more income support, child benefit and so on, the media and the politicians would come under immediate fire from the Islington Set, not to mention the Fabian Society and probably the BBC. But pensioners? Who needs them - a drain on resources, cluttering up the health care system, blocking beds in hospitals, costing an arm and a leg in "care" homes ...
The solution, according to the 'bright young thing' who wrote this latest piece of tosh, is more immigration. Yes, import more third world migrants who send their earnings home and, when they retire, will be paid for by the state. Now there's a solution for you.
What this Ms and her political friends overlook is that most of us Pensioners have paid toward these pensions throughout our working lives. Whitehall, however, didn't invest a single penny of it. It vanished into the general 'tax' pot for the denizens of Westminster to spend on every pet project and cockamamy ideology they could dream of. My friends in the Fire Service have gone through this several times. "Their pensions are too generous" is the cry on every politician and civil servant's lips - overlooking the fact that the fire fighters have paid, over a working life of 30 years, 11% of the salaries toward it. The Local Authorities who took the cash, spent it, on 'social housing,' 'nursery schools,' 'minority affairs' and much, much more, including their own very generous 'retirement' handouts and 'pensions.' No, the problem is, of course, that the fire fighters failed to die in service - and now, when they, and all the other people who have paid into these funds, want to draw them, we are told we are causing a problem.
I want to use a very rude expression here, but will refrain. Yes, I'm angry. I've contributed all my working career. One pension fund has been stripped and stolen, now I rely on a small State pension and a slightly more generous 'private' one. I'm not the problem. I am only drawing back what I have paid for - sometimes at the cost of something I actually needed back then!
Brown destroyed the pensions of those who had been savvy enough (and earned enough after the punitive taxation imposed by that Party of wastrels) to invest privately for retirement. Previous governments squandered the public pension 'insurance' that is supposed to come from 'National Insurance' and now its our fault for living too long and wanting to enjoy the fruits of our enforced payments. The State Pension is small enough - much less than someone on unemployment benefit gets - and we pay tax on anything and everything else we might have 'put by.' I for one constantly get demands from the morons at HMRC for 'advance payment' against 'potential earnings.' I know I'm not the only person they keep hounding. My error was in telling them, when I retired six years ago, that I intended to try and work for myself. Now, despite voluminous correspondence with them, they still refuse to accept that I am fully and finally retired.
The problem is that the W*nk*rs in Whitehall and Westminster thought the population would continue to grow along a predictable curve. They'd also worked out in the Treasury, that life expectancy of the average industrial worker, miner or labourer (like fire fighters) was about 65. Bingo, cash for old rope, tell them they're paying into a 'fund,' spend the money freely and pay anyone lucky enough to reach retirement out of the 'income' from the idiots still working and paying. Only one problem, with industry vanishing faster than the famous Oujah Bird Frankie Howerd loved, the number of people in employment and contributing has shrunk. Second problem, a large slice of the populace has found it to be more lucrative to be "on benefit" than to take the low paid jobs the Whitehall Department responsible keeps telling us they can't fill and must therefore rely on immigrants for. Third, the cost of Westminster and Whitehall continues to escalate - and they have to find the money somewhere.
Oh! I know Chancellor - blame the pensioners. The rotters are living far too long!
The solution, according to the 'bright young thing' who wrote this latest piece of tosh, is more immigration. Yes, import more third world migrants who send their earnings home and, when they retire, will be paid for by the state. Now there's a solution for you.
What this Ms and her political friends overlook is that most of us Pensioners have paid toward these pensions throughout our working lives. Whitehall, however, didn't invest a single penny of it. It vanished into the general 'tax' pot for the denizens of Westminster to spend on every pet project and cockamamy ideology they could dream of. My friends in the Fire Service have gone through this several times. "Their pensions are too generous" is the cry on every politician and civil servant's lips - overlooking the fact that the fire fighters have paid, over a working life of 30 years, 11% of the salaries toward it. The Local Authorities who took the cash, spent it, on 'social housing,' 'nursery schools,' 'minority affairs' and much, much more, including their own very generous 'retirement' handouts and 'pensions.' No, the problem is, of course, that the fire fighters failed to die in service - and now, when they, and all the other people who have paid into these funds, want to draw them, we are told we are causing a problem.
I want to use a very rude expression here, but will refrain. Yes, I'm angry. I've contributed all my working career. One pension fund has been stripped and stolen, now I rely on a small State pension and a slightly more generous 'private' one. I'm not the problem. I am only drawing back what I have paid for - sometimes at the cost of something I actually needed back then!
Brown destroyed the pensions of those who had been savvy enough (and earned enough after the punitive taxation imposed by that Party of wastrels) to invest privately for retirement. Previous governments squandered the public pension 'insurance' that is supposed to come from 'National Insurance' and now its our fault for living too long and wanting to enjoy the fruits of our enforced payments. The State Pension is small enough - much less than someone on unemployment benefit gets - and we pay tax on anything and everything else we might have 'put by.' I for one constantly get demands from the morons at HMRC for 'advance payment' against 'potential earnings.' I know I'm not the only person they keep hounding. My error was in telling them, when I retired six years ago, that I intended to try and work for myself. Now, despite voluminous correspondence with them, they still refuse to accept that I am fully and finally retired.
The problem is that the W*nk*rs in Whitehall and Westminster thought the population would continue to grow along a predictable curve. They'd also worked out in the Treasury, that life expectancy of the average industrial worker, miner or labourer (like fire fighters) was about 65. Bingo, cash for old rope, tell them they're paying into a 'fund,' spend the money freely and pay anyone lucky enough to reach retirement out of the 'income' from the idiots still working and paying. Only one problem, with industry vanishing faster than the famous Oujah Bird Frankie Howerd loved, the number of people in employment and contributing has shrunk. Second problem, a large slice of the populace has found it to be more lucrative to be "on benefit" than to take the low paid jobs the Whitehall Department responsible keeps telling us they can't fill and must therefore rely on immigrants for. Third, the cost of Westminster and Whitehall continues to escalate - and they have to find the money somewhere.
Oh! I know Chancellor - blame the pensioners. The rotters are living far too long!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
