As a connoisseur of bad films, I give you this -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086508/
Among other silly stereotypes, the character "Blaster" stands out to me. Strangely, he is the demolition/boobytrap expert. His particular speciality is arranging an ambush of boobytraps designed so that the survivors of one explosion charge straight into the next one and so on. Inevitably, in the course of the film he breaks his own record for how many "jumps" he inflicts on the infinitely expendable bad guys....
Recently, Blair & Co finally admitted that the prisons are full and that they are instructing judges and magistrates to cut back on custodial sentences. Setting aside the fact that this is an injustice - surely the just sentence for a crime is not determined by prison spaces? - what will happen next?
1) Someone who would have gone to prison under the old rules will commit a horrific crime.
2) It will be denied that this happened because of the change in rules.
3) No one will resign - at least at first.
4) The rules will be re-imposed
5) Prison overcrowding will get worse.
6) Some one will get killed by a prison riot/disturbance. Alternatively there will be escapes from custody due to holding prisoners in improvised accommodation.
7) Prisoners will sue and get large awards for poor treatment and inadequate accommodation.
8) The rules on sentencing will be quietly reversed again.
This is this is the "Blaster" effect - if all you know is how to react to the latest headline, your policies will move in a circle.....
Sunday 22 April 2007
Friday 13 April 2007
What are the BNP?
The BNP are Left Nazis - Nazis because they are fascists combined with hardcore racism, and *Left* because of the economic policies the espouse.
The debate on the BNP is often confused by the fact that what is right and left wing has changed since Fascism rose. Free market economics were traditionally associated with the 19th century liberals, and fell out of fashion for a long time - the Great Depression and the apparent success of War Socialism in the two world wars cast a long shadow.
Fascism always has advocated socialistic economic policies - certainly to the left of mainstream economics as advocated by all the major parties the UK today. This has largely been obscured in debate by the insistence on the Left that fascism is entirely right-wing.
The BNP appeals to the working class as "the Labour Party of your fathers" - their policies are protectionist, nationalising and include total control by the government of the means of production. To the traditional right, they offer conservative social policies - talking up traditional values and the family. It should be noted that those on the right who head in their direction are those who have never accepted the value of the free-market - their position is that it undermines the country.
It is because of the dual appeal to left and right (ex-communists are common in fascism) that some have said that politics is a circle - go far enough to the left or right, and you end up with fascism...
The debate on the BNP is often confused by the fact that what is right and left wing has changed since Fascism rose. Free market economics were traditionally associated with the 19th century liberals, and fell out of fashion for a long time - the Great Depression and the apparent success of War Socialism in the two world wars cast a long shadow.
Fascism always has advocated socialistic economic policies - certainly to the left of mainstream economics as advocated by all the major parties the UK today. This has largely been obscured in debate by the insistence on the Left that fascism is entirely right-wing.
The BNP appeals to the working class as "the Labour Party of your fathers" - their policies are protectionist, nationalising and include total control by the government of the means of production. To the traditional right, they offer conservative social policies - talking up traditional values and the family. It should be noted that those on the right who head in their direction are those who have never accepted the value of the free-market - their position is that it undermines the country.
It is because of the dual appeal to left and right (ex-communists are common in fascism) that some have said that politics is a circle - go far enough to the left or right, and you end up with fascism...
Tuesday 10 April 2007
I see that others have an interest in the past. I was thinking today of John Moyse
Those that comment that the British sailors and marines should have followed his example are wrong. Moyes would have known that he faced being killed anyway - his situation was similar to that of Fabrizio Quattrocchi.
Some thought should be given to the fact that the servicemen and women involved in this incident either were not given interogation training, or it was not effective. Stripping captives of their clothes, pretending that everyone else has been released and even building coffins and gallows next door are all old tricks. Indeed, they date back before the Napoleonic wars... My suspicion is that they had not received the training.
Perhaps a question in Parliment might be appropriate?
Those that comment that the British sailors and marines should have followed his example are wrong. Moyes would have known that he faced being killed anyway - his situation was similar to that of Fabrizio Quattrocchi.
Some thought should be given to the fact that the servicemen and women involved in this incident either were not given interogation training, or it was not effective. Stripping captives of their clothes, pretending that everyone else has been released and even building coffins and gallows next door are all old tricks. Indeed, they date back before the Napoleonic wars... My suspicion is that they had not received the training.
Perhaps a question in Parliment might be appropriate?
Saturday 7 April 2007
Ahmadinejad & War Crimes
By appearing on TV with the captured British Servicemen, Ahmadinejad has broken Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention. It would be an open and shut case if taken to court. No issues of command resposibility or anything - he personally took part.
Anyone care to defend him?
Anyone care to defend him?
Tuesday 3 April 2007
Old Labour - Old Prejudices
Traditionally, Labour party memebers dislike the small business man. His workers are unlikely to be unionised. He is likely to be a Conservative. He is often that most terrible of sinners - a working class man trying to move up in the world. Under this government, the small business man is taking a hammering - the weight of regulations crushes small businesses, while inconveniencing the large....
A vague belef that fox hunting is something to do with Thatcher(!?) In fact the fox hunting Tories came from the aristocratic, wet, anti-Thatcher end of the party - Macmillan spoke for them when he described privatisation as "selling the family silver". No matter - as revenge for the miners, ban fox hunting.....
Talking about immigration is racist - so, ignore the entire topic..... Leaving it to the BNP, and Abu Hamza.
A belief that GPs and hospital consultants are lazy and more interested in private clients - introduce a contract system to force them to declare the hours they actually work. There's a reason that hospital consultants like Friday afternoon off - two actually. One, it is the calm before the storm - Friday and Saturday nights are busy. Two, by Friday, they have often worked 45 hours.... 12 hour days are standard. So, strangely enough their pay packets soared when they logged their true hours....
People with private pensions were considered as kin to those with private health insurance - dodging the system. No matter that many were as working class as you can get - tax the dividends that feed their pensions.
The military are traditionally suspect - an urban legend about shooting miners on strike seems to be at the root of this. So cut and cut again from the military budget.
Old Labour does seem to be getting a hearing under this government.
A vague belef that fox hunting is something to do with Thatcher(!?) In fact the fox hunting Tories came from the aristocratic, wet, anti-Thatcher end of the party - Macmillan spoke for them when he described privatisation as "selling the family silver". No matter - as revenge for the miners, ban fox hunting.....
Talking about immigration is racist - so, ignore the entire topic..... Leaving it to the BNP, and Abu Hamza.
A belief that GPs and hospital consultants are lazy and more interested in private clients - introduce a contract system to force them to declare the hours they actually work. There's a reason that hospital consultants like Friday afternoon off - two actually. One, it is the calm before the storm - Friday and Saturday nights are busy. Two, by Friday, they have often worked 45 hours.... 12 hour days are standard. So, strangely enough their pay packets soared when they logged their true hours....
People with private pensions were considered as kin to those with private health insurance - dodging the system. No matter that many were as working class as you can get - tax the dividends that feed their pensions.
The military are traditionally suspect - an urban legend about shooting miners on strike seems to be at the root of this. So cut and cut again from the military budget.
Old Labour does seem to be getting a hearing under this government.
Monday 2 April 2007
The Killing Tradition
With the Falklands War anniversary, thoughts go back to the Belgrano.
The fact that is nearly always missed is that it was the Navy who insisted that the ship must be sunk and permission was only given after a lengthy debate by the War Cabinet.
To understand this, you need to understand the Royal Navy. It is an organisation steeped in tradition. Court martials are stilled held in the Great Cabin of HMS Victory. It is an institution with a collective memory measured in hundreds of years.
In 1914, Admiral Troubridge was court martialed for failing to stop the fleeing Goeben. Though acquitted, he was completely shunned by the Navy for the rest of his life. He was given the most out of the way postings possible. Others officers would make excuses not to eat at the same table. What made this worse was that he bore the name and was a descendant of one of Nelson's "Band of Brothers".
Later that year, Admiral Cradock buried his medals in the garden of the Governor of the Falkland Islands. He sailed out to attack a superior German force - to nearly certain defeat. He stated that he was motivated, in part, by Troubridge's infamy. His aim was to try and slow down or cripple the Germans. He failed.
In December 1914 the RN got a measure of revenge at the Battle of the Falkland Isles. Admiral Graf Spee was attempting to capture the Falkland Islands - some speculate that the German plan was to turn them over to Argentina and lease them as a base.... As he bore down on Port Stanley harbour, the British fleet emerged. Two battlecruisers in the lead, they methodically chased his ships down and sank virtually all of them. None surrendered - though it was an utterly hopeless fight. One escaped - the Dresden. Wilhelm Canaris, then a Lieutenant, escaped with one of her flags....
In 1939 the pocket battleship Graf Spee (named after the ill fated German Admiral of the first war) was chased into Montevideo harbour by a force of British cruisers led by Henry Harwood. For this action, Admiral Cunningham personally congratulated him on wiping away the shame of the escape of the Goeben in 1914.
The Graf Spee was scuttled and her captain shot himself. Draped in his room was the flag from the Dresden - the last relic of Von Spee. He did so because British Intelligence had convinced him, via rumours that a British battlecruiser was waiting for him - his ship would suffer the fate of Von Spee's and his entire crew would die. He could not surrender and dishonour the greatest German naval hero....
So, in 1982... as a British Admiral, do you "forbear to chase .... being an enemy...." - the dread words of the Troubridge court martial. Do you remember Cradock in his tomb in the deeps? Do you remember Harwood ordering his ships, already badly damaged, to turn towards the Graf Spee? Do you remember the words of Cunningham - "It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition"? What would Capt. Fegan have said?
The fact that is nearly always missed is that it was the Navy who insisted that the ship must be sunk and permission was only given after a lengthy debate by the War Cabinet.
To understand this, you need to understand the Royal Navy. It is an organisation steeped in tradition. Court martials are stilled held in the Great Cabin of HMS Victory. It is an institution with a collective memory measured in hundreds of years.
In 1914, Admiral Troubridge was court martialed for failing to stop the fleeing Goeben. Though acquitted, he was completely shunned by the Navy for the rest of his life. He was given the most out of the way postings possible. Others officers would make excuses not to eat at the same table. What made this worse was that he bore the name and was a descendant of one of Nelson's "Band of Brothers".
Later that year, Admiral Cradock buried his medals in the garden of the Governor of the Falkland Islands. He sailed out to attack a superior German force - to nearly certain defeat. He stated that he was motivated, in part, by Troubridge's infamy. His aim was to try and slow down or cripple the Germans. He failed.
In December 1914 the RN got a measure of revenge at the Battle of the Falkland Isles. Admiral Graf Spee was attempting to capture the Falkland Islands - some speculate that the German plan was to turn them over to Argentina and lease them as a base.... As he bore down on Port Stanley harbour, the British fleet emerged. Two battlecruisers in the lead, they methodically chased his ships down and sank virtually all of them. None surrendered - though it was an utterly hopeless fight. One escaped - the Dresden. Wilhelm Canaris, then a Lieutenant, escaped with one of her flags....
In 1939 the pocket battleship Graf Spee (named after the ill fated German Admiral of the first war) was chased into Montevideo harbour by a force of British cruisers led by Henry Harwood. For this action, Admiral Cunningham personally congratulated him on wiping away the shame of the escape of the Goeben in 1914.
The Graf Spee was scuttled and her captain shot himself. Draped in his room was the flag from the Dresden - the last relic of Von Spee. He did so because British Intelligence had convinced him, via rumours that a British battlecruiser was waiting for him - his ship would suffer the fate of Von Spee's and his entire crew would die. He could not surrender and dishonour the greatest German naval hero....
So, in 1982... as a British Admiral, do you "forbear to chase .... being an enemy...." - the dread words of the Troubridge court martial. Do you remember Cradock in his tomb in the deeps? Do you remember Harwood ordering his ships, already badly damaged, to turn towards the Graf Spee? Do you remember the words of Cunningham - "It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition"? What would Capt. Fegan have said?
Wednesday 21 March 2007
The War On Oil
The grow consensus is that a replacement for oil must be found rapidly. What unintended side effects will this have?
The United States spends 45 Billion dollars a year on oil (roughly). It it, however, a trillion dollar economy. The US spends 4.5% of its GDP on oil, in other words. By contrast, 98% of the GDP of Saudi Arabia is from exporting oil. Similar figures are recorded against most of the worlds major petroleum producers (though perhaps not quite as extreme). The reason for this is a largely Dutch Disease. It is simply too tempting to spend the money. The oil producing nations are absolutely dependent on oil. We in the West merely find it convenient to buy it.
What will happen when we start to move to non-fossil fuel sources? Carbon taxes/credits will make oil more expensive to us, the consumers. We will begin to switch. At first, the growth in non-fossil fuels will be less than the growth in oil usage - there will be a mild effect on the oil price. As the transition starts to bite, there will be a sudden constriction in the market for oil.
Oil is priced in a strange way. Unlike almost any other commodity in the modern world, it's price is supported by an elaborate cartel. Perhaps only diamonds are so artificially supported. When oil substitutes get to 10% of the market (say - it could be less), the oil price will crash to production prices. Today that would be $25 dollars or so, from a market price of $61.
The effect of this will be suddenly to turn oil from a cash machine to a low/zero margin industry - there will be little or no profit. No more easy billions. OPEC could try to curtail production. But in the face of impoverishment, the oil producing countries will probably cheat.
Nearly all the producers have saved nothing. Many have over spent. The prime exception to this is Norway. The sudden ending of oil profits will send these nations over a cliff. They will not be able to feed their populations, or even give them drinking water in the case of Saudi Arabia. How will they respond?
The United States spends 45 Billion dollars a year on oil (roughly). It it, however, a trillion dollar economy. The US spends 4.5% of its GDP on oil, in other words. By contrast, 98% of the GDP of Saudi Arabia is from exporting oil. Similar figures are recorded against most of the worlds major petroleum producers (though perhaps not quite as extreme). The reason for this is a largely Dutch Disease. It is simply too tempting to spend the money. The oil producing nations are absolutely dependent on oil. We in the West merely find it convenient to buy it.
What will happen when we start to move to non-fossil fuel sources? Carbon taxes/credits will make oil more expensive to us, the consumers. We will begin to switch. At first, the growth in non-fossil fuels will be less than the growth in oil usage - there will be a mild effect on the oil price. As the transition starts to bite, there will be a sudden constriction in the market for oil.
Oil is priced in a strange way. Unlike almost any other commodity in the modern world, it's price is supported by an elaborate cartel. Perhaps only diamonds are so artificially supported. When oil substitutes get to 10% of the market (say - it could be less), the oil price will crash to production prices. Today that would be $25 dollars or so, from a market price of $61.
The effect of this will be suddenly to turn oil from a cash machine to a low/zero margin industry - there will be little or no profit. No more easy billions. OPEC could try to curtail production. But in the face of impoverishment, the oil producing countries will probably cheat.
Nearly all the producers have saved nothing. Many have over spent. The prime exception to this is Norway. The sudden ending of oil profits will send these nations over a cliff. They will not be able to feed their populations, or even give them drinking water in the case of Saudi Arabia. How will they respond?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
