Uber-Chavs Rule!
I'm sure he is the reincarnation of a Bash Street Kid! He sure looks like it.
Nevertheless, England's hopes of lifting the World Cup in South Africa rest clearly on the shoulders of the uber-chav, Wayne Rooney.
So, how do the football authorities ensure that he is in top form, rested and well prepared enough to lead the challenge? You guessed it – they don't.
Cartoon Roon falls over and limps out of the end of Champions League game this week. The country holds its breath. Commentators and pundits are aghast, and have no real suggestions or solutions as to how this might be avoided.
Best interview I saw after the match was with a group of Red Devil supporters arriving back at the airport in Manchester. One divvie even spouted, “I don't care if he can't play for England, as long as he is able to play in the next Champions League match.” It may sound daft but the structure of football almost ensures that England could only win the World Cup if it was a complete fluke.
Never mind FIFA and their umpteen refs. Never mind the obscene scheduling which ensures that the tournament is held at the end of the domestic season so that the players are either injured or knackered. Never mind the penchant for holding it in hot, dry, inhospitable countries – usually at altitude!
The tragedy is that when the Cup gets closer people who know better will be talking up England's chances to the detriment of countries who have the sense to organise things much better.
England should insist on the release of players on Jan 1 in any World Cup year. Then it would be up to the England management to pick the club games they play in. The players should be fit and rested before any World Cup game. Clubs should be compensated for the loss of their players. Compensated, but not reimbursed. After all – if you don't want to lose your players to the national team – don't sign them in the first place.
How is is that rugby and cricket can stage important competitions without having to cancel the club games?
England football administrators are either stupid or negligent. You choose.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
The Bad Cat
Evolution In Action
My cat is a bit twee. It was the runt of a litter of five whose mother was called Gladys. Therefore the kits were called the Pips. Mine stuck with the name and eventually this got shorted to the sobriquet Pipster. So, it's either called Pip or The Pipster. The name fits because it is very small – except for its belly – which almost drags the ground.
My cat is a bit twee. It was the runt of a litter of five whose mother was called Gladys. Therefore the kits were called the Pips. Mine stuck with the name and eventually this got shorted to the sobriquet Pipster. So, it's either called Pip or The Pipster. The name fits because it is very small – except for its belly – which almost drags the ground.
It's quite an old cat now, as cats go. It's pushing 16. It still loves to hunt in the spring and bring its “presents” in for your morning inspection. Other than that it's fairly lazy, as is the wont for cats.
It's not been a bad cat. It has been very expensive. Early on in its career we discovered that it was prone to cystitis. You can tell when cats have cystitis – they pee in your bathtub. That's good to know. The “cure” according to the vet is special food for cystitis cats, and it costs about £120 pounds a year just to feed it some biscuits. Add to that the inevitable vets bills for check-ups and yearly injections and you have a special family pet which could bankrupt a more mercenary owner.
It almost never leaves our expansive back garden. When the house next door was empty and being renovated it did try to take over their back yard by slipping through the hedge, but with the advent of the new owners and their dog it soon gave that one up. It's a stay at home cat. It was neutered very young (female) and has no need to wander.
Some time last year is suddenly “made a friend” - or so we thought at the time. Once we caught it in the garden looking at another cat. Oddly enough this other cat is a carbon copy of Pip – only a bit larger and with a bushier tail. How sweet.
Then, one evening I happened to pass the kitchen door and glance out into the conservatory. There was Pip at her biscuit bowl. I looked again. It was not Pip; it was the other cat happily tucking into a free meal of expensive biscuits. I told the others. They all thought it was quite sweet. What's a few biscuits between cat buddies?
After not a long time this pilfering got out of hand and Pip became anxious whenever it could see or smell the other cat. Pip's behaviour changed. We decided that it might be a good idea to discourage the interlopers visits. I was rather hoping that the dog might intervene.
Sheba gets on very well with Pip because she knows that the cat is the boss. Sheba does not like other cats. At all. It's favourite walk involves going around the block in search of occasional cats. It is sees one it goes for it. I hoped that the dog might be awake and about when the other cat came in through the cat flab and scare it into revising its night-time activities. Problem. Dog is lazy in the evening and never seemed to twig to the strange cat burgling its property.
These nocturnal food raids began to be tiresome and Pip was showing signs of stress. Yes, Mabel, apparently cats can suffer from stress. I know. The vet told me so.
The cat was transformed into the not altogether affectionate pseudonym ( or perhaps nom de guerre might be better ) of “The Bad Cat”.
Conversations started with, “Anyone seen “”The Bad Cat”” lately?”
Eventually, we caught The Bad Cat in the conservatory by the simple expedient of setting the cat flap to allow cats to enter but not leave. I opened the door. The Bad Cat was at the bowl. It panicked and ran for the cat flap. In it's terror it knocked the plastic flap off its hinges and escaped. Sounds cruel but I thought, at least, the problem was solved.
I underestimated The Bad Cat by half. Locking the cat flap so that it could not enter the house only brought on wanton destruction. Somehow it got up enough speed in the cat flap tunnel to smash it's way through he locked cat flap, which we found the next morning completely destroyed. More expense – new cat flap purchased.
It's now a war. Pip has been to the vet for a stress-related bald patch on its back. The new flap did not entirely work. It simply pushed it out of the way to gain entrance.
We are now on the fall back plan. We lock the cat flap after sundown. We push a large plant pot against the outside opening. We move the Pipster's biscuits onto the dining room table and close the conservatory door.
As long as we remember to religiously apply these measures, the scourge of The Bad Cat may yet be conquered. Wish us luck.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Football Failings
Only occasionally do I intrude into the wonderful, wacky world of football. Mostly it is either too silly, too exasperating or just down right too frustrating.
Recent developments deserve a mention. I happened on an interesting programme on the BBC News channel the other evening. It was a discussion regarding some of the recent financial crises that have been plaguing the “beautiful game”.
In case you missed it, Portsmouth FC are about to enter administration and a number of other clubs are queuing up to join them. That's the story, basically.
Like the weather, lots of folk are talking about it, and no-one is actually doing anything.
The programme “identified” some areas that need discussion/amendment/improvement. Clubs are (obviously) being extremely irresponsible with their finances. Players (and their union) are milking the cow for all it's worth – despite the fact that the teats are giving no succour, for the milk has run out. Fans are in disarray because of increasing ticket prices and lack of success on the field.
Where to start?
The Clubs. Football clubs operate as if they were immune to the forces of economics and gravity. Being immune to gravity is especially good for them as they think they can avoid the drop! Yep, that's how stupid they are. The truth is only a very few clubs, either by reason of an incredibly wealthy owner or owners, or a fan base that covers the known world can possibly aspire to win the Premiership. All the others are simply treading water. Clubs can, of course, never admit this because it would upset and alienate the fans.
The Supporters. The supporters like to think that they are the backbone of the club and the most important leg of the tripod. They are chin-dribblingly deluded on both counts. Clubs make noises about how wonderful the fans are and how they are striving to win trophies and championships for them. In reality, as long as some fans ( primarily the most stupid ones ) continue to troop gaily through the turnstiles so that the TV companies can pan the cameras around the ground without encountering too many empty seats; the clubs aren't really worried about the supporters ( or cannon fodder if you prefer ). Clubs know that the real money comes from TV.
The Players. Players are easy targets. Well, those at the very top who earn obscene wages are easy targets. The PFA is charged with protecting all players and their views on wages are simple. Get you hands off! For the PFA the problems with club finances are nothing to do with them and they don't really want to discuss or negotiate any change to the status quo.
What's to be done?
The Clubs. Clubs will not regulate themselves. Leagues will not regulate clubs. FIFA, UEFA, etc. will not regulate clubs. The EU ( for once charged with doing something useful ) could regulate clubs. How? Make Europe-wide rules and regulations regarding club finances. Stipulate the amount clubs can spend on players and transfers. Clubs should only be able to spend a proportion of TV and gate receipts and bring down wages and ticket prices in order to comply. At a stroke you level the playing field and make football more competitive.
The Supporters
Supporters need educating. This will be tough for they generally make Dewsbury Chavs look like intellectuals. Deep down they know they are gormless. Commentators, managers, players and administrators must stop pandering to fans' basest instincts and explain their real strategy: i.e. stay in this league, remain solvent, introduce more home-grown players that fans can identify with, live within our means and avoid what seems to be attractive short-term fixes!
The Players
Players are their own worst enemies. They are all in the gossip columns too often because they earn obscene amounts of money and don't know how to spend it except on Chav Flash. Players must learn to sign contracts that mean something, that put most of their earning into long-term investments instead of short-term bling, and act like responsible adults instead of spoiled brats.
Incidentally, none of the above had even the remotest chance of being adopted.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
The Razor's Edge
Razor Addendum
How good is this! No sooner do I finish spouting off about one of my favourite gripes concerning human evolution than the scientists have come to my aid!
How good is this! No sooner do I finish spouting off about one of my favourite gripes concerning human evolution than the scientists have come to my aid!
Researchers at Northeastern University in Boston discovered that most of us lead predictable lives. Who'd have guessed it!
Our travel arrangements are not very adventurous. By studying mobile phone data they found out that people rarely strayed from a six-mile radius. 70% of the time we can be found in our most visited location.
At Work? At a friends? Visiting John Terry's girlfriend's house?
They are hoping that the data will shed light on the spread of diseases. “We are all in one way or another boring,” said Albert-Lazlo Barabasi who co-wrote the study.
My point was and is that we are not very different (if at all) from our ancestors. What drives us would drive them.
Science may have some convincing evidence for the spread of human populations, but it has no answer to explain why people would up stakes from a sparsely populated and environmentally secure place and wander off to the freezing nether regions or worse.
This may be the Occam's Achilles. Seems like it to me.
Fancy a Close Shave?
Occam's Razor
No, this is not a Gillette commercial.
Rather it is a comment on Occam's Razor: first to Wikipedia -
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity")[2]. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[3]
Clear? I thought not. In layman's terms what it means is that given a choice between a simple and a complex explanation to a problem, always choose the simple one. It's probably correct.
This is fine, as far as it goes. Problem is is doesn't go very far.
Some examples. Why is there always a quantity of lost coins down the back of your settee/couch? Where do chickens roost in the desert? What did pre-historic man use for toilet paper? The list is long. The list is fairly endless.
But, is it correct?
I think not.
Let's take one of my favourite examples. One that has perplexed me since first I learned of it when I was (say) 12 or 13. Cro-Magnon man fascinated me. They were, as far as we can tell, modern humans. They would not be out of place walking down a street in London or New York. Yet for 25 to 30 thousand years they wandered about Europe and apparently achieved nothing. It took about that long to invent a wheel.
If, as we are led to believe, they were essentially us, what were they doing all that time? Back to Occam's razor. Occam would have us believe that the simplest explanation is the best and most accurate. They were just killing time. Fossil evidence says they were goofing around for thousands of years, getting nowhere. And the fossil evidence is always right. Right?
Maybe.
Let's back track a little. Our Cro-Frenchie pals were relative latecomers to Europe. Originally we were all Africans. The DNA tells us so. Out of Africa is all the rage.
According to both genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago and over time replacing earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus. According to this theory, around the above time frame, one of the African subpopulations went through a process of speciation, prohibiting gene flow between African and Eurasian Human populations.[citation needed] The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the near-consensus position held within the scientific community.[1]
So, if Wiki says so, it must be so.
What no-one really deals with is the why. If Occam is correct and the simplest explanation is the one the Our of Africa makes sense – doesn't it?
Not really.
If our ancestors wandered out of Africa about 60 000 years ago and got as far as Australia by about 45 000 years ago, what I want to know is not how, but why.
Assuming modern humans are the same as our African ancestors then what is interesting is not whether they wandered about all over but why they would bother. Who, for example, would voluntarily “vacation” on the snowy steppes of Siberia when you could just stay put on the warm, verdant coastal strips of India and Southeast Asia?
No-one deals with this. The DNA and fossil evidence says it is so; therefore, it is so. Full stop. Occam's Razor. I'm not convinced.
No, this is not a Gillette commercial.
Rather it is a comment on Occam's Razor: first to Wikipedia -
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity")[2]. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness). When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[3]
Clear? I thought not. In layman's terms what it means is that given a choice between a simple and a complex explanation to a problem, always choose the simple one. It's probably correct.
This is fine, as far as it goes. Problem is is doesn't go very far.
Some examples. Why is there always a quantity of lost coins down the back of your settee/couch? Where do chickens roost in the desert? What did pre-historic man use for toilet paper? The list is long. The list is fairly endless.
But, is it correct?
I think not.
Let's take one of my favourite examples. One that has perplexed me since first I learned of it when I was (say) 12 or 13. Cro-Magnon man fascinated me. They were, as far as we can tell, modern humans. They would not be out of place walking down a street in London or New York. Yet for 25 to 30 thousand years they wandered about Europe and apparently achieved nothing. It took about that long to invent a wheel.
If, as we are led to believe, they were essentially us, what were they doing all that time? Back to Occam's razor. Occam would have us believe that the simplest explanation is the best and most accurate. They were just killing time. Fossil evidence says they were goofing around for thousands of years, getting nowhere. And the fossil evidence is always right. Right?
Maybe.
Let's back track a little. Our Cro-Frenchie pals were relative latecomers to Europe. Originally we were all Africans. The DNA tells us so. Out of Africa is all the rage.
According to both genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago and over time replacing earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus. According to this theory, around the above time frame, one of the African subpopulations went through a process of speciation, prohibiting gene flow between African and Eurasian Human populations.[citation needed] The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa is the near-consensus position held within the scientific community.[1]
So, if Wiki says so, it must be so.
What no-one really deals with is the why. If Occam is correct and the simplest explanation is the one the Our of Africa makes sense – doesn't it?
Not really.
If our ancestors wandered out of Africa about 60 000 years ago and got as far as Australia by about 45 000 years ago, what I want to know is not how, but why.
Assuming modern humans are the same as our African ancestors then what is interesting is not whether they wandered about all over but why they would bother. Who, for example, would voluntarily “vacation” on the snowy steppes of Siberia when you could just stay put on the warm, verdant coastal strips of India and Southeast Asia?
No-one deals with this. The DNA and fossil evidence says it is so; therefore, it is so. Full stop. Occam's Razor. I'm not convinced.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Butch and Sundance
Escaping Responsibility
Butch and Sundance, two little porkers, also known as the Tamworth Two, were the ones who escaped from their lorry on the way to the abattoir and were reprieved, not turned into pork pies and chipolatas. This was in 1998 – but they are, as I read not long ago, still alive and porking on the pounds at an animal sanctuary near Ashford in Kent. Good on ya, piggies!
Seriously, they captured the nation's pity, sympathy and admiration for their flight from certain death. Their reward? A long life (for a pig) of relative ease.
Not surprising, therefore, to find that the common herd are just as sentimental and nonsensical about animals today as they were 12 years ago.
How do I know? See The cyber-fascists slaughtering a decent teacher in the Sunday Times today, 14 February.
The Head Teacher at a small school in Kent (same county as the Tamworth Two) decided to do something practical to educate children about where food comes from. Seems a worthwhile thing to me.
From the Sunday Times( with Rod Liddle's by-line):
Marcus, as a rather yummy (and fashionable) salt-marsh Romney lamb, was hand-reared by the staff and children of Lydd primary school, on Romney Marsh to show the kids where our food comes from. There was a survey out recently which showed that 10% of schoolchildren think we get cheese from rats.
Surprised? I'm not. On 29 March 09 I blogged on this very subject. Look it up on Blogspot! The Head is exactly right. Children, and many, many adults in the UK have no idea where food comes from or how it actually gets into the shrink-wrapped packets at Tesco.
More from the Rod Liddle:
There were plenty of other things the kids didn’t know about food, and where it came from, quite apart from the rat-cheese misapprehension thing. There is a general view that children these days are a bit ignorant about what they eat, divorced from the process which brings KFC Zinger Burgers and micro-chips to their plates. Lydd primary school tried to address this problem, with the help of Marcus. Which is where it all went wrong.
Right on Rod! So, what's the problem? Yep, you guessed it – it's those folks who are the worst people to have children – the parents.
Marcus was hand-fed and then there came the day when he was looking especially plump and juicy and the headmistress, Andrea Charman, decided it was time to electrocute him down at the abattoir and divide him into chops. That, after all, was the point of Marcus. To be served lightly grilled, pink inside, with asparagus spears and Jersey Royals and mint. But then all hell broke loose, even before someone — maybe mice, who knows? — had made the gravy.
The kids’ parents — or some of them — demanded that Marcus should be allowed to live, because he was a nice sheepy. Rightly, Charman refused, saying: look, this is precisely what we need the children to learn; this is how the world is, especially here on Romney Marsh. Sheep are food. So Marcus was zapped and quartered, as sheep are.
Key point: the Head was trying to show kids where lamb chops come from. This is an important bit of info to learn in life, really. It's not clear whether the Head was proposing to have said Marcus chops on the school menu.
It was at this point that the endlessly hyperactive, bone-headed online fascists got involved and last week, Charman, who had been hand-picked to turn round this hitherto failing school, felt forced to resign from her job for “personal reasons”. Some 2,500 cretins started an online petition calling for the beleaguered head teacher to be sacked. It is entirely possible that none of them whatsoever had any connection to Lydd primary school. However, the campaign of vilification and vituperation had begun.
Another Facebook site was set up by 650 similarly sad, lifeless, drongoes, demanding not merely that Charman be sacked but — and I quote — to Ban Andrea Charman From Teaching Anywhere. Can you imagine the sort of people who would associate themselves with such a cause?
I can. Maybe you can. Rod can. Can anyone else? Particularly, anyone in a position to do anything about it?
Apparently not.
It was at this point that the endlessly hyperactive, bone-headed online fascists got involved and last week, Charman, who had been hand-picked to turn round this hitherto failing school, felt forced to resign from her job for “personal reasons”.
Charman’s local MP, Michael Howard, bemoaned her departure and said that the internet campaign “had implications for the future of society”. Too right. Charman’s resignation is obviously a defeat for education and rationality, seeing that she was trying to educate the kids as to how food appears on our plates.
So, who's to blame? What's to be done? It's a tough one. There are, evidence would seem to point to, a lot of fairly stupid people in Lydd. This is (fortunately, or unfortunately) not a crime.
I'll take the unpopular view, Michael Howard should have insisted that the Head be persuaded to stay. The Head should have refused to be bullied. The “hyperactive, bone-headed on-line fascists “should have had their bluff called.
You don't expose ignorance by pretending it doesn't exist.
These people need educating. So do their children. Sounds like Lydd and the country have lost a good teacher.
Serves them right.
Butch and Sundance, two little porkers, also known as the Tamworth Two, were the ones who escaped from their lorry on the way to the abattoir and were reprieved, not turned into pork pies and chipolatas. This was in 1998 – but they are, as I read not long ago, still alive and porking on the pounds at an animal sanctuary near Ashford in Kent. Good on ya, piggies!
Seriously, they captured the nation's pity, sympathy and admiration for their flight from certain death. Their reward? A long life (for a pig) of relative ease.
Not surprising, therefore, to find that the common herd are just as sentimental and nonsensical about animals today as they were 12 years ago.
How do I know? See The cyber-fascists slaughtering a decent teacher in the Sunday Times today, 14 February.
The Head Teacher at a small school in Kent (same county as the Tamworth Two) decided to do something practical to educate children about where food comes from. Seems a worthwhile thing to me.
From the Sunday Times( with Rod Liddle's by-line):
Marcus, as a rather yummy (and fashionable) salt-marsh Romney lamb, was hand-reared by the staff and children of Lydd primary school, on Romney Marsh to show the kids where our food comes from. There was a survey out recently which showed that 10% of schoolchildren think we get cheese from rats.
Surprised? I'm not. On 29 March 09 I blogged on this very subject. Look it up on Blogspot! The Head is exactly right. Children, and many, many adults in the UK have no idea where food comes from or how it actually gets into the shrink-wrapped packets at Tesco.
More from the Rod Liddle:
There were plenty of other things the kids didn’t know about food, and where it came from, quite apart from the rat-cheese misapprehension thing. There is a general view that children these days are a bit ignorant about what they eat, divorced from the process which brings KFC Zinger Burgers and micro-chips to their plates. Lydd primary school tried to address this problem, with the help of Marcus. Which is where it all went wrong.
Right on Rod! So, what's the problem? Yep, you guessed it – it's those folks who are the worst people to have children – the parents.
Marcus was hand-fed and then there came the day when he was looking especially plump and juicy and the headmistress, Andrea Charman, decided it was time to electrocute him down at the abattoir and divide him into chops. That, after all, was the point of Marcus. To be served lightly grilled, pink inside, with asparagus spears and Jersey Royals and mint. But then all hell broke loose, even before someone — maybe mice, who knows? — had made the gravy.
The kids’ parents — or some of them — demanded that Marcus should be allowed to live, because he was a nice sheepy. Rightly, Charman refused, saying: look, this is precisely what we need the children to learn; this is how the world is, especially here on Romney Marsh. Sheep are food. So Marcus was zapped and quartered, as sheep are.
Key point: the Head was trying to show kids where lamb chops come from. This is an important bit of info to learn in life, really. It's not clear whether the Head was proposing to have said Marcus chops on the school menu.
It was at this point that the endlessly hyperactive, bone-headed online fascists got involved and last week, Charman, who had been hand-picked to turn round this hitherto failing school, felt forced to resign from her job for “personal reasons”. Some 2,500 cretins started an online petition calling for the beleaguered head teacher to be sacked. It is entirely possible that none of them whatsoever had any connection to Lydd primary school. However, the campaign of vilification and vituperation had begun.
Another Facebook site was set up by 650 similarly sad, lifeless, drongoes, demanding not merely that Charman be sacked but — and I quote — to Ban Andrea Charman From Teaching Anywhere. Can you imagine the sort of people who would associate themselves with such a cause?
I can. Maybe you can. Rod can. Can anyone else? Particularly, anyone in a position to do anything about it?
Apparently not.
It was at this point that the endlessly hyperactive, bone-headed online fascists got involved and last week, Charman, who had been hand-picked to turn round this hitherto failing school, felt forced to resign from her job for “personal reasons”.
Charman’s local MP, Michael Howard, bemoaned her departure and said that the internet campaign “had implications for the future of society”. Too right. Charman’s resignation is obviously a defeat for education and rationality, seeing that she was trying to educate the kids as to how food appears on our plates.
So, who's to blame? What's to be done? It's a tough one. There are, evidence would seem to point to, a lot of fairly stupid people in Lydd. This is (fortunately, or unfortunately) not a crime.
I'll take the unpopular view, Michael Howard should have insisted that the Head be persuaded to stay. The Head should have refused to be bullied. The “hyperactive, bone-headed on-line fascists “should have had their bluff called.
You don't expose ignorance by pretending it doesn't exist.
These people need educating. So do their children. Sounds like Lydd and the country have lost a good teacher.
Serves them right.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Super Bowl or Toilet Bowl
Before I stick my neck out and tell you who will win this year's Super Bowl, a short trip down memory lane is in order.
The greatest betting coup in modern times was not, as is usually thought, some Irish punters gamely trying to nobble some nag at Punchestown; but, instead, my idiotic and grotesque offer of the Chiefs and 16 points versus the Vikings for Super Bowl IV in 1970. I know, because I was in Norway at the time and the queue outside my door was so long and so unruly the MP's had to be called in to keep order.
Even though it was foolhardy, I really did think the Chiefs would win. The rest is history. Except it's been 40 years and we've not been very close since!
I think it was the last time we were in the play-offs – we faced Peyton Manning and the Colts at Arrowhead about 3-4 years ago. And, I had it all figured out.
Indianapolis were running the same offence then as they bring to Super Bowl 44. Manning gets to the line of scrimmage, surveys the defence, audibles the play and they kick butt. My mistake at that time was in gleefully predicting that playing away in KC none of that nonsense was going to be in the frame.
It was so logical to me. The “chop-till-you-drop” brigade would make so much noise that the Indy offence would just not be able to function. Chiefs would win. Easy.
Needless to say my previous form in predicting a Chiefs Super Bowl win against all the odds counted for nought. My plan looked good on paper, but in reality it was pants. Manning did whatever he felt like and the Chiefs were murdered.
Of course, things move on and the Colts are not the same team. Their defence is not as good. The offence lacks a power runner. They don't dominate possession. They have some rookies that they rely on to make big plays.
Nevertheless, they will win, and win big.
Why?
Simple. Payton Manning.
It really wouldn't surprise me if he could walk on water.
The only really surprising and almost non-existent possibility for a New Orleans victory would be if he had a real stinker. Interceptions – incomplete passes – sacks – fumbles. He may well do any or all of the above, but it won't matter because he will still win. That's what he does.
It's good to see Nawlins in the big show. I'd like to think they have a chance. They do. The same chance Wild Bill had when he was dealt aces and eights.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Chill Out Chilcot
Tony Blair: veni, vidi, vici.
I may be late but I'm very near the mark. The so-called Iraq inquiry finally got a chance to question Tony Blair and they muffed it big time.
It seems amazing to me that the Chilcotters are simply unable, or unwilling, to ask the type of questions designed to bring out the real answers.
At the moment it goes something like this:
Chilcot: Welcome (three minutes of waffle ensues outlining why the inquiry is there and expressing real regret that the witnesses are inconvenienced by having to attend). Now, Prime Minister, oh sorry I meant Mr Blair, could you please, please tell us a bit about what you were doing in relation to the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq?
Tony Blair: Well, (there follows a 35 minute uninterrupted monologue by Teflon Tone).
Got the idea?
Where's Paxman when he's needed?
Actually, taking cheap shots at Chilcot, whilst it has become a sort of unofficial Olympic sport, is not entirely fair. After all he is getting a whacking great sum to do this job and has a very nice lunch everyday courtesy of the government.
How so? How about consulting the terms of reference?
Who picked the members?
The Prime Minister appointed the members of the Committee. Opposition parties were consulted. (Oh gosh, that's all right then!)
Why don’t you have politicians on the Inquiry team?
The Committee’s membership is a matter for the Government. Sir John has, however, discussed his approach to the Inquiry with the Government, leaders of Opposition parties, Chairmen of relevant House of Commons Committees and other interested Parliamentarians. The Committee will continue to discuss the Inquiry with politicians as the Inquiry progresses. (Ok, this is a joke from a dodgy internet site, isn't it?)
Will the Inquiry look into issues that are being considered by other proceedings?
There may be issues that are subject to other ongoing proceedings – for example, legal proceedings or police investigations - on which it would not be appropriate for this Inquiry to comment. We will decide that on a case-by-case basis, subject to legal advice. (And, we trust you implicitly, after all you were appointed by the very people you are supposed to be questioning and holding to account!)
How is the Government co-operating with the Inquiry?
As the Prime Minister told the House of Commons, “no British document and no British witness will be beyond the scope of the Inquiry.” The Government has assured the Inquiry of the full co-operation of the relevant Departments. (I'm so relieved!)
Will all the documentary evidence be published on the website?
The Committee intends to publish the key evidence with its report at the end of the Inquiry. It may also publish material on the website as the Inquiry progresses where this will help increase public understanding of its work. (I'm sure I read somewhere that the Road to Hell is paves with good intentions.)
Will you tell witnesses the line of questioning they will face?
In order for the evidence sessions to be as effective as possible, and in order to ensure fairness to the witnesses, the Inquiry will provide guidance on the matters that the Inquiry wishes to cover in the hearing, and any documents the Inquiry wishes to refer to. The witnesses will not be told of the precise lines of questioning they will face. (Good, they will only be asked questions they are expecting, how fair is that?)
What protection do witnesses have to speak freely?
The hearings are not covered by Parliamentary or other privilege. The Committee expects all witnesses to provide truthful, fair and accurate evidence. The Inquiry welcomes the fact that the Government and Services have extended an immunity from disciplinary action to serving officials and military personnel who give evidence or otherwise assist the Inquiry, as this will help reassure witnesses that they can provide frank and honest evidence.
Should a witness feel unable to answer questions due to a genuine fear of self-incrimination of a criminal offence, it would be open to the Inquiry Committee to consider whether, in order to secure the greatest possible openness and co-operation, it would be appropriate to seek an undertaking from the Law Officers that evidence provided to the inquiry will not be used in criminal proceedings against them, in accordance with the usual practice in inquiries. (Read this bit again please – if you can bear it.)
What will the Inquiry do if it receives evidence or information about criminal offences?
If the Inquiry receives credible evidence that criminal offences have been committed that has not previously been referred to the investigating authorities, it would be obliged to refer that evidence to the appropriate investigating authority. (I'm just so comforted.)
I would gladly give up a year's pay to get Tone, Gordo, The Man of Straw and the rest of the divots in front of a U.S. Senate Committee. Then the money spent providing this sham might be said to have been well spent.
Tony Blair: veni, vidi, vici.
I may be late but I'm very near the mark. The so-called Iraq inquiry finally got a chance to question Tony Blair and they muffed it big time.
It seems amazing to me that the Chilcotters are simply unable, or unwilling, to ask the type of questions designed to bring out the real answers.
At the moment it goes something like this:
Chilcot: Welcome (three minutes of waffle ensues outlining why the inquiry is there and expressing real regret that the witnesses are inconvenienced by having to attend). Now, Prime Minister, oh sorry I meant Mr Blair, could you please, please tell us a bit about what you were doing in relation to the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq?
Tony Blair: Well, (there follows a 35 minute uninterrupted monologue by Teflon Tone).
Got the idea?
Where's Paxman when he's needed?
Actually, taking cheap shots at Chilcot, whilst it has become a sort of unofficial Olympic sport, is not entirely fair. After all he is getting a whacking great sum to do this job and has a very nice lunch everyday courtesy of the government.
How so? How about consulting the terms of reference?
Who picked the members?
The Prime Minister appointed the members of the Committee. Opposition parties were consulted. (Oh gosh, that's all right then!)
Why don’t you have politicians on the Inquiry team?
The Committee’s membership is a matter for the Government. Sir John has, however, discussed his approach to the Inquiry with the Government, leaders of Opposition parties, Chairmen of relevant House of Commons Committees and other interested Parliamentarians. The Committee will continue to discuss the Inquiry with politicians as the Inquiry progresses. (Ok, this is a joke from a dodgy internet site, isn't it?)
Will the Inquiry look into issues that are being considered by other proceedings?
There may be issues that are subject to other ongoing proceedings – for example, legal proceedings or police investigations - on which it would not be appropriate for this Inquiry to comment. We will decide that on a case-by-case basis, subject to legal advice. (And, we trust you implicitly, after all you were appointed by the very people you are supposed to be questioning and holding to account!)
How is the Government co-operating with the Inquiry?
As the Prime Minister told the House of Commons, “no British document and no British witness will be beyond the scope of the Inquiry.” The Government has assured the Inquiry of the full co-operation of the relevant Departments. (I'm so relieved!)
Will all the documentary evidence be published on the website?
The Committee intends to publish the key evidence with its report at the end of the Inquiry. It may also publish material on the website as the Inquiry progresses where this will help increase public understanding of its work. (I'm sure I read somewhere that the Road to Hell is paves with good intentions.)
Will you tell witnesses the line of questioning they will face?
In order for the evidence sessions to be as effective as possible, and in order to ensure fairness to the witnesses, the Inquiry will provide guidance on the matters that the Inquiry wishes to cover in the hearing, and any documents the Inquiry wishes to refer to. The witnesses will not be told of the precise lines of questioning they will face. (Good, they will only be asked questions they are expecting, how fair is that?)
What protection do witnesses have to speak freely?
The hearings are not covered by Parliamentary or other privilege. The Committee expects all witnesses to provide truthful, fair and accurate evidence. The Inquiry welcomes the fact that the Government and Services have extended an immunity from disciplinary action to serving officials and military personnel who give evidence or otherwise assist the Inquiry, as this will help reassure witnesses that they can provide frank and honest evidence.
Should a witness feel unable to answer questions due to a genuine fear of self-incrimination of a criminal offence, it would be open to the Inquiry Committee to consider whether, in order to secure the greatest possible openness and co-operation, it would be appropriate to seek an undertaking from the Law Officers that evidence provided to the inquiry will not be used in criminal proceedings against them, in accordance with the usual practice in inquiries. (Read this bit again please – if you can bear it.)
What will the Inquiry do if it receives evidence or information about criminal offences?
If the Inquiry receives credible evidence that criminal offences have been committed that has not previously been referred to the investigating authorities, it would be obliged to refer that evidence to the appropriate investigating authority. (I'm just so comforted.)
I would gladly give up a year's pay to get Tone, Gordo, The Man of Straw and the rest of the divots in front of a U.S. Senate Committee. Then the money spent providing this sham might be said to have been well spent.
Monday, January 11, 2010
New Year's Resolutions
Number One
Instead of making New Year's Resolutions and then forgetting about them or breaking them, I resolve to make some and try to stick to them.
Number Two
Instead of expecting the rest of the world to suddenly get smarter, I resolve to be much more tolerant of others despite their obvious mental incapabilities.
Number Three
Instead of expecting a halcyon Summer of blue skies, high temperatures and endless runs for the England cricket team, I resolve to accept whatever nature has in store for us (unless it becomes so cold that the only economic way to keep warm is to burn a few UEA climate scientists at the stake).
Number Four
Instead of sinking slowly into an Alzheimer's haze, I resolve to make the rest of the world forget things before I do.
Number Five
Instead of being entirely smug about quitting smoking years ago, I resolve to be more tolerant of those who genuinely have difficulties in stopping (with the exception of anyone in my family who really ought to get the message by now).
Number Six
Instead of following the crowd sheepishly, I resolve to stop taking the mickey out of Delia Smith and the other gormless numpties who regularly troop into Carrow Road or write complete drivel about football in the local press. Actually, I don't think I can do this one - it's just too tempting.
Number Seven
Instead of nodding when the commentators describe Kevin Pietersen as the best thing since sliced bread, I resolve to expose him for the sham he is; a one-day batsman of limited ability whose understanding of the concept of a team only makes sense to him if there actually is an I in team.
Number Eight
Instead of smiling when someone mentions something stupid (like we al should thank the bankers for looking after our money), I resolve to smack them (figuratively) in the gob.
Number Nine
Instead of keeping my mouth shut in the face of religious or political intolerance, I resolve to stand up for the rights of the innocent and minorities.
Number Ten
Instead of making New Year's Resolutions in January 2011, I resolve to keep my thoughts to myself.
Chiefs Grades
Getting Better?
It's the end of term. The pads are being put away and the players are on their way home. Time to sum up and evaluate the 2009 version of the KC Chiefs.
Management
It's the Scott Pioli and Todd Haley show, so at the end of the day it's their performances which will power the Chiefs to the next level or see them sink. How did they do? Well, Scott has the last laugh, but only because he is up in the office and his decisions are not always apparent. Todd is on the front line and way too visible. Scott had his work cut out for him because he inherited a team from the previous regime and would have had to be a real Houdini to escape the mediocrity that was the previous incarnation. Has he failed? No, not yet – but he only has this year's draft and free agency to come up with some solutions. Todd has already made some moves to improve his coaching staff. A smart move. As a beginner he has had it rough. Again, he has only one more year to show some real progress. After that it could be adiós!
Quarterbacks
The blaze of anticipation that came with Matt Cassell soon foundered under the realisation that without any quality receivers and a make-shift backfield he was not going to be a Pro Bowl QB this season. The Chiefs will persevere with him and rightly. With some quality around him he can only get better. Brodie Croyle is a good back-up – question is can the Chiefs keep him?
Receivers
See above. No quality. Dwayne Bowe took over the Larry Johnson role as Idiot in Residence. Others arrived, left or just bombed. Must be priority number two in draft/free agency.
Running backs
Jamal Charles is now the saviour after a good second half to the season. Shows a lot of promise. Could be a thousand yard plus back. One thing is for sure, the running back is the quarterback's best friend and if Cassell is to prosper then so must Charles. Chiefs may well draft here but not in the top three rounds. The demise of Larry Johnson was long past doing and benefited everyone. Now he can set about messing up Cincinnati.
O-line
Got a bit better but only just. Chiefs will try to acquire some quality at center and maybe one tackle. Some incumbents will be out of a job next season – at least in KC. Draft priority – equal second.
Special Teams
Not enough quality and the result often found the Tomahawkers behind before they started. Change of coach? Change of philosophy? Change of personnel? Probably all of the above. Chiefs fringe draftees must be able to contribute to this part of the team. Draft priority – below five
Kickers
Just about a plus for Mr Irrelevant. Chiefs will persevere with him and should. Punting rock solid – probably the only area the Chiefs will not have to look at next season. Draft priority – not on the radar. If the Chiefs draft a specialist kicker they really have lost the plot!
Defensive Line/Linebackers
Here's where Pioli and Haley really can point to the first year blues. Trying to change the 4-3 to a 3-4 with more or less the same personnel was always going to be a killer, and it was. So, now they must fix it. They must draft high (first/second round) and explore free agency. They may trade/get rid of Glenn Dorsey. Makes sense – he's not a 3-4 player. The 2010 Chiefs must be able to stuff the run with the front three. End of story. Linebackers are not good enough and will be cleared out – with the exception of Tamba Hali and maybe one or two others. Draft high! Imperative!
Secondary
Suffered because of the non-existent pass rush. Still developing and will probably be down in the draft priority.
Fringe players
Did not contribute much. Despite noises that everyone on the roster must be the right kind of player it just did not happen From the 50-odd man roster that finished the season I expect no more than 35 -40 to be starting the next.
It's the end of term. The pads are being put away and the players are on their way home. Time to sum up and evaluate the 2009 version of the KC Chiefs.
Management
It's the Scott Pioli and Todd Haley show, so at the end of the day it's their performances which will power the Chiefs to the next level or see them sink. How did they do? Well, Scott has the last laugh, but only because he is up in the office and his decisions are not always apparent. Todd is on the front line and way too visible. Scott had his work cut out for him because he inherited a team from the previous regime and would have had to be a real Houdini to escape the mediocrity that was the previous incarnation. Has he failed? No, not yet – but he only has this year's draft and free agency to come up with some solutions. Todd has already made some moves to improve his coaching staff. A smart move. As a beginner he has had it rough. Again, he has only one more year to show some real progress. After that it could be adiós!
Quarterbacks
The blaze of anticipation that came with Matt Cassell soon foundered under the realisation that without any quality receivers and a make-shift backfield he was not going to be a Pro Bowl QB this season. The Chiefs will persevere with him and rightly. With some quality around him he can only get better. Brodie Croyle is a good back-up – question is can the Chiefs keep him?
Receivers
See above. No quality. Dwayne Bowe took over the Larry Johnson role as Idiot in Residence. Others arrived, left or just bombed. Must be priority number two in draft/free agency.
Running backs
Jamal Charles is now the saviour after a good second half to the season. Shows a lot of promise. Could be a thousand yard plus back. One thing is for sure, the running back is the quarterback's best friend and if Cassell is to prosper then so must Charles. Chiefs may well draft here but not in the top three rounds. The demise of Larry Johnson was long past doing and benefited everyone. Now he can set about messing up Cincinnati.
O-line
Got a bit better but only just. Chiefs will try to acquire some quality at center and maybe one tackle. Some incumbents will be out of a job next season – at least in KC. Draft priority – equal second.
Special Teams
Not enough quality and the result often found the Tomahawkers behind before they started. Change of coach? Change of philosophy? Change of personnel? Probably all of the above. Chiefs fringe draftees must be able to contribute to this part of the team. Draft priority – below five
Kickers
Just about a plus for Mr Irrelevant. Chiefs will persevere with him and should. Punting rock solid – probably the only area the Chiefs will not have to look at next season. Draft priority – not on the radar. If the Chiefs draft a specialist kicker they really have lost the plot!
Defensive Line/Linebackers
Here's where Pioli and Haley really can point to the first year blues. Trying to change the 4-3 to a 3-4 with more or less the same personnel was always going to be a killer, and it was. So, now they must fix it. They must draft high (first/second round) and explore free agency. They may trade/get rid of Glenn Dorsey. Makes sense – he's not a 3-4 player. The 2010 Chiefs must be able to stuff the run with the front three. End of story. Linebackers are not good enough and will be cleared out – with the exception of Tamba Hali and maybe one or two others. Draft high! Imperative!
Secondary
Suffered because of the non-existent pass rush. Still developing and will probably be down in the draft priority.
Fringe players
Did not contribute much. Despite noises that everyone on the roster must be the right kind of player it just did not happen From the 50-odd man roster that finished the season I expect no more than 35 -40 to be starting the next.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Merchant Bankers
Cockney Rhyming Slang.
Well. We have the British Airways staff going on strike, the N 25 only being partly built, the A 11 imploding south of Thickthorn, the MoD probably closing an airbase and cancelling plans to upgrade the fighter force, interest rates at almost zero and the Daily Mirror fronting a campaign to rubbish the climate change gurus.
Any connections?
Strangely, yes. It's the banks. Or, more precisely, the antics of the government and the merchant bankers over their bail-outs and their bonuses.
I cheerfully confess, with pride, that I neither understand nor particularly care about economics. It's just a pseudo-science. How else can you explain the crazy way money has been acting.
For example, you might reasonably expect that when the government is borrowing record sums of money to fund the bankers greed and The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street's penchant for toxic assets that interest rates would be sky high to attract investors.
They are nil.
Question one on the Economics 101 final exam: explain.
We are assured that no money can be found to fund essential infrastructure projects, yet the pit full of funds to bail out the banks is seemingly bottomless. The sums are colossal and should mean high interest rates. Explain please.
For climate change read bankers bail-out. Who else will benefit from an increase in global infrastructure projects. Yep, it's the bankers.
When British Airways goes bust with a massive hole in their pension fund who gets the goodies? Bankers.
And, when the MoD can't find a few millions to protect the nation who should we thank? No prizes for guessing - the bankers.
Am I just taking cheap shots at everyone's favourite target for being crossed off their Christmas card list and saving a few pennies that way. Not really, the bankers have just about finished off the Royal Mail in their spare time.
Come the revolution, these greedy geeks in pin-stripes will be exchanging their garments for real stripes as they are marched (with their bogus bonuses and bulging bank accounts confiscated to fund real progress for real people) straight into the Gulag.
Can't wait.
Monday, November 30, 2009
South of Thickthorn
Thickthorn Thickies!
Fantastic news! The plans to completely dual the A 11 are well and truly on the drawing board! Actually, they have been on the drawing board for the best part of the last 30 years.
Kindly stop muttering better late than never.
What I have found most enjoyable so far in the process is the splendid graphic produced by the EDP to illustrate what the new road would look like. Choosing the memorial between Thetford and Barton Mills as the focus, the view is truly spectacular as the road snakes relentlessly towards Thetford – disappearing in the distance with all the grace and aplomb of a rattlesnake retreating up a rhinoceroses bottom. Absolutely beautiful.
Thirty years late, but beautiful.
Would that all the news was quite so ascetically pleasing in the A 11 saga.
The EDP also kindly provided a map which shows the course of the new carriageway. Just like in the picture it follows the old carriageway for 9/10 if the way. The only new bit is the Elveden by-pass, for that is what it amounts to.
So, we need about 9 miles of new carriageway. We bypass Elveden allowing this Norfolk Sleepy Hollow to return to its pre-auto mobile-age tranquillity. So, what is required? One bridge (there is one stream to cross near the Barton Mills roundabout). Some new carriageway. Some kind of junction for the few minor roads encountered. That's about it.
The cost? About 127 million pounds. That's about 14 million pounds a mile. Perhaps the carriageway is to be gold and diamond encrusted? Maybe the bridge is to be built to withstand the ravages of nature for the next 2000 years?
Could someone please explain to me why it costs so much?
Perhaps it's because the same numpties who are planning this project are same ones who: firstly, decided that the original Thetford by-pass was to be single carriageway; secondly decided the same for the original Attleborough by-pass; thirdly were most likely in on the original designs for the Titanic!
Question. How much intelligence does it take to realise that if they had built the whole damn thing in one go it would have been finished 30 years and would have cost 10% of what they are trying to charge the poor old taxpayer today!
We should get the bulk of the money from those idiots.
I remember making the point when they finished the Roudham Heath section – which abuts the proposed extension. All the equipment was there and in place. The land is flat and dry. Why not just carry on and built? “Oh, no,” they cried, “we can't do that!” First we have to have a planning enquiry (the result of which everyone already knows); then, we have to carry out extensive tests on the soil for drainage and subsidence; then we need to consult local people.
Or, we could just dust off the plans that have been gaily mouldering in the cupboard for the last 25 years and submit them. But, no, that way we can't jack-up the costs.
It's a damn scandal.
Now, for the really good news. It the Tories win the next election, they may cancel the whole thing! Couldn't help themselves from bailing out the banks to the tune of umpteen billions, but they may need to save a few million by cancelling the A 11 project.
Yeah, right.
Saving the best bit for last, now someone has decided that if the road is dualled the Barton Mills roundabout will become a major bottleneck. What nonsense. There is already a roundabout at the Norwich end and three at Thetford and one at Attleborough. One more isn't going to make any difference!
But, wait, perhaps we can delay the project for another 40 years whilst we assess the roundabout situation!
Get on, just get on with it!
Sometimes you just have to laugh or you would cry.
Fantastic news! The plans to completely dual the A 11 are well and truly on the drawing board! Actually, they have been on the drawing board for the best part of the last 30 years.
Kindly stop muttering better late than never.
What I have found most enjoyable so far in the process is the splendid graphic produced by the EDP to illustrate what the new road would look like. Choosing the memorial between Thetford and Barton Mills as the focus, the view is truly spectacular as the road snakes relentlessly towards Thetford – disappearing in the distance with all the grace and aplomb of a rattlesnake retreating up a rhinoceroses bottom. Absolutely beautiful.
Thirty years late, but beautiful.
Would that all the news was quite so ascetically pleasing in the A 11 saga.
The EDP also kindly provided a map which shows the course of the new carriageway. Just like in the picture it follows the old carriageway for 9/10 if the way. The only new bit is the Elveden by-pass, for that is what it amounts to.
So, we need about 9 miles of new carriageway. We bypass Elveden allowing this Norfolk Sleepy Hollow to return to its pre-auto mobile-age tranquillity. So, what is required? One bridge (there is one stream to cross near the Barton Mills roundabout). Some new carriageway. Some kind of junction for the few minor roads encountered. That's about it.
The cost? About 127 million pounds. That's about 14 million pounds a mile. Perhaps the carriageway is to be gold and diamond encrusted? Maybe the bridge is to be built to withstand the ravages of nature for the next 2000 years?
Could someone please explain to me why it costs so much?
Perhaps it's because the same numpties who are planning this project are same ones who: firstly, decided that the original Thetford by-pass was to be single carriageway; secondly decided the same for the original Attleborough by-pass; thirdly were most likely in on the original designs for the Titanic!
Question. How much intelligence does it take to realise that if they had built the whole damn thing in one go it would have been finished 30 years and would have cost 10% of what they are trying to charge the poor old taxpayer today!
We should get the bulk of the money from those idiots.
I remember making the point when they finished the Roudham Heath section – which abuts the proposed extension. All the equipment was there and in place. The land is flat and dry. Why not just carry on and built? “Oh, no,” they cried, “we can't do that!” First we have to have a planning enquiry (the result of which everyone already knows); then, we have to carry out extensive tests on the soil for drainage and subsidence; then we need to consult local people.
Or, we could just dust off the plans that have been gaily mouldering in the cupboard for the last 25 years and submit them. But, no, that way we can't jack-up the costs.
It's a damn scandal.
Now, for the really good news. It the Tories win the next election, they may cancel the whole thing! Couldn't help themselves from bailing out the banks to the tune of umpteen billions, but they may need to save a few million by cancelling the A 11 project.
Yeah, right.
Saving the best bit for last, now someone has decided that if the road is dualled the Barton Mills roundabout will become a major bottleneck. What nonsense. There is already a roundabout at the Norwich end and three at Thetford and one at Attleborough. One more isn't going to make any difference!
But, wait, perhaps we can delay the project for another 40 years whilst we assess the roundabout situation!
Get on, just get on with it!
Sometimes you just have to laugh or you would cry.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
It's Enough to make you cry!!
Sometimes it is hard to take football seriously.
Today is one of those sometimes. Thierry Henry is in sore danger of a brouhaha moment which will, no doubt, not endear him to the Paddys! What a farce!
What's really surprising is the number of well-respected commentators jumping on the bandwagon. Wow! They finally realised that football is a silly game populated by real Neanderthals (both on the pitch and in the stands) as opposed to the the Turnip Taliban! I'm genuinely amazed.
First we have that respected commentator Hugh McIlvanney informing us that “Video refs can catch the cheats”. Excuse me, Hugh, where have you been for the last umpteen years? Are you seriously telling your readers that you only just noticed that football is populated by cheaters and that the administrators have done nothing about it since time began? Pull the one with the bells on!
Do you not remember the Maradona “Hand of God”? How long ago was that? Was anything ever done? Wake up!!
Instead of vilifying Henry, who is, after all, only doing what anyone would do if they knew they were not likely to get caught; Hugh might reserve his righteous ire for the game itself. To be fair, he does touch on this, but, as usual, chickens out at the crucial moment.
In a long article, he reserves his opprobrium for the administrators, chiefly Sepp Blatter of FIFA. Come on Hugh! Easy target! Some of this is, surely, down to the Fourth Estate! You guys are not Babes in the Wood!
Facts are that football is a rotten game which is designed to encourage the basest instincts in the human character. Hugh is hinting at this, but he is not willing to condemn sufficiently.
Same day, same paper – we have a stab at it from Dominic Lawson on the Editorial page. His article, “A game of two halves: cheating and whining” reads better than the lily-livered Hugh. He goes though the whole gamut of footballing sins. He is particularly aghast at the Irish howls of derision, when, as he skilfully points out, Ireland's Roy Keane attempted to cheat twice in the same game, only to be foiled because the ref happened to be looking. He quotes Damian Duff – Irish striker - “If it was me or Robbie at the other end, we would have tried it. You just expect the referee or linesman to see it.”
How sad it is that on the day even the match commentators did not see the hand ball until the replay! Dominic's point that no-one has ever seen a referee change his mind is the key. Since the poor old ref made a boo-boo, he will be pilloried. Meanwhile, the idiots who run the game will cry crocodile tears and strike him from their list of possible World Cup referees (and their Christmas card list!!).
Contrasting rugby and cricket with their reliance on technology (Hugh, are you listening!!) only leads Dominic deeper into despair. His conclusion that football attracts a particular type of person, a yob, just about sums it up.
I love his last sentence: “Does anyone know why it is still called “”the beautiful game””? That has to be the biggest joke of all.”
Amen.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tenebrae factae sunt
Oh, woe is me!!
From bad to worse. That's the Chiefs season so far, and, perhaps, for the foreseeable future.
Grabbing at some fragile straws (mostly last week's triumph at Washington), I predicted them to beat San Diego at Arrowhead last week. Result: worse than bad.
The loss was hard enough to take. The backwards progression was even more difficult to digest.
Over to coach Todd Haley:
“I’m the head coach of the team and I’m running the offense,” Haley said. “We have to be better than that. We have to be better at protecting. We have to be better at run blocking. We have to be better at catching the ball. We can’t tip the ball to them and we have to be better at quarterback. That’s the bottom line.”
In other words, the Chiefs need to get better at just about everything.
This season is rapidly becoming over even before it got started for the Chiefs. Just look at Coach Haley's comments in detail.
Better at protecting: the Chiefs brought in Matt Cassel in order to provide a solid quarterback around whom we could build an offense. This just isn't working.
Better at run blocking: high hopes were placed on a revamped offensive line who, in concert with All-Pro back Larry Johnson (who is in the news with vaguely disguised dissatisfaction with the coaching staff), could take the pressure of Cassell and provide some kind of ball possession. This has been less than pie in the sky – more like pearls before swine.
Better at catching the ball: Coach Haley seems unable to either provide receivers or design plays which would give Cassell some kind of confidence. They are a fairly nondescript unit – excepting Dwayne Bowe. They just don't look like an NFL receiver corps.
Better at quarterback: it's easy to throw the blame at Cassell, but that's facile. He preformed quite well behind a fine line in New England. Now, he must learn to perform well behind something less than mediocre. The war is, as usual, won in the trenches.
Better at everything: over to you again Coach. The coaches are the factor you have not mentioned.
Fans were expecting a rebuilding kind of season. They were also expecting some kind of progress.
We're still waiting and time is running out. Last week's win at hopeless Washington is looking like the only one this season. Coach Haley better win some soon – or his reign will be short.
Tenebrae factae sunt
From bad to worse. That's the Chiefs season so far, and, perhaps, for the foreseeable future.
Grabbing at some fragile straws (mostly last week's triumph at Washington), I predicted them to beat San Diego at Arrowhead last week. Result: worse than bad.
The loss was hard enough to take. The backwards progression was even more difficult to digest.
Over to coach Todd Haley:
“I’m the head coach of the team and I’m running the offense,” Haley said. “We have to be better than that. We have to be better at protecting. We have to be better at run blocking. We have to be better at catching the ball. We can’t tip the ball to them and we have to be better at quarterback. That’s the bottom line.”
In other words, the Chiefs need to get better at just about everything.
This season is rapidly becoming over even before it got started for the Chiefs. Just look at Coach Haley's comments in detail.
Better at protecting: the Chiefs brought in Matt Cassel in order to provide a solid quarterback around whom we could build an offense. This just isn't working.
Better at run blocking: high hopes were placed on a revamped offensive line who, in concert with All-Pro back Larry Johnson (who is in the news with vaguely disguised dissatisfaction with the coaching staff), could take the pressure of Cassell and provide some kind of ball possession. This has been less than pie in the sky – more like pearls before swine.
Better at catching the ball: Coach Haley seems unable to either provide receivers or design plays which would give Cassell some kind of confidence. They are a fairly nondescript unit – excepting Dwayne Bowe. They just don't look like an NFL receiver corps.
Better at quarterback: it's easy to throw the blame at Cassell, but that's facile. He preformed quite well behind a fine line in New England. Now, he must learn to perform well behind something less than mediocre. The war is, as usual, won in the trenches.
Better at everything: over to you again Coach. The coaches are the factor you have not mentioned.
Fans were expecting a rebuilding kind of season. They were also expecting some kind of progress.
We're still waiting and time is running out. Last week's win at hopeless Washington is looking like the only one this season. Coach Haley better win some soon – or his reign will be short.
Tenebrae factae sunt
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Missing Link?
Human evolutionary theory has suffered a shock recently with the release of details of a possible direct human ancestor dating from 6 million years ago – Ardipithecus ramdius – or Ardi for short.
Finding a specimen that old is surprising enough in itself; yet the real surprise is the revelation that Ardi lived in a well-forested and tropical environment and walked upright.
So, what' so surprising about that?
Previous theories about man's evolution have focussed on the idea that bi-pedal locomotion developed in response to a move to the dryer grasslands and away from the trees. This always seemed unlikely to me. The theory was that in order to see predators from a distance evolution favoured our ancestors who could stand and walk so they could see over the grass and spot the lions before the lions spotted them. Sounds good, until you stop and think about it.
In order for this theory to hold water you would have to have evidence that the environment was changing quite rapidly and that staying close to the trees was not really an option – unless you are a chip or orang-outang. This clearly flies in the face of obvious logic. Why would you choose a very precarious existence out on the plains when you could stay very close to the trees? Tough one that old Ardi may be able to shed light on.
According to the scientists involved in Ardi's discovery, she was up and about a long time before her descendants moved out onto the plains. Why? They speculate that by freeing up her hands she (and more particularly the “he” versions) were more able to gather food and return it to their mates, thereby providing the evolutionary advantage of walking upright a long time before we left the trees for good. Sounds fairly appealing.
But, in common with all theories – it's only a theory, and there are problems.
First, and I confess that I didn't really fully understand this before, the fossil evidence for Ardi and most of the other possible human ancestors you can find on the family tree is really very scanty. So scanty that we have many more fossils of, say, sabre-tooth cats than we have of humans. Therefore the analysis of human fossils remains and the extrapolation of the fossil evidence to form a theory about human evolution is based on very slim fossil evidence, to say the least. In Ardi's case the actual discovery of the fossil bones was made some 8 years ago and the field workers have been busy ever since in trying to firm up the evidence by using a variety of techniques and sources. We are just short of evidence. Very short! Why?
In my view, this is the key question.
Just stop and consider, we are talking about millions of years of human evolution. During that long period we have only a very few skeletal remains upon which to base any theory. Even given that the base populations in Africa were probably quite small, millions of years still adds up to millions of years of potential fossils. That's a lot of potential human carcasses lying about willing and able to form ancestor fossils.
They either are not there or we haven't found them yet. If they aren't there, why not?
Simple. What most of the researchers seem unable or unwilling to deal with is the place early man occupied in the food chain. Ardi and her cousins had very small brains – some only just slightly larger than a chimp. Their lives were short and brutal. They were prey species for all the large to medium predators. Think about the function of the hyenas and vultures on the plains of Africa today. They clean up. They clean up everything. They most certainly would have cleaned up any human remains they found. Result? Some very small, very chewed bone fragments.
After every rain (and these are fairly infrequent!) the scientists return to the valley where Ardi was found and search for newly uncovered bones. They may find some more evidence for Ardi and her kind. We wish them luck. Fortunately, the cause of evolution and, in particular, Darwinian evolution does not depend on their discoveries.
What evidence there is forced the scientists into formulating a new theory to account for the advent of bi-pedalism so early in the evolutionary saga. They came up with sex. Postulating that the males, by freeing up their hands, were able to gather food on the forest floor and near the edge of the savannah and carry it back to the females – thereby providing the earliest equivalent of the ubiquitous box of chocolate on record!! These males were successful in mating and evolution provided the rest.
This pre-supposes that early hominids were very unlike their simian relatives in mating behaviour. Even before the advantages of males co-operating in hunting activities may have “forced” them to be co-operative in mating, our ancestors were (seemingly) avoiding the potential fatal consequences of fighting to secure mates for a more equitable and sociable outcome. This gave us the real advantage over the other branches of the family. We work together and share the females. This behaviour is passed on to our offspring.
Every dog (or indeed proto-human) really does, therefore, have his day.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Bumper News Day
Truth is really stranger than ficiton!
Firstly, as I expected, the story about cows attacking the farmer (a bit like man bites dog) was not “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. In a later paper we discover that the very experienced farmer confessed he got himself in a poor position and being trampled by the cows was probably his fault. In trying to get the cows through a very small gate something spooked them and they bolted. Unfortunately, he did not have anywhere to go to get out of their way and got stepped on. Cows 1 – Farmer 0.
Meanwhile 15 October proved to be either the slowest news day of the year, or the day when the loonies took over the EDP and chose which articles to publish.
What a selection!
In no particular order: we have the news that train drivers have been instructed to slow down at level crossings following a spate of accidents. They are now down to 20 mph. Aslef (the train drivers union) decided to act in the interests of train drivers and the travelling public. So good to know that the multi-ton train that just hit you is only moving at 20 mph. This is real progress and will be a comfort to relatives of those now killed at level crossings to know that their loved one was mangled at 20 mph instead of 40!
News from a translation company who are seeking Glaswegian interpreters is all good. They have been inundated by applicants. The free-lancers could earn up to £140 a day helping people from places like Japan, who may have learned their English from the BBC and can not now understand anyone from the Gorbals. If the service is a success it could be extended to other UK cities with difficult accents: Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester spring to mind.
Meanwhile, John Stafford from Scarborough – a confirmed arachnophobic – is worried that Halloween may be the death of him. He claims that his doctor told him that even the sight of a creepy-crawlie in a display in a window could trigger a fatal heart attack because his heart “is so badly bruised”. Funny, I thought you got that from being dumped by your girlfriend?
Kerry Callard from Devon is in bit trouble. She posted a YouTube video of her car speeding through puddles and drenching some pupils waiting for a bus. Police said the 29 year-old Kerry had contacted them voluntarily about the puddling and the evidence was now being reviewed. Very public-spirited of you Kerry.
From across the pond: down at Bobby Valentines Sports Gallery Cafe (nifty name, huh!) a woman singing karaoke was attacked by six others who did not like her rendition of A Dios Le Pido – a song made famous by Columbian superstar Juanes. ( a Columbian superstar? Is this not the most appalling oxymoron?) Dudes – it's all happening in Stamford, Connecticut – let's all boogie on down and check it out!!
God is after you in Louisville, Kentucky. Ken Pagano, a US Pastor, hosted a rally entitled, “God and guns” which was designed to promote gun rights and church security. Ken is now, apparently, working part-time at a local gun range and founding the International Security Coalition of Clergy with a New York rabbi. I would really like to pray in this guy's church. No, I mean it, honestly!
Chetania Davis, a 22 year old stripper, attacked her co-worker and exotic dancer ( a 52 year old woman – man they must have some wild strippers in Akron, Ohio!!) with the heel of her stiletto because she was afraid of losing her job – claiming that he club already had too many exotic dancers. Sounds like a sequel to that old standard, My Granny is a Lap-dancer at the Shooting Star Hotel! It annoys me intensely that there is no photo of young Chetania or her 52 year-old victim. I surmise that that any 22 year old stripper feeling threatened by a 52 year-old arch rival is pulchritudinously challenged. I'd love to see a photo to confirm my suspicions.
Let's all get down to London's New Wimbledon Theatre this Xmas for their version of Aladdin – starring Baywatch's Pamela Anderson. Now this is real family entertainment! Wait a minute, she's only doing two weeks and the role is then taken up by Paul O'Grady. Tough act to follow Paul. Good luck.
On the local crime scene: two homes in Dorley Dale (near Carlton Colville) were burgled overnight last Monday. A piggy bank was stolen by extracting it through an open window and found near the crime scene – minus the dosh. Contact Lowestoft Police if you can shed light on this porcine larceny.
Finally, and on a related note: a man far too worse for wear witnessed a burglary in Thetford and then, in a remarkably asinine moment, decided to join in when he saw the perpetrator make his escape. Joshua Richardson, 19, was just walking past a residence in Mingay Road (nope, I'm not making this one up either!) when he saw a burglar climbing out of a window. Joshua, in what could be the worst decision since Mrs Hitler said to Mister Hitler, “Well Alois, are you feeling saucy tonight?”, climbed in the window and took some DVD's and cashpoint cards. Richardson admitted burglary and also confessed to the theft of two carper cleaning machines in July. Just what we need – more clean, tidy and house-proud burglars!
There's more, believe it or not, but I just can't go on. It's just too much.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Bovine Mayhem, Raccoon Terror
Worrying!!
Strange to see in the paper yesterday two stories about animals attacking humans.
Strange to see in the paper yesterday two stories about animals attacking humans.
Story one, from the local EDP, concerned a farmer being trampled by his own cattle.
Number two – a woman in Florida was attacked by a marauding band of raccoons.
No, I'm not making this up!
Now, I have heard of cow attacks before. Despite the unlikely nature of such premeditated bovine assaults, it appears they are much more common than you might think. If you think not, try typing “cow attacks” into a Google search.
Herewith I must confess to putting a whole generation of school children at extreme risk by assuring them that cows are harmless, docile creatures and will not harm you. (Bulls are an exception!). I must plead ignorance. I just didn't know that cows were so damn dangerous! They never were when I was young.
At Thorndon in Suffolk, a farmer received “multiple injuries” after he was trampled by his own cattle. Roger Jones had broken ribs, cuts on his face and injured his shoulder after the cattle attacked him on his own land. He was in a stable condition in the hospital. (I had a look in EAU but didn't see Roger – I would have liked to find out some of the details!) Most of the cattle assaults documented on Google concern cows with calves. This makes sense. No matter how domesticated the beast, when the young are threatened (or are seen to be threatened by a brain-less cow) they will defend the calf. Fine. I can understand that. What I would like to know from Roger is what exactly was he doing when he was attacked? If they were his cows, surely they would be used to him and not see him as a threat?
People in England have died after being trampled by cows. Yes, it's true.
Part of my pitch to kids was our divorce from the natural world. Our recent ancestors would have had intimate knowledge of domestic (and wild) animals which we have lost. Ask most kids where a steak comes from and they will say Tesco's. The idea that a cow had to die and be butchered to get a steak is only peripherally known to most kids. They know it, sort of deep down, by they don't really think about it or imagine it as part of their daily lives. Confronted with the reality of slaughter, most kids instantly convert to vegetarianism (fortunately for Tesco this conversion only usually lasts until the next BBQ!).
I just wish the paper had let us in on more of the details.
Same day – same paper – a real human interest story.
Gretchen Whitted, resident of Florida was trying to chase some raccoons from her garden. Five raccoons surrounded her and attacked. She ended up in the hospital with cuts to her neck and leg (presumably she fell down – the idea that a raccoon could, or would, leap a metre or more in the air to bite Gretchen's neck is just too much to take in!) Still, a pack of killer raccoons loose in a Florida garden is pretty worrying!
Again we are sadly lacking in detail. Did, for instance, Gretchen corner the raccoons? Most animals will attack if cornered. What does it mean when she tried to chase them from her garden? With a stick? A broom? Her hands? A twelve gauge shotgun??
I need and want to know!
From the Associated Press
LAKELAND, Fla. — Animal control officers hope to trap a pack of raccoons that mauled a 74-year-old Florida woman who tried to chase them from her yard.
The sheriff in Polk County, east of Tampa, says Gretchen Whitted fell when five raccoons surrounded and attacked her Sunday. She was taken to a hospital with extensive cuts from her neck to her legs.
“We’re not talking about a lot of little bites here,” Sheriff Grady Judd said. “She was filleted.”
A neighbor called for help after hearing the woman’s cries and seeing her covered in blood.
Whitted was treated for rabies, though officials doubt the animals were infected.
Fire crews flooded nearby drains to drive the animals out, but none appeared. Animal control officers hope to catch them using cat food and sardines as bait.
Filleted! Not just bit, but filleted!!
There's something strange going on here! I'm sure raccoons could give you more than a nasty nip, but the idea that they form a gang, make a plan and then attack someone needs investigating – and now!! There are a lot of raccoons!! They're all over the place!!
My expose regarding harmless animals, given in good faith and with more than a modicum of humour and with tongue firmly in cheek is looking fairly irresponsible and, perhaps, the basis for a very expensive legal action.
I can see the headline now: Girl Trampled – Irresponsible Teacher Blamed!
A young lady was savagely attacked by a herd of cows whilst walking near Stowmarket yesterday. Sally Smith told he Mum she was going for a walk but is now in hospital in Bury with severe concussion after being trampled by up to 15 cows near her home in Lackbrain Crescent.
“I was just walking across the field to get home when the cows charged at me and attacked. I wasn't doing anything to annoy then! My English teacher, Mr Kauffman, told me years ago that cows were not dangerous. He lied to me! I'm very upset.” Suffolk Constabulary refused to comment saying the incident is under investigation.
I may need a good lawyer. Not to mention a fence to keep raccoons out of my garden!
Scary.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Under Achieve - Over Achieve?
Both impersonating stones.
Contrasting fortunes for the England Cricket Team and the Kansas City Chiefs.
One has, seemingly, been over-achieving whilst the other is moving, or possibly sinking, rapidly in the other direction.
No prizes for guessing which.
England did more than expected in reaching the semi-finals of the ICC One-Day Tournament in South Africa. Still, in the end they were found wanting. First, South Africa exploded – nothing new there then – and India could not win a match. Pakistan flattered to deceive whist England and New Zealand just moseyed through the tournament doing little wrong, albeit not that much right either. So, an independent view must be that England were lucky to make the semis.
Having just been hammered by the Aussies at home 1-6 it is not surprising that the initial reaction to England's new-found capacity to win in the 50-over format was over-optimistic. Actually, they are still not very good at 50 over cricket. Why?
Primarily because they do not have the right bowlers. Wait a minute, I thought that the shorter form of the game was meant to be just a batsman's glory hunt. You are correct.
Therefore to win you must have bowlers who can both take wickets and stop runs flowing. South Africa had none. Neither did Pakistan. Ditto West Indies and Sri Lanka. Result? England flattered to deceive by getting so far with so little. They were fortunate to play on a few circumspect wickets that suited their bowlers. It's that simple – not a new dawn.
Meanwhile the Chiefs are stuck in a morass of losing and losing badly.
What fans were looking for this season was a new beginning. What we have got so far is not a stutter-start – more of a stutter-slide. True the odd NFL scheduling system (how can the AFL West be matched with the NFL East?) has not helped as the Chiefs were mashed by the Giants, Eagles and Ravens and then, in the only game they really had a chance to win in the first four, stumbled like born losers against the woeful Raiders. Ouch! That one hurt!
Coach Haley is bravely trying to put some sort of face on (perhaps it's a Halloween one so he can't be recognized!) but his coaching staff must be wondering what to do. With a team almost last in team defence and not much better on offence there is not much to cheer them up!
Fact is, when you are not a very good team you must have everything go your way in order to compete and have a chance. If not? Not much hope.
This week the Cowboys visit Arrowhead. I did pick them to beat Denver last week and they just failed. Maybe they don't play well on the road. More likely, they will bushwhack the Chiefs and sentence us to a long wait for a win – any win.
Matt Cassell has been a real disappointment. The running game is poor. Receivers are dropping balls at just the wrong time. The defence is still feeling its way into a 3-4 and cannot make a play when they have to. Too many players are under-performing. It's going to be a long season.
At this rate Coach Haley could be a one year phenomenon.
Contrasting fortunes for the England Cricket Team and the Kansas City Chiefs.
One has, seemingly, been over-achieving whilst the other is moving, or possibly sinking, rapidly in the other direction.
No prizes for guessing which.
England did more than expected in reaching the semi-finals of the ICC One-Day Tournament in South Africa. Still, in the end they were found wanting. First, South Africa exploded – nothing new there then – and India could not win a match. Pakistan flattered to deceive whist England and New Zealand just moseyed through the tournament doing little wrong, albeit not that much right either. So, an independent view must be that England were lucky to make the semis.
Having just been hammered by the Aussies at home 1-6 it is not surprising that the initial reaction to England's new-found capacity to win in the 50-over format was over-optimistic. Actually, they are still not very good at 50 over cricket. Why?
Primarily because they do not have the right bowlers. Wait a minute, I thought that the shorter form of the game was meant to be just a batsman's glory hunt. You are correct.
Therefore to win you must have bowlers who can both take wickets and stop runs flowing. South Africa had none. Neither did Pakistan. Ditto West Indies and Sri Lanka. Result? England flattered to deceive by getting so far with so little. They were fortunate to play on a few circumspect wickets that suited their bowlers. It's that simple – not a new dawn.
Meanwhile the Chiefs are stuck in a morass of losing and losing badly.
What fans were looking for this season was a new beginning. What we have got so far is not a stutter-start – more of a stutter-slide. True the odd NFL scheduling system (how can the AFL West be matched with the NFL East?) has not helped as the Chiefs were mashed by the Giants, Eagles and Ravens and then, in the only game they really had a chance to win in the first four, stumbled like born losers against the woeful Raiders. Ouch! That one hurt!
Coach Haley is bravely trying to put some sort of face on (perhaps it's a Halloween one so he can't be recognized!) but his coaching staff must be wondering what to do. With a team almost last in team defence and not much better on offence there is not much to cheer them up!
Fact is, when you are not a very good team you must have everything go your way in order to compete and have a chance. If not? Not much hope.
This week the Cowboys visit Arrowhead. I did pick them to beat Denver last week and they just failed. Maybe they don't play well on the road. More likely, they will bushwhack the Chiefs and sentence us to a long wait for a win – any win.
Matt Cassell has been a real disappointment. The running game is poor. Receivers are dropping balls at just the wrong time. The defence is still feeling its way into a 3-4 and cannot make a play when they have to. Too many players are under-performing. It's going to be a long season.
At this rate Coach Haley could be a one year phenomenon.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Fry My Hide
Dogpatch Dudes
The internet cannot find everything. Did you know that?
I do – cause I've been looking on and off for ages trying to find my favourite cartoon from Lil Abner. And, I'm having no luck whatsoever.
Why the fuss? I'll tell you why. It is adding to the complete lexicon of my favourite sayings and will (therefore) feature heavily when I am gone. Follow?
I thought not.
Here's how it goes. Lil Abner was (and perhaps still is for all I know) a syndicated strip cartoon in American papers. Based in the fictional hamlet of Dogpatch, Lil Abner is a classic of down-home, y'all, corn-shuckin, bushwackin, goat-ropin humour.
Check out the home page at: http://www.lil-abner.com/
To quote: In an era well before "political correctness" entered the vocabulary, Dogpatch exceeded every stereotype of Appalachia. The hillbillies in Li'l Abner's town were poorer than poor. The houses were hopelessly ramshackle. Most Dogpatchers were dumber than dumb. The remainder were scoundrels and thieves. Most of the men were too lazy to work, yet Dogpatch women were desperate enough to chase them. One preferred to live with hogs. Those who farmed their "tarnip" crop watched turnip termites descend every year, locust-like, to devour the crop. In the midst of the Great Depression, lowly Dogpatch allowed the most hard-up Americans to laugh at yokels worse off than they were. In Al Capp’s own words Dogpatch was “an average stone-age community” nestled in a bleak valley, between two cheap and uninteresting hills, somewhere. To old friends, the denizens of Dogpatch will be old friends. To strangers, however, they will probably be strangers.
In one classic cartoon one of the residents of Dogpatch found a genie's lamp. Rubbing the lamp, as you would do, duly produced the obliging genie. Three wishes were on offer which as the more sophisticated readers will know is just about standard genie fare.
With the first wish the disbelieving resident tried for a left-handed monkey wrench (or something equally nonsensical) and was amazed to see it appear before his very eyes. The second wish produced something truly worthwhile as the yokel finally got the hang of the genie thing and wished for a large pot of gold. The pot duly appeared.
Being more than slightly incredulous at his immense good fortune, our hero upon spying his new-found riches shouts out, “Well,fry my hide!”
Last pane of the cartoon shows the headline in the Dogpatch Gazette, large and in bold letters:
Gold Found! – Hide Fried!
Therefore, when things either go wrongly about the house, or someone states the bleedin obvious; my re-joiner is always, “Well, fry my hide – gold found and hide fried!”
Obvious, innit!
The internet cannot find everything. Did you know that?
I do – cause I've been looking on and off for ages trying to find my favourite cartoon from Lil Abner. And, I'm having no luck whatsoever.
Why the fuss? I'll tell you why. It is adding to the complete lexicon of my favourite sayings and will (therefore) feature heavily when I am gone. Follow?
I thought not.
Here's how it goes. Lil Abner was (and perhaps still is for all I know) a syndicated strip cartoon in American papers. Based in the fictional hamlet of Dogpatch, Lil Abner is a classic of down-home, y'all, corn-shuckin, bushwackin, goat-ropin humour.
Check out the home page at: http://www.lil-abner.com/
To quote: In an era well before "political correctness" entered the vocabulary, Dogpatch exceeded every stereotype of Appalachia. The hillbillies in Li'l Abner's town were poorer than poor. The houses were hopelessly ramshackle. Most Dogpatchers were dumber than dumb. The remainder were scoundrels and thieves. Most of the men were too lazy to work, yet Dogpatch women were desperate enough to chase them. One preferred to live with hogs. Those who farmed their "tarnip" crop watched turnip termites descend every year, locust-like, to devour the crop. In the midst of the Great Depression, lowly Dogpatch allowed the most hard-up Americans to laugh at yokels worse off than they were. In Al Capp’s own words Dogpatch was “an average stone-age community” nestled in a bleak valley, between two cheap and uninteresting hills, somewhere. To old friends, the denizens of Dogpatch will be old friends. To strangers, however, they will probably be strangers.
In one classic cartoon one of the residents of Dogpatch found a genie's lamp. Rubbing the lamp, as you would do, duly produced the obliging genie. Three wishes were on offer which as the more sophisticated readers will know is just about standard genie fare.
With the first wish the disbelieving resident tried for a left-handed monkey wrench (or something equally nonsensical) and was amazed to see it appear before his very eyes. The second wish produced something truly worthwhile as the yokel finally got the hang of the genie thing and wished for a large pot of gold. The pot duly appeared.
Being more than slightly incredulous at his immense good fortune, our hero upon spying his new-found riches shouts out, “Well,fry my hide!”
Last pane of the cartoon shows the headline in the Dogpatch Gazette, large and in bold letters:
Gold Found! – Hide Fried!
Therefore, when things either go wrongly about the house, or someone states the bleedin obvious; my re-joiner is always, “Well, fry my hide – gold found and hide fried!”
Obvious, innit!
Friday, September 11, 2009
A Tough Start
NFL begins!
Looking forward to Sunday evening. It's the start of the NFL season and all Chiefs fans are agreed that it can't be as bad as last season. Or could it?
Away at the Baltimore Ravens is not really the game of choice. The Ravens are a truly daunting prospect for the season opener. On the back of an all-conquering defence, Baltimore have had real success both in the regular and post season of late. To that they have added a good offence with second year QB, Joe Flacco, set to build on what was an exceptional rookie year.
In reply, the Chiefs are rebuilding with a new head coach, a new GM, a new defensive system, a new QB and a new-look stadium. Not exactly the ingredients for a huge slice of optimism pie.
Matt Cassell may be the franchise QB we've all been waiting for, but he got smacked around in the pre-season and I predict the coach will not risk him against Baltimore's defence. Certainly he won't start. He may play some. Last year's signal-caller Brodie Croyle will probably get the nod – for all the good it will do him. Tyler Thigpen will play in certain situations and run a bit.
A lot will depend on the rest of the offence. Can they run the ball at all? Not likely. Can they at least keep possession and not fumble or give up interceptions? Not likely.
What about the defence? Can they stop a good Baltimore running game? Possible, but not very likely.
All things point to a long afternoon for the tribe. If they can keep it close and lose by only 10 or less, I suspect the coach will be pleased. So should the fans.
Looking forward to Sunday evening. It's the start of the NFL season and all Chiefs fans are agreed that it can't be as bad as last season. Or could it?
Away at the Baltimore Ravens is not really the game of choice. The Ravens are a truly daunting prospect for the season opener. On the back of an all-conquering defence, Baltimore have had real success both in the regular and post season of late. To that they have added a good offence with second year QB, Joe Flacco, set to build on what was an exceptional rookie year.
In reply, the Chiefs are rebuilding with a new head coach, a new GM, a new defensive system, a new QB and a new-look stadium. Not exactly the ingredients for a huge slice of optimism pie.
Matt Cassell may be the franchise QB we've all been waiting for, but he got smacked around in the pre-season and I predict the coach will not risk him against Baltimore's defence. Certainly he won't start. He may play some. Last year's signal-caller Brodie Croyle will probably get the nod – for all the good it will do him. Tyler Thigpen will play in certain situations and run a bit.
A lot will depend on the rest of the offence. Can they run the ball at all? Not likely. Can they at least keep possession and not fumble or give up interceptions? Not likely.
What about the defence? Can they stop a good Baltimore running game? Possible, but not very likely.
All things point to a long afternoon for the tribe. If they can keep it close and lose by only 10 or less, I suspect the coach will be pleased. So should the fans.
Park and Ride Buses
I'm confused!
Despite the fact that the number of old folks riding the buses for free seems to be exponential and a serious drain on the public purse, I'm only peripherally interested in the finances of the scheme – it's the mysterious disappearance of the buses after hours that really concerns me.
We assume, like so many things in life, that greater minds than ours are involved in the planning and organising of such mundane activities as a bus time-table. Then again, in this age of computer-generated rotas – how difficult can it be?
Take the Sprowston Park and Ride for instance. At peak times a bus leaves the Park and Ride site every 8 minutes. Journey time to the Norwich Bus Station is about 30 minutes. So, how many buses are required to achieve the goal? It must be about 4. At non-peak times the interval goes up to 10 minutes, so you need slightly fewer buses during the day.
Follow me so far?
Now, here comes the intriguing part. When I leave the site at about 18:00 I often see one of the Blue Park and Ride buses leave at the same time – but going in the wrong direction! Instead of turning right into the city, the bus goes left towards Wroxham. It then turns right towards Salhouse. I think I have seen them on the A 47 heading for Yarmouth.
What's going on? Where are they going? Why?
It's been suggested to me that the drivers are taking the buses home so as to get an early start and save on travelling expenses getting to work the next day. I just can't see it. Although it's perfectly possible that the bean-counters who run the bus service don't know this is going on – I doubt that this can be the case.
Why? Where are you going to park a whacking great blue bus? In your driveway?
Perhaps they are going to park somewhere near or in Yarmouth? Again, why?
There can't be more that 5 or 6 buses in total. Often there are three on the site at the same time. Surely when the last bus arrives at night they would just park it on the site with the others. Then, all the buses are there in the morning and ready to go. Why would you want to do anything else?
Aside: some of the controversy about the Park and Ride buses concerns the government's scheme to allow OAP's to ride for free after 09:30. In a recent letter to the editor of the EDP, Gussy Alamein (no I'm not making this up), Marketing and Communications Manager for First East England Buses explains that: . . . the destination on the ticket makes no difference to the revenue received by the bus company. Payments to bus companies are made on the basis of the average fare charged to adult paying passengers multiplied by the number of journeys made by concessionary pass holders.”
Clear? I'm frightened that these people are running the buses. I'm frightened that they are actually running anything. I'm going to find out where the Blue Buses go.
If it kills me.
Despite the fact that the number of old folks riding the buses for free seems to be exponential and a serious drain on the public purse, I'm only peripherally interested in the finances of the scheme – it's the mysterious disappearance of the buses after hours that really concerns me.
We assume, like so many things in life, that greater minds than ours are involved in the planning and organising of such mundane activities as a bus time-table. Then again, in this age of computer-generated rotas – how difficult can it be?
Take the Sprowston Park and Ride for instance. At peak times a bus leaves the Park and Ride site every 8 minutes. Journey time to the Norwich Bus Station is about 30 minutes. So, how many buses are required to achieve the goal? It must be about 4. At non-peak times the interval goes up to 10 minutes, so you need slightly fewer buses during the day.
Follow me so far?
Now, here comes the intriguing part. When I leave the site at about 18:00 I often see one of the Blue Park and Ride buses leave at the same time – but going in the wrong direction! Instead of turning right into the city, the bus goes left towards Wroxham. It then turns right towards Salhouse. I think I have seen them on the A 47 heading for Yarmouth.
What's going on? Where are they going? Why?
It's been suggested to me that the drivers are taking the buses home so as to get an early start and save on travelling expenses getting to work the next day. I just can't see it. Although it's perfectly possible that the bean-counters who run the bus service don't know this is going on – I doubt that this can be the case.
Why? Where are you going to park a whacking great blue bus? In your driveway?
Perhaps they are going to park somewhere near or in Yarmouth? Again, why?
There can't be more that 5 or 6 buses in total. Often there are three on the site at the same time. Surely when the last bus arrives at night they would just park it on the site with the others. Then, all the buses are there in the morning and ready to go. Why would you want to do anything else?
Aside: some of the controversy about the Park and Ride buses concerns the government's scheme to allow OAP's to ride for free after 09:30. In a recent letter to the editor of the EDP, Gussy Alamein (no I'm not making this up), Marketing and Communications Manager for First East England Buses explains that: . . . the destination on the ticket makes no difference to the revenue received by the bus company. Payments to bus companies are made on the basis of the average fare charged to adult paying passengers multiplied by the number of journeys made by concessionary pass holders.”
Clear? I'm frightened that these people are running the buses. I'm frightened that they are actually running anything. I'm going to find out where the Blue Buses go.
If it kills me.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
NHS
I'd really like to stay out of this one. No, I really would.
When I turn on the TV and see my countrymen at Town Hall meetings almost coming to blows over heath care reform; when the news is full of half-truths, misconceptions and misleading statements about health care; and when the pundits all line up to have a pop at anything that smacks (in their view) of socialism – then I know we're in trouble and I'd dearly love to duck the issues!
How about some facts?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
These web pages sum up the Obama healthcare plan. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than what we have already? Yes. Is it a British National Health Service in disguise? Absolutely not.
So, what is the British NHS and how does it work?
First of all it is not exactly what it was designed to be. The origin of the NHS was steeped in ideological tea and poured from a socialistic pot onto the public purse. It has never been either all-inclusive or all-encompassing. Americans might be flummoxed to learn that despite its name the NHS is not really national at all. Scotland and Wales have quite a different NHS than England and Northern Ireland.
They might be puzzled by the fact that there is a substantial, thriving private healthcare system running alongside the NHS. The might be amazed that it isn't really free at all – even disregarding the National Insurance contributions workers and employers pay to fund the system, large parts of the NHS are not free. Except for children, old people and a few others, prescriptions are paid for by the consumer. NHS dental treatment is very patchy. Most people pay for their dental treatment. Visitors from countries who do not have agreements with GB pay for their treatment. Many people have private health insurance which they or their employers fund as part of their pay structure. Many doctors who work for the NHS also have private patients at the same time.
Second, the “national” part is misleading. Folks in England think of the NHS as a local service. We have our local GP's We have four hospitals, James Paget in Yarmouth, Queen Elizabeth in King's Lynn and the Norfolk and Norwich (which includes Cromer Hospital) in Norwich. Serious cases are transferred to specialist hospitals like Addenbrook's (heart) in Cambridge or Great Ormond Street (children) in London. Key point: thereby services are not duplicated! Must be cheaper! So, despite the name, the NHS is for most people a local service.
Thirdly, the NHS is one of the few universally unifying structures in the UK. For 60 years no government or opposition has ever questioned the need for or the underlying rationale behind the NHS. To many people in the UK the NHS is the government. To borrow freely from the Constitution it is the one thing in Britain designed “to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. Therefore it enjoys almost universal support. And, even though it is a national service people think of it as local. So, they speak about their GP and their hospitals.
What about the present US health care?
The WHO rates US heath care as 37th in the world – UK comes in at 18. How can this be? Surely as the richest nation on earth the US should enjoy the best healthcare. Maybe it's the money?
Nope.
Per capita spending: U.S. about £4000 per person UK about £1700
As % of GDP – U.S. about 16% - UK about 9%.
Number of nurses and doctors as a % of the populations?
Nope - Just about the same.
So, despite spending far more money both in real terms and as a percentage of national income, the US lags behind in providing healthcare for its citizens. How can this be?
This is the real question that the numpties who we see on TV screaming nonsense about healthcare are not dealing with. Any reasonable debate must focus on this issue. It is a national disgrace. Where does all the money go? I suspect it goes in the pockets of the doctors and the health insurance lobby – not to mention the drug companies.
The real tragedy is that we have been here before. With the Great Depression in full swing the incumbent President, Herbert Hoover, struggled manfully to attempt to get the economy moving again. Hoover made his name as a crusading humanitarian in WW I – providing relief for starving Belgians. Problem was he was ideologically opposed to the kind of government intervention that was needed and eventually was provided by Roosevelt's New Deal. He just could not come to terms with the kind of government intervention which eventually brought an end to the Great Depression.
In modern times when we see both the US and UK governments spending billions to kick start the economy and bail out the very crooks (sorry bankers) who got us into this mess, it is well to remember that the kind of government intervention/regulation which Roosevelt proposed in the New Deal was violently opposed as Un-American, Communistic and down right criminal by the forefathers of the present idiots who are so upset at the thought of decent health care for all citizens – not just those with money.
This argument will rumble on. Nothing affects people's lives so directly as health care. People who have legitimate concerns about the Obama plan need to have them answered and addressed. People who are just ideologically an philosophically opposed to any form of government health care need to listen the the arguments and stop shouting. You don't win any argument just because you can shout the loudest.
President Obama needs to make his plans clearer. Hesitation is just seen as weakness. This may be the only chance to reform US health care in a generation. It must not fail.
When I turn on the TV and see my countrymen at Town Hall meetings almost coming to blows over heath care reform; when the news is full of half-truths, misconceptions and misleading statements about health care; and when the pundits all line up to have a pop at anything that smacks (in their view) of socialism – then I know we're in trouble and I'd dearly love to duck the issues!
How about some facts?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/
These web pages sum up the Obama healthcare plan. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than what we have already? Yes. Is it a British National Health Service in disguise? Absolutely not.
So, what is the British NHS and how does it work?
First of all it is not exactly what it was designed to be. The origin of the NHS was steeped in ideological tea and poured from a socialistic pot onto the public purse. It has never been either all-inclusive or all-encompassing. Americans might be flummoxed to learn that despite its name the NHS is not really national at all. Scotland and Wales have quite a different NHS than England and Northern Ireland.
They might be puzzled by the fact that there is a substantial, thriving private healthcare system running alongside the NHS. The might be amazed that it isn't really free at all – even disregarding the National Insurance contributions workers and employers pay to fund the system, large parts of the NHS are not free. Except for children, old people and a few others, prescriptions are paid for by the consumer. NHS dental treatment is very patchy. Most people pay for their dental treatment. Visitors from countries who do not have agreements with GB pay for their treatment. Many people have private health insurance which they or their employers fund as part of their pay structure. Many doctors who work for the NHS also have private patients at the same time.
Second, the “national” part is misleading. Folks in England think of the NHS as a local service. We have our local GP's We have four hospitals, James Paget in Yarmouth, Queen Elizabeth in King's Lynn and the Norfolk and Norwich (which includes Cromer Hospital) in Norwich. Serious cases are transferred to specialist hospitals like Addenbrook's (heart) in Cambridge or Great Ormond Street (children) in London. Key point: thereby services are not duplicated! Must be cheaper! So, despite the name, the NHS is for most people a local service.
Thirdly, the NHS is one of the few universally unifying structures in the UK. For 60 years no government or opposition has ever questioned the need for or the underlying rationale behind the NHS. To many people in the UK the NHS is the government. To borrow freely from the Constitution it is the one thing in Britain designed “to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. Therefore it enjoys almost universal support. And, even though it is a national service people think of it as local. So, they speak about their GP and their hospitals.
What about the present US health care?
The WHO rates US heath care as 37th in the world – UK comes in at 18. How can this be? Surely as the richest nation on earth the US should enjoy the best healthcare. Maybe it's the money?
Nope.
Per capita spending: U.S. about £4000 per person UK about £1700
As % of GDP – U.S. about 16% - UK about 9%.
Number of nurses and doctors as a % of the populations?
Nope - Just about the same.
So, despite spending far more money both in real terms and as a percentage of national income, the US lags behind in providing healthcare for its citizens. How can this be?
This is the real question that the numpties who we see on TV screaming nonsense about healthcare are not dealing with. Any reasonable debate must focus on this issue. It is a national disgrace. Where does all the money go? I suspect it goes in the pockets of the doctors and the health insurance lobby – not to mention the drug companies.
The real tragedy is that we have been here before. With the Great Depression in full swing the incumbent President, Herbert Hoover, struggled manfully to attempt to get the economy moving again. Hoover made his name as a crusading humanitarian in WW I – providing relief for starving Belgians. Problem was he was ideologically opposed to the kind of government intervention that was needed and eventually was provided by Roosevelt's New Deal. He just could not come to terms with the kind of government intervention which eventually brought an end to the Great Depression.
In modern times when we see both the US and UK governments spending billions to kick start the economy and bail out the very crooks (sorry bankers) who got us into this mess, it is well to remember that the kind of government intervention/regulation which Roosevelt proposed in the New Deal was violently opposed as Un-American, Communistic and down right criminal by the forefathers of the present idiots who are so upset at the thought of decent health care for all citizens – not just those with money.
This argument will rumble on. Nothing affects people's lives so directly as health care. People who have legitimate concerns about the Obama plan need to have them answered and addressed. People who are just ideologically an philosophically opposed to any form of government health care need to listen the the arguments and stop shouting. You don't win any argument just because you can shout the loudest.
President Obama needs to make his plans clearer. Hesitation is just seen as weakness. This may be the only chance to reform US health care in a generation. It must not fail.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Aviva Cowards
The Norwich Union Insurance Group (now know as Aviva) high-ups have really outdone themselves recently.
Not only have they managed to upset the whole of East Anglia, not to mention their shareholders, with their name-changing antics and the vast sums of dosh employed to advertise what is essentially a non-story; they have now ducked swiftly the obvious choice for their new advertising campaign and decided to take the Michael out of the cor bugger janners!
What cowards when they have perfectly good Norfolk folk to make as butt of their jokes.
The boys in Oggy Land must not be very happy. We already know they're not very bright – at least according to NU.
Now, not a lot of people know this, so pay attention. The Regimental Song of the 1st Battalion, The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment is The Tiddy Oggy Song! Part of which goes lie this:
Oh how happy us will be when we gets back to the West Country.
Where Tiddy Oggies grow on trees, Cor bugger Janner.
You make fast, kiss my a***
Make fast the dingy
You make fast, kiss my a***
Make fast the dingy
For we'll all go back to Oggy Land,
To Oggy Land, to Oggie Land
For we'll all go back to Oggy Land
Where they can't tell beans from
Tissue paper, Tissue paper
Marmalade of Jam
Ain't culture wonderful?
NU have missed a golden opportunity. They should have had a crowd of numpties trooping into Carrow Road singing:
I had a girl, really nice girl, down in Wroxham Way,
She were wholly nice to me back in the old school days,
She would smile all the while, but Daddy didn't know all,
What she used to say to me behind the garden wall.
"Hev you gotta loight boy? Hev you gotta loight?"
Then one day, she went away, I don't see her no more,
Till by chance I see her down along the Mundesley shore,
She was there, twice as fair. Would she now be true?
So when she sees me passing by, she say, "I'm glad that's you!
Hev you gotta loight boy? Hev you gotta loight?"
Molly Windley, she smokes like a chimley,
But she's my little nicotine girl.
Classic. I can see it now.
Why go all the way to Devon when you could take the rip close to home?
Cowardly, damn cowardly, I say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)