Doh! Independence Imprudens

Crazy - or what?

I like to keep in touch with what's happening in the old home town, Independence, Missouri. It makes me feel closer to home and to that end the internet is a god-send. No better way to keep in touch has yet been invented!

I read the local paper, The Independence Examiner, which, in my boyhood I threw on folks' porches, on-line. And, all from the comfort of my chair.

One of the best bits is the weekly poll of on-line readers. You have to choose answers to questions of topical interest and vote for your favourite answer. I always vote and always check to see what the result of last week's poll was.

I love it when I'm in-step with my “homies”!

Unfortunately, it doesn't happen often.

A bit like my old mate and neighbour Bill Bryson I find that reports from my countrymen that I am really dead are greatly exaggerated. I just don't got home enough to know what the good folks of independence are thinking.

So, the straw poll of readers of the Examiner should enable us to get a handle on Middle America.

A recent Examiner poll asked readers to rank the causes of a weakening economy in America. 14% of respondents told the rest of us to chill out – there is nothing to worry about! Only 1% were seriously concerned by the recent stock market woes and the prospect of a Wall Street melt down. 19% were appalled by the lack of “good jobs” - whatever that means? A truly staggering 19% were apoplectic about the national debt.

The killer? 28% were pretty much ready to start a war to remove the American dependence on foreign oil – citing its consequential effect on “high” gas prices.

If women are from Venus and men from Mars, the good residents of Independence are from Planet Dumbo.

Where did they get this idea from?

These are the same folks who are convinced that JFK wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. They instinctively know that Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were probably victims of some great, unknown and un-knowable conspiracy. They firmly believe that Genesis is 100% word-perfect. A large proportion of them voted for Ol' Dubbya. They are disciples of anyone who will assuage their righteous indignation by shifting the reality of dwindling oil supplies and over-consumption onto some conspiracy by the rest of the world to rob them of what they see as their God-given right to drive monster trucks and live in a house the size of a cathedral.

They are and have been poorly served by their politicians.

Disregarding the Global Warming debate, it is still a fundamental truth that America is not so much addicted to oil and they are addicted to cheap gas.

In Independence, the price of gas has taken on a significance far beyond its true level of importance. Politicians can just as well be in favour of Islamist fundamentalism as they can be of high gas prices.

The result is a nonsense of misinformation and illogical thinking.

It's time the Examiner readers, and the rest of America, were dragged (screaming if need be) into the real world. Oil is a finite resource. It's running out. Therefore, you can't buck the market. In the home of free enterprise capitalism this lesson should not be too hard to learn. But, in Missouri we have saying: before you can teach a Missouri mule anything you have to get his attention by hitting him over the head with a two-by-four.

If'n I was you folks, I'd start learning to duck large bits of wood!

Blogged with Flock

Least Favourite Meals

Schools make a dog's dinner.

Some philosophers are born, some are made and some just happen. I may have just made that up – though it is, of course, a paraphrase of a famous diktat.

My old mate and part-time philosopher, The Chef, had his Unified Theory of the Least Favourite Meal to fall back on when either the time or the meat was ripe. It goes something like this.

If you ask any group of school children what is their least favourite school dinner and remove that meal from the menu, all that happens is the next least favourite meal simply “moves up” to take its place. Eventually you'd be having fish fingers and chips every day until the kids were thoroughly sick of them!

Simple. Logical. Works. But, not from the Jamie Oliver School of Nutritious School Dinners.

It occurs to me that this insightful dictum can be applied to all sorts of things – things far more important than little Johnnie's lunch-time nosh. How about Johnnie's school for instance?

This is what was happening on BBC Question Time last evening. The Unified Theory of the Least Favourite Meal had morphed into the General Theory of the Least Favourite School.

The debate focused on the advantages, real or perceived, of faith schools and the dastardly tricks some parents will go to in order to obtain places for their children at these”good” schools.

Parents take the view that faith schools are better than non-faith. In individual cases, this may be correct. As a generalisation: it's a generalisation.

What was most interesting was the methods some parents use in order to place their children in a faith school – even though they are, strictly speaking, not of that faith. I suppose this does do some good in swelling the pews on a Sunday morning, but I'd be surprised if these phoney attempts to convince the local vicar you are a devout Christian really work.

An example. I started school as a bright-eyed five year old at a Catholic School on the south-side of Chicago. In those days, all white children went to the Catholic school because there were black children in the local maintained school. Therefore, about 25% of my school was Catholic and at least the same number were Jewish. This made for interesting education!

Even as a five year old I can distinctly remember the nuns being very angry on Jewish holidays! Al the Jewish kids stayed home!

While this anecdote may say more about race relations in Chicago in the 50's than it does about faith schools, it does resonate with the parents of today who think that their children should get an advantage (more perceived than real I would argue) simply by pretending to qualify for state-aided religious education.

The summing up was from the Labour Party spokesman who blithely informed the audience that, in any event, it would be impossible to do anything about faith schools – or independent schools for that matter – because the European Court would surely strike down any attempt to limit their existence as impinging on the parents rights to choose education for their children.

What we need are smarter parents

Until that happens, we're stuck with the least favourite meal. Bon apetit!

Blogged with Flock

Super Bowl Forty-Two

Giants Win?

Well, it's official. Super Bowl 42 will be between the New England Patriots and the New York Giants. The Pats will be big favourites.

They will also be going for an unprecedented undefeated season.

I'm picking the Giants.

Am I crazy? Or, just stupid?

Maybe both, but I'm still counting on the Giants to upset the apple cart and ruin what should be a historic victory by the New Englanders. I was very sceptical until I saw the Conference Championship game at Green Bay. The Pack had lost only twice in the post-season at Lambeau Field and were consensus favourites to send New York packing. The game was going according to plan, though still tight, when I got too tired and went to bed.

I was surprised in the morning to find that the Packers had lost. Watching the highlights was surreal. Even though I knew the score, I still expected Favre to engineer a last quarter comeback. It never happened. Even with a banged-up secondary the Giant's defence was beyond excellent.

If they can replicate this defensive performance in the Super Bowl, they will have a chance.

What's happening on the other side of the ball is also swinging my vote towards The Big Apple. Eli Manning is doing what needs to be done to win. He has excellent protection in the pocket. He has been making good decisions. He has been making excellent throws, putting the ball where only his guy can catch it. The Giants can test the Patriots' defence.

Not surprisingly, I'm in the minority. Watching and reading the American pundits you might think the Pats have only to turn up to win. American football is not that kind of a game. It is, literally, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY. If New England don't bring their “A Game” they will lose.

There were signs of this in their game against San Diego. Tom Brady threw three interceptions. San Diego moved the ball easily down the field, just did not manage to convert field goals into touchdowns. New England weren't lucky - just fortunate. On another day they could have easily lost. If they approach the Super Bowl in an over-confident mood, they will be ripe for an upset.

This is going one of two ways.

One – it's a Patriots' blow-out. Giants get stuffed on offence and can't stop Brady's short passing game. Pat's win by 20+.

Two – it's a close football game and the Giants just get the win by (say) a field goal.

I'm choosing two.

Blogged with Flock

Aussies Rule - Ok?

Sledgers

Aussie is at it again. Not content with smashing all the test playing nations on the pitch – he is intent on sinking to new levels in the sledging stakes.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/330150.html

It wouldn't be so bad if it were not so indicative of both the Australian attitude towards cricket and (more importantly) the inability of the cricket authorities to do anything to obviate their more unacceptable practices.

Although most international teams seem to engage in sledging now-a-days, it is beyond contention that the Australians are the most abusive. When I first read about this one - I just couldn't believe it!

“If that seems over the top, it was child's play compared to comments allegedly directed at New Zealand's Chris Cairns by two Australian players. It was claimed the players had made "choo choo" noises at Cairns, whose sister had been killed in a recent train accident. The story was denied by all parties.”

This clearly isn't sledging. What it is is just plain unacceptable. Say something like this in a public bar and you might get a mouthful of teeth!

This is just about as bad!

During a WSC final at the SCG where the game had been shortened due to rain and the atmosphere was running at about 95% humidity a very exhausted Arjuna Ranatunga appealed that he had "sprained" something. He duly asked the umpire for a runner. As clear as a bell through the effects mic you heard Healey's legendary reply, "You don't get a runner for being an overweight, unfit, fat c#$%"

This is unacceptable because of the abusive language. For heaven's sake, footballers get booked for this kind of language! It should not be allowed on a cricket pitch.

Another example along the same lines

Sledging can be plain amusing. It's unlikely Merv Hughes was thinking tactically when he told a struggling English batsmen: "I'll bowl you a f***ing piano, ya Pommie pooftah. Let's see if you can play that."

This one might just be on the borderline, but only because it is a man's game and it is amusing, so the unacceptable language might be almost Ok.

Of course, sledging is not confined to cricket.

The right words can intimidate and demoralise. In 1989, a young Phil Kearns packed down opposite the All Black rough nut Sean Fitzpatrick. Amid the grinding of shoulders, Kearns became aware he was being spoken to: "What are you doing here, Kearns? You don't belong here. You're just a little boy. Why don't you go home to mummy?"

Sometimes sledging can get a reaction the perpetrator wasn't expecting!

In 1994, Allan Border told South African all-rounder Brian McMillan: "For a big bloke, you don't bowl very fast." He got no reaction - until lunch, when McMillan burst into the Australian dressing room and told Border to repeat the slur while the South African pointed a pistol at Border's head.

Last word goes to Warne, who is, by all accounts, very quick to dish it out – but can't take it?

Sledging is often personal. One reason Warne is quick to taunt Cullinan is that the South African is fond of making remarks about Warne's girth - "Leave us some lunch, fat boy" being one of his favourites. Similarly, Ian Healy once became frustrated with an overweight batsman from a South African provincial side who seemed not the least interested in scoring runs. Eventually Healy called to the bowler: "Why don't we put a Mars bar on a good length to see if we can lure him out of his crease?"

Unfortunately, the latest Aussie escapades are clearly just not on. Leaving any joking aside, the charge that they have overstepped the mark in defence of their Aboriginal player, Andrew Symonds, is a bit rich. After dishing it out on a racial basis (see the above examples) are they now saying that calling Symonds a monkey is going too far?

Actually he does look like a monkey. But, is this a racial remark? Probably not. Boxers are often tagged with the epithet of “a big gorilla”. Is this racist? If an Indian spinner is described as whirling his arms “like a dervish” - is this grounds for an inquiry?

Methinks the Aussies doth protest too much.

The real question, in my eyes, is where are the umpires in all this?

Replaced. At least Steve Bucknor was.

It's long past time that the authorities supported the umpires and put a stop to all but the obviously imaginative or humorous sledging.

It really is getting to be a joke!

Blogged with Flock

Walcheren Malaria

Things aren't always as they seem!

I like reading. I will read almost anything, but history is a particular leisure read. In the Wroxham library I found a book called, Redcoat by Richard Holmes. Richard is a well-know and well-respected writer of military history. He has made television programmes about battle and campaigns. He should know what he is talking about.

In truth it is not a very good book. In attempting to discuss the British Army from about 1750 to 1890 he jumps around, repeats himself and is trying to be too clever in the organisation. He attempts to bring the material together thematically but is not averse to dispensing with this scheme when the mood strikes him.

In any event, when discussing some minor military engagement against the French (our natural enemies) he informs the reader that during the invasion of Belgium in 1809 – the purpose of which was to remove Bonaparte from a position where he could seriously affect British naval interests and remove the French from the Belgian coast, particularly the island of Walcheren in the Scheldt estuary (the approach to the port of Antwerp); Richard writes about the disaster which ensued. Apparently the troops, after initially meeting with success, succumbed to malaria and many died, whilst the rest took ship for dear old Blighty. Not the greatest military engagement of the 19^th century. That would have to wait for 1815 and the field of Waterloo.

What struck me was the matter-of-fact way Holmes described malaria in what is, after all a Northern European country.

I didn't know that.

I think I vaguely knew that malaria was sometimes found in Southern Europe and North Africa. Sicily has had malaria. So, occasionally does Greece. So did the poor old Romans, though it didn't stop them from conquering the world.

I'm just not sure what the travel advice is: do you need to take anti-malarial precautions if you go to Greece or Sicily?

This bears investigation.

Using the internet, I found some interesting stuff!

Did you know that people in Finland suffered from malaria? Bet you didn't. Don't believe me? Check this out!

“Endemic northern malaria reached 68°N latitude (just a bit south of Murmansk in Russia or Tromso in Norway and about the latitude of the Great Bear Lake in Northern Canada) in Europe during the 19^th century, where the summer mean temperature only irregularly exceeded 16°C, the lower limit needed for sporogony of Plasmodium vivax. Because of the available historical material and little use of quinine, Finland was suitable for an analysis of endemic malaria and temperature.”

And, malaria was found in Sweden and Russia too. This is interesting, because when I first read this I thought, “Hang on a minute! Malaria is a tropical disease! If there was malaria in Northern Europe in the recent historical past, it must mean that the temperature was higher! Makes sense!”

Apparently not. For, in answering the question, “Where do mosquitoes go in the winter?”, the answer is: indoors to rest and wait for spring or summer. Makes sense when you think about it. If all the mosquitoes in Britain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Finland died every year, we wouldn't be plagued by the little stinkers every summer!

They don't. 99.99999% of them do, but a few survive by finding a warm, or warm-ish spot to hide in and re-emerge in the spring, reproduce like crazy and provide the next generation of blood-suckers.

Ain't Mother Nature wonderful!

Despite the fact that my investigation has not shed any real light on the global warming debate, as I had hoped, I intend to keep looking. I just have a feeling that malaria in Europe and North America must somehow be related to temperature. Although we know that mossies have no problem surviving in Northern Europe in the summer and breeding, what is less clear is why we no longer have outbreaks of malaria (even the much less virulent P. vivax) in Europe now.

If the planet is warming for whatever reason, it makes sense for malaria to become established again in Europe.

p.s. from our correspondent Willi in Finland:

FINLAND LOW TEMPERATURE RECORD BROKEN 27 Jan, 1999

From: "Wili"
Vora-Oravais-Maxmo Hogstadieskola, Finland
Subject: Low temp.record of the century in Finland!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:41:33 +0200

Hi all once again. I HAVE TO send you a mail to let you know that the lowest temperature of the century in Finland has been registered in a Village in northern Finland called Kittila; -51deg C.

I just spoke to the deliverer of my Davis weather station. He had reports that due to the low temperature and the low air pressure the car tyres have "frozen" in a square form, so the cars which still run behave like rabbits or kangaroos. The temperautre here in Vora is falling all the time.

With interest we look forward to next morning!

Have a warm night!! Best Regards...........Wili, Finland

Don't look much like warming to me!!

It's a Wrap - Chiefs Hit the Wall

Looking forward to draft day!!

It's all over for the Chiefs. Whist the play-off teams ready themselves for the coming battle, the Chiefs enjoy some time off and a chance to reflect on the 4-12 season. It's not happy reading.

In a long interview, Coach Herm Edwards and GM Carl Peterson had to stand up and receive the flak from the press. Quite right. No-one likes losing and mistakes were made. Some big ones!

First, the Chiefs have cleared out some of the coaching staff. This may or may not be a good thing but it does, at least, show that they are taking the blame and doing something about it. How long before Herm and Carl are asked to fall on their swords remains to be seen. For now, the clear out has begun with coaches. Some players won't be far behind.

Second, Edwards rightly pointed out that the offence was just not good enough. They scored about 14 pts a game. They contributed greatly to a negative 11 in the turnover count. They persevered with some linemen who clearly were over the hill and they paid the price.

The defence was better.

But, it's a two-part game. If the offence can't score the defence is always under pressure. That just about sums up the Chiefs this season. Always under pressure.

So, what's to be done?

According to Herm and Carl, the draft is the key. Chiefs are picking high and have (though trade acquisitions) ten picks. Herm thinks we did well last year in getting Dwayne Bowe and there is no reason we can't significantly improve the team in key areas.

Number one is the O-line. Their analysis is probably correct in that O-linemen come in from college with not too much to learn. So, drafting high for two quality guards or tackles should really help the offence. The line-backing corps is looking a bit thin and a bit old – hopefully this will be addressed as well.

Strangely, when asked about QB's Peterson was adamant that the quality is just not coming out of college this season. He believes we should stick with Brodie Croyle. I remember Elvis Grbac!

Summing up the plan: draft long and wisely; clear out some of the old guys and dead wood; stick with Brodie Croyle; use free-agency to bolster key areas.

Well, it is, at least a feasible plan.

Trouble is: this is just about every team's plan. What counts is identifying the talent and grabbing it.

The Chief's hierarchy is correct when they point out that six of the teams that made the play-offs last year aren't there this year. It is swings and roundabouts in the NFL. Just look at the GB Packers. Could beat no-one last year. Getting set to retire Favre. Instead, there are number two seed in the NFC.

The Chiefs could do the same next year.

Hope springs eternal.

New Year's Resolutions

What's Great in '08?

Time to make some resolutions to improve things in 2008.

I have some good ideas.

One

Lose weight. Always a popular choice, but, hang on, is it really necessary? Does anyone ever ask if losing weight is really necessary or has it simply become an all-encompassing mantra? Why does everyone want to lose weight?

There is no doubt that as I have gotten older I have added a few pounds. How many? I've been checking. I've been tracking my weight religiously for about nine months now. In that time my weight has fluctuated by about 8 pounds. It started out going down and then just after Christmas it has peaked about 2 pounds more than it was in April.

Why is this? It was lowest in the summer when I was eating BBQ and drinking beer. That makes no sense! Unless you factor in the increased physical activity provided by outdoor activities that are possible in the summer and not in the winter, things like sport, gardening, long walks with the dog.

Conclusion: Weight is cyclical according to the season and needs to be tracked for at least a year before any real conclusions can be drawn. Also, your weight in Jan is bound to be large, remember all that Christmas dinner!

Shakespeare usually got it right. What did he say about weight? Sir John Falstaff: “a good, portly man was he”. And we all know what a great guy Sir John was.

Let's not forget Julius!

Caesar: Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.

Nuff said?

Two

Give up smoking. No, sorry, I already did that one. Was it hard? Yes. Can anyone do it? Yes. I wish I had given up 30 years ago! Am I sounding sanctimonious? You bet.

Three

Sneak out of Iraq. This sounds flippant, but it is not. It is not necessary to declare the withdrawal from Iraq. It would be better to just do it. Unfortunately, military operations have become almost impossible since the end of WWII. Now the generals have to announce their plans and allow them to be scrutinised by the politicians before they are attempted. This is just nutty.

Better idea – make your plan to get out, get out and then tell everyone about it later.

Works for me.

Four

Stop looking of Who's – a – ma – bin – liner. The man is irrelevant and if the military establishment couldn't find him after all these years it's not likely to happen now. Better plan. Announce that he is dead and when the inevitable video tape turns up purporting to be from him – declare that it is a fake and ignore it.

Also works for me.

Five

Throw money at Afghanistan. I actually emailed Ol Dubbya to just such affect when this mess started. Needless to say, he ignored me. It would be better for everyone if we just game the Afghans lots of money. People sitting around watching re-runs of Little Britain do not suddenly break off and plant an IUD. If you can't win the hearts and minds – buy them. That's what capitalism is all about anyway.

Last real revolution we had in the U.S. was the Whiskey rebellion of 1794 http://www.blurtit.com/q324958.html - after that we just got in the gas-guzzler and went to the store. Great for democracy.

Should work for the Afghans as well. Let's try it!

Six

Forget Global Warming and go the beach. I was astounded the other day when on TV a commentator let slip that the climate data they use to “prove” climate change is only 100 years old. Yep, that's one hundred years. It's like basing your calculations for the coming wheat harvest on the growth rate of a wheat plant in the corner of a small field in Nebraska in the last 14 seconds. It is all nonsense.

Trouble is if you question the orthodoxy of that globe-trotting, very rich eco-warrior Al Gore, people call you nutty.

Bottom line. Climate varies naturally. Right now, it's getting a bit warmer. End of analysis.

All the other nonsense is just conjecture. We have no accurate, historical climate data to base any conclusions on. There is good circumstantial evidence that the climate has changed fairly dramatically in the last 1000 years.

Witness the Vikings. Pretty tough dudes by all accounts. But, about a thousand years ago they up and sailed away to Iceland, where their descendants are still, grabbed a quick holiday to Greenland (anybody notice the name, Greenland) and mooched over to Canada - probably Labrador, not noted as a holiday destination today!!

Had they lost their marbles? Probably not. It was just a bit warmer then. And, this was nine hundred years before much fossil fuel had been burnt.

Explanation? Climate is subject to natural variations.

Learn to live with it!

Don't forget the “Mini-Ice Age” in the 18th Century!!

Of course, we all need to be responsible for husbanding the resources of the planet as well as we can. But, and this is a big but, you don't have to subscribe to the Global Warming Quasi-Religious Dogma to be a good citizen.

Stop feeling guilty and enjoy the warmer weather.

That's enough resolution for anyone!

Darwin Awards

The Bad and the Ugly

News that John Darwin, seemingly the architect of a scam to extract money from an insurance company by pretending to be dead, has been remanded in custody should come as no surprise to enlightened observers of the English legal system.

Quick recap. John and his wife have swindled an insurance company and the government out of a considerable sum of money. On the plus side – no-one has been seriously hurt. No-one is dead. No-one is ill, destitute or dying as a result of what is, at the bottom line, a fairly amateur attempt to perpetrate fraud.

John should appear very soon on the Darwin Awards web site.

The Darwin Awards http://www.darwinawards.com/ are given to folks who generously remove themselves from the gene pool in order to help promulgate the rest of the species – who are, by definition, nowhere near as stupid as the recipients.

In the meantime his case neatly demonstrates two important points regarding the English judicial system. Point one: if you are accused of a crime which involves allegations of stealing money from the state, you will be persecuted to the rigour of the law. Point two: if you are so accused, your chances of obtaining bail are nil.

Neither of these points are very sensible or very fair.

If we contrast Darwin's misdemeanors with some other of society's miscreants, it might prove instructional. For example, get drunk, mow down a few innocent pedestrians and attempt to evade arrest and you will get into trouble. How much? Depends. You might get a jail term of a few years. With good behaviour you could be out in 18 months. Most certainly you will not be remanded in custody whilst the police make inquiries.

Lose the entire DHSS data base by posting it to your granny in Inverness and you will not even be named, much less blamed. “Systemic failure” in the system will probably pick up the tab for that one.

The English have a curious ambivalence towards a “fiddle” Whilst deploring it in public, in private everyone secretly loves a rogue. Robin Hood. Alfie. John Stonehouse. George Best. The list is long.

But, when the rogue in question defrauds the state, it's another story. Just a s likely, after a long period on remand, a short trial and a swift sentence, you will find your self examining the Scrubs – from the inside and for a fairly long time.

Not only is this not very fair, it's a waste of police time, court time, my time and your time, not to mention our money. Mr Darwin, if convicted, should not go to jail. He should have to pay back the money. Turning what is a crazy human interest story into a cause celelbre' is silly – if not downright criminal.

Bury Your Tomahawks

Banged-Up Chiefs retire not so gracefully!

The K.C. Chiefs have self-destructed. Despite my early season predictions of a revival, they are in danger of sinking.

Local Kansas City newspaper pundits have already buried this season and are concentrating on the college draft next February. By all accounts what was a decent team have self-destructed and sunk.

They appear to be right.

So, where did it all go wrong?

First, the franchise running back, Larry Johnson, is out and has been out for a number of weeks with a mysterious foot injury. Actually, the injury is not so mysterious. You could see his foot change into a hitherto non-existent human configuration live on TV if you are so inclined to watch such horrific footage. I, I regret, can not. Every time the replay shows someone's ankle being mangled, I turn away. Sorry, I'm just too squeamish and have had too many ankle injuries myself.

Larry injury is only mysterious because he doesn't seem to be getting any better. He may not play again this year. This may not be an altogether bad thing – provided he comes back strong. His dyed-in-the-wool dream successor, Priest Holmes, took one too many shots to the head and retired. Can't blame him for that!

Consequence? We have no running game.

Oh, did I mention? We have no offensive line either.

Prudence might dictate that these factors are related, but the commentators who are supposed to know just won't have it. They seem crazily capable of divorcing the two. It remains to be seen if the relationship improves when Johnson returns.

Consequence: the rookie QB has to throw the ball too much and there is functionally no offence.

This is bad. Now the defence has malfunctioned as well. What was the strength of the team is tired and worn out. Recipe: take one offence that can't score and one defence that can't defend and what have you got? Pretty much nothing.

So the local KC press have given up on the team and are busy planning how the team can best benefit from a series of high picks in the draft.

One hopes that the players are going to play for their roster spot next year and surprise someone down the stretch.

The only other area of interest left is whether or not New England can go undefeated throughout the season. I bet not.

Monroe Doctrine

Fleet Street Numpties

This week saw the conclusion, well a kind of conclusion at least, to the saga of the Nat West Three. They plead guilty to a number of charges relating to the collapse of Enron. They will serve some time in jail. They were very naughty financiers who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Today the Sunday Times has forgotten what this story was about. When they were extradited to the U.S to face charges relating to fraudulently obtaining lots of money, the press were outraged. This, better than most, exemplifies the prurient jingoism which colours the popular press in the U.K. Nothing quite like a good spell of “Johnnie foreigner bashing” is so eloquently therapeutic to the Fleet Street hacks.

I find this very odd.

In America we love foreigners. Most of our families, you will remember, started out as immigrants and, by definition, foreigners. There are no more hospitable people in the world than Americans. Even Borat was welcomed with open arms!

One reason is because we seldom meet one. Except for Canadians (who are really Americans in disguise – though if you tell them that you will likely get a punch in the nose for your trouble!) and Mexicans (who increasingly have many relatives in the U.S.!) Americans do not see, speak to, or know any foreigners. Down in Texas they think foreigners are people who live north of Dallas. This explains old Dubbya a lot!

It's not surprising, then, that when Americans do meet someone genuinely from another country, particularly an English-speaking country, they fall over themselves to be welcoming and hospitable. Ask anyone who visits. Even in Florida, where no self-respecting American would vacation in the summer and in New York, which I would gladly give back to the Indians for the 24 dollars in beads, Americans are universally glad to see you.

It's strange to find that the Sunday Times, in what can only be an attempt to “cover-up” the fact that these dudes were guilty as hell and deserve to be in prison, has decided to shift the ground to kidnapping. Apparently, it is still legal for the U.S. to kidnap people, drag them back to America and put them on trial. Outrageous!

Actually, it seems a good idea to me. The hacks who are so staggered by Enron and rendition are the same bods who are apoplectic at the arrest of a British teacher in Sudan.” Crickey what will those nig-nogs do next!!”, and the poor girl who may have been killed by a Dago in Perusia. Honestly!

The Mornroe Doctrine is almost 200 years old. President James Monroe pointed out, rather arrogantly at the time, that the American continent was no longer available for European colonisation. And, he made it stick. He wanted to stop European countries from interfering with North and South America. In the process, he made it clear that the Americans had no interest in the affairs of Europe.

This was fine in the early 1800's – when travel was the province of the super-rich.

Then along came two world wars.

Now, the skies are filled with sun-seeking Brits, and global business interests respect no doctrines.

An updated Monroe Doctrine is needed. It should go something like this: we respect the rights of all citizens of all nations. but, if you commit a crime in our country we reserve the right to find you, bring you back to America and put you on trial. Unless you agree to this, do not visit America or do business with us. Simple.

Britain should do the same. Don't forget – it is Britain who routinely lock up the wrong people for many years and refuse bail to just about everybody.

I'm thinking stones and glass houses here. The Nat West guys got a fair trial. They got off light. I hope they've got their money well hidden. Seems a small price to pay for a few years in jail!!

Blogged with Flock

Untitled

Football Flunkies

And the dust has settled on England's ignominious exit from the European Championships – just in time for them to be drawn against Croatia again in the forthcoming World Cup campaign.

Just excellent!

My abiding memory of the match last week was right at the end. As a dejected, and shortly to be unemployed, Steve McClaren walked towards the tunnel, the camera followed him and then swung around to show the England substitutes coming down from the stand to commiserate with their defeated colleagues.

There was John Terry, first choice centre-back along with his friend, and co-centre-back, Rio Ferdinand nicely wrapped up against the cold. They were injured. So, apparently was most of the first choice team. Poor McClaren must have thought the entire, proverbial latrine composed of layers of compressed and fired clay had fallen on top of him - to have lost – and to have lost because almost his entire first-choice team was unavailable.

Has anyone noticed these players made a swift recovery and were playing for their clubs within a week?

The club v. country argument is the crux of this failure. McClaren couldn't say so and jeopardise his massive payout from the FA, but he must have thought it. As long as England allow the clubs to manage their best players they will never manage to qualify for anything.

Rocket science it ain't!

Imagine this scenario – McClaren takes his players for training three weeks before the crunch match. This does not, of course, guarantee that no-one will be injured in training, but it does, at least, give him a fighting chance!

Makes sense? Good, but it is unlikely ever to happen. As long as the Premier League run English football they will put their interests first. Don't forget it was the FA, who supposedly are in charge, who allowed the Premier League to break away from the rest of football in the first place! Shame on them for abrogating their responsibility. Now, they are stuck – they can neither influence significantly the monster they have allowed in their midst nor get rid of it. They are doomed to institutionally facile snipings around the edges whist the clubs merrily do whatever suits them best.

Since most of the successful managers, Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, are all foreigners, what makes anyone think they will spend time and effort insuring that their England players remain injury free and match ready for the important occasions!

It's insane.

For all we know, Abraovich's puppet at Chelsea might be told to declare key players unfit so Russia has a better chance to qualify. Did it happen? Who know, but it can't be ruled out!!

Mr Barwick may entice another manager – but unless the FA really want to take control of English football, nothing will change,

Blogged with Flock

Drop your tomahawk

Looking at my recent record in predicting the fortunes of the Kansas City Chiefs, readers can be forgiven for ignoring the rest of this article.

Actually, if anyone is still reading, my record is worse than abysmal – particularly when predicting the outcome of games against tomorrow's opponents, the Indianapolis Colts.

This season I have been particularly upbeat. Back in October I waxed lyrical about the talents of our new wide receiver, Dwayne Bowe. I explained that with his pass-catching ability to contend with opponents would not be able to load the box to stop the run and, therefore, Larry Johnson would find running room and the Chiefs passing attack would be revitalised.

Some of this has happened!

Young Mr Bowe is leading the rookie wide receivers in the NFL. Whilst he is not putting up planetary-orbiting numbers, he is certainly providing the deep threat I was so enthusiastic about. He is progressing very nicely.

I confidently predicted that the Chief's defence would be much better. Lot's of quality players had been recruited through the draft and free agency. With an adequate defence the Chiefs would be a real threat and a shoo-in for the play-offs.

The defence is better. In fact, it is actually quite good. Stats don't tell the whole story, but there is no arguing with the fact that opponents are not scoring at a great rate. The Chiefs defence, once the notoriously “Red Sieve”, has firmed up to become more than adequate.

So, Mr Clever-Clogs (I can hear you screaming), kindly explain how the Chiefs reach this point of the season with a 4-5 record and find themselves with an away game at the Colts this week to try to get the season back on track.

Fair enough.

I'll give it a try.

1) Quarterback. The Chiefs don't have one. It was obvious in the pre-season that Coach Herm Edwards wanted to trade Trent Green and install young Brodie Croyle as his number one guy. He managed to unload Green to Miami (where Trent promptly received a career-ending re-occurrence of a smash to the head – which goes to show how dangerous this game can be and how smart Edwards was to unsentimentally unload Green); but, despite his best efforts, he could not convince even himself to install Croyle as number one. The job went to Damon Huard who has just been benched and Croyle will take over. This is nine weeks too late. Coach Edwards should have started the season with Brodie and said, in effect, we'll lose some with this guy now – but later on he'll get us to the playoffs. Now young Croyle has no chance. He may get murdered by the Colts defence and face crucial games against San Diego and Denver with zero confidence. Coach got this one wrong. Big time.
2) Running back. Chiefs are now down to one. The Priest Holmes pre-season saga was as interesting as it was educational. Priest, a franchise running back, was forced to (in effect) try out for the team and he made it. Just when Chiefs fans were mopping up the little bit of mouth-watering dribble that was on their chins, ecstatic at the prospect of Holmes and Larry Johnson teaming up in the back-field and terrorising the opponents' defence; Johnson gets injured, is out for some time and Priest is left on his own to carry the load with an offensive scheme that is tailored for another, very different, type of running back. What was one of the real strengths of the team has disappeared. Chiefs can't run the ball effectively. Ergo – young Brodie, barring a miracle, will have to throw. Unless the running backs produce, Croyle may spend the afternoon picking nylon threads (the RCA Dome in Indianapolis is an artificial surface) from his teeth and wishing Larry Johnson were healthy.
3) Offensive line. Gone south. Or, at least, so far over the hill that they are three blocks south of the line of scrimmage. This is really disheartening and disappointing. Chiefs have had outstanding offensive linemen for a decade. They have protected the QB when there was functionally no running threat. They have opened holes for (first) Holmes and (later) Johnson to post big numbers from the running back slot. Now, seemingly, it is all gone. It's a balancing act – coaching and finding the right players, but the Chiefs have spent so much time, effort and money on improving the defence and the receivers somebody forgot that without an O-line you are not going very far in the NFL. This will take some time to fix.

That just about sums it up. In these three vital area, the Chiefs are well-short of either expectations or predictions.

It is just possible that the Chiefs will win this week in Indianapolis. Unless someone is giving you say 10-1 or a 20 point spread, I wouldn't bet on it.

With the season half-gone the Chiefs are just about half-crocked. As Shakespeare said, “If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.”

Get your Christmas drink in - now!!

Gordo's after your wallet again!

Yesterday's news was dominated by the concerns expressed about binge drinking and the effects it is having on the nation's health.

Health chiefs are queueing up to recount the dangers of binge drinking among the young. The Centre for Public Health at John Moores University surveyed young people and found that they regularly “pre-loaded” up on drink at home before spending the rest of the evening necking pints.

Professor Mark Bellis concludes that while city centre pubs and clubs are making efforts to control binge drinking – nothing is being done to reduce the sales in off-licences and supermarkets. This, he contends, is the real problem. Drinkers are already pickled before they embark on an evening out. He points to the “ridiculously cheap” price of alcohol in supermarkets as the prime cause of drunks populating our city centres in the evening.

I say: hang on to your wallets! A big rise in the duty on alcohol is right over the horizon.

The logic is not hard to follow. Good Old Gordo has just about sucked the life out of the duty on petrol and diesel. There is no room for manoeuvre on income tax or national insurance. The economy is slowing and house prices (chief arbiter of the nation's feel-good factor) are falling. (It's enough to drive anyone to the bottle!) To cap his day, England are about the be knocked out of the European Cup before they even get there – and by Abramovic's Russia no less!

It's not a good time to be PM. You can almost visualise the scenario where Gordo quits and begs Tony to come back and fact the music – the music for which he wrote the notes!

So, searching for some way to balance (only figuratively) the books, GOG needs a scapegoat. Cheap booze for the masses may be it. At least, he thinks so.

Wait a minute! Isn't this the bean-counter who has kept the duty on booze below inflation for the last ten years? Isn't, then, GOG the one to blame if booze is too cheap and fuelling a “let's get it down our necks fast” culture!

Answer? Yes!

Best case – in the next budget the duty on alcohol will be raised substantially. Worse case – GOG will find a way to raise the duty now – before the Christmas rush so he can really rake in the cash!

Remember, you heard it here first.

I wonder if it's possible to bet on an above-inflation rise in the duty on beer, wine and spirits in the next budget?

Can't stop, bit short of readies, must get down to William Hills before it closes – there is some easy money to be made if they will take the bet.

The Fourth Estate

Journalism?

Continual amazement best describes the press statements “released” by members of victims' families.

I just don't understand.

In this troubled world, a world of 24 hour news coverage populated by the inane and inept reporters such coverage engenders, I simply cannot understand the statements attributed to the families of the victims of tragedies.

Imagine – if you can – the scenario. A member of your family (heaven forbid!) is the victim of an accident/terrible crime. The press turn up on your door. They ask for a statement. What do you say?

I know what you don't say: no-one ever says, “He was a pain in the bum, and we are glad he's gone”. Fair enough. You wouldn't expect anyone to say this, even if it were true. You'd be amazed if anyone did say they were totally nonplussed by the absence of a loved-one. It just isn't an appropriate response.

So, why bother to ask?

Does the family's “eulogy” actually add anything to the story? Is the coverage worthy of a Bafta just for doing the asking? Do the viewers really need to see the auntie/uncle/family friend spouting the same shock/horror/amazement in order to be able to empathise with the family? I think not.

So, why is it done?

It must be simply to pander to the prurient interest of the masses.

Part of what makes us human is our unique ability to empathise with others of our species. We, alone in the animal world (seemingly), are able to imagine what others of our kind are doing, suffering and thinking. Therefore, we can imagine how someone else is feeling. Most animals can not do this.

For example, on the African plain, when the lions have managed to snare a zebra after a long chase, the rest of the zebra herd never, ever stop running and imagine what it feels like to have your leg bitten off by a lion. We would and we do. It's part of what makes us what we are.

So, the viewers are imagining how they might feel if a member of their family or friends were a victim. They don't need someone to tell them how to feel. It comes natural. The rest is just superfluous.

I almost feel sorry for the reporters who have to ask these silly, insensitive questions.

Blogged with Flock

Moore Steaks Seared

Sicko Slams the NHS

Michael Moore is rarely out of the news. His particular brand of docu-drama has a following, not just in North America, but around the English-speaking world. He does what he does very well.

He has turned his own particular brand of hostile indignation on the American system of healthcare. His film is called Sicko and he has made more than a few this side of the pond feel a little sicko at his thesis. He contends that the European system of publicly-funded heathcare is so rosy and so superior no-one but a fool could stop himself from copying it. He may be right, but he also may be being economical with the truth.

Writing in the Sunday Times, columnist Minette Marrin is scathing about Moore's methods in painting such a gloriously white picture of the N.H.S. She rightly points out that there are big problems in the National Health and the tons of money thrown at it by Messrs Blair and Brown have hardly produced a system worthy of unreserved envy.

She's missed the point.

Michael Moore is not producing a critique of the NHS, he's proposing improvements in the American healthcare system. He is wondering why some system of publicly financed healthcare would not better than the shambolic, wasteful and expensive system Americans are saddled with at present. This is the criterion upon which his work should be judged – not whether the NHS is all-delightful, all-delicious, all-conquering and all-munificent. Obviously it is not. Equally it is manifestly better than what's on offer in most other countries.

It's not surprising that American politicians are not queueing up to adopt an NHS-type solution to America's healthcare problems. Assuming they speak to their UK counter-parts they must know that the real down-side to the NHS runs deeper than concerns about day-to-day running difficulties (GP's inflated salaries, wards infected with C. dificile and MRSA, nurses leaving faster than they can be trained, crazy bureaucratic decisions that compromise patient care – to mention just a few). No. The real problem with the NHS is that politicians are seen to be responsible for the healthcare of the nation.

Any American politician wanting to commit suicide, please form an orderly queue.

For; if the USA were to adopt any version of a national health service, the blame for every mistake, every short-coming, every poor clinical judgement would move miraculously from the doctors to the politicians. That's the NHS.

Michael Moore's particular talent is unashamedly finding those parts of American society that need improvement and ruthlessly exposing them. He's probably not the person to put in charge of fixing anything. He's not a very good analyst. He sometimes pretends to have all the answers when he doesn't.

That doesn't mean his ideas are dishonest or naïve. It just means that he is making documentaries and not policy.

Benefiting from a bouncing, dead cat

What a difference a few weeks makes! Watched Norwich City against QPR on TV a few weeks ago and they were beyond awful. Since then they have dispensed with a manager, been criticised by all and sundry, lost a few more games and generally brought the fans to the brink of complete apprehension.

Imagine the trepidation they must have felt when faced with the Old Farm Derby on Sunday against Ipswich! At least they got a new manager, Mr Glen Roeder – lately of West Ham, Newcastle and who knows where else.

Even a dead cat will bounce.

Certainly in the first half they played better and should have scored. Predictably, they found themselves 2 down instead.

Grim is not the word!

Two good goals saved them in the second half – and it could have been even better. With a little luck they could have easily won. Never mind, the local press is full of praise and full match reports if that is what you require.

Here we will discuss dead cats.

Or, dead ducks, if you prefer. Mr Peter (Gruntie) Grant is the duck in question. There is no doubt that seeing the team's performance on Sunday must have made Gruntie throw up his roast beef and two veg! These were essentially the same players who couldn't kick a ball for him. They surrendered at every opportunity. They were dreadful, and worse.

How must he have felt when they came storming back to grab equalizing goals? Betrayed? Banjaxed? Bemused? Befuddled? Or, just plain buggered!

It is now clear where the blame should go for the perilous state of the team: right in Delia's meat pie. Will the board own up to having to it all wrong in the Gruntie era?

Not likely. They will do the usual. Sing the praises of the new manager and hope the fans will forget what a mess they have presided over.

Good luck to Mr Roeder. Hopefully he will do more than just benefit from the dead cat bounce. If so, it will be despite the mad management of the board.

Blogged with Flock

Sicko

Moore Steaks Seared

Michael Moore is rarely out of the news. His particular brand of docu-drama has a following, not just in North America, but around the English-speaking world. He does what he does very well.

He has turned his own particular brand of hostile indignation on the American system of healthcare. His film is called Sicko and he has made more than a few this side of the pond feel a little sicko at his thesis. He contends that the European system of publicly-funded heathcare is so rosy and so superior no-one but a fool could stop himself from copying it. He may be right, but he also may be being economical with the truth.

Writing in the Sunday Times, columnist Minette Marrin is scathing about Moore's methods in painting such a gloriously white picture of the N.H.S. She rightly points out that there are big problems in the National Health and the tons of money thrown at it by Messrs Blair and Brown have hardly produced a system worthy of unreserved envy.

She's missed the point.

Michael Moore is not producing a critique of the NHS, he's proposing improvements in the American healthcare system. He is wondering why some system of publicly financed healthcare would not better than the shambolic, wasteful and expensive system Americans are saddled with at present. This is the criterion upon which his work should be judged – not whether the NHS is all-delightful, all-delicious, all-conquering and all-munificent. Obviously it is not. Equally it is manifestly better than what's on offer in most other countries.

It's not surprising that American politicians are not queueing up to adopt an NHS-type solution to America's healthcare problems. Assuming they speak to their UK counter-parts they must know that the real down-side to the NHS runs deeper than concerns about day-to-day running difficulties (GP's inflated salaries, wards infected with C. dificile and MRSA, nurses leaving faster than they can be trained, crazy bureaucratic decisions that compromise patient care – to mention just a few). No. The real problem with the NHS is that politicians are seen to be responsible for the healthcare of the nation.

Any American politician wanting to commit suicide, please form an orderly queue.

For; if the USA were to adopt any version of a national health service, the blame for every mistake, every short-coming, every poor clinical judgement would move miraculously from the doctors to the politicians. That's the NHS.

Michael Moore's particular talent is unashamedly finding those parts of American society that need improvement and ruthlessly exposing them. He's probably not the person to put in charge of fixing anything. He's not a very good analyst. He sometimes pretends to have all the answers when he doesn't.

That doesn't mean his ideas are dishonest or naïve. It just means that he is making documentaries and not policy.

Blogged with Flock

Where are our heroes?

In the week where England almost certainly lost whatever chance they had of qualifying for the European Football Championships, the Sunday Times makes the running on a topic which should focus the mind on the problems, but, unfortunately, miss-kicks the ball and falls flat on the face instead.

Analysing the 32 teams contesting the Champions League matches on October 2-3 columnist Jonathan Northcroft reveals that 12 players who are qualified to play for England were in action. The Scots had 13. Germany had 20. That takes care of most of the old enemies. Oh, sorry, forgot France. They had 34. Caesar's all-conquering legions had 30. Jonathan concludes, quite rightly, that England are shooting themselves in the foot by not having enough top-quality players being honed in the top club competitions.

It's a shame that in a long and well-thought-out article, he misses the point.

He tells us that there were 53 Brazilians, 15 Turks, and 11 Ivorians (or whatever people from the Ivory Coast are called?). He neglects to tell the reader that none of these people has any right to live or work in Europe.

He bemoans the fact that of the 53 Brazilians present only a few are of international stature. So, why are they here? He railes at the thought that Michel Platini might get his way and cut the number of English clubs in the Champions League without any analysis as to why Platini has also questioned why so may “foreigners” are playing in Europe.

Northcroft falls neatly into the trap of identifying a problem, yet posing no solution. That's easy – anyone can do that! Finding problems routinely causes no difficulty. Finding answers plagues us all.

England have no real ambition to do well in the World Cup or European Championships. If they did, the F.A. would be leading the charge towards more English players playing for the top clubs in England. They would be actively pursuing foreign owners, like Abramovich, who routinely turn up to cheer his country (Russia) on at England's expense in the major competitions; yet allow him to field a flotilla of foreign imports in the domestic competitions.

A little enlightened self-interest would not go amiss at HQ.

Until these sort of problems are addressed at the highest levels England will only pay lip-service to ambition. Until the interests of clubs are subordinated to what's good for England no progress will be made. Until the people who administer English football wake up to the danger of putting club before county – no progress is possible.

Blogged with Flock

Built-In Crap Detectors

All red-blooded males like Playboy magazine. It's full of very pretty and very alluring girls artfully posing with little or no clothes on. How could you be against that?

What is not so well-know is that Playboy, in the early days at least, was a leader in journalism. The Playboy Interviews featured such luminaries as Malcolm X, John Lennon, Ayn Rand, Bill Gates and Sir Paul McCartney – to name just a few.

One of my favourite interviews was with Ernest Hemingway, winner of the Nobel Prize for literature – and one-time cub reporter on the Kansas City Star. In the course of the interview, Papa Hemingway was asked a very serious question – something like “what is the most important quality you need to be a great writer?”.

Hemingway's reply has stuck with me for at least forty years. He simply replied, “a built-in, foolproof, crap detector.” Sounds injudiciously flippant for a Noble laureate but think about it. What he meant is that you need to be able to cut through all the nonsense and get right to what is important. Pretty good advice in anybody's game.

Which brings us neatly to the crisis at Norwich City Football Club. Peter Grant, erstwhile saviour and all-round Scots twit had gone. The results have gone completely pear-shaped. In their televised game against bottom side QPR Norwich were worse than dreadful. The gossip lines are full of the fans frustrations and remedies. A lot of nonsense is being peddled as gospel when, listen to Hemingway, the truth is actually staring fans, board and journalists in the face. Fact is: NCFC are not very good and not likely to be very good for the foreseeable future. The question is: why?

Only one journalist has adopted the Hemingway approach. Applying his “built-in, foolproof crap detector” he concluded that the Board leave a lot to be desired. In particular, he questioned whether the whole-hearted and well-meaning support of the majority shareholders, St Delia and Sir Michael, is sufficient to take the club forward. His thesis: it's not good enough being passionate and committed – you also have to be good at the job.

This makes sense. Lots of people are passionate in their support for the local football team, but not many of them would make good members of the board, managers or chief executives. Passion and hard work can only take you so far – then you need to be good at the job. No-one could doubt the passion Gruntie Grantie brought to the manager's desk. problem was – he just wasn't good enough. It's not a crime. It's just the truth.

Now, the board should adopt the same approach. They should ask themselves whether their avowed and heart-felt passion for the club is really going to turn things around – or is it just not enough. Already, we have stories erupting telling us that Delia might sell. How the idiots who think she is better than sliced bread can square that circle is quite beyond me.

If the board are honest they would get rid of Numptie Neil Doncaster and fall on their own swords. What the fans want is a winning team. They are not interested in “prudence” - whatever that means. If NCFC are going to sink – they might as well go out in a blaze of debt. At least it will be interesting!

It is, after all, the board's “prudence” that is the cause of the present predicament. After trousering the 25 million for achieving Premiership status, they refused to spend bit money on players whilst the parachute payments were in place. Now, having wasted the two years and run out of money from lucrative land deals, they have only themselves to blame.

Norwich need to ditch Delia and get a major shareholder with real ambition and real cash. How about another one of the Glazers? Worked well enough for Man Utd. If I were Delia, I'd advertise. Football Club for sale. Lots of potential. Massive crowds every week despite terrible results. Solvent. Apply Carrow Road.

Blogged with Flock

Crimson Tide

A particularly un-noteworthy film starring Gene Hackman and Denzil Washington features an allusion entirely lost on UK audiences. The star of the film is the fictional submarine USS Alabama – a nuclear powered ballistic missile boat whose mission is to counter a fictional Russian megalomaniac who is threatening to launch an attack against the USA. Because the University of Alabama's football team is known as the Crimson Tide, the title of the film makes perfect sense to audiences in America – and is lost to the rest of the world.

Most of the excitement in the film concerns the conflict between Hackman and Washington, who cannot agree on what course of action to take when communications are garbled, Hackman believing they must launch a strike to take out the Russians before they can launch, Washington holding that they must re-establish communications so as to be sure they are not starting a nuclear war by mistake. Quite a good idea not to start a nuclear holocaust by mistake one would imagine.

What the audience doesn't realise is that, while this is a work of fiction, it is also is a fairly accurate depiction of naval communications.

Navies operate a different system than the rest of the forces – or the rest of the world for that matter. Because, they say, their ships are always manned and always listening, they simply broadcast messages over and over, hoping that the ships will eventually get the ones meant for them. The senders have no way of knowing if a message is received and read or not. They just assume that if they keep sending the messages, eventually they will all get read by the folks that need to. Interesting system – especially if you are carrying enough nuclear warheads to destroy most of the known world. Touch a large piece of wood – it has worked for the last 40 years, let's hope it continues!!

Which brings us neatly to emails. Email operates pretty much like naval communications. Lots and lots of messages are floating around out in cyberspace and we, the consumers, just trust that someone is listening – and hopefully that someone is the someone we sent the message to! We assume this works quite well, but we have no real way of knowing. Some people add tags that are supposed to flag when the recipient reads the message, but these are few and far between and most people simply assume if the message isn't bounced back by the recipient's mail server – it must have got there. So, when you send an email and get no reply, it may be because it hasn't been read yet, or it has got lost in the system, or whoever you sent it to just can't be bothered to reply! How to tell which?

You can't really.

Therefore, email is a very imperfect system. So, as a matter of fact, is snail mail. While the mail strike is on – people will expect delays. So far – so good. Even in ordinary times some mail doesn't make it to the destination. Some gets lost in the system and turns up years later; some the lazy, irresponsible postman throws in the bin (yes, it happens, but fortunately not very often); some goes to the wrong house and your neighbours can't resist opening it to see what you're up to and then are too embarrassed to hand it on. The list is long. We assume when we post a letter it will get there, A dangerous assumption!

Where does this lead us? Back to the phone, Never mind the paper-less office, the technocrats who drive the communication revolution, the internet gurus who drive us to the computer to cure every ill – facts are - if you want to be sure that someone gets your message – you better get them on the phone and speak to them.

Everything else is problematical.

Blogged with Flock