Kakapo...

...and now for something compltely different.

I was browsing through the BBC News website when I stumbled across a recent article and the Kakapo, one of my favourites. The Kakapo is a relatively large, ground dwelling, flightless, nocturnal and famously musty-smelling parrot indiginous to the New Zealand islands. I've always thought them to be more mammalian looking than avian. There are only 86 left in the world and following the sudden death of three females last year, the arrival of 5 new Kakapos in the world is cause for great celebration and redoubled efforts to save this bird.

I first heard of them from the late, great Douglas Adams in his [Last Chance to See] series about endangered animals. He said of the Kakapo:

"The kakapo is a bird out of time. If you look one in its large, round, greeny-brown face, it has a look of serenely innocent incomprehension that makes you want to hug it and tell it that everything will be all right, though you know that it probably will not be."



You can find out more about the conservation efforts at the New Zealand Deaprtment of Conservation's [Kakapo Team] website.

Read more!

Apathy....

So now I've read it in the newstatesman, the Guardian, heard it on Radio 4 and seen it on the BBC - journalists trying to engage the student vote by visiting various campuses and interviewing the so called elite, intelligencia of this country. Well, I chuckle as I write that last sentence, knowing full well that the UK's universities are in fact not full of the intelligencia - far from it. Yes, they are to be found, but I'm afraid your average undergraduate is either late for a lecture, bogged down trying to get an almost overdue essay written, trying to figure out how the library works, wondering when they're next going to go out/get laid and wondering when, where, and how the next meal is going to arrive. A sweeping generalisation, but easily founded as they live up to their stereotypes so well it amazes me; and I have some authority on this matter having been a student for 7.5 years and lived/studied/worked within universities since 1996. I really have seen it all, with cherries on top. Believe me!

So when confronted with the question: "So, are you going to vote?", their rertort is invariably one of ".......er.....I don't know"; "..and why not might I ask?" - which immediately stresses the undergrad because now they have to engage some of that rusty grey matter. The answers are usually the poorly thought out, glib, non-cerebral, rhetoric of the policically apathetic.

They'll complain about a lack of information, a lack of trust in the politicians, that they don't think they'll make a difference. Hmmm. Well excuse me, but frankly the internet and every newspaper is saturated with information. Noone has trusted politicians ever, not since they came into power at the down fall of Charley-boy the 1st. So I guess, if all the people who think that they can't make a difference don't vote, well, here's a shocker - they won't! What it all comes down to is this: LAZINESS! Physical, emotional and intellectual laziness. It is an insidious disease, and for all the cognisant political conversations going on between small, like minded groups at every university, I'm afraid their voices are drowned by the silence of the apathetic and the proletariat.

Of course, there is one aspect of their apathy with which I agree, and that is the political process. It is ineffective, subject to fraud and is not proportionally representative. It is archaic in its format, which does not speak to the 21st century of voters. We could follow the example of Australia (and Belgium, if I remember correctly), which legally requires all citizens to vote, the penalty being a fine ($20). So they have a 95%+ turnout, thus they can be reasonably assured that the government reflects the true majority choice of the people. This isn't without its problems, as there are always a die hard few who will cry that it is their democratic right not to vote, should they not wish to. Well, I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

Democracy and freedom are not quite the same thing. A democarcy takes effort, and it has it's own rules. True freedom is actually anarchy, which invariably results in a new order that is most definately not democratic. For all the liberty you have - and before people cry out about taxes etc, could we just draw a comparison with the liberty that billions of people don't have - is it so much to ask that you put an X in the box that most closesly reflects the policies you'd like to see instituted?

Hmm, perhaps so. We shall see, but if we have another government elected on a mere 59% turn out, and if that government turns out to be a bloody Tory one, well I'm afraid I may just go visit Australia and not come back.

Read more!

New car...

I believe it was some time ago I blogged the pipe dream of owning the new Audi A3 Sportback, and now we have one, the 2.0 TDi Sport version:



Bit of a beast really!

Back with more meaningful, and less materialistic, posts soon. I shall go wallow in my new status of "Corporate Whore" (my Sister's choice of words), so with that in mind I'm off to ask the dealer if he can get a registration plate with "DNA" in it (hehehehe - Geek).

Read more!

Cold ass....

I shall endeavour to stop posting rather glib, one paragraph posts soon, in the hope of actually writing something meaningful. However, I felt I should comment on a general grievance. That being, when writing all day and suffering with the concomitant coldness that invariably creeps up on you, it is wise to remember that when one turns on the heater the air density drops. This of course results in a net influx of a goodly stream of cold air from outside, which promptly freezes one's arse off. It is therefore prudent, when using said heater, to shut the damn door!

Thanks. More from the irate, frustrated writer later.

Read more!

Paxman...

I'm looking forward to the [Paxman Interviews] tonight, as it's Tony Blair's turn to be grilled. Of course, he's interviewing Michael Howard on Friday, and we know just how much fun we all had watching an earlier such matching - in fact I think Paxman got the "Best Interview of the Year" for that one, when he asked the same question 20 odd times over without getting an answer. I must say I do very much enjoy Jeremy Paxman's interviews; he says just what you feel should be said. Click [here] for a little background on the bloke.

Read more!

I'm very sorry, but I have to.....

I'm very sorry, but I have to share this with you all, it's the only way I can recover from the associated mental trauma (lol).

Enjoy: Mr T (aka B.A.) sings about respect for mothers!

Read more!

Word to the wise....

A word to the wise: Never.....never, try to catch a falling cheese grater!

I am now missing the fingerprint of my left index finger.

Read more!

Funny, funny....

Particularly amusing for the academics amongst you:

Why God doesn't have a PhD?

- He had only one major publication.
- It was in Hebrew.
- It had no references.
- It wasn't published in a refereed journal.
- Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.
- It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
- His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
- The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
- He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects.
- When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it by drowning his subjects.
- When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
- He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
- Some say he had his son teach the class.
- He expelled his first two students for learning.
- Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed his tests.
- His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.

Read more!

et continuum...

So old Tone has decided that if voted in he'll be wanting to stay in office for a full term! So now I'm unsure of what to do. I had reconciled myself to voting, but only on the basis that we get a shot at having Gordon Brown in office too, but this has been ruled out. I can't help but think that labour has shot themselves in the foot because I'm sure there were plenty of people like myself willing to vote on this premise.

To all those who demonstrate great apathy and say they're not going to vote, I simply say "So you're voting Conservative then?" They will win by default. "If you're tired of Balir, vote Conservative" is the diatribe of various spokemen at the moment....they may as well be saying "If you're tired of eating Marmalade, eat Marmite" - just because you're tired of Marmalade, doesn't mean you should switch to Marmite. As far as their respective manifestos are concerned, they're chalk and cheese (which is which I don't know). I can only concede that as I am now disgruntled with the prospect of Tony Blair for a further full term, I may have to vote LibDem (by proxy) in a tactical vote.

Right, some pictures. I was walking through an old slate quarry when I stumbled across some very old wire fencing that had been engulfed by the trees against which it rested. I've seen this before, but never have I seen the wire going straight through the middle of the trunk! This spur of growth out along the wire was particularly amusing.



Another odd sight, on the same day, was finding a Herdwick sheep buried up to it's shoulders in a mound of silage. Yum. I guess it was enjoying the warm, gooey interior.



As I returned from an evening jaunt in the valley, I saw a Herdwick silhouetted on the hill side with a silver lining of the setting sun. The full sized version is quite striking, but here's a clipped copy.



That should keep me out of trouble for a bit. I will get some more posted soon.

Read more!

At last...

Can I just congratulate the [newstatesman] on publishing Michela Wrong's article on Pope John Paul II, with the particularly brave polemic headliner: "He did more to spread Aids in Africa than prostitution and the trucking industry combined" (We'll ignore that fact that you can't actually spread AIDS - which should be capitalised - as AIDS is the disease that results from HIV, and it is of course this that is "spread"), but good show.

I don't like religious rhetoric, particularly the conservative Catholic flavour that Pope JPII propounded, and I've been particularly uneasy with the sudden piety that suffused the UK media at the time of his death (we'll forget the US papers as they're frequently pious nad self-righteous). In fact, I had issues with one BBC online news headline "Police pray for safe return of missing teenager". Hmm, I very much doubt that they did, they were probably out there working their asses of trying to find her. I think, had JPII not died, that the alternate verb "hope" may have been used instead.

Anyway, I'm just passing through as I have much reading to do - but I will be back with pictures, because I'm aware that I've plastered rather a lot of text on my blogs recently. Must amend.

Read more!

Votae Tacticalis...

I'm all for [tactical voting] in theory. Unfortunately there is a problem.

1) too many people who would benefit from tactical voting are likely to be the "soft" voters who are unaware of what tactical voting is.

2) It's hard enough to get "soft" voters to vote, let alone having made an informed (rather than tabloid or consensus led) choice. So to have them go online, do the research and register to "swap votes" with someone else, so that they can both achieve their desired aims, is quite unlikely.

This said, I guess there will be a number of people who will vote tactically. In my area it is not required as Labour have the majority, and I will be voting for them - principally to keep the Tory's out. However, there are also a goodly number of liberal voters who could do with vote swapping.

So what does a Lib Dem supporter do in an area with no chance of becoming Lib Dem, but needs Labour support to stop the Torys getting in (becoming resurgent)? Well, they go and find a Labour supporter who is in a constituency where there is no chance of Labour winning and where Lib Dems are the best competition for a standing Tory seat. This is where a tactical voting site, such as [tacticalvoter.net], is useful.

By registering to swap votes (this isn't a legal agreement, it's a cerebral agreement), the Lib Dem agrees to vote Labour in their area (which benefits the Labour supporter's aim of challenging a Tory seat) and the Labour supporter votes Lib Dem in their respective area (which benefits the Lib Dem supporter's aims). In both cases they know that they are not wasting their votes, and both are equally useful in preventing the Torys getting in, or better still, ousting an incumbant Tory seat.

"In the past, a Liberal Democrat in a seat where his party were running third and had no prospect of winning had two choices: vote LibDem, knowing his vote would be thrown away; or vote tactically for the Labour Party to try and prevent a Conservative from winning.

Vote swapping offers a new option: use the Internet to find a Labour supporter stranded somewhere Labour can't win, and make a pact to "swap" votes, support each other's parties and have the best chance of beating the Conservatives in both seats. That way, you get a tactical vote for your party in exchange: two votes that can make a difference instead of two votes that are thrown away".
[tacticalvoter.net]

Certainly something to consider? Go visit [tacticalvoter.net] and check your postcode/constituency for your best option.

Read more!

Responsibility...

What can I say, it's election fever again, and I'll be voting in my third general election - so expect plenty of rants in the upcoming weeks.

To be honest, the last two votes were easy, I voted Labour (though I was close to voting Lib dem in 1997 as I was at uni and the chap representing my then constituency seemed to have his head screwed on).

These elections are a little different; back then we wanted a change, a BIG change, but now we have had an experience of both major parties, so what do we think? Labour spent the first four years attempting to clean up the mess associated with a long and crappy Conservative rule. They set out to achieve their manifesto and promptly failed, rather spectacularly actually. We forgave them though and voted them in again in 2001, after all, it was going to take more than one term to see in these promised changes. Is two terms enough? I think so.

I can't help but feel that no significant changes are ever made because a government cannot effectively look long term, for example, say a public scheme is set up in the first term, that will only start to yield ongoing benefits further down the line. At the ouset there may be condemnation that it's a waste of money. The media will run with it, as will the opposition. The voters vote, the opposition gets in and the scheme is abandoned. Everyone reflects on what a waste of money it was. However, what if the voters gave the government another chance, and the scheme comes to fruition, the government and people reap the reward of initial monetary outlay. We don't work like this though. The government has short stints in which it tries to please as many people as possible by providing short-term relief and temporary benefits at the expense of not doing the things that really need to be done. You can't change a country for the better like that.

Unfortunately it's never this simple, and there is too much glib chaff mixed in with the wheat. What everyone must remember is that whilst Labour has been getting on with governing the country, the Tories have been arguing amongst themselves, kicked out two leaders, and elected a complete prat as their current. I will state this now: Conservative is not a viable alternative to Labour!

If you have beef with Tony Blair or the Labour party, well the logical alternative IS NOT the Conservative party, it is too polar of a switch. Of course, herein lies the dilemna: If Labour voters switch to Lib Dems, who despite never really having a chance of getting into government and have some rather radical alternatives to the general manifesto mantras of the main two parties, then this presents the Conservatives with an advantage. They might win, and not because more voters voted for them, but because less voters voted for Labour. So do we vote for who we think stands the greatest chance of getting into power, or do we vote to prevent someone even worse getting into power.

I have to admit that I quite like Charles Kennedy, but I also don't mind Tony Blair. I can't stand Michael Howard, he is a relic. All is not lost however, because as Polly Toynbee points out in the Commentry section of today's Guardian, "Vote Blair, get Brown". Yes, Gordon Brown is still hovering in the background. He may have a slow rise to chiefdom if Labour has a landslide victory, but a less resounding win for Labour would see Blair cordially step down (with gritted teeth no doubt) for Brown at some point in the third term. In my opinion Brown seems a reasonable chap and may provide a refreshing, and probably much needed, change for Labour.

So I'm forced to concede that I will probably vote Labour again, but that doesn't mean to say I like all of their policies, even ones important to me. My issues are with Health, Crime, Environment and Tax/Economy (I don't like supporting people who can't be bothered to work, and the regrading of Council Tax stands to increase by banding by up to 5 points!).

To digress, clean hospitals won't stop MRSA, sorry, but it won't. It'll be a bloody good thing, sorely needed and immensly more hygienic, but we don't treat people on the floor, nor do we operate on the floor. Wounds get infected all the time, but in this environment of antibiotic usage, frankly MRSA is the climax community, the best adapted to hang around. We need to address: i) the dissemination of the bacterium through patient-patient and health care worker-patient contact ii) increase the facilities and powers for screening and isolation of MRSA carriers (and it might be an idea if there was room to swing a cat in hospitals!), and iii) the funding for development of new classes of antibiotics. You can only derivatise an antibiotic so much. Swinging a dirty mop around on the floor just isn't going to cut it. Though I should imagine not having blood, other body fluids and pubic hair all over the floor and curtains around your bed can only be a good thing!

The big industry won't fund such research keenly though. There's no return in it for them and they're hardly the most morally obliging of industries. They only want to research medications that will be used long term in persistent and ongoing disorders. So Tuberculosis is being worked on, because the poor suckers need 6 months + of drugs. Your afterage soft tissue infection can be cleared in seven to ten days with the right drug.

Hm, digressed somewhat there. So yes, elections. I'll wait on [Peter Snow's] analyses.

Read more!

Bollocks....

Well, just wrote a big blog entry, accidently navigated away from the page and lost it all on returning. So that sucks. I'm off.

Read more!