It's the name of the blog dammit!

This is attempt number two at a blog post that is based more on a whim than any other. The main source of my ire I have not yet located, probably why I am still struggling to write any decent metal lyrics but can whack out a good couple of riffs with relative ease. The most recent event to find this well of anger came from Senior. Some of his attitudes towards how I conduct myself seem to be all to similar to this government for me not to have a brief rant on this topic.

The most recent incident was over this very blog. On here I do not tend to moderate anything I say, with the exception of expletives as there can be so much more inventive insults that the crude one word ejaculations most people are content with (ejaculation is also a synonym of exclaim to justify its position in the sentence as more than just a word to titillate). This has led to what I say becoming extreme, my simple counter to this is a simple one. Whom, when irate, is anything other than extreme?  Ire is an emotion of extreme. Ire is not reasonable. Ire does not think and moderate. It shouts curses screams and makes wild and outrageous accusations. Unfortunately the title of the blog appears not to reference in peoples minds when reading what I have posted. Maybe I should have a warning sticker on the site?

The incident over this blog was Senior following up on what I had done with this blog. I posted about this, and decided there were several options. I had informed senior that there rather than his suggestion of deletion, there was the more simple version of changing the e-mail address with which this site is registered to one that isn't my personal address. So when Senior comes to ask the follow up question about what I have done with my blog how would you, an impartial (assumption made you do not know me or anyone close to me) reader, pose the question of effectively disconnecting my real-life persona from this blog? The most sensible method would surely be something akin to "Pingu in Portugal, what have you done with your blog since I last talked to you about it?" Sensible, no?

Now Senior's inquiry into the affair should be surprising, as Senior canvassed for the Iron Lady herself and states he is right of centre and liberal. The question he posed me was "Have you deleted that blog yet?"... Now where to begin on this? What aspect of this should I deride first?

None. First I shall take you further into the workings of Senior's mind. In the first paragraphs I used the word "some" referring to Senior's attitudes towards me. The second comment made to me is one that I ignored at the time, and one that I may at a later date come back to him over. Senior if you are reading this, have a look at Blog Content post to check that it is you and not OB, the reason I didn't go to your old school too, Then please do ask me about what I have said on this post. If you thought you had bad arguments with OB then prepare for a new Number 1. The comment in question was said in relevance to going to a new university to study a different course. "You can make some new friends, other than your real ale lot." Now I have never been noted for my reliance on remembering statements verbatim, and I have not here (hence why it is merely a comment, not a quote). I do know, however, that the statement started with the old "no offence" comment, thus insuring the comment is offensive if only that part is remembered, and was stated in such a manner that it was all but unsaid that my current crop of friends was undesirable in his eyes.

Combine these two comments and what do we get? Effectively, Senior trying to run my life as he believes would benefit me the most. Yes it is all good intentions on his part, though I increasingly struggle to find the benefit to me in deserting good friends, but it is still an attempt to control me. Having caused significant disappointment in recent times, and taking into account the ease with which agreeing and ignoring generally works upon Senior, I have generally suffered these type of comments with no fuss. The advice imparted upon me is generally very good and based on many more years experience than I have.

Now though, I tire of it. I may well be Pingu Junior, but I have well passed the time when I need to be watched over and monitored. A staple comment I now find exiting Senior's mouth is, "How many drinks is that?" with a simple answer of 'none of your business' readily available I go for the "It's my second, the same number as you." Though the feel I always get in response to this comment is 'Do as I say. Not as I do.'

This all combines to leave me with the simple conclusion that Senior is acting in the manner that a Lib\Lab\Con government would want to be seen. Informing you of how to act and behave because it is for your benefit. This may be why I am feeling increasingly irritated at home by complete non-events that would make a mole-hill a planet, let alone a mountain. I can see what a benign intervention should be and what the government actually does, or that I see what the government and find myself viewing the benign acts of Senior and LG and feeling them as the malicious forces that a Lib\Lab\Con government would be.

The audacity to imply that my friends weren't up to scratch. The arrogance to assume that the course suggested had to be the course taken, and the hypocrisy of the 'Do as I say, not as I do.' I am starting to understand why OB is moving to Exeter. In the short term, my exodus to the Sou' West is inevitable. In the long-term, my exodus from this country is probable. The new country to which I will be a citizen, if only an unhappy one, has recently become Switzerland. If I am gonna make a break from this country I my aswell lose the lingo too. Make the break that much more surgical.

A quick return to the title of the post. A person is allowed their opinions. Do not judge a man 'til you have met him. It is easy to let your invention rule when it is you and a computer screen against no-one. Never judge a man by his blog.

(I wanted to do never judge a blog by its owner. Unfortunately it got the message around the wrong way)

Music of the Revolution

I may be biased on this subject and am pretty sure of at least one dissenter to this view. I have been thinking on what would be the music best suited to support a popular uprising against this current authoritarian government should it somehow manage to obtain power in the upcoming election. I shall list as many genres as I can think of an attempt to argue both sides for each genre.

House/Techno/Garage... the rave/club music.
Pro: When the rave scene first came about Thatcher made laws to stop it such was the fear the establishment felt of it. Connected with a disregard of authorities.
Cons: Disconnected from politics, its disregard of authority is through apathy and ignorance rather than deliberate.

Classical
Pro: Music that can inspire people to great deeds, from a time before current politics, disconnected from politics
Con: Seen as an elitist genre of music, can be too complex for many people, too long

Musicals
Pro: Written for groups songs, some very connected to the people's struggle against power 'Les Miserables', populist and catching
Con: Popular contemporary musicals are mechanically produced, contrived, escapist and fail to engage with any principles of a liberal revolutionary.

R n B (rhyme n beatz)
Pro: Large popularity base to access
Con: Complete absence of politics, escapist, contrived by suits

Hip Hop
Pro: Politically motivated music genre, real passion in music, about struggle against authoritarian power
Con: Modern version (krunk) is contrived and removed from politics, struggle was not just liberal but also racial

Pop
Pro: Popular
Con: Contived by men in suits, only apolitical if no threat to status quo that wasn't contrived by the suits

Jazz
Pro: Apolitical
Con: Elitist, lacking emotion necessary for revolution

Blues
Pro: Music of political struggle, extremely emotive, popular not populist
Con: Already music of a political struggle, struggle more racial than political

Punk:
Pro: Very political, extremely passionate
Con: Used in prior political struggle, declined since end of Thatcher

Metal
Pro: Sometimes political, extremely passionate, continuous hard-core large fan-base over all generations
Con: Lacks huge support, politics vary

The last three genres are listed in order from 3rd to 1st.
I believe that metal would be the correct candidate. Blues was for the black man against the white master. Punk was the middle finger at Tatcher. Metal has yet to really have its fight against the authority. The lyricists of metal bands may vary from left to right, but when you tell them what to do they will casually light up a fag, flip the fingers at you, blow smoke in your face and tell you in so many words to "go away and leave us alone or unpleasant things will happen to your body." Metal does have its softer side, its remorseful side, its melancholic side. The songs that are sung to remember the beloved deceased, but come battle what other genre is there to compare. There is no 'Battle Punk' or 'War Blues'. I doubt there are any other genres so popular that are so inclusive either. How many popluar/significant genres had their 'dress code' decided by a gay man. This is a genre that simply demands respect, give it and you shall be shown an equal measure, show intolerance and you shall be scorned.

Please do disagree, this has been written when tired and tipsy, and I know that I have forgotten rock, I shall do it as an editorial tomorrow or something. But in the war of the liberals against the authoritarians, I know which genre should own the anthem for the liberals.

Blog Content

In recent times I have not been receiving much in the way of good news, apart from a second attempt at hosting a party has managed to entice a friend all the way from Manchester. I have received two rejections from universities, fortunately there I am still awaiting a response from my favoured university, and issues relating to the opposite sex have returned to their usual position after trying to start two relationships in third gear. That which I have just stated however is entirely irrelevant to point that this blog pot shall be questioning. My genetic seniors have in the past couple of days both talked to me about my blog and its contents. They were both approaching it from the same view point, but have addressed it in two different methods.

I am more often called my mother's son than my father's. This tends to be due to how I deal with people. Senior (my father) is always described as an alpha male, so is older brother which makes this house interesting when both occupy it, and I have a very good method of dealing with him. Like OB (older brother) I can disagree quite fundamentally with him, and in a fashion true to my family heritage I can either talk the hind legs off of a donkey or can teach a mountain about immobility. Unlike OB I do not confront senior on every little matter, I go by a family friend's method of dealing with the alpha male: "Agree with him, then go away and do what you want", or as I term it "say yes and don't do it". My analogy however is an over simplified view, and I am moving rather rapidly toward the second method. I say this as my father recently consulted/confronted (not sure which one to take it as) and requested that I delete it.
My initial reaction was, internally, complete outrage. I let him continue however as he is older, though not necessarily wiser, and the point he made was one that did force me to think. I should distance myself from this blog as potential employers may well look at it and not like my impassioned views, extreme I do believe was the implication.
Life Giver, LG (mother), discussed this with me the next day. Now I say I am oft described as my mother's son, and it is due to my handling of people. My mother does not have the same granite running through her veins that Senior does so is much easier going and enjoys discussions, as do I. Senior tends to view these as arguments. I did once have a three hour debate on the merits of senior researchers spending time preventing the "theory" of intelligent design being taught in science classes in the USA. Since that debate I have been banned on debating things with that member of the family. Anyway past the waffle and back to the point on the talks about this blog. LG was more concerned by the language I used to portray my views on this blog. I was being more like Farage than like Hannan, my description not hers. She thinks that I should play devil's advocate against myself on this blog. Whilst that maybe more interesting and intellectually challenging it was never really the point of this blog.
I started this blog as a method of releasing unresearched, unforgiving and possibly unreasonable rants about anything. It has turned political mainly due my paying attention to politics, which makes me more irate than those poor overpaid actors, playing at being athletes for several million pounds a year... otherwise known as footballers. I wished for people to challenge me on any points they disagreed with, but with only one person ever replying I never do really research much more into what I rant about.
From these two conversations I see myself left with several options, which I shall turn into a poll. What should I do with this blog, and are those options possible:

1. Delete blog so it can't be found by potential employers and give up on this.
2. Delete blog so it can't be found by potential employers and start a new anonymous one.
3. Remove my name so that I can't be traced to this blog and continue as is.
4. Remove my name so that I can't be traced to this blog and start playing devil's advocate with myself on it.
5. Change nothing and continue as is.
6. Change nothing but the parameters of the blog to play devil's advocate with myself.

Having been told to delete it outright by Senior, I am most tempted by 5 as I'll be damned if I'll be forced to do anything. Reasoning it through either 4 or 6 seem like the more logical choices. 1 and 2, to me, are there simply because they are options. If anyone can think of impossibilities in any of the options 1 to 6 or can think of others please comment with them and I shall start the new poll on Monday.

First Time Voters Question Time

I have just watched the titular program on BBC iPlayer. What a brilliant idea, what a farce. Yet again the politicians abuse the Queen's to avoid or ignore valid points and concerns of the, sometimes hard to understand, audience. A large portion of time was spent on voter apathy. When the panel was twice asked how we were supposed to bring ourselves, the youth, the first time voters to obtain the will and desire to vote when the 3 major parties hardly differ. Not once did the MPs representing their party say "We are different!". Not once did they dare try to criticise their own or the others' leaders in saying "We must be different! We must make our stall clear from those of the others who seek to triumph over us." Not once. They went on how they must engage us, how they must garner our support, still avoiding the blindingly obvious and continuing to fail to answer the question, and that it must come from both directions not just from the political elite. They talked about how Westminster must seem isolated and aloof. Still they did not dare question their leaders and did not answer the question.

When the politicians fail the Queen's in this manner how am I to gain trust in them, how am I going to want to vote for them, for ANY of them? Talking with friends last night I said that I was most likely to vote UKIP. This caused some consternation as it was a 'throw away vote'. Yes it may well be in a Buckinghamshire constituency, but when I see David Cameron I hear Tony Blair, I hear a man who cannot even set out a stall with tangible policies that don't contradict each other or even make sense; when I see Nick Clegg (one of the audience didn't even know his name) I do not see a liberal party, nor do I see a party with common sense and the ability to return to the people what belongs to the people; when I see Gordon Brown I see a dictator, a small man with a small mind who cannot hear nor see reason if it does not agree with him. So I want to vote for a party that will do something, anything. I have considered UKIP and they at least offer a national referendum on whether we are in or out of Europe. But why vote when it will probably merely logged as a protest vote? I want to vote but please, someone throw me a bone here!

Banking Crisis

This isn't going to be long as I don't really have a very large understanding of business and economics.

I spent most of today reading (I have been working, but watching a TV doesn't require a brain cell... it does but it steals them from me rather than make me use them) a new web comic. I came across two comics which to me seem to sum up what went wrong a little better than, "those fat cats at the top taking too many risks". First I do think that I am right in saying that all the fat cats did was let their sub-ordinates do the risk taking for them. So this cartoon is probably a more accurate description of what went wrong.
Next the bonus culture. In this one, the character seems to show the real response of bankers to the emergency bail out funds.

As I said I don't know much, but if you have people who made bad investments on a faulty idea, what happened in the past will surely happen again. I doubt they would really have believed that the first failiure was actually their fault, and so learn from their lesson.

Where will the war end?

I have just read a brilliant blog post about climate change by Brian Micklethwait of samizdata.net. I feel that there is a fantasy/war fiction/steampunk novel in this post. I have no idea if their was any intention to create this feeling of an epic in waiting. Being a climate sceptic I agree with a lot of what is said, so that may help in what I felt as I was reading...

    A small village, that keeps itself to itself, in a small county of a giant nation governed by a weak ruler who hides behind his trusted advisors. Slowly the evil and malice of these advisers starts to pollute the nations minds. This once liberal land starts being crushed under the heelof the ruler's name. The majority, unthinking, just continue with their lives slowly being subverted by the lies of the propoganda machine, ignoring the quiet disappearances of those who start to question. The lord of the small county, who was a reasonable man preaching of understanding and accomodation, is summoned by the ruler to be brought to heel.
    For some time an intelligent, presumed mad, and badly tolerated member of the isolated village has been trying to tell the village of what is happening, of these malicious forces bent on domination, determined, and monstrous these shadows. It is not until the summons of their Lord does anyone seek to question the old man on his opinions. In questioning a part yet not the whole of the group of people whom question him come to doubt and investigate. In the questioning they begin to realise the danger of this misinformation and start to work to build a point of defence from where to attack the chinks in the armour.
    Slowly, word starts to reach the advisors of this redoubt of hope, by this time expanding slowly to encompass most of the small county. Upon the obtaining of this information a force is sent to swat them away, to arrest and slaughter the higher echelons of this free-thinking collection. As this force moves to crush this rebellion of thought word of these secret actions start to spread throughout the nation, with more people flocking to the banner.
    This primary force meets with a small amount of success, but fails to destroy the uprising, merely containing it. Reinforcements are requested, again the advisor's misjudge the power of the movement sending in sufficient support. When battle is next enjoined, the forces of the ruler are crushed. The support for the resistance grows rapidly. Elite soldiers and commanders flock to the banner of the rebels and the truth they stand for.
    The rebels consolidate their gains and prepare for the next assault. The ruler's advisor's are in disarray, all arguing with no leader. Finally a group of the more extreme members of councillors gains control. They summon the army and prepare for total war.
    Meanwhile small elite groups of soldiers have been sent to prepare for the assault of the castles, keeps and hill forts of the enemy. The remaining troops ready for battle knowing the cost of failiure and willing to sacrifice. The armies of the enemy draw near the battle lines are drawn and the nation holds its breath for the first charge. Unknowingly, in skirmishes being fought all around the armies, a convoy containing correspondence for the upcoming fight, and the long running campaign of propoganda is captured. This, the commanders of both sides hide one waiting for the time to strike, the other in the hope it was destroyed and was not captured. Intelligence is recieved on the planned date for the first offensive by the coucillors. The signal releases the, now much duplicated, correspondance to be released to the enemy.
   The clash of arms the following day is a hard fought victory for the warriors of the county, but the defeat causes large amounts of desertion from the councillors ranks. Battle after bloody battle is fought in a rear gaurd action, with the extreme councillors often entering the fray to rally troops. Soon one is lost, the others start to cause dissent in the ranks of the councillors army causing the more reasonable councillors to leave with the majority of the army and retreat further to other strongholds. The tide of the county' army unstoppable marching through scorched ground littered with bodies, few from their own side, eliminating pockets of resistance with clinical effiency.
   The uncontrollable advance of the counties troops extends near to its limits. The commanders upon seeing this call for a halt and regrouping, some heed the call, others still with the bloodlust carve out the remaining of the extreme councillors forces.
   This shattered land now lies still, in the eye of the hurricane. An uneasy and unnatural calm that onl makes those whom observe fret and fear. Where will the fight continue... Can the councillors be overcome...

[You invent a title can't think of a relevent one]

I was feeling pretty good when I woke up this morning, and pretty good for the first hour of work. Then I started reading the some of the blogs that I have as regular reading material, and remembered why I intend to leave this country once I have a qualification.

I think China might be a good destination, a bit of liberty never hurt.

Anyway it reminded me of a small victory I managed to achieve at home last night. Now Kyle, the writer of Opinionated and Vocal*, will understand my frustration at the incessant and petty arguments that go on at home between the rest of my family, they never want to seem to have a go at more or I just don't notice, Kyle will also be able to vouch for that particular ability.
Anyway, last night it turned out that my older brother (WI1) did not have work that evening. My father (WIsnr) wanted to watch a program that he had recorded on sky plus. It had disappeared. The first thing my father does is to accuse my older brother, who defends himself. This kind of argument is generally a slightly more reasonable one than normal. They did have an argument over whether WI1 had read his mail or not.

Their favoured method of argument is a repetition of three points (average) and childish antics, such as repeating what the other had said and replacing words/making sill voices. It was at one of these moments, WIsnr had just said WI1's name twice, so WI1 said WIsnr's name twice in the same manner, I jumped and said "Peter Rabbit, Peter Rabbit". I then gave them both a ticking off telling how tired I was of their incessant arguments, that the argument was going in circles
and would only stop if they both finished speaking. I then had to cut WIsnr off as he was about to make a final comment to say "If you allow me to have the last word then neither one of you can gett irritated with what the other one just said." They shut up and we managed to finish the washing-up and clearing in a rather tension strung peace. Unfortunately the arguments continued once I had retreated to my room, but atleast I didn't have to suffer their bickering which leads to shouting matches and generally escalates to what would be diplomatically labelled WAR!

I do believe that someone needs to walk into the House of Commons and do womething similar, for the arguments for the rest of the night actually turned out to be constructive, rather than the penis size comparison shouting matches they normally are. All I can say is thank god mum wasn't around to try and step in. Treating them like children seems to work best.

* Kyle's blog: http://opinionated-and-vocal.blogspot.com/

Climategate, global warming, global climate change...

Climategate, global warming, global climate change... it goes on and on and on and o... you get the picture of how I'm currently feeling. I must confess to it being slightly self-inflicted having spent most of today reading two blogs arguing from both ends of the scale, http://climateaudit.org/ - for the sceptic arguments - & http://www.realclimate.org/ - for those in support. The first is written by a statistician and the second by a collection of expert climate scientist and general scholars. I will state now the Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State, currently under investigation for poor practice, does write for realclimate.org but he is only one of a large panel who write on there.

My whim of ire is one that I'm sure many people suffer from, that of the partisanship of the media and apparent repetitive counts of failiure to follow due process. On one hand I hear that the data is flawed, cherry-picked and adjusted to suit their cause, then you hear that this data is but a flick right at the very end of what is already a flick, or in the current characterization of it as a hockey stick on the tip of a hockey stick. You then see the graph depicting this and it does nothing to help clear anything up, yes there are some lines which show a general upwards trend in the last 200 years but on this graph are some broad shaded areas which, one assumes is the error range, can show a relatively constant temperature for the past 2000 years or what would have to be described as an emergence from an ice age in the past 200 years. This graph seems to be being used by those in favour of climate change... WHY?

This graph, to me, shows absolutely nothing! A sausage could almost ell me as much. Okay it does tell me one thing, that in the past 200 years we have been better able to calculate a world average. This graph, when used, has only minimal explanation for the references, again why? I am trying to make an informed decision based on research that has been done, when the proposers of this phenomenon use strange graphs which explain little to back up statements it makes me more skeptic.

This though is being counter-acted by those who disagree who concentrate on small items. I know people will say that they are attacking the fundemental data upon which this has been based, but from what I have been reading the skeptics have gotten stuck purely on temperature, yes important but not the whole picture.

What happened to science being impartial?!
How can I make an informed decision when the two sides start arguing different parts of the arguments at the same time?!

If you were watching two people arguing over two sports A & B and the two arguments you hear are "A is better because it is more popular" and "B is better because it is more challenging." How are you as a simple observer going to be able to decide which is better on a level of understanding when the two sides don't stop to talk about what is agreed.

Would it be too much to ask that several experts with opposing interpretations of this topic to sit down and set down what is accepted fact, and what is under contention? Surely it is impossible that one side of the argument is a complete fabrication, invented on whims and anomalies?

Can a brother get a little help around here?

Fopping bell

I have just had an interview, damn nervous stuff, and I feel that it could have gone better. I also think that at least one stage of an interview should be changed. You are given 30, 40, 50 minutes in which to show that you are what they want, show your wisdom, wit and intelligence. Some companies do have aptitude tests and other such programs, but at the end of the day they need to establish if they can work with this nervous wreck sitting infront of them attempting to act cool and exude confidence. How can you understand what your realtionship with them will be like after you have been, even if it is unintentional, causing them sheer terror and to sweat profusely.

How will this allow you to understand the person fully? Some people just cannot take pressure and some people thrive, in each category you will have good and bad. Why not, for one part of an interview process, invite say... 5 prospective employees, to spend the day or several hours in the pub/going bowling/watching a cricket match/doing some communal activity with you and 4 others from the company? In that situation people will eventually relax, especially if you are dirnking in a pub, you will be able to understand more about them better, saving that not too much alcohol is consumed. You will observe their ability to interact with others will have topics of conversation outside of the basic interview questions. HOW COULD THIS BE A BAD IDEA?! Company would have to pay for everything just in case the brightest star is strapped for cash, and if they offer to pay for something you will learn a little more about them.

I think the phrase ryhmes with clucking bells, dam fopping interviews. Harumph!

Legalising Mass Murder

I am sitting at a desk in the offices of BBC worldwide, getting paid to watch Blue Peter and generally feeling very bored. Out of the corner of my eye I can see the Iraq inquiry going on, which I can't watch as I have to pay attention to Blue Peter, or hear, I am in an office. The whole concept of the Iraq war got me thinking, how can one legalise such a terrifying act as war and in whom should the power to make this decision be placed?

On the first point I just suffer severe bouts of confusion. How is it possible to concieve that war, which in essence is murder, GBH and extreme vandalism on a grand scale, be legalised? This is not a case saying that war should always be illegal or legal, but that the principle of allowing war to be legal is a fallacy of huge consequence.

Saying that nothing good comes of war is incorrect. The positive effect of war is seen only in terms of scientific and engineering advances. It seems that mankind is at its most inventive when trying to kill itself, the guns and machines that take part in the war do not realise the benefits of the new advances for the masses. The transition into the rest of the world happens during peace at the end of the war, although it may wait until the technology has become obsolete before doing so.

The above paragraph is not an advocation for war, as most of the advances would happen in the course of events anyway, merely a fact. This though is part of the reason that you cannot and should not try to define a legal set of requirements for war. If war can be legal, then this argument could be placed as a reason why any war should be legal. It is the same as murdering some person, and claiming that it was for the good of humanity for that corpse, if still living, would have gon on to cause the deaths of billions. This can not be proven. In the same way, you cannot prove that any technological advancement would actually derive from your war.

The next part of this argument is in the idea that war can be legal as a defensive measure, if the coutry has been invaded. Again, I find plenty to laugh hystericaly at as it could only be a joke. Here I am not saying that one should not defend oneself by waging war on the invading force, but that say it is legal is not valid. How does one define a defensive war? One where you are defending your homeland? With that Great Britain could declare war on France to reclaim Normandy and Brittany, though I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or Great Britain could declare war to reclaim the New Territories. These cases would all have a valid claim for legality. Normandy and Brittany became English with Norman the Conqueror. The New Territories in America were not taken by force initially, we settled and in some places the natives let us. These cases are farcical, intentioanlly so, as I wish to point out that boundary disputes will always cause war do not dignify it by saying that it can be legal.

Next comes the pre-emptive strike, most notably used by the USA. This is what would be defnined as one of the best forms of self defense. Yes your fists might get bloodied as you knock your attacker down before he can start but the parts not designed for fighting remain blissfully whole and intact. Again, I shall produce a metaphor to aid my argument. In the street you see a man running towrds you with a cricket bat over his head, screaming, ruby faced and eyes wild with rage. It is not legal in this position to produce a gun and shoot him before he reaches you, nor a taser. In each case it is you who would end up in the dock. The screaming man may well have been after someone behind you whom you could not see, in which case you are in the wrong. Equally possible is that he was in fact about to attck you, in which case this would be a fair cop (though I do believe you would have a hard time getting the angry man to say this). This is not to say that nobody should be punished in this instance, you and the attacker should both be punished, you for taking the law into your own hands where it may well not have been neccessary, and him for extremely aggressive behaviour and gross stupidity. In this case there is a higher power, the Police. Their vices and virtues are not being argued here, but that there is a single body with the specific aim to stop such events as these.

In the city of nations though, this is not the case. I hear people cry "There are!" some say the UN, some say NATO and some few cry the name of USA or China. None of these are the same as the Bobby on the beat, the police force. USA and China would turn up as a masked avenger fighting a solo battle against crime for the better of the world (we will come back to this), NATO is the Neighbourhood Watch of the fair and beauteous side area of city, and the UN amount to a security company hired by the City Council. If the Earth were a single nation, and the UN the governing body, then maybe the UN forces would be the police force. This can never happen though whilst the UN armed forces operate under the laws of engagement of their own nation. What about the NATO forces? These troops are entirely partisan in their deployment. They orginated as a gang, an area of wealthy inhabitatns scared by their jingoistic neighbours. They are of an individual class and do not subscribe to the overall whole. Nato as the police force would be like the Chicago Police under Al Capone. Then what of China? What of the USA? They are individual, alone, above the law they would claim to uphold. How on earth could they be considered police?!

I realise that I have digressed from the original point of pre-emptive strike somewhat, but this I believe is the crux of the argument. How can law be uphelp without an impartial force to maintain it? Before London had a police force there were the thief takers. Fine at first, but corrupted quickly with power. The answer is that you cannot. So, until this is addressed, countenancing the idea of legal parameters for war is absurd.

Now to the second question I made at the start. In whom should we bestow such powers that they can decide when mass murder is legal? You would be correct in deducing that I am saying that the powers would be with one man. If you choose a committee, one must lead. If there comes a time when the cast of votes is locked at certain place, there will be one vote left to determine the result. So in whom could you put your trust to a completely unbiased decision to be made? It could not be one from this planet.

So there are my reasons behind finding the idea of a legal war farcical. Do you argue my logic?

Facial Fur

What is it about facial hair that everyone hates? In past ages the greatest warriors wore them, the greatest minds could almost hide behind theirs. Why then this irrational hate of beards and other facial fungi?

Perhaps that is part of the problem, 'facial fungi'. How can something that is referred to as a growth commonly associated with rotting material, poison and disease be seen as good? The growth of facial hair is a physical demonstration of the maturing of a child's body into adulthood, yet as soon as this downy fur starts appearing they are ridiculed for it and forced to hack it off. With the severe lack of experience that these children have they are forced to cut it away with razor blades, which are extremely dangerous, with an unsteady hand and no knowledge of how to shave. When they eventually emerge, with the inevitable scratches bleeding down thier chin and neck, they are again mocked, this time for their inability to shave.

There is also a significant lack of people in high places wearing such fur to keep their face warm. Politicians do not wear them, celebrity actors just forget to shave regularly, and who listens to scientists these days? Public perception of the beard has changed, rather than making old men look distinguished or revered it now makes them look like perverts and paedophiles. It makes men in middle age look worn and destitute rather than rugged and world wise, and the young look like Jesus or bums rather than the warriors and men that once the beard would have signified.

In the military there is need for conformity in the ranks to aid in discipline and unit cohesion, in the airforce for pilots as an essential safety measure, and in the navy it is something flammable near your chin in case of fire on the ship.

In general though a beard should not be viewed with such disapproval. A beard is not the sign of an untidy mind.