A New Beginning?

When I first started this blog, I had no idea where it was going to go. My main idea for it was to invite discussion, comment and possibly exert influence. In the times of regular postings I was starting a discovery of my political beliefs. I have reached a conclusion upon where those lie.

The main tenet of my political philosophy is in personal responsibility. It is not for the politician, scientist, 'expert', lobbyist, teacher, philosopher, parent or friend to tell you how to live your life. It is up to the individual to listen to what these people have to say and, from it, determine the best method for living. No one gets "their money for nothing, and their kicks for free." This is also why I disagree with what David Cameron's 'Big Society' appears to me. There should be no 'big' entity that dictates the appropriate method for conducting ones life. I do think that a big society is better than a big government, but it is the 'Big' aspect that I disagree with.

The next comes in the form of a, probably very incorrectly worded, quote:

"One should be free to do what isn't illegal, not what is legal."

If it isn't a quote then I want to claim it, but I'd rather know what the correct wording is (I know that was the gist of the statement) and who said it. I don't want to claim credit for what wasn't mine. I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere. No one should be persecuted for part-taking in something that is not illegal. If you find it immoral, then that is to do with your morals, they are not necessarily the other persons.

These are probably the two most important aspects of my political philosophy. I also feel that these are two that will not change because I age or anything else. They do not hold to one specific item and they are not mutually exclusive.

A return to the title of the post requires me to answer that question. I have stated what has been achieved through what I first started. I found this a useful method of thinking through ideas, as the words I write will mark down, on a more permanent basis, my thoughts and beliefs. Though I stopped posting on here, I do not think it would be in my interests to stop completely. I do realise I pretty much did.

So to answer the title of this post I shall mark today as a new start. Not really Volume II or Book II, more Chapter II. I feel that anyone who has read this blog may well have an small understanding of my character, and introduction. You have met me once or twice but do not yet know me.

Henceforth I shall write far more on the whimsical side than the irate side, flaming politics. There may be book reviews possibly music reviews as happens on my good friend Kyle's blog, Opinionated and Vocal. There may be short musings on a previous 'Food For Thought', that shall restart. I fear though that the poll shall die a death for a time, maybe to be resurrected like a magician's assistant, only time will tell. So, until I have time tomorrow (which reminds me, I need to clean my room the cleaner is coming around and he hasn't been in here for a couple of weeks and he needs to now), to quote a very favourite person of mine...

TTFN

Ta Ta For Now

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)

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.

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...

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?

Here we go...

I've never really understood the blogging sensation that the internet has created. A lot of highly opinionated and, so I'm led to believe, ill-informed hermits, living in the cavern of their creation that is the room in which their computer resides, telling us that scientists are wrong and politicians are wrong... well... they might have it right there.
So here I am to muddy the waters a little more with ignorance in places and expertise in none, for now. Though I shall pledge here and now in this first blog to atleast allow myself to be corrected if proper evidence is produced to the contrary in the best traditions of science. I shall not pledge, as a politician might, to research fully my topic before comment. If I did succumb to such a promise I would never have anything to be whimsically irate about or giggle myself silly to.

Here starts the dawn of a new blog, nothing terribly impressive is it.