Roll up, Roll up, It Could be You!

Most of you are probably aware by now, there's no escaping memes. If you see one circling, evasion is futile.
This one consists of five facts on five questions.
So, deep dark revelations!
The direct origin in this instance is Harleyblues

The Instructions: Remove the blog from the top, move all blogs up one, and then add yourself to the bottom. (Them that asks no questions, don't get told no lies)
What Floats My Boat, Homespun Honolulu, Who’s Yo Mama and Life in the Fast Lane, Sir Paul McCartney & The Beatles guest band purplemelon, Crushed By Ingsoc

What were you doing 10 years ago (5 Things)
1. Just finished First Year University exams.
2. Working at a hotel, paying off credit card debts
3. Political Activism.
4. Partying
5. Angst.



What were you doing 1 year ago (5 Things):
1. I think the World Cup was still on.
2. Working for a couple of con artists.
3. Regular weekends trips away to see friends.
4. A few women issues on the home front.
5. Attempting to plan where I was going.

Five Snacks You Enjoy:
1. Spicy Chicken Slices.
2. KP Skips.
3. Dairylea Dunkers.
4. Spicy Monster Munch.
5. Mini Pork Pies

Five Songs That You Know The Lyrics To:

1. Enjoy The Silence- Depeche Mode
2. Never Let Me Down- Depeche Mode.
3. Shake The Disease- Depeche Mode
4. New Dress- Depeche Mode.
5. Halo- Depeche Mode.

Five Things You Would Do If You Were A Millionaire
1. Buy a big office block in Birmingham and live off the rent.
2. Travel.
3. Set up a Ten Grand per annum payment to SPUC and Dogs Trust respectively.
4. Get plastic surgery.
5. Give my mates some. (What's the point of me not having to work, if everyone I'd want to spend my free time with, is working?)


Five Bad Habits:
1. I smoke.
2. I put things off.
3. I avoid making decisions.
4. I go on music buying sprees.
5. I never miss CSI

Five Things You Like To Do:
1. Read non-fiction.
2. Spend time with mates.
3. Go to Live Football Matches.
4. Listen to Music.
5. Have intelligent conversation.

Five Things You Would Never Wear Again:
1. A nappy.
2. A polo neck.
3. A tank top.
4. briefs.
5. A baseball cap.

Five Favorite Toys: Not sure I can really remember.
1. Lego (?)
2. Super Soakers.
3. Water Bombs.
4. My toy cars.
5. Transformers.



Five things you hate to do:
1. Paperwork.
2. Food shopping.
3. Give someone bad news.
4. Mornings.
5. Wait for trains.

OK, that's me done. Favour passed on to Mutley, the master of memes, Jenny, because she doesn't get enough of memes, she says, Electro-Kevin, just to celebrate his return, and...
Let me think...
Phishez Rule and Crashdummie.

Have fun!

By the way, if you haven't taken a look already, Mutley is running a festival of Smut at Nourishing Smuttiness. It's worth taking part if you haven't already!

Do We Need Time Apart?

This week's poll is about the future of these isles.
I think we have to agree that our current constitutional arrangements are a little uncertain.
Is our future in Europe, or outside?
Are we going to stay British, or return to our older, some would see more natural national identities?



Myself, I think the problem with the UK is in it's history. The concept of Britishness is something that seems irrelevant today.
The main reason for this, I believe, is that it is impossible to separate Britain from the Empire. Those why try will fail.

The whole concept of Britishness only dates to 1707, by which time it already included an Empire. Britain has always effectively been a Euphemism for the English Empire in practice. And bearing that in mind, the Jamaicans are as British as the Scots. Scotland, conquered and pacified in 1745, was really a colony the English treated nicely because the people were white.
Though they didn't try so hard in Ireland.

Yet on the other hand, no matter what the history, the reality today is England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are culturally similar, much like the Scandinavian countries, recognisably distinct from continental countries. There is logic in political co-operation between the home nations.



My own view is this.
Give Scotland independence, Wales too if the people want it.
Try to bring about a united Ireland- hard to see how, but we can hope.

We already see how disillusioned Ireland has become with the federal European dream of late. Eighty five years of independence have brought England and Ireland closer.

I think we need to kill the ghost of Empire, and in time the nation states of these islands will see sense in a political confederation.

But this time, the terms will be different.
And we all need time to ourselves first. To put the Empire behind us and exorcise its demons.

So.
Abolishing Britain.
Should we or shouldn't we?

Have your say.

Naked Women on Horseback

Tomorrow we are all going to the Godiva Festival in Coventry.
To be honest, I know very little about what actually happens, apart from that there will be a naked woman on horseback.
And she presumably rides through Coventry City Centre.

Otherwise, I guess it's like a big fair.
So yes, you've guessed it, fifteen minutes staring at a naked woman on horseback, followed by a few hours alcohol consumption. Kind of predictable really. I wisely took Monday off.

The festival commemorates Lady Godiva, wife of Leofric, Earl of Mercia during the reign of Edward the Confessor. Apparently she begged him not to put up taxes and his (somewhat bizarre) response was to promise to do this if she rode through Coventry naked.
If Leofric was alive today, he'd be a regular contributor to reader's wives, I suspect.
Anyway she did, and Leofric didn't put the taxes up.

Apparently everyone stayed in doors and didn't take a look, except for one poor soul called Peeping Tom, who not only had the indignity of having all the middle aged voyeurs in history named after him, he got struck blind too.
I have problems with this bit of the story.

And it's not really a selling point for the festival either. The first spectator was blinded, after all!
Who was brave enough to be the second?
Should we be risking it tomorrow?



Still, the locals need something to cheer them up. Without being disparaging, Coventry is a very dreary place. I go there a lot, my mate The Chimney Sweep is one of the joyous inhabitants, but I often feel like they built the place out of the concrete left over from the middle of Brum and let Damien Hirst loose on the design front. If ever a city was designed to depress, it was Coventry.

On the upside, there are a few nice venues to go out in, and the most attractive woman I ever met, I met in Coventry.

On a serious note, this will be the first time that The Baker and The Chimney Sweep's partner will have met socially since this post. There is always the possibility of things coming out to air, which maybe shouldn't.

But I don't suppose it will. I suspect it will be an interesting experience, different certainly, possibly a little tacky, maybe surreal, but ultimately, all part of life's rich tapestry.

These are the sorts of things you will remember, when you're old.

Mightn't it be Quite Simple?

I'm currently reading The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch. OK, some of you may know, I've been on it for two months, but I've got a bad habit of reading more than one book at a time. There are six by the bedside as we speak.

Anyway, back to Mr Deutsch.



He remains confident that the answers to the last big theoretical questions are in reach.
Soon we will know all the Hows and Whys. From then on, it will be just be about us finding better and cleverer ways to apply this knowledge.
Though of course, discoveries will still be made. Understanding evolution didn't stop us finding undiscovered life forms.

I think he's right.
I don't think there is much mysterious any more.

In fact I am prepared to a hazard a guess as to how simple- and close- the answers might be.

How to finally reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Einsteins Gravitional theory is one problem.

Now a physicist will tell you that one of the unsatisfactory parts of our current worldview, is the plethora of sub atomic particles.
There are about five hundred in theory. It's too complicated a model. Complication is rarely reality.
We are at the same point chemists were a hundred years ago. A hundred elements. What made them different?
The answer was in the way they were built. They all actually consisted of electrons, protons, and neutrons in differing numbers.

In some way, surely, the same must be true of sub atomic partcles. But how?

I would say simply, that we look at the great division in them. Half are massless and travel at 186,000 miles a second. The rest are massed and don't.

Now massed particles have a wave function, just as light particles do. But the frequency is infinitely higher, if we use that term here. It seems reasonable to assume that a particle's form is entirely a product of it's wave function, if you think about it. Maybe above a certain wave function, a particle warps the space around it, as the sun does at a bigger level. This warp, of a particle travelling round in a circle at lightspeed, creates mass.
This is just my musing here, I add.



Looking wider, Stephen Hawking's recent calculations about black hole decay, are a breath of relief for anyone who hoped for reassurance of understanding the universe.
For it meant that the laws of thermodynamics still reign supreme, unchallengeable even a black hole.
These state;
1. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.
2. There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work
3. As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant


And you know what this means, don't you?

It means that the laws of thermodynamics operate even in a singularity.
It means they operated even in the instant of the Big Bang, and would operate identically in ANY universe you chose to postulate.
Alone amongst all the laws of physics.
The rest, as they stand, MIGHT simply be properties of our own.

So, in the instant of creation, we are left with a quanta of energy, and the laws of thermodynamics.

Which means we can confidently say that everything else, the strength of gravity, the strength of nuclear forces, the evolution of life, are all the result of that one variable appearing at a mathematical point, plus the laws of thermodynamics.

And it all eventually leads to heat death.

It does really look that simple.

Whither Middlesex?

Someone unfamilar with England asked me recently where Middlesex was.
It's reasonable if you aren't from England, because you won't find it on any maps later than 1965.

Yet it's probably one of the more familiar English county names. I note looking at the map, that there is a Middlesex county in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Virginia. It's one of the more exported county names.

I suppose the simple answer to 'Where is it?', is that is was the county London was in, now it's in London.

Broadly that's true. In area, it was a small county, and it was swallowed up over the years by London.

But though it has long gone, and is least likely of any deceased county to return, its memory seems stronger than many current counties.

Sometimes people from outside the UK (and some in it) are puzzled by this bizarre loyalty some people have to long gone counties.

I agree in a sense. I can think of more productive things in life than wondering round with a placard saying 'Bring Back Huntingdonshire'.

But its also partly true that English counties are the only generally comprehensible geographical subdivisions you can really think of England.
Most of them were there long before most other European states.
Does abolishing them abolish their geographic identity?

Many during the 1974 reorganisations felt it did. After all, even a county of typical age like Herefordshire is over thousand years old. Some people genuinely felt like they had been invaded.

Middlesex was much older still.
And so it appears on no map, but is home to five million people.
Its name lives on in the highest eschelons of county cricket, in popular memory.

And in Uxbridge and Ruislip the fiction of living in leafy Middlesex, not sprawling London is dutifully maintained.

In fact most people don't know its gone, till they look for it on a map.
So I suppose, really, it IS still there.

With Regard to Central News

I have delayed voting on recent Blogpower internal issues till now, whilst I got a general impression of how this looked to the wider community.

Thanks very much for all the views that came in.



Firstly, less people voted in the poll than commented. But nobody who has voted so far in the poll has voted for expulsion.

There were several comments from BP members.
I think the best point here was made by Liz, who said;

'I agree with you that Blogpower is too right wing and male - but perhaps you weren't saying that but simply stating it as fact. I am totally out of place! Not even political. I visit others and think, 'What am I doing here?!'

But I am disinclined to ban anyone. I simply don't visit those I don't like - and a couple of the newbies I don't think I'll be going to often. But maybe that is against the ethos of Blogpower.

As for the recent polling that caused some disquiet, I would say that it wasn't only the far right that was involved in dodgy goings-on.'

I would agree.
Next year, the sort of anomalies that showed up this time, are unlikely to appear next time. I think there were dodgy voting patterns, but we cannot just throw that at Wayne's door.

Again, whatever existing members may feel, they joined when Central News was already a member, so it is obviously possible for them to co-exist in the way Liz describes with the BNP, much as none of us like their policies.
Welshcakes offered a good middle of the road position;

'I agree with Pommy and "the ego". I have been very unhappy about having a blog which links to BNP ones on my site but, when I read Wayne, I couldn't find anything particularly objectionable, so I didn't do anything about it. But I do think it has put some good bloggers off joining BP and does not do our reputation any good. We are being perceived as totally right-wing. I have a friend in Britain who stopped reading my blog because there was a BNP supporting blog in the roll.'

This leads me to assume that most BP members don't much care for Central News' politics, but are prepared to put up with it.

This being so, what was external opinion? Does the membership of Central News deter others from joining?

In the case of Alexys;
'Yes, it does put me off from joining. I have to respect any group I would join.'

In the case of Helen;
'"Identify, Ostracize, Confiscate, Concentrate, Annihilate" these are identified as the five steps (all accomplished legally) that resulted in the Holocaust. Yes, it would be nice to alienate ourselves from people like Muslim extremists who kill 13 year old girls for attending school (June 12, 2007), but we can't. If we refuse to find solidarity and commonality with one of us we give permission to other forms of oppression. Better to take a stand in the face of racism and say emphatically "you are WRONG" than to ostracize them and wonder how hate breeds.
If a 17 year old kid, alone, dejected and bullied wades into focused hate and finds acceptance and not one voice that cries against it, we have created one more racist. Not they, we.'

And in the case of a commentor by e-mail;

'Not having all "facts" I shall restrict myself to focusing on just two aspects:

1. Studying "Blogpower Ethos" and coming to d)] one does not even need to act as an advocatus diaboli.
d] As a family, it looks after its own but where we differ from a RL family is that we are open and welcoming to new members of any persuasion;
Thus, acting on this maxime per definitionem there exists no right/ no need asking your members for a yes or no.
In case you do it would be wise to soon cancel the superlative.

2. Given a "family-member" were addicted to drugs: Would you not try to convince your "family-member" . . . as long as he/she is willing to listen?'

But one also needs to take into account the opinions of Daily Referendum and others, as expressed elsewhere.
These are people who WOULD be members of Blogpower for sure, if it wasn't for Central News.



But of all the comments so far, Helen's is the one that most resonates with my own feelings. I cannot, as it stands find a compelling reason to vote for Wayne's expulsion, much as I loathe the party he supports.

I'm going out at half nine and will vote just before I go out. I am hoping to leave another post here before I do (on something more interesting), but in the event I don't get a chance, I will have done one for Ian at Imagined Community.

Ian is currently enjoying Glazsnost and Perestroika.

The Most Intolerent Of Creeds

Ultimately, there is very simple way to categorise faith beliefs.
First is the key question:
Do you know whether or not there is a deity or deities.
If the answer is no, or you aren't sure whether you know, you are an agnostic.
If the answer is yes, you think you do know the answer FOR SURE, you have a definite faith.
Because that's the only way you KNOW the answer.



Now, I'll be honest I have a definite faith, as some of you may be aware.
I don't ram it down people's throats- It's my faith, not yours.
I'm certain in my own mind that I'm right, but I can also see where certain other faiths could equally be right.
Having read the Koran and the teachings of Buddha, I firmly believe both were prophets inspired by God in their own right.

But I also believe- crucially- that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, and that he died to redeem man from sin.
I also believe that he left behind him a body of apostles to carry on his work. Like any body of men over time, not all it's members did good in it's name (Judas Iscariot would be a starting point), but that did not mean that it failed in its mission, a mission that continues today.
I do firmly believe His Holiness Benedict XVI to be the spritual successor of St Peter, and the leader of the 'One Catholic (meaning universal) Apostolic (as in the community of the apostles) Church.

I could be way off the mark. I acknowledge that. Which is why I tend to keep my religion to myself.
I think it's a good idea if people do.



But not all those with faith beliefs feel the same. Muslims get reviled much for that failing, though Fundamentalist Protestants are often as bad.
But worse by far are those who believe as a matter of faith that there ISN'T a God.

Which is equally a matter of faith as saying there is.
Go and ask most physicists. They'll agree.
Empirically both statements are equally provable (or unprovable) scientifically.

I don't mind Atheists, as long they keep their opinions to themselves too.
And as long as they don't treat MY faith with disrespect, simply because there is nothing to disrespect in theirs. It's a low tactic in rational discussion.

Of all creeds, Atheists tend to show most intolerance and least sensitivity. Catholics are an easy target, because no one minds if we get offended. It doesn't have racial associations becuse we're the most global of faiths.
And of course, there's a strong existing cultural slant against Catholicism to tap into anyway.

The Atheist doesn't seek debate with the Catholic, he seeks to belittle him, to insult the things a Catholic holds dear.

Even if you don't happen to believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, Fifteen percent of mankind do.
But the Atheist isn't concerned about the feelings of these people.

To me personally, this is almost as offensive as calling my mother a whore.
And then they have the nerve to talk about religous hatred.

Still, perhaps for me the final word was had, many years ago, by a New Testament writer. One of my favorite passages, one especially disliked by Luther, who disliked its Free Will implications.




'What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. '

I think that says it all.