Lesson today about not being judgemental

I had coffee today with an utterly charming asian girl who wanted to talk about her future career (as she may, when graduated, follow the career I picked).

Now on paper, an asian girl who is on the equal opportunities committee at university, is about as far away from a libertarian conservative like me, as it's possible to be.

Yet, it turns out she is incredibly determined, intelligent, and in my view, pretty much wholly likeable, (as well as being profoundly beautiful). Why she's not a conservative, I'll never know?

So we spent a couple of hours chatting and the only downside was that I bought the wrong ticket for the train home, and had to persuade the conductor that I wasn't some fare-dodger type.

So, memo to self, stop judging people until you know them.

Then judge them.

Ball buster pays off

The very threat of my attack dog lawyers had him running up the white flag, so if CHAPS is to be believed, the money should hit my account today.

It was a drag producing all that paper, but ultimately, it paid off.

The law of contract and it's enforceability by an impartial court, is in my view, one of the pre-conditions of a stable, rich society.

Intellectual inconsistency

One thing that really bothers me is sloppy thinking. The sort of sloppy thinking that got us into Iraq, is now being applied to Iran.

In Iraq the case more or less went; Saddam is evil, he’s got scary weapons, we should therefore invade, and the grateful Iraqis will set up a liberal democracy.

How’s that working out?

Anyway, a similar thread is being more or less propagated at the moment it goes: The Iranians are evil, they are trying to get nukes, this would be destabilising, we should stop them, military action is therefore justified.

This is of course utter nonsense and dangerous thinking. First, be careful when our leaders start branding someone as evil. It’s an attempt to paint themselves as the good guys, which is childish. Second, I more or less believed the anti-CND rhetoric of the cold war which said, “The West could be open to soviet nuclear blackmail, therefore we must have credible nuclear weaponry, as a deterrent to war”

So why doesn’t that apply to Iran/Israel?

The Israelis are allowed a submarine based nuclear deterrent. So even if the Iranians were able to produce enough weapons to totally destroy all of Israel (and thereby Palestine the land they are pledged to free, talk about your ultimate pyrrhic victory!), even if the were able to build good enough delivery systems, even if Israeli Patriot batteries didn’t get some of the nukes on the way in, it wouldn’t do the Iranians any good aggressively. Because the Israeli submarines could then just surface and destroy Iran.

But it would be a good defensive system, because if the Israelis attacked the Iranians with nukes, they would suffer huge damage in a counter-strike (assuming Iranian command and control could withstand a first strike).

I can’t see any circumstances in which the Iranians could actually use their weapons. The argument that the Iranians are dangerous fundamentalists who might supply nukes to terrorists is fantasy. Are we really supposed to believe a government would give al-qaida the means to incinerate London? Of course not. Such an action would result in your own certain incineration about ten minutes later, and no government wants that.

And there is the slight problem about what to do anyway. Ground invasion? You have to be kidding politically, we don’t have the troops and yes, let’s destabilise another oil supplier ‘cos there’s so much kicking around at present. Air strikes? If the Iranians have learned anything from the Israeli hit on Iraq in 1983, they have surely split production over many sites with built in redundancy, so that would be very hard, and anyway, bombing a sovereign country? Isn’t that the terrorism we are all supposed to be opposed to?

The ultimate irony of all this is the west (specifically the Americans) have the means to end this in about ten minutes. If they lift the embargo on advanced oil and gas extraction technology, the rationale for Iranian civil nuclear power disappears.

It wouldn’t be the macho solution, but it would be a solution.

Model takes drugs in shock to absolutely no-one

Hypocrisy rears its ugly head again, and I’m afraid, everyone’s at it.

This whole media circus surrounding Kate Moss at the moment doesn’t reflect glory on any of the participants.

First you have the companies who have various endorsement deals with the model. One has apparently cancelled some contract or other, as they “take a strong anti-drug stance” and the others are getting jumpy.

Well here’s a hint guys, stop getting models to endorse your products or make it a contractual condition that they do weekly drug tests. That way, we can believe your “strong anti-drug stance” is something more than hyperbole. Are we really supposed to believe that these companies didn’t know that a great many models take drugs?

Then you have various (principally female) journalists debating whether or not Ms Moss is good looking !! Seriously, two of them were at it on Radio 5 yesterday. More than a hint of jealously and “bitch getting her comeuppance” I suspect, but ladies, you should have left that behind in the 6th form. It’s not journalism.

Lastly, you have the industry itself. Modelling for years has been a haven for the self-obsessed, the vacuous, the empty-headed; people who think it’s in someway “cool” to have an eating disorder, or a rampant drug habit. Couple that with the (lets be honest) pseudo-prostitution, and you look at an industry that really, seriously, isn’t creditable. No-one should aspire to be “The UK’s next ‘top’ model”

As for Ms Moss? She’s simply doing what models do. Is anyone surprised?

Those jolly residents of Poundbury

Poundbury, for those of you who don't know, is Prince Charles's vision of what good sub-urban planning is all about. It was basically the expansion of the county town of Dorchester, built on Duchy of Cornwall land. And it sucks, beyond the telling. It's basically, high-density, replication of what (some people think) traditional English villages used to look like. It is highly regarded in some quarters, though, no-one ever goes there in the evenings. This is kinda pertinent, because English villages were never designed for lots of cars, and it shows.

Anyway, some of the current residents, are (of course) opposed to future expanison plans, so setting aside the obvious irony (i.e that 10 years ago, people were objecting to their homes), it strikes me this is a microcosm of the wider debate.

Everyone wants a home, and a great many people believe they should be built...........somewhere else! It's not a mature or sustainable view guys.

(I need to confess an interest in this. For many years of my life, I worked in development for a number of different housebuilders.)

What an absolute ball buster!

Former employer looks like (still a chance up to Sept 25) he's not gonna pay me some money that contractually, he has to.

Now it's only about £6K which in the grand scheme of things isn't much, and the case is pretty much open and shut (contract says pay, he hasn't). But the hassle factor for me, (producing contracts, e-mails, instructing a lawyer etc) was/is immense, and I guess that's what he's relying on.

Too bad. You gotta pay dude, and the price is going up all the time. My solicitor is £125 p/h so pay less now, or pay much more later.

(PS I'm no expert, (really, I'm not,) but isn't £125 p/h about what hookers charge in the UK as well? Anyone admit to knowing?)

What a ball buster and waste of this afternoon, when I could have been doing ANYTHING else instead

Trafalgar Square Statue

The empty plinth was filled today. Ever since the media started going on about it, I feared the worst, especially in light of the fact Ken Livingstone seemed to be calling the shots.

To be clear, I find Alison Lapper, (whose statue it is) who was born with no arms and shortened legs due to a congenital disorder, quite an impressive woman. And I certainly believe in equal treatment, and not discriminating against disabled people. But surely equal treatment means just that, treating someone equally, not celebrating disability.

Which is what this statue seems to do. And that's bordering on the patronising.

Fuel tax, fuel shortages and unethical companies...

There has been so much spin on this subject in the last few days, it's time to record the facts.

Firstly, the current shortages in the UK are tax related, not supply related per se. Follow the logic. There is an impending fuel tax protest, people are concerned over the possibility of blockade by hauliers, or rationing by the government. So they buy a lot of petrol, which causes shortages. So, it's tax related, not supply related. Sure, you can say "oil prices are up, due to increased demand, and lack of refining capability" and that's true. But this immediate situation is tax related in the UK.

Secondly, Gordon Brown and others bleating to OPEC to raise production, will do no good. It's the international political equivalent of Kevin the teenager "It's so unfair !.........produce more oil" Pointless, and the smarter people in the adminstration know it.

Third, you may or may not hate Shell or other oil companies because you see them as "global wreckers" or whatever, but this immediate situation is not their doing. They are merely acting as a market economy compells them to.

So, to the issue of tax.

1. The government raise about 47p per litre in fuel tax. The fuel escalator was introduced years ago by (next facts from memory) Norman Lamont who had it at 3%. His successor, Ken Clarke put it up to 5% and the current chancellor increased the escalator to 6%. The thing with escalator's is that eventually you have to get off. Gordon has us on a stairway to heaven.

2. As the price of oil goes up, so does government revenue from North sea oil. In addition, higher oil prices mean higher profits for oil companies, and therefore, increased corporation tax receipts. So Brown already has a double whammy of increased revenue.

He could therefore cut the petrol tax, and not have that impact on his revenue. So all the muppets who say "What spending should the government cut then?" ('cos you know, the government is totally efficient and there's not a penny wasted in their multi-billion pound empire) are missing the point. Cuts in government spending are long overdue, but you don't need to cut spending at all. A fuel tax cut would be revenue neutral, due to the other two revenue increases above.

So, Gordon has in it his power, at the stroke of a pen, to solve this crisis. But he doesn't. He just moans about OPEC, talks about rationing (which incidentally would seriously damage the economy and really hurt tax revenue) and dithers. France, Belgium and Poland amongst others have in recent days, cut fuel duty. But Gordon still dithers. He expects you and I to live on less (due to his tax increases), but he won't give up the revenue. He just dithers.

So, he can solve a crisis, by showing real leadership, and cutting fuel duty, which would be revenue neutral anyway. Instead he lets things drift, risks real damage to the economy, and does nothing. This is not leadership, and if he can't show leadership in a crisis, then it would seem he is NOT the man to be the next Prime minister.

So Gordon, it's up to you mate. Leadership or dithering? the availability of petrol in the coming days will answer that question, and judge your suitability for high office.

Osama really doesn't scare me, Charles Clarke does!

Okay, first, I am NOT some pinko liberal. Anyone who knows me will tell you that, second even a cursory examonation of the blog should confirm it. But the truth is the long dead Mr Bin Laden (come on, he had kidney problems in Afghanistan and hasn't been seen on propaganda videos for years, it's over!) and his cohorts don't stress me. Sure it's desperate if you died on July 7th or know someone who did. But day to day, they have almost no impact on most of us.

Charles Clarke, Blair and the rest however, have a huge impact. They claim to be "defending our freedom against the terrorists" Lets examine that.

First, we established the following "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions...except by the lawful judgement of his equals" That's clause 39 of the Magna Carta, from 1215. It was designed to stop the tyranny of the crown.

It's now gone. Doubt me? Look at the anti-terror laws. You can indeed be seized or imprisoned or have your assets stripped, or frozen. Government says, yes but that's only for terrorists, but no trial means arbitary designation as criminal/terrorist by the government.

Trial by just was reaffirmed in the 1689 Bill of Rights, yet that's under huge pressure.

Lord Devlin onve wrote "The first object of any tyrant in whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will"

With the 3-line whips and de-selection for drone labour backbenchers if you dare disagree. who can seriously argue Tony Blair hasn't achieved this?

We live in dangerous times, but the danger comes, not so much from Muslims with Rucksacks, (despite the mega publicity all that gets) but from our leaders, and we are in danger of sleep walking into tradgedy.

How can you compare the Cuban & American Governments

I look at this American website, and a few of the Yanks are moaning about New Orleans, (fair enough thinks I, the relief seems to have been a bit tardy). But this one chick posts about how the Cuban government reponded far better than the Americans, and it staggers me?

How can you remotely compare the USA with free press, democracy, justice, miranda rights, guaranteed free speech, respect for private property with Cuba (!) that has none of these things?

After some Fidel apologies, the logic seemed to go "Fidel did it better so lets learn from him" Set aside the fact we don't really know how well the Cubans responded, because no free press, I won't give up freedom, liberty and individuality for an enhanced storm response, (even if it's true).

Fifty years of failed Communism in Eastern Europe seems to have been deleted as anti-history.

I kinda take the view, that you should examine evidence and come to a conclusion based on that, even if you end up in some uncomfortable places. My sparring partner on the yank website, seemed to have this process reversed.

Scary but exciting times ahead

Yep, my company should launch this month. Pretty much all the ducks are in a row, so now to see if anyone actually wants to buy this product.

When you've worked for corporate entities, not geting a salary is strange, and you totally need self-discipline, but thusfar I wouldn't change anything. Two possible outcomes; First, I bomb and fail. Even if this happens, not trying is worse, I don't want to die wondering. Second, things are a success. God, how insufferable will I be? Well hopefully not too bad as I see the danger now.

As as my philosophy is one of self-reliance, it's a pretty obvious step. Howard Roark is starting to be a major hero.