Ok I appreciate that this blog is called the 'legal diatribe' and therefore you wouldn't expect a 'mobile phone' (that is cell phone for all the Yanks out there) review on it but today I'm going to run with it anyway. This is just due to one tiny feature of one single phone that I can't work out.
I own a Samsung Tocco Ultra. I chose it for a number of reasons.
1. It is not an iPhone
2. It is a Samsung and my last Samsung was:
- robust
- attractive
- well designed
- not boring
3. It has a camera with more pixels than my last phone
4.It is not an iPhone
5. It doesn't have a touch screen keypad like the Tocca (non-ultra) which means you can text without going insane and having to slap someone.
6. It is not an iPhone.
Now there is probably alot of passionate Apple fans out there who are very angry because I seem to be 'diss-ing' the iPhone phone. I'm not. The reason why I wouldn't have one is because there are a lot of passionate Apple fans out there who care WAAAAY too much about Apple and I sure as hec don't want to be confused for being one. Where a man's heart is there his treasure will be also, and heart is no where near Steve Jobs or any of his creations. I'll leave them for his zealous followers.
I've had the phone for a while and it is fantastic. I can drop it and it works (which is as essential as the ability to call people itself). It does everything I want and probably a million more things besides that I can't be bothered to do (apps anyone?).
So what is my inevitable beef with it?
In my last phone it had a flaw. If you protected messages (because you wanted to keep them) when you tried to 'delete all' it would ask 'Protected message delete?'
Why, why, a thousand times why! If I wanted to delete protected messages I would not have chosen to protect them, would I? What is the point of that function? Do you put a mute button on your alarm clock? Do you have a protective fireproof coating on firewood? A learn German book written entirely in German?
Surely it is on of the only features ever invented that has as its purpose the total ruin of another feature?
How about internet security that doesn't allow ANY traffic? How about an air bag that only goes off after you have pressed a button on the dash board? Maybe in the style of Micro$oft Windows one could hit the brakes of their car and then be asked 'do you really want to brake now?'
This was irriating but then I guess some over enthusiatic technician thought that they were putting in a useful feature. What if you wanted to clear the phone entirely and didn't want to have to unprotect the protected files. It is still the idea of a retard but at least you could just say 'no' and then it would delete all your messages save the ones that were protected.
Then I got my new phone. I thought they would have got rid of the old garbage function after realising it was the creation of someone who obviously had wiskey that morning thinking it was their usual expresso.
No I was wrong. I was also astounded, the had actually managed to make it worse, which frankly, if you had said before, I wouldn't have thought possible.
Now it askes: 'Protected message delete?' but instead of giving the optinons 'yes' or 'no' it now says:
'yes' or 'cancel'.
Now we have already established that I don't want to delete them otherwise I wouldn't have piddled away10 seconds of my life selecting 'protect' in the first place. But now rather than being able to select 'no' I have to select cancel then find and uncheck all the protected messages by going through the whole of my (obviously full) inbox by hand.
Now a question to the fatuous, half witted, knuckle dragging, vacuous, neanderthal who thought of this:
If I wanted to go through my whole inbox looking for the messages I want to keep and un-checking them by hand why would I bother protecting any messages in the first place? It is like buying a house alarm and then when someone breaks in standing on the roof and making 'neeeeenoooorrr' sounds yourself.
Samsung, you're a great company, your phones are the best value for what you get and they provide the best function, but in the interests of profitability, success, your customers sanity and your good name; find the person responsible for this function and have them shot... I mean fired...
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Banks; still one of my favourite institutions!
The decision is out! The Supreme Court has decided! The financial regulator cannot decide if bank charges are unfair. Having looked at the case report the court explains at the very start that they cannot decide if the charges are fair merely whether the OFT can decide whether the charges are fair.
Well before we get to that concept lets look to see for amoment whether the charges are fair:
First, the concept that someone is a moron because they let their bank over run by (usually a few pound) is ridiculous. Most people (including myself) have a buffer of about at least £100 but there are some people who by nature of their income do not have this luxury. All it takes is for someone to bank a few cheques late or for a bill to be a little bigger than expected and even the most fustideous financial manager can go a few pounds over.
The second point is that after this they charge you up to £35. In terms of interest this obviously works out as several hundred to thousand per cent APR. Some also change £3 per day for each day you're over. As a figure of interest this is vastly higher than most 'loan sharks'. Who amusingly could have their contract terms struck down by the court under UCTA 1977.
Oh and if you account is empty obviously you don't have £35 to give them in the first place. If you did it would be in your account to pay the bills. Sure some may have just failed to take money from their savings account and put it in their current, but this is higly unlikely.
Third and finally, if one was a complete idiot, took out a huge loan, bought everything on credit card (because one doesn't have dicipline self-control or a brain), then kept getting bigger an bigger loans. Once they'd piddled away £15,000 the governement would step in and help their retarded backend out of trouble with an IVA, which would prevent further interest and force the banks to accept really good terms for their behalf... so basically if you're an utter waste of space to society who needs to get a grip, the government will happily help you out, but if you're just a hard working bloke, who tries to stay in the black and not squander money irresponsibly, but had a unexpected bill come early the government currently will let you hang...
Just to compound this in the current financial crisis we (the public) currently have to bail out the banks because they have gone not £3 overdrawn but several billion pound. Do they get a penalty? No, they are still paying themselves millions and therefore their greater incompetance has resulted in no detriment whatsoever.
If you wanted to define 'injustice' to someone who had no concept of the word, you wouldn't be far off using this example. In fact I think there was a famous historical figure who gave a similar exmaple:
23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[d] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’[e] 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. (The gospel of Matthew 18 NKJV Thomas Nelson Press)
Just incase you don't know the exchange rate Denarii is like pence (cents) and talents is a bit like pounds (dollars).
Hmmm, so if you're not getting this by now I'm not exactly in favour of the bank charges.
So the decision was wrong? The Justices are a bunch of idiots right?
Well not quite. While I was seething when I heard the decision the press is sort of protraying the case incorrectly. All the Supreme Court has decided is that the OFT can't regulate it using the regulation they wanted. If you read the regulation you can see that they have interpreted it accurately...
But then the courts rarely let little things like accuracy get in the way of their decisions before so why are they starting now?
Maybe there is a good reason... I'll be sure to discuss it when the consumers/OFT bring the next case!
Well before we get to that concept lets look to see for amoment whether the charges are fair:
First, the concept that someone is a moron because they let their bank over run by (usually a few pound) is ridiculous. Most people (including myself) have a buffer of about at least £100 but there are some people who by nature of their income do not have this luxury. All it takes is for someone to bank a few cheques late or for a bill to be a little bigger than expected and even the most fustideous financial manager can go a few pounds over.
The second point is that after this they charge you up to £35. In terms of interest this obviously works out as several hundred to thousand per cent APR. Some also change £3 per day for each day you're over. As a figure of interest this is vastly higher than most 'loan sharks'. Who amusingly could have their contract terms struck down by the court under UCTA 1977.
Oh and if you account is empty obviously you don't have £35 to give them in the first place. If you did it would be in your account to pay the bills. Sure some may have just failed to take money from their savings account and put it in their current, but this is higly unlikely.
Third and finally, if one was a complete idiot, took out a huge loan, bought everything on credit card (because one doesn't have dicipline self-control or a brain), then kept getting bigger an bigger loans. Once they'd piddled away £15,000 the governement would step in and help their retarded backend out of trouble with an IVA, which would prevent further interest and force the banks to accept really good terms for their behalf... so basically if you're an utter waste of space to society who needs to get a grip, the government will happily help you out, but if you're just a hard working bloke, who tries to stay in the black and not squander money irresponsibly, but had a unexpected bill come early the government currently will let you hang...
Just to compound this in the current financial crisis we (the public) currently have to bail out the banks because they have gone not £3 overdrawn but several billion pound. Do they get a penalty? No, they are still paying themselves millions and therefore their greater incompetance has resulted in no detriment whatsoever.
If you wanted to define 'injustice' to someone who had no concept of the word, you wouldn't be far off using this example. In fact I think there was a famous historical figure who gave a similar exmaple:
23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[d] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’[e] 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. (The gospel of Matthew 18 NKJV Thomas Nelson Press)
Just incase you don't know the exchange rate Denarii is like pence (cents) and talents is a bit like pounds (dollars).
Hmmm, so if you're not getting this by now I'm not exactly in favour of the bank charges.
So the decision was wrong? The Justices are a bunch of idiots right?
Well not quite. While I was seething when I heard the decision the press is sort of protraying the case incorrectly. All the Supreme Court has decided is that the OFT can't regulate it using the regulation they wanted. If you read the regulation you can see that they have interpreted it accurately...
But then the courts rarely let little things like accuracy get in the way of their decisions before so why are they starting now?
Maybe there is a good reason... I'll be sure to discuss it when the consumers/OFT bring the next case!
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Koenigsegg doesn't want to take on Saab. Tough break!
So apparently Koenigsegg is pulling out of buying Saab because it does not have the resources to take it on, even with the backing of
This isn’t a big surprise, while I know someone from
The company has been losing money since 2001, not exactly the most impressive record, that means for almost 9 years the company has been nothing but a hole into which GM (which isn’t exactly loaded) has been throwing their ‘hard earned’.
Sadly, I can see why. Why would you buy a Saab? Anyone actually bought one? If so why did you do so? Do you have someone who works there who can get you discount?
If you want a Safe car you get a Volvo, if you want a prestigious fast car you get a BMW, if you want a car that will run for all of time you buy Japanese, if you want to deal cocaine you buy a BMW with the ‘drug dealer’ sports pack. If you have a phobia of trucks then you buy a 4x4. If you are an aging executive with a BMI over 25 then you get a Mercedes. If you’re a graduate fresh out of University and you have two X chromosomes you buy a new mini. If all you need is space for a tiny white middle class woman, then you by a Range Rover. It all makes sense.
But who would buy a Saab? It isn’t particularly fast, reliable, cheap, cheap to run, economical, good to the environment, spacious, prestigious, powerful or good looking.
I’ve just checked the web-page and the starting model is about £19,000. If you have £19k hanging around I am going to bet you are not thinking “what I really, really want, and would be really excited to buy is a brand new Saab!”
It gets worse when you think what it is actually made from, the design has hardly changed much for many years, and that is great if you have what is in essence a classic, like the Porsche 911 or the Aston Martin DB9, but the Saab 9800 is hardly inspiring. Google it, lets face it, you don’t know what it looks like off the top of your head do you?
The new Saab 9-3 looks like an updated 9300 and is based on GM parts. Which gives the horrible feeling that you’re buying a Vauxhall Vectra in drag, hmmm maybe that is harsh; let’s say in a party dress. Either way it doesn’t really inspire.
The difficulty is that while I know this and I bet most other people do too, GM is far too busy with its other problems to care about what happens to a company that produces around 1-2% of the cars it sells per year. It is holding on for dear life itself, let alone worrying about one of its smaller subsidiaries.
So what can be done for the poor people who work for Saab? More so, what can be done for the poor people who buy them?
Well cash investment is what is needed, but we’re in a recession so there is more chance of me personally buying enough of the cars to keep the company going, which is a bit of a pity, because lets face it there is no reason why it can’t be a successful company.
All they need is a hat. They could take that hat and fill it with bits of paper with words on it like ‘fast’, ‘compact’, ‘economic’ and ‘reliable’. Then get a man to pick out two of these pieces of paper and (assuming they are not anonyms) they will have a new business plan! Next stop, bin the 9-3 and anything associated with their previous work and get on with it.
Who knows, in two years there is may be a car on the market that makes Saab actually worth saving.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Democracy isn't failing, it just needs a new test...
They say that democracy is failing. Don't ask me who 'they' are, but if you ask any 'international relations' student (the fancy name for politics these days) the student will tell you that democracy is in decline.
I have never believed this, not even slightly. This is not because I think 'they' are lying but more because I think what is considered failing is just wrong. The idea goes that democracy is failing because less people are turning out to vote. This means supposedly that less people believe a difference can be made and more people are becoming disenchanted with the whole system of being lead by those who have been given the all inspiring, all wonderful, all justifying democratic mandate.
This, of course, is a steaming pile. As far as I'm concerned the very fact that people don't vote is evidence that the system IS working. It means that the system is working more efficiently. This is for two reasons:
1. If you don't vote that means you don't really care who is going to lead the country. 'Oh no' I hear you say, 'evidence that people don't trust politicians and that people don't think they can do the job'. Au Contraire. This mean that people think that whoever is elected they are going to do a pretty good job and as a result think that turning up to the polling station is just a waste of their day that could be spent solving the mysteries of life, or whatever it is people in the UK do in their spare time. Don't believe me? Think about it, if you thought the BNP or some other nutters were going to get in power would you be more likely to vote? Unless you really are a shaved chimp the answer is yes. If you thought that the party to get elected was going to turn you out of your home and banish you to work in a factory for the rest of your God-given life would you vote? Of course. Even if there were several parties who were in the running all with such similarly inane, fatuous ideas you would vote for the green party just to try and dilute the power of the others. If there was no party that would allow you to keep your home, you would start your own party.
The fact is the only reason why people don't vote, isn't because 'all politicians are as bad as each other'. It is because they're lazy and don't really think either party is going to do much damage to their way of life. In essence while they tell you it is because they don't trust any of the parties, people don't cote because actually they do trust ALL of the parties, and therefore don't really see a pressing need to bother voting. You can't argue with the logic.
2. The second reason that people don't vote and this I think is never appreciated, is because many many people are either too thick to understand what is going on or don't bother to find out. This, I say hand on heart, is no bad thing. Anyone who thinks that it is a bad thing probably isn't too sharp themselves. Let me put it this way, if you went to hospital and you had to have an operation would you have the Doctor schedule an operation or would you have him bring in several complete strangers and ask them to vote on what operation they think you should have despite the fact they have never read your chart? The fact is there is always going to be a decent section of society that either doesn't have the time or the Witt to learn about the various parties, what they stand for and the policy that they are seeking to promote. In these circumstances why would you want them to vote? They obviously don't care, if they do vote they will be doing it on who they have seen the most of (the tactic I employed in deciding University elections), whose name they like or who looks the 'coolest'. You wouldn't use it to choose your surgeon, so why is it any different in politics.
As if this wasn't bad enough for every numbskulled neanderthal that votes for the one with the nicest tie (which appears often to be Nick Griffin) that means your carefully considered vote means less. Conversely for every vacuous, knuckle dragging, cretin who stays at home your vote counts for more. So why is that a bad thing again?
Sure, I know I'm sounding harsh, we can't expect everyone to take an interest in politics, intellectual or otherwise, human nature will always mean that there will be some who find it interesting and others who cannot tolerate the thought of it for longer than 5 seconds and that didn't bother me, to be honest, those who don't like thinking about it can be lead by those who do, that is what canvasing is for. But then X -factor happened and now I find it all a bit wrong.
I have facebook and of late the status updates have been filled with comments about some creature called 'Jedward' and there has been much support and criticism of this creature. Also apparently the Metro and Yahoo News have seen fit to incorporate headlines using words like 'outrage' not in reference to British soldiers dying because of a lack of supplies but in reference to some sonorous bint being voted off the program. Thankfully the Times has not followed suit, else I would be forced to fly to Afghanistan and tell our boys to come home because Western Democracy is no longer worth saving.
But nonetheless with a petition now being set up to send to Downing street (yes I'm still talking about X -factor at this point) one does begin to wonder what is going on.
Surely if people have the time to get so worked up about some mindless entertainment show where members of the public embarrass themselves for the benefit of the masses surely they can find the time to work out Labour has been about as good to Britain as a serious bout of the flu? As a result of which they can get up and vote for the Tories. Or worse, am I forced to conclude that actually the reason why they can get annoyed about 'X - strictly come skating in the Jungle' is because it takes no intelligence to know if someone is singing out of tune?
If the latter is the conclusion then one could ask the question: does that mean that in front of polling booths in order to protect the nation there should be a five question test.
1. What are the names of three main parties in the UK?
2. Who is the current prime minister?
3. Who is the leader of the opposition?
4. Do you think bombing people is an appropriate way to influence government?
5. Which is more important to you, voting five times in X -Factor or once in the general election?
Anyone who doesn't get these questions right gets sent home with a lolly pop and a pat on the back, the other 1% can go on to vote.
I have never believed this, not even slightly. This is not because I think 'they' are lying but more because I think what is considered failing is just wrong. The idea goes that democracy is failing because less people are turning out to vote. This means supposedly that less people believe a difference can be made and more people are becoming disenchanted with the whole system of being lead by those who have been given the all inspiring, all wonderful, all justifying democratic mandate.
This, of course, is a steaming pile. As far as I'm concerned the very fact that people don't vote is evidence that the system IS working. It means that the system is working more efficiently. This is for two reasons:
1. If you don't vote that means you don't really care who is going to lead the country. 'Oh no' I hear you say, 'evidence that people don't trust politicians and that people don't think they can do the job'. Au Contraire. This mean that people think that whoever is elected they are going to do a pretty good job and as a result think that turning up to the polling station is just a waste of their day that could be spent solving the mysteries of life, or whatever it is people in the UK do in their spare time. Don't believe me? Think about it, if you thought the BNP or some other nutters were going to get in power would you be more likely to vote? Unless you really are a shaved chimp the answer is yes. If you thought that the party to get elected was going to turn you out of your home and banish you to work in a factory for the rest of your God-given life would you vote? Of course. Even if there were several parties who were in the running all with such similarly inane, fatuous ideas you would vote for the green party just to try and dilute the power of the others. If there was no party that would allow you to keep your home, you would start your own party.
The fact is the only reason why people don't vote, isn't because 'all politicians are as bad as each other'. It is because they're lazy and don't really think either party is going to do much damage to their way of life. In essence while they tell you it is because they don't trust any of the parties, people don't cote because actually they do trust ALL of the parties, and therefore don't really see a pressing need to bother voting. You can't argue with the logic.
2. The second reason that people don't vote and this I think is never appreciated, is because many many people are either too thick to understand what is going on or don't bother to find out. This, I say hand on heart, is no bad thing. Anyone who thinks that it is a bad thing probably isn't too sharp themselves. Let me put it this way, if you went to hospital and you had to have an operation would you have the Doctor schedule an operation or would you have him bring in several complete strangers and ask them to vote on what operation they think you should have despite the fact they have never read your chart? The fact is there is always going to be a decent section of society that either doesn't have the time or the Witt to learn about the various parties, what they stand for and the policy that they are seeking to promote. In these circumstances why would you want them to vote? They obviously don't care, if they do vote they will be doing it on who they have seen the most of (the tactic I employed in deciding University elections), whose name they like or who looks the 'coolest'. You wouldn't use it to choose your surgeon, so why is it any different in politics.
As if this wasn't bad enough for every numbskulled neanderthal that votes for the one with the nicest tie (which appears often to be Nick Griffin) that means your carefully considered vote means less. Conversely for every vacuous, knuckle dragging, cretin who stays at home your vote counts for more. So why is that a bad thing again?
Sure, I know I'm sounding harsh, we can't expect everyone to take an interest in politics, intellectual or otherwise, human nature will always mean that there will be some who find it interesting and others who cannot tolerate the thought of it for longer than 5 seconds and that didn't bother me, to be honest, those who don't like thinking about it can be lead by those who do, that is what canvasing is for. But then X -factor happened and now I find it all a bit wrong.
I have facebook and of late the status updates have been filled with comments about some creature called 'Jedward' and there has been much support and criticism of this creature. Also apparently the Metro and Yahoo News have seen fit to incorporate headlines using words like 'outrage' not in reference to British soldiers dying because of a lack of supplies but in reference to some sonorous bint being voted off the program. Thankfully the Times has not followed suit, else I would be forced to fly to Afghanistan and tell our boys to come home because Western Democracy is no longer worth saving.
But nonetheless with a petition now being set up to send to Downing street (yes I'm still talking about X -factor at this point) one does begin to wonder what is going on.
Surely if people have the time to get so worked up about some mindless entertainment show where members of the public embarrass themselves for the benefit of the masses surely they can find the time to work out Labour has been about as good to Britain as a serious bout of the flu? As a result of which they can get up and vote for the Tories. Or worse, am I forced to conclude that actually the reason why they can get annoyed about 'X - strictly come skating in the Jungle' is because it takes no intelligence to know if someone is singing out of tune?
If the latter is the conclusion then one could ask the question: does that mean that in front of polling booths in order to protect the nation there should be a five question test.
1. What are the names of three main parties in the UK?
2. Who is the current prime minister?
3. Who is the leader of the opposition?
4. Do you think bombing people is an appropriate way to influence government?
5. Which is more important to you, voting five times in X -Factor or once in the general election?
Anyone who doesn't get these questions right gets sent home with a lolly pop and a pat on the back, the other 1% can go on to vote.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
BP has the oil, now lets make sure the money goes to the right place
BP has just been given the contract to exploit the largest oil reservoir in Iraq, not far from Bazra.
The estimate that once fully exploited Iraq may become the third largest oil producing nation in the world after Russia and Saudi Arabia.
So what do we think people?
I suppose I could rave on about how this is essentially the mission of invading Iraq finally coming to fruition. After all these years finally the coalition has what it wanted.
I could write about how terrible it is that the war was about oil. I could talk about how tragic it is that so many service men and women have died in the pursuit of 'black gold'.
I could write about how this is such a shocking infringement of the national sovereignty of Iraq or how the greedy oil companies are wringing their hands with anticipation.
Strangely though those things although significant I am not actually in a rush to condemn.
I'll explain why. Well I'll explain why for most of them.
First I don't care that the war was about oil, anyone who thought that the war was about WMD I can only assume has had a fully frontal lobe lobotomy recently. I mean come on, you really thought that Iraq could launch a nuclear weapon against the west in 45mins? they couldn't get a pizza to you in 45 mins let alone a nuclear weapon!
Even before I'd studied international law and realised that the 45 mins is conveniently just the right amount of time to justify a war legally, I could see that anyone who thought Iraq had such technically and logistical prowess was being very imaginative.
So yes, the war was about oil. But we knew that already.
Is that bad? Well yes and no. Frankly I can understand both lines of thought. On the one hand I may quite possibly have trouble reconciling my conscience with the fact that people are going to have to fight in the pursuit of a natural resource, but at the same pragmatically I know that fighting to ensure that we have oil is only one step behind fighting for food to eat. The fact is the food you eat is carried on a truck (running on petrol) loaded onto a ship (running on oil) unloaded in a dock (by machines running on petrol) carried to a supermarket by a truck (running on diesel) and finally picked up and put in your car to take home (running of petrol). The unhappy fact is oil is no longer just about oil anymore it is about food, health care, the ability of a military to defend a nation, the ability of a nation to function.
If one country can cut off the supply of oil to another nation that is tantamount to being able to cut off the supply of air to a person, the fact is they aren't going to last. So is securing oil really any more than just ensuring your nation has the air it needs to breath for the foreseeable future?
That one... is a tough question, I'll admit.
One that isn't a tough question... taking the oil from Iraq itself. Are we stealing Iraq's natural resources? Yes, do I have a problem with this? No not even slightly.
Looking at the countries in the world that do have oil most of them whether it is Libya or Chile or pretty much most nations you can think of with a major oil output, they all have on thing in common, the oil doesn't go to the people, it does to those at the top, usually to support their corrupt regimes.
The money doesn't filter its way down to the working classes, BP isn't going to be robbing Iraq, it is going to be robbing its dictators, leaders and officials... who frankly will manage to live on.
BP isn't going to be making too much money either, they are going to be paid $2 per barrel that they produce, which while over billions of barrels is a fair amount of money compared to the actual value it is a fraction of the price.
This makes me wonder who is going to get the other $60-100 per barrel, but that is another point.
In fact in all this I care only about two things:
1. That some of the money that is made from the oil goes where it doesn't go in most other nations; the working man. I don't know how they could do it but there is going to be a way whether it is paying for schools, hospitals, paying doctors, whatever. In fact I would love to do the job of being the guy who gets to spend it. Can you imagine? "Here is 700 million pounds, do what you think will benefit the people of this nation most" good work if you can get it (assuming you don't have idiots trying to shoot you).
2. Lots of money must also go to the soldiers and the services generally. Anyone who has been injured should be PROPERLY compensated. None of this half payment job, if someone is maimed they should have their lives made as comfortable as money can make it. Also a few million can be spent on making vehicles that can brush off the blasts of IED's and everyone should patrol in them. Finally; helicopters, lots of them the generals out in Iraq should want for nothing after all they are the ones that secured this resource i the first place and you don't muzzle the ox that treats the corn.
If these two points are followed then the world will be a happier place I feel, it won't be perfect, but it'll be that little bit better
The estimate that once fully exploited Iraq may become the third largest oil producing nation in the world after Russia and Saudi Arabia.
So what do we think people?
I suppose I could rave on about how this is essentially the mission of invading Iraq finally coming to fruition. After all these years finally the coalition has what it wanted.
I could write about how terrible it is that the war was about oil. I could talk about how tragic it is that so many service men and women have died in the pursuit of 'black gold'.
I could write about how this is such a shocking infringement of the national sovereignty of Iraq or how the greedy oil companies are wringing their hands with anticipation.
Strangely though those things although significant I am not actually in a rush to condemn.
I'll explain why. Well I'll explain why for most of them.
First I don't care that the war was about oil, anyone who thought that the war was about WMD I can only assume has had a fully frontal lobe lobotomy recently. I mean come on, you really thought that Iraq could launch a nuclear weapon against the west in 45mins? they couldn't get a pizza to you in 45 mins let alone a nuclear weapon!
Even before I'd studied international law and realised that the 45 mins is conveniently just the right amount of time to justify a war legally, I could see that anyone who thought Iraq had such technically and logistical prowess was being very imaginative.
So yes, the war was about oil. But we knew that already.
Is that bad? Well yes and no. Frankly I can understand both lines of thought. On the one hand I may quite possibly have trouble reconciling my conscience with the fact that people are going to have to fight in the pursuit of a natural resource, but at the same pragmatically I know that fighting to ensure that we have oil is only one step behind fighting for food to eat. The fact is the food you eat is carried on a truck (running on petrol) loaded onto a ship (running on oil) unloaded in a dock (by machines running on petrol) carried to a supermarket by a truck (running on diesel) and finally picked up and put in your car to take home (running of petrol). The unhappy fact is oil is no longer just about oil anymore it is about food, health care, the ability of a military to defend a nation, the ability of a nation to function.
If one country can cut off the supply of oil to another nation that is tantamount to being able to cut off the supply of air to a person, the fact is they aren't going to last. So is securing oil really any more than just ensuring your nation has the air it needs to breath for the foreseeable future?
That one... is a tough question, I'll admit.
One that isn't a tough question... taking the oil from Iraq itself. Are we stealing Iraq's natural resources? Yes, do I have a problem with this? No not even slightly.
Looking at the countries in the world that do have oil most of them whether it is Libya or Chile or pretty much most nations you can think of with a major oil output, they all have on thing in common, the oil doesn't go to the people, it does to those at the top, usually to support their corrupt regimes.
The money doesn't filter its way down to the working classes, BP isn't going to be robbing Iraq, it is going to be robbing its dictators, leaders and officials... who frankly will manage to live on.
BP isn't going to be making too much money either, they are going to be paid $2 per barrel that they produce, which while over billions of barrels is a fair amount of money compared to the actual value it is a fraction of the price.
This makes me wonder who is going to get the other $60-100 per barrel, but that is another point.
In fact in all this I care only about two things:
1. That some of the money that is made from the oil goes where it doesn't go in most other nations; the working man. I don't know how they could do it but there is going to be a way whether it is paying for schools, hospitals, paying doctors, whatever. In fact I would love to do the job of being the guy who gets to spend it. Can you imagine? "Here is 700 million pounds, do what you think will benefit the people of this nation most" good work if you can get it (assuming you don't have idiots trying to shoot you).
2. Lots of money must also go to the soldiers and the services generally. Anyone who has been injured should be PROPERLY compensated. None of this half payment job, if someone is maimed they should have their lives made as comfortable as money can make it. Also a few million can be spent on making vehicles that can brush off the blasts of IED's and everyone should patrol in them. Finally; helicopters, lots of them the generals out in Iraq should want for nothing after all they are the ones that secured this resource i the first place and you don't muzzle the ox that treats the corn.
If these two points are followed then the world will be a happier place I feel, it won't be perfect, but it'll be that little bit better
Monday, 2 November 2009
Professor Nutt... this is why you're fired.
Professor Nutt... (it's all in the name)... the Nutty Professor? Hmmm, no no, it won't do, they are all too easy. And so in contravention of the growing trend the title of this comment will contain no cheesy puns. I will just put it plainly and leave the puns for The Sun to come up with.
As I'm sure you know Prof Nutt, the government's advisor has been sacked after comments about how ecstasy and cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.
There seems to be a bit of an uproar about all this after all he pleads 'I was just giving the truth based in science and now I've been sacked for it'.
The response of the public seems to be that of 'oh, yes, you can't sack a man for just saying what is true' (or is that just the left wing media? I don't know).
But everyone seems to be missing the point a little.
Sure as far as I can tell only a complete idiot would say that cannabis is worse than tobacco because at no point has it been suggested that there is a link between cigarettes and having voices in your head. Now as a threat to society goes smoke may kill you, but psychopaths are a lot more dangerous... and the people they harm much more likely to be innocent. However all this means nothing, because unlike Prof Nutt, I haven't commited my time to working out which is more dangerous... in fact I've probably hardly spend more than 6 hours thinking about it in my whole life when considered as an aggregate. So unless he worked it out like this:
people killed by alcohol 8,000
people killed by ecstasy 80
ergo alcohol is more dangerous than pills
I will happily accept that he knows more about it than me. If he did work it out in terms of absolute numbers and disregarding proportions then he should just be sacked for being retarded... but I'll give him more credit than that.
So while I don't believe what he says I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has figures to back up what he is saying.
And so I can get on to my actual point, why was he fired.
To understand this you have to understand only that his comments were not in privacy... they were in a lecture. Essentially that means instead of having a quiet word to the government, he shouted out 'I think that ecstasy is less dangerous than alcohol' to the whole world and it gets worse once you think about the subtext that the moron on the street will hear:
+ to the drug user he said: you're no worse than the man in the pub;
+ to the dealer he said: you're no worse than a publican;
+ to the drinker he said: you've tried alcohol and you were fine, why not try pills? There is no reason not to;
+ to the smoker he said: why not add weed?
He didn't actually say this to anyone of course but sub textually he shouted it from every hill top in the land. Drug users don't need another excuse for their habit, they will think of them on their own, I've sat on a bus while associates argued that weed is better for you than tobacco because there is less material in a 'reefa' than there is in a cigarette to smoke (they didn't take into account the higher level of carcinogens in weed). Surely the idea of society (call me mad) is for people to actually be able to enjoy life without needing to be totally 'out of it' as often as possible? Or did the idea that you can be happy without having your high artificially propped up with chemicals die out with dinosaurs?
People will take drugs whether you want them to or not, they don't need encouragement in the same way that robbery doesn't need encouragement, it always has happened and it always will. The police just try and limit it and punish those responsible.
But I digress, Prof Nutt, if in future you wish not to be fired, a simple rule may be applied;
If you want to make any statement about any recreational drugs check it doesn't encourage their use (even implicitly) and if it does put it in a report, back it with some concrete figures and most of all, don't let the press see it!
As I'm sure you know Prof Nutt, the government's advisor has been sacked after comments about how ecstasy and cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.
There seems to be a bit of an uproar about all this after all he pleads 'I was just giving the truth based in science and now I've been sacked for it'.
The response of the public seems to be that of 'oh, yes, you can't sack a man for just saying what is true' (or is that just the left wing media? I don't know).
But everyone seems to be missing the point a little.
Sure as far as I can tell only a complete idiot would say that cannabis is worse than tobacco because at no point has it been suggested that there is a link between cigarettes and having voices in your head. Now as a threat to society goes smoke may kill you, but psychopaths are a lot more dangerous... and the people they harm much more likely to be innocent. However all this means nothing, because unlike Prof Nutt, I haven't commited my time to working out which is more dangerous... in fact I've probably hardly spend more than 6 hours thinking about it in my whole life when considered as an aggregate. So unless he worked it out like this:
people killed by alcohol 8,000
people killed by ecstasy 80
ergo alcohol is more dangerous than pills
I will happily accept that he knows more about it than me. If he did work it out in terms of absolute numbers and disregarding proportions then he should just be sacked for being retarded... but I'll give him more credit than that.
So while I don't believe what he says I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has figures to back up what he is saying.
And so I can get on to my actual point, why was he fired.
To understand this you have to understand only that his comments were not in privacy... they were in a lecture. Essentially that means instead of having a quiet word to the government, he shouted out 'I think that ecstasy is less dangerous than alcohol' to the whole world and it gets worse once you think about the subtext that the moron on the street will hear:
+ to the drug user he said: you're no worse than the man in the pub;
+ to the dealer he said: you're no worse than a publican;
+ to the drinker he said: you've tried alcohol and you were fine, why not try pills? There is no reason not to;
+ to the smoker he said: why not add weed?
He didn't actually say this to anyone of course but sub textually he shouted it from every hill top in the land. Drug users don't need another excuse for their habit, they will think of them on their own, I've sat on a bus while associates argued that weed is better for you than tobacco because there is less material in a 'reefa' than there is in a cigarette to smoke (they didn't take into account the higher level of carcinogens in weed). Surely the idea of society (call me mad) is for people to actually be able to enjoy life without needing to be totally 'out of it' as often as possible? Or did the idea that you can be happy without having your high artificially propped up with chemicals die out with dinosaurs?
People will take drugs whether you want them to or not, they don't need encouragement in the same way that robbery doesn't need encouragement, it always has happened and it always will. The police just try and limit it and punish those responsible.
But I digress, Prof Nutt, if in future you wish not to be fired, a simple rule may be applied;
If you want to make any statement about any recreational drugs check it doesn't encourage their use (even implicitly) and if it does put it in a report, back it with some concrete figures and most of all, don't let the press see it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
