Don’t light my fuse

In the fabulously funny (I may be overselling it) Mystery Men, the hapless heroes are brought together by the shadowy Sphinx; scrum master by day, crime fighter by night, a figure whose aphorisms inspire his team to save the city from Prince Practitioners. Judge for yourself:

He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.
-
To summon your power for the conflict to come, you must first have power over that which conflicts you.
-
When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack.

I’m psyched. I’m exaggerating. The Sphinx, as far as I’m aware, isn’t an Agile consultant; though sometimes my Twitter feed suggests he could be. A 140 character per-post social networking service does tend to encourage brevity, tending to meaningless. It’s harmless enough, and within all the chaff there’s an occasional nugget. It is - and I wish I didn’t feel the need to say this - in no way indicative of the worth of this set of development methods, as Twitter is in no way indicative of the worth of anything. It makes me smile, if not always in the way intended. Sometimes it makes me frown:

Legacy maintenance is nothing but a pay-cheque. Sustaining a healthy, talented team of engineers in that arid environment is impossible.

Now there’s a statement that troubles in a multitude of ways, it’s a dead-end, a mixture of obvious, worthless and insulting. “Obvious” because we learn nothing in being told certain tasks aren’t that enjoyable; you might as well comment children are our future and fun things are... erm... fun. “Worthless” as one definition for legacy is any live software (I read that on Twitter!) and therefore most projects would require, bar the first iteration, some level of “legacy maintenance” - how do we live with ourselves? “Insulting” since telling those who do such work they’re only in it for the money, and (unintentionally?) insinuating they have no ability, isn’t very helpful. It doesn't progress the subject. It’s also bollocks. It’s a cul-de-sac of thought; at worst a “talented people don’t do these kind of jobs”, at best a “some jobs are more enjoyable than others”; well, you don’t say, but they still need to be done. Just what kind of world do we seek; one that would ghettoise certain types of work, or one where all can contribute, and all contributions are valued?

Soft target

I noticed, but let it slide; my increased tendency to remark on some innocuous comment I’ve read on Twitter, using one social platform to write about another, sounds incestuous. One should not base a post on such - I find it difficult to say tweet - it’s mean and it's lazy. There are those who will always tempt; the absolutists, the consultants, the educators, knowledge wielded in the style of Good Will Hunting - what an odious film. But it’s the indolence for which I should be marked down; throwing darts at easy targets is shallow sport. It’s dangerous too; I’ve written my fair share of gibberish. That’s bad blogging, Phil - you wrote a bad blog.

When worlds collide

Combining M&S with X Factor contestants seems inherently dangerous; it could rip apart the fabric of Christmas. Pairing an up-market brand with something from the other side of the tracks; it ought to result in something more daring but it’s a terribly safe, by the numbers effort put together by the same kind of mindless drones who once chose Titanic as the BBC Christmas day family movie. Who let them out? I don’t know quite why the M&S Christmas advert should annoy me so much, since their usual television offering is so decidedly bland. Roll on the Iceland release - last year’s production may have been tacky but they had fun on their side - and thank goodness for the following:

Saw Anonymous n absolutely loved it. Love history.

I am completely blown away by this awesome comment. That’s “awesome” as in the opposite of awesome, possibly, since it occurs to me they may have been practising irony; indeed the more I think about it the more I think it must have been? But then… but then it’s from someone using txt-speak and who describes themselves as an ‘educator’ - as opposed to teacher - and you know what that means.

Silence will fall

#remembranceday Silence shouldn't be compulsory, but those who don't observe it show their true colors [sic], and should be judged accordingly

I am uncomfortable in collective forms of remembrance; I generally find their subject best remembered in private contemplation. This of course is a personal view, many prefer to come together and share their grief or thanks. I have no argument with this, except when it requires the adherence of others. I am reminded of two events; the first was David Blunkett (then the Labour Home Secretary) who initially suggested the new ID card (since scrapped) could be optional, whilst at the same time admitting those without would be unable to use NHS services, amongst others. Secondly, the insistence of the ‘great’ British public in requiring Princes William and Harry to parade in public behind the coffin of their mother. There are many forms of tyranny. The comment above was hardly the worst, I include it as a mild example of how intolerant we are, or have become; I’m not sure which.

Occupy St. Paul's

There will be a cross-cultural solidarity protest with the Syrian people on Thursday outside St Pauls, 5pm. Please RT. #occupyLSX
-- 2-Nov-2011

Help, they’re being oppressed! At first I thought it a spoof account but no, it’s the real thing and was duly re-tweeted by dozens lacking any sense of perspective. I’d have loved to see the looks of their more rational comrades, such people certainly exist but I imagine they’re drowned out by the more active; and the vigorous political types tend to be at polar ends of any debate. This is a problem for any protest movement claiming to represent “the 99%”, though I think they’ve now broadened the definition to “acting on behalf of the 99%”, as opposed to letting them decide for themselves. Thus some polar explorers will claim it’s a left-wing protest - which it is - whilst being in the interests of the 99% - which it isn’t.

Camping outside St. Paul's, refusing to move, and instead of weeks debating the issues we’ve been diverted by questions of whether they should even be there, whether they have imposed on the good faith of others, and the resignations of people with whom they have no disagreement. If the occupy movement were representative then we’d have had something other than an initial statement inspired by UK Uncut, we’d have had at least one idea with a level of support from both left and right; an intersection rather than amalgamation of familiar gripes. For example, legislation on lobbying might have been an issue that all sides could get behind, instead they gather under an anti-capitalism banner. In place of having a problem, many protesters have settled on capitalism being the problem, rather than an expression of our freedom of choice.

The collapse of any business has a ripple-like effect on those with which it used to trade; the bigger the business, the bigger the effect, to the extent that a bank failing can be a disaster for us all. Where capitalism has failed is not in income inequality, our freedom to choose means some will always be wealthier than others, even obscenely so. Nor is it a lack of job security, businesses fall so that other stronger ones can take their place. Its failure is in a framework that for one particular sector, grants large businesses a government guarantee; it will not allow them to fail, no matter how poorly run, as to do so would be catastrophic. That's what needs fixing, after the small matter of a large debt.

Any man's death

Society was up in arms about Murdoch being pied, but torturing and murdering Gaddafi is ok, something wrong with that picture.

Well quite, there would be something wrong with that picture if I thought it accurate. However, I’ll pass on this straw man and note the rather disturbing inference that for many, trial and execution by the state would have been preferable. There were three possible outcomes:

1. Gadaffi executed on the spot.
2. Gadaffi put on trial and then executed.
3. Gadaffi put on trial at an international criminal court.

It would seem strange to intervene for the sake of one, when unwilling to do so for the thousands of Benghazi; so I’m assuming the non-interventionists - those who objected to NATO involvement - would continue to proclaim the need for Libyans to handle their own affairs. That leaves two possibilities, both with the same result, and though both are objectionable, in the light of last Friday’s indignation I ask myself which is worse - the blood lust captured for all the world to see, or the quiet rational heart that would deliberate - and then kill.

Am I not Conservative?

Against my better judgement I queried “those who want to stay in [the EU], are not Tories”, describing it as “an extraordinarily narrow perception of what it means to be Conservative”. I could have phrased that better, but was still surprised with “no, sonny, it's MY interpretation - or do you want to control that, as well as my ability to vote on the EU?” to which another added “...it's actually not as narrow as you might want to believe, if you're a TRUE conservative”.

Ignoring the “TRUE conservative” - how do you respond to that - I described to the first how I saw it as “the rights of the individual over the state - that'd mean accepting (not necessarily agreeing with) alternate views”. To which he replied “try as I might, I cannot even attach any parts of your reply to the topic”. Mine was a poor description. What I’d have liked to say was that to decide who’s in and who’s out based on that criteria - one that in my experience has very little to do with Conservatism - seems a little prescriptive, and not unlike the actions of the European body he would decry. However there didn’t seem much point in pursuing this, so explained my reply had been my interpretation - in response to his - and apologised for any offence.

I am ambivalent about the EU, as I am the referendum. I preferred the EEC; that is I could appreciate the idea. There are euro-enthusiasts, euro-sceptics and those who are certain of their dislike. I’ve always thought of the Conservative party as the broad church eschewing narrow dogmatic expressions. I’m aware that won’t chime with some, certainly not the “other side”; yet if we do believe in the individual then it seems logical to expect a wider range of views. And since, unlike one of my correspondents, I lived - and voted - through the Thatcher years, I feel as qualified as any to stake a claim.

Two tweets are better than one

A head full of cotton wool, not literally of course, that would be dangerous, probably terminal; though it would explain the lack of discernible brain activity. I am reduced to blogging about blogging - would that be meta-blogging? Not my own though; in the absence of original thought I shall comment upon a couple of tweets. Would that be meta-micro-blogging or micro-meta-blogging or…

It is time to end the Dark Ages. Tax all religion.
28-Sep-2011

I am not entirely sure how to respond. Is this a hoax, a provocation designed to kick-start a debate, an “I don’t like religion” tweet - perfectly acceptable - or, and I may be giving more credit than is due, a suggestion that any favourable tax status should be reviewed. Difficult given that such status is the result of charity - and are we really in the realm of dictating who can be charitable? Taxing people’s belief; it is I suspect another example of ‘progressive liberal’ thought: penalise that with which you disagree.

Party defections by elected officials should always create by-elections. No exceptions.
29-Sep-2011

I am entirely sure of how to respond. This is either a misunderstanding of how our electoral system works, in terms of who and what we vote for, or another misguided attempt to pass the judgement of an elected official from the electorate to an unelected body. When in the polling booth, whilst in practice I scan for ‘my’ political party, in reality I am voting for a specific individual. It is a marvellous system, a system that could - if we curbed the power of the party whip - encourage our representatives to give due allegiance to their electorate, rather than the party to which they happen to belong. It is the very essence of local democratic accountability.

The logical progression to this - at an extreme end - is that an individual may choose to leave his/her party; whether because the individual or the party’s policies have changed, it is for the electorate to decide. Changing party is in effect no different to changing policy. Were a rule introduced to the effect that party defections trigger by-elections, this could be side-stepped by declaring an intention to leave, as opposed to actually leaving. Easy, you might respond, the party would then eject their unwanted member to get the desired result… only they could then eject all sorts of other ‘troublemakers’ too, and doubtless get more malleable MPs in return, bending to the will of their party first, their electorate second. Is that really what we want?

Concern for the unfortunate

Nonsense - even in politics - can also make you laugh. Take today’s example:

Of course what Tories really think is that there *is* a correlation between poverty and the riots. They think the poor are subhuman scum.

In isolation, your typically silly comment, but when followed up with...

The riots are in large part caused by inequality and poverty. Not because poor are inferior people.

...it becomes unintentionally amusing. But just in case you were unsure, there was this beauty - the unquestioned cornerstone of so many arguments - a few moments later:

...origins of Conservatism lie in hating poor.

What a tweet. That a party would be identified as openly antagonistic to a large section of the electorate - whose votes it requires - shall remain one of the great mysteries, and all the more remarkable for being the view of someone with a first-rate (well, far better than mine) education. To believe that good and (for want of a better word) evil, can be so neatly aligned with left and right-wing ideology is astonishingly simple and self-serving. There is, I’m sure, a larger debate around the correlation (or lack of) between education, politics and morality; for now I shall confine myself to wondering how someone so intelligent can say something so foolish, and elude the inconvenient truth of Hubert Humphrey:

Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism.

They can see no reasons, ‘cos there are no reasons

I am culpable to a reflex defensive response to the idiot Norwegian who murdered so many of his own countrymen last Friday. I only caught the news late on Saturday, suddenly finding myself in the middle of a stream of Twitter bollocks already well under way. I was, to say the least, less than enthused with comments expressing “solidarity” with “Norwegian socialists”, which with some reflection I recognise as wrong. “Solidarity” has acquired an overtly political intention which in this context I find insensitive, however it’s difficult to argue with identifying the victims by their political beliefs, when it’s those beliefs that caused them to be targeted by that inadequate human being.

But I remain irritated with the grasping appropriation of victimhood by and for those who share a political outlook. Likewise the seemingly inevitable conflation that results when said murderer cites various authors, journalists and other celebrities in his mad manifesto. Is Prince Charles to be lauded as a result of Brevik's displeasure? Or if I might put it another way, Jeremy Clarkson isn’t stupid as a result of being quoted by a stupid man...

Plus one

I continue to tinker. I still find myself posting more on Twitter, and possibly even Facebook, but I think this because I did so using ChromeDeck (TweetDeck) rather than the sites themselves. In other words it’s via their respective API, and I’d imagine Google+ will have its own soon enough. Then it will become interesting as, for example, currently on the blog I show my last Tweet; will I switch to showing my last Google+ post - or rather the first 140 characters (or however many I choose) of my last post?

“Share” (when it becomes externally available) and “+1” from Google+ are analogous to “Share” and “Like” from Facebook, though I’m still getting confused as the two social networks handle the data differently. Facebook “Share” and “Like” are added to the single activity ‘stream’ shown for that user, whereas Google separates the “+1” information into a separate tab; my own “+1”s don’t get shown in my stream, I don’t yet know if they show in the streams of those who have me in their ‘circle’. If not it seems a bit odd - I think I must be missing something. Semantically though, “+1” works much better than “Like”, having a broader scope for use; I liked it enough to put the button on my blog.

In case of emergency, break glass

It’s all over. Only it isn’t. When the polling stations closed at 10pm on Thursday I barely limped over the line, and the count didn’t even begin until 4pm on the following day. I’d never make it in politics. I’m exhausted and all I did was read a few blogs, follow the conversation on Twitter and occasionally engage; not always successfully.

Not so long ago I bumped into an introduction to what Eli Pariser describes as online “filter bubbles”; this is the end result of a personal web, where services and results are tailored to our individual tastes. Amazon makes this clear by allowing me to ‘fix this recommendation’. Google less so; perhaps they judge it not so advantageous to them for me to control the web history that affects my search results. The consequences are a web that once broadened our horizons can now narrow our view of the world.

But am I complicit in these phenomena, for example when choosing who to follow on Twitter? It’s clear at least that after the trials of the AV referendum I need to think a little more on the etiquette. Getting blocked, it’s a modern-day rite of passage - or more likely a sign I need to temper my comments - since the result is to create a “bubble” of one’s own.

No one puts baby in a corner

I think I should be congratulated for steering clear of two ‘big’ political issues, or to be more accurate I am congratulating myself on steering clear of two ‘big’ political issues. The other day I wrote an ‘up front disclaimer’ to presage an oncoming rant on either AV or the subject of tuition fees but wouldn’t you know it, either the anger dissipated or the apathy kicked in. Hooray for me!

So do I dare disturb the universe? As if I could, the presumption! Even as I write I am engaged in a Twitter discussion, if such a thing is possible, that illustrates my predicament; several tweets questioning the intelligence or honesty of one side of an argument, followed by a tweet bemoaning that side’s negative campaign tactics, followed by this:

...no logical reason to support <other position> beyond selfishness has been presented to me

And I am not immune to this pattern of argument myself. Not so long ago on a blog rightly critical of the “Tories take pleasure in punishing the poor” narrative, I applauded the critique whilst describing the left as “sinister”, thus revealing myself to be... well, a little bit stupid too. Whoops.

But isn’t that what a blog is for, to have a not-always-coherent rant at whatever happens to annoy? It’s not the only use, occasionally we may wish to make a cogent point, but as a vent for our frustration it really comes into its own. Unfortunately it’s easier too and it’s when we confuse the two that we come unstuck; for no matter the righteousness of our cause, who was ever persuaded through being boxed in and called an idiot?

Joking aside

It’s not been a very good week has it? Paul Chambers had his conviction upheld for a bit of nonsense written on Twitter, and on the same day councillor Gareth Compton was arrested for posting the following:

Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really. #R5L

I smiled when I read this because I guessed the context in which the statement had been made. Without context it’s incitement, ‘with’ and you have something we call a joke. It’s not very nice but, you know what, sometimes jokes can be a little bit nasty. For example there’s this from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown herself when questioning our former Prime Minister:

Are they not children, Mr Brown? You still cry for your own baby, who died so young.

Oh no wait, that’s just nasty.

Compton’s post was in response to an interview on the radio (he even tags his tweet to indicate this) in which Alibhai-Brown said that British politicians had no right to comment on human rights abuses in countries such as China and Iran; this apparently includes the stoning to death of women. Such a ludicrous position deserves to be lampooned but I’d suggest politicians leave the task to more accomplished satirists. Chris Morris made a film about four suicide bombers not so long ago and I don’t think they’ve locked him up... yet.

In last week's episode of Soap

Despite telling myself that enough was enough now the election was over, I've had a difficult time withdrawing from the Twitterverse; it's gotten so bad I've started to use words like... Twitterverse. It's only a matter of time before I start talking about the blogosphere and with it enter a cycle of self-loathing that results in me disappearing up my own... well, you know. It's a great way to meet different people with different ideas but every so often I have to shake my head and remind myself that the inhabitants of this social networking world aren't necessarily representative of the real world. In some ways this is comforting because there are a lot of angry people out there.

Last week's 'outrage' revolved around the 55% rule proposed by the new Liberal Democrat / Conservative coalition. The proposal is that it will take a 55% vote to dissolve parliament - a power currently wielded by the Prime Minister alone. Cue much indignation from people prompted by woefully inaccurate reports (from the BBC amongst others) that this meant it would now require more than a simple majority to vote out the government. Not true of course, it still only requires a simple majority on a "no confidence" vote to force the government to resign, like it always has. The difference is that the onus would then be on parliament to form a new government without resorting to a general election.

I'll not go into the full argument because I'm spent just thinking about it, suffice (for me anyway) to say that instead of one person being able to call an election it would take the cooperation of two parties; the opposition is at no greater disadvantage than it ever was. The 55% to dissolve may seem unusual but is similar to that of a fixed term parliament, where dissolution is seen as an exceptional event rather than something that can be engineered. Take for example the Scottish parliament, which requires a 66% vote for dissolution.

Neither have I the inclination for a long and I suspect rambling discussion on the advantages of such a system, personally I have my doubts, I only mention it because fixed term parliaments were in the Liberal Democrat and Labour manifestos. True, the coalition isn't a perfect representation, it can after all dissolve if both parties agree, but if Labour supporters are going to cry "constitutional scandal" whilst ignoring the plans of their own party then it's going to be an irritating five years – assuming the government, or do I mean parliament, lasts that long.

Online schizophrenic tweet

At one point I added a tweet feed if only to figure out how. "How" proved to be fairly straight forward, I'm having a problem with "why". Or maybe it's a problem with "how" do you find people you might be interested in following? I'm a little snotty with a method requiring such a short attention span and isn't the whole "follow a stranger" thing kind of wrong? Well obviously I'm doing this for research / everyone else is doing it / I'm desperate / I'm sad / I'm desperately sad / I have something unique to say...

Worse; over a month ago and for some totally inexplicable reason I created another account. I spent a long time setting one up, trying to find a unique name, which I still don’t like, created a background (because I'm like that) and then posted three tweets. I've still only posted three tweets. Is that the correct terminology? So that's two accounts; one under my 'real' identity, which hardly affords the unexpurgated truth - and one for an assumed character of some past historical figure. I had this notion of becoming urbane and witty but it's hardly original and a notion doesn't make you become so; it's there should I inherit the trait through accident.

So I'm back to searching on favourite films; The Fountain is a good start but Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind matches everyone on the planet. Better to search on some older classics; Now Voyager, The Browning Version, but I don't have the patience and my mind inevitably wanders. Isn't unexpurgated a terrific word?