Idiot Nation

This article made me thinkhttp://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0207GREETINGS# In Britain we have similar problems. In short the vast bulk of the population will trust the opinions if idiot blowhards and opinionated columnists over respected scientists provided

1. They say things that the average numbnut agrees with.
2. They have their own newspaper column/radio programme
3. They portray the world as a black and white, right and wrong affair which is far simpler than the shades of grey reality

its become quite frustrating, why the hell do people put more faith in Richard Littlejohn (As an example, a really odious example) than Scientists, behavioural experts and people who have studied or have had years of experience of the subjects he mouths off on.This would be because in idiot Britain we don't like hearing opinions that differ from our own, particularly if they can be backed up with :HORROR: FACT! (And I mean actual facts rather than saying FACT! at the end of a sentence, generally meaning, I have no evidence to support this but saying FACT! means I don't have to defend my untenable position, its fact)

Some may argue that this is what I'm doing, and I'd agree, except for the fact that I'm doing this for free (Or rather when I should be being paid to work) and in a forum that no-one actually reads bar a few oddballs I know and some poor unfortunate who decided to read a random blog. In fact I am about as qualified to comment on such matters as Law and Order, Global warming and Immigration as any of these newspaper columnists, the difference is I'm not paid to do so, and no-one will say "That pie_man70, he knows what he's talking about, unlike all those so called experts who just study the subject matter, conduct scientifically sound experiments and have firsthand experience of how these things actually work"

Take, for example, the argument of Law & order. Your litteljohns will say that the country is on a downhill spiral, and its all due to those namby-pamby and wringing liberals with their human rights act. Why can't we suspend this piece of legislation which in no way protects all our rights, so we can properly punish criminals, instead of sending them to "Holiday camp" prisons we should beat them dawn to dusk for 50 years. That’s a proper deterrent; they won't want to go back after that. Now I can argue the pros and cons of brutal prison regimes till I'm blue in the face, quoting studies that show that brutal prisons churn out more brutal criminals, that the goal of prison is to rehabilitate while keeping a danger to society out of circulation for public safety. I can ask at which point "Punishment" becomes "Revenge" but that doesn't matter a jot when you consider a statement by a great author Christopher brookmyre. Talking about how people are sure that draconian prisons would cut re-offending rates and act as a deterrent, he points out that there is no deterrent because "No b***er expects to be caught"

Simple, succinct, ignored by pundits, and that’s an author not an expert, but its common sense, its logical.But yet those who trounce off opinion as fact get paid handsomely for their role in turning the nation into a pack of rabid lynch mobs, burning paedophiles as they are accused, beating up hoodies and breaking the legs of anyone who enquires about human rights.

Take another bugbear, regarding the band of idiots that makes up most of the public of this "great" land.Next to the opinion monger is the one scientist who disagrees with the general body of science. Now, I'm all for theories being properly tested, and all for dissent showing the weakness of firmly held beliefs, hells I welcome it. The problem is when you have a massive body of evidence for one side, say that climate change not only exists (Just about 100% proven) and that man is in some way an influence (About 90%+ of studies say this is the case) there are people who will latch on to that 10% of scientists, 10% often backed by interest groups to present data in a way more beneficial to, say oil companies, or airlines, because if you believe the 10% of often disproved science saying this is all sunspots, you can drive your 4X4 and fly to Malaga every year firm in the knowledge that the tonnes of CO2 you pump out has nothing to do with climate change.

Yes, we, as a nation will believe the bad, disproven science, particularly if it has a big name supporter (Michael Crichton, I'm looking at you) because, well frankly we're lazy (I know lazy, I can smell my own) we don't want to recycle, its hard. We don't want to switch everything off standby because when we get in from work it’s nice to turn the telly on by remote control, and we don't want to take public transport because it’s filled with all the idiots I posted about in my previous public transport rant. The worst example of this was while listening to TalkSport, some guy regarding the protests for Heathrow’s 3rd runway. He started by saying that the science on global warming was 50-50, specifically that you get some reports saying it is man made followed by some saying it isn't. As previously stated it’s closer to 90-10. The second statement was the worst, he said, if flying, and driving 4X4 cars was so harmful to the environment was so bad, surely it would be banned.Now really, taking the very large, well funded Oil lobby, the vehicle manufacturers and the airlines, not to mention all companies involved in aviation and the jobs produced, if I were to stand for power saying I was banning any car journey that couldn't be either walked in 20mins or covered by public transport, and that I was banning all short haul air travel, it would be election suicide, because the great British public is unwilling to give up these luxuries. And no know it all experts will tell them otherwise.

Change for changes sake

Bit of a diversion from my usual rants about commuting and topical news or things that happened near me.

Was reading an article in SFX regarding this new Star Trek remake that JJ Abrahams is doing (Still a dubious idea in my book but I hope to be proven wrong). Anyway the article itself, as there were not shots from the film available what with it being in the casting stage, was illustrated with some beautiful renders of the original pre-refit Enterprise. One of the captions however made me think; it asked would it appear in the new film. This will be a reference to the suspicion that the film will be a "Starfleet Academy" concept bandied around since the 1970s. However it made me think, would a studio re-design the Enterprise perhaps calling its design dated. It’s a worry because there will be a definite drive to make it look modern and relevant, and some might find the look of the old enterprise too 60s. I disagree, if you look at the renders you can see its a timeless design, I hope they really do focus on keeping the look consistent with how classic trek looked, not wobbly sets and velour uniforms, but the look and feel but with a higher budget. Above all Abrahams should be very careful of change for changes sake.

What People Believe

A report has recently been published regarding the shooting of Charles de Menezes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6927140.stm One of many but this one addressed the point I was most interested in. It deals with how the information relating to the shooting was handled. This is due to the massive discrepancy between what the Met reported as De Menezes movements before the shooting and what actually happened.For those living in a cave (Or indeed a large section of the British Public, which is where I'm going with this) here are the two events, and it reads like a comedy sketch of bad policework.Police Version: On suspicion that terrorists were living at his address Police folowed de Menezes from his flat on to a bus. He was wearing a large bulky jackect, an unusual garment for such a mild day. On leaving teh bus they follwed him into the underground where he broke into a run, police chased him into the station, shouting stop, Menezes vaulted the ticket barrier and boarded the train where police shot him after he had not acknowlaged their calls to stop.WHat actually Happened: On suspicion that terrorists were living at his address Police folowed de Menezes from his flat on to a bus. He was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky coat, something that was perfectly normal for the weather. They then follwed him from the bus into the tube station where de Menezes walkedthrough the barrier, picked up a copy of metro and walked on to teh train where he sat down. Police rushed on to the train, wrestled him to the ground and shot him 9 times in the head.There is a fair discrepancy between teh two, not one that could be made by say a casual mistake or a fddly detail. The police report was not an error, it was a lie. A Bare faced lie that, in the most forgiving light, was told to cover up a huge cock up, from intelligence to the very literal execution, that lead to the death of an innocent man. Indeed to further try and cover themselves for woeful intelligence and dangerously trigger happy men they even tried to start rumours that he was an illegal immegrant. WHiel teh report does not accuse commissionar Ian Blair it does point out taht the handling of information was hugely flawed. However this is not my biggest gripe.My biggest problem is with the great brittish public, and their idiotic ability not to be bale to update facts after the first run. Look at any discussuins on the shooting and you'll always see some Daily Mail reading numbnut saying "Well he shouldn't have run away, he was wearing a big puffy jacket" etc worse you get some amature bomb squad numpty who'll add "The police have to shoot first on suspicion, what with the super fast triggers these terrorist have access to" I'll address this second one before my main and final rant. Super fast triggers. Lets forget the fact that we're talking about home made explosives for a moment, and so the chances of having some form of high tech trigger are fairly remote. Second, there are 2 ways of detonating a bomb you are wearing. The big red button (possibly what they are refering to if its wired into a hand) but in essence you press a button and go boom, not "Super Fast" and the hand linking is unlikely (Longer wires mean more chance of the trigger becoming disconnected by tugging, think of your walkman headpohones and how they seem to snag on anything) the other is the dead man switch, popular in films release a button and boom. Only this never happens outside hollywood, and if it did, then killing someone is probably unwise. Either way giving police carte blanch to shoot anyone who looks a bit shifty without warning is a hugely dangerous thing to do.On to my final point, a cynic may think that the Police version of events was rushed out first, before any other sequence of events, to deliberately exploit this feature in the dim masses of not updating facts. They know that the vast majority of teh bovine public will take their story and then repeat it parrot (A half bovine parrot) fashion during any debate. The series of events taht makes them look less like gun happy loons and the intelegence side less like bumbling idiots keeps circulating as fact despite the truth being public knowlege. In short if you want to cover youself, tell your lie first, before anyone elses gets out there.