Like almost everyone with the slightest interest in the skies, Patrick Moore is an important part of my life. I have memories of him going back to the 60s, when his wit, asperity and scintillating intelligence shone as brightly as a supernova. He was always interested in what you could see with the naked eye or a pair of binoculars, making the discipline of astronomy come alive for ordinary folks without access to a powerful telescope.
I met him once, when he was on his way to Mexico to see the great Solar Eclipse of 1991, and he was every bit as good a raconteur as you might have expected- until he got onto politics, when one suddenly discovered his views were rabidly right wing.
He really only made one mistake in his professional life: when he forecast that Shoemaker-Levy 9 would be a damp squib, "like firing a peashooter at a rhinoceros", I think he said. In the event of course, the impact of that comet into Jupiter was one of the most stunning events of the 20th century. Well, no one gets it right every time.
Patrick should be remembered, not just for his popularisation of astronomy (the "David Attenborough of the skies" you might say), but for the fact that he was a foremost example of that rare breed: the Great British Eccentric. We have few enough of those as it is, and now we have lost one our greatest.
This morning, taking his last piece of advice offered in his last "The Sky at Night" programme last week, I rose before dawn to attempt a view of Mercury rising before the sun. I failed this time, but I will have another chance before too long. Patrick has had his last chance, but he won't be too worried: he's seen so much.
Tuesday, 11 December 2012
Wednesday, 5 December 2012
Behold the new crusader castles
Nine hundred years they came to the Holy Land: bands of robber barons with their private armies, intent on dominion and plunder. They gained the high ground, and there they built their fortresses of stone, and from their redoubts they would sally forth, looting and killing at will. Profit and land were their motives; only secondary was their professed desire to free Jerusalem from the hated Musselman.
Today the castles are back. All over the West Bank you can see them: cities of whitewashed concrete huddled on the hilltops. The locals are not welcome there, unless of course they have been contracted to work, enticed by better wages than they could obtain in their home towns. And like the crusaders, the Israeli settlers are not content to stay inside their fortresses. Regularly they come down onto Palestinian land, burning their olive groves (the ones they have not already stolen and placed out of their reach behind the Great Wall) or pour oil or foul sewage water over them. The effect is the same: the locals are deprived of their means of making a living from their land, what little they have left.
Just outside Bethlehem there is a huge development, housing thousands of Israelis, and following Israel's "defeat" at the UN last week, the government, in an extraordinary fit of diplomatic pique, ordered a huge expansion of this settlement, which will effectively cut Palestine in half. Already the half-hour journey from Bethlehem to Palestine's "capital" Ramallah has turned into a 2 or even 3 hour drive, because of the continual interdiction with checkpoints and roadblocks, set by the Israelis. If the new plans are realised, the journey will become practically impossible, and Palestine will have been severed in two.
But has Israel gone too far this time? Around the world there has been categorical condemnation of its latest, vengeful move (which includes withholding $75 million of tax revenues that was due to the Palestinian Authority; money that impoverished region desperately needs). Even the UK, Israel's avowed "friend", has expressed its strong disapproval. Israel's motive is clear: they want to provoke another Intifada, or protest, a protest they can use to say to the world: Do you see what we're up against? A group of terrorists, intent on destroying the Jewish race, and one we must subdue to ensure our own survival.
This time the world may not be fooled by this strategy of lies. Perhaps the time is approaching when even the US says enough is enough, and refuses to support Israel in everything it does. And when that happens, just like South Africa, it won't be long before the injustice is exposed for what it is, and freedom returns once again to the Holy Land.
Today the castles are back. All over the West Bank you can see them: cities of whitewashed concrete huddled on the hilltops. The locals are not welcome there, unless of course they have been contracted to work, enticed by better wages than they could obtain in their home towns. And like the crusaders, the Israeli settlers are not content to stay inside their fortresses. Regularly they come down onto Palestinian land, burning their olive groves (the ones they have not already stolen and placed out of their reach behind the Great Wall) or pour oil or foul sewage water over them. The effect is the same: the locals are deprived of their means of making a living from their land, what little they have left.
Just outside Bethlehem there is a huge development, housing thousands of Israelis, and following Israel's "defeat" at the UN last week, the government, in an extraordinary fit of diplomatic pique, ordered a huge expansion of this settlement, which will effectively cut Palestine in half. Already the half-hour journey from Bethlehem to Palestine's "capital" Ramallah has turned into a 2 or even 3 hour drive, because of the continual interdiction with checkpoints and roadblocks, set by the Israelis. If the new plans are realised, the journey will become practically impossible, and Palestine will have been severed in two.
But has Israel gone too far this time? Around the world there has been categorical condemnation of its latest, vengeful move (which includes withholding $75 million of tax revenues that was due to the Palestinian Authority; money that impoverished region desperately needs). Even the UK, Israel's avowed "friend", has expressed its strong disapproval. Israel's motive is clear: they want to provoke another Intifada, or protest, a protest they can use to say to the world: Do you see what we're up against? A group of terrorists, intent on destroying the Jewish race, and one we must subdue to ensure our own survival.
This time the world may not be fooled by this strategy of lies. Perhaps the time is approaching when even the US says enough is enough, and refuses to support Israel in everything it does. And when that happens, just like South Africa, it won't be long before the injustice is exposed for what it is, and freedom returns once again to the Holy Land.
Sunday, 2 December 2012
A Weekend with the nutters
My wife and I have a problem shared with millions of people up and down the country: dealing with the Alzheimer's epidemic. The following account is typical of little dramas playing out throughout the developed world.
Yesterday I went to see my father-in-law,who is now living an OPH specialising in EMI (Elderly Mentally Infirm). He shares his new home with 30 other, more or less similarly disabled EMI cases. Some appear to be "high functioning" and can carry on apparently rational conversations, though they tend to break down on more detailed questioning. Others are much worse: one old lady wanders the rooms constantly, whimpering quietly to herself whilst hugging a grimy plastic dolly. On this occasion I could find no good reason not to walk him the 400 metres back to our house for a cup of coffee. We know he is likely to empty his bladder at any moment, and keep a careful watch on him for suspicious signs of imminent urination. But I was not in time to prevent him hawking up a gobbet of phlegm and launching it on to a rather fine Indian silk rug in our living room. Instinctively I remonstrated with him, reminding him thatit is not customary to spit on the cartpet in someone's home. And my first, rather uncharitable thought was, well, I shan't be inviting you back home again any time soon.
Then in the afternoon I received a call from my mum's carers, who found her nauseous and faint. This is a classical behaviour mode of hers every time she is worried about anything; this time I think it is her upcoming visit to London where she will spend Xmas with my brother. Or it could be the antibiotics she was given the other day for a urinary infection. Whatever. Anyway, we drove the 30 miles to her place and found an anti- nausea drug in one of her drawers and persuaded her to take it As usual it worked fairly quickly. While we were there we found that her upstairs toilet seat had broken, this despite the fact that I replaced thesame seat only a few months ago. What is she doing? One thing is for sure: she can't tell us. Although she is perhaps 2 years behind my FiL in terms of memory loss and is still (just) able to live at home independently (though requiring a care package to enable that), she is still completely unable to account for what happened five minutes ago.
The fact is that if one you lose your short term memory, your life is shattered. And throughout the world, more and more people are living long enough for this disaster to befall. It could happen to you. It could happen to me. And don't think being intelligent to start with, or doing lots of "brain training" is going to help you. All you can hope is that you stay lucky. Good luck with that.
Yesterday I went to see my father-in-law,who is now living an OPH specialising in EMI (Elderly Mentally Infirm). He shares his new home with 30 other, more or less similarly disabled EMI cases. Some appear to be "high functioning" and can carry on apparently rational conversations, though they tend to break down on more detailed questioning. Others are much worse: one old lady wanders the rooms constantly, whimpering quietly to herself whilst hugging a grimy plastic dolly. On this occasion I could find no good reason not to walk him the 400 metres back to our house for a cup of coffee. We know he is likely to empty his bladder at any moment, and keep a careful watch on him for suspicious signs of imminent urination. But I was not in time to prevent him hawking up a gobbet of phlegm and launching it on to a rather fine Indian silk rug in our living room. Instinctively I remonstrated with him, reminding him thatit is not customary to spit on the cartpet in someone's home. And my first, rather uncharitable thought was, well, I shan't be inviting you back home again any time soon.
Then in the afternoon I received a call from my mum's carers, who found her nauseous and faint. This is a classical behaviour mode of hers every time she is worried about anything; this time I think it is her upcoming visit to London where she will spend Xmas with my brother. Or it could be the antibiotics she was given the other day for a urinary infection. Whatever. Anyway, we drove the 30 miles to her place and found an anti- nausea drug in one of her drawers and persuaded her to take it As usual it worked fairly quickly. While we were there we found that her upstairs toilet seat had broken, this despite the fact that I replaced thesame seat only a few months ago. What is she doing? One thing is for sure: she can't tell us. Although she is perhaps 2 years behind my FiL in terms of memory loss and is still (just) able to live at home independently (though requiring a care package to enable that), she is still completely unable to account for what happened five minutes ago.
The fact is that if one you lose your short term memory, your life is shattered. And throughout the world, more and more people are living long enough for this disaster to befall. It could happen to you. It could happen to me. And don't think being intelligent to start with, or doing lots of "brain training" is going to help you. All you can hope is that you stay lucky. Good luck with that.
Friday, 30 November 2012
November book and film review
BOOKS
NORTH AND SOUTH, by Mrs (Elizabeth) Gaskell. An Anglican priest has a crisis of conscience, leaves his parish and takes his family from the leafy south to the dark Satanic mills of a northern town.
Mrs Gaskell was a colleague of Dickens, who regarded her as his slightly less talented kid sister. However, to be only slightly less talented than Charles Dickens is still to be very talented indeed, and in this book we see her literary skills displayed superbly. Her story of a beautiful young girl, uprooted from her origins and making her way in the unfamiliar grime and poverty of the North is as good a tale as you'll find in 19th century literature. And like Dickens, it is clear Mrs G also has an acute social sense.
THINGS FALL APART, by Chinwa Achebe. Life proceeds in a remote Nigerian village as it has for thousands of years, until the arrival of the White Man, who is determined to impose his religion and social values on the people, however unwelcome they may be.
An astounding piece of writing, the first, and perhaps the greatest of novels written in English by African writers. The reader is transported into the remote bush so vividly one can almost taste the dust and smell the woodsmoke and fragrant spices lingering in the air. A really terrific book.
THE OPTIMIST'S DAUGHTER, by Eudora Welty. An ageing judge goes to hospital for an eye operation, but there are complications, and he dies. Left behind are his young widow and his daughter. Unsurprisingly they don't get on... Eudora Welty was one of America's leading literary figures, winning many accolades including a Pulitzer Prize in a long and glittering career. She isn't that well known in Europe however, which is perhaps our loss. This tale of nostalgia and ennui has a brilliantly subtle emotional core, and is clearly drafted by a master wordsmith.
FILMS
FATA MORGANA (1969) D- Werner Herzog. A series of images depicting mirages (the alternate name for Fata Morgana) are shown, accompanied by a soundtrack of Mayan creation and destruction myths. Werner Herzog is on the shortlist for greatest living director, but unfortunately this film is lamentable. The filmed sequences are too repetitive and frankly not interesting enough, while the soundtrack was to my ears more annoying than moving. This film came as an extra to the really outstanding documentary "Lessons of Darkness"- which with its extraordinary sequences of the burning oil wells in Kuwait in 1991 is one of the most powerful anti-war tracts made in the last thirty years.This, on the other hand, you could safely do without watching.
ATTACK THE BLOCK (2011) D- Joe Cornish. Vampire aliens invade Earth, but most unwisely choose a sink estate in East London as their starting point. Sort of Shaun of the Dead meets Independence Day, but with a harder, grittier edge than either of those films,it is also extremely funny; indeed I would call it comedy of the year. See it. Without delay.
SILENT LIGHT (2008) D- Carlos Peygadas. Families living in a Mexican Mennonite community appear on the surface to live pious, exemplary lives. But deep down they are only people, with the same failings as the rest of us. A sensitive, highly accomplished piece, offering valuable insights into that flawed being known as homo sapiens.
PARTIE DE CAMPAGNE (A Day in the Country) (1936) D- Jean Renoir. Based on a short story by Maupassant. Two young women go on a picnic in the countryside outside Paris, where they meet two attractive young men. They pair off and one couple falls desperately in love. However, years later we find the girl in question has not married the love of her life...
This begins so well one feels one is witnessing a masterpiece. But Renoir fled to the US before it was finished, and the ending was cobbled together by other hands. The result is a terribly unsatisfactory ending. A great shame.
WHERE DO WE GO NOW? (2011) D- Nadine Labaki. The women of an Arab village, where Muslims and Christians are in a constant state of conflict go to extraordinary lengths to keep them from fighting, even to the point of hiring a crew of Ukrainian hookers to keep them diverted. It's a clever idea, but the execution is disappointing. The style is uncertain, as if they didn't know quite how to play it.
IN TIME (2011) D- Andrew Niccoll. They say time is money, and in a future world, time has become currency. Everyone is allotted 25 years; after that we have to pay up or die. A plot idea reminiscent of "Logan's Run" this film has the look and feel of "Inception", and actually has several good things about it, though I remain unconvinced by Justin Timberlake in the lead role. His co-star Amanda Seyfried looks delectable however.
WILD ORCHID (1989) D- Zalman King. A pretty lawyer becomes caught up in the web of a lecherous billionaire. A truly appalling piece of crap, with Mickey Rourke as the tycoon enjoying himself hugely at our expense, and all round abysmally bad acting, writing and direction. In particular, Jacqueline Bisset is forced (please tell me she was forced) into one of the worst cameo performances ever seen on screen.
BODY HEAT (1981) D- Lawrence Kasdan. A down at heel lawyer (William Hurt) falls for a beautiful, but married woman (Kathleen Turner) and events take a dark turn when she suggests he murders her hubbie. A remake of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" or is it "Double Indemnity"? but in the event only a pale copy of either of those 40s classics.
SKYFALL (20120 D- Sam Mendes. An ageing James Bond is forcibly retired, but you can't keep a good man down... You might have anticipated something special with a Bond movie made by the golden boy of British cinema, and it does turn out to be a different, and superior offering from any of the Bonds in the last 30-odd years. The plot is tight, and there is a lot of good characterisation. (though I could have done without Javier Bardem's absurd haircut) And at least we've got rid of John Cleese playing "Q". My best moment: when someone sums up Bond's character by saying "Rebellious, anti-authoritarian personality due to childhood trauma" and I thought, that could be me they're talking about...
FIVE BROKEN CAMERAS P-D- Ermad Burnat. Since the segregation wall was built across their land in 2005, a village in the West Bank has held a non-violent protest at the wall every week. And an amateur film maker has been there at every one, chronicling the action. And in that time, five of his cameras have been destroyed by the army. A deeply moving document, heartbreaking actually, which vividly demonstrates the oppression and persecution enacted by an inhuman Israeli occupation force against a group of peace-loving people who are determined only to live their own lives free of harassment. Brilliant.
MYSTIC RIVER (2003) D- Clint Eastwood. An ex-con's teenage daughter is found murdered, and, mad with grief, he will stop at nothing to find the culprit. From his days as Rowdy Yates in "Waggon Train" in the 1950s, through the Sergio Leone years as the Man With No Name, Clint has gradually grown in stature until he has now reached the status of one of Hollywood's finest film makers. And here he has perhaps approached his zenith in a sensitively made and superbly acted tail of childhood lost and pointless revenge. As the two principle protagonists, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins both received well deserved Oscars for their splendid performances.
THE PASSENGER (1975) D- Michaelangelo Antonioni. Somewhere in the Western Desert, a journalist meets a gun-runner. When the latter dies of natural causes, the journo (Jack Nicholson) decides for reasons that are never made clear, to adopt his identity. He even sells arms as his adopted role demands, but when he doesn't deliver things get a bit nasty. Some have described this as Antonioni's best film, and certainly it has a strange, dreamy quality which produces a rather hypnotic effect. Maria Schneider (you remember her in "Last Tango in Paris") is also strong as the girl Nicholson randomly hooks up with. Excellent, thoughtful stuff.
NORTH AND SOUTH, by Mrs (Elizabeth) Gaskell. An Anglican priest has a crisis of conscience, leaves his parish and takes his family from the leafy south to the dark Satanic mills of a northern town.
Mrs Gaskell was a colleague of Dickens, who regarded her as his slightly less talented kid sister. However, to be only slightly less talented than Charles Dickens is still to be very talented indeed, and in this book we see her literary skills displayed superbly. Her story of a beautiful young girl, uprooted from her origins and making her way in the unfamiliar grime and poverty of the North is as good a tale as you'll find in 19th century literature. And like Dickens, it is clear Mrs G also has an acute social sense.
THINGS FALL APART, by Chinwa Achebe. Life proceeds in a remote Nigerian village as it has for thousands of years, until the arrival of the White Man, who is determined to impose his religion and social values on the people, however unwelcome they may be.
An astounding piece of writing, the first, and perhaps the greatest of novels written in English by African writers. The reader is transported into the remote bush so vividly one can almost taste the dust and smell the woodsmoke and fragrant spices lingering in the air. A really terrific book.
THE OPTIMIST'S DAUGHTER, by Eudora Welty. An ageing judge goes to hospital for an eye operation, but there are complications, and he dies. Left behind are his young widow and his daughter. Unsurprisingly they don't get on... Eudora Welty was one of America's leading literary figures, winning many accolades including a Pulitzer Prize in a long and glittering career. She isn't that well known in Europe however, which is perhaps our loss. This tale of nostalgia and ennui has a brilliantly subtle emotional core, and is clearly drafted by a master wordsmith.
FILMS
FATA MORGANA (1969) D- Werner Herzog. A series of images depicting mirages (the alternate name for Fata Morgana) are shown, accompanied by a soundtrack of Mayan creation and destruction myths. Werner Herzog is on the shortlist for greatest living director, but unfortunately this film is lamentable. The filmed sequences are too repetitive and frankly not interesting enough, while the soundtrack was to my ears more annoying than moving. This film came as an extra to the really outstanding documentary "Lessons of Darkness"- which with its extraordinary sequences of the burning oil wells in Kuwait in 1991 is one of the most powerful anti-war tracts made in the last thirty years.This, on the other hand, you could safely do without watching.
ATTACK THE BLOCK (2011) D- Joe Cornish. Vampire aliens invade Earth, but most unwisely choose a sink estate in East London as their starting point. Sort of Shaun of the Dead meets Independence Day, but with a harder, grittier edge than either of those films,it is also extremely funny; indeed I would call it comedy of the year. See it. Without delay.
SILENT LIGHT (2008) D- Carlos Peygadas. Families living in a Mexican Mennonite community appear on the surface to live pious, exemplary lives. But deep down they are only people, with the same failings as the rest of us. A sensitive, highly accomplished piece, offering valuable insights into that flawed being known as homo sapiens.
PARTIE DE CAMPAGNE (A Day in the Country) (1936) D- Jean Renoir. Based on a short story by Maupassant. Two young women go on a picnic in the countryside outside Paris, where they meet two attractive young men. They pair off and one couple falls desperately in love. However, years later we find the girl in question has not married the love of her life...
This begins so well one feels one is witnessing a masterpiece. But Renoir fled to the US before it was finished, and the ending was cobbled together by other hands. The result is a terribly unsatisfactory ending. A great shame.
WHERE DO WE GO NOW? (2011) D- Nadine Labaki. The women of an Arab village, where Muslims and Christians are in a constant state of conflict go to extraordinary lengths to keep them from fighting, even to the point of hiring a crew of Ukrainian hookers to keep them diverted. It's a clever idea, but the execution is disappointing. The style is uncertain, as if they didn't know quite how to play it.
IN TIME (2011) D- Andrew Niccoll. They say time is money, and in a future world, time has become currency. Everyone is allotted 25 years; after that we have to pay up or die. A plot idea reminiscent of "Logan's Run" this film has the look and feel of "Inception", and actually has several good things about it, though I remain unconvinced by Justin Timberlake in the lead role. His co-star Amanda Seyfried looks delectable however.
WILD ORCHID (1989) D- Zalman King. A pretty lawyer becomes caught up in the web of a lecherous billionaire. A truly appalling piece of crap, with Mickey Rourke as the tycoon enjoying himself hugely at our expense, and all round abysmally bad acting, writing and direction. In particular, Jacqueline Bisset is forced (please tell me she was forced) into one of the worst cameo performances ever seen on screen.
BODY HEAT (1981) D- Lawrence Kasdan. A down at heel lawyer (William Hurt) falls for a beautiful, but married woman (Kathleen Turner) and events take a dark turn when she suggests he murders her hubbie. A remake of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" or is it "Double Indemnity"? but in the event only a pale copy of either of those 40s classics.
SKYFALL (20120 D- Sam Mendes. An ageing James Bond is forcibly retired, but you can't keep a good man down... You might have anticipated something special with a Bond movie made by the golden boy of British cinema, and it does turn out to be a different, and superior offering from any of the Bonds in the last 30-odd years. The plot is tight, and there is a lot of good characterisation. (though I could have done without Javier Bardem's absurd haircut) And at least we've got rid of John Cleese playing "Q". My best moment: when someone sums up Bond's character by saying "Rebellious, anti-authoritarian personality due to childhood trauma" and I thought, that could be me they're talking about...
FIVE BROKEN CAMERAS P-D- Ermad Burnat. Since the segregation wall was built across their land in 2005, a village in the West Bank has held a non-violent protest at the wall every week. And an amateur film maker has been there at every one, chronicling the action. And in that time, five of his cameras have been destroyed by the army. A deeply moving document, heartbreaking actually, which vividly demonstrates the oppression and persecution enacted by an inhuman Israeli occupation force against a group of peace-loving people who are determined only to live their own lives free of harassment. Brilliant.
MYSTIC RIVER (2003) D- Clint Eastwood. An ex-con's teenage daughter is found murdered, and, mad with grief, he will stop at nothing to find the culprit. From his days as Rowdy Yates in "Waggon Train" in the 1950s, through the Sergio Leone years as the Man With No Name, Clint has gradually grown in stature until he has now reached the status of one of Hollywood's finest film makers. And here he has perhaps approached his zenith in a sensitively made and superbly acted tail of childhood lost and pointless revenge. As the two principle protagonists, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins both received well deserved Oscars for their splendid performances.
THE PASSENGER (1975) D- Michaelangelo Antonioni. Somewhere in the Western Desert, a journalist meets a gun-runner. When the latter dies of natural causes, the journo (Jack Nicholson) decides for reasons that are never made clear, to adopt his identity. He even sells arms as his adopted role demands, but when he doesn't deliver things get a bit nasty. Some have described this as Antonioni's best film, and certainly it has a strange, dreamy quality which produces a rather hypnotic effect. Maria Schneider (you remember her in "Last Tango in Paris") is also strong as the girl Nicholson randomly hooks up with. Excellent, thoughtful stuff.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
On press freedom
I selected the pseudonym "Pelagius" in tribute to the notable "opponent of St Augustine" who was executed by the early church for the heresy of suggesting that it was not necessary to require the services of a "middle man" ie a priest, in order to have direct communion with God. Naturally this was anathema to the church, so he was killed for it. Ever since the name Pelagius has become synonymous with freedom of speech and individuality.
Hence I have deep reservations about any formal vetting of the press. But freedom of speech has its limits. As Oliver Wendel Holmes said, freedom of speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. And there should be other limits too. When the McCanns lost their daughter Maddie, they experienced one of the worst tragedies known to a human being. I should know: I lost my own son 6 years ago and the pain and suffering from that event endure as brightly today as it did then. But even my tragedy pales besides the abduction of a child. Even so, the Daily and Sunday Express thought nothing of conducting a serious and extended campaign suggesting that the parents were responsible for the death of their child- this despite any real evidence coming to light whatsoever. The McCanns eventually had their day in court, and were handsomely compensated for the disgraceful libel they had suffered. But the McCanns are both doctors, and therefore able to mount an expensive campaign to win justice.
My view is that a special "Assistance Board" should be established to help people who have suffered at the hands of the media to get their "redress". Grants could be made to pay for the best lawyers around, which is fair enough. The press, with its very deep pockets, can afford the best, so why not the "victims"? We don't need any press regulation, but we are entitled to fight back if our reputations are trashed in the media, and a compassionate state should put the machinery in place to enable everyone to do just that, should it ever become necessary
Hence I have deep reservations about any formal vetting of the press. But freedom of speech has its limits. As Oliver Wendel Holmes said, freedom of speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. And there should be other limits too. When the McCanns lost their daughter Maddie, they experienced one of the worst tragedies known to a human being. I should know: I lost my own son 6 years ago and the pain and suffering from that event endure as brightly today as it did then. But even my tragedy pales besides the abduction of a child. Even so, the Daily and Sunday Express thought nothing of conducting a serious and extended campaign suggesting that the parents were responsible for the death of their child- this despite any real evidence coming to light whatsoever. The McCanns eventually had their day in court, and were handsomely compensated for the disgraceful libel they had suffered. But the McCanns are both doctors, and therefore able to mount an expensive campaign to win justice.
My view is that a special "Assistance Board" should be established to help people who have suffered at the hands of the media to get their "redress". Grants could be made to pay for the best lawyers around, which is fair enough. The press, with its very deep pockets, can afford the best, so why not the "victims"? We don't need any press regulation, but we are entitled to fight back if our reputations are trashed in the media, and a compassionate state should put the machinery in place to enable everyone to do just that, should it ever become necessary
Sunday, 25 November 2012
In praise of Star Trek
I was watching re-runs of the first series of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" the other day (OK, I grant that that is a little bogus, not to say sad) when I came across an episode called "Where No One has Gone Before". In it a character appears who has "special knowledge" of the Enterprise's warp drive. To the humans aboard he appears to be a rather weak-looking, vulnerable humanoid life form, but nonetheless he (with the assistance of Wesley Crusher, the teenage ensign who does a line in the worst jumpers in the known galaxy) is able to save the ship from disaster, while taking it "beyond warp 10", and therefore covering every furthest point in the Universe simultaneously).
There is another episode in the original (captain Kirk/Mr Spock) series where they encounter a race that can manipulate reality and which Spock pronounces as " as far ahead of humankind as we are above the amoeba".
For us to achieve this level of complexity , how far must our "civilisation" have to go to reach a similar level? A million years? A billion? Is it even conceivable we could last that long, given our precarious state currently? It's an open question. But let us look at the age of the Universe. Currently aged at 13.7 billion years, within 1 billion years of its creation, the early galaxies had already formed,with many stars with Earth-like planets orbiting them. The latest research is now indicating that Earth-like planets, floating in a Goldilocks zone where water can exist in its liquid state, probably litter all galaxies and in a profusion than wasn't believed possible just a few years ago. It is perfectly possible that there are life forms out there that have been in existence, and evolving, not for just 3 billion years like here, but at least twice as long.
Can you imagine what they might have achieved with that sort of head start? Travel between the stars might be elementary for them; indeed, they might be able to manipulate all the laws of nature to their own advantage. In other words, they would be so far ahead of us they would be indistinguishable from what we might call God. If they have lasted that long, they might have found it necessary to relocate, as their home star eventually died and they needed to find another. They might not even need a planet by that stage of their evolution, having no corporeal existence at all, but simply existing as unimaginable whorls of energy. They could certainly travel here, though I'm sure they would have some non-interference policy, like the "Prime Directive" so beloved by Star Fleet.
At present there are restrictions laid down by the laws of physics; we can't go faster than light, we can't travel in time and so on. But that's only at the level we currently understand how the Universe works. But one day, if we can avoid destroying the only home we have in the meantime, these little obstructions may be overcome. Can we make it? I think we can.
What's all this got to do with Star Trek? Just that it helped open my mind, and many others, to the possibilities of the infinite. And let's face it, you can't say that about most TV programmes.
There is another episode in the original (captain Kirk/Mr Spock) series where they encounter a race that can manipulate reality and which Spock pronounces as " as far ahead of humankind as we are above the amoeba".
For us to achieve this level of complexity , how far must our "civilisation" have to go to reach a similar level? A million years? A billion? Is it even conceivable we could last that long, given our precarious state currently? It's an open question. But let us look at the age of the Universe. Currently aged at 13.7 billion years, within 1 billion years of its creation, the early galaxies had already formed,with many stars with Earth-like planets orbiting them. The latest research is now indicating that Earth-like planets, floating in a Goldilocks zone where water can exist in its liquid state, probably litter all galaxies and in a profusion than wasn't believed possible just a few years ago. It is perfectly possible that there are life forms out there that have been in existence, and evolving, not for just 3 billion years like here, but at least twice as long.
Can you imagine what they might have achieved with that sort of head start? Travel between the stars might be elementary for them; indeed, they might be able to manipulate all the laws of nature to their own advantage. In other words, they would be so far ahead of us they would be indistinguishable from what we might call God. If they have lasted that long, they might have found it necessary to relocate, as their home star eventually died and they needed to find another. They might not even need a planet by that stage of their evolution, having no corporeal existence at all, but simply existing as unimaginable whorls of energy. They could certainly travel here, though I'm sure they would have some non-interference policy, like the "Prime Directive" so beloved by Star Fleet.
At present there are restrictions laid down by the laws of physics; we can't go faster than light, we can't travel in time and so on. But that's only at the level we currently understand how the Universe works. But one day, if we can avoid destroying the only home we have in the meantime, these little obstructions may be overcome. Can we make it? I think we can.
What's all this got to do with Star Trek? Just that it helped open my mind, and many others, to the possibilities of the infinite. And let's face it, you can't say that about most TV programmes.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Growth is good, or so we're told
There are certain givens out there, universal truths if you like, which seem to be accepted without debate: "Terrorism is bad" is an excellent example, but perhaps an even better one is the belief that "Growth is good". It must be, surely, after all if there isn't any, then we're in a recession and that's bad, right? But the idea of the whole world "growing" is untenable. The Earth is only so large and has a finite amount of resources, so we can't all keep growing. If one section of the world grows, it usually means another part of it pays for it.
Even at home the "growth is good" idea is about to cause some big problems for all of us. David Cameron recently announced that, in the furtherance of growth, the government is to relax planning laws to enable development to proceed untrammelled by awkward little considerations like the environment or the views of local people who might be affected by said development. What lies ahead is not a pretty prospect. How long is it before all the green space, excepting perhaps the mountainous areas that are too expensive to bother developing, are carpeted by industrial parks, out-of-town hypermarket complexes or golf courses?
This is the way out of the recession apparently. Growth is the altar at which we shall sacrifice everything that is important to our national well being. Sure some people will get a lot richer, mainly those who are already wealthy, but never mind. As long as the economy grows, we're all right, right? Actually no. The world needs to husband its resources with great care lest we destroy our own habitat. Animals in the wild do not shit in their own lairs, but that's exactly what the human race does when it worships the false god of growth.
Even at home the "growth is good" idea is about to cause some big problems for all of us. David Cameron recently announced that, in the furtherance of growth, the government is to relax planning laws to enable development to proceed untrammelled by awkward little considerations like the environment or the views of local people who might be affected by said development. What lies ahead is not a pretty prospect. How long is it before all the green space, excepting perhaps the mountainous areas that are too expensive to bother developing, are carpeted by industrial parks, out-of-town hypermarket complexes or golf courses?
This is the way out of the recession apparently. Growth is the altar at which we shall sacrifice everything that is important to our national well being. Sure some people will get a lot richer, mainly those who are already wealthy, but never mind. As long as the economy grows, we're all right, right? Actually no. The world needs to husband its resources with great care lest we destroy our own habitat. Animals in the wild do not shit in their own lairs, but that's exactly what the human race does when it worships the false god of growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)