New camcorder: review

This is the review I have written for Amazon about the new little camcorder I bought for my daughter to use.

***

I already have three camcorders of different ages, as well as a video recording function on my SE P990i, and I should like to buy an HD camcorder: I am not a novice.

The Busbi Video Plus Camcorder is a kind of 'Amstrad' camcorder - unadorned with bells and whistles, but extremely easy to use, and represents good value for money. It feels like using a cellphone to record video, but the resulting images are far superior. The control buttons are completely intuitive: we have not yet opened the instruction manual. My wife and my daughter's care worker have also been using the camcorder to make short videos without instruction.

The picture quality is fine and stable, although the picture becomes grainy in poor light. The colours are good. The 2x zoom is useful for framing, although being digital not optical results in some loss of image quality. The sound recording from the internal microphone is impressive.

Linking the camcorder's bundled short USB cable to a digital photoframe, we were able to watch our video clips with ease. Connecting the camcorder's bundled video cable to the television was equally straightforward and satisfactory.

I used the camcorder's USB port and the camcorder's own (presumably flash-loaded) excellent software to download the 11 video clips we have made: amazingly straightforward. The camcorder creates .AVI files, at about 20 MB / minute when set on HQ (high quality). I bought a 2GB flash memory card to support the camcorder's onboard 500 MB. The one clunkiness is that video clips are not automatically saved onto the flash card. Just to complete the process, I intend this weekend to edit and upload onto my YouTube channel a short movie based on some of the clips.

Reservations:
1) There is no lens cover.
2) The monitor screen swivels only around one axis - for example, to record oneself, and not around two axes - useful, for example when filming over the heads of people, or when shooting from close to the floor.

Uncertainties:
1) How long will the batteries last? I shall be happy if they can do a day's tourist filming.
2) How long will the camcorder continue to function? I shall be happy provided it lasts a full 12 months.
3) How robust is the camcorder? After all, most of us have dropped a cellphone at least once

For the time being, we are very happy with the Busbi Video Plus Camcorder. Should things start to go wrong, I shall write another posting to set the record straight. I award it five stars not because it boasts a high specification, but because it is highly functional, easy to use, and at GBP70 (now reduced to GBP65) it represents very good value for money.

Having visited Auschwitz-Birkenau

One of my sisters recently visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have never had the courage to visit that grim place, and I respect her for doing so. In response to her visit she found herself asking versions of the primary questions listed below that she was kind enough to e-mail me. I have added some searching, self-reflective supplementary questions because that is my nature. It is not my intention to remove anything from her experience by developing her material in this way. Rather, my purpose is to engage with her material in ways that are relevant to my process. As recorded elsewhere, I am currently active in considering a new non-religious ethical framework for society. It is in this context that my supplementary questions can best be read.

Q1. What is the character of someone who believes that other people are a sub-species and unworthy of life? Are there occasions when I treat someone, or some group of people, with less than the full respect that belongs to humanity?

Q2. What possible ethical framework could permit medical doctors to perform "experiments" on living people, and subsequently kill those people with phenol injections? In what ways do I behave unethically towards people, even if those people live in a different continent? I buy electronic goods that I suspect were manufactured in Chinese sweat-shops; I buy food staples that may have been grown and harvested by poor and oppressed people working the farms and estates of trans-national corporations.

Q3. What did the recipients of second-hand clothes / false limbs/ glasses / suitcases / etc., believe about their provenance? Do I always enquire about the provenance of the clothes I wear and the food I eat?

Q4. How could anyone feel okay about making cloth from the hair, and lampshades from the skin, of people for whom they have contempt, and what kind of person would want to possess objects made from those materials? What will people of the future think about the choices I have been making during my life?

Q5. Why did the Nazi machine go to the lengths of transporting Jewish people from places as far away as Greece and Portugal (taking up to 10 days in freight trains) to Birkenau, only then to murder them?

Q6. How did the tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of people who were involved at some level in the premeditated murder of Jewish, Roma, gay and disabled people across Europe, subsequently reconcile themselves with the wickedness in which they had participated, or at least with which they had colluded? How do I reconcile myself with knowledge of the hurt and pain I have caused people during my life?

Q7. Why didn't the Hungarian 'underground resistance' disseminate the news from escapees about what was happening in Birkenau, and thus prevent half a million Jewish people from being transported there in 1944? How guilty am I for allowing people to believe what I have known not to be true.

Q8. To what extent did the UK and US governments keep quiet about Auschwitz-Birkenau? Why do I stand by without complaint and permit the UK government to deport from the UK refugees from strife-torn parts of the world?

Q9. Are the Italian authorities currently dehumanising the Roma people, and thereby moving in the same direction as the Nazis? Is my conscience as squeaky clean as I should like people to believe?

Q10. By what signs could I recognise that the people around me have gone a step too far? Would I be prepared to recognise that a line had been crossed? What would I do about it were I to see it happening?

***

The following poem is widely attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

Original

Translation

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist. Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat. Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter. Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude. Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

***

In 2003, American punk rock band NoFX paraphased the poem in the song "Re-gaining Unconsciousness" on the album War on Errorism

First they put away the dealers,

keep our kids safe and off the street.

Then they put away the prostitutes,

keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,

then they beat and bashed the queers,

turned away asylum-seekers,

fed us suspicions and fears.

We didn't raise our voice,

we didn't make a fuss.

It's funny there was no one left to notice

when they came for us.

***

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." (frequently misattributed to Edmund Burke.)

***

14:50 Wednesday 16 July 2008, Cafe, Murray Library, Sunderland

My sister visited Auschwitz-Birkenau last weekend. I am filled with tears simply imagining the experience. I wish never to visit the place which is as close to hell as I ever need to hear about. Besides, my credentials go a long way to excusing me the ordeal. As a lifelong pacifist, a Quaker for 25 years and a vegan for nearly 15 years, it would be difficult to mistake where I stand on issues relating to the wickednesses perpetrated in that evil place. On most of the occasions when I have visited Amsterdam I have been in the Anne Frank House, which I have also browsed online. I have visited the holocaust memorials in both Paris (several times) and in Berlin (where I should also like to visit the new memorial to the gay people who were murdered by the Nazi regime). Also in Berlin I have twice visited the harrowing Topography of Terror exhibition next to the Martin Gropius House. In both Sunderland (Crowtree Centre) and Newcastle (a gallery off Pilgrim Street) I have attended holocaust exhibitions. I have not only attended the anti-apartheid demonstration outside the South African Embassy in London when white-skinned people ruled South Africa, but I have also picketed Barclays Bank in Durham for its collusion with the apartheid regime. Perhaps more controversially, I make a point of reading the website of the far right British National Party in order to understand their poison. I have attended anti-racist training workshops, although I have never led any. However, I have led gay-awareness and mental health awareness workshops. My daughter has multiple disabilities, and as one response, I use British Sign Language. During the first five years of my life I was brought up in close proximity to a Jewish family (Marion and David Bernard and their three children) in north-west London. As a counsellor I have examined in detailed, and hold up for ongoing examination, my opinions, attitudes and thoughts. As a Quaker, my beliefs are subject to perpetual examination. Superficially, then, my credentials appear kosher. However, I have written almost nothing about any of this in a way that positions me in relation to other people - I rarely stand up to be counted. I am, in fact, indistinguishable from the narrator or Niemöller's poem. Neither do I do much that makes a practical, positive difference. It is not sufficient that I have a preference for the light of truth and love, and that I reject the darkness of ignorance, fear and hatred. I have lost sight of the fact that it is my duty to be creating light, and my responsibility to be shining as a beacon against the darkness of falsehood and hypocrisy. Compared to the bleak days of the 1930s and 1940s, I live in blessed times. Compared to the darkness that enshrouds the populations of Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea, the UK is "summertime, and the living is easy" ... but I have, for too long, chosen to sit on my hands. My comfortably-won credentials do not, in fact, excuse me from visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau. The first question for me to ask now is whether I am able to stir myself into action before making that grim pilgrimage.

An existential morality

From the material below I shall create a new weblog posting.

To the extent of my privilege I am existentially obliged to live not only true to my nature and values, but also to improve the world. Why? Because my existence exacts a significant price on the world. Unless I mitigate my existence, I shall leave the world a worse place.

I do not believe that I am privileged to be alive: I had no choice in the decision (or 'mistake') that brought me into existence; I choose not to end my life just yet. I am privileged in that I live in the 21st century AD not BC; that I live in the UK where I have many freedoms, including that of speech, and not in Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe or Colombia; that I live in the economically-developed western world, not in the economically developing world; that I have climbed out of an economically-impoverished and socially-marginalised community in Brent into a professional, intellectual, middle-class life-style. I have no doubt that I am privileged, as are many other people. My privilege gives me power that I can choose to use as I wish. A person with less privilege may have little if any power at their disposal.

My existentialism demands that I live my life true to my own nature. I believe that many people internalise values that are not their own, fail to examine those internalised values, and live their lives at variance from their true nature.

Rights belong to formal or informal legislative frameworks. There is nothing inherent about human rights, consumer rights or birthrights. God-given rights are only for those who believe in a god, which I do not. I claim no rights, although the law of the state and the framework of the community and society in which I live grant me rights. I am granted the right to life until that right is withdrawn (for example, were I to be found guilty of a capital offence).

One of my values is respect for life. I live this in that I am a full pacifist, I oppose capital punishment around the world, and I am a strict vegan. I also respect a person's desire to die.

I recognise that my continued existence is costly. The world is a worse place for my continued existence: my carbon footprint being a topical example; I consume resources such as copper in the cables that power this computer; people feed me by sowing, reaping and processing soya beans; my GP prescribes me blood pressure medication; my daughter is taught at school. Being a westerner, I consume much more than the average person. Being a westerner, and therefore have privilege, I command more power than a refugee in Africa or south-east Asia. Whether I like it or not, the west rests on the bounty of the Earth and on the backs of the world's poor. I feel obligated to mitigate those burdens in the ways that are in my power and that I choose.

Some thoughts about a non-religious ethical framework

This post is in the process of being moved to its own website:

http://www.newethicalframework.googlepages.com/home


Some thoughts about a non-religious ethical framework

Introduction

It is my fantasy that in times long past, when life for most people was uneducated, tough and frighteningly easy to lose, the various Christian churches played an important role in developing an ‘ethical framework’ that has led to what is currently the aging ‘ethical scaffolding’ of UK and western society. However, despite their former value to society, the role of churches passed its sell-by date at least a century or two ago. Our world is not the simple, fixed world of Genesis, although there are many in different churches who would have it otherwise. Our complex world is the creation of Copernicus, Galileo, da Vinci, Newton, Lavoisier, Priestley, Lyall, Hume, Watt, Stephenson, Armstrong, Darwin, Curie, Rutherford, Einstein, Marconi, Freud, Crick, Watson, Pauling, Sagan, Hawking, Berners-Lee, Gates and ten thousand others.

The vacuum left by the departure of the churches from the centre ground of social existence has long now been occupied by a consumerist materialism (including the use of legal and illegal stimulants), the consumption of passive and voyeuristic entertainment (Hello-style journalism and television), and an obsession with glamour and celebrity (including royalty), sport and get-rich-quick competition. I believe that the ethical values to which these concerns point serve well the organisations that profit from them, and serve poorly the needs of ordinary people to negotiate the hurdles, perils and disappointments of life, and to live satisfying and fulfilling lives.

It is also possible to hear much criticism of some churches for providing too little public steer on issues of the day, and yet encounter other churches (e.g. fundamentalist Right and the conservative Amish in the US; Jehovah's Witnesses in the UK), and religious sects (e.g. the Taleban in Afghanistan; radical Madrassas in Pakistan) that insist on such a rigid steer that individual people are granted little freedom, and non-followers may be at risk (e.g. attacks on doctors who run abortion clinics in the US; Islamic terrorism). A new ethical framework would encourage searching for information and understanding when considering contemporary issues, would prize compassion, and would provide the principles for addressing the issues.

Although a non-religious ethical framework would in time replace past religious ethical structures, it would also build on many aspects of their insights, ideas and philosophy. For example, the Mosaic 'commandments' and the Christian 'beatitudes', although expressed in a manner unattractive to many people, address a wealth of important ideas such as respect for self, for family members, for community, for people who are disempowered or powerless, for strangers. Lifting rocks that now overlie the variously-identified virtues and vices (for example, the 'seven deadly sins' and their complementary virtues), long-mocked because of the sham and hypocritical authority to which people were made accountable, reveals a treasure trove of personal values. Buddhism is built on an impressive foundation of ideas and values. However, this is not to suggest that a non-religious ethical framework would be merely an eclectic hotch-potch of recycled ideas. It is important that the framework would be underpinned both by a deep existential philosophy, and some congruent theoretical principles.

Sin

Within a new ethical framework there would be only a weak concept of sin. Instead there would be both the recognition that most people most of the time are doing what they think best. If they are acting in ways that others consider to be wrong, there is likely to be a reason for it. However, the person who is acting in a manner than meets with the opprobrium of others may be acting out of a lack of compassion for other people. One of the central tenets of a new ethical framework would be the explicit balancing of looking after self with compassion for other people: neither total selfishness nor total selflessness are sufficient. Therefore the concept of sin would be largely relegated to a need for a rebalancing. Similarly, a new ethical framework would avoid generating a sense of guilt. Not only would there be no concept of original sin, but the entire framework would try to avoid opportunities for feelings of guilt. A new ethical framework would be tolerant of personal weakness (e.g. transgression and superstition).

Law

A new ethical framework for society would not replace legislation. This is important for several reasons. First, legislation is usually about requirements and prohibitions, whereas a new ethical framework would attempt to be empowering. Second, legislation is mostly made at the national, regional and local levels, often reflecting the will of the people, whereas a new ethical framework would attempt to be universal. Third, most legislation is about protecting other people (recognising that to eveyone else, I am also 'other people'), whereas a new ethical framework would focus on self , and would almost certainly propose much higher standards of conduct than is usually required under legislation. It might be hoped that a new ethical framework would, in time, influence legislation.

Texts

A new ethical framework would not be a code, or rule, by which to live. It is important that the spirit of the framework, not the words used to describe it, is what is prized. Therefore, there would not be one text alone that defined the ethical framework. Indeed, in a general sense, every text ever written, every image ever created, every movie ever made, would contribute to the understanding of the framework. For example, the written works of Adolf Hitler show us something about what can go so badly wrong, how people can so easily be scapegoated, and how easy it can be to slip into that way of being. The 'Godfather' movies may show us that a thoroughly despicable ordering of society offers attractions that may beguile. However, much more specifically there would need to be some comprehensive texts that outlined, explained and described the framework. Like some temples and shrines in Japan, and like many dictionaries, these texts would be extended, revised and updated with regularity and frequency. These texts would be publicly available online. There may need to be simple texts for people with little education, whether young or not, texts aimed at educated adults, and texts for more academic people, as well as co-ordination between the texts. There would also need to be a vast, annotated 'reading' list pointing people to existing works that could help to explore specific issues. Included in this list would be the religious texts of the major religions the world over: the Tao Teh Ching, the Baghavad Gita, the Bible, the Koran, the later Sikh Gurus, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and so on. Each annotation would caution against revering individuals in such a way as to sanctify, or worse, deify, them.

Values

I should like to contribute to the development of a new, positive, dynamic, responsive ethical framework, wrested from the clutches of institutions such as the church, state and corporate capitalism. This new ethical framework would be based on the altruistic values of charities, the internationalism of NGOs, the work values of trusts and co-operatives, the environmental values of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the relationship values of person-centred counselling, the social awareness values of minority cohesion groups, the justice values of community action groups, the self-improvement values of the WEA and the Open University, spiced with a celebration of craft and artistic endeavours of all kinds.

Putting together the above, how is it to be presented? The written and oral traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, condensed into rigid canons, have become weapons with which to defend and attack. That is a bad model. Deification of a person or a cabal is an even worse idea. The new ethical framework would need to be flexible enough to be expanded/contracted and changed to respond adequately to circumstances. It would be in the hands of many, and not merely an elite, but neither would it be merely populist (no 'beauty-contest' cell-phone voting).

Some words describing the ethos of the ethical framework

Harmony, resonance, spiritual, inspiration, aspiration

Compassion, love, truth, authenticity

Diversity, heterogeneity, pluralism

Path, way, journey

An ethical framework for the everyday and for seeking deeper meaning

One of the faults of much organised religion is that it attributes greater significance to people who are able to engage more fully in religious activities and who are able to run the organisation: popes and bishops, imams and rabbis, priests and monks. A new ethical framework would not focus on the individual but on processes. A person might involve themselves for much of the time at an everyday level of ethical awareness, for example taking decisions informed by their ethical principles. That same individual might spend some time seeking after deeper meaning. On other occasions that some person might lead others in their exploration. Although many religious clergy might claim that they are no more special than any member of their congregation, that is not how most people view them. The new ethical framework, in focusing on processes, would refuse role titles, and would only describe processes. These processes would include:

everyday functioning

seeking truth / meaning

leading others in their search for truth / meaning

Person and self

A deep respect for self would be good, so that self-aggrandisement at the expense of other becomes no longer necessary. Self-development would become a permanent aspiration, and counselling would be seen as a valuable activity in which to participate. The material, emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs (Maslow) of each person would be elevated. Without safety, food and a place to live, a person has little opportunity to achieve their full potential.

Relationship to others

To replace the sneering, contemptuous, cynical, exploitative attitude that appears to pervade public discourse worldwide, a new ethical framework would focus on one's relationships with family, community and society, alongside a deep respect for people. Courtesy and politness, as found in Japan, would be prized. Fundamentally permissive, a new ethical framework would prize social diversity, and would consider social conformity to be unnecessary and often unhelpful. Nationalism in any form would not be encouraged at the everyday level of processing, and at other levels of processing would be discouraged.

A respect that acknowledges their experience, their story, their aspirations, their reality. The Kantian ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and justice would serve well, providing a framework for looking after family, neighbour, community, society, the world community and the natural environment. Attitudes of self-respect, humility and giving dignity could replace the Pop Idol -type aspirations that has come to infect the 21st century West.

Relationship with the natural environment

There would also be a deep respect for the natural world, including land, sea and air, animals and plants. To pollute would be as though to soil one's own home. To treat living things callously would be as though to treat one's parents, siblings and children with contempt.

Spiritual dimension

Esteemed places are already reserved for wonder, awe and mystery. Superstition, however, will play no part in this new, humanist ethic, neither pagan astrology nor theistic beliefs. Souls, an after-life and reincarnation will be acknowledged as concepts that distract and make truth more elusive. From dust my body was formed, and to dust it will return. From oblivion I was created, nurtured into awareness, until I am annihilated. De facto, I live the interval between oblivion and annihilation in a spirit shaped by interaction. Like piano strings resonating to sounds in the environment, my spirit resonates with the spirits of others, and maybe in turn causes the spirits of yet others to resonate. Spirit may live on, through dance, images, music, words, and for a short while in memory. However, at death my life is over: there is no longer an 'I', no 'me', no awareness. No place for the concept of an immortal soul.

Nor is there any requirement for a god. The concept of a deity is unhelpful as it turns away from the spirit. Therefore there would be no need for mediators of religion in the form of priests, bishops or popes. However, a new ethical framework would be permissive, for whilst not requiring theistic and other religious beliefs, neither would it exclude the believer. A new ethical framework would also permit a personal morality to sit within the framework.

Creativity bubble

I have been experimenting using Bubbl.us. It is an online mind mapping program, currently free of charge. I find it intuitively easy to use. It allows printing, import and export, pasting onto web pages and weblogs (see below), and aspects of the appearance are customisable. I have created four bubbles to date, including the bubble reproduced below. Looking at the embedding coding, the program uses Shockwave, so if you cannot see the bubble sheet below, it might be because the computer on which the bubble is being viewed does not have Shockwave loaded.

I have been using Bubbl.us with the Firefox browser, and have found that the program keeps eating RAM without releasing any (I tracked memory usage using Windows Task Manager). This has resulted in my laptop running so slowly as to require exiting Firefox after a while. I do not know whether this glitch belongs to Firefox or to Bubbl.us. (Later: I am convincing myself that the problem is Firefox-related.)

Whilst I appreciate many art-forms such as painting, sculpture, photography, movies, theatre, opera, ballet and dance, I am not a creatively artistic person, as I cannot draw, paint, sculpt, act or dance. I do not consider myself to be especially creative, although I enjoy being creative.

I used Bubbl.us to create the following bubble about my creativity. The image is live, and using the controls in the top left hand corner, can be scaled and re-centred. Also, by holding down the left-mouse button while the cursor is over the image, it is possible to move the sheet around.

How vegan is vegan?

These thoughts have been coalescing in my mind for the past year or two. One of the reasons that I have not until now committed fingertips to keyboard keys is that the ideas seem to me to be somewhat obsessive. However, a recent unpleasant experience of what should have been an unremarkable meal, albeit kindly prepared and served with enthusiasm and goodwill, resulted in a bad stomach for several weeks. I was hurt because someone got some things badly wrong. My way of coping has been to commit my obsessions to print.

When I first encountered the term 'vegan' early in 1981, I assumed that most people already knew what the term meant. However, having travelled widely throughout western Europe; around Florida, to DC, Manhattan, Boston and Chicago; around Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and BC; and to Tokyo, Kyoto and Nara, I have come to accept that, the world over, the term 'vegan', even in locations where it is known at all, is unfamiliar to the overwhelming majority of people. Moreover, not all people who have encountered the term understand its meaning. Further, few people who are familiar with the term understand it other than as a broad concept.

There are probably many reasons why the term 'vegan', and its equivalents in other languages (vegetalien, veganisch) is barely known, although the broad concept is simple and has a religious pedigree stretching back millennia. Probably the most important reason why the term is neither known nor understood is that few people consciously adopt a vegan diet. However, an other reason for this lack of understanding is variation in the use of the word, both by people who are not vegan, and by people who are vegan. My particular variation is that, confronted with the unarticulated uncertainty of shop, restaurant or hotel staff, I typically qualify what I write or say about myself: that I am 'strictly vegan'. Although relative to the weak understanding of most people the qualification 'strictly' it ought to be a tautology, my intention is to imply a tighter set of standards than merely 'vegan'. One of my friends who is vegan conforms to looser vegan standards than me.

There is also variation in the way food and medication manufacturers use the term 'vegan'. For example, are all food manufacturers certain that the sugar that they add to sweeten a confection or a bottled sauce that is labelled 'suitable for vegans' has been refined without the use of animal-derived charcoal? In contrast, some food manufacturers avoid using the term 'vegan' in circumstances about which some or many vegans might otherwise be comfortable, which can be almost as unhelpful. Examples of the latter include the brewery Bateman's not labelling a bottled beer as suitable for vegans because of the animal-derivation of the glue on the bottle label (I am with Bateman's on that); and one of the vegan paté manufacturers not labelling their paté as suitable for vegans because of being required by the Health & Safety Executive to use rat poison around their factory (whilst I use humane mouse traps at home, I am less clear that an entire food-production environment needs to be vegan - but then I would say that, as I live with two people who are vegetarian).

A second complicating factor is that people get distracted by other issues that use terms such as 'vegetarian', 'organic' and 'cruelty-free'. In the UK, almost any food product that is labelled 'vegan' or 'suitable for vegans' is also labelled 'vegetarian' or 'suitable for vegetarians'. The logical, if incorrect, implication of this dual labeling is that a product that is vegan might not be vegetarian. However, my assumption is that food manufacturers believe that few people who are merely vegetarian are sufficiently well informed about a vegan diet / lifestyle to be confident that a food labelled as vegan necessarily means that the food is vegetarian.

UK Government discussions a few years ago with representatives from across the food and hospitality industries revealed alarming variation in use of the term 'vegetarian'. Whilst those discussions concluded that the term 'vegan' is more tightly defined than the term 'vegetarian', the implied definition of 'vegan' is much weaker (less strict) than my own use expectations of the term.

In response, I have, on many occasions, considered creating a vegan scale, ranging, say from 1 to 10, with clear definitions regarding each point on the scale, 1 being a minimum set of standards, and 10 being much tighter. (Sophistications of this scale might also include 0 for (lacto-ovo) vegetarian and minus numbers for animal-eating.) Two important difficulties presented themselves. First, that whilst there is sense in the idea of something being more vegan or less vegan, there are different ways in which something can be more vegan or less vegan - the issue is not simply linear, but multi-dimensional. Second, inviting widespread adoption of a numbered (or letter-coded) scale, particularly amongst sceptical groups such as food manufacturers, food retailers and the hospitality industry, could be like trying to invite unyeasted bread to rise.

Instead, I have collated a set of fairly transparent terms that can be used with relative ease by vegan people and non-vegan people alike.

Non-vegan terms
Cannibal: a person who eats parts of other people.
Carnivore: a person who eats animal, particularly mammal, flesh; an animal that eats other animals.
Omnivore: a person who eats anything, including animal flesh; an animal that eats vegetation and other animals such as insects, birds' eggs, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, small mammals, carrion.
Pescatarian: a person who eats a variety of foods, is unlikely to be concerned about consuming animal-flesh-derivatives, but the principal animal flesh consumed is from fish / shell-fish.
Meat-free: food that does not contain animal flesh, but might contain animal-flesh derivatives
Vegetarian / suitable for vegetarians: food unlikely to be based on animal flesh, although the variation in what is excluded is alarmingly wide - some restaurateurs include animal flesh from fish / shell-fish, and it is a commonplace in some countries to consider stock made from animal flesh to be acceptable.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian: a person who eats a variety of foods, including birds' eggs and mammary-gland fluids, but excluding animal flesh. Lacto-ovo vegetarians may or may not be concerned about the presence of animal-flesh derivatives in their food.
Lacto-vegetarian (Indian vegetarian): eats a variety of foods, including mammary-gland fluids, but excluding animal flesh and bird's eggs. Lacto-vegetarians may or may not be concerned about the presence of animal-flesh derivatives in their food.

Sub-vegan terms
Animal-free
Pure vegetarian: although British Airways use this term in preference to vegan (I do not know why), I understand that in India the term can include the use of dairy products

Vegan terms
I propose the abandonment of the term vegan to refer to a person. Instead, the term should be used as an adjective, like the term Kosher. To emphasise this point, I propose the adoption of a new general designation: vegan standard. This could be abbreviated to VS.
Vegan standard ingredients: the (main) ingredients are not animals-derived (this is not watertight because, whereas in the UK neither honey nor casein, both being animal-derived, are widely considered not to be vegan, in the US the situation is not as resolved).
Vegan standard additives and processing: nothing that has gone into the production of the food or meal is animal-derived, and every aspect has been checked (for example, if the food has been sweetened with sugar then the sugar is certified as vegan; this term does address the issue of UK beer being fined with fish guts).
Vegan standard handling: care has been taken to eliminate cross-contamination with non-vegan and sub-vegan food (for example, vegan food that is stored, prepared and served in a separate place, using separate utensils and crockery (analogous to the definition of Kosher; in factories, vegan food is never processed on lines that may also be used for non-vegan food).
Vegan standard environment: no aspect of the food production or preparation could be compromised (which is why, when I have a meal out, I prefer to eat in a vegan restaurant). In this context, the term 'cruelty-free' is important regarding medications, cosmetics and hygiene products (such as soap, toothpaste and washing powder)

This posting is not finished. Once I have completed it, I intend to move it to my website, as I should welcome some serious debate (particularly from vegans) on the issues.

Kaos (2): response and review

Superb. A masterpiece. A masterclass in arthouse movie making.

(There is so much to write that it will take me weeks to construct this weblog posting.)

Kaos is the name the Taviani brothers gave to this movie homage to the writings of Luigi Pirandello, partly because a corruption of the word is the name of the place where Pirandello was born, partly because chaos is what Pirandello feared: the void, the abyss, nothingness, desolation. The movie exudes nothingness in which the characters and actions exist. The nothingness is as tangible as the stones in the barren fields, and the rock on which the houses precariously perch. The roaring silence and blank canvas give a perspective that is almost intolerable in the twenty-first century. People are leaving for the United States every week because of the grinding poverty and the emptyness.

The movie is made up of several short stories, linked by landscape and culture. Reading some of Pirandello's short stories, it is easy to recognise that the Taviani brothers have translated them well from page to screen. The movie starts with a prologue that makes little cognitive sense, but introduces themes important to the movie, such as landscape, human purpose, narrative, the brutality of life, transcendence. The crow of this prologue, a bell round its neck, flies over the landscape between stories, providing a visual and auditory connection between episodes. The movie ends with a Pirandello short story about being called home to talk to his long-dead mother.

Little happens in any of the stories: Kaos is not an action movie. Neither is it a drama, or any other obvious and popular genre. However, tension does find resolution. Kaos reminds me of Tarkovsky's Stalker, and Kurosawa's Rashamon. The style of acting does not belong to Hollywood, it is much more theatrical (like Fiddler on the Roof), which seems fitting as Pirandello is best known as a playwright.

Kaos (1): in anticipation

Kaos, produced and directed by the Taviani brothers, was released onto the theatrical art-house movie circuit in 1984. It was screened at the Tyneside Cinema, Newcastle, UK, in 1985, the single occasion when I watched the movie. It left such a deep and lasting impression that I have been searching for a copy of the movie since I bought my television and VCR in 1992. Over the years I have come across several copies of the VHS video for sale, but they have been in US television format (why does the US have to set every standard differently from the rest of the world? - for another posting) and extremely expensive. Being dogged, I have persisted in checking every few months (since about 1995) to discover whether any movie distribution companies had released Kaos for the British / European market, initially on VHS and more recently on DVD. Cliche warning: imagine my surprise a couple of weeks ago when a soon-to-be-released DVD suddenly appeared on the lists of several DVD suppliers. I was so taken aback that I wondered whether it was a scam. My copy was sent from White Rock, Arkansas, US. Excited to receive it as a child with a new toy, I shall watch it this evening.

In telling my story to people I know, few seem as surprised as I am not that the movie should be released on DVD, but that in the face of steadfast evidence to the contrary, I should continue to stand sentinel for the release of this movie on DVD. Thirteen years is a long time to wait. Only a few people know that I waited a long time for Godfrey Regio's Koyaanisqatsi trilogy to be released on DVD. Even fewer know that I am still waiting for Steppenwolf (based on the novel by Hermann Hesse) and Le Grandes Meulnes (based on the novel by Alain Fournier) to be released on DVD. In telling my story, I am saying something important about who I am.

Instead, what almost everyone I have told has focused on is how I shall react watching a movie for only the second time in 23 years, and in particular a movie I have built up in my mind as being so special that it was worth checking the listings of newly-released videos every few months. In part, I have felt mildly irritated that the focus of my story, about dogged, optimistic persistence, has been dismissed and replaced with a focus on whether the movie will live up to my expectations. In part, I have felt disappointed that the people who I have told (all British) assume that I may feel disappointed with the movie. I have also felt a little sad that no-one much has expressed any interest in watching the movie - I know only one or two people who come anywhere near matching my movie taste.

What will it be like? There are scenes and aspects from the movie that I recall vividly: bandits playing boules with the severed heads of their victims; a man howling at moon as he believes he is transformed into a werewolf; an urn-mender who realises that he is trapped in the urn he has just mended; the absence of someone who has recently died. The movie works at a visceral level that I would term expressionist. The issues addressed are profound and concern existence, and I would term this existentialist. The movies that I know which address such issues belong to such directors as Andrei Tarkovsky, Akira Kurosawa, Ingmar Bergman and Peter Greenaway.

What will it be like? I shall watch the movie with a more experienced eye, mind and heart than before. Half my life has passed since I first watched the movie. I have changed in many ways, and expect that the movie, as though a mirror, will reflect an image of my young adult self. Will the middle-aged adult I have become respond to and appreciate the movie as fully as the young adult I was? Who knows? I shall have to find out, and accept what I experience.

What will it be like? I have written elsewhere about having an interest only in those movies that are worth watching at least several times. I trust that Kaos is a movie so rich in difficult ideas that I shall watch it many times. I already know that its initial heady flavours of wormwood and jasmine, citrus and woodsmoke, give way to a complex aftertaste that lingers for decades. I am looking forward to seeing masters of cinema at work.

That's another fine weblog you've got me into

A new weblog, Kind Vices, has been set up for me and my colleagues at work. Its address is:

http://myblogs.sunderland.ac.uk/blogs/kindvices/

Who knows what opportunities it will offer. I hope that my colleagues will be willing to use it, not least because I do not have experience of a team weblog (Sound Signs is for my family)

My first posting there, as usual, is about weblogs. This seems to have become a standard way for me to begin. ("I shall begin at the beginning" said Alice.) I am aware of how much I have come to understand since I first began weblogging: one of my initial purposes. I also enjoy the way in which I weblog.

Antibiotic resistance: culprit identified

A news story supplied by Reuters at:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47795/story.htm

highlights the danger to human health perpetrated by the dairy industry.

In a nutshell, the antibiotics that are fed to cows remain active in bovine manure. Germs and microbes in the soil become resistant to the antibiotics. As a result, the current array of antibiotics becomes progressively less effective. In the United States, during 2005, 19,000 people died of MRSA. In the UK, MRSA has been instrumental in testing to breaking point the effectiveness of the National Health Service and the credibility of the government.

Were the dairy industry to be wound down, the rate at which antibiotic-resistant germs evolve will slow down.

Geology versus new creationism

I recently received the following e-mail. The e-mail was unsolicited, from someone who does not know me and about whom I know nothing. No explanation was offered as to the reason why the e-mail was being sent to me, nor what prompted its dispatch.

***

Hello,

I wish to inform you that the so-called "biblical calculations" of the age of the Earth at 6009 years old is grossly inaccurate and compiled by dubious scholars. The bible's literal time frame allows perfectly for a very old world.

Very few people realize that the creation of the cosmos and the reordering of the world in seven days are two different events. Genesis 1:2 should actually be translated "the earth became formless and void," not "the earth was formless and void." The author of Genesis did not have all the different states of being in the past tense that we do today. English has evolved such that we have "was," "had been," "were being," "became," "had become," "were becoming." Moses (assuming his was the author) used the same word, sometimes rendered "was", sometimes rendered "became."

The creation of the world is Genesis 1:1. It was written very tersely and briefly; Moses, insprired by God, felt no need to get into detail about it. There was a fall in this created world, and it descended into chaos in 1:2 (we don't know exactly what caused the fall, but it may indeed have been Lucifer's (Satan's) rebellion against God). The seven days, which many people inproperly refer to as "the Creation," was God's restoration of the world into what we know it as, with plants and animals, periods of the Sun and Moon, humankind etc.

Thus there is an indefinite time specified between the Creation and the restoration of six days. The harmonists that try to argue that God may have created the world to appear old in every way against science to test our faith should stop wasting their time. The need look no further than Genesis 1:1-2 to see that God created the world an unspecified time before the six days of restoration. If today's science says the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, which they have to in order for Darwinian evolution to have had enough time, then that massive amount of time in human terms would be mostly before the 6 days of restoration.

Lastly, this doesn't mean that from restoration onward there have been 6009 years. (By the way, the 6009 years was counted many years ago, so it should be several decades higher now.) This time frame was mostly derived from adding the years of Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Jacob, Jacob to Jesus to attain the years of the ancient world. As recorded by Matthew, often unimportant generations are skipped. He wrote in three sets of 14 generations. However, comparing it to Luke's astonishingly historically accurate gospel, we realize that Matthew indeed skipped generations unimportant to achieve his literary form of 3 times 14 (Luke skipped one or two from Matthew's as well). This is fine, because "son of" actually is considered to be "descendant of," as in Jesus the Son of Adam or Jesus the Son of David. In sum, don't use archeaology's established views of 10000 years of human civilization to disprove the 6000 years in the bible that some oddball scholars decided to enumerate.

Thanks.

***

I can only imagine that the person, whose e-mail address suggested that the author is based in western Canada (a gorgeous part of the world that I look forward to returning to some day), has read some of my weblog postings in which I include minor geological references.

I studied geology for three years at university, and recently read the history of the drawing of the first geological map of Great Britain. I live on the site of a Victorian coal mine. I take an interest in geology wherever I go, including examining the stone facias of buildings, and (much to the resigned boredom of my wife and daughter) watch every geology programme that is broadcast on UK television (including the repeats). I am fascinated with the European, Russian, Japanese and American space programmes, closely following each mission on the internet (and for recreation, using Google Earth, I sometimes locate the International Space Station), because I have an interest in lunar and planetary geology.

The Big Bang occurred 13,700 million years ago, creating the universe and all matter within it. Red shift in the spectra of the most distant objects, and residual microwave cosmic radiation shows us the age of the universe (since the Big Bang). Many galaxies and stars are much younger than the age of the universe. Our solar system, the Sun, its planets and dwarf planets, their moons, the asteroids and comets, were all formed out of stellar dust only 4,600 million years ago. Radioactive decay paths and rates show us (for example the half-life of uranium-238 decaying to thorium-234 is 4,500 million years) that many of the rocks in orbit around the Sun date from the time of formation of the solar system: some of them have landed on Earth and on the Moon as meteorites and can be seen on display in museums.

Planet Earth initially coalesced from the solar cloud of stellar dust and debris 4,540 million years ago. Early in its life, when only 10 million years old, proto-Earth, the planet that became Earth, was struck by another small planet (often called Theia). The result was the Earth we know today, made of the two previous planets, and the separation of Earth and the Moon. The Moon, being significantly smaller, cooled rapidly and lost its geological processes, so the Moon we know today has remained utterly unchanged in most respects for billions of years. Earth, on the other hand, being so larger, cooled more slowly, and thermal processes in the core and mantle keep the surface of the Earth geologically active - witness the Boxing Day tsunami. When I studied geology at university in the 1970s, plate tectonics was still new, and still being discovered and proved. I could have applied to work a stint on one of the ships that was still mapping the mid-Atlantic Ridge (the constructive boundary between the European and North American sides of the Atlantic Ocean).

Also back in the 1970s, it was generally held that life really got going on Earth about 500 million years ago, everything before that being termed Pre-Cambrian. I recall being taken to see the Durness Limestone, a rock formation in northern Scotland where there is evidence of Pre-Cambrian unicelluar organisms. At the time this was interesting, and slightly worrying. However, it is now recognised that unicellular life actually got going about 3,500 million years ago, that is, only a billion years or so after the formation of the solar system, and possibly only half a billion years after the planetary collision that formed the Earth and Moon. It was in fact multi-cellular life that got going 500 million years ago, including, for example, the fascinating trilobites. The animals that are everyone's favourite, the dinosaurs, appeared about 135 million years ago, flourished for 60 million years, and then progressively disappeared until finally vanishing altogether (other than those that evolved into birds) with the Yucatan asteroid 65 million years ago. Whilst mammals existed before the dinosaurs, they did not flourish until the dinosaurs had left the stage.

The primate pre-cursor to humankind diverged from ancestral gorillas about 8 million years ago, and from ancestral chimpanzees, about 5 million years ago. Several different human species evolved, including Neanderthal humans who existed from 350,000 years ago to 30,000 years ago. Over the past 100 thousand years modern humans (like ourselves) and Neanderthal humans coexisted for a while, of which there is recently-discovered evidence in southern Spain / Gibraltar. However, the most recent ice age finished off the Neanderthal humans, leaving us to piece together the story, and sadly to vandalise the Earth.

The astronomical and geological story of the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our home planet, and life, is one of surprising twists and turns, full of wonder and seeming miracle. I find it fascinating and deeply inspiring. What is more, I am not required to suspend my disbelief, nor to believe any person or text, neither am I required to hold articles of faith. The evidence is in the rock, and I can search it out for myself. The proof of the geological history of Earth, and of the development of life, is not in words, in a book, but beneath my feet.

I recognise the poetry of Genesis 1, and resonate with the reverence for Earth and life that it evokes. I wish that many more people shared that reverence. However, there is little value to be gained in attempting to wring scientific precision from the passage, for that would be to mistake Genesis 1 for scientific reality. It would be like wondering whether the toilets on the starship Enterprise are water flush or vacuum and disinfectant: Star Trek is a fine drama but it is not a documentary.

I do not know why the author of the unsolicited e-mail chooses to fret about misunderstandings, mistranslations and misreadings of Genesis 1; and to be insistent that creation happened in more than a single period of six days; and was concerned to let me know. I imagine that they wish to promote a marginally more credible Creation story. As far as I am concerned, the astronomical, geological, palaeontological and archaeological stories that I have come to know are far more awe-inspiring that any text. In this context, what the books of the Pentateuch teaches us is how Iron Age people in the Middle East conceptualised the natural world in which they lived. The value of scriptural texts is not in the realms of science, but as a dialogue about human values and spirituality. Asteroids and granite are unable to speak to me about meaning, mercy or compassion, whereas with the Bible, Koran and the Tao Teh Ching, I am able to have a conversation about how I might live my life, the choices I make, and how I might interact with other people. Ecclesiastes 3 says little of geological value (the reference to gathering and scattering stones relates to home-making and moving on), but says much about accepting the just-is-ness of existence. Job 28 does address geology, and whilst the purpose of the passage is to emphasise the unfathomableness of the wisdom of God, the value of the passage lies in the awe that it inspires for our planet, not because the passage is of scientific value. Genesis 1 belongs in this latter category.

Thoughts about a comment

I received the following e-mail from Blogger:

earnest has left a new comment on your post "The Death Clock is ticking":

your fuckin retarted, death clock .com is not real,

Posted by earnest to Digitation at 26 March, 2008 22:25


I found the comment in response to my posting about the Death Clock (which I have since reread, and found straightforward) unhelpful and unenlightening. Apart from intending to be offensive and insulting, I was and remain puzzled about the purpose of the comment. Why go to the trouble of posting a comment that is neither supportive, nor constructive, nor positional?

I am also unclear how the commenter came to be reading the weblog posting. The time stamp says 22:25, which suggests recreational browsing. (I also note from the time stamp that program writers in the US find it nearly impossible to set out the time and date in a rational fashion. What is wrong with logical, rational, well-punctuated, elegant and unambiguous European time and date format: 22:25 Wednesday 26 March 2008?)

I checked the identity of the person who made the comment, 'earnest', but they have made their profile invisible, a practice discouraged but not forbidden by Blogger. Interesting choice of name: not Ernest, but earnest, and with the e.e.cummings lower case initial 'e'. For someone with that choice of screen name, the comment itself seemed incongruent: my posting about the Death Clock is quite earnest.

The facts that the comment starts with a lower case 'y'; the first three words are misspelled, the name Death Clock or deathclock.com is handled uncomfortably, and the comment ends with a comma, all point to someone whose first language is not English, or else whose English is limited to a vernacular restricted code.

I am perplexed by the idea that the Death Clock "is not real". In context, it is quite complex to identify what is meant by the term "real". Of course, the most obvious answer is that the Death Clock does not possess some kind of supernatural prescience, but as I acknowledge and explore the issue in my posting, that answer makes little sense.

The emotional power packed into the comment suggests extreme contempt. I had two thoughts about this. First, that 'earnest' had seen the Death Clock and been seriously spooked by it. By rejecting my posting about the Death Clock, he was attempting to regain a sense of control. Second, as 'earnest' is obviously a Blogger member, he has read my Profile and disliked what he saw. I am aware from having read material placed by the British National Party (a largely English extreme right-wing, ultra-nationalist political movement) on their own website, that as an educated, liberal, middle-class pluralist, I could be seen as a traitor to white-skinned people, and undoubtedly represent the values they most detest. I am not trying to suggest that 'earnest' is sympathetic to the aims of any particular political movement. Instead, I am suggesting that some people do take offence to who I am, and maybe 'earnest' is one such.

A final, and perhaps the most important, point. I find it hard to understand why so many people use as terms of abuse language relating to learning disability. At the end of 101 Dalmatians, Cruella de Vil calls her henchmen, Jasper and Horace, morons and imbeciles. What makes is acceptable to use these terms, along with the terms 'retard' and 'retarded', as insults. Surely the people to whom they should correctly refer deserve our respect and compassion. For many people with a learning disability life is already hard enough without people stigmatising their disability.

I have no way of knowing whether my musings about 'earnest's' comment approached any truths. However, I have done what I can with the comment. I might write another Death Clock posting, as it is a while since I wrote the first one.

Book Review: The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell

The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell, Abacus, London, 2001
(ppb., 279 pp., 11 pp. endnotes/references, indexed, first published by Little, Brown, 2000)

It is not often that book titles manage to raise themselves out of the dust thrown up by the noise of everyday life: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. The term used by Gladwell in the title to his first book The Tipping Point has now achieved common currency. The relevance to climate change and global warming could lead one to wonder, in all seriousness, whether the concept of the 'tipping point' was itself at a tipping point, ready to tip. For many years we had been either 'on the threshold' (in control) or 'teetering on the brink' (not in control). Tipping points may be less obvious, and inferred only by subsequent analysis. Why did crime in New York City plummet in the 1980s? This is one of the examples Gladwell considers in detail, identifying that a particular set of circumstances were at a sensitive 'tipping point', and a small, highly targetted effort was able to make a massive difference. An example Gladwell does not consider concerns marine clathrates - methane hydrate held in huge volumes in ocean sediments. A small rise in global temperatures currently will do little to these clathrates. However, with global temperatures predicted to rise by four or five degrees over the next forty years, even a miniscule temperature elevation could then release vast quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, setting off a rapid escalation of further, potentially catastrophic, global warming. The ocean temperature at which methane is released from clathrates is a tipping point in terms of climate change.
Most of Gladwell's examples of tipping points are focused around human behaviour. It is easy to see why the same term is used both for physical and social processes. When a transmissible disease starts to spread, the rate of social transmission is likely to change in response to a variety of social factors, such as changes in seasonal behaviour. A viral epidemic, such as seasonal 'flu, may well pass through a tipping point, both on its way up and on its way down. At the time of writing, the much-expected pandemic 'flu epidemic based on the H5N1 bird 'flu virus has not reached a tipping point, although it is understood what that tipping point would be: the point at which the virus mutates to permit efficient human-human transmission. Gladwell considers the fashion industry and how there are tipping points in the sale of particular fashion items. He also considers Paul Revere's ride that led to the American War of Independence, analysing what what made the ride a tipping point.
Gladwell identifies both that the context must be right and that the 'contagion' is contagious, 'sticky'. He also considers that three roles are necessary for a social tipping point: connectors, mavens and salesmen. The designations are supeficially attractive and may contain more than simply a kernel of truth. However, in my view, Gladwell fails to take account of the effectiveness of the vested interests of international commerce and national politics in controlling what we buy, what we watch/read, and what we think. Indeed, his message looks as though it will be attractive to a popular culture that prizes individualism: if you are smart in some way, you can make a difference. Maybe you know lots of people (connectors), maybe you are obsessed with footware or gizmos or supermarket prices (mavens), maybe you can sell beachwear to people living in Greenland (salesmen). I thought time and again: Gladwell knows the culture for which he is writing. A society in which intellect is not fully trusted, but in which people dream of escaping both from the vista of complexity revealed by science, and from the daily tedium of humdrum graft to 'stars in their eyes' silver-bullet breakthroughs.
It is valuable that Gladwell offers plenty of evidence to support his assertions. In popular social science style, the text is made up of one anecdote after another, and includes several well-worked-through examples, albeit largely from the United States. The text is well-supported (11 pages of endnotes and references) with many references to academic books and academic papers, as well as newspaper and magazine articles, albeit largely written by Americans in the United States. This US focus should be surprising as Gladwell was born in the UK and raised in Ontario. The parochialism started to irritate me, not because I hold any anti-American prejudices, but because I started to doubt that his thesis would hold as true for other societies around the world. He does offer a Polynesian example of teenage suicide. However, by this point in the book I had started to become suspicious. How much does Gladwell know about Polynesian society? How much does he understand about suicidal ideation and pyschotherapy? Again, this should be surprising because Gladwell's mother was a Jamaican psychotherapist. Although the precise example of Polynesian teenage suicide may well be valid, I was equally sure that Gladwell was well beyond his home turf.
Academic writing does not make claims beyond those that it can defend. Academic writing considers short-comings, objections and alternative interpretations. Gladwell should be familiar with academic writing because his father, Graham, is emeritus professor of civil engineering at Canada's leading University of Waterloo, Ontario. What is absent from Gladwell's book is anything critical of his thesis, anything that may refute his ideas. At two points (crime reduction in New York City, and the spread of syphilis in Baltimore) Gladwell does rehearse alternative suggestions for what took place, but only as a rhetorical backdrop for his 'white knight' tipping point solution. It is as though, for Gladwell, there is a silver bullet to be found, a tipping point that will make all the difference. The Tipping Point is a text written to persuade and convince. Gladwell is acting as maven and salesman for his own ideas. The example he cites at which he appears to me to be weakest is when considering tobacco smoking reduction behaviour. He fails to acknowledge the emotional complexity of smoking, its multitude of meanings, the meanings associated with quitting, and the fact that much smoking reduction advertising is aimed at adults. Having a degree in history, it is far from obvious that issues of suicide and addictions are areas of Gladwell's strength. Happily, however, his text appears to be much more persuasive when it comes to the commercial advertising of fashion items to a segmented US market. About this he writes well. Indeed, his entire text is written in a style that justifiably belongs to a staff writer for the New Yorker magazine.
It would seem that Gladwell applied to his book, the sub-title of which is How little things can make a big difference, the lessons that constitute his chapters. I bought the book because I had heard of it many times and was interested to learn. The book's advertising puff reads: "The International No. 1 Bestseller", a message advertising how contagious the book is.
The concept of tipping points is important, and deserves to be explored, understood and explained more fully, and above all more rigorously. Maybe is is me who at fault in hoping for a modicum of academic scepticism and balance in a popular social science text. When all is said and done, Gladwell's book is an enthusiastic and encouraging introduction to tipping points.

***

Gladwell biographical information drawn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell accessed 24 March 2008

Green: traffic speed and climate change

When a motor vehicle (car, van, lorry) is travelling steadily at its optimum speed for minimising fuel consumption (usually between 25 mph and 50 mph), its fuel consumption is very much lower than when it is travelling fast or changing speed. I now know this for sure because my replacement car has a fuel consumption computer. I am able to see in numerical terms, the effect on my car's fuel consumption of driving style choices that I make.

During the mid-1970s, in response to massive increases in the price of crude oil imposed by the OPEC countries (and therefore causing a significant shift in the balance of trade), the UK national speed limit was reduced in order to reduce national fuel consumption. From Wikipedia: "It was reduced to 50 mph (80 km/h) in response to the 1973 oil crisis, and restored to 70 mph (112 km/h) in 1974."

In relation to the US, I found the following paragraph here:

"In the midst of an energy crisis touched off by conflict in the Middle East (see October 17, 1973), President Richard Nixon signs the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, establishing a maximum national speed limit. No highway projects may be approved in any State having a maximum speed limit over 55 m.p.h. The Act, part of a nationwide effort to save oil, is a result of an oil embargo imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that forced Americans into long lines at gas stations. President Nixon estimates the new speed limit can save nearly 200,000 barrels of fuel a day."

Were the UK national speed limit to be reduced again to 50 mph, the consequence would be a significant reduction in greenhouse gases produced by motor vehicles. Additionally, motorists would save money because they would need to buy less fuel. Lower road speeds would permit roads to carry denser traffic, thus, perhaps counter-intuitively, reducing some congestion. Further, according to the police, excessive speed is indicated in a majority of road traffic accidents. Limiting speed to 50 mph has the chance, therefore, of reducing the number of accidents, their severity and the number of casualties. (I read somewhere that reduction in the number of casualties of road traffic accidents had plateaued, and that further measures were going to be required if the numbers were to be reduced further.) Longer journey times for lengthy journeys might mean that more journeys would be undertaken using public transport, and there might be a long-overdue increase in the use of video-conferencing, and thus a reduction in the number of journeys undertaken.

To my knowledge, no-one is talking about this proposal as an option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Is there a reason for this? Am I missing something? As a first step, it would seem like an obvious and relatively cheap and pain-free adjustment that could be made.

Some further thoughts:

1. The speedometer in most UK cars runs up to 160 mph. This is bizarre because the national speed limit in the UK is 70 mph, and (with the exception of Lower Saxony) nowhere else in Europe exceeds 130 kph. The unnecessary range of the speedometer dial achieves two things: I am less clear about my precise speed because the reading is always limited to a small proportion of the speedometer dial; I am always given the sense that I am driving slowly compared with the apparent potential of the car.

2. My car has the potential to travel much faster than I shall ever be legally allowed to drive it.

3. Every morning when I commute to work, an overwhelming majority of the traffic noticeably exceeds the speed limit for substantial portions of the journey.

4. Despite huge negative attention devoted by UK motorists and news media to speed cameras on UK roads, the reality is that the number of speed cameras relative to the extent of roads on which speeding takes place is pitiful.

5. Few UK cars are fitted with cruise control. The price for retrofitting cruise control is prohibitively high. Cruise control could help motorists to observe speed limits.

6. The overwhelming majority of car advertisements in the UK emphasise using cars for fun and excitement. This is not a message that is compatible with attempting to reduce CO2 emissions and traffic. Resolving issues related to climate change requires that people stop seeing their car as a form of recreation.

7. The points I have made above impact on the daily lives of ordinary people. I suspect that many people are willing to make token efforts to mitigate climate change, provided that they are not required to change how they live their life. I believe that climate change is orders of magnitude bigger than the majority of people are appreciating. Token efforts sound to me like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Until people realise that real change needs to take place, across a range of lifestyle issues, such as the speed at which they drive their cars, CO2 emissions are not going to fall.

Beatrice 16 May, 2008 15:11 commented...

Yes, you're absolutely right about deckcahairs on the Titanic. I think people just cannot cope with the enormity of the implications of runaway climate change and so refuse to accept it is real. There are some interesting articles about on the psychology of climate change denial eg this one by George Marshall:http://www.ecoglobe.ch/motivation/e/clim2922.htm

Postscript
Whilst what I have written above sounds a little like pious polemic, I believe it sufficiently both to have reduced my driving speed to 50 mph where the speed limit is 70 mph, and to have changed my driving style so that I accelerate only slowly and, within the limits of safety, brake as little as possible. It has taken a while to drive more sedately, detaching myself from the frantic impatience of other motorists. I sometimes resort to singing "I feel pretty" - it helps.

Why I do not call myself a conservative

I describe myself as a liberal person. I am happy to be described as very liberal. I was recently challenged to be clear about what I mean by liberal in contrast with conservative.

Phenomenology
As a counsellor, I recognise that everyone constructs their world, the world, in their own, unique way. I do not believe that there is a correct way to understand the world. I am happy to admit that there are more and less functional ways to understand the world. For example, to believe that the moon is made of cheese may be imaginative, but is probably inaccurate. If, like Wallace and Grommit, one were to visit the moon in the hope of finding hunks of Wensleydale cheese lying around, the chances of coming away disappointed are high. I believe that many people are ignorant about many aspects of the world about which they hold views, and just as many people make only pitiable attempts (if any) to find out the facts. In this sense, therefore, the uniqueness of their construct is based on ignorance and prejudice. However, even were this not the case, every person would still have a different life story, a different set of experiences, a different collection of interests, giving them a different way of describing the world: a childless couple who are career-focused is likely to describe the world differently from a single-mother with five children; a white, male, middle-aged Surrey stockbroker is likely to describe the world differently from a young North African woman living in the banlieux of Paris; a dairy farmer in New Hampshire is likely to describe the world differently from a personal escort in Tokyo. As a counsellor, I would be unable to make a value judgment about the relative superiority of any description of the world. I believe that this position marks me out as liberal. To me, a conservative person is someone who considers either that there is a correct view of the world, or considers that their own view of the world has greater validity than the views of other people.

Family
In the UK, the Conservative Party identifies itself as party that upholds family values. What this position refers to, however, is a narrow view of family: a man, married to a woman, with a number of children born within that marriage. Ideally there will also be grandparents, uncles and aunts, cousins and nieces in an extended family. There is something very 'blood' about this. There is also an 'ideal', from which many depart.

I am not an uncritical fan of the family. My family of origin fitted this narrow, 'ideal', view, and was dysfunctional and abusive. Dysfunctionality and abuse are also significant aspects of the family experience of many people who I have counselled. I have a preference for a Lilo and Stitch view of family: "Family means nobody gets left behind" even when the family consists of two sisters and an alien. For me, family consists of the people we live amongst, the people who frequent (albeit 'virtually' in some cases) our lives, the people we choose. Within my own extended family there are half-people, step-people, adopted people. There are marriages, divorces, second marriages, and cohabitees. There are 'aunties' and 'uncles'. There are straight people and gay people. There are Canadian, French, Monagesque, German and English/Welsh people. I celebrate this diversity, and reject the notion of an 'ideal'. I guess that on a significant plank of Conservative Party policy, I fall well outside the boundaries of their core support.

Nationalism
It is usually the case that conservative people feel and express a sense of national pride. In the context of a world of nation states, this national pride often expresses itself as nationalism (pledging allegiance to the flag, singing Rule Britannia or La Marseillaise) or nationalistic aspirations (the separatist/secessionist agendas of the Scottish National Party [Scotland], the Vlaams Blok/Belang [Flanders], Lega Nord [northern Italy]).

More liberal people, on the other hand, appear typically at least more skeptical about, and often even hostile towards, expressions of nationalism. In the UK at least, liberal views and politics are more likely to be associated with internationalism and expressions of support for supranational organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the European Court of Justice, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights. In Israel, as I understand it, the conservative people are keen to strengthen the borders they have delineated, whereas the more liberal people tend to look towards dialogue with the Palestinians and neighbouring states (although I am sure that the situation is much more complex than I am suggesting here). In the United States, as presented on news and current affairs programmes on television and the radio in the UK, the 'Neo-Cons' do not trust the United Nations, dislike the idea of US military personnel being tried in an international court, and appear to be indifferent about the effect of the US economy on global warming and climate change (that is impacting on the entire world); whereas "Since leaving office, Clinton has been involved in public speaking and humanitarian work. He created the William J. Clinton Foundation to promote and address international causes, such as treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS and global warming." (Wikipedia: Bill Clinton), and Al Gore has become internationally famous for the high profile movie he presented against cavalier industrialisation at the expense of the world's climate An Inconvenient Truth.
... (to be continued)

Immigration
Conservative people typically have such a strong sense of belonging to a land that they usually appear to believe they have a right to exclude others. It is not hard to find conservative people talking about 'foreigners' who 'take our jobs and houses', and call for elected representatives to enact exclusionist immigration policies. Although at the extreme end of conservatism racist and xenophobic sentiments are easy to encounter, such attitudes do not characterise conservatism, which instead typically prefers that people 'live where they belong'. When conservative people have gone to live in a different country it has traditionally been as colonial superiors. Of the 270,000 'Brits' (hideous term) who live in Spain (as of January 2006), many make little attempt to integrate far into Spanish culture, perhaps not even learning more than the basics of the language, but instead choose to live in British enclaves in Alicante, Malaga, Murcia and Almeria, with their shops retailing British brands.

Liberal people, in contrast, tend to thrive in diverse, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic environments, grasp the necessity, for themselves and others, of economic transhumance, migration and emigration, recognise the necessity of accepting refugees and asylum seekers into more stable society, and value the resulting infusion of cultural energy.

Law and Order
Conservative people typically believe that there has been a decline in moral values leading to tensions in society - views expressed eloquently in the UK during the 18th (e.g. Hogarth), 19th (Victorians), 20th (the courtroom trial of Lady Chatterly's Lover, Mary Whitehouse, 'Back to Basics' [a Conservative Party campaign]) and now 21st centuries. A decline over the past three centuries should now have us in hell! Which, of course, is the picture that the conservative UK press would have us believe. For conservative people, the remedy is that there should be more police officers to enforce civil order and that punishment for transgression of civil order should be more severe (e.g. Conservative Party 'Short Sharp Shock' policy).

Liberal people tend to desire the liberalisation of society and its values so that fewer people are seen as being close to, at, or beyond the margins. The Liberal reforms of the early 20th century, under Campbell-Bannerman and Lloyd George (the foundations of the welfare state in the UK), and the introduction by Leo Abse (Labour) in 1967 of legislation to decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting men, are examples of this liberalisation. During the 1992 Labour Party conference, Tony Blair attempted to appeal to both the liberal and conservative wings of potential Labour Party voters by using the slogan "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" Liberal people are more likely to be interested in restorative, rather than retributive, justice, and are more likely to recognise the faults of imprisonment.

Money, wealth and property
That there is a divide between conservative and liberal people regarding attitudes towards money, wealth and property appears to be both self-evident and complex. The much misquoted biblical aphorism that the love of money is the root of all evil might offer a signpost. It is hard to imagine that many of the people who work in the upper levels of the banking, insurance and finance sectors of the City of London, or hew at the rockface of the Manhattan "goldmines", celebrate the same socio-economic analysis as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Examining the Times 'rich list' for 2006 regarding personal donations to political parties, of the top 31 most generous donors, 24 donated to the Conservative Party (approximately £7,000,000), 5 donated to the Labour Party (£1,455,000), 1 donated to the Liberal Democrats (£129,798), and 1 donated to the Scottish National Party (£100,000). The list also shows loans to political parties - Conservatives: £12,650,000; Labour £7,800,000. From these figures it is easy to conclude that the people with a considerable amount of money are more likely to donate some of it in support of Conservative/conservative values.

Monarchy, aristocracy, nobility, honours and hierarchy
Conservative people in the UK tend to be in favour of the British monarchy, whereas liberal people are less predictable about the extent to which they take an interest in and support the British monarchy. I have been a lifelong republican (not in the US sense of Republican), and dislike any attention being given to the Windsor family or the ceremonial roles carried out by an hereditary head of state. Several countries (Ireland, Germany, Greece and Israel) manage to elect a non-executive head of state, just as all UK universities manage to appoint a Chancellor.

Titles and hereditary peerages belong to a world of long ago. Although still important in the seventeenth century, the world of being born into a social station in life was already starting to dissolve, in part hurried along by the Civil War, but also ironically by the enclosures, which moved farm hands off the traditional pastures, and into the more egalitarian towns and cities. Whilst it is still required that commoners bow/curtsy to the aristocracy, about which conservative people are likely to be happy, compared to 350 years ago, Britain is a much more egalitarian country, about which liberal people are likely to be happy.

Relation to land

... (to be continued)

Gambling and share trading

I do not own company shares. I have never owned company shares. I have no wish to own company shares.

During my teenage years I was enthusiastic for all commerce to be managed by the people for the benefit of the people. I applauded when companies were taken into state ownership, and felt betrayed when state-owned industries were thrown into the ravening maws of fat-cat capitalists: British Gas ("Tell Sid") and British Telecom ("It's good to talk") ("Phone home" was from E.T.). During my twenties I realised a) that state-owned businesses were not as wonderful for their workforce as I had imagined (television images of grateful coal miners in 1947 when the National Coal Board took over the running of coal mines in the UK; of beaming nurses and relieved patients when in 1948 the National Health Service took over the running of hospitals, clinics and surgeries in the UK); b) that some companies could be ethical in their practice, for example Anita Roddick's The Body Shop; c) that there were better, less-hierarchical models for the structure of a business, such as charities, trusts (for example, The Guardian newspaper), collectives and co-operatives (such as Scott-Bader). I liked the idea of businesses being run by the workers for the benefit of the workers. I became a member of a co-operative (Earthcare, in Durham, UK), and was instrumental in forming a collective (Dragon Wholefoods Collective). I was also heavily involved with all manner of charitable / not-for-profit activities, projects and ventures (such as Durham City Centre Youth Project, outreach, chaplaincy). My CV from that time runs to pages. However, it was often my experience that I wanted to give greater commitment to these activities than many of the other people involved. In my late twenties, therefore, with many misgivings, I set up my own small business: Alpha Word Power. After a while, I began to employ people, initially part-time, and then full-time as well. It seemed that I was betraying my teenage roots. However, I never owned any company shares. While Margaret Thatcher's cellphone-toting, greed-motivated yuppies made their millions on the London stock exchange, I believed that share-ownership was immoral, that it was wrong. What I objected to fundamentally, and I also had further objections, was the idea that owning sufficient company shares gave someone the right dictate strategic policy. I have, to a small extent mellowed from this position. For example, I recognise the all-round benefit of John Lewis staff owning shares in the company for which they work [note to myself: this is not accurate - the business is technically a co-operative that is held in trust, all employees are Partners, have a substantive voice in the running of the business, and receive an annual bonus proportionate to their salary]. I believe that Google does the same. I am still on board, although rather less comfortable, with the idea of buying and owning shares in small, ecological ventures, for example building wind turbines and the like. To my way of thinking this really amounts to giving money to a cause in which one believes, with little expectation of the money being returned. The line gets crossed where the money is invested to make a profit. I can understand why it needs to happen: why businesses need capital, and people (and other businesses) with money are willing to buy shares. When I think of the money as a loan, then I can cope. However, when I think about people buying shares in order to profit from riding on the backs of the people who do the work (shop floor workers and managers) then I know that share ownership is immoral. However, it gets worse. As I understand it, much share trading is speculative about the price of the shares. When profiting from changes to the value of shares becomes the main purpose of share trading then it seems obvious to me that the plot has been lost. To me, this kind of financial speculation is little, if at all, different from gambling, and is therefore immoral.