Greetings all...
This shall, more than likely, be the last entry in the HOMESTEADER Journal here on this place.
As the editor of this publication I would just like to use this opportunity to announce that the HOMESTEADER is merging with the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW (which also incorporates the ETHICAL LIVING REVIEW), and will therefore now be found on http://greenreview.blogspot.com/
This move and incorporation is due to at least two points:
The first one being the fact that it would appear that we do not really have all that many visitors here on the HOMESTEADER site and hence it is better to merge with the sister site.
The second part is that many of the articles for the HOMESTEADER are equally suited for the GREEN (LIVING) RREVIEW and vice-versa and it therefore might be better to, in fact, have everything run on the one site.
Hence, from now on the HOMESTEADER shall be an incorporated part of the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW under the plain & simple living label.
M Smith
Editor
<>
Put a stop to buying chemical cleaning products
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Instead of buying and using chemical cleaning products use vinegar instead.
Often it is said that you should use white vinegar for this only but the truth is that all vinegar, including the brewed malt vinegar, the brown one, that is common in Britain. White spirit vinegar, too, can be used.
Vinegar is great for cleaning floors, windows, mirrors, and laundry. It whitens, disinfects, freshens and softens all colors of laundry, and the smell goes away when dry. It reduces the cost of buying expensive cleaners as well as reducing your carbon footprint.
If you had an oven pan that has food burned into it, whether of glass, ceramic or metal, or food burned into a frying pan or skillet then pour on a little vinegar, of whatever kind, over the burned residues, leave it to sit for a while, and all you have to do then is to wipe off the burned in residue. In most cases no scouring will be required.
I have been using vinegar – about a 1/2 a shot glass full – with every bowl of dishes that I wash by hand and this saves washing-up liquid and also time. The dishes go sparkling onto the drying rack and they dry off in no time.
When wiping down counter surfaces in the kitchen I use hot water with some washing-up liquid and a good full to two shot glasses of vinegar in the water. That way the surfaces are cleaned and disinfected at the same time.
Vinegar is also a great cleaner for other things. Soak a rag with a little vinegar and use it to wipe off the sap residue on the blades of secateurs (pruning shears) and loppers. This can also be used for axes, pruning saws, etc. Plant sap and tree resin can cause corrosion to a blade and therefore the manufacturers of quality secateurs recommend the use of removal agent called, I believe, Sap Ex. Why, however, use a chemical compound when nature has given one to us already in the for of ascetic acid, aka vinegar. After wiping a blade clean this way apply some lubricant as a blade protector; some salvaged olive oil or other cooking oil will do nicely.
How to obtain salvaged cooking oil (no, this is not used cooking oil): Every bottle of oil always have a small residue left in it that you cannot get out without tipping it upside down for a while. I turn bottles upside down into a small glass jar and over time quite a lot of oil thus accumulates. This is use for oiling wooden handles, blades and such.
There are a lot more uses for vinegar and, as I said, even though people always seem to stress the “white wine vinegar” it does not have to be.
Here in the UK we rarely even get that sort of vinegar and the common one is Malt vinegar. At Sainsbury's a Basics version of this can be obtained for less than 20pence pint bottle. What a great price for a ever so useful product.
Vinegar also is great in first aid use as a disinfectant wipe, for instance, and, as said, for a variety of other uses.
© 2009
<>
Instead of buying and using chemical cleaning products use vinegar instead.
Often it is said that you should use white vinegar for this only but the truth is that all vinegar, including the brewed malt vinegar, the brown one, that is common in Britain. White spirit vinegar, too, can be used.
Vinegar is great for cleaning floors, windows, mirrors, and laundry. It whitens, disinfects, freshens and softens all colors of laundry, and the smell goes away when dry. It reduces the cost of buying expensive cleaners as well as reducing your carbon footprint.
If you had an oven pan that has food burned into it, whether of glass, ceramic or metal, or food burned into a frying pan or skillet then pour on a little vinegar, of whatever kind, over the burned residues, leave it to sit for a while, and all you have to do then is to wipe off the burned in residue. In most cases no scouring will be required.
I have been using vinegar – about a 1/2 a shot glass full – with every bowl of dishes that I wash by hand and this saves washing-up liquid and also time. The dishes go sparkling onto the drying rack and they dry off in no time.
When wiping down counter surfaces in the kitchen I use hot water with some washing-up liquid and a good full to two shot glasses of vinegar in the water. That way the surfaces are cleaned and disinfected at the same time.
Vinegar is also a great cleaner for other things. Soak a rag with a little vinegar and use it to wipe off the sap residue on the blades of secateurs (pruning shears) and loppers. This can also be used for axes, pruning saws, etc. Plant sap and tree resin can cause corrosion to a blade and therefore the manufacturers of quality secateurs recommend the use of removal agent called, I believe, Sap Ex. Why, however, use a chemical compound when nature has given one to us already in the for of ascetic acid, aka vinegar. After wiping a blade clean this way apply some lubricant as a blade protector; some salvaged olive oil or other cooking oil will do nicely.
How to obtain salvaged cooking oil (no, this is not used cooking oil): Every bottle of oil always have a small residue left in it that you cannot get out without tipping it upside down for a while. I turn bottles upside down into a small glass jar and over time quite a lot of oil thus accumulates. This is use for oiling wooden handles, blades and such.
There are a lot more uses for vinegar and, as I said, even though people always seem to stress the “white wine vinegar” it does not have to be.
Here in the UK we rarely even get that sort of vinegar and the common one is Malt vinegar. At Sainsbury's a Basics version of this can be obtained for less than 20pence pint bottle. What a great price for a ever so useful product.
Vinegar also is great in first aid use as a disinfectant wipe, for instance, and, as said, for a variety of other uses.
© 2009
<>
Make Your Own Laundry Detergent
Make your own laundry detergent, and enjoy clean clothes for less.
You will need:
Borax
Washing Soda
Fels Naptha Soap
To make your own laundry detergent mix together two parts Borax, two parts Washing Soda and one part grated Fels-Naptha soap. You can make as much or as little as you'd like, therefore I have not given any amounts here.
Use up to three level tablespoons per wash load of this homemade laundry detergent.
The rest store in a lidded container, well out of the reach of children and pets.
Be sure to label your detergent container, so others will know what's inside. Include a list of the ingredients as an added safety measure.
Zote, Ivory or castile soap can be used in place of Fels-Naptha.
Michael Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
You will need:
Borax
Washing Soda
Fels Naptha Soap
To make your own laundry detergent mix together two parts Borax, two parts Washing Soda and one part grated Fels-Naptha soap. You can make as much or as little as you'd like, therefore I have not given any amounts here.
Use up to three level tablespoons per wash load of this homemade laundry detergent.
The rest store in a lidded container, well out of the reach of children and pets.
Be sure to label your detergent container, so others will know what's inside. Include a list of the ingredients as an added safety measure.
Zote, Ivory or castile soap can be used in place of Fels-Naptha.
Michael Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Mini Grow Bed from Lakeland – Product Review
Review by Michael Smith
Garland Mini Grow Bed
Lakeland Ref: 51193 Price: 22.91 GBP,
Lakeland Garden Catalog page 21
Stuck with a small garden but still want to grow an abundance of crops, or perhaps the soil in your area is poor and the seedlings always struggle?
Watch those plants wake up when you put them to bed, a Mini Grow Bed that is. The Garland Mini Grow Bed gives plants such as carrots, potatoes and onions the best start in life as the soil within the bed warms more quickly, giving earlier crops. The black surrounds also, I should think, contribute to this warming process.
The enclosed growing area protects, to some extent, against disease, pests and weeds, whilst offering excellent drainage and protection against soil erosion. However, the pesky birds and the slugs and snails will still try to do their best to get at your crops, no matter what. So you will have to think of protection such as netting and what have not. There Lakeland can help too, but that is a different story.
And not only will your vegetables be happier in a raised bet such as the Mini Grow Bed; the raised growing surface also makes it easier for you, giving easier access tot he plants and less bending for your back.
The Garland Mini Grow Beds are made from 100% recycled polypropylene and the bed is simple to assemble, requiring no tools.
Read more on Green (Living) Review
Garland Mini Grow Bed
Lakeland Ref: 51193 Price: 22.91 GBP,
Lakeland Garden Catalog page 21
Stuck with a small garden but still want to grow an abundance of crops, or perhaps the soil in your area is poor and the seedlings always struggle?
Watch those plants wake up when you put them to bed, a Mini Grow Bed that is. The Garland Mini Grow Bed gives plants such as carrots, potatoes and onions the best start in life as the soil within the bed warms more quickly, giving earlier crops. The black surrounds also, I should think, contribute to this warming process.
The enclosed growing area protects, to some extent, against disease, pests and weeds, whilst offering excellent drainage and protection against soil erosion. However, the pesky birds and the slugs and snails will still try to do their best to get at your crops, no matter what. So you will have to think of protection such as netting and what have not. There Lakeland can help too, but that is a different story.
And not only will your vegetables be happier in a raised bet such as the Mini Grow Bed; the raised growing surface also makes it easier for you, giving easier access tot he plants and less bending for your back.
The Garland Mini Grow Beds are made from 100% recycled polypropylene and the bed is simple to assemble, requiring no tools.
Read more on Green (Living) Review
Patio Planters from Lakeland – Product Review
Review by Michael Smith
Haxnicks Patio Planters
Lakeland Ref: 50948 (3 Vegetable Planters)
Price: 14.95 GBP
Those planters are another product from Lakeland's new dedicated Garden Catalog that caught my attention when going through it after I received my press copy for review/preview.
You don't need a garden to “grow your own”...
Especially for small spaces, this collection of durable polyethylene sacks allows you to have your own vegetable plot on a patio, in a yard, or right next to the back door. Easy to manage and to maintain, they are great way to introduce children to growing vegetables too. And they might actually eat those vegetables if they have raised them themselves. With drainage holes at the bottom to avoid waterlogging, they have carry handles and can be reused year after year.
Those planters are, as I had guessed, and described thus in my review of the Garden Catalog, similar to the so-called builders' bags, being from about the same type of material. The only difference is that the material is not as heavy and it is also, in contrast to the builders' bags, additionally coated.
I have used builders' bags in my garden for container planting already and found them to work very well. The only drawback with the builders' one, despite the fact that they can ge had by the ton for free from building sites, is that they are rather big and once filled with soil can no longer be moved. They also take rather a great amount of compost and soil.
Read more on Green (Living) Review
Haxnicks Patio Planters
Lakeland Ref: 50948 (3 Vegetable Planters)
Price: 14.95 GBP
Those planters are another product from Lakeland's new dedicated Garden Catalog that caught my attention when going through it after I received my press copy for review/preview.
You don't need a garden to “grow your own”...
Especially for small spaces, this collection of durable polyethylene sacks allows you to have your own vegetable plot on a patio, in a yard, or right next to the back door. Easy to manage and to maintain, they are great way to introduce children to growing vegetables too. And they might actually eat those vegetables if they have raised them themselves. With drainage holes at the bottom to avoid waterlogging, they have carry handles and can be reused year after year.
Those planters are, as I had guessed, and described thus in my review of the Garden Catalog, similar to the so-called builders' bags, being from about the same type of material. The only difference is that the material is not as heavy and it is also, in contrast to the builders' bags, additionally coated.
I have used builders' bags in my garden for container planting already and found them to work very well. The only drawback with the builders' one, despite the fact that they can ge had by the ton for free from building sites, is that they are rather big and once filled with soil can no longer be moved. They also take rather a great amount of compost and soil.
Read more on Green (Living) Review
Grass Edger from Lakeland – Product Review
Review by Michael SmithGrass Edger – Lakeland Ref 50965 – 21.96 GBP
This Grass Edger sold by Lakeland comes as a 2-part tube steel construction that is assembled by means of a bolt with a wing nut. The assembly cause no problems whatsoever as it was all too obvious and the device appears to be quite sturdy.
The circular cutter of the Grass Edger is not over sharp – but is probably intended to be in is way – and the cutter assembly too looks fairly robust as well. Obviously, as will all things, the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating, meaning here that only over a more prolonged use would one be able to gauge how it performs and holds up to the rigors that some may inflict it the tool.
The operation of the Grass Edger is straight forward and it cuts the edge very well, even rather matted grass, as was the case with the overgrown edges at my garden areas, some about a quarter of an inch thick. I know, shame on me for letting it get that way.
Over time, when one gets used to the way that this device works, this tool will be a definite improvement over the speed and accuracy of an ordinary Edging Iron, and even more so as to neatness.
The test that I subjected this Grass Edger to is and was probably rather unfair as it is hardly intended to cut the kind of heavy matted grass, the result of neglect. It must be said though that the tool performed well, even under those circumstances though I am a little concerned that this may have put some undue strain on the tool, strain that it would not encounter under normal conditions.
In all fairness, the edges that I was cutting with this manual Grass Edger for a test would have been a challenge even probably for a motorized cutter of this kind. Thus, I made hard work for the tool and for myself. No problem though, as the Grass Edger performed well throughout.
This Grass Edger from Lakeland is about 10 GBP cheaper than the cheapest similar tool that I have seen in Garden Centers and other garden catalogs, and such.
While the real reliability and sturdiness, as I have said, will only be found in time and use, as far as I can see this is a good tool at a fair price.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Economic crisis may be worse than Depression
by Michael Smith
The global economy may be deteriorating even faster than it did during the Great Depression, Paul Volcker, a top adviser to President Barack Obama, said recently.
Volcker noted that industrial production around the world was declining even more rapidly than in the United States, which is itself under severe strain.
"I don't remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world," Volcker told a luncheon of economists and investors at Columbia University.
But still the likes of the head of the Federal Reserve is trying to con people into believing that the turnround will be with us before the turn of the year. Those with a proper link to reality are all aware that we are in a Depression and that it is NOT going to be over in a few months. We have seen nothing yet.
Given the extent of the damage, financial regulations must be improved and enhanced to prevent future debacles, although policy-makers must be cautious not disrupt things further while the turmoil is ongoing.
Had the old rules of banking been followed, that is to say that a bank would not; nay could not, was not allowed to, lend more that 80% of its deposit base. But what did they do? Yes, the exact opposite and anyone who has ever seen what happens in a financial trading room with dollars being sent to there spot overnight on 10% interest the night or pounds to some other places at 7% interest for the night will understand how quickly things could go wrong. The money that is transferred is only done so virtually and often it does not physically exist with the bank that is sending it either.
Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve famed for breaking the back of inflation in the early 1980s, mocked the argument that "financial innovation," a code word for risky securities, brought any great benefits to society. For most people, he said, the advent of the ATM machine was more crucial than any asset-backed bond.
"There is little correlation between sophistication of a banking system and productivity growth," he said.
He stressed the importance of preventing financial institutions large enough to pose a threat to the entire system from engaging in risky behavior such as running hedge funds or trading for its own accounts.
I would like to interject here that, maybe, we should curb the activities of such banks by cutting them down to size and making them, once again, more or less local banks, dealing with more or less local activities. Time for a change in economics and tyme for a new way which is not new at all.
The current crisis had its beginning in global imbalances like a lack of savings in the United States, but policy-makers around the world were too reticent to take action until it was too late, Volcker said.
And despite the fact that there was a lack of savings in the USA, and Britain, I would hasten to add, the banks still dealt as if they had all the world having savings in their institutions.
Now that the crisis had erupted, it was important to take decisive actions, including a more effective regulatory structure and some movement toward uniform accounting systems, Volcker said.
He said all financial institutions that are deemed too large to fail should be subject to increased scrutiny, echoing the findings of the Group of 30, a panel of policy-makers and influential economists, which he leads.
One could use a slogan from a movie that was “Houston, we have a problem” for we indeed have a problem. While Houston will not be able to change anything there the fact is that we have a problem and this problem is not simply going to go away.
As I have indicated in a previous article, I believe that it is time that we looked at a new way of doing things; a way that is not that new at all. One of those is the economy itself, then the way we, the people, do things and then also the governments also.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
The global economy may be deteriorating even faster than it did during the Great Depression, Paul Volcker, a top adviser to President Barack Obama, said recently.
Volcker noted that industrial production around the world was declining even more rapidly than in the United States, which is itself under severe strain.
"I don't remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world," Volcker told a luncheon of economists and investors at Columbia University.
But still the likes of the head of the Federal Reserve is trying to con people into believing that the turnround will be with us before the turn of the year. Those with a proper link to reality are all aware that we are in a Depression and that it is NOT going to be over in a few months. We have seen nothing yet.
Given the extent of the damage, financial regulations must be improved and enhanced to prevent future debacles, although policy-makers must be cautious not disrupt things further while the turmoil is ongoing.
Had the old rules of banking been followed, that is to say that a bank would not; nay could not, was not allowed to, lend more that 80% of its deposit base. But what did they do? Yes, the exact opposite and anyone who has ever seen what happens in a financial trading room with dollars being sent to there spot overnight on 10% interest the night or pounds to some other places at 7% interest for the night will understand how quickly things could go wrong. The money that is transferred is only done so virtually and often it does not physically exist with the bank that is sending it either.
Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve famed for breaking the back of inflation in the early 1980s, mocked the argument that "financial innovation," a code word for risky securities, brought any great benefits to society. For most people, he said, the advent of the ATM machine was more crucial than any asset-backed bond.
"There is little correlation between sophistication of a banking system and productivity growth," he said.
He stressed the importance of preventing financial institutions large enough to pose a threat to the entire system from engaging in risky behavior such as running hedge funds or trading for its own accounts.
I would like to interject here that, maybe, we should curb the activities of such banks by cutting them down to size and making them, once again, more or less local banks, dealing with more or less local activities. Time for a change in economics and tyme for a new way which is not new at all.
The current crisis had its beginning in global imbalances like a lack of savings in the United States, but policy-makers around the world were too reticent to take action until it was too late, Volcker said.
And despite the fact that there was a lack of savings in the USA, and Britain, I would hasten to add, the banks still dealt as if they had all the world having savings in their institutions.
Now that the crisis had erupted, it was important to take decisive actions, including a more effective regulatory structure and some movement toward uniform accounting systems, Volcker said.
He said all financial institutions that are deemed too large to fail should be subject to increased scrutiny, echoing the findings of the Group of 30, a panel of policy-makers and influential economists, which he leads.
One could use a slogan from a movie that was “Houston, we have a problem” for we indeed have a problem. While Houston will not be able to change anything there the fact is that we have a problem and this problem is not simply going to go away.
As I have indicated in a previous article, I believe that it is time that we looked at a new way of doing things; a way that is not that new at all. One of those is the economy itself, then the way we, the people, do things and then also the governments also.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Low-tech gadgets, tried, tested and true
by Micheal Smith
Do we rely too much on high-tech gadgets? The answer is probably a yes.
I have seen this in many instances at home and elsewhere such as in a catering establishment that just had to buy one of those professional catering potato peeling machines. Oh dear! Those things do not peel the potatoes, they seem to glass paper them, and you still have to do some removing of “eyes” and such by hand. The use of this gadget did not last long in that place and it ended up unused and unloved in a store. They reverted back to peeling potatoes by hand with a small vegetable paring knife or a vegetable peeler. This worked and much faster too.
The same is certainly true for so many other gadgets, whether for the kitchen or elsewhere.
My favorite peeve, I know, is the Palm PDA I once had and that caused me no end of grief with crashing and losing data, which led me to revert to pen and paper again, and I have written about that before.
My pen and paper note taking system I find much more reliable and I find retyping something a lot easier and faster than having to reedit something on screen. Also, I could, theoretically, though not that I envisage this happening, have an MBT, that is a main battle tank to the uninitiated, run over the notebooks without me incurring any data loss.
Maybe it is a sign that I am getting old or that I was born in the wrong age but I find myself increasingly appreciative of the simple, dependable little gadgets of life.
A little like the amount of billions spent by NASA to develop a ball pen that could write in space – enter the Fisher Space Pen, aka the Bullet Pen; a pen that could write in low or zero gravity conditions. The then Soviet Union, on the other hand, spending zero on a writing instrument capable of working in zero gravity as it did not even need to be invented, it had existed all along: it is called a pencil.
Sure I would not want to give up my computers – I need them for doing my writing - or my cell phones, but low-tech, no-tech, no-battery and no-plug items are frequently less hassle than "improved" stuff.
The previous mentioned Palm PDA was an example in point here for not only was the product unreliable, the customer service was nonexistent.
Another favorite of mine as far as low-tech gadgets are concerned are the pinch-type (wooden) clothespins. I have put the “wooden” in brackets as they no longer always are wooden but still do a great job even if plastic.
Not only do they hold clothes on the wash line, they also fasten plant row-covering to supports in the garden and pinch shut cereal and snack-food bags to keep the contents fresh. Clipped over a metal clothes hanger, they provide handy drying above the wood stove for the endless damp gloves of winter.
My all-time favorite clothespins, on the other hand, but then I am prejudiced for my People used to make them, are the split peg ones that used to be maybe by Gypsies, the People of which I stem. I have seen some that were made carved and tinned some 100 years ago and which still will perform as well today as they did then.
There are indeed some modern gadgets out there that can be very useful and handy, but most are probably more beneficial to the sellers than they will ever be to the buyers, especially if they need constant outfitting with new batteries.
Just another of the joys of no-tech or low-tech gadgets.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Do we rely too much on high-tech gadgets? The answer is probably a yes.
I have seen this in many instances at home and elsewhere such as in a catering establishment that just had to buy one of those professional catering potato peeling machines. Oh dear! Those things do not peel the potatoes, they seem to glass paper them, and you still have to do some removing of “eyes” and such by hand. The use of this gadget did not last long in that place and it ended up unused and unloved in a store. They reverted back to peeling potatoes by hand with a small vegetable paring knife or a vegetable peeler. This worked and much faster too.
The same is certainly true for so many other gadgets, whether for the kitchen or elsewhere.
My favorite peeve, I know, is the Palm PDA I once had and that caused me no end of grief with crashing and losing data, which led me to revert to pen and paper again, and I have written about that before.
My pen and paper note taking system I find much more reliable and I find retyping something a lot easier and faster than having to reedit something on screen. Also, I could, theoretically, though not that I envisage this happening, have an MBT, that is a main battle tank to the uninitiated, run over the notebooks without me incurring any data loss.
Maybe it is a sign that I am getting old or that I was born in the wrong age but I find myself increasingly appreciative of the simple, dependable little gadgets of life.
A little like the amount of billions spent by NASA to develop a ball pen that could write in space – enter the Fisher Space Pen, aka the Bullet Pen; a pen that could write in low or zero gravity conditions. The then Soviet Union, on the other hand, spending zero on a writing instrument capable of working in zero gravity as it did not even need to be invented, it had existed all along: it is called a pencil.
Sure I would not want to give up my computers – I need them for doing my writing - or my cell phones, but low-tech, no-tech, no-battery and no-plug items are frequently less hassle than "improved" stuff.
The previous mentioned Palm PDA was an example in point here for not only was the product unreliable, the customer service was nonexistent.
Another favorite of mine as far as low-tech gadgets are concerned are the pinch-type (wooden) clothespins. I have put the “wooden” in brackets as they no longer always are wooden but still do a great job even if plastic.
Not only do they hold clothes on the wash line, they also fasten plant row-covering to supports in the garden and pinch shut cereal and snack-food bags to keep the contents fresh. Clipped over a metal clothes hanger, they provide handy drying above the wood stove for the endless damp gloves of winter.
My all-time favorite clothespins, on the other hand, but then I am prejudiced for my People used to make them, are the split peg ones that used to be maybe by Gypsies, the People of which I stem. I have seen some that were made carved and tinned some 100 years ago and which still will perform as well today as they did then.
There are indeed some modern gadgets out there that can be very useful and handy, but most are probably more beneficial to the sellers than they will ever be to the buyers, especially if they need constant outfitting with new batteries.
Just another of the joys of no-tech or low-tech gadgets.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Are the powers that be afraid of the Blogger?
You bet your life that they are
by Michael Smith
While, at least in say the USA, Canada, Britain and other such countries they try to pretend that they are not, and also pretend that they actually welcome the activities of the citizen journalist and Blogger, the truth is that they, that is the powers that be, are running scared.
The same is true with regards to the established media, the likes of what once was Fleet Street, though thy no longer “live” there, and its “professional” journalists. Hence also the fact that Bloggers are not, as yet, welcome to join the NUJ and the IUJ.
While many – by now nigh on all, in fact – newspapers and other media outlets have an online presence, often with Blogs, they still are in no way happy with Bloggers who run their own online publications.
Though it may be true that there are even some good commercial outfits out there that are just online and who have come, basically, out of the field of Blogging, and the Blogging community, such as Grist and especially the Huffington Post, most in the media are still stuck in the old way.. This, by the way, also goes for many of the PR companies, though not those that I deal with most of the time.
Italy recently, basically, went as far as, at least some judges did, declaring that all Italian operated Blogs and all Italian Bloggers as illegal, as under an obscure law from just after WWII only government licensed media are permitted.
So far the government of Italy has not taken any steps, as yet, but we hear a lot of clamoring from the EU and its member states about the need to police and regulate the activities of online social media and networks. This, to me, is proof enough that the powers that be are running rather scared of Bloggers.
Where is this going to lead?
We, who are Bloggers, who are citizen journalists, or freelance journalists running Blogs, and out readers too and especially must stand up against this blatant attempt of censorship.
Support the Net Freedom Foundation and in any other way possible stand up for a free Internet and for the freedom to run your own publications, whether online or in print.
Blogs are the greatest “upset” tot he established media and the establishment and are a revolution much like the invention of the Gutenberg printing press with the movable type in 1448.
In the same way that the Gutenberg press liberated Europe from the Dark Ages, basically, so does the Internet and Blogs and citizen journalists liberate the world, yet again. Problem, as far as the powers that be are concerned is that the Internet and Blogs and all the other ways of publishing and printing from home via PC is, upsetting the status quo and there control over the media.
The printing press provided a powerful demonstration of how new communications systems, when leveraged socially, can topple once unassailable empires of received truth. And this is where the “problem”, so to speak, lies as far as the powers that be and Blogs and Bloggers and citizen journalists per se are concerned.
Blogging, especially as a means to informing and of bringing forth discussion and such, as well as other social online media, it would appear, are seen by the powers that be as something that threatens them as just those very empires of “truths”, with the established media, in the main owned by members pf one very influential lobbying group, in the forefront of those that are running scared and that is why the governments, some overt some covert, try to curb the activities of Blogger and Blogs.
I mean we cannot possible allow to have people who think and analyze events and while doing so come to a different conclusion than the established media and then report such thoughts and analysis to a wide audience on the Web. This just cannot be allowed now, can it?
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
by Michael Smith
While, at least in say the USA, Canada, Britain and other such countries they try to pretend that they are not, and also pretend that they actually welcome the activities of the citizen journalist and Blogger, the truth is that they, that is the powers that be, are running scared.
The same is true with regards to the established media, the likes of what once was Fleet Street, though thy no longer “live” there, and its “professional” journalists. Hence also the fact that Bloggers are not, as yet, welcome to join the NUJ and the IUJ.
While many – by now nigh on all, in fact – newspapers and other media outlets have an online presence, often with Blogs, they still are in no way happy with Bloggers who run their own online publications.
Though it may be true that there are even some good commercial outfits out there that are just online and who have come, basically, out of the field of Blogging, and the Blogging community, such as Grist and especially the Huffington Post, most in the media are still stuck in the old way.. This, by the way, also goes for many of the PR companies, though not those that I deal with most of the time.
Italy recently, basically, went as far as, at least some judges did, declaring that all Italian operated Blogs and all Italian Bloggers as illegal, as under an obscure law from just after WWII only government licensed media are permitted.
So far the government of Italy has not taken any steps, as yet, but we hear a lot of clamoring from the EU and its member states about the need to police and regulate the activities of online social media and networks. This, to me, is proof enough that the powers that be are running rather scared of Bloggers.
Where is this going to lead?
We, who are Bloggers, who are citizen journalists, or freelance journalists running Blogs, and out readers too and especially must stand up against this blatant attempt of censorship.
Support the Net Freedom Foundation and in any other way possible stand up for a free Internet and for the freedom to run your own publications, whether online or in print.
Blogs are the greatest “upset” tot he established media and the establishment and are a revolution much like the invention of the Gutenberg printing press with the movable type in 1448.
In the same way that the Gutenberg press liberated Europe from the Dark Ages, basically, so does the Internet and Blogs and citizen journalists liberate the world, yet again. Problem, as far as the powers that be are concerned is that the Internet and Blogs and all the other ways of publishing and printing from home via PC is, upsetting the status quo and there control over the media.
The printing press provided a powerful demonstration of how new communications systems, when leveraged socially, can topple once unassailable empires of received truth. And this is where the “problem”, so to speak, lies as far as the powers that be and Blogs and Bloggers and citizen journalists per se are concerned.
Blogging, especially as a means to informing and of bringing forth discussion and such, as well as other social online media, it would appear, are seen by the powers that be as something that threatens them as just those very empires of “truths”, with the established media, in the main owned by members pf one very influential lobbying group, in the forefront of those that are running scared and that is why the governments, some overt some covert, try to curb the activities of Blogger and Blogs.
I mean we cannot possible allow to have people who think and analyze events and while doing so come to a different conclusion than the established media and then report such thoughts and analysis to a wide audience on the Web. This just cannot be allowed now, can it?
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Getting divorced from the TV
by Michael Smith
What would you miss?
In Britain the first thing you would miss is paying the nigh on $200 annual license fee without which the viewing of television is a felony.
In addition to that you would miss all the garbage programs.
I have gotten divorced from the TV some ten or more years ago and have not really missed the one-eyed monster god in the corner at all.
Now, with BBC's iPlayer, for instance, we all have the chance to watch some of the interesting – and also, alas, the not so interesting – programs for a week or more afterwards and I must say that I do that at times now.
On the other hand seeing what is on in most cases on the box it is definitely a case of not missing anything.
In general terrestrial television in Britain is a waste of time and, so I have been told by many of my contacts in the USA, for instance, the same appears to be true in America.
While in the USA there is no license fee payable in order to watch TV the programs appear to be equally bas if not worse and therefore I doubt that anyone would seriously miss television, especially not if one can watch some stuff online; interesting stuff I mean.
What you will gain, on the other hand, by divorcing yourself from the TV is a great amount of time that you can spend with and on other much more beneficial things, and even if that be only reading books.
Personally I do not think that I could even fit the TV into my life anymore for I am way too busy with all the things that I am doing as with writing and such, and from what I have heard from others who have gone the same road of divorce from the TV they have made the same experiences.
In addition to that for those that have a family you will find that you suddenly have time for family quality time, time to do things with your children, time to spend with the other half and such.
While, at first, the kids will moan and groan about not having a TV and also think that they are being deprived something that their peers have it should not take too long and they too find that life without the box is so much better and so much more rewarding.
I have heard though of some children's services getting involved in some cases trying to get the parents to have the TV for the children and claiming that it deprives the children, etc. Instances of that have occurred in Europe as well as, as far as I know, the United States.
In Europe where a license fee is required in most countries for the watching of TV and even the listening to radio broadcasts it will take some time to persuade the authorities before they will believe that you do not, in fact, have a TV and use it without a license. It took somewhere in the region of 5 years before the British TV Licensing Authority stopped sending me letters saying that I had to have a license and that they'd we coming around to check as to whether I had a TV. They finally believed though they never actually came to check, but I still get the occasional letter claiming that, in case I now had a TV I would have to get a license and they say they'd be coming to check. Oh well! They are welcome. Not that they will be permitted to come in unless they have a warrant and a police officer with them.
Despite those little inconveniences I think it is more than worth it having gotten rid off that one-eyed god in the corner that demanded worship. Not only am I saving those two hundred bucks, I am not wasting time either; time that could be used in a much m ore productive way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), March 2009
<>
What would you miss?
In Britain the first thing you would miss is paying the nigh on $200 annual license fee without which the viewing of television is a felony.
In addition to that you would miss all the garbage programs.
I have gotten divorced from the TV some ten or more years ago and have not really missed the one-eyed monster god in the corner at all.
Now, with BBC's iPlayer, for instance, we all have the chance to watch some of the interesting – and also, alas, the not so interesting – programs for a week or more afterwards and I must say that I do that at times now.
On the other hand seeing what is on in most cases on the box it is definitely a case of not missing anything.
In general terrestrial television in Britain is a waste of time and, so I have been told by many of my contacts in the USA, for instance, the same appears to be true in America.
While in the USA there is no license fee payable in order to watch TV the programs appear to be equally bas if not worse and therefore I doubt that anyone would seriously miss television, especially not if one can watch some stuff online; interesting stuff I mean.
What you will gain, on the other hand, by divorcing yourself from the TV is a great amount of time that you can spend with and on other much more beneficial things, and even if that be only reading books.
Personally I do not think that I could even fit the TV into my life anymore for I am way too busy with all the things that I am doing as with writing and such, and from what I have heard from others who have gone the same road of divorce from the TV they have made the same experiences.
In addition to that for those that have a family you will find that you suddenly have time for family quality time, time to do things with your children, time to spend with the other half and such.
While, at first, the kids will moan and groan about not having a TV and also think that they are being deprived something that their peers have it should not take too long and they too find that life without the box is so much better and so much more rewarding.
I have heard though of some children's services getting involved in some cases trying to get the parents to have the TV for the children and claiming that it deprives the children, etc. Instances of that have occurred in Europe as well as, as far as I know, the United States.
In Europe where a license fee is required in most countries for the watching of TV and even the listening to radio broadcasts it will take some time to persuade the authorities before they will believe that you do not, in fact, have a TV and use it without a license. It took somewhere in the region of 5 years before the British TV Licensing Authority stopped sending me letters saying that I had to have a license and that they'd we coming around to check as to whether I had a TV. They finally believed though they never actually came to check, but I still get the occasional letter claiming that, in case I now had a TV I would have to get a license and they say they'd be coming to check. Oh well! They are welcome. Not that they will be permitted to come in unless they have a warrant and a police officer with them.
Despite those little inconveniences I think it is more than worth it having gotten rid off that one-eyed god in the corner that demanded worship. Not only am I saving those two hundred bucks, I am not wasting time either; time that could be used in a much m ore productive way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), March 2009
<>
A New Economic Path
by Michael Smith
It is time, methinks, that we looked as our economic system again in a new light. Capitalism, as we know it, has broken down, yet again, and yes, I am well aware that the communist system, as it was used, and I stress “as it was used”, does not work either.
However, the way things have failed, yet again, with the capitalist system, due to the greed of bankers, and G-d knows the greed of other businesses too, that system too cannot be seen as one that benefits the people. In fact, as we can see, it benefits only a select few. And when those screw up they get rewarded for it, basically, by being bailed out by the taxpayer, whether it be banks or the automotive industry.
In addition to that the entire system of government as we know it, whether in Britain or the USA, must be overhauled too. Democracy is not a government of the people by the people and neither is the constitutional republic thing of the USA one that is one.
Also, the way Britain, for instance, is going, as well as the USA to some degree, and some EU member states, we are heading headlong into a police state. In Britain this has arrived already with all the CCTV cameras, the searches for knives and such at so many places, the proposed scatter radar scanners for weapons to be embedded in street furniture and all that. It is a shame though that the British people are so very happy to let this all happen. Or they are just so apathetic that they do not care. Then again, it could be that they feel powerless to do anything about it and, in fact, I think we are basically powerless and it does not matter who we elect into office.
But, let us look at the economy first, for I am beginning to digress:
As far as I can see we must find new ways of doing business and we might not go too wrong if, to some extent, we would go back to the ways of old, including barter.
Banking and credit definitely seems to be the biggest problem of us all and while industry and commerce may have to have a means of obtaining credit in one way or another the ordinary mortals like you and me should looks back to the old ways.
What are those old ways? Well, they are cash and savings. In other words, if you have not got the money to buy what you may want to buy then you cannot buy it and you don't. You save up to get the money to buy this item.
We also must come to the understanding that we have affluenza – many of us – and that we misinterpret and -understand what our needs are and our wants.
Someone with a car that is say 2 years old and working fine does not need a new car while he may want a new one and that is the same for someone whose computer is working perfectly well and is doing all that he needs to do when he thinks he needs a new PC. That is when wants gets misinterpreted as needs.
In truth our needs are not complicated and also not expensive. But people mistake, as I have said, wants with needs. When they, and obviously their offspring, say that they “need” this or that in most cases this is a “want” and not a “need”.
Aside from that we must look at economics in a different way. Maybe, somehow, along the lines of what Fritz Schumacher used to write about, that is to say “economics as if people mattered”.
The state of economics that we have presently but which appears to be breaking apart is no0t one where people seem top matter., The only thing that appears to matter to those that own the businesses and the banks is profit and yet more profit for themselves, their directors and their shareholders. The workers and the people in general do not matter to most of those in the least. There are a few exceptions, or there used to be, for many of them have gone into ownership of multinationals, such as Rowntree and Cadburys, who once had great social systems in place for their workforce.
I believe that we must look at the system of economics and trade completely afresh and find new ways of doing business on a more people-orientated scale. I am sure that this can be done for it used to be done in years gone by.
In some places we are already seeing, for some years and decades even, a different local system of trade and even currency, and even though in some countries this is being frowned upon by the powers that be as, in some countries it is against the law – theoretically – to print own money and to mint coins, it is a system that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. The problem I see here though is that the powers that be do not like such local currencies and barter trade systems because they cannot get any taxes from such sales and transactions. The problem is the states, the governments, as they are. They cannot abide the idea that people could trade without the state getting its share, however unfair this share may be. If no currency of the realm changes hands but just a barter currency or barter trade in general the state has noway of getting the revenue it so desires and that is why any economic activity other that “proper” sales are discouraged and even deemed illegal.
If we want to be able to survive as people and nations in this downturn and especially afterwards and live lives that are more fulfilling then we must first of all change the system of economics under which we work and trade. This must then be followed by the system of government; a system where the people really run the show and not just an elite that has been, supposedly, representatively elected by the people.
Economics must be brought back down to scale and go local again and banking must be changed as well and especially.
We can no longer – not that we really ever could – have banks that lend far above their deposit base. This is unsustainable and not just in the long run.
As far as the economy and economics are concerned in general we must get away from the global market issue and look back to locally produced goods, products and services. On such a scale the exploitation that is happening in the present system of the economy will then be greatly reduced, and I mean here there exploitation of workers in the same way as the exploitation of resources.
As I have said in a previous article about plastics recycling I cannot understand how it can be sustainable for the recyclables to be shipped to China for processing in to plastics base again, then to have goods made from the material there and then have the stuff shipped back to us in Europe, America or Australia. This just does not compute. And it especially does not compute when one knows that there are plastics recycling companies in the UK, for instance, who reprocess the recyclables here, and then make that plastic resultant from the recyclables into new goods that sell at not much more or in fact no more than the goods that come from China. So, someone make the calculations. Once again the reason for carting the stuff to China and then the reprocessed goods back to us is greed for the profit margins are so much better when this all happens in China, obviously.
Greed – corporate greed – is what got us into this problem in the first place and it is not the first time either and still we allow it to go on and on that way.
To some degree one can but hope that economic downturn and the looming depression might be a wake up call for all of us and we may, hopefully, learn that there is and must be another way to do things; a way that is sustainable. This way will have and must have a “repair” mentality again rather than a “chuck it” mentality. However, obsolescence is built into most things that we buy nowadays. Nothing is made too last and most things simply cannot be repaired. It is either too expensive to do so and it is cheaper to actually buy new or one simply, even a technician, cannot get at the insides of the product to carry out a repair.
Mind you, the mentality of people must change first as well for we know of bicycles and other things being thrown out into the trash simply because of a puncture in care of the bikes or a broken plug in case of some electrical goods. Though this might just change in the current climate and especially if this is not over by the end of 2009, say, as predicted by the chief of the Federal Reserve.
Most eminent economists are beginning to talk the “d” rather then the “r” word, that is to say they are coming round to understanding and stating that we are in a recession heading for a depression or that we are indeed already in the latter. Therefore, this could last for quite some time and people might just then come ro0und to understand that we cannot carry on the way we have been doing, and repairing things and the demand for things to be repairable might then happen.
But, we then will have a problem also for, where are the cobblers, the radio and TV repair men and women, the chair menders, the bicycle mechanics, and all those other skilled people that can fix all those things. In most cases they are no longer around. Their businesses folded years ago when we used to buy new each and every time instead of having a pair of shoes resoled, a bike mended, or what-have-you.
Many things, however, can be fixed by someone with a little handyman or -woman experience and a few tools. A bicycle does not have to go to the tip because of a puncture or a chain that has come off but we have see just this happening in this country not so long ago at the municipal garbage dumps. A Hi-Fi system that has a plug ripped off only needs a new plug fitted at the end of the lead but, alas, many people just throw such an item and buy new rather than put a new plug on or have one fitted by someone if they do not have the skills to do it themselves. Getting an electrician to fit a plug may cost a few bucks – if one cannot do it oneself – but it is a lot less than buying a new appliance.
While, with the current economic problems and the looming depression we have the mother of an opportunity for change here I doubt that it will happen unless we all, as people, can get the powers that be to understand from where we are coming and what we want.
The situation that we are in economically and financially could also be of benefit to the environment and to the creation of “green” jobs by the ton. But will this happen and will this opportunity be used for the benefit of us all? Or is it going to be “business as usual”? Much as regards to the outcome, I think, is down too us, to each and every one of us. Let's use this opportunity wisely and not waste it.
© M Smith (Veshengro), March 2009
<>
It is time, methinks, that we looked as our economic system again in a new light. Capitalism, as we know it, has broken down, yet again, and yes, I am well aware that the communist system, as it was used, and I stress “as it was used”, does not work either.
However, the way things have failed, yet again, with the capitalist system, due to the greed of bankers, and G-d knows the greed of other businesses too, that system too cannot be seen as one that benefits the people. In fact, as we can see, it benefits only a select few. And when those screw up they get rewarded for it, basically, by being bailed out by the taxpayer, whether it be banks or the automotive industry.
In addition to that the entire system of government as we know it, whether in Britain or the USA, must be overhauled too. Democracy is not a government of the people by the people and neither is the constitutional republic thing of the USA one that is one.
Also, the way Britain, for instance, is going, as well as the USA to some degree, and some EU member states, we are heading headlong into a police state. In Britain this has arrived already with all the CCTV cameras, the searches for knives and such at so many places, the proposed scatter radar scanners for weapons to be embedded in street furniture and all that. It is a shame though that the British people are so very happy to let this all happen. Or they are just so apathetic that they do not care. Then again, it could be that they feel powerless to do anything about it and, in fact, I think we are basically powerless and it does not matter who we elect into office.
But, let us look at the economy first, for I am beginning to digress:
As far as I can see we must find new ways of doing business and we might not go too wrong if, to some extent, we would go back to the ways of old, including barter.
Banking and credit definitely seems to be the biggest problem of us all and while industry and commerce may have to have a means of obtaining credit in one way or another the ordinary mortals like you and me should looks back to the old ways.
What are those old ways? Well, they are cash and savings. In other words, if you have not got the money to buy what you may want to buy then you cannot buy it and you don't. You save up to get the money to buy this item.
We also must come to the understanding that we have affluenza – many of us – and that we misinterpret and -understand what our needs are and our wants.
Someone with a car that is say 2 years old and working fine does not need a new car while he may want a new one and that is the same for someone whose computer is working perfectly well and is doing all that he needs to do when he thinks he needs a new PC. That is when wants gets misinterpreted as needs.
In truth our needs are not complicated and also not expensive. But people mistake, as I have said, wants with needs. When they, and obviously their offspring, say that they “need” this or that in most cases this is a “want” and not a “need”.
Aside from that we must look at economics in a different way. Maybe, somehow, along the lines of what Fritz Schumacher used to write about, that is to say “economics as if people mattered”.
The state of economics that we have presently but which appears to be breaking apart is no0t one where people seem top matter., The only thing that appears to matter to those that own the businesses and the banks is profit and yet more profit for themselves, their directors and their shareholders. The workers and the people in general do not matter to most of those in the least. There are a few exceptions, or there used to be, for many of them have gone into ownership of multinationals, such as Rowntree and Cadburys, who once had great social systems in place for their workforce.
I believe that we must look at the system of economics and trade completely afresh and find new ways of doing business on a more people-orientated scale. I am sure that this can be done for it used to be done in years gone by.
In some places we are already seeing, for some years and decades even, a different local system of trade and even currency, and even though in some countries this is being frowned upon by the powers that be as, in some countries it is against the law – theoretically – to print own money and to mint coins, it is a system that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. The problem I see here though is that the powers that be do not like such local currencies and barter trade systems because they cannot get any taxes from such sales and transactions. The problem is the states, the governments, as they are. They cannot abide the idea that people could trade without the state getting its share, however unfair this share may be. If no currency of the realm changes hands but just a barter currency or barter trade in general the state has noway of getting the revenue it so desires and that is why any economic activity other that “proper” sales are discouraged and even deemed illegal.
If we want to be able to survive as people and nations in this downturn and especially afterwards and live lives that are more fulfilling then we must first of all change the system of economics under which we work and trade. This must then be followed by the system of government; a system where the people really run the show and not just an elite that has been, supposedly, representatively elected by the people.
Economics must be brought back down to scale and go local again and banking must be changed as well and especially.
We can no longer – not that we really ever could – have banks that lend far above their deposit base. This is unsustainable and not just in the long run.
As far as the economy and economics are concerned in general we must get away from the global market issue and look back to locally produced goods, products and services. On such a scale the exploitation that is happening in the present system of the economy will then be greatly reduced, and I mean here there exploitation of workers in the same way as the exploitation of resources.
As I have said in a previous article about plastics recycling I cannot understand how it can be sustainable for the recyclables to be shipped to China for processing in to plastics base again, then to have goods made from the material there and then have the stuff shipped back to us in Europe, America or Australia. This just does not compute. And it especially does not compute when one knows that there are plastics recycling companies in the UK, for instance, who reprocess the recyclables here, and then make that plastic resultant from the recyclables into new goods that sell at not much more or in fact no more than the goods that come from China. So, someone make the calculations. Once again the reason for carting the stuff to China and then the reprocessed goods back to us is greed for the profit margins are so much better when this all happens in China, obviously.
Greed – corporate greed – is what got us into this problem in the first place and it is not the first time either and still we allow it to go on and on that way.
To some degree one can but hope that economic downturn and the looming depression might be a wake up call for all of us and we may, hopefully, learn that there is and must be another way to do things; a way that is sustainable. This way will have and must have a “repair” mentality again rather than a “chuck it” mentality. However, obsolescence is built into most things that we buy nowadays. Nothing is made too last and most things simply cannot be repaired. It is either too expensive to do so and it is cheaper to actually buy new or one simply, even a technician, cannot get at the insides of the product to carry out a repair.
Mind you, the mentality of people must change first as well for we know of bicycles and other things being thrown out into the trash simply because of a puncture in care of the bikes or a broken plug in case of some electrical goods. Though this might just change in the current climate and especially if this is not over by the end of 2009, say, as predicted by the chief of the Federal Reserve.
Most eminent economists are beginning to talk the “d” rather then the “r” word, that is to say they are coming round to understanding and stating that we are in a recession heading for a depression or that we are indeed already in the latter. Therefore, this could last for quite some time and people might just then come ro0und to understand that we cannot carry on the way we have been doing, and repairing things and the demand for things to be repairable might then happen.
But, we then will have a problem also for, where are the cobblers, the radio and TV repair men and women, the chair menders, the bicycle mechanics, and all those other skilled people that can fix all those things. In most cases they are no longer around. Their businesses folded years ago when we used to buy new each and every time instead of having a pair of shoes resoled, a bike mended, or what-have-you.
Many things, however, can be fixed by someone with a little handyman or -woman experience and a few tools. A bicycle does not have to go to the tip because of a puncture or a chain that has come off but we have see just this happening in this country not so long ago at the municipal garbage dumps. A Hi-Fi system that has a plug ripped off only needs a new plug fitted at the end of the lead but, alas, many people just throw such an item and buy new rather than put a new plug on or have one fitted by someone if they do not have the skills to do it themselves. Getting an electrician to fit a plug may cost a few bucks – if one cannot do it oneself – but it is a lot less than buying a new appliance.
While, with the current economic problems and the looming depression we have the mother of an opportunity for change here I doubt that it will happen unless we all, as people, can get the powers that be to understand from where we are coming and what we want.
The situation that we are in economically and financially could also be of benefit to the environment and to the creation of “green” jobs by the ton. But will this happen and will this opportunity be used for the benefit of us all? Or is it going to be “business as usual”? Much as regards to the outcome, I think, is down too us, to each and every one of us. Let's use this opportunity wisely and not waste it.
© M Smith (Veshengro), March 2009
<>
Improvised self-defense tools for the security operative
by Michael Smith
Innocuous looking and originally inoffensive tools are here becoming defensive tools for the operative.
This is a DIY article as to how to make your own defensive tools without needing much outlay and especially under conditions where going to a specialist store would not be possible.
I do not mean that the article is DIY but we are talking here about DIY in regards to making your own defensive weaponry, such as kubotans and other such from stuff that could be regarded as trash even.
I am sure that the experienced field operative and protection operative will have his own ideas once I have been able to stimulate the thoughts here with this little piece.
The Defense Pen
This is either a real pen, but one that, ideally, is not needed for the purpose of writing, or a specially made or machined device, so to speak, that, to all intents and purposes, it looks like a pen when carried. In fact, the truth is that an ordinary pen can be used for this purpose as well.
However, I prefer to have a separate defense pen for the task. There are, in some places, such defense pens available to purchase but there are a number of ways that one can be improvised for use by the operative by employing simple DIY and it makes a nice project to wile away some spare time, if you happen to have some.
The Defense Stick
Now this is NOT a baton of a large scale but more like a homemade kubotan, the little martial arts too that can also be bought, obviously.
I found an ideal improvisation and that is the use of the musical percussion sticks that are used in music teaching at schools. They can be bought for a couple of bucks as a pair and only one of them is needed to make into the “defense stick”. In fact, you don't have to do anything to it; it is ready as it comes. You will need to know, however, as to how to use such a defensive tool effectively.
The defense stick can be employed somewhat like a kubotan but, in my view, is probably more versatile still in its uses and deployment.
Defense sticks can be bought, factory made, from metal but it does not have to be, as it is not difficult to make one from the aforesaid musical percussion sticks. So why fork out quite a sum of money if you can “improvise” it for far less?
The other thing with such tools that might be referred to by some as weapons is that they doe not look anything like it and hence are not picked up too easily by those that are not in the know.
The defense stick, obviously, could also be made from a piece of branch wood from this or that hardwood tree and either turned or hand carved into what one may want it to be like. This is not a difficult operation either and it is also cheaper even though the percussion sticks are only a few Euro.
The Kubotan
This little device was – so rumor has it – invented and devised by an instructor for the Japanese police and has found its way into many martial arts disciplines by now. While, originally, the kubotan – at least nowadays – is of hardwood or metal even it should be most easy to make one from some length of bamboo and, as far as I know the qualities of bamboo, it would surpass both hardwood and metal. Made from bamboo will also make it undetectable. That, I know, is also true for the wooden kubotan but... not everyone can use a turner's lathe.
On the other hand bamboo is, in my opinion at least, a material that is stronger than wood and less prone to breakage in use than some woods might be. Also, bamboo has what could be called natural grooves that do away with the need for turning anyway.
Blackjack or Slapper
This too is a tool that can be made by the operative himself and with a little skill in working leather it can look quite nice too.
The ideal way of making such a tool is using a spring, a fishing weight of the right kind, whether lead or bismuth, and some leather in which to case the contraption.
My suggestion would be to “screw” the pear-shaped lead (or bismuth) weight into the spring that I mentioned (a gate spring will do nicely) and then “wrap” the thing in two bits of leather.
Once sewn up it is trimmed to shape, the edges of the leather cleaned up, sanded and then sealed with leather oil.
A nice, simple and effective defensive tool that costs little to make but would cost well over $20+ to buy, as far as I have seen.
The list above is, obviously, in no way exhaustive and I am sure that many a reader would be able to add to this. All I am trying to do here is provide you with some food for thought.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Innocuous looking and originally inoffensive tools are here becoming defensive tools for the operative.
This is a DIY article as to how to make your own defensive tools without needing much outlay and especially under conditions where going to a specialist store would not be possible.
I do not mean that the article is DIY but we are talking here about DIY in regards to making your own defensive weaponry, such as kubotans and other such from stuff that could be regarded as trash even.
I am sure that the experienced field operative and protection operative will have his own ideas once I have been able to stimulate the thoughts here with this little piece.
The Defense Pen
This is either a real pen, but one that, ideally, is not needed for the purpose of writing, or a specially made or machined device, so to speak, that, to all intents and purposes, it looks like a pen when carried. In fact, the truth is that an ordinary pen can be used for this purpose as well.
However, I prefer to have a separate defense pen for the task. There are, in some places, such defense pens available to purchase but there are a number of ways that one can be improvised for use by the operative by employing simple DIY and it makes a nice project to wile away some spare time, if you happen to have some.
The Defense Stick
Now this is NOT a baton of a large scale but more like a homemade kubotan, the little martial arts too that can also be bought, obviously.
I found an ideal improvisation and that is the use of the musical percussion sticks that are used in music teaching at schools. They can be bought for a couple of bucks as a pair and only one of them is needed to make into the “defense stick”. In fact, you don't have to do anything to it; it is ready as it comes. You will need to know, however, as to how to use such a defensive tool effectively.
The defense stick can be employed somewhat like a kubotan but, in my view, is probably more versatile still in its uses and deployment.
Defense sticks can be bought, factory made, from metal but it does not have to be, as it is not difficult to make one from the aforesaid musical percussion sticks. So why fork out quite a sum of money if you can “improvise” it for far less?
The other thing with such tools that might be referred to by some as weapons is that they doe not look anything like it and hence are not picked up too easily by those that are not in the know.
The defense stick, obviously, could also be made from a piece of branch wood from this or that hardwood tree and either turned or hand carved into what one may want it to be like. This is not a difficult operation either and it is also cheaper even though the percussion sticks are only a few Euro.
The Kubotan
This little device was – so rumor has it – invented and devised by an instructor for the Japanese police and has found its way into many martial arts disciplines by now. While, originally, the kubotan – at least nowadays – is of hardwood or metal even it should be most easy to make one from some length of bamboo and, as far as I know the qualities of bamboo, it would surpass both hardwood and metal. Made from bamboo will also make it undetectable. That, I know, is also true for the wooden kubotan but... not everyone can use a turner's lathe.
On the other hand bamboo is, in my opinion at least, a material that is stronger than wood and less prone to breakage in use than some woods might be. Also, bamboo has what could be called natural grooves that do away with the need for turning anyway.
Blackjack or Slapper
This too is a tool that can be made by the operative himself and with a little skill in working leather it can look quite nice too.
The ideal way of making such a tool is using a spring, a fishing weight of the right kind, whether lead or bismuth, and some leather in which to case the contraption.
My suggestion would be to “screw” the pear-shaped lead (or bismuth) weight into the spring that I mentioned (a gate spring will do nicely) and then “wrap” the thing in two bits of leather.
Once sewn up it is trimmed to shape, the edges of the leather cleaned up, sanded and then sealed with leather oil.
A nice, simple and effective defensive tool that costs little to make but would cost well over $20+ to buy, as far as I have seen.
The list above is, obviously, in no way exhaustive and I am sure that many a reader would be able to add to this. All I am trying to do here is provide you with some food for thought.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Reuses for Errant Mittens
by Michael Smith
I do not think that there is any winter that is going by here where I do not see an orphan mitten or glove lying in the snow or mud, or otherwise lost, in the parks or countryside. And, as I hate anything going to waste I tend to collect those.
I also have rather a collection of orphaned socks of different sizes and many woolly hats. What people lose is amazing at times and how anyone can lose a hat on a cold day beats me every time. But, eh, I am not complaining.
But back to the gloves in hand, so to speak...
There have been times when the gloves that have been found have been a pair even and those were of the Thinsulate brand as well... nice one, thanks. But most mittens and gloves are orphans, missing their mate.
In some instances I have made up a pair, especially for the rough outdoors stuff, from those single orphans but it does not always work and especially not with mittens that are child or even baby sized ones.
Here are some suggestions for mitten reuse. Some of these suggestions here will only work with mittens that are your size while others, such as the drawstring bag idea work also with child and baby mitts.
Drawstring Mitten Bag
You can create a drawstring bag from a mitten and use it to store marbles or drawstrings. Thread a piece of nylon cord through the mitten's cuff. If the mitten is lined, you should be able to use the lining as a drawstring channel. Otherwise you may have to build a channel. Such a drawstring mitten is also great as a money bag or purse, primarily for coins.
N.B. For more information check out a tutorial somewhere online or in books on making a drawstring bags.
You don't, necessarily, have to put a drawstring into the mitten. I have made a purse from a small child's mitten by using an elastic cord of the kind that is found in windcheater fleeces nowadays and a locking toggle. Works great.
Ice Scraper Mitten
Get a drill, a punch or an awl and a nylon cord. Drill a hole in the bottom of your ice scraper. Thread the cord through. Attach the cord to the mitten. The scraper is now attached to the mitten. You will never find yourself without a mitten when you need one.
Mitten Duster
Use that mitten as a duster. It's reusable and washable and it fits conveniently on your hand. It's not so hard to clean corners any more.
iPod Pouch
Especially the child mittens lend themselves, much like small socks that also can be found in abundance in local parks, to the use for and making of iPod pouches.
USB Sock
Well, small mittens work for that as well as small socks and their use is a lot cheaper than buying a so-called USB sock. Mind you, most USB drives nowadays are so small that they might get a little lost in such a bag, but whatever... they are kept clean and well this way.
As far as I am concerned orphaned mittens like orphaned socks can have many uses and I am sure there will be many more uses turning up in the end and many a reader will have his or her own ideas and – hopefully – suggestions which they, so I hope, will share with us.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
I do not think that there is any winter that is going by here where I do not see an orphan mitten or glove lying in the snow or mud, or otherwise lost, in the parks or countryside. And, as I hate anything going to waste I tend to collect those.
I also have rather a collection of orphaned socks of different sizes and many woolly hats. What people lose is amazing at times and how anyone can lose a hat on a cold day beats me every time. But, eh, I am not complaining.
But back to the gloves in hand, so to speak...
There have been times when the gloves that have been found have been a pair even and those were of the Thinsulate brand as well... nice one, thanks. But most mittens and gloves are orphans, missing their mate.
In some instances I have made up a pair, especially for the rough outdoors stuff, from those single orphans but it does not always work and especially not with mittens that are child or even baby sized ones.
Here are some suggestions for mitten reuse. Some of these suggestions here will only work with mittens that are your size while others, such as the drawstring bag idea work also with child and baby mitts.
Drawstring Mitten Bag
You can create a drawstring bag from a mitten and use it to store marbles or drawstrings. Thread a piece of nylon cord through the mitten's cuff. If the mitten is lined, you should be able to use the lining as a drawstring channel. Otherwise you may have to build a channel. Such a drawstring mitten is also great as a money bag or purse, primarily for coins.
N.B. For more information check out a tutorial somewhere online or in books on making a drawstring bags.
You don't, necessarily, have to put a drawstring into the mitten. I have made a purse from a small child's mitten by using an elastic cord of the kind that is found in windcheater fleeces nowadays and a locking toggle. Works great.
Ice Scraper Mitten
Get a drill, a punch or an awl and a nylon cord. Drill a hole in the bottom of your ice scraper. Thread the cord through. Attach the cord to the mitten. The scraper is now attached to the mitten. You will never find yourself without a mitten when you need one.
Mitten Duster
Use that mitten as a duster. It's reusable and washable and it fits conveniently on your hand. It's not so hard to clean corners any more.
iPod Pouch
Especially the child mittens lend themselves, much like small socks that also can be found in abundance in local parks, to the use for and making of iPod pouches.
USB Sock
Well, small mittens work for that as well as small socks and their use is a lot cheaper than buying a so-called USB sock. Mind you, most USB drives nowadays are so small that they might get a little lost in such a bag, but whatever... they are kept clean and well this way.
As far as I am concerned orphaned mittens like orphaned socks can have many uses and I am sure there will be many more uses turning up in the end and many a reader will have his or her own ideas and – hopefully – suggestions which they, so I hope, will share with us.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Lords issue warning regarding the 'surveillance state'
by Michael Smith
Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, Members of the House of Lords have warned. And rightly so, one can but hasten to add.
The proliferation of CCTV cameras and the growth of the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, so the Lords constitution committee said.
Those subject to unlawful surveillance should be compensated while the policy of DNA retention should be rethought.
Too many times local authorities also have been making use of RIPA, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which was never intended to be used in the way that so many councils are employing it, such as spying on people as to what rubbish is put out when incorrectly and by who, and such like.
The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential crime fighting tools", but this has, in fact, been disproved by senior police officers who have stated not so long ago that CCTV is useless in most cases. So why the continuation of the lie to the people.
The only answer here can and must be that the government of the UK is hellbent on “people control” and nothing else.
'Orwellian'
Surveillance and data collection, so the Lords' committee says, must be proportionate.
What, however, is proportionate in this instance and who decides this and who monitors this on behalf of the people?
Civil liberties campaigners have warned about the risks of a "surveillance society" in which the state acquires ever-greater powers to track people's movements and retain personal data.
Controversial government plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mails were put on hold late last year after they were branded "Orwellian".
Ministers are currently consulting on the plan, which would involve the details but not the content of calls and internet traffic being logged, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.
While we are being told that this database will not contain the details of phone calls and emails who is to say that this is going to be thus and, yet again, who, on behalf of the people is going to monitor this.
None of these methods will aid in the fight against crime nor in the fight against terrorism. Only one things will: proper policing; one that is NOT target driven but one that uses the old-fashioned ways of investigations of officers with common sense and a nose for spotting things that are wrong.
In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
The public were often unaware of the scale of personal information held and exchanged by public bodies, it said.
He only reason I can see for all those intrusive measures is that the governments are, in fact, frightened of the people and of the power the people have nowadays with the Internet. For the very same reason that they, in Italy, are trying to outlaw the citizen journalist, the Blogger and Blogs.
Instead of alienating the people by such measures the governments should empower the people to take part in the enforcement of the laws that there are and to be the eyes and ears as far as crime and terrorism is concerned and empower the people also the properly, as individuals, to hold the police to account when they do not deal with crime in the proper way.
Target-driven policing is leaving people frustrated and worse. You cannot tell a crime victim that they must book an appointment with an officer to take a statement or too tell Park Rangers when there are hoodlums rampaging through a park, threatening people, that local officers will be made aware and will attend to take a statement in a couple of days.
The reason for such replies is the target culture and the wish to appear to solve everything to which officers are being dispatched. So, if you don't send a response vehicle then that is not logged as such an incident and hence the possible lack of a result in an investigation does not reflect (badly) in the league tables. This is what it is all about and, as far as the government is concerned, “people control”
here is so much misuse of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for instance, that it is hardly surprising that people, and especially organizations that try to protect the civil liberties in the UK, are getting concerned.
Orwell was right only a little too early in the date.
There are and estimated 4,000,000 (in words: four million) CCTV cameras in the UK and often they are used by local councils to simply spy on people over issues such as littering and such like.
The Conservatives said the government's approach to personal privacy was "reckless".
"Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people," said shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve.
The government and the police, as said previously, are alienating rather than making friends out of the public but then they do not seem to care. They rather see anyone and everyone as a criminal and terrorist until proven otherwise. It used to be “innocent until proven guilty” but that was a long time ago.
When the “Miranda” warning in the UK was changed from “you have the right to remain silent but anything you may say will be taken down and given in evidence” to “you have the right to remain silent but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court”, the goalpost was moved and it became a “guilty until proven innocent”. In the same way as anyone carrying a knife may be considered automatically to carry it will ill intentions, for instance. A knife is a tool and not a weapon, primarily, and while there are people who carry a knife as a weapon the emphasis should still be, also with children and young people in the possession of a knife, that there is another purpose there for that knife than as a weapon of offense or defense. Guilty until proven innocent, and in the knife instance often it simply is guilty, whether guilty or not. You do not solve crime that way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, Members of the House of Lords have warned. And rightly so, one can but hasten to add.
The proliferation of CCTV cameras and the growth of the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, so the Lords constitution committee said.
Those subject to unlawful surveillance should be compensated while the policy of DNA retention should be rethought.
Too many times local authorities also have been making use of RIPA, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which was never intended to be used in the way that so many councils are employing it, such as spying on people as to what rubbish is put out when incorrectly and by who, and such like.
The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential crime fighting tools", but this has, in fact, been disproved by senior police officers who have stated not so long ago that CCTV is useless in most cases. So why the continuation of the lie to the people.
The only answer here can and must be that the government of the UK is hellbent on “people control” and nothing else.
'Orwellian'
Surveillance and data collection, so the Lords' committee says, must be proportionate.
What, however, is proportionate in this instance and who decides this and who monitors this on behalf of the people?
Civil liberties campaigners have warned about the risks of a "surveillance society" in which the state acquires ever-greater powers to track people's movements and retain personal data.
Controversial government plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mails were put on hold late last year after they were branded "Orwellian".
Ministers are currently consulting on the plan, which would involve the details but not the content of calls and internet traffic being logged, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.
While we are being told that this database will not contain the details of phone calls and emails who is to say that this is going to be thus and, yet again, who, on behalf of the people is going to monitor this.
None of these methods will aid in the fight against crime nor in the fight against terrorism. Only one things will: proper policing; one that is NOT target driven but one that uses the old-fashioned ways of investigations of officers with common sense and a nose for spotting things that are wrong.
In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
The public were often unaware of the scale of personal information held and exchanged by public bodies, it said.
He only reason I can see for all those intrusive measures is that the governments are, in fact, frightened of the people and of the power the people have nowadays with the Internet. For the very same reason that they, in Italy, are trying to outlaw the citizen journalist, the Blogger and Blogs.
Instead of alienating the people by such measures the governments should empower the people to take part in the enforcement of the laws that there are and to be the eyes and ears as far as crime and terrorism is concerned and empower the people also the properly, as individuals, to hold the police to account when they do not deal with crime in the proper way.
Target-driven policing is leaving people frustrated and worse. You cannot tell a crime victim that they must book an appointment with an officer to take a statement or too tell Park Rangers when there are hoodlums rampaging through a park, threatening people, that local officers will be made aware and will attend to take a statement in a couple of days.
The reason for such replies is the target culture and the wish to appear to solve everything to which officers are being dispatched. So, if you don't send a response vehicle then that is not logged as such an incident and hence the possible lack of a result in an investigation does not reflect (badly) in the league tables. This is what it is all about and, as far as the government is concerned, “people control”
here is so much misuse of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for instance, that it is hardly surprising that people, and especially organizations that try to protect the civil liberties in the UK, are getting concerned.
Orwell was right only a little too early in the date.
There are and estimated 4,000,000 (in words: four million) CCTV cameras in the UK and often they are used by local councils to simply spy on people over issues such as littering and such like.
The Conservatives said the government's approach to personal privacy was "reckless".
"Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people," said shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve.
The government and the police, as said previously, are alienating rather than making friends out of the public but then they do not seem to care. They rather see anyone and everyone as a criminal and terrorist until proven otherwise. It used to be “innocent until proven guilty” but that was a long time ago.
When the “Miranda” warning in the UK was changed from “you have the right to remain silent but anything you may say will be taken down and given in evidence” to “you have the right to remain silent but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court”, the goalpost was moved and it became a “guilty until proven innocent”. In the same way as anyone carrying a knife may be considered automatically to carry it will ill intentions, for instance. A knife is a tool and not a weapon, primarily, and while there are people who carry a knife as a weapon the emphasis should still be, also with children and young people in the possession of a knife, that there is another purpose there for that knife than as a weapon of offense or defense. Guilty until proven innocent, and in the knife instance often it simply is guilty, whether guilty or not. You do not solve crime that way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), 2009
<>
Secateurs used as wire cutters
by Michael Smith
Time and again I see this and cringe. People, whether pruning roses or people pruning vines, they need to cut some wire, often just tying wire but at times also some slightly stronger ones, resort to the pair of secateurs that they are using rather than going and getting the proper tool. Using the hardened cutting blade of a pair of secateurs to cut wire not just dulls the blade; it can, in fact, cause nicks to be broken out of the blade and with that the blade be ruined irreparably.
Now there is no more need to worry and do that for all secateurs in the Ergo range from Bahco have a special aperture at the heel of the blade which, in fact, is a wire cutter. Very clever, methinks. Only shame that until my recent visit to the Garden Press Event 2009 at the RHS Halls in London's Westminster I, and more than likely many readers neither, did not know about this. I have reviewed two of the secateurs in that range last year after the Garden Press Event and even though this aperture was already part of those pruners then no one mentioned this and this was also not included in any of the press material.
As far as I am concerned, this is a feature that should be mentioned for now one no longer has to feel guilty when using one's secateurs with which to cut some tying wire or such, as long as one uses the right part of the blade and, obviously, one of the Ergo range of Bahco's pruning shears (secateurs) that have this facility built in.
While Bahco secateurs (pruning shears) of the Ergo range certainly are not cheap, they are the only ones that allow for the need to cut, say, tying wire without damaging the blades. Nice one.
© M Smith (Veshengro), March 2009
<>
Time and again I see this and cringe. People, whether pruning roses or people pruning vines, they need to cut some wire, often just tying wire but at times also some slightly stronger ones, resort to the pair of secateurs that they are using rather than going and getting the proper tool. Using the hardened cutting blade of a pair of secateurs to cut wire not just dulls the blade; it can, in fact, cause nicks to be broken out of the blade and with that the blade be ruined irreparably.
Now there is no more need to worry and do that for all secateurs in the Ergo range from Bahco have a special aperture at the heel of the blade which, in fact, is a wire cutter. Very clever, methinks. Only shame that until my recent visit to the Garden Press Event 2009 at the RHS Halls in London's Westminster I, and more than likely many readers neither, did not know about this. I have reviewed two of the secateurs in that range last year after the Garden Press Event and even though this aperture was already part of those pruners then no one mentioned this and this was also not included in any of the press material.
As far as I am concerned, this is a feature that should be mentioned for now one no longer has to feel guilty when using one's secateurs with which to cut some tying wire or such, as long as one uses the right part of the blade and, obviously, one of the Ergo range of Bahco's pruning shears (secateurs) that have this facility built in.
While Bahco secateurs (pruning shears) of the Ergo range certainly are not cheap, they are the only ones that allow for the need to cut, say, tying wire without damaging the blades. Nice one.
© M Smith (Veshengro), March 2009
<>
Managing your woodlot
by Michael Smith
In this current climate in Europe with the demand for firewood being at an all-time high anyone who has the slightest idea how to manage the woodlots on his property can make quite some money.
Many people in Britain and also elsewhere do have their own little or even not so little woodlots on their property but have no idea as to how to mange it for their own benefit and also for profit, as far as firewood and such are concerned.
In addition to that there are farms that have quite a bit of woodland, even to such an extent that those plots of woodland are being used for shooting and such like. Very often, however, the tress are left to their own devices, so to speak, and no real management is being undertaken.
The same, in a way, is true for wooded parks, municipal or otherwise, where trees that have fallen are, unless the pose a danger, left where they have fallen to just rot away.
In other cases, where trees are cut in countryside management and municipal and public parks the trees are often cut into lengths and then left as “habitat piles” laying about higgldy-piggledy piled up. This is lazy forestry practice in fact despite the claims that it is “for the wildlife”.
In years gone by when people has Estovers rights and such like and even when it was no longer used in such ways woods and forests – including parks – did not have any of such debris left laying about and neither were logs left, and still wildlife thrives. More at times, it would seem, that today with the “habitat piles”.
Many forestry authorities are now advising against such “habitat piles” and that for more than one reason. The main reason being that those higgledy-piggledy left piles cause diseases to spread amongst the trees and therefore the advice is no to build proper “habitat piles” where the logs are sunk into the ground some way. That, however, requires time and effort.
The other reason is that trees left to rot in the woods and forests are a CO2 hazard, do to speak, for int heir decaying process the wood that is left to rot releases the CO2 that it has absorbed during its growing process. Fart better, therefore, to use the wood, even if it is just for firewood. The release of CO2 if the same but the heating with wood is carbon-neutral.
Also to be considered is that during he decaying process of the wood left laying about not only CO2 is set free but also a much more dangerous greenhouse gas, namely methane. This does not occur when the wood is burned.
So, instead of leaving the wood to die out there in the bush it is time to bring it in and turn it into an income, even if it be just a small one, whether for a farm or a municipal and public park or those that manage the countryside areas.
With the current demand for firewood for homes and – it could soon be – power stations we cannot afford to leave wood too rot out there.
If the right methods be applied some of the country's heating needs and those of power stations could be met by that wood which no one wants for anything else or which has no other market.
The issue of the Dutch Elm Disease in Britain could also be solved – to a great extent if not entirely – by removing all dead and dying elm trees and burning the wood in homes or better still power stations. The reason I recommend power stations here is because the wood then is not going to sit on someone's porch or in someone's yard at home for the beetle to mature and swarm and infect further trees with the pathogen that the, inadvertently, carry about.
Within less than a generation, if done correctly, the Dutch Elm Disease could, I am convinced, be overcome, if the above be employed. Other diseases too could be dealt with in this way, e.g. felling the diseased trees and burning the wood.
This is a case of killing two birds with one stone: removing – hopefully – the disease and providing carbon-neutral energy.
From the woodland owner's side this, obviously, does require some more work than just leaving things to fall and then in situ as they are. It requires the active cutting and bringing in of the wood and then preparing and selling it. The reward, however, could and should be grater here than the outlay, in finances and time.
It can be done because it used to be done. We have but become lazy in our management of woods over the years as, to some extent, the market for firewood was not there and the demand was rather low, and also as we were told in woodland management by certain people with little knowledge who thought that they knew it all to leave the wood as “habitat piles”. This, however, has caused more problems than that it did good; something that anyone with just half and ounce of brain could and should have seen coming.
If you leave diseased wood out there to rot down then you will spread the disease to other trees. This is so obvious but those misguided environmentalists who thought that they knew it all did not care about the trees and the possible income from those; all they cared about was invertebrates and such like needing a place to be.
What did they think those creatures did before when all woods and forests were managed properly, including for firewood and very little debris was lost? They lived quite well on the forest floor without human interference of giving them piles of wood to chew.
We cannot afford this practice, and in fact never could, for it caused disease to spread. Today, however, we can afford this even less for it is not beneficial for anyone, not at least the environment, that we import firewood from as far field as Poland to satisfy the need in Britain, especially as we here waste such wood.
It is most urgent that we manage our own woodlots, whether on farms or elsewhere, in such a way that they benefit us all.
The use of firewood is, as I have said before, carbon neutral as the wood only releases the amount of carbon that it accumulated during its growth. The same carbon is also released while the wood is a “habitat pile”. So not all that good for the environment, is it now.
Much better, therefore, to burn the wood and to have carbon neutral energy rather that to waste it by letting it rot in the woods.
Managing woodlots for firewood, especially if only dealing with dying and fallen timber, is not rocket science and the market is out there, at least presently, for firewood, and if we keep on at the right people the market may even get bigger as time goes by, especially when everyone realizes the facts about carbon neutrality of firewood.
This does only, though, really work, as to locally harvested firewood and not too that that has been imported from nearly as far afield as Russia. That is not a sustainable way to go. Using homegrown wood, on the other hand, is.
While I have been addressing here the British market, the lesson applies also for other countries. I do know that in other countries this seems too be understood far better than in Britain, such as in those of Europe and especially in the USA and Canada, but still there are some people who have little idea of how to get people to buy firewood because some see the smoke as an issue, as far as being “green” is concerned. However, the carbon neutrality of firewood is what should be considered by all of us; the smoke is something that is secondary and negligible, especially as far as untreated natural wood is concerned.
So, let's hear it for local firewood.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
In this current climate in Europe with the demand for firewood being at an all-time high anyone who has the slightest idea how to manage the woodlots on his property can make quite some money.
Many people in Britain and also elsewhere do have their own little or even not so little woodlots on their property but have no idea as to how to mange it for their own benefit and also for profit, as far as firewood and such are concerned.
In addition to that there are farms that have quite a bit of woodland, even to such an extent that those plots of woodland are being used for shooting and such like. Very often, however, the tress are left to their own devices, so to speak, and no real management is being undertaken.
The same, in a way, is true for wooded parks, municipal or otherwise, where trees that have fallen are, unless the pose a danger, left where they have fallen to just rot away.
In other cases, where trees are cut in countryside management and municipal and public parks the trees are often cut into lengths and then left as “habitat piles” laying about higgldy-piggledy piled up. This is lazy forestry practice in fact despite the claims that it is “for the wildlife”.
In years gone by when people has Estovers rights and such like and even when it was no longer used in such ways woods and forests – including parks – did not have any of such debris left laying about and neither were logs left, and still wildlife thrives. More at times, it would seem, that today with the “habitat piles”.
Many forestry authorities are now advising against such “habitat piles” and that for more than one reason. The main reason being that those higgledy-piggledy left piles cause diseases to spread amongst the trees and therefore the advice is no to build proper “habitat piles” where the logs are sunk into the ground some way. That, however, requires time and effort.
The other reason is that trees left to rot in the woods and forests are a CO2 hazard, do to speak, for int heir decaying process the wood that is left to rot releases the CO2 that it has absorbed during its growing process. Fart better, therefore, to use the wood, even if it is just for firewood. The release of CO2 if the same but the heating with wood is carbon-neutral.
Also to be considered is that during he decaying process of the wood left laying about not only CO2 is set free but also a much more dangerous greenhouse gas, namely methane. This does not occur when the wood is burned.
So, instead of leaving the wood to die out there in the bush it is time to bring it in and turn it into an income, even if it be just a small one, whether for a farm or a municipal and public park or those that manage the countryside areas.
With the current demand for firewood for homes and – it could soon be – power stations we cannot afford to leave wood too rot out there.
If the right methods be applied some of the country's heating needs and those of power stations could be met by that wood which no one wants for anything else or which has no other market.
The issue of the Dutch Elm Disease in Britain could also be solved – to a great extent if not entirely – by removing all dead and dying elm trees and burning the wood in homes or better still power stations. The reason I recommend power stations here is because the wood then is not going to sit on someone's porch or in someone's yard at home for the beetle to mature and swarm and infect further trees with the pathogen that the, inadvertently, carry about.
Within less than a generation, if done correctly, the Dutch Elm Disease could, I am convinced, be overcome, if the above be employed. Other diseases too could be dealt with in this way, e.g. felling the diseased trees and burning the wood.
This is a case of killing two birds with one stone: removing – hopefully – the disease and providing carbon-neutral energy.
From the woodland owner's side this, obviously, does require some more work than just leaving things to fall and then in situ as they are. It requires the active cutting and bringing in of the wood and then preparing and selling it. The reward, however, could and should be grater here than the outlay, in finances and time.
It can be done because it used to be done. We have but become lazy in our management of woods over the years as, to some extent, the market for firewood was not there and the demand was rather low, and also as we were told in woodland management by certain people with little knowledge who thought that they knew it all to leave the wood as “habitat piles”. This, however, has caused more problems than that it did good; something that anyone with just half and ounce of brain could and should have seen coming.
If you leave diseased wood out there to rot down then you will spread the disease to other trees. This is so obvious but those misguided environmentalists who thought that they knew it all did not care about the trees and the possible income from those; all they cared about was invertebrates and such like needing a place to be.
What did they think those creatures did before when all woods and forests were managed properly, including for firewood and very little debris was lost? They lived quite well on the forest floor without human interference of giving them piles of wood to chew.
We cannot afford this practice, and in fact never could, for it caused disease to spread. Today, however, we can afford this even less for it is not beneficial for anyone, not at least the environment, that we import firewood from as far field as Poland to satisfy the need in Britain, especially as we here waste such wood.
It is most urgent that we manage our own woodlots, whether on farms or elsewhere, in such a way that they benefit us all.
The use of firewood is, as I have said before, carbon neutral as the wood only releases the amount of carbon that it accumulated during its growth. The same carbon is also released while the wood is a “habitat pile”. So not all that good for the environment, is it now.
Much better, therefore, to burn the wood and to have carbon neutral energy rather that to waste it by letting it rot in the woods.
Managing woodlots for firewood, especially if only dealing with dying and fallen timber, is not rocket science and the market is out there, at least presently, for firewood, and if we keep on at the right people the market may even get bigger as time goes by, especially when everyone realizes the facts about carbon neutrality of firewood.
This does only, though, really work, as to locally harvested firewood and not too that that has been imported from nearly as far afield as Russia. That is not a sustainable way to go. Using homegrown wood, on the other hand, is.
While I have been addressing here the British market, the lesson applies also for other countries. I do know that in other countries this seems too be understood far better than in Britain, such as in those of Europe and especially in the USA and Canada, but still there are some people who have little idea of how to get people to buy firewood because some see the smoke as an issue, as far as being “green” is concerned. However, the carbon neutrality of firewood is what should be considered by all of us; the smoke is something that is secondary and negligible, especially as far as untreated natural wood is concerned.
So, let's hear it for local firewood.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Bank of England Chief says Britain in deep recession
by Michael Smith
In a statement on Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Mervin King, the head of the Bank of England, said that Britain is in a deep recession but, it would appear, that like the politicians as well, he is not willing to accept the fact that it is a D and not a R; in other words, it is not just a recession, it is a depression. The governor might do well to have another look at the letters of the alphabet; depression is spelled with a “D” and in this case an uppercase one too.
Mervin King said further that the economy is going into the minus range, as if people hadn't realized that as yet. The only one that does not seem to be able to realize this and willing to accept it are the Labor regime of the UK and the state bank.
The Governor of the Bank of England also stated that other measures will have to employed, other than interest cuts, as the interest rate can basically be cut not much further, and are talking about the need to “print money”. This is NOT a good idea, as we have seen in places such as the former Rhodesia.
We need to find a new way and a new style of economy or the way things are for it is no longer going to work the way things are being done.
The present system is “kaput”, as they would say in German; it is broken, and the way I see it it is not fixable either. It if finished and we need to have a look at some new options. Some of those options are not, in fact, that new and are age old and well tested.
The system of buying on credit might be something that must be reconsidered as far as the individual consumer is concerned and either it is cash, check (though nearly no one wants to accept them bits of paper no more because of the costs of processing them) or debit card. In other words, if one does not have the money – saved – in an account or under the mattress – then one cannot buy the thing that one desires. A good was to be, methinks.
The greedy banks got us into this and we must never let them do this again.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
In a statement on Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Mervin King, the head of the Bank of England, said that Britain is in a deep recession but, it would appear, that like the politicians as well, he is not willing to accept the fact that it is a D and not a R; in other words, it is not just a recession, it is a depression. The governor might do well to have another look at the letters of the alphabet; depression is spelled with a “D” and in this case an uppercase one too.
Mervin King said further that the economy is going into the minus range, as if people hadn't realized that as yet. The only one that does not seem to be able to realize this and willing to accept it are the Labor regime of the UK and the state bank.
The Governor of the Bank of England also stated that other measures will have to employed, other than interest cuts, as the interest rate can basically be cut not much further, and are talking about the need to “print money”. This is NOT a good idea, as we have seen in places such as the former Rhodesia.
We need to find a new way and a new style of economy or the way things are for it is no longer going to work the way things are being done.
The present system is “kaput”, as they would say in German; it is broken, and the way I see it it is not fixable either. It if finished and we need to have a look at some new options. Some of those options are not, in fact, that new and are age old and well tested.
The system of buying on credit might be something that must be reconsidered as far as the individual consumer is concerned and either it is cash, check (though nearly no one wants to accept them bits of paper no more because of the costs of processing them) or debit card. In other words, if one does not have the money – saved – in an account or under the mattress – then one cannot buy the thing that one desires. A good was to be, methinks.
The greedy banks got us into this and we must never let them do this again.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Is reuse good for the economy?
by Michael Smith
The Financial Times has started using the word "austerity" in many of its headlines – and charity shops, the face of the second hand market in Britain, are experiencing a buying boom.
On the other hand a fair – though not so fair in other terms – of retailers, the purveyors of brand new things, have gone bankrupt, in liquidation or receivership, such as Woolworth, MFI and some other well known names.
Does this mean we are saturated with stuff?
The answer to this could be a probably maybe. But the truth, more than likely, is that people, that is all of us, are feeling the squeeze as with the recession and the prices for fuel and everything going up and up.
Do we still need to keep on spending on new things to keep the economy moving?
While the economic whizkids, who got us into this mess in the first place or who simply were so blind that they could not see it coming, and especially the powers that be, tell us to go and shop till we drop, basically, to help those ailing capitalist economies of ours, the truth is that we cannot do so. First off the environment must be considered for if we don't it does not matter what we do; we may no longer have a habitable planet. Secondly there is no money there and no credit to be had – not that one should work on the credit thing anyway – so how do the powers that be think that people can go out and spend, spend, spend.
Is designed obsolescence soon to be obsolete? Or should we keep on refreshing our material possessions to keep the economy moving?
In other words, the question is, "Is reuse good for the economy?"
I know that the government of this country – and, so it wold appear, also of other countries – is trying to create stimulus for us to keep on spending, and spending and spending; spending our way out of the recession, so they say. Personally I do not think that that will work.
Alternatively, maybe, just maybe, the economy is so far up the creek that we should consider building an alternative one and slowly migrate over to it.
There is no way, in my opinion, but then again I am no economist, that we can administer CPR to this troubled economy by spending as much as possible. It will not work and, well, do we have the money to do so, and, do we really need more stuff (only to throw other stuff into the garbage then).
Paul Smith of the Furniture Reuse Network (FRN) certainly advocates that reuse is a good thing but you might argue his focus is short-term and on real people rather than on the long-term health of the more abstract economy?
To some degree, methinks, the reason that the economy is in the dire straights that it is in because people and the planet were taken out of the equation by the the bankers and financiers and the big capitalists and especially the multi-nationals. As soon as you do that, that is to say to remove the people and the planet out of the equation as far as economy, and not just the economy, is concerned you head for severe trouble and so we did. Greed was all that fueled the banks and all that seems to have fueled industry and now we reap the whirlwind. But it is the little man an d the environment that suffers and not the fat cats. While we, the taxpayers, have to bail out the banks and certain sectors of industry, those who got everyone into that mess still award themselves fat multi-million pound bonuses and such payments. But I digressed somewhat.
Given that the governments of the world are doing everything they can to get spending going again it would seem that the powers that be certainly do not want reuse as a general practice, despite their “reduce, reuse, recycle” message about waste management, to take place. They want new cars, new houses, new washing machines, plasma screen TVs, MS Vista 09 and every other material (and immaterial thing) that generates jobs to start moving again. I mean, how many more sofas, TVs, etc. do we need. No, your old PC is not obsolete as yet, regardless of what the folks in Redmond try telling you. All you need is an operating system that works with less resources, e.g. lower processor speed, such as Linux.
There is no doubt in my mind that the economy is shrinking – and for everything that is reused that is one less thing that is made from scratch – environment 1 - economy nil. The same applies for re-purposing. But, as said, the powers that be do not seem to want this to happen, in all honesty, despite their pratter.
Artificially encouraging spending with the policy and print runs at the mint is only going to produce artificial demand – which in turn, produces artificial economy. It is the same as the alcoholic having a drink to get rid of the jitters - the junkie shooting up to avoid the come down. The example of Zimbabwe should also be obvious enough.
Grow your own, repair before replace, live lightly. Using and producing less is a global objective, or at least so it should be.
While it might be painful, painful for all of us, I do think that we have to go through this and kick the habit of waste and spend, spend, spend. I say reuse, don't refuse!
To some this may appear to be a stark choice between two paths, but is it really. We all know, at least those of us with some common sense, that business as usual will not be solving the problems we face. On the other hand, massive economic shifts in short periods of time seem to cause significant unrest and violence, do they not?
Then again, the choices here may not be as stark as some may think. Re-use often needs testing,such as in the case of electrical goods, and sometimes repair. These are key skills that allow re-use organizations to train and employ people. There is also a danger that the economic interest are short term. We live on a finite piece of rock with finite resources the longer we can keep items and resources in circulation the longer we will be able to have an economy at all. It is not a choice between the environment and the economy but a choice between short and long term thinking and, most importantly, survival.
Thus, in a reuse economy there are actually just as many jobs and transactions – just different skills and tills. An important thing wold be if we could but remember en mass some of the skills we have lost and then, maybe, get around to relearning some of those – all important, in my view anyway – skills and trades.
I would also like to add that I think that it would take us quite a while to use up what there is to reuse at the present time. It would be healthy to reuse as long as possible until we have thought up a way to a durable economy. It would also give the overexploited countries a chance to recenter themselves on their own needs and their own resources without having to hope that they can carry on pampering our so-called 'needs'. It is our own responsibility to live on what we have around us. We also have plenty of great skills and can learn some more too.
Being, as I said before, from a rather large Gypsy family, the reuse issue has always been part of us and that not just because we were a large family. In fact the Gypsy people recycled before the word was even invented. We made things from virtually nothing to sell at fairs, markets and door-to-door, and we reworked “trash” into goods people wanted to buy. Another kind of economy.
© M Smith (Veshengro) February 2009
<>
The Financial Times has started using the word "austerity" in many of its headlines – and charity shops, the face of the second hand market in Britain, are experiencing a buying boom.
On the other hand a fair – though not so fair in other terms – of retailers, the purveyors of brand new things, have gone bankrupt, in liquidation or receivership, such as Woolworth, MFI and some other well known names.
Does this mean we are saturated with stuff?
The answer to this could be a probably maybe. But the truth, more than likely, is that people, that is all of us, are feeling the squeeze as with the recession and the prices for fuel and everything going up and up.
Do we still need to keep on spending on new things to keep the economy moving?
While the economic whizkids, who got us into this mess in the first place or who simply were so blind that they could not see it coming, and especially the powers that be, tell us to go and shop till we drop, basically, to help those ailing capitalist economies of ours, the truth is that we cannot do so. First off the environment must be considered for if we don't it does not matter what we do; we may no longer have a habitable planet. Secondly there is no money there and no credit to be had – not that one should work on the credit thing anyway – so how do the powers that be think that people can go out and spend, spend, spend.
Is designed obsolescence soon to be obsolete? Or should we keep on refreshing our material possessions to keep the economy moving?
In other words, the question is, "Is reuse good for the economy?"
I know that the government of this country – and, so it wold appear, also of other countries – is trying to create stimulus for us to keep on spending, and spending and spending; spending our way out of the recession, so they say. Personally I do not think that that will work.
Alternatively, maybe, just maybe, the economy is so far up the creek that we should consider building an alternative one and slowly migrate over to it.
There is no way, in my opinion, but then again I am no economist, that we can administer CPR to this troubled economy by spending as much as possible. It will not work and, well, do we have the money to do so, and, do we really need more stuff (only to throw other stuff into the garbage then).
Paul Smith of the Furniture Reuse Network (FRN) certainly advocates that reuse is a good thing but you might argue his focus is short-term and on real people rather than on the long-term health of the more abstract economy?
To some degree, methinks, the reason that the economy is in the dire straights that it is in because people and the planet were taken out of the equation by the the bankers and financiers and the big capitalists and especially the multi-nationals. As soon as you do that, that is to say to remove the people and the planet out of the equation as far as economy, and not just the economy, is concerned you head for severe trouble and so we did. Greed was all that fueled the banks and all that seems to have fueled industry and now we reap the whirlwind. But it is the little man an d the environment that suffers and not the fat cats. While we, the taxpayers, have to bail out the banks and certain sectors of industry, those who got everyone into that mess still award themselves fat multi-million pound bonuses and such payments. But I digressed somewhat.
Given that the governments of the world are doing everything they can to get spending going again it would seem that the powers that be certainly do not want reuse as a general practice, despite their “reduce, reuse, recycle” message about waste management, to take place. They want new cars, new houses, new washing machines, plasma screen TVs, MS Vista 09 and every other material (and immaterial thing) that generates jobs to start moving again. I mean, how many more sofas, TVs, etc. do we need. No, your old PC is not obsolete as yet, regardless of what the folks in Redmond try telling you. All you need is an operating system that works with less resources, e.g. lower processor speed, such as Linux.
There is no doubt in my mind that the economy is shrinking – and for everything that is reused that is one less thing that is made from scratch – environment 1 - economy nil. The same applies for re-purposing. But, as said, the powers that be do not seem to want this to happen, in all honesty, despite their pratter.
Artificially encouraging spending with the policy and print runs at the mint is only going to produce artificial demand – which in turn, produces artificial economy. It is the same as the alcoholic having a drink to get rid of the jitters - the junkie shooting up to avoid the come down. The example of Zimbabwe should also be obvious enough.
Grow your own, repair before replace, live lightly. Using and producing less is a global objective, or at least so it should be.
While it might be painful, painful for all of us, I do think that we have to go through this and kick the habit of waste and spend, spend, spend. I say reuse, don't refuse!
To some this may appear to be a stark choice between two paths, but is it really. We all know, at least those of us with some common sense, that business as usual will not be solving the problems we face. On the other hand, massive economic shifts in short periods of time seem to cause significant unrest and violence, do they not?
Then again, the choices here may not be as stark as some may think. Re-use often needs testing,such as in the case of electrical goods, and sometimes repair. These are key skills that allow re-use organizations to train and employ people. There is also a danger that the economic interest are short term. We live on a finite piece of rock with finite resources the longer we can keep items and resources in circulation the longer we will be able to have an economy at all. It is not a choice between the environment and the economy but a choice between short and long term thinking and, most importantly, survival.
Thus, in a reuse economy there are actually just as many jobs and transactions – just different skills and tills. An important thing wold be if we could but remember en mass some of the skills we have lost and then, maybe, get around to relearning some of those – all important, in my view anyway – skills and trades.
I would also like to add that I think that it would take us quite a while to use up what there is to reuse at the present time. It would be healthy to reuse as long as possible until we have thought up a way to a durable economy. It would also give the overexploited countries a chance to recenter themselves on their own needs and their own resources without having to hope that they can carry on pampering our so-called 'needs'. It is our own responsibility to live on what we have around us. We also have plenty of great skills and can learn some more too.
Being, as I said before, from a rather large Gypsy family, the reuse issue has always been part of us and that not just because we were a large family. In fact the Gypsy people recycled before the word was even invented. We made things from virtually nothing to sell at fairs, markets and door-to-door, and we reworked “trash” into goods people wanted to buy. Another kind of economy.
© M Smith (Veshengro) February 2009
<>
Fragility of the power grid
by Michael Smith
The catastrophic failure of only two electricity generating plants in Britain, including the nuclear power station “Sizewell II”, in May 2008 should really have brought home to all and sundry but at least and especially to those in power that something must be done to protect the people and the country's infrastructure from such an event ever occurring again.
While I do know that there will always be the possibility of a fluke incident, as this may just have been one of, this, however, proves how extremely vulnerable we are in this country – and probably not just in this country alone – due to our highly centralized electricity generating industry.
Also to a degree the fact that most of our utility companies are foreign owned, and one is hard pressed to find one that is still a British one. Even “nPower” whose agents keep claiming that they are a green company and wholly British is foreign owned, namely by RWE of Germany.
The majority of our power stations are huge, not to say, gigantic, and far, far away from where people live and the power is actually consumed.
They, as individual stations, supply millions of households, as well as businesses, hospitals, schools, and so on.
The total failure of already only one of those can cause severe problems and also put a strain then of gigantic proportions onto the national electricity grid. If more than one station goes out then we are getting into serious trouble already and the power will, probably, go out to tens of thousands of homes, businesses and other places and this, obviously, can have rather serious impact on so many things. In some cases such failures can cause loss of life.
Fritz Schumacher in his books “Small is beautiful” suggested the things that we are, I know, finally coming to, namely localized power generating plants and people thought him crazy in those days of the 1960s when everything that was being build in that department had to be ever bigger and hence further away from the actual electricity consumer. And the fact that those stations then supply thousands upon thousands of homes, businesses, offices, and other establishment has then tremendous negative implications in the even of a failure.
Local power generating plants, as once advocated by F Schumacher and others, myself included, are now, finally, being looked at and they also make sense not just in the supply issue and the issue of a failure of the huge power stations.
Locally generated electricity can be of a lower voltage rating than that which is being generated far away and needs to travel a long distance. The power loss over the long distance in the cables is being compensated for by the extreme high voltages with which the electricity is leaving the power stations, in many cases those are 20,000 volts and more.
In order to generate that amount we waste a lot of resources and locally generated electricity would be better for everyone and here we could work on less than 1,000 volts and more than likely even directly at commercial and domestic current.
Both the environmental aspect of small local power plants and the savings in resources are important on the level of protecting the national infrastructure as well as the environment. Thus local CHP facilities, for instance, would kill two birds with one stone and also that many of those could be powered, say, by methane from sewerage plants or from waste wood and thus reduce the impact and also our reliance on oil and gas.
The fact is that those large power stations are not as economical as they once were tauted to be for they do waste a lot of resources in the production of the very high current that is required in order to transport the power over the long distance that it has to travel to its final destination, the end-consumer, to you and me at home, to our offices, factories, schools and hospitals, and everywhere else.
While the UK currently still produces oil and natural gas and is even a seller of same on the world market in the not so distant future Britain will have to become, once again, a net importer of oil and gas and then we are at the mercy of the likes of the Russian Federation and other such states and can be held to ransom over gas and oil supplies.
Smaller power stations, and here ideally local area CHPs, can go a long way towards this country's self-reliance as far as electricity is concerned, especially as other fuels can be employed here, as already indicated.
This would be good, as said, as regards the protection of the environment and the protection of the infrastructure of the nation.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
The catastrophic failure of only two electricity generating plants in Britain, including the nuclear power station “Sizewell II”, in May 2008 should really have brought home to all and sundry but at least and especially to those in power that something must be done to protect the people and the country's infrastructure from such an event ever occurring again.
While I do know that there will always be the possibility of a fluke incident, as this may just have been one of, this, however, proves how extremely vulnerable we are in this country – and probably not just in this country alone – due to our highly centralized electricity generating industry.
Also to a degree the fact that most of our utility companies are foreign owned, and one is hard pressed to find one that is still a British one. Even “nPower” whose agents keep claiming that they are a green company and wholly British is foreign owned, namely by RWE of Germany.
The majority of our power stations are huge, not to say, gigantic, and far, far away from where people live and the power is actually consumed.
They, as individual stations, supply millions of households, as well as businesses, hospitals, schools, and so on.
The total failure of already only one of those can cause severe problems and also put a strain then of gigantic proportions onto the national electricity grid. If more than one station goes out then we are getting into serious trouble already and the power will, probably, go out to tens of thousands of homes, businesses and other places and this, obviously, can have rather serious impact on so many things. In some cases such failures can cause loss of life.
Fritz Schumacher in his books “Small is beautiful” suggested the things that we are, I know, finally coming to, namely localized power generating plants and people thought him crazy in those days of the 1960s when everything that was being build in that department had to be ever bigger and hence further away from the actual electricity consumer. And the fact that those stations then supply thousands upon thousands of homes, businesses, offices, and other establishment has then tremendous negative implications in the even of a failure.
Local power generating plants, as once advocated by F Schumacher and others, myself included, are now, finally, being looked at and they also make sense not just in the supply issue and the issue of a failure of the huge power stations.
Locally generated electricity can be of a lower voltage rating than that which is being generated far away and needs to travel a long distance. The power loss over the long distance in the cables is being compensated for by the extreme high voltages with which the electricity is leaving the power stations, in many cases those are 20,000 volts and more.
In order to generate that amount we waste a lot of resources and locally generated electricity would be better for everyone and here we could work on less than 1,000 volts and more than likely even directly at commercial and domestic current.
Both the environmental aspect of small local power plants and the savings in resources are important on the level of protecting the national infrastructure as well as the environment. Thus local CHP facilities, for instance, would kill two birds with one stone and also that many of those could be powered, say, by methane from sewerage plants or from waste wood and thus reduce the impact and also our reliance on oil and gas.
The fact is that those large power stations are not as economical as they once were tauted to be for they do waste a lot of resources in the production of the very high current that is required in order to transport the power over the long distance that it has to travel to its final destination, the end-consumer, to you and me at home, to our offices, factories, schools and hospitals, and everywhere else.
While the UK currently still produces oil and natural gas and is even a seller of same on the world market in the not so distant future Britain will have to become, once again, a net importer of oil and gas and then we are at the mercy of the likes of the Russian Federation and other such states and can be held to ransom over gas and oil supplies.
Smaller power stations, and here ideally local area CHPs, can go a long way towards this country's self-reliance as far as electricity is concerned, especially as other fuels can be employed here, as already indicated.
This would be good, as said, as regards the protection of the environment and the protection of the infrastructure of the nation.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Waste Wood
Why waste wood at all, it is a valuable resource
by Michael Smith
First we have had a study that costs millions in which the British government discovered – well, so the press release said – that waste wood can be burned; something that the Neanderthals could have told them. Now they are talking of using waste wood, together with food waste, etc. and turning that into a biogas to heat homes and power electricity generating plants.
In Britain, we are told, well over ten million (10,000,000) metric tons of waste wood is chucked into landfills every year.
Now what kind of wood are we talking here? Brushwood and cuttings from agriculture and forestry, or from gardens? No. We are talking milled lumber that has been used in the building industry and elsewhere; shoring timber, joists, and other such that are removed after a building is erected and, because there are nails in the wood here or there and such it cannot, so the building industry says, possibly be reused. Other wood of this nature that is thrown away is wooden pallets and other packaging crates. All, theoretically, reclaimable lumber, ready for many DIY projects of, if need be, as solid fuel for the stove at home.
There used to be a time when pallets, for instance, had a deposit on them and were taken back by the suppliers of the goods delivered on them. No longer. It all goes too waste, and most of it ends up in landfill where it rots down releasing carbon dioxide. This same wood, however, as indicated, would never need to go that route in the first place and neither would it need to be burned (at least not most of it).
Wood, while burning, releases only the amount of carbon dioxide that it has absorbed during its growing process, hence heating with wood is, basically, carbon neutral. It does, however, release the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere when it is composing in landfill; no more, no less. It is therefore better to burn the wood than to “compost” it or have it decay somewhere but... this “waste” wood would and should never have to be “waste” in the first place.
Many years ago I had a book from the USA, the title and author of which I can no longer recall as some “kind” soul borrowed the book from me and forgot to return it, that dealt with the making of furniture from pallets and wooden packing cases, normally thrown into the trash. This book was one of the few proper books I have ever seen on the subject – it would be good to use those ideas and reclaim pallets for some new use and also other “waste” building lumber. There is, in my opinion, no need for any of this kind of wood to be destroyed in any way. Most of this lumber is too good, in fact, to end up being burned.
Lumber of this kind is far too valuable, in my opinion, a resource to be burned, whether in the stove at home or in power stations., and nor should it ever go to the landfill either. It should be reused in whichever way possible and only those bits that have no further use should then be put to use then for the purpose of generating energy, whether as heat at home or in some furnace to make electricity.
Wood is only “waste” then when it really has no other use and cannot be turned into anything other than a source of heat and there is enough of that kind of wood discarded in woods, forests and parks on an almost daily basis in tree operations, often left as “habitat piles” for the wildlife. This practice, however, is not only a waste of a valuable resource, it is a cause of diseases in woods and it is lazy forest management practice.
However, building lumber and the wood of pallets and packing cases should never be turned in to so-called waste, in the first place, and nor should the thought be given to burning this material. The first thought should be reusing it, and if not for their original purposes, as no one, nowadays takes back old pallets for their original use, then for something else, such as the making of small items of furniture and such like. Only, and only, when all avenues of possible reuse have been exhausted should the thought go to turning this wood into a source for energy; not before.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
by Michael Smith
First we have had a study that costs millions in which the British government discovered – well, so the press release said – that waste wood can be burned; something that the Neanderthals could have told them. Now they are talking of using waste wood, together with food waste, etc. and turning that into a biogas to heat homes and power electricity generating plants.
In Britain, we are told, well over ten million (10,000,000) metric tons of waste wood is chucked into landfills every year.
Now what kind of wood are we talking here? Brushwood and cuttings from agriculture and forestry, or from gardens? No. We are talking milled lumber that has been used in the building industry and elsewhere; shoring timber, joists, and other such that are removed after a building is erected and, because there are nails in the wood here or there and such it cannot, so the building industry says, possibly be reused. Other wood of this nature that is thrown away is wooden pallets and other packaging crates. All, theoretically, reclaimable lumber, ready for many DIY projects of, if need be, as solid fuel for the stove at home.
There used to be a time when pallets, for instance, had a deposit on them and were taken back by the suppliers of the goods delivered on them. No longer. It all goes too waste, and most of it ends up in landfill where it rots down releasing carbon dioxide. This same wood, however, as indicated, would never need to go that route in the first place and neither would it need to be burned (at least not most of it).
Wood, while burning, releases only the amount of carbon dioxide that it has absorbed during its growing process, hence heating with wood is, basically, carbon neutral. It does, however, release the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere when it is composing in landfill; no more, no less. It is therefore better to burn the wood than to “compost” it or have it decay somewhere but... this “waste” wood would and should never have to be “waste” in the first place.
Many years ago I had a book from the USA, the title and author of which I can no longer recall as some “kind” soul borrowed the book from me and forgot to return it, that dealt with the making of furniture from pallets and wooden packing cases, normally thrown into the trash. This book was one of the few proper books I have ever seen on the subject – it would be good to use those ideas and reclaim pallets for some new use and also other “waste” building lumber. There is, in my opinion, no need for any of this kind of wood to be destroyed in any way. Most of this lumber is too good, in fact, to end up being burned.
Lumber of this kind is far too valuable, in my opinion, a resource to be burned, whether in the stove at home or in power stations., and nor should it ever go to the landfill either. It should be reused in whichever way possible and only those bits that have no further use should then be put to use then for the purpose of generating energy, whether as heat at home or in some furnace to make electricity.
Wood is only “waste” then when it really has no other use and cannot be turned into anything other than a source of heat and there is enough of that kind of wood discarded in woods, forests and parks on an almost daily basis in tree operations, often left as “habitat piles” for the wildlife. This practice, however, is not only a waste of a valuable resource, it is a cause of diseases in woods and it is lazy forest management practice.
However, building lumber and the wood of pallets and packing cases should never be turned in to so-called waste, in the first place, and nor should the thought be given to burning this material. The first thought should be reusing it, and if not for their original purposes, as no one, nowadays takes back old pallets for their original use, then for something else, such as the making of small items of furniture and such like. Only, and only, when all avenues of possible reuse have been exhausted should the thought go to turning this wood into a source for energy; not before.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Pandering to Muslim radicals yet again!
A sad day for Britain
by Michael Smith
Denying entry to the UK by the Dutch MP is political correctness gone mad and is probably against the European laws that Britain has signed, as well.
Pandering to Muslim radicals is NOT going to help the so-called “war on terror” because by doing what was done again on Thursday, February 12, 2009n at Heathrow Airport on orders of the British Home Secretary is in fact allowing the Islamist terrorists to win.
While Britain seems to be unable rid itself of hate speech Islamic preachers, some of which have been jailed for a variety of reasons, anyone, however, wishing to speak up against the violent Islam – and no, it is not a religion of peace – far from it – are being forbidden to do so an are silenced.
Freedom of Speech, however, in Britain, and that is what the majority of British subjects do not understand, is, in fact not a freedom at all and not a right but a granted privilege, as one Home Secretary has stated in public, and can be removed as and when the regime of the UK will feel like.
Why is it that Muslim radicals can scream hate and murder against Jews – though the Zionist have a lot to answer for that themselves – and Christians but when others speak out against Islam they are not permitted to even if they speak the truth.
You cannot win the “war on terror” by being afraid of what those Muslim radicals will do if they may feel offended by what someone may say about Islam. The Christian faith is not protected in such a way in the UK, though according to the statute book there is a “Blasphemy Law”, which is only relevant to the Christian faith but whatever is thrown towards the Christians nothbing ever happens. It appear to be one law for the Muslims and one for others.
The British government is pandering to the Muslims and this is giving victory to the enemies of that country and the enemies of the West per se.
The score, for the record is, Muslim terrorists ONE, British government NIL. And this is going to get worse the more we pander to radical Islam.
Maybe if members of the government had actually taken a look at the film by the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders and listened to the speeches by those preachers captured on film where Muslims are called upon top take over the USA, Britain, and Europe and turn all those countries into Islamic states with Sharia Law by force they might have understood what is happening rather than listening to the so-called moderate Muslims who may also but be agents of this kind of Islam – who knows.
The radical Muslims that want to turn Britain into an Islamic theocracy with Sharia Law should be told in the same uncertain terms as the former Australian Prime Minister told the Muslims in that country, namely that no one asked them to live here, in a predominately Christian country and if it does not suit them they are free to leave to countries that are governed by Sharia Law. No one is stopping them from doing so. However, while they are in this country and while they have the right to follow their religion – to an extent, and this country has already gone too far in accommodating them – they do not have the right never to be offended.
If they have a problem with Christmas or such like then that is their problem and, as said, they are free to leave. If they wish to advocate a violent overthrow of the countries of the West then I am sure we can find an answer to that and that is to be shot on sight.
Terrorism is not fought by pandering to their followers; it can only be overcome by getting rid of the cancer. The very safety and security of this country and our civilization is at stake.,
The safety and the security of the British Realm was not under threat from Mr. Wilders comin g to the U but by the very acts of stopping him entering the country and allowing him to make his point against Islamo-Fascism.
This kind of world view as espoused by those Muslim hate-mongers in the garb of Mullahs and Imams is nothing but another form of Fascism and as dangerous as was that of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and Mosley, or the imperialism of Japan in the 1940s. In those days the countries rose up and fought against the onslaught. Nowadays everyone seems afraid and wants, yet again, appeasement, in the same way as before the Nazis began their real sweep across Europe, which nearly caused the fall of Britain too.
If we do not stand up to the threat and are prepared to combat it with the same resolute spirit that John Howard of Australia portrayed when he told those people where to get off then we will be made to regret that soon when we find ourselves all of a sudden under Islamic rule, by the back door, and before that totally paralyzed by fear of possibly offending the Muslim minority in this country.
No one ever worries about offending the Romani minority, for instance, and all told their might be more people of Romani-Gypsy descent in Britain than there are Muslims. But dare anyone mention anything against Islam and the Koran. Twenty years ago things were different when Salman Rushdie was wrote the “Satanic Verses” and received round the clock protection and all that. Freedom of speech they said then. How things have changed.
As I said before, the safety and security of our society and of each and every one is at stake here and our freedoms.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
by Michael Smith
Denying entry to the UK by the Dutch MP is political correctness gone mad and is probably against the European laws that Britain has signed, as well.
Pandering to Muslim radicals is NOT going to help the so-called “war on terror” because by doing what was done again on Thursday, February 12, 2009n at Heathrow Airport on orders of the British Home Secretary is in fact allowing the Islamist terrorists to win.
While Britain seems to be unable rid itself of hate speech Islamic preachers, some of which have been jailed for a variety of reasons, anyone, however, wishing to speak up against the violent Islam – and no, it is not a religion of peace – far from it – are being forbidden to do so an are silenced.
Freedom of Speech, however, in Britain, and that is what the majority of British subjects do not understand, is, in fact not a freedom at all and not a right but a granted privilege, as one Home Secretary has stated in public, and can be removed as and when the regime of the UK will feel like.
Why is it that Muslim radicals can scream hate and murder against Jews – though the Zionist have a lot to answer for that themselves – and Christians but when others speak out against Islam they are not permitted to even if they speak the truth.
You cannot win the “war on terror” by being afraid of what those Muslim radicals will do if they may feel offended by what someone may say about Islam. The Christian faith is not protected in such a way in the UK, though according to the statute book there is a “Blasphemy Law”, which is only relevant to the Christian faith but whatever is thrown towards the Christians nothbing ever happens. It appear to be one law for the Muslims and one for others.
The British government is pandering to the Muslims and this is giving victory to the enemies of that country and the enemies of the West per se.
The score, for the record is, Muslim terrorists ONE, British government NIL. And this is going to get worse the more we pander to radical Islam.
Maybe if members of the government had actually taken a look at the film by the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders and listened to the speeches by those preachers captured on film where Muslims are called upon top take over the USA, Britain, and Europe and turn all those countries into Islamic states with Sharia Law by force they might have understood what is happening rather than listening to the so-called moderate Muslims who may also but be agents of this kind of Islam – who knows.
The radical Muslims that want to turn Britain into an Islamic theocracy with Sharia Law should be told in the same uncertain terms as the former Australian Prime Minister told the Muslims in that country, namely that no one asked them to live here, in a predominately Christian country and if it does not suit them they are free to leave to countries that are governed by Sharia Law. No one is stopping them from doing so. However, while they are in this country and while they have the right to follow their religion – to an extent, and this country has already gone too far in accommodating them – they do not have the right never to be offended.
If they have a problem with Christmas or such like then that is their problem and, as said, they are free to leave. If they wish to advocate a violent overthrow of the countries of the West then I am sure we can find an answer to that and that is to be shot on sight.
Terrorism is not fought by pandering to their followers; it can only be overcome by getting rid of the cancer. The very safety and security of this country and our civilization is at stake.,
The safety and the security of the British Realm was not under threat from Mr. Wilders comin g to the U but by the very acts of stopping him entering the country and allowing him to make his point against Islamo-Fascism.
This kind of world view as espoused by those Muslim hate-mongers in the garb of Mullahs and Imams is nothing but another form of Fascism and as dangerous as was that of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and Mosley, or the imperialism of Japan in the 1940s. In those days the countries rose up and fought against the onslaught. Nowadays everyone seems afraid and wants, yet again, appeasement, in the same way as before the Nazis began their real sweep across Europe, which nearly caused the fall of Britain too.
If we do not stand up to the threat and are prepared to combat it with the same resolute spirit that John Howard of Australia portrayed when he told those people where to get off then we will be made to regret that soon when we find ourselves all of a sudden under Islamic rule, by the back door, and before that totally paralyzed by fear of possibly offending the Muslim minority in this country.
No one ever worries about offending the Romani minority, for instance, and all told their might be more people of Romani-Gypsy descent in Britain than there are Muslims. But dare anyone mention anything against Islam and the Koran. Twenty years ago things were different when Salman Rushdie was wrote the “Satanic Verses” and received round the clock protection and all that. Freedom of speech they said then. How things have changed.
As I said before, the safety and security of our society and of each and every one is at stake here and our freedoms.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Lords issue warning regarding the 'surveillance state'
by Michael Smith
Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, Members of the House of Lords have warned. And rightly so, one can but hasten to add.
The proliferation of CCTV cameras and the growth of the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, so the Lords constitution committee said.
Those subject to unlawful surveillance should be compensated while the policy of DNA retention should be rethought.
Too many times local authorities also have been making use of RIPA, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which was never intended to be used in the way that so many councils are employing it, such as spying on people as to what rubbish is put out when incorrectly and by who, and such like.
The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential crime fighting tools", but this has, in fact, been disproved by senior police officers who have stated not so long ago that CCTV is useless in most cases. So why the continuation of the lie to the people.
The only answer here can and must be that the government of the UK is hellbent on “people control” and nothing else.
'Orwellian'
Surveillance and data collection, so the Lords' committee says, must be proportionate.
What, however, is proportionate in this instance and who decides this and who monitors this on behalf of the people?
Civil liberties campaigners have warned about the risks of a "surveillance society" in which the state acquires ever-greater powers to track people's movements and retain personal data.
Controversial government plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mails were put on hold late last year after they were branded "Orwellian".
Ministers are currently consulting on the plan, which would involve the details but not the content of calls and internet traffic being logged, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.
While we are being told that this database will not contain the details of phone calls and emails who is to say that this is going to be thus and, yet again, who, on behalf of the people is going to monitor this.
None of these methods will aid in the fight against crime nor in the fight against terrorism. Only one things will: proper policing; one that is NOT target driven but one that uses the old-fashioned ways of investigations of officers with common sense and a nose for spotting things that are wrong.
In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
The public were often unaware of the scale of personal information held and exchanged by public bodies, it said.
He only reason I can see for all those intrusive measures is that the governments are, in fact, frightened of the people and of the power the people have nowadays with the Internet. For the very same reason that they, in Italy, are trying to outlaw the citizen journalist, the Blogger and Blogs.
Instead of alienating the people by such measures the governments should empower the people to take part in the enforcement of the laws that there are and to be the eyes and ears as far as crime and terrorism is concerned and empower the people also the properly, as individuals, to hold the police to account when they do not deal with crime in the proper way.
Target-driven policing is leaving people frustrated and worse. You cannot tell a crime victim that they must book an appointment with an officer to take a statement or too tell Park Rangers when there are hoodlums rampaging through a park, threatening people, that local officers will be made aware and will attend to take a statement in a couple of days.
The reason for such replies is the target culture and the wish to appear to solve everything to which officers are being dispatched. So, if you don't send a response vehicle then that is not logged as such an incident and hence the possible lack of a result in an investigation does not reflect (badly) in the league tables. This is what it is all about and, as far as the government is concerned, “people control”
here is so much misuse of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for instance, that it is hardly surprising that people, and especially organizations that try to protect the civil liberties in the UK, are getting concerned.
Orwell was right only a little too early in the date.
There are and estimated 4,000,000 (in words: four million) CCTV cameras in the UK and often they are used by local councils to simply spy on people over issues such as littering and such like.
The Conservatives said the government's approach to personal privacy was "reckless".
"Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people," said shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve.
The government and the police, as said previously, are alienating rather than making friends out of the public but then they do not seem to care. They rather see anyone and everyone as a criminal and terrorist until proven otherwise. It used to be “innocent until proven guilty” but that was a long time ago.
When the “Miranda” warning in the UK was changed from “you have the right to remain silent but anything you may say will be taken down and given in evidence” to “you have the right to remain silent but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court”, the goalpost was moved and it became a “guilty until proven innocent”. In the same way as anyone carrying a knife may be considered automatically to carry it will ill intentions, for instance. A knife is a tool and not a weapon, primarily, and while there are people who carry a knife as a weapon the emphasis should still be, also with children and young people in the possession of a knife, that there is another purpose there for that knife than as a weapon of offense or defense. Guilty until proven innocent, and in the knife instance often it simply if guilty, whether guilty or not. You do not solve crime that way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, Members of the House of Lords have warned. And rightly so, one can but hasten to add.
The proliferation of CCTV cameras and the growth of the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, so the Lords constitution committee said.
Those subject to unlawful surveillance should be compensated while the policy of DNA retention should be rethought.
Too many times local authorities also have been making use of RIPA, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which was never intended to be used in the way that so many councils are employing it, such as spying on people as to what rubbish is put out when incorrectly and by who, and such like.
The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential crime fighting tools", but this has, in fact, been disproved by senior police officers who have stated not so long ago that CCTV is useless in most cases. So why the continuation of the lie to the people.
The only answer here can and must be that the government of the UK is hellbent on “people control” and nothing else.
'Orwellian'
Surveillance and data collection, so the Lords' committee says, must be proportionate.
What, however, is proportionate in this instance and who decides this and who monitors this on behalf of the people?
Civil liberties campaigners have warned about the risks of a "surveillance society" in which the state acquires ever-greater powers to track people's movements and retain personal data.
Controversial government plans for a database to store details of people's phone calls and e-mails were put on hold late last year after they were branded "Orwellian".
Ministers are currently consulting on the plan, which would involve the details but not the content of calls and internet traffic being logged, saying it is essential to fighting terrorism.
While we are being told that this database will not contain the details of phone calls and emails who is to say that this is going to be thus and, yet again, who, on behalf of the people is going to monitor this.
None of these methods will aid in the fight against crime nor in the fight against terrorism. Only one things will: proper policing; one that is NOT target driven but one that uses the old-fashioned ways of investigations of officers with common sense and a nose for spotting things that are wrong.
In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
The public were often unaware of the scale of personal information held and exchanged by public bodies, it said.
He only reason I can see for all those intrusive measures is that the governments are, in fact, frightened of the people and of the power the people have nowadays with the Internet. For the very same reason that they, in Italy, are trying to outlaw the citizen journalist, the Blogger and Blogs.
Instead of alienating the people by such measures the governments should empower the people to take part in the enforcement of the laws that there are and to be the eyes and ears as far as crime and terrorism is concerned and empower the people also the properly, as individuals, to hold the police to account when they do not deal with crime in the proper way.
Target-driven policing is leaving people frustrated and worse. You cannot tell a crime victim that they must book an appointment with an officer to take a statement or too tell Park Rangers when there are hoodlums rampaging through a park, threatening people, that local officers will be made aware and will attend to take a statement in a couple of days.
The reason for such replies is the target culture and the wish to appear to solve everything to which officers are being dispatched. So, if you don't send a response vehicle then that is not logged as such an incident and hence the possible lack of a result in an investigation does not reflect (badly) in the league tables. This is what it is all about and, as far as the government is concerned, “people control”
here is so much misuse of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, for instance, that it is hardly surprising that people, and especially organizations that try to protect the civil liberties in the UK, are getting concerned.
Orwell was right only a little too early in the date.
There are and estimated 4,000,000 (in words: four million) CCTV cameras in the UK and often they are used by local councils to simply spy on people over issues such as littering and such like.
The Conservatives said the government's approach to personal privacy was "reckless".
"Ministers have sanctioned a massive increase in surveillance over the last decade, at great cost to the taxpayer, without properly assessing either its effectiveness or taking adequate steps to protect the privacy of perfectly innocent people," said shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve.
The government and the police, as said previously, are alienating rather than making friends out of the public but then they do not seem to care. They rather see anyone and everyone as a criminal and terrorist until proven otherwise. It used to be “innocent until proven guilty” but that was a long time ago.
When the “Miranda” warning in the UK was changed from “you have the right to remain silent but anything you may say will be taken down and given in evidence” to “you have the right to remain silent but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court”, the goalpost was moved and it became a “guilty until proven innocent”. In the same way as anyone carrying a knife may be considered automatically to carry it will ill intentions, for instance. A knife is a tool and not a weapon, primarily, and while there are people who carry a knife as a weapon the emphasis should still be, also with children and young people in the possession of a knife, that there is another purpose there for that knife than as a weapon of offense or defense. Guilty until proven innocent, and in the knife instance often it simply if guilty, whether guilty or not. You do not solve crime that way.
© M Smith (Veshengro), February 2009
<>
Independence from gas and oil imports
by Michael Smith
As we have spoken about in the article as to Russia and its gas the western developed nations – the UK, the EU, etc., must become – largely – independent from foreign gas and oil to safeguard our countries' infrastructure.
This can, I think, be done but it will require a new way of thinking and especially the political will to do so. For starters we must get away from gas for heating and cooking and electricity generation, at least too a large extent.
The biggest problem is the political will. The latter always seems to be missing, it seem, for it is the large petrochemical companies that seem to hold sway somewhere and somehow in all the developed nations and it is very much also that governments are worried about the revenue they lose from the taxes on the oil and gas if a switch would be made.
In Britain, and other countries, it would appear that the people themselves are beginning to vote with their feet ;as far as heating is concerned for sure.
Presently those that can, it would appear, in the British Isles are rediscovering the wood-burning stove, at least for heating. The cook stoves that can use wood, nowadays, are mostly of the expensive AGA and Rayburn – now one and the same company anyway – which are well out of the financial reach of most ordinary people, and are also far too heavy for the floors of many homes.
The demand for wood for burning in stoves and fireplaces in Britain int his current financial, economic crisis and that of gas supply from the Russian Federation, way outstrips supplies and, as we have learned, wood sellers go to great length, even to the countries of Eastern Europe, in order to bring in wood. This also now pushed the price of firewood up a tremendous level.
Other means of independence from oil and natural gas and petroleum-based gas are available and also possible, but again as far as the nations are concerned at a government level, local and central, the political will is missing again.
There is, aside from the use of wood for heating homes, also the possibility to use timber, and here especially the waste lumber from the building industry to run power stations and combined heat & power plants (CHPs).
Then there is the possibility to use waste incineration as a source for to run CHP facilities though I am well aware of the fact how often that idea runs foul of the NIMBYs and also – strangely enough – the likes of Friends of the Earth, who will come out ranting and waving arms that we must recycle all rubbish and not burn it. Shame that they have not understood that there will always be some rubbish left over that cannot be recycled and it would be, in my opinion, much better to burn that and use it to power the nation rather than to tip it into holes in the ground, the latter of which we are running out of rapidly anyway.
Gas from waste is another way and means and then there is the humble methane gas that is released from landfills and from sewerage works. That too could be used for heating and cooking but, ideally, for the running of electricity generating plants.
I say the latter simply because methane gas happens to be a bit on the explosive side and even though it is used in many countries on farms and homesteads for heating and cooking it might not be the best idea to pipe it through towns and cities and have it used by people who might just be a little careless.
We must not forget that the first electricity power stations were not run on oil of the petroleum kind but on methane gas in fact. Mind you, the same is true for the first motorcars of the Ford “Tin Lizzy” variety. It was not until gasoline became cheaply available that the car was changed.
But back to the subject in hand, namely that of national independence from imported oil and gas.
We can no longer afford the luxury of oil and gas being brought in from far away, especially not from areas over which politics we have no control, whether this be the Russian Federation or the Ukraine or the seaways from the Persian Gulf to the West.
Our countries must look at ways to become if not self-sufficient than some way self-reliant as regards to oil and gas imports.
While I can suggest that we must do this I, as an ordinary writer, cannot, obviously, come up with all the possible suggestions as to how this may be done, but doing it we must.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
As we have spoken about in the article as to Russia and its gas the western developed nations – the UK, the EU, etc., must become – largely – independent from foreign gas and oil to safeguard our countries' infrastructure.
This can, I think, be done but it will require a new way of thinking and especially the political will to do so. For starters we must get away from gas for heating and cooking and electricity generation, at least too a large extent.
The biggest problem is the political will. The latter always seems to be missing, it seem, for it is the large petrochemical companies that seem to hold sway somewhere and somehow in all the developed nations and it is very much also that governments are worried about the revenue they lose from the taxes on the oil and gas if a switch would be made.
In Britain, and other countries, it would appear that the people themselves are beginning to vote with their feet ;as far as heating is concerned for sure.
Presently those that can, it would appear, in the British Isles are rediscovering the wood-burning stove, at least for heating. The cook stoves that can use wood, nowadays, are mostly of the expensive AGA and Rayburn – now one and the same company anyway – which are well out of the financial reach of most ordinary people, and are also far too heavy for the floors of many homes.
The demand for wood for burning in stoves and fireplaces in Britain int his current financial, economic crisis and that of gas supply from the Russian Federation, way outstrips supplies and, as we have learned, wood sellers go to great length, even to the countries of Eastern Europe, in order to bring in wood. This also now pushed the price of firewood up a tremendous level.
Other means of independence from oil and natural gas and petroleum-based gas are available and also possible, but again as far as the nations are concerned at a government level, local and central, the political will is missing again.
There is, aside from the use of wood for heating homes, also the possibility to use timber, and here especially the waste lumber from the building industry to run power stations and combined heat & power plants (CHPs).
Then there is the possibility to use waste incineration as a source for to run CHP facilities though I am well aware of the fact how often that idea runs foul of the NIMBYs and also – strangely enough – the likes of Friends of the Earth, who will come out ranting and waving arms that we must recycle all rubbish and not burn it. Shame that they have not understood that there will always be some rubbish left over that cannot be recycled and it would be, in my opinion, much better to burn that and use it to power the nation rather than to tip it into holes in the ground, the latter of which we are running out of rapidly anyway.
Gas from waste is another way and means and then there is the humble methane gas that is released from landfills and from sewerage works. That too could be used for heating and cooking but, ideally, for the running of electricity generating plants.
I say the latter simply because methane gas happens to be a bit on the explosive side and even though it is used in many countries on farms and homesteads for heating and cooking it might not be the best idea to pipe it through towns and cities and have it used by people who might just be a little careless.
We must not forget that the first electricity power stations were not run on oil of the petroleum kind but on methane gas in fact. Mind you, the same is true for the first motorcars of the Ford “Tin Lizzy” variety. It was not until gasoline became cheaply available that the car was changed.
But back to the subject in hand, namely that of national independence from imported oil and gas.
We can no longer afford the luxury of oil and gas being brought in from far away, especially not from areas over which politics we have no control, whether this be the Russian Federation or the Ukraine or the seaways from the Persian Gulf to the West.
Our countries must look at ways to become if not self-sufficient than some way self-reliant as regards to oil and gas imports.
While I can suggest that we must do this I, as an ordinary writer, cannot, obviously, come up with all the possible suggestions as to how this may be done, but doing it we must.
© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
