I like windfarms

I have been reading some blogs and comments about people protesting the building of wind-farms near their homes and villages in South Wales. Personally, I don't understand the fuss and the furore about wind-farms. Why don't people like them? Ok, so that is why I was reading these commentaries but I am still none the wiser, the arguments don't make much sense to me. They spoil the view, apparently. Well, maybe but no more than pylons do already surely? And no more than the view will be spoiled when climate change floods the plains and food security goes down the toilet and millions starve. Somehow I think in that nightmare scenario very few people will stop to enjoy the view.

But, climate skeptic or not, I cannot help but disagree with the aesthetic problem people have regarding wind-farms. And it seems I am not alone. An offshore wind-farm in Ulster is something of a tourist attraction in its own right. On clear days folk congregate in a coffee shop on the shore and enjoy the view, or so I am told by a local resident I know personally. They might be lying and in the pocket of the evil green energy corporations. I know Donald Trump hates them. After being a little too cosy for my liking with the SNP for years he has had a massive falling out with Alex Salmond over a proposed offshore wind-farm next to his half built golf course. I know the Scots invented the game but really, Aberdeenshire seems like the worst location for outdoor pursuits of any kind. Particularly because it is a bit windswept at times. Ideal for a wind-farm really you might think?

Let us not cover the globe in them, I think a nice mix of Tidal (I note Swansea might be building its own Tidal Lagoon soon which is very cool, click the link above to see what it will look like. Perhaps a tourist destination in its own right too? Solar power where appropriate and whatever else the brightest and best minds of the world dream up in the future. I have no problem with nuclear either by the way, but that is for a separate blog post I suspect.

I think a clean, cheap, renewable source of energy that does not leave us at the mercy of OPEC, Gazprom or whatever is fairly sensible and they have to be in someone's back yard! And, that backyard usually gets a nice amount of money in grants to improve the community too. Many of the new wind-farms are being built in the Welsh Valleys and, fair play they are beautiful, but these are depressed communities following the collapse of the coal mining industry (another blog post in itself) and a bit of inward investment seems like a good idea and fitting that these regions still produce the energy for the nation?

So, yes. If you wanted to build one in my back yard, or near my home, or in my local beauty spot you would hear no complaint from me. Like the mobile phone mast protests of the 90s I think that we will seriously regret making such a fuss in the future. Plus, they look pretty! Serene! Graceful!

Are smart watches dumb?

Samsung Smart Watch

Omega Seamaster

Taking a break from blogging about the news, which can be quite depressing at times, I turn my attention instead to the future! Smart Watches. Or, so they say. Samsung revealed details of its impending offering to the burgeoning smart phone market with the Samsung Gear, or Galaxy Gear (let us hope they come up with a better name before launch day). It looks a nifty offering. I was tempted to buy one of the smart watches on the market recently, Sony or Pebble or whatever but in the looks and function department neither really leapt off the webpage at me and screamed "YOU MUST OWN ME!". It would be cool, sure, but if I am going to buy a watch it would have to be pretty special to tempt me away from the analog world. I love my phone, and I love tech but there is something about a beautiful Omega watch that is classic and timeless. Not Rolex, Rolex is for poseurs who don't understand watches and don't understand beauty. No, if I am going to buy a smart watch it has to be a thing of classic understated beauty while retaining the full functionality of a smart phone in miniature. So, no tall order then! Still Samsung looks like they might have nailed it. The beast has a flexible screen that wraps around your wrist instead of the 'ipod in miniature cellotaped to a cheap looking strap' that Sony currently offers. And if Samsung can get in early and beat Apple to market they could perhaps set the pace in the way that the latter did with the smart phone market. So, is it time to buy up Samsung shares too?

Perhaps not. Analysts are divided about the extent of the demand for a smart watch. Google is focused on Google Glass for that reason. And this could be the reason why the much mooted Apple Watch has yet to become a concrete reality. Do people really want a smart watch?

Well, market research says 'not really'. Much of the functionality of a smart phone is lost in miniaturising it, and while you could pick up the odd message via twitter or facebook, typing on smart phones is still a problem in itself without miniaturisation. You could dictate your message sure, but Voice Recognition Software is rarely sophisticated and competent enough to deal with anyone who does not speak the Queen's English as this hilarious clip from the Scottish sketch show "Burnistoun" highlights. I can see who is calling me, and hang up on them, without fishing around in my pocket. Or leave the ipod at home and be frustrated as phone, mp3 player and watch die because blatantly the battery would not last long enough for me to get to work in the morning let alone the rest of the day! But whatever functions and features these smart phones have they are certainly one up on the original analog watch and there are still millions of them sold every year. And let us not forget that when the smart phone came out there were analysts among us who thought that they would not catch on, myself included. Same with tablets: Which I still cannot understand especially given the number I have accidentally destroyed! So, smart watches might indeed be the next big thing. You never know.  But let us not pretend they are anything other than just watches, a neat idea that might make lives a little easier...and then we can go back to figuring out how to end world hunger, war, oppression, climate change and how we are going to get off this rock and explore space!

"Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea." - Douglas Adams 'Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy'

Foot-In-Mouth

I was, like most people I am sure, aghast at the news today. In particular the story of the barrister who called the victim of child abuse a "sexual predator", who also looked older than she actually was.  I was under the impression the age limit at which a person can have sex with someone in the UK is 16. But according to Barrister Neil Wilson that is unless they look a bit older or they have already suffered abuse at the hands of someone else.

Because this is what is missing from most of the coverage thus far in the news. If she is 'sexually experienced' she has already been the victim of abuse. Or is it the case that once a young woman, a child in this instance, is broken we no longer care what becomes of them. Sexual assertiveness in a child is surely, I am not an expert, a symptom of sexual abuse or at least a child exposed to sexual concepts too early? How is the fact that a child has been abused already a mitigating factor in a sexual abuse case? This boggles my mind, it really does. In the wake of Saville and the institutionalised abuse within the BBC and the Catholic Church you would think we would be a bit more self aware and a bit more au fait with the problems caused by child abuse? No one more so than a barrister. This was an educated and experienced man, which makes it all the more shameful. The equivalent of trotting out the old "she was asking for it" excuse in rape cases...in fact it isn't the equivalent it IS the "she was asking for it defence". This is not a Nabokov novel, this is real life, this was a real child taken advantage of by an adult who should have been looking after her and he deserves to be punished. There are no mitigating factors here.

But this isn't the only case of someone suffering from Foot-In-Mouth disease in the news today. A UKIP MEP (another white middle aged male in power, hmm...I wonder...) said that too much UK foreign aid was going to, and I quote "Bongo Bongo Land". I mean, come on! Boris Johnson has a lot to answer for. He is affably bumbling and "says what he means" (ie. no filtering process stopping you from saying ridiculously inappropriate things) and seems oddly to be quite popular for it. So clearly Godrey Bloom thinks this is a winning strategy. To be racist in public.

There is, I am told by friends who work in international aid, much to be critical in how aid money is spent. There is much to be critical about the priorities and activities of well meaning white westerners and 'volun-tourism' but the level of the dialogue, the frankly racist "bongo bongo land" is like something you would expect of Prince Phillip, or your racist nan, not a politician. I mean it goes to show you what sort of party UKIP is that it only asked him "not to repeat the phrase" rather than punish him. It is so crude, so backwards, so bloody Victorian to see the rest of the world as a tribal backwater and Britain as a civilised and civilising force. Aid money should be spent helping people in need and developing the economies and countries that suffered at the hands of the British Empire in particular and most in need elsewhere in the world. It is our duty because we have the privilege of being a wealthy nation not because we feel guilty nor is it money wasted. It is a paltry amount in the grand scheme of things and, I am told, a little goes a long way in the developing countries. This attempt to "open up a debate" on international aid will, I hope, fall flat on its face as I think we have moved on in the last two hundred years but I have been proved wrong quite a lot recently. Bongo Bongo Land, if a character in the Thick of It said it we would all be complaining that the show had jumped the shark and was no longer believable.

Paging Dr Tucker to the Tardis

So the Goebbels from Gorbals is the new Doctor Who, eh? How surreal. I love Peter Capaldi, and while there were many other names touted for the role of the new Doctor I think they made a magnificent choice but it will take some getting used to - unless this is the birth of a new darker, more cynical Doctor Who? We can but hope. Personally I stopped watching it during the last few years because it was wearing thin and I am a massive fan and have been ever since I was knee high to the proverbial grasshopper.

I am slightly disappointed that the BBC didn't choose to make a statement and hire someone who is not straight white cis-gendered able-bodied male. They could have started a debate, altered the discourse and shook things up a bit by being a tad bolder. I don't want them to hire someone just because they are black or female that would be terribly unproductive but can you honestly tell me that Idris Elba is not an equally amazing actor? Not that, personally, I wanted him to be the Doctor. I want him to be Bond!

Still choosing someone slightly more well known, someone with a bit more credibility (I was never fond of Matt honestly, David only slightly piqued my interest although both are gifted performers) among non-Who fans might open up the audience a bit which is a good thing.  But can you imagine the amount of free publicity and increase in audience say, Billie Piper or someone, would have garnered? I dunno perhaps a progressive AND a PR #fail?

I am looking forward to seeing what type of Dr Capaldi will be, and if we will go down the same tired sexy-companion/love interest storyline that have frankly bored me of late. Time for a change, time to do something a bit different. Maybe I need to start watching it again.

Twitter Silence Vs Inspirational Women

It is not often I admit to being wrong but it does occasionally happen. I think, for anyone of a 'politically engaged' mindset we get used to being firm in our beliefs, we get used to arguing our point and we align ourselves most closely with individuals, parties or groups which best reflect the gestalt of our political sentiment.

In light of the recent threats issued to prominent female voices on Twitter recently  some, with whom I have to say I have often disagreed vociferously, called for a day of symbolic protest. A day of silence.

Many objected to this idea of women silencing themselves. Isn't this exactly what the trolls want? Isn't the point that we should be shouting louder? Not retreating into the shadows? Well, no. Firstly anyone with any experience of trolls knows that it isn't to silence women they want per se. What they want is a reaction. They want hysteria, panic, fear, anger or any other sort of emotional response. Don't ask me why, it is pathetic and bizarre but that there it is. Secondly, is it wrong for women to be silent in protest instead of shouty and angry? Well, yes! However, there is a long history of symbolic silences in history as part of protest (normally against the lack of civil liberties) and there is a big difference between one day of symbolic silence in protest, and permanently retreating from Twitter because 'the trolls won'. It was, in effect, a consumer boycott. Not one that will hurt Twitter's bottom line I suspect but a token gesture; and gestures are important. I partook of #twittersilence fully ready to be extra shouty on Monday to compensate.

When I returned I noticed the hashtag #inspirationalwomen and that some of those who had not partaken of #twittersilence had spent the day instead suggesting the women, contemporary or historical, that they found inspirational. Those inspirational women, and men, who did not take part in the twitter silence managed to get #inspirationalwomen trending worldwide, something I would not have thought possible but they did just that. A massive achievement and one which has, I supsect, far greater impact on the public conciousness.

 In a way #inspirationalwomen was as much a protest against #twittersilence as the trolls. It was those tweeple who refused to be cowed, who sought a more positive form of protest; where their voices might still be heard; they did that. And I take my hat off to them. Without #twittersilence #inspirationalwomen might never have happened. I now think that while both forms of protest are valid, and I have love and respect for those who tweeted and those who didn't, I wish I had been one of those who did.

History is full of inspirational women, and that is a conversation I want to have been a part of. It was a beautiful moment in twitterstory when women were celebrated rather than vilified, silenced or threatened and abused. It was a joy to read this morning, a real pleasure. Sure there were some trolls who hijacked it,and there were some who didn't partake in #twittersilence or #inspirationalwomen and simply kept the argument going about why #twittersilence was a bad thing. I have no problem with this either. We all think we are right all the time; operating under the alternative assumption being quite limiting. However instead of arguing amongst ourselves, a key feature of the history of protest and its failings ("splitters!"), those who took to twitter to highlight the often overlooked role of women in our history, the people who inspired us or made an impact on our own lives the most. That was a beautiful thing and long may it continue. Let everyday henceforth celebrate #inspirationalwomen both on twitter and in every sphere of public dialogue.

Twitter: Under the Bridge

Twitter is where the trolls live, apparently. I thought they were all on Reddit, forums and message boards but not twitter. Trolling in 140 characters or less is tough. It takes skill. Twitter it seemed was therefore the home of the seasoned troll, the professional wind[-up-merchant annoying the likes of Donald Trump and pompous blowhards the world over who could use a bit of pedestal knocking. Or, again, so I thought.

The recent waves of misogynistic shit being directed at female tweeps be they bloggers, critics or MPs (many of whom I disagree with on a daily basis, mind you) is revolting. But threats of violence, rape, murder - bomb threats!?! This goes well beyond 'trolling', this is just small boys with big egos and the sort of reactionary idiots you might expect at the average EDL rally. Thankfully there are laws against publicly threatening someone with violence and there definitely are laws against making bomb threats both of which, I hope, are pursued by the police (not often I say that). But it reminds me that once again twitter is in trouble, because twitter doesn't have a report post button.

I can't say how many times I have seen a tweet that goes too far. Not the sort of thing that pushes the boundary of comedy, I don't mind that, but threats of rape and violence against women and, indeed, children. Pictures of things that, probably, incur the wrath of the police force, or intelligence agencies, but which I have to look at, and then - when I look for a little "report me" button - I remember that Twitter, for reasons I can't begin to fathom, is completely unmoderated. Like any anonymous public forum Twitter needs to police itself, I would prefer that to the likes of MPs and the actual Police decided what we can and cannot tweet. So, I hope that this is the final straw and that Twitter starts to take itself and its responsibility as a facilitator of free speech and starts to remove the tweets which shout "Fire!" in a crowded building (and twitter is VERY crowded these days).

The Sun is setting?

So, today the Sun newspaper announced that it is no longer going to provide free content on-line but is retreating behind a pay-wall in what is becoming an increasingly popular strategy for revenue generation. The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Times and Sunday Times, and indeed now The Onion all charge for content either behind a 'hard pay-wall' which allows no content to be read for free, or providing headlines or a few articles per day/week/month for each user. And that is fine, I guess. Each provides quality journalism, while I might not appreciate the editorial bias, based on in-depth research and writing by qualified and intelligent writers.

The Sun on the other hand, you could not pay me to read. Seriously, not only would I not fork out my hard earned cash to read its atavistic, misogynistic bile in print or on-line, but I would not read it if you paid my mortgage for me. Say what you want about the tabloid press but the Sun is a particularly bad example, and after the mobile phone hacking scandal, the fact that Page 3 continues into the 21st century much to the chagrin of many, not to mention historical grumbles regarding the Miners' Strike, Hillsborough &c. I am genuinely surprised anyone still reads the Sun. Its readership has been declining in part due to a lack of quality on-line content, so it hardly seems like charging people is the way forward. Regardless, it is nice for once to talk about newspaper pay-walls without going into the old arguments of the degradation of the internet culture of free open access and so forth and instead take some joy that the Sun's on-line content will be behind a pay-wall because it means I am far less likely to be linked accidentally via twitter etc. to their 'journalism' and that hopefully (as pay-wall's have been less than successful in the past) this move, and their declining readership marks the setting of The Sun in the UK.