Note the events mentioned which make a difference – primary schools, access to electricity, access to family planning. This is why I won’t give to religious charities – they’ve no stake in the solution.

It’s been a looong time since I posted here, as my attention is mostly focused elsewhere. However I’ve been toying with a post for a few days, commenting on the recent Spending Review. I’ve begun and deleted more than a few times until I received the following email. This says what I wanted with much more clarity and detail than I could manage. Sadly the mail is not on the web so I have taken the liberty of repeating it in full below:

‘Cuts? What cuts?’ - Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times

‘Britain will still be spending a real £200bn more than it was 15 years before. How draconian is that?’ – The Daily Telegraph

‘I am indebted to Tim Morgan, global head of research at broker Tullett Prebon, for an excellent paper’ – Bill Jamieson, Scotland on Sunday

‘Despite all the screams and waving of bloody stumps we’ll be subjected to this week, these cuts overall are pretty modest’ – Burning Our Money

Politics.co.uk - “Osborne’s cuts modest”

In this report, Dr Morgan showed that:

• Government spending in 2015-16 will be £686 billion in real terms. Spending then will be higher than it was in 2009.

• Spending in unprotected departments will fall in real terms over the period – but only by 7%.

Considering the 53% real terms increase in government spending between 1999-2000 and 2009-10, this level of cuts should not be described as swingeing, savage or draconian. They are modest.

The full text of the report can be downloaded from here. And please let me have a postal address if you would like a hard copy.

Political Impact

The debate on the CSR seems to have moved on, over the last few weeks, from extreme fear of cuts to an acceptance that these cuts are not only essential but also represent a comparatively modest reversal of past excesses. We would like to think that this paper – and the impact it has had in the media – has played some part in that trend.

Media Impact

Dominic Lawson in The Sunday Times - “Relax: These cuts are just a scratch”

David Smith in The Sunday Times – “Economic Outlook: Osborne’s best chance to put a lid on our debt”

John Redwood in The Times – “Cuts? What cuts? Public spending is rising” (unattributed but headline copied from CPS press release)

The Daily Telegraph – “Spending cuts have Boomtown Rats squealing, but America’s blues are a bigger threat”

The Daily Telegraph – “Bonfire of quangos ‘is a smokescreen that will cost money’”

Jeremy Warner in The Daily Telegraph – “Spending Review 2010: Whether shower or hurricane, George Osborne’s cuts will leave us cold”

Terry Smith in The Daily Telegraph – “The Chancellor should consider Churchill’s wise words on taxation” (“If you believe the propaganda emanating from The Guardian and the BBC you are no doubt expecting massive cuts to public spending. If so, you will be disappointed”)

The Guardian - “George Osborne’s coming spending cuts are ‘modest’, says thinktank”

The Financial Times - “British people are terrified, by George” (“[Osborne] may even have to suppress a smirk at the dispatch box if he opts to come clean and explain that the whole thing was an almighty wind-up.”)

Leading article in The Evening Standard – “Despite the pain, we can take these cuts”

Evening Standard – “George Osborne’s spending review cuts ‘not savage but imperative’”

Daily Mail – “Business will flourish if the state gets out of the way” (“For the Labour Party, at least some in the Labour Party, the diet should always start tomorrow.”)

Daily Mirror – “Cuts will be ‘modest and essential’”

Daily Express – “Cuts will be ‘modest and essential’“

Daily Star – “Cuts will be ‘modest and essential’”

Recorder“Osborne cuts ‘modest and essential’”

Bill Jamieson in  Scotland on Sunday, “It’s touch and go on return to recession”

Scotland on Sunday – “Spending Review: What’s for the chop?” (“…this does not, as some have suggested, mean that the country is being plunged into financial Armageddon.”)

Allister Heath (Editor’s Letter) in City AM, “Osborne’s cuts are relatively modest” (“It’s time for a reality check.”)

Broadcast Media

A summary of the paper was carried in the major news bulletin throughout the day of publication.

The author was also interviewed on the Today programme (in a debate with Anatole Kaletsky) and on the BBC 10 o’clock news.

Electronic Media

George Bridges, Conservative Home – “The cuts will hurt, but the latest CPS analysis suggests spending will only return to 2009 levels” (“So going back to 2006 might mean putting the state on a diet for a few years.”)

Talkcarswell.com – “George Bridges is a great man”

George Trefgarne, Coffee House (The Spectator) – “The true scale of the cuts” (This was one of the most-read blogs as measured by bothPolitics.co.uk and Coffee House)

Stephanie Flanders, BBC Economics Editor on BBC blog – “Spending cuts: Molehill and mountain” (“It is about reversing a small-ish part of the relentless upward march in government spending… The fact that it should take such a gargantuan effort to achieve even this merely demonstrates quite how relentless that upward march can be…”)

Taxresearch.org.uk – “The Cuts are real – but there is a real alternative”

Straight Statistic – “How deep are the cuts, really?”

Wales Home“Acceptable in the Eighties”(“It also requires centre left politicians to realise that no one is going to take them seriously until they develop a credible alternative economic narrative.”)

Press Association – “Cuts will be ‘modest and essential’”(story carried by 92 local newspapers)

Burning Our Money – “Shrinking Shears”

Solihull News – “Osborne cuts ‘modest and essential’”

sopo.com – “George Osborne’s coming spending cuts are ‘modest’, says thinktank”

Not A Sheep – “Those “slashing cuts” in proportion” (“The Labour/BBC narrative is of slashing cuts, the truth is of course somewhat at variance.”)

Yahoo News – “Osborne’s cuts ‘modest’”

Daily Finance – “Coalition cuts ‘modest’ says think-tank”

24dash.com – “Osborne spending cuts ‘not savage but imperative’” (“Warnings of savage reductions in the size of the state following next week’s spending review are overblown”)

Public Service - “Cuts are actually modest” (“The level of cuts…shouldn’t be described as swingeing, savage or draconian”)

This inspiring story from whdh.com is well worth a read:

LAWRENCE, Mass. — A Lawrence woman who said she had never been in a fight in her entire life fended off an attack from a much larger man late last month.

She’s 5-foot-1 and barely more than 100 pounds, but full of fight.

“I don’t know where it came from,” said April Marchessault.

The mother of three was caught off guard when a man snuck into her home late at night and grabbed her from behind.

“It was like covering his whole face, was a gray t-shirt,” said Marchessault.

Chief John Romero of the Lawrence Police Department said 47-year-old Edgardo Montes planned to rape Marchessault.

“Absolutely, given the way he attacked the woman,” said Chief Romero.

Just by looking at the suspect (PHOTO: Montes mug shot), it would appear to be a lopsided fight. And it was.

Marchessault kicked Montes down a flight of stairs, severely spraining his knee. She then punched his face so many times that she hurt her own hand.

“Then when we were halfway up the driveway, my hand was killing me, so that’s when I picked up the trash barrel and then just kept whacking him in the head,” said Marchessault.

During the fight, Marchessault’s three kids were sleeping inside the house. Her father woke up, though, and the two of them held Montes at bay until police arrived.

“He couldn’t get up anyway. He kept trying to get up and I just kept stomping on his leg,” said Marchessault.

Montes, who is already a Level 2 sex offender for a 1995 rape conviction, is back behind bars.

Police gave all the credit to Marchessault.

“My sense is that this individual, given his history, would’ve just attacked somebody else,” said Chief Romero.

Montes is currently being held in jail without bail.

An excellent post describing the Instinctive Drowning Response, and why this is not what you expect from a drowning person.

Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. Th e respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled, before speech occurs.

Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water.

Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water, permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe.

Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.

From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people’s bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.

(Source: On Scene Magazine: Fall 2006)

The advice for parents is also key

And parents: children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why.

(H/T to Daring Fireball)

Colin Richards of Arts of Mars recently announced that Dave Rawlings’ rule set would be the one used for his upcoming World Wide Open Championship to be held in Apelern, Germany this summer. This is a Good Thing.

There’ve been debates about rule sets for historical european swordfighting for a few months now. Dave Rawlings, of the Boars Tooth Fight School and the name behind the Rawlings Range sword simulators has been promoting a standard set of rules for competitions. Whilst I haven’t taken part much in the debate I have followed it pretty closely and I have to admit I thought it had taken a very wrong turn. I thought they were overly wordy and far too complex. They looked like they had all the bad features of something designed by committee, and worse a committee of people who rarely actually met and instead had disjointed and poorly managed on-line communications. The debate became acrimonious in places and I thought this project was destined to crash and burn.

The rules were given their first dry run at the opening event for the Knight’s Shop in Conwy earlier this year. I was there to teach Modern Bartitsu and, after my class, I ducked out of watching the earlier parts of the competition whilst I caught up with people. I was downstairs from the tourney and the news I heard during set up seemed to confirm my fears. Over an hour into the event and the rules were still being communicated and discussed. The judges all seemed happy and confident with what they were doing, but the competitors less so. Given these guys were coming from a very wide variety of clubs and for most this was their first time competing this was perhaps understandable. However my heart sank when I heard some of the moans about complexity.

After the first round was out of the way I went to watch and had a quick chat with Dave, who was martialling the event. He had Colin Richards and the Thomas Brothers judging, Tim Gallagher referring and Phil Marshall as time and score keeper. Very experienced guys with good knowledge of the arts. The arena (pictured above) was a circle, with the judges at fixed positions around it (Or at least they were supposed to be, Colin seemed to find it hard to stay in place despite Dave frequently reminding him!). The biggest challenge I saw was getting the guys kitted up and ready before each bout. The Knights Shop had provided hocky armour, gloves and groin protection that was mandatory for all fighters and getting them into and out of it was delaying the bouts. With the help of a very pretty lady I was able to get this sorted out and get the fighters out to their bouts in a more timely manner.

This was when I was very pleasantly surprised. The rules worked. And they worked well. Tim called out engagements, and judges scored them by the raising of flags (improvised at this event, but I understand proper ones have been purchased). Phil recorded the score and Dave made sure everything was running smoothly. After the initial teething issues it seemed to go very smoothly. Phil had written a nice time and score display program that was projected onto one wall for the competitors to see. Sadly this was not as visible to the crown, but otherwise it worked well.

There was some complexity to the rules which could probably stand to be reduced, and the way they are communicated needs tightening up. However they work. The best fighters won their bouts, which were of a sufficient length to give people a chance without them becoming boring for the audience. Effective judging and refereeing is key and not everyone was 100% on the ball. I think it’s fair to say that Colin, whilst a great guy and a gifted instructor is not the best choice as a corner judge! The other judges and especially Tim as ref did sterling jobs. Really very impressive.

Dave and the other guys involved are well aware of the areas they need to improve but I think the basic premise of the rules is sound. I’m sure the next run out they get at the World Wide Opens will be equally as successful.

It’s been posted before, but it is worth remembering what civilisation looks like. Democratic, free (and affluent) South Korea has the lights on. In starving, communist North Korea it’s always Earth Hour. They simply don’t have the lights to turn on.

In 1914 Sir Edward Grey commented on ‘the lamps going out across Europe’ as world war beckoned. This is the vision the fascists who have attached themselves to the green movement want to see. They want to limit and restrict progress, to keep us all in the same miserable darkness as the North Koreans. Making efficient and sensible use of energy is vital, as is managing the effects of climate change. That does not mean turning the lights out, it means researching and developing future solutions. That is how we’ll get meaningful change.

Orwell wrote of his vision of the future as a ‘boot stamping on a human face – forever’. Our future stamper would be doing it in the dark.

Craig Douglas of Shivworks.com is one of the best martial arts thinkers and teachers out there. The limited exposure I have had to him and his material has fundamentally changed the way I view self protection and combatives. This latest video of him, teaching BJJ from  the context of an armed civilian, is very good. It also tells me I *really* need to improve my ground game. Now is there a BJJ club near me?

On March 21st I’ll be starting a 6 week beginners’ course in Modern Bartitsu. Details can be found here. The course will run every Sunday for 6 weeks, and will cover the basics of punching, kicking, grappling and stick work, as well as some skills for dealing with aggressive behaviour and the looking at the historical context of the art.

I hope to see you there!

PZ Myers is one of the blogosphere’s big boys. For those not in the know he’s a biologist and professor at the University of Minnesota in the US. He’s also the author of probably the biggest atheist blog on the net, Pharyngula and has a deservedly devoted following. As well as his delightfully sharp writing he hosts some of the most fascinating comment debates on the net, where evolutionists are regularly skewered. I’m very much a fan.

It appears that recently some chaps calling themselves libertarians kicked up a stink in those same comments and that has resulted in a couple of posts in which PZ makes some rather negative comments about what he describes as a pathology (I say apparently as the link posted on his site doesn’t seem to be working). A number of commenters go much, much further before the whole thing devolves into an argument about global warming.

I made my own views on climate change clear last year, and received a fair bit of flack from other libertarians for it. I’ve read a fair bit on the subject since then, and my views have not changed. I think that human activity is most likely to be the most significant cause of climate change and that it is incumbent on us all to do what we can to stop that. However it does not therefore follow that the state should force us all to act accordingly, especially when it has such a poor track record on such matters. I am deeply suspicious of those who seek to exaggerate the threat of climate change in order to control society or to meddle in the affairs of other. I see little difference between that and the other fear triggers such as terrorism or immigration. A lot of libertarians would disagree with me, but certainly not all.

Which leads us to the issue I must take with PZ Myer’s posts. I imagine he’s quite right to poke fun at the particular commenters he does, but he is dead wrong to equate all libertarians with the loons he has been dealing with. This might be more to do with the vagaries of political definitions between the US and the rest of the world. In most of the world the political views I espouse could pretty neatly defined as liberal, but in the US, and more and more in the UK, this becoming to mean centre-left statist. Certainly the US tea-baggers and disciples of Glenn Beck are not what I would consider libertarian. They love it when the government gets behind their chosen causes, and cry foul only when it is something they do not like being promoted.

I’m fully aware that this will appear to be a ‘No True Scotsman’ argument, or playing with semantics, but that is just not the case. Pharyngula commenter Walton explains why much more eloquently than I can. In short, just because someone chooses to co-opt the language of liberty to suit their own agenda does not make them the real deal, be they a caricature demagogue of the Religious Right, laughing all the way to the bank, or a lost and deluded weak man hell bent on retaining power at any cost.

My current work takes me around the country talking to people in the NHS about what they do, and how they can use IT to improve how they work (or more specifically how they can use the product their bosses have already bought). It’s a fascinating role, especially as I get to talk to people who are not hugely computer literate, but who use them at both home and work.

Over lunch at a recent workshop I was chatting to a couple of nurses and they were talking about how they use computers at home. Tesco.com, facebook and the BBC news seemed to be the things they most looked at, but both reported problems with their young children. One had all kinds of problems with her PC after her unsupervised (!) 6 year old somehow turned off the firewall (or Syman-wotsit as she actually called it). Both were moaning about how complicated it all was and how they really just wanted something simple with which to browse the web.

I was immediately reminded of the car analogy Jon Gruber posted recently when musing on the iPad. The idea being that few people know how their cars work – they know how to operate the user interface but nothing beyond that. This was what these ladies, and I imagine many others needed – a simple device that they could use to browse the net without having to worry about things like updates, spyware checkers, firewalls and the like. I could also do with something like that for my very IT-illiterate girlfriend.

Something like an iPad, or one of those kid specific linux builds might be the answer. I say might because I’m sure the ladies I was talking to, or their older children, would need to sit and do some serious mouse & keyboard work at some point, and I’m not sure that asking them to install a new OS, or even run one in a virtual machine will work. They would probably get on with an Apple, but the cost would be prohibitive I guess what is needed is some kind of switchable ‘kiddie mode’ that can take away some of the complexity, combined with an OS that does not require the user to go dicing under the hood. Does such a thing exist?

Regardless of this however I was rather shocked that a mum would leave such a young kid browsing the web unsupervised. I’m not a parent so I can’t speak from experience, but I would have expected web time to be supervised for children. Am I naive in thinking that?