Viral wasn’t on the menu

The world is least prepared to deal with viral outbreaks as many instances proof.

For example architecture. In a virul outbreak people are supposed to stand 2 meters apart, yet we have many high-rise buildings, which rely on transporting people quickly with lifts. Lifts, strictly speaking can only transport one person at a time in a case of viral emergency.

Yet no quick solutions came up. Nobody quickly thought of putting people into plastic tubes to transport them in  lifts, so they do not break the 2-meter rule.

Perishable foods. Shops should immediately put a limit on the amount of perishable foods people can buy, especially in relation to eggs, milk.

Fire-hazardous items like paper and oil should be restricted. I’ve seen photos and film clips of people who have amassed 5-litre bottles of oil around their whole flat. And those storing lots of toilet paper increase their fire risk.

Distribution chains are not working. Those companies supplying catering businesses are sitting on stock whilst food retailers cannot get enough deliveries out.

The whole private finance system is broken because people cannot even buy and sell property and actually move.

The people who benefit are the homeless who at least now get a flat.

But those who followed the guidance and became self-employed or worked in the gig ecnomy – often not because of choice – are left out in the cold.

Capitalism only works if nothing unexpected happens.

 

The desperate time government

vehicle driving on freeway towards wind turbines

Hard shoulders are used as driving lanes on many motorways now. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

They call it gender discrimination but in the times when women stayed at home to look after the kids, we could manage when a school closed. Now all are drafted in as workers and when the workers fall ill, there is nobody to run services and nobody to look after children.

Not even in an equalised society, lets say dads or mums can stay at home any longer because parents have to work when a child is 5 now, and can no longer wait until they reached the age of 13.

woman wearing blue jeans

Photo by Luis Quintero on Pexels.com

If you have people idling around, they can be seen as potentially spare workers but if the country already uses the last man standing to work on, then in a crisis, we have no reserves left and start to panic.

The removal of hard shoulders on motorways, showed all drivers that the non-contingency policies lead to serious problems. If a car breaks down on a lane on a motorway where all lanes are in use, emergency vehicles cannot reach them.

If all parents are working and schools need to close, then who is going to look after the children? Or if workers need to stay at home with children then who is going to do the work?

Supermarkets are our best friends, because they charge the same price whatever the demand. In some unregulated remote, local shops, owners just double and treble prices, during the Corona Virus crisis,  because they just want to make as much as they can out of a crisis.

But what is disturbing, is that quantities are not regulated and those unfortunate enough, not being able to get to a supermarket at 7am in the morning will find empty shelves.

At the Sainsbury’s superstore, there were exactly 8 loaves of freshly baked bread in the shelve at 7:15AM. There was no pasta, no toilet paper at all.

Amazingly people do not opt for the fresh foods. Salads, fruits and veg are the only thing you can do to strengthen the immune system. Eat them regularly to stay healthy.

Thinking about Heathrow

Extinction Rebellion is a movement sponsored by Billionnaires and those having gotten rich from the old way of doing business.

Now, come to think of it, Britain being an Island nation, relying on transport and especially so, air travel, Extinction Rebellion pours a lot of energy and money into fighting the expansion of Heathrow Airport, just as Britain has left the EU.

Of course the Paris Climate agreement needs to be properly referenced in thecourt proceedings about a third runway, but the loss of the expansion case is only a temporary stoppage and will be addressed by the appeal that Heathrow Airport plans to do. It’s a matter of changing the wording and show proper reference to the agreement.

Whilst I strongly support the reduction of carbon emissions world-wide, which would include an improvement of air-travel for all countries. Extinction Rebellion spent and continuous to spend an awful lot of energy to concentrate on Britain, doing an extra sacrificial deed and asks us to cut off our almost only viable connection to the outside world.

Of course we do have ships, we do have the Euro tunnel to Paris and Belgium but why ask Britain to be the first to reduce commercial activity.

Of course if Britain cannot have air capacity, they would re-channel air traffic via France but the air travel as a whole will not be reduced.

It is a matter of changing methods of transport and trade world-wide, so that all nations have a fair amount of responsibility.

It seems doubly weird that Keir Starmer, prospective leader for the Labour Party, strongly supports Extinction Rebellion and so does Sadiq Khan. Is it any wonder that Extinction Rebellion now has put up camp in one of London’s most left-wing council’s namely Tower Hamlets and moved into our commutiy centre.

Apparently residents have not been consulted prior to this. Our local area is getting deprived of services and they get replaced by birds, bees flowers and fruit trees; and we hold a totally free, yearly fireworks extravaganca nearby. As if that will pay our council taxes.

I  suppose you can achieve sensible world-wide policies by supporting inventions that develop the new technology we need and not by stopping traffic. Extinction Rebellion put their eggs into the demonstrations basket. How crude.

Their radical actions are designed to actively disturb our economy by stopping traffic, interrupting public transport to weaken our economy but that does not help changing technology.

Bezos pledges 10 Billion to fight climate change

action air aircraft aviation

Photo by JESHOOTS.com on Pexels.com

Latest news announced on his Instagram account., Bezos announces that $3 Billion will be donated to climate change causes, Money to be distributed from this year. Amazon Prime is already thinking about deliveries from drones, at least that will beat the traffic stopping demos from Extinction Rebellion.

ER dug up some lawns in Cambridge University. Of course deep root planting is always better than sheer lawns but stopping traffic at every occasion is not going to improve our lives at all.

Bezos needs to be clever and negotiate that ER stop stopping traffic, which has a huge carbon footprint because those cars are out on the road and will need to get on. Stuttering traffic uses more exhaust fumes.

It seems to be some satisfying control function to stop traffic. A highly neurotic, annoying activity. I think the data collection from Amazon is nothing special. Every web server spews out data like that, e.g. where visitors come from where they go to, their IP address. It’s just how it is collected is important. There may be some good for environment improving services.

After all if you allow people to order from one central location and deliver those orders collectively sorted by area, you save a huge amount of journeys.

If everybody opens up small shops and individuals have to transport themselves from shop to shop that uses a lot of energy and fuel.

 

TUC – neutrality

  • Thought poverty
  • Unilateralism
  • Compartmentalisation

The three ingredients to conflict and distraction.

I don’t just look at what I want to see and don’t just read what I want to hear. I get myself a selection of books from major influencers and compare their thoughts.

Presently it’s

  • Greta Thunberg
  • Donald Trump
  • Mike Berners-Lee

I must confess I only bought the Berners-Lee book because the name reminds me of Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the Internet and I thought, that everybody with the name of Berners-Lee must know what they are talking about.

Greta, a girl with Aspergers, she is a definite proof of thought poverty and unilateralism and so is Donald Trump. Though because Donald Trump is on the powerful side of life, what he says is good and what Greta says is dangerous.

The clash of ideologies here is not much different from all other clashes in the history of man. For example when Britain invaded the colonies and all those invading repressed the natives. Though now we know that the natives had and still have important knowledge and methology. Probably more knowledge in some stuff than our newly taught engieners and scientists have.

That brings me to compartmentalisation. Nowadays everybody has to specialise fairly early on in life. So a guy like Boris Johnson wouldn’t understand what climate change is all about. He is just a happy go lucky chap who wants to make things happening and with a good sense of humour in a smiling way.

Donald Trump – I am still not through the first book of his – has only profit margins at heart. Very dangerously though, he wants to separate the Social Security budget from the rest of the financial world. He hardly ever talks about standard of living and security of housing, he talks about saving and interest rates.

It’s clear that if you are in power, whatever you say is good. From your point of view, you are the money maker, the law maker and the standard bearer of all things great and small.

Of course radicalisaton of strategy only works for those in power. Those against become criminals in any event.

Now comes Mike Berners-Lee as the go-between Great Thunberg and Donald Trump, the man who also pleases Boris Johnson’s desire to widen the British Empire and international trade relations of Britain with the rest of the world. Mike simply declares that the amount of carbon produced by transport is nothing compared with natural carbons produced by animals and rice production or fermentation for example.

There are now so many statistics available on earth warming and what percentage of what produces most dangerous carbons, that the mind literally boggles.

But if energy production produces 70% of damaging carbons then it doesn’t really matter if that is through transport or animal farming or fermentation. It is just including everything that uses energy.

Unfortunately those at the top are unable to just analyse and change tac, the politicians have to please the sponsors of parties and those sponsors are the ones who run business and those are the makers of our world today.

Perhaps we need to look at another way of shifting power to those who are not dependant on any financial support from business leaders. We need neutral observers and decision makers.

same lies

Whilst President Trump explains in his state of the Union speech that there is now record employment, also amongst the multi-cultural population in the US, the BBC reports that there is record child-homelessness in the US.

How does this all work out?

Obviously the wonderful world of high-yield economy should work for the people and not just for the employers.

The same strategy gets used in the UK. One of the most used arguments in parliamentary debate is, to rebuff Labour, yes, but the unemployment rate is very low.

Whether that creates the highest number of working poor and other problems does not seem to be the problem for the governments on either side of the oceans.

The standard of living is very important and voters really have to stop creating poverty for children.

brainwashed

artists audience band blue

Photo by Jacob Morch on Pexels.com

Greta Thunberg has been told to get an economics degree to be taken serious. Yet, going through years of some education may brainwash you into believing that the only way to do business is the old one.

There are sciences, which are pure and do not relate to current affairs but those decisions that need to be made in relation to climate change are actually not calculated on pure science but on the greed of those wanting to make profits.

Having listened to the Grenfell discussion on ‘politics live’ this morning, we’ve heard that some tower blocks are not so dangerous as they have night patrols. The answer was that many leaseholders cannot afford to pay for it.

Private ownership again hinders progress being made. Of course owning something privately means you rely entirely on your own resources. The smaller the building the less economical can it be to share and spread costs and if a private building owner has to replace a load of cladding on a building it becomes unaffordable.

Nobobdy questions the principle of private ownership, they question why the government hasn’t yet introduced laws to force owners to change the cladding. But this is a Conservative government, a government that supports private ownership.

Question the logic of this.

I don’t think there is a pure state in existance today that has a properly installed community government.

  • North Korea, is a kind of family tyranny, that starves it’s population but which tries to blow our planet apart with constant nuclear testing
  • China, a half-capitialist government, which is unelectable and relies on trade with capitalist countries
  • Russia, a pseudo communist country that charges a flat tax rate to all, regardless of income. Nothing is being shared around there.

This planet is being run into the ground by large money accumulators who run business and produce goods that keep us in employment, the economy moving and make them richer.

The poor have no choice but to work in jobs being offered as they have to work to be part of an acceptable community, which relies on taxes.

Round and round and round it goes.

People ask again and again why didn’t the German’s stop Hitler, ask yourself, why does nobody stop the destruction of the environment.

 

Bad debate – bad result

alternative auto automobile battery

Photo by Mike on Pexels.com

I’ve now spent months watching politcal debate in Britain and it has occurred to me that this democracy is a mock-democracy.

A lot of words are being used to spew out the same thoughts again and again with no results whatsoever. In terms of the environment, Brexit is only important as to the production of extra Carbon Emissions because transporting goods further away will cause more.

The unilateral thinking always centres around plain numbers with little quality attached.

  • The level of poverty
  • the number of food banks
  • the level of crime
  • the level of employment
  • the referendum and numbers voted

In short it’s just a plain and simple numbers game around tax revenue.

Britain is s mock-democracy because there is no quality argument.

Instead of lamenting poverty, the opposition could ask questions around the quality of employment opportunities in Britain. Of course Johnson would come back with employment numbers but people would start thinking about whether it is feasable to employ people in making

  • single use plastics
  • exploit fossil fuels
  • producing alcohol
  • making cigarettes
  • making fuel guzzling cars
  • produce carbon rich products

The government is as good as the opposition allows them to be and in this ‘mock-democracy’ there is little quality opposition.

Not even the strong-sounding Scottish opposition has much to offer because much of the Scottish produce, they are so proud of is plain and simply Whiskey.

I tried some again yesterday and I am about to empty the bottle into the sink. My son once got at as Christmas gift at work and it just tastes awful. So why be proud of making something that has little health effect on people or the environment?

The one Green MP asks a few questions around the Green agenda but the Labour Party makes no difference because they do not question the investment in fossil fuels and the production of bad products and the people used employed therein.

Economics is sadly just about numbers. But the only numbers important to us should be how affordable healthy and low carbon living can be made for us. The majority of people are poor and purchase what is cheapest for them to buy.

Yet politicians only support the highest tax payers and those are the established industries who are based on fossil fuel exploitation.

Considering the

  • steel industry contributes 8 % of all global emissions,
  • energy makes up 72% of global emission.
  • Agriculture 11% of global emissions.

We should rationalise all arguments.

Because it does not help to switch car production from fossil to electric as electric cars will push up the 72% rate of global emissions even further.

 

Bad primal answers

The answer is always the same

  • less unemployment
  • better economy

Yet, the employment never gets compared to what type of jobs those in employment actually do in relation to the carbon footprint that their jobs actually achieve.

planet earth

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

To reduce our carbon foot print we need to change the things we produce and that will take more effort and cost than this government has failed to address.

Prime Minister’s questions has had only one question about reducing carbon foot print and that is about heating systems.

Yet all those answers relating to employment statistics are merely that. Number of people who do some job. That may be

  • producing single use plastic
  • working in coal mines
  • making goods that have a large carbon foot print.

There is absolutely no conscience about changes needed. Those changes may not allow a seamless transition with profit margins not dipping. It may not be possible to continue running the country on private finance only.

Even though Trump yesterday mentioned that he does not want to believe in the doom and gloom and that 3 billion trees worldwide will solve all our problems. But that is more than naive.

These profit oriented leaders only think about the clink and clank of profit in the tills. They make so much money they probably think, if it comes to the worst, they can buy their way out with a rocket to Mars.

That’s the only reason they keep the economy going as it is, so that they can make enough money to invest in space travel because once they ruined this planet, they think they can just move on to another one.

So what the Prime Minister should do at Prime Minister’s Question time, when he answers questions by saying how good employment rates are, he should state how much of those jobs are environmentally friendly.

Not so free after all

Having watched Charles I: the killing of a King, I got a sharp reminder how unfree Britain really is. Remember Extinction Rebellion have been listed as terrorist organisation and ‘order, order’ is the most important value Britain has.

I grew up in the 70s in Germany, the time of the student revolt. Despite never having even taking part in anyone of the many student demos, I was arrested and locked up for 3 months just because the security services felt like it. Of course they eventually came round to admitting that it was all a mistake.

My arrest came about because I was sofa-surfing and one address I stayed at for a few days was under the watchful eyes of the security services.

So, any individual can become over-scrutinised if a national security situation becomes frightful through activities such as XR these days do. Thankfully, XR has not committed any terrorist offences yet.

I saw it coming and I mentioned previously, do not get involved in those street demos of XR or XR as they will suffer the same fate.

Of course I am not certain whether they will eventually grow into a radical movement just as German students did with the Baader-Meinhof gang but the radical ideology is not dissimilar. Yet XR is funded by Western Billionaires and Baader-Meinhof were German rich kids too who gotten trained by Gaddafi and the like.

It shows ‘the being in 2 minds uncertainty’ Western power figures are. On one hand they are really powerful and on the other they want to throw it all over.

So what is the point in having even a monarchy. Either you have a monarch, who is a real ruler with all the power that comes with it or you don’t. Monarchs tend to be despots with no regard for the rights of their subjects. They just rule and abuse.

Today’s monarch seems more like a display of puppets who do a function, which looks good but has little power.

In fact looking at the reality of it, they can’t do much at all without being constantly watched, criticised and controlled.

Some would call it stalking. Yet, it is their job to be stalked and written about and having their photos taken and being discussed. If that was a private individual, they would have better rights.

Who is really pulling the strings in Britain. It can’t be the monarch, who despite having use of an impressive real estate portfolio has very little actual power but a mere ceremonial function.

Boris Johnson seems to have been selected into post only because of his personality. He comes across as somber and believable. You can hardly resist his voice. When he is together and has his suit on, on TV, Boris is a great actor.

The people of Britain are tightly controlled. Made to work all hours. Kids are taken from their parents at the earliest opportunity and stuck into schools for about 8 hours a day, making the influence parents actually have over their children negligible.

There is really no other way of making it in the public domain other than through kinky affiliations or by being a useful tool and doing what you are told by the ruling elite. And who are they?

I think Britain has a superb publicity machinery, which gives the impression that there is an actual democratic process but if you really look at it, its all talk and no input.

I won’t even go into how proper elections are but think people have not much real choice who to vote for. The public broadcasters and the press are all set to promote private ownership at present.

Whilst that is the mood of the moment, remember please once they stop making a profit from their businesses, we are on our own.

Whilst Labour with a nationalisation strategy gets ridiculed by the press, it seems the only viable solution to guarantee continuation of services when the going gets tough.

There is a general consensus, I would always support that we do like our basic strategy of personal freedom, and liberty of individuals, we should always defend it, that we do not enslave women and that we allow people the right to choose whether to have a religion or not but what seems the complicated part is how our life-styles affect our planet and those questions will rule our minds for some time to come.

We do need an army to defend ourselves from freakish countries like Iran and Northern Korea or Daesh because they are real dictatorships.

Yet so much relies on how our societies are run. Personal freedom often is only possible because we have the luxury of relying on services being available.

One always has to look at the greater scheme of things.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,624 hits