Blog Archives

Walter's Blog

"But how can you live and have no story to tell?" Fyodor Dostoevsky

Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.

"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review

Hong Kong weather

29/1/2018 1 Comment

The road to freedom has rules.

Why have rules, standards, conventions of conduct? Aren't we free to do as we wish? Why should I give into the establishment, get ‘the man’ off my back; I don’t need no system nor your doctrine. That's the lament we hear these days. Each generation utters the same plea as it seeks to find its place, by defining its order of things. Challenging the agreed protocols, that keep the highway of human existence flowing. Then, over-time, through experience, we comply. Why? Let me muse on a possible explanation.

I used to paraglide. You know, that aerial sport during which you launch from a hill attached to a nylon wing by thin lines. No engine, minimum equipment; only you, and the forces of nature and possibility of flight. I flew for over 15 years until gravity exerted its power - one too many times - on my fragile human body. Broken wrists, two fractures of the spine plus many bruises convinced me to give up. An angry wife venting (again) in front of an entire emergency room can also sway your thinking.

People come to paragliding seeking adventure. It struck me they always spoke of freedom - as free as a bird - soaring on thermals, climbing high with a Black Kite. A serene experience. No motor to disturb the peace. The power comes from a large fusion reactor sitting 150 million kilometres away, as it heats and churns our atmosphere.

Paraglider pilots have a self-image of the maverick. We’re rule breakers, who don't stick to conventions. A breed apart. It’s not a characterisation that holds up. Scratch the surface to reveal the laws that anchor the whole business. With clear boundaries, written rules and unwritten rules, and strict adherence to convention. You don’t want to be that new guy on the hill breaking the community order. It’s terrible for your health, ego and the chances of getting more airtime.

Paragliding is dangerous. That’s an understatement; it's incredibly hazardous. Primarily, if you don't follow the rules. From the set-up on launch to the landing, you operate in a domain of shifting parameters with many unknowns.

Get it wrong and you can go from ‘hero to zero' in seconds. Mistakes are not forgiven. Although, when it all comes together, it’s a thing of sublime contentment, mixed with exhilaration. You enter a state of meditative flow.

Yet, for this to occur you need to have complete faith in the guy in front and behind. Everyone needs to recognise that the situation is hazardous, with potential for collisions. It’s a three-dimensional dance with limited air-space. Each must keep separation and move in the same circuit. No sudden turns, no overtaking to pin a wing against the ridge without an escape route. No close over-flying, keep clear of wash.

Then, etiquette demands that you give pilots struggling for height, space to climb. It’s poor form to block them.

All it takes is one guy to reverse direction, move out of sequence - then the whole structure starts to break up. Pilots lose height; pushed out of the lifting air, forced to curtail their day's flying.

One thing is sure, the guy who caused it is going to get a mouthful. Execration reigned down on him. By dissing the group code, he’s isolated. He won’t be getting offers of a ride to take-off or pickups at the landing field. No one will tell him when its flyable or offer advice.

I flew Queenstown, New Zealand in 2009. Arriving at the take-off, looking down on the majestic Lake Wakatipu, I took my site briefing from a pot-smoking hippy. His guidelines - actually rules - came over in a short direct presentation. Later, as we loitered, he gave me a lecture on the new world order of embracing a non-judgmental ethos. This he asserted would make us prosper.

Later still, he laid this lesson aside to berate a visiting pilot for landing on the wrong rugby field. A drill sergeant’s tirade poured forth from my hippy friend. Impressive.

As a paraglider pilot, you take complete responsibility for your own life. And, that of other pilots with you in the air. Paraglider pilots seek to live by the same code, so that when flying actions are mutually predictable. Head-on with another wing, I know he’ll break right. Likewise, I’ll overtake a slower wing on his inside, so as not to trap him against the hill.

This shared system of actions and behaviours ensures everyone safety. Pilots know what to expect from others. Thus they act together to minimise risk while maximising air-time. Uncertainty gets removed unless the rule-breaker appears. I’ve seen rage, contempt and physical violence on the few who bring disorder. They rarely repeat it.

When it comes together - with everyone sticking to the rules, respecting each others space, it’s a ballet. The shared system of order produces breathtaking aerial choreography with great purpose.

It’s counter-intuitive, but to be free in life, you need to follow the rules, otherwise its chaos. After all, even the hippies drive on the right side of the road.

1 Comment

26/1/2018 0 Comments

I Blame the Vikings!

Facts

A small article caught my eye this week. Members of staff on the London Underground are want to post stuff on station signboards. Sometimes it's witty, other times profound and on occasions, it marks an anniversary. Thus, it was at Dollis Hill underground station this week.

A message recalled the battle of Rorke's Drift. The 1879 fight between colonial soldiers and the Zulus is scorched in the memory of every British boy. The movie 'Zulu' can claim credit for that. This 1964 account of the epic struggle, during which 150 troops held off 4000 Zulus, was compulsory viewing as I grew up.

“Front rank fire, rear rank fire”, we've all mimicked it on the playground. It's stirring stuff. OK, so the movie wasn't entirely accurate, but who cares.

You'd think marking the anniversary would inform people of this significant event in history. After all. The message was factual.

Even so, someone took offence. A complaint claimed it celebrated colonialism, and Transport for London capitulated. It apologised saying the message was “clearly ill-judged”. The job-worths' ordered it removed. Setting aside the factual nature of the posting, it contained no celebration. It restated historical events without judgment.

The issue here is the ongoing attempts by revisionists and victim-types to find offence in anything. Let’s be clear. Rorke’s Drift took place, British soldiers and Zulus fought valiantly - fact. The Brits held the Zulus off and won a victory of sorts - fact.

We should recognise that this incident is indicative of a new wave washing over us as a judgmental minority dictate their agenda. This process touches on the right to offend, distortions of history, and even free speech.

In the UK and elsewhere, we see calls and action to remove statues associated with the colonial era. Buildings are being renamed to remove designations that some see as uncomfortable. In the US, vandalised Confederate monuments fall.

To the revisionists I’d say, we cannot escape the consequences of our history by airbrushing it. Remember during the Soviet era; you could tell who was in or out of favour by whether they remained in leadership photographs. Those considered non-persons faced erasure. The same is happening with our history.

Most of the current fuss arises from a debate about the pros and cons of empire. In particular, the British Empire. As one of the last of the colonial coppers, sent abroad to police the colonies, I have some insight into these issues. My views and reflections are far too broad to cover here. Save to say it was far from the negative portrayal some modern commentators assert.

These removals and renaming are pointless. We gain nothing except assuaging a few bruised sentiments and big-time virtue signalling. Conceivably, we need these symbols as a reminder and warning. The writer George Santayana cautioned us “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Oxford University recently launched a five-year study to assess the benefits and downsides of the British Empire. It's hoped this can help a balanced debate that sets aside blame agendas. Although, the signs are not promising. The project is already under attack as an absurd “balance sheet argument”.

There is another dimension to this debate that deserves consideration. It’s a dimension that has resonance in the modern world. In essence, it goes like this: if we are strident in being anti-colonialist, because of our imperial past, will we be afraid to come to the aid of those in need?

For example, the West stood-by to watch the 1994 massacre in Rwanda that saw over a one million people killed. Bill Clinton and his cabinet knew it was going to happen; he did nothing. France, Canada, Belgium and the British knew it was going to happen. They did nothing. The inertia was in part fearing criticism of imperial ambitions. Is that the right response?

None of us alive today created the British Empire or any empire for that matter. Although, some people continue to apportion blame on modern day folks. Where does this end? Should I as an Englishman seek to remove references to the Vikings because they invaded the UK? All those unusual Viking names for places could go because I’m offended. Farewell Whitby, Selby, Ormskirk and Skegness.

History is sometimes uncomfortable, but wiping stuff from the record is palpable nonsense. It’s also dangerous.

0 Comments

25/1/2018 0 Comments

Blair's other legacy.

"Forced from office in 2007, Blair left a legacy of broken education promises."

From my previous articles, you’ll know I’m no fan of Tony Blair. The former British Prime Minister faces hostility for the lies he told that led to an unjustified war. It’s doubtful the British public will ever forgive him or his henchman, Alastair Campbell. Both have blood on their hands. The blood of British soldiers, the blood of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. It remains baffling to me that these men are not facing charges for their crime’s against humanity.

And yet, Tony Blair did not only bring death and destruction to Iraq. Often overlooked is the terrible damage he did to thousands of children with his misguided education policies. While this was less kinetic, it nonetheless brought down a generation. Moreover, the impact continues to this day.

Blair came to power in 1997. The new man; a bright dawn for cool Britannia. He immediately moved to address what he perceived to be failings in the education system. His understanding of the detail was sparse at best and in most aspects wrong.

Blair is the archetypal ideologue, who believes he knows all the answers; thus he threw out the experts. He initiated a raft of changes, and when his ideas failed, he blamed others. Ardent religious types are prone to this behaviour. We know Blair was devout despite Campbell’s “We don’t do God” claim.

The evidence is clear. The only students who improved during Blair's tenure attended the so-called public schools. 40,000 more children signed up for these schools as parents sought to avoid the poor discipline and teaching in state schools. At the public schools, government policy was mute.

Blair allowed individuals with radical, unproven ideas, to hold reign on policy. Dismissing standards and common sense, he was confident he'd improve things for the impoverished kids. People like Christine Gilbert, a former director of education, advocated pupil power. The students would decide courses, mark their work and assess their teachers. Exams were to go, replaced by feedback. Blair pushed hard to break the link between education and social class.

As a consequence, the ordinary working-class child saw levels of attainment collapse. Research revealed teachers focused on the few willing kids, while unqualified assistants kept the less able occupied. In short, discipline fell away. By 2007, the Rowntree Foundation discovered the most impoverished kids further behind. Blair, playing his ideological games, doomed them by pulling the rug of education away.

The data is compelling. In 2007, with a decade in power, all Blairs ideas and the millions spent had produced no gain. In fact, standards had fallen. The data from international agencies and independent internal monitors told a grim tale. By 2016, the product of Blairs education initiatives came to university age. The OECD ranked them as the worst in twenty-three developed countries in literacy and second worst in maths. It’s a stinging indictment of his failing.

Blair loved to trumpet how well he was doing on education. None of these claims stood up to the slightest analysis. He spent £88.5 million on an anti-truancy policy that saw rates of absence increase. He committed £1.1 billion to Sure Start aimed at kids in deprived areas. Whether this programme has any impact is debatable because the evidence suggests no tangible gains. The spin doctors twisted any favourable data, but couldn't hide the truth.

Caught out by these failures, Blair put pressure on for improvements in exam results. This drive led to the wholesale manipulation of assessment processes. Pushing pupils into easy courses inflated grades, while 'adjusted' marking schemes helped. Soon grades went up. As an example, sixteen-year-olds sitting the maths GCSE gained a ‘C’ for a score of 16 percent. As the focus was exams, instead of teaching, learning folded.

The next fiddle involved coursework. By including a higher element of coursework in the marks, teachers adjusted scores. Without any proper oversight or scrutiny grades climbed.

The flip-flops, the millions wasted on failed initiatives, it left parents, teachers and kids bewildered. Employers held their heads in their hands in disbelief at the poor quality of people entering the workforce.

Forced from office in 2007, Blair left a legacy of broken education promises. His deceitful peddling of twisted data didn't conceal the truth. Education was costing much more to produce much less. Meanwhile, a third of secondary school pupils have some record of truancy. Most school-leavers left without achieving real skills in literacy and numeracy.

The education system had fallen victim to a class-war. The most vulnerable pupils lost. So, Blair remains a toxic brand, due to his blood-lust and religious crusades. We should not forget the damage he did to a generation of ordinary kids, whom he consigned to mediocrity.

Of course, Blair didn’t expose his kids to these machinations. As the Spectator magazine reported in 2002, the Blairs arranged for teachers from the elite private Westminster School to home tutor his sons. A more vivid illustration of the man’s hypocrisy would be hard to find.

These kids were spared their father's policies.

0 Comments

23/1/2018 1 Comment

Learn from the Lobster.

"Forensically, Peterson took apart Ms Newman's worldview narrative."

Prof. Peterson

We should all thank Cathy Newman for her excellent public service. In a 30-minute TV interview, she's done more than anyone to expose modern cultural fallacies. Of course, she didn't intend to achieve that - but that's unintended consequences for you.
Ms Newman is a British journalist who works as a presenter on Channel 4. She's an Oxford graduate, a feminist and known for her direct interviewing technique.

As an accomplished journalist, she has several important stories to her credit. For example, she exposed former Prime Minister Gordon Brown for insisting a donor, Ronald Cohen, get a knighthood. Thus, you can see that Ms Newman is neither innocent nor uneducated.

So, seeing her ham-fisted attempt to confront such an intellectual powerhouse as Professor Jordan B Peterson is baffling. The Canadian clinical psychologist took Ms Newman apart. In doing so, he caused her to suffer public cognitive dissonance. It was thrilling and disturbing to watch at the same time. I'd ask that you view their whole exchange here.

But, I must congratulate Ms Newman. She allowed Peterson to dissemble, then shatter, several falsehoods. Feminism, gender issues, the pay gap and how culture operates all received attention. Ms Newman facilitated this destruction of myths by her agenda-ladened approach. Sam Harris described her performance as "An almost near-terminal case of close-mindedness."

Peterson came to the studio armed with decades of research, facts and the rigour of substantiation. Ms Newman went with a few loose points and a load of unfounded opinions, all tied up with an unwillingness to listen.

From the outset, she attacked, challenging Peterson on all fronts. Soon her unpreparedness was evident in shallow questions. Next, she was wholly thrown by his responses. Had Ms Newman taken the time to research, she'd have discovered Peterson is no pushover.

Forensically, Peterson took apart Ms Newman's worldview narrative. He was eloquent, polite, humorous and firm with the facts. He called her out when she misrepresented him, which she did. Peterson laughed at her attempts to question his thinking. It was never disdainful but soft laughter akin to that used with an uneducated child.

In the process, he disarmed her. If you listen to her voice, it's possible to detect a harsh tone emerge as she struggles to control herself. Witnessing cognitive dissonance spread across her face is possible. At 23 minutes, she's stalled, frozen. She admits to struggling. Defeated and lost, she doubles down her attacks with stupid questions. That's when we get, "Tell us about the lobster."

At this point, she is either seeking to embarrass Peterson or be flippant. She fails again as he comes back with facts. In his answer, we get millions of years of evolution, a quick insight into a lobster's nervous system and serotonin. Ms Newman took another hit.

Her attempts to label Peterson as Alt-right, when the man is palpably a liberal, were desperate. Clutching to the assertion that his audience is primarily men on YouTube, she couldn't make the mental leap that Peterson doesn't choose his audience. The viewer selects him.

I've now watched the interview five times to assure myself I'm not unkind or too harsh on Ms Newman. Each viewing affirmed my view she was battling with mental confusion. Her narrative on the world is wrong, yet she couldn't process that. Moreover, a cultured, brilliant, rational white man put her straight. That must hurt.

In response to the interview, the Internet lit up. Ms Newman took a fair amount of criticism, teasing, and rough language. Hey, welcome to the Internet.

Immediately, the SJWs sought to reframe the interview with Ms Newman as the victim. In a reprehensible article, the Guardian repeated lies that Peterson is Alt-right. Meanwhile, Channel 4 announced security experts would assess the threat to her. This laughable response to moderate criticism added a new level of absurdity. Peterson asked people to lay off with anything hurtful. His intervention was seized to assert he controls an army of Internet warriors. That's real fake news.

Nonetheless, I'm serious. Ms Newman has done a substantial public service. In the end, Peterson affirmed his integrity. Meanwhile, Ms Newman came across as dishonest and a dogmatic ideologue. And yet, towards the end of the interview, you saw a flicker of admiration. If she has any rationality, she'll be reassessing her worldview.

To his credit, Peterson is not declaring victory or jumping around in glee. He believes there is nothing to gain from advancing human culture by adopting a victory pose. The man wants a proper rational debate without the agenda Newman brought to the table. He's reached out to her, offering to sit down for a decent conversation. She's yet to reply.

And, one other thing, I'll never eat another lobster!

1 Comment

<<Previous

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

The road to freedom has rules.

I Blame the Vikings!

Blair's other legacy.

Learn from the Lobster.

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter