Other things this pandemic has taught me

This is not a health blog. 

This is a technical blog with a science/engineering perspective. So, when I post something about health, infectious diseases, vaccinations etc. I post it from that perspective. I make the assumption that the best scientific information we have available that is accepted by peak bodies is true and correct. To that end I post links to primary and secondary sources. If you want to argue the science, go argue it with the actual professionals. I'm not that arrogant that I think I know better than professionals in their field.

It's also not a political blog. In fact, in the extra categories, you won't see anything on politics. You'll see critical thinking, the scientific method... and possibly a few recipes as well as some creative writing and a few personal observations.

I've also posted elsewhere some snarky things about what this pandemic has taught me: particularly with regard to how much people value the lives of others over money and willingness to forgo some temporary discomfort in order to  safeguard other people. It's been sobering to say the least.

There are also some other things that this pandemic has taught me, from a futurist perspective. There are lessons to be learnt. Will we remember them or go back to business as usual?

Many of us are more productive when working from home

I still think offices have a place, but not like they used to. Many employers are champing at the bit to get people 'back to work' when they have been working this entire time, often with much higher productivity. For some reasons, there are inept managers still among us that think that someone working from home is somehow having a holiday. My prediction is that many workplaces will suffer a drop in productivity when workers are forced back into the office.

A long time ago at a previous workplace, I negotiated a 40% work from home. After a trial, it was increased to 60% by my boss because he could see the extra productivity he was getting from me. However, he had problems with his boss. They didn't like it one bit. The reasons they gave were:

 - How will you know he's working?

 - If others find out, they'll want to do it too.

Hopefully, I won't need to explain why these reasons are so ridiculous.

You don't need to go to meetings

Before the pandemic there were more than a dozen meeting collaboration tools around. Now there's basically two: Zoom and Teams. The latter really only exists because it integrates into the MSOffice suite and it can also be your phone system. I'll throw Teamviewer in as a third, but its primary use is for support - plus it's dear as poison. Zoom comes out on top in my books because it runs on literally anything and all you need is a subscription. Teams is only useful in medium to large organisations.

At the start of the pandemic, there were huge teething problems: microphones not working, cameras either not working or people didn't have them. We didn't know the 'rules' of zoom meetings (muting etc). But we're all past that now. Plus we learnt an important thing: Most of the time, we didn't need to be at that meeting. We could have sent an email. Meetings got shorter. People learnt to be concise. If we weren't really involved, we could mute, turn the camera off, and continue working on whatever we were working on - or just look at facebook.

Nobody wants to go back to face to face meetings. Nobody wants to spend time driving across town, parking, paying tolls, waiting for everyone to be free, struggling to setup your notebook to work with the projector, then using up the obligatory one hour in the board room trying to pad out a meeting.

We can do pretty much everything on zoom. Usually we can do it better.

You can be anywhere in the world

This will probably turn out to be a downside. As employers work out the first two points, they will probably decide that employing someone to do your job in India or The Philippines will save a lot of money. So to you, that may make you think you can live anywhere and still keep your job, the reality is that you may be introduced to new members of your 'team' that are offshore and need to be trained by you in all aspects of your job.

Of course, this is just an extension of globalisation. The pros and cons of which are outside of this discussion. How it affects you is the overarching issue. I've already seen this happening with one large company I know transitioning to IT support being offered by an Indian based company. I worked with my counterpart in the handover. His skillset was roughly equal to mine and we held similar positions. However, because he lives in India, his salary was about half that of mine. By Indian standards, that was great - he was paid very well. The point is that this disparity will continue to drive knowledge based jobs offshore to a much greater extent than it will permit you to move to Tasmania.

The CBD will become the place where people live more so than where they work    

Nobody wants commercial real estate in the city anymore. Offices have emptied. Those that are left attract vastly lower rentals than before. For an industry driven by debt, no back will lend at anything near the value of the resource. 

Residential properties in cities, however, have boomed. Restrictions in travel meant that if you wanted to go to the city, you had to live there. As more people move to the cities to live, prices rise and suddenly commercial developments are now being restructured as residential. In fact, the highest value seem s to be in the commercial/residential mix. Where there is a residential building, with shops and cafes at ground floor, and gyms, day care, professional suites, schools, universities, small offices etc. at the lower levels. Some include green space and play grounds creating a fully self contained living environment free from unnecessary commuting. 

In the suburbs, an office is an essential room

Two of the rooms in our house have now been converted to offices. My wife and I worked out we couldn't really share an office with me working full time from home. In house auctions, it has been noticed that homes with a dedicated and separate office command much higher prices than those that don't. Even more so if the office has an external entrance or easy courier access.

I spend way more time in my home office than I do in the loungeroom or bedroom. For me, it has become the most important room in the house.

You don't have to "go" shopping

With home delivery of goods, click and collect, home shopping, that trip to the shopping mall isn't necessary any more. But try and buy local and not from Amazon.

Restaurants and cafes aren't a luxury

Fast Food chains will weather the pandemic. Your local family owned Italian restaurant may not. Many that adapted to the pandemic: with simpler menus, delivery friendly foods, contactless trading etc. seem to have done okay. If you enjoy going to your local restaurant as a treat every couple of months, make sure you patronise them regularly during lockdown. Otherwise, they may not be there afterwards.

Self-care isn't self-indulgent

As a poor uni student, I learnt that if I treated myself to an iced-chocolate once a fortnight, I didn't feel so poor. It was something simple I could look forward two that made me feel just a little bit special.

Pampering is vital to well-being. Activities that once felt indulgent became essential to our health and equilibrium, and that self-care mindset is likely to endure. Whether it is permission to take long bubble baths, tinkering in the shed, planting a tree in the backyard, watching a pay-per-view on netflix, anything that helps you to feel better about yourself will not only help you, it will help those around you.

We don't store enough food and provisions

The big lesson we should have learnt is we must have 1-2 months supply of non-perishable food and provisions: toilet paper, rice, pasta, flour, sugar, long life milk, cleaning products, toiletries, tinned food, water - all of things things can become very scarce in hours if there is panic buying. Perishables don't suffer as much. These things are easy to store, cheap to buy and you suffer if you don't have them. So get them and avoid panic buying.

Some jobs are essential

Every military in the world has reserve forces. The basic idea is to take a young person, train them to be a soldier in peacetime through a very small imposition of their time and give them some money to make a sweet deal. In Australia, the general commitment is one night per week, one weekend a month, two weeks a year. For that, you receive some tax free dollars and training as a soldier. The quid pro quo is that anytime up until twenty years after you leave the reserve you can be activated. This allows the military to keep a small military during peacetime, but rapidly expand it in case of war with already trained soldiers. 

We realise the value of this for ware. We should now realise we need this in case of a long term medical emergency such as a pandemic. The recent bushfires show that we need this for other emergency services as well.

So, we should have reserve paramedics, nurses, orderlies etc. People that have a basic level of training in a profession. Enough to assist the permanent staff during a crisis. Consequently, other emergency services such as fire fighters and police deputies should be included as well.

We won't prepared for the next one

This pandemic was and is pretty bad. But it could be a lot worse. Until Delta, the reproductive factor was relatively low (2.4). Delta changed everything, but at least it didn't start out with Delta's reproductive rate (estimated at 9.0).

The mortality rate (at around 2%-3%) whilst bad, was at least within the realms of manageability. If the mortality rate was 10% or higher, we may have well seen major civilisation changes: civil war, anarchy, financial system collapse. The previous two coronavirus outbreaks (SARS and MERS) had mortality rates of 10% and 90% respectively. Fortunately, both had low reproductive rates. The black plague had a mortality rate of around 50%.

Experts universally agree this isn't the last outbreak. There will be more. Statistically, the next one will be much worse. But we aren't prepared for it. We're still struggling to deal with the current one. We've learnt a lot, yes, and we've developed some incredible medical preventions and treatments.But as this pandemic trails off and either disappears or becomes endemic, the money for further research will disappear very quickly.

Ten Questions for Anti-Vaxers

When I encounter a REAL anti-vaxer, I generally try to ask them the following ten questions.

Now, when I say anti-vaxer, I don't mean the vaccine hesitant or those that are convinced by an anti-vax website or YouTube video. I'm referring to those who run the websites, write the books, make the videos etc.

The one's who should know better.

The one's who actually do know better.

The one's who are anti-vax, not because they don't think vaccines are safe and effective, but because they KNOW they are safe and effective. Well... most of them.

"How can that be?" You say. Well, scratch an anti-vaxer, you'll find a racist eugenicist that Dr Mengele would be proud of. It's that simple.

Image credit: Eugenics Society Poster, 1930s (Wikimedia Commons | CC BY 4.0)

The problem is, they can't admit it. Nobody would listen to them. They would have no followers and no influence. Also no $$$ from the book sales and lecture tours.

The thing is, they're proud of their stance. They'd love to admit it. So, they just need a little encouragement to do so.

Now I did say "most of them". There are some that are - well - nutcases. These will usually have a swag of conspiracy theories: The Earth is flat; Lizardmen control the world; Moon landing hoax; Bill Gates is the anti-Christ; 9/11 truthers; Birthers; 5G. It doesn't matter. Conspiracy theories are like Tim Tams: You can't stop at one. You also can't reason with them, but you can get them to admit to the other conspiracy theories. That's usually enough to discredit them a little. But for some reason Chef Pete is like Teflon when it comes to this. Maybe that says more about his followers than anything else.

The ten questions are all about anti-vaxers outing themselves for what they really are. So, often they will ignore them or avoid answering them directly. Don't let them off the hook. If they say it isn't a simple yes or no, ask why. Keep asking. Don't let them shake you. Get others to ask the same simple questions.

The first two questions are simply a way to separate the wolves from the goats. A conspiracy theorist will usually reject one or both of these, so the others become superfluous. If they reject both, then continuing further is impossible. You simply don't have a common grounding in logic and reality. Any argument will quickly devolve into either solipsism or magical thinking. You may be able to get them to admit to other conspiracy theories, which would be a win of sorts.

1. Do you accept the Scientific Method? 

For some reason, we seem to have a plague of scientific-illiteracy on social media. This is compounded by the illiterate reveling in their illiteracy as though it's something to be proud of.

There's nothing magical about science. In fact "science' isn't a thing, it's a discipline. Science is defined by any field of study governed by the scientific method. Broadly speaking, Science is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results.

Ask them: Which part of that do they disagree with? Being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?

The scientific method mandates that all aspects of scientific research must be:
- testable
- reproduceable
- falsifiable

https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

The scientific method has been around for over 300 years. Adherence to the scientific method has provided us with every single technological advancement we recognise today and has doubled our life expectancy. If you reject the scientific method, you should forsake the computer you're using right now, your car, electricity, flying, your ready access to food and medicine.

There are some people who like to point to changes in scientific opinions over time as an example of science not working when exactly this is the opposite. Following the scientific method requires you to change your opinions when new data shows that opinion to be incorrect. Sure, science has been proven wrong, but it's always by better science and not because of some fanciful dogmatic idea that someone had. It was because the evidence lead in a different direction and scientists - as a body - moved in that direction.

2. Do you accept the Germ Theory of Disease?

Adherence to the Scientific Method lead to one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time: Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory of disease. It remains one of the greatest scientific lay-down miseres of all time with an overwhelming body of irrefutable proof. Prior to this it was thought that "Miasmas" were responsible for disease. Miasma theory posited that diseases were the product of environmental factors such as contaminated water, foul air, and poor hygienic condition rather than from microorganisms. So, when an antivaxer starts spouting these reasons, then they probably deny Germ Theory as well. This is why they reject vaccines, because if vaccines DID actually work, then they'd have to accept Germ Theory.

If you get a yes to both questions, then you can proceed on. Most likely, you'll have a eugenicist. So the trick is to get a straight answer without sounding dogmatic or manichaean. Don't tell them they have to give a yes or now answer, ask them why they can't. Probe every reason and sub reason. If they get angry or complain, ask them why it's such a big deal. If they still don't, restate the question as "So, you don't know if xxx is true (or false)". They don't like to say they don't know something, so they'll usually say "Yes, I do know" which you follow up with "Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place?"

3. Do you think the Earth is overpopulated?

This one is easy. Most (if not all) will say yes. It means little, but it builds a foundation to follow. One they can't backtrack on or use as an excuse later, because the admitted it. Also, it gets them used to them saying yes and you moving on like it's no big deal - which at this stage it isn't.

4. Do you think the only way to survive as a species is to drastically reduce our population in a short period of time?

This should come easily as well. For most eugenicists, this is THEIR argument. The one THEY own, which they use with their indoctrinated sheep later on.

But they may smell a rat here. So you made need to spend a little time in clarification. Perhaps you may need to reword it to their liking. You may even ask them to reword it. After all, you don't want to create a strawman.

5. Do you agree that the statement "Survival of the fittest?" should apply to humanity as well as the animal kingdom.

This is another eugenicist article of faith. However, at this point they'll probably smell a rat and start looking for the exit. Don't let them. Hang on and reword it to their liking if necessary.

6. Do you think that we are generally weaker and less healthy than we were 200 years ago?

It would be extremely difficult for a anti-vaxer to say no to this question after saying yes to the preceding ones. If they say no, then why are we healthier? because of modern medicine of course!

The answer is actually no. We live twice as long, suffer less and no longer die from simple things. To say we were healthier back then ignores survivor bias.Thing of all the illnesses you've suffered in your life, accidents you had, operations etc. Without modern medicine, would you be alive or dead right now?

7. Do you think that modern medicine has contributed to weakening the gene pool?

Now we are getting to the nitty gritty. At the core of the eugenicist argument is that by culling the weak, those that are left have healthier genes and only they go on to reproduce. This is the crux of their argument. Since eugenicists do have a core of like-minded believers, they can't say no or even prevaricate. Whereas a yes won't mean very much to the sheep, it provides the solid ground for the remaining questions.

8. Do you think that childhood vaccines and other health interventions in children have allowed weaker children that normally would have died to grow up and reproduce?

This question follows from the last as night follows day. But this is the big one that will rock the sheep.

If they say yes, they admit that vaccines actually work. If they didn't, then 'weaker' children wouldn't survive these diseases. This is actually the opposite of what they imply to their followers.

Have fun in this space.

9. Do you think that some racial groups have better, stronger genetics than others?

This simply also follows on Q7. If ALL health is genetic, then some races are naturally healthier, smarter, better than others. It's simply a logical extension of racial theory and eugenics.

Hang around in anti-vax echo chambers for long enough and you will see a lot of casual racism, espcially anti-semitism.It's vile and disgusting, but there for the faithful to see and ignore. 

If you can handle it, and don't call them out on it, they you'll see more and more of it from these cryptofascists.

10 Do you think that allowing children to get childhood diseases (which some may die from) will improve the overall health of the gene pool?

If you've managed to get this far: congratulations! You've done better than me. These oxygen-thieves are smart enough to ignore this question (usually). If you can get them to admit to this question, you have proof they are a eugenicist.

Scratch an anti-vaxer, you'll find a racist eugenicist that wants your children to die.

Wayne's Deadly Toblerone Cheesecake

Firstly, make your favourite biscuit base and place it in a shallow, springform cake dish that is well greased and chill. You can cheat and use a prepared crust if you like. As for me, I use crushed Maria biscuits and butter.

Ingredients: (metric - 1 tablespoon = 40ml, 1 cup = 250 ml)
750g Philadelphia cream cheese (3 blocks) - one can be light Philly if you're a wimp
2 eggs
1 tablespoon of cocoa
1 tablespoon of white rice flour (or plain flour)
1 tablespoon of butter
1 x 100g Toblerone (preferably dark Toblerone)
3/4 metric cup castor sugar
condensed milk
liquid pouring cream (to serve)

Method:
1. Beat cream cheese and sugar together, add some condensed milk to help soften and to add to flavour. Generally no more than 1/4 tin of condensed milk should be added.
2. Melt Toblerone in the microwave with the butter, be careful not to boil it. Use small steps and mix with the butter until smooth and not split. The butter is optional but does aid in the melting and binding and reduces the risk of cracking. The less the better as the more you use the higher the chance of splitting the chocolate.
3. Add the melted Toblerone, flour and cocoa to the cream cheese and mix well. Then add the eggs and mix again.
4. Pour into prepared crust and bake at 160 degrees celsius for 60 minutes.
5. When cooked it should still have a slight wobble in the middle. Leave in oven to cool to avoid cracking. Remove from oven and chill overnight.
6. When serving dust with icing sugar or top with grated Toblerone.

tips:
1 Soften Cream Cheese.
2 Be gentle with the eggs - Overbeating after the eggs are added can result in cracked cheesecakes.
3 No peeking! Opening the oven door during baking can cause cheesecakes to crack.
4 Set the timer. Start with the shortest baking time and add more time only if necessary.
5 You can also cook this in ramekins in a steamer for 10-15 minutes. When cooked, cut a hole in the centre, remove the cheesecake 'hole'. Fill with pouring cream, stir and replace the cheesecake hole prior to serving. Steaming will leave the centre slightly gooey. This will mix with the cream to make a liquid ganache centre. When steaming, do not chill, but serve immediately.
6 I plan to try cooking this in an air fryer sometime to see if it works.

NB: This is VERY rich! I serve it on a plate surrounded by liquid pure cream. The cream is necessary as the cheesecake will soak up the cream so as not to make it too rich. I also make a redcurrant sauce that I boil in the microwave and poor over the top immediately prior to serving.

To date, I have only found one person who can eat a whole slice without turning green.

Nutrional information:
I estimate the fat content to be about 400g of which 300g would be saturated and about 5000 calories. This is about 8 times the daily allowance of fat and enough calories to keep a fit, active adult going for two days.

My favourite part of this dish is watching the face of people when they first take a bite!

A response to "James Hansen's many and varied furphies" by John Happs

The following is a critique of the article "James Hansen's many and varied furphies" by John Happs as published in Quadrant on 26 August 2013 from a Critical Thinking perspective. I will state at the outset that I regard Quadrant to be a reich-wing rag that barely deserves the title "magazine". It is produced as propaganda for extreme right wing political viewpoints and openly states its position as "sceptical of 'unthinking Leftism, or political correctness, and its "smelly little orthodoxies"'. The original article may be found here.

Rather than tackle the issues of climate change, Happs has chosen a time-honored practice of avoiding a discussion of facts and engaging in a smear campaign against a respected scientist. 

"Hansen has given numerous public talks about what he sees as an urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by stopping the mining and burning of coal. He also wants oil exploration stopped, as well as the further exploitation of tar sands." 

Without discussing the merits here, the statement is factually incorrect. The impression is given that Hansen is a radical that wants to completely ban oil and gas exploration. Hansen's opposition has very focused at environmentally sensitive areas such as the Amazonian rainforests and Arctic exploration. His similar concerns about the tar sands in Canada are based on the readily available evidence of the damage to the local environment. 

Happs is attempting to create a straw-man argument: painting a picture that is simply not realistic, unless of course Happs thinks that anyone who doesn't approve of the obliteration of Amazonian rainforests is a loony radical. 

"He unashamedly promotes alarmism about the trivial levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide" 

This is the fallacy of "Conclusion entered as evidence".  

The way you identify propaganda from a well-argued position is the former starts with the conclusion. The latter reports facts, makes inferences based upon syllogistic arguments which lead to a conclusion. From there it is simply a matter of establishing if the facts are true and if the argument is sound. A sound argument is such that if the facts or true then the conclusion must also be true. A strong (or cogent) argument is such that if the facts are true then the conclusion is probably true. 

In this article you see none of these things, as I will demonstrate. 

The adjective "unashamedly" is judgemental. It assumes the person has something to be ashamed of. 

"Promotes" denigrates the fact that Hansen is an expert (and conversely that Hall isn't). 

"Alarmism" is another judgement. Used together we have a fallacy known as a "thought stopping cliche". It means nothing and serves only to create a negative impression. 

Also in the same sentence "trivial levels of carbon dioxide". This is "facts not entered into evidence". This hasn't been demonstrated, and in fact, cannot be as this is one of the most provable evidences demonstrating the reality of climate change. 

"In 2012 Robert Bryce quoted Hansen in the Dallas News: “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal fired power plants are factories of death.” " 

This one is truly brilliant! Notice that he doesn't say that Hansen said this, he says that "Robert Bryce quoted Hansen". Interesting! Why did he do this rather than simply quote Hansen and provide a reference? 

The original words were written in this article from the Guardian. Of course, if Happs had referred to the original article - and someone checked it out - they might actually read him in context: 

"The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species - its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm."  

Puts that a little more in perspective here, doesn't it? Read the full article here to see how it all fits in contextually.

Again, the purpose here is to smear Hansen and make him look like an activist first and a scientist second - leading us up to the fallacious sucker punch of them all: 

"Hansen sees himself as an activist and a scientist, but he can’t be both and remain credible." 

This of course, is a ridiculous statement. History is full of activists that were professionals in their field. In fact, most of them are activists precisely because they know they are talking about. According to Happs, a "good" scientist is not allowed to have an opinion. "Good" scientists stay in their boxes and report their findings to their vastly more intelligent "masters" who are permitted to have opinions.  

"Any scientist with a pet hypothesis who selects only data which support that hypothesis, whilst ignoring conflicting data, must lose the respect of their scientific colleagues." 

Happs is assuming here that any scientist with an opinion cannot be objective and will of course commit scientific fraud. Happs offers no evidence that Hansen has EVER done this, he is simply saying it is ipso facto. In other words, Hansen's scientific results are a direct result of his prejudiced opinions rather than the other way around. Presumably as well, Happs places all climate scientists in this box, as almost to a person, they agree with Hansen's results. 

"Real science actually looks for refutation whereas pseudoscience is intolerant of dissent." 

Well, yes, this true. However the pseudoscience is with the deniers. That's because the "scientists" say that climate change is real. The deniers are not scientists and therefore - by definition - "pseudoscientists", and Happs is one of them.  

The article is quite long and continues to cherry-pick results and apply statements that were never intended to be applied to those statements. Happs is not looking at the holistic science, he is picking and choosing and committing every single sin he subscribes to Hansen: He isn't looking for facts, he is starting from his prejudiced conclusion and working backwards from there. This is called "conclusion shopping". 

This article is an A1 demonstration of yellow journalism in action. Happs' dishonest portrayal of Hansen and the science of Climate Change is staggering in its tenacious mendacity. Godwin's Law precludes me from making the obvious comparisons that scream from the pages of Quadrant. I'd say that the article was a discredit to the journal it was published in, but that would only serve to elevate Quadrant to a level it doesn't deserve.

Critical Thinking: Why facebook & twitter are bad places for asymmetric discussions

"The beauty of concision, you know, saying a couple sentences between two commercials, the beauty of that is you can only repeat conventional thoughts. Suppose I go on Nightline, whatever it is, two minutes, and I say Gaddafi is a terrorist, Khomeini is a murderer etcetera etcetera...I don't need any evidence, everyone just nods. On the other hand, suppose you're saying something that isn't just regurgitating conventional pieties, suppose you say something that's the least bit unexpected or controversial, people will quite reasonably expect to know what you mean. If you said that you'd better have a reason, better have some evidence. You can't give evidence if you're stuck with concision. That's the genius of this structural constraint."
    - Noam Chomsky 'Manufacturing Consent"

Quite recently I was reported on Facebook for "Hate Speech". Since it was my first ever report, there was no consequence, otherwise I would have been in Facebook gaol for a period of time and unable to post or make comment. Interestingly there was a 'dispute' button I could press. I did so, and was informed less than four hours later that my post and been reviewed and the decision upheld.

Justice is quick on Facebook, apparently.

Facebook has very clear standards on what it considers 'Hate Speech':

 

Facebook's Community Standards go into further detail. I'm not complaining about this. Facebook is a private company. They have been repeatedly determined to be a publisher and not a common carrier - making them liable to content. As such it is perfectly just and fair they be allowed to restrict what is and is not content on their site. 

 

The "Community Standards" are reasonable, however for some reason, they take a different position in their Hard Questions section tacitly questioning the 'boundaries' of free speech. In doing so, they contradict their initial position, replacing the initial fairly strict definition of "hate speech" and introduce a new concept of Dangerous Speech and equate hate speech with violence. This is a very disturbing extension. They justify this by claiming that free speech is under academic debate and there "is very important academic work in this area that we follow closely". This completely ignores the fact that the free speech debate dates back to the 5th and 6th centuries and was fully hammered out a couple of centuries ago by eminent English philosophers John Milton (1608–74), John Locke (1632–1704) and in France by Denis Diderot, Baron d'Holbach and Claude Adrien Helvétius. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) seminal work On Liberty, published in 1859 became a classic defence of the right to freedom of expression. In her biography of Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall coined the following sentence to illustrate Voltaire's beliefs: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

The standard definition of free speech is perhaps most simply defined by Noam Chomsky: 

"If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

So influential was the work of Locke that it was used as the inspiration for the United States constitution. 

 

The driving force behind the philosophers of the renaissance and their analysis of free speech and freedom of expression was the invention of the printing press. As the "menace" of printing spread, more governments attempted to centralize control. The French Crown repressed printing and the printer Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake in 1546. In 1557 the British Crown thought to stem the flow of seditious and heretical books by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was limited to the members of that guild, and thirty years later the Star Chamber was chartered to curtail the "greate enormities and abuses" of "dyvers contentyous and disorderlye persons professinge the arte or mystere of pryntinge or selling of books." The right to print was restricted to two universities and to the 21 existing printers in London. Confrontation with authority made printers radical and rebellious, with 800 authors, printers and book dealers being incarcerated in the Bastille in Paris before it was stormed in 1789. (Wikipedia)

Indeed, whenever there is technological change that tends to extend the boundaries of communication, it is opposed by Governments and fascistic elements. The current situation is no different than any other. So called "new" arguments are trotted out relying on the generally ignorance of the previous debates and conclusions. Facebook's musings fit this category as does the Dangerous Speech Project - which is essentially an argument for censorship.

Another complicating factor is the existence of various defamation laws that exist in jurisdictions around the world. No two jurisdictions seem to be able to agree on what is or what isn't defamation, however the basic components involve the competition between a person's right to their reputation not being harmed and the public right to know. Nearly all countries regard defamation (and I'm including libel here) as a civil matter, however in Singapore and Queensland (yep!) it's part of the criminal code. In most cases, absolute truth is NOT a sufficient defence. 

However, Facebook can't have it both ways: It's not a common carrier, so it is subject to defamation and other claims. As a private company, it has both a right and a duty to protect itself from both civil and criminal prosecutions arising from hosted content. This gives it a right to take down content that may be damaging or even content it simply doesn't like. The same applies to all social media companies. But don't pretend this has anything to do with free speech. It doesn't. It never did. And also don't pretend you are trying to work out the "limits" of free speech, because there aren't any limits on freedom of expression. There's free speech, and there's censorship. You may like the censorship, but that doesn't make you a free speech advocate. 

Since the last Facebook infringement I've received two more. The first one was for 'hate speech' when I ironically quoted "Arbeit Macht Frei" in response to a discussion on limiting free speech. The phrase is German for "Work makes you free" and adorned the gates of Auschwitz. 

The warning gave me the option of accepting that I had written hate speech (without any penalty) or appealing. If the appeal failed, then I would be banned for one day.

Since even a casual reading of the context would reveal I hadn't written anything objectionable, I clicked the appeal button. The appeal was instantly denied and I received a one day Facebook ban! Obviously no one had time to actually look at the thread. No human being had actually been involved in the appeal process. It was a sham. The veneer of oversight.

Just recently, I received a third warning: this time for 'bullying and harassment'. No appeal available. No content was provided at all. I don't even know what it was for and received a three day ban. The only thing I can think it was for is that I asked for evidence for a claim that a particular type of nuclear reactor produced waste that lasts for 10,000 years (hint: it doesn't). So apparently, asking for someone to provide evidence for claims made is bullying - depending upon what side of the argument you are on.

And this is where it becomes asymmetric. As soon as you start to split hairs on an issue, you are subject to bias. When only one person is deciding what is and isn't "free speech", this is inevitable. History has shown this. Yet Facebook has chosen to repeat the mistakes of history by introducing its own "star chamber". 

Being in Facebook gaol is serious business now. You can't administer or moderate any pages or groups. Your business may suffer. Although Facebook is not legally a common carrier, it may as well be. For a business, being locked out of your business page can be as damaging as having your phone cut off.

What came out of the renaissance was that the best antidote for any 'dangerous' or 'hate' speech was sunlight: Allow those expressing their views to air them freely - and then debate them. Free speech allows you to say whatever you like, but it doesn't protect you from criticism and debate. The consensus was that the only ideas that needed protection were those ideas that could not withstand rigorous scrutiny. This is why free speech is the enemy of the rich and powerful. Not only does the emperor have no clothes, but he will throw you in gaol for stating it.

A growing number of Facebook users are complaining that Facebook and Twitter are exercising their power to block and ban to further a particular political agenda. Both of these scoial media companies seem to be using the concept of 'hate speech' to cover any ideological they find objectionable.

So, this leads us to one of two possible scenarios:

1) They are ignorant of the history surrounding the development of free speech and are blindly repeating past mistakes.

2) They are fully aware of what they are doing and are following fascistic tendencies to suppress ideas they despise.

I have too much stuff!

I have come to the conclusion that I have way too much stuff. I need to simplify my life - basically because I simply can't find anything when I look for it. Oh, I eventually do find it... six months later when I'm looking for something else.

I've been in Melbourne for over 12 years now and I still have stuff in boxes. It can't be that important. In fact, I have one box that wasn't unpacked from the previous move. I'm still healing from the emotional scars from the move from Queensland, I certainly don't want to go through that again: 75 cubic metres of stuff loaded onto a truck in the middle of summer in Queensland. Drive 1700km, unload and then go straight to work.

I was almost postal.

I'm slowly organising my life back in boxes - permanent ones. I bought 50 sturdy plastic boxes from Ikea and aside from furniture, white/brown goods, kitchen stuff, clothing, books, toiletries and personal items; everything gets a box. Each box gets a lable and an inventory. I have a box called "cables" with every single cable I have; "Power" has double adapters, powerboards, lightbulbs, extension cords etc; "stationery"; "camping"; "games"; "components"; "hardware"; "gardening" etc. I also have crates for the garage for the messy stuff. In the process I am throwing out or giving away heaps of "stuff" that I really don't need.

Okay, so I probably won't get to the point where I can fit everything I own into a box trailer, however I figure that if I manage to get every single thing thing I don't use everyday into a box, then moving won't be as stressful next time and will be much, much cheaper - especially if I sell or give away the white and brown goods. I even dream of buying a 20ft container and storing these boxes in there. I mean, I don't use the stuff that often. Then when it comes time to move, well, the container is already half packed, I just fill it with furniture, kitchen stuff and books (I have a lot of books) and move the container.

A "Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit" or TEU is 39 cubic metres - that should about do it. You can buy one second hand for about AUD2000. They are cheap to move. Interstate in Australia for about AUD1500. That's about $39/cu m. My move to Melbourne cost $100/cu m. Internationally (door to door) for about AUD5000 or $128/cu m. It doesn't cost much more to move a 40ft container, however where do you put it is the ever present problem.

You know, if I could modify it with a bit of plumbing and electricity, I could probably make it livable and save on housing costs:

 

Hmmm. Maybe I should get two?

Old Blog: RIP - The "Beast"

 (Originally written in 2011)

The Beast coming back from QLD during the move to Melbourne. We did 1600km in 23 hours. The temperature was 47C during this stop.

Alas! The venerable 1989 model Ford Maverick (rebadged Nissan Patrol) is no more. After 488,000 km (a decent number of them off-road) it could do no more. The number of expensive jobs on the to-do list kept increasing, and with the LPG tank now out of date (and condemned) it simply wasn't worth it. I sold it to a mechanic in Sunshine for $650, but not before I removed the dual battery system and the CB radio.

I knew the sale had to be to a mechanic - most of the work that needed to be done was labour intensive:

• Front brake master cylinder frozen
• Steering bushes needed replacing
• Broken engine mount
• LPG out of date
• Fuel pump leaking oil
• Carburettor overhaul required
• High beam micro switch broken
• Windscreen washer motors shorted and fused
  

To get all this done would cost me about $3k to make a 21YO vehicle roadworthy. It was a tough call as over the last two years I've spent close to $7k keeping it on the road. If I had known what it would cost, I wouldn't have started down that road. However, one of the things that still nags me is the prospect that if I did spent the $3k, then there really wouldn't be anything else to go wrong. The Beast would be like the axe my grandfather had for fifty years: He only had to replace the head twice and the handle three times.

Work done over the past couple of years includes:

• New head (that was 3k alone)
• Rear axle and diff rebuild (also very expensive)
• Clutch master and slave cylinder replaced and relined. New clutch plate.
• Complete overhaul of disk and drum brakes. New Master cylinder.
• New radiator and several hoses replaced.
• Installed new calcium battery with 850CCA (a very expensive battery)
• Aircon re-gassed, hoses and compressor replaced.
• Power steering hoses replaced.
• Upgraded headlights from sealed to high luminance modular.
• New muffler.
  

This is the Beast crossing Coca Cola Creek on the Cooloola Coast near Noosa

To keep the costs down I did as much work as I can. The problem with that is five of my hours are worth about one of my mechanics - and I simply don't have that much time. Also, sometimes it is counterproductive. For example, I tried to do the power steering myself and ended up doing damage because I misread the Hane's manual on how to overhaul the power steering.

This comes to why I called the Maverick "The Beast". Working on it is a religious experience - actually, it's a taste of hell. I'm sure if Dante were to to do a rewrite, there would be a special section of hell where people would be forced to carry out repairs on the Beast for eternity.

In fact, whilst some people dream about their cars, I used to have nightmares over mine. Even replacing the spark plugs was difficult (not all of them, just plugs 3 & 4). It used a whopping 7.8 litres of oil - just try finding an oil pan big enough. And reaching the oil filter? I swear, the engineers who designed that engine must assume that people have five joints in their arms and eyes on the ends of their fingertips. There's a mixture of metric and imperial bolts and nuts in place and lots of little plastic "screwlets" that cannot be replaced and love to break if you look at them wrong way. There are replacement pipes and hoses that do not fit unless you either bend them or move something else.

Driving the beast is also an experience. It is seriously underpowered and felt more like a truck than anything else. It had Auntie Jack steering (it'll rip yer bloody arms off). The synchromesh stank so double-shuffling and pumping the clutch became a way of life, however if you held revs at exactly 1800 at the right speed for the gear you wanted you could pop it into gear smoothly without any clutch at all. I drove it around for a week without a clutch that way. On a dirt road it drifted like a rally car. The more you loaded it up, the better it handled. Driving back from QLD with the trailer on I was 4 tonne all up. It handled beautifully unless I had to brake quickly.
 

Warrego Highway coming out of Toowoomba at the top of the Toowoomba Range

This lead to one of my big scares and highlights a big problem with vehicles with rear-wheel drum brakes. Coming down the Toowoomba range with the four tonne load, I thought second gear would be sufficient. I was wrong. Unknown to me, the heavy load had blown the diff seals and saturated the rear drums with diff fluid. This made the rear drums useless. The trailer also had no brakes. I had brake fade by the third corner and had no option but to ride it out until the half-way flat. With the engine screaming at over 80km/h in second I hit the flat and stood on the brakes. I managed to slow it down to about 30km/h before they failed and pulled on the hand brake - which on the Beast is connected to a fifth brake attached on the diff. The hand brake pulled me up just 30m short of the next descent - smoke was pouring out of the front disks pads, the discs were glowing red and I was shaking like a leaf.

The gearing of the beast was also poor. The huge ratio gap between second and third was such that driving uphill with any decent load meant you either were going too fast or too slow. Fuel consumption was close to 20L/100km - hence the need for LPG.

In fact, the Beast never really seemed to be happy unless you were off road with a heavy load. The diff lock was manual and on low range you could really do some wonderful things with it. Once I told some Japanese students I would take them on a 4WD track, so I took them up Mt Kooralbyn. However it had been over a year since I'd driven the track and it had not been maintained. Also (presumably) no one else had been up there in that time. I was white-knuckled all they way up (and down). There were three-foot deep cracks in the track big enough to claim a wheel. On the ridge, the grass had overgrown the track to a height of four-feet and a sapling had grown in the middle of it. The kids loved the drive; but it scared the crap out of me.

Trying to get through the 2008 floods in the Beast

I once went on a youth camp with the boys in a state park outside of Bacchus Marsh. It rained considerably during the camp and the windy dirt roads became considerably soggy on the way back. This brought the drift speed all the way down to 30km/h. After about the fifth corner with a 45 degree drift and an idiotic smile on my face, the kids started saying "Dad! Really! You're embarrassing us!"

After I moved to Melbourne, I took a load of rubbish to the tip, but took a wrong turn with only a few minutes before closing time. As a result I had to take the dirt service road to the tip entrance. It was a good (but windy) dirt road with no corrugations, so I took the corners at speed and used the full width of the road including the verge. Kylie was with me and after the first corner she said "Did you just slide around that corner?"

I replied "It's called drifting."

"Should you be drifting in a 4wd?"

"That's not a problem. A 4WD is really like any other vehicle. Same basic rules apply."

"Should you drifting with a trailer on the back?"

(pause) "Probably not." I replied, and backed off the speed a littlle.

The worst gaf I made with the Beast was on the Cooloola Coast. Coming back, I mistimed the tides and had to drive with two wheels on wet and two on dry sand for a while. I pulled over at a good wide stretch and waited for the tide to turn. When it did, I drove back, but forgot to release the hand brake. By the time I realised, the damage was done and the brake began to seize. Fortunately, I made it back to the bitumen where I cooled my heels for a few hours until the tow truck turned up.

The Beast has now been replaced by a shiny Honda Odyssey. A 4WD it is not (which is disappointing), however it will sit large teenagers in the back row in comfort - something the Beast won't do. It should also be cheaper to run and (hopefully) maintain. Now I have to work out what to do with the CB and the dual battery system. I also need to fit a tow bar.

At the very least I will no longer have to constantly steer in one direction whilst driving and then steer in the opposite direction when braking.

In searching through some old documents, I found this short story based on Warhammer that I wrote in the late '90's. Enjoy! 

Note: The abhorrent Games Workshop spelling of “Brettonia” has not been used.

The Chanson of Bernard le Favor in Prose

Extracted and condensed from the 158 verses and 17 choruses of “Le Chanson de Bernard le Favor and the Songs of his Noble Valour” as composed by the Bard Julian le Troubador.

Bernard crashed through the swamp, stumbling as he ran, tears blinding his vision. Barely able to see, his thoughts were fixed on just one thing… to run, and get away from that battle as fast as possible! Against this single-minded goal impeded no other thought;not sustenance, time, direction, not care for himself, not even shame at his cowardice. Yet deep inside, gnawing at him, was his love for the Fay Enchantress.

Finally, Bernard’s strength exhausted him. He tumbled headlong over a log and down a small hill. There he lay, crying and cursing himself at his cowardice, unworthy of the title of Knight Errant. Faintly; the sounds of battle came to him, for he had not blundered that far. The clash of steel on steel, the twang of bows, the hum and discharge of potent magic! Technically he was still on the battlefield, though some distance behind enemy lines.

Resting for a moment, Bernard stifled his sobs, wiped away his tears and began to survey his situation: He was out of the swamp now, that much was good. He was without mount, and his unit had been destroyed. But it was when his beloved Duke, Folay, Duc de Parravon, fell in battle that his courage had left him. Bernard had run from the battle like a frightened child.

The might of the Lizardman army had amazed him. He had thought they would be weak. But the sheer power of the Slann-Mage Czantekel had stunned him. He had seen the power of the Empire battle wizards inaction, tempered by the Waagh of the Goblin shamans, been repulsed by the power of Chaos. But nothing… nothing had prepared him for sight of the white fire of High Magic as it incinerated a mighty unit of Grail Knights in lance formation. The mighty Slann-Mage then proceeded to deal a mortal blow to his beloved Duke, whilst at the same time casting down all the spells the Fay Enchantress could weave. He himself had been overwhelmed by the missile fire from salamanders and those pesky skinks with their deadly bows. One by one, the Knight Errants under his charge paid the ultimate price in defence of Mother Brettoni. After that, he had no courage for the fight.

Wistfully, he sat and held a token in his hands, he caressed the simple trinket lovingly and fought back more tears of remorse. The object he held - while worthless to others - was more priceless to him than life itself. He allowed this thought to grow in him and his fear turned into something else. Gaining a further resolve he pushed his anger deep within him. Standing slowly he took his sword in hand and tied around it the trinket he was carrying. It was a tress of hair, a gift to him from the Fay Enchantress of Brettonia.

He had broken his ban!

In truth he had not prepared himself properly. Bernard had allowed his pride to deceive him. For he was a Knight Errant Champion of Brettonia! And what is more, he had been granted a favour from the Fay Enchantress herself!

A snorting sound snatched Bernard from his thoughts. Spinning around, sword in hand, he was ready to fight! Out of the swamp, dripping in muck, trotted a Brettonian Warhorse. Despite its sad appearance it still held its head up high, a sure sign of the Elvenhorse blood that still pumped through its veins. Although its carapace was stained Bernard could still clearly make out the heraldry. This was the horse that recently bore the Duke of Parravon. Amazed at the courage of the Duke’s horse in seeking out another rider so that it could return to battle, Bernard wasted no time in mounting up. He had no Lance, his sword would have to do.

Listening for the sounds of battle, he spurred his new horse on. Around the swamp charged with a new sense of urgency. Still out of sight, Bernard could tell the battle was not going well for Brettonia, the sound of Brettonian archers had long faded. He feared for the Enchantress, that she might have been slain. The very thought appalled him and filled is heart with dread, but within burned a new resolve. He spurred his horse on to greater and greater speeds. Rounding the swamp, his heart leapt with joy, and then filled with dread.

Morgiana was still alive, but beleaguered. No knights now stood to defend her. Only a handful of mounted squires protected her from the Lizardmam Saurus warriors! Yet still she battled on, weaving her mystical incantations in magical combat with the Slann-Mage. Even imperilled herself, she always protected her troops whom she enveloped in a red vapour of protection which surrounded the Fay Enchantress.

Bernard could see the battle was hopeless. The Lizardmen were just too numerous, and the Slann-Mage’s magic was too powerful. He had heard that all their minds where magically linked as one brain and they acted individually as if their were dozens present. Yesterday he had scoffed at such notions, now he feared they might be true. His own situation was equally impossible. One Knight, against an entire army? Still, he could not desert the Fay Enchantress a second time, his honour would not allow it. He silently prayed that Morgiana’s favour still held, and that his cowardice had not broken it. She had promised him that as long as he was true and faithful to the Seven Commandments of Chivalry, fortune would smile upon him in battle. Armed with this thought, he raised his sword, turned and raced his warhorse towards the Slann-Mage.

A unit of skinks turned to face him, they fired their wicked barbs, but all failed to penetrate his knightly armour. He charged them with a mighty crash and 2 fell beneath his sword while his warhorse dispatched another. They fled, and Bernard ran them down and slaughtered them in their tracks. Racing across the battlefield he attracted the gaze of Morgiana le Fay. He saluted her as he charged towards the Slann-Mage, his horse answering the call to battle. Morgiana acknowledged him as he charged. She smiled at him, pleased to see him once more. No look of recrimination came from her, it was more relief that he was alive, and proud to see him return to the battle. Morgania cast her incantations as he rode and whispered softly, words which carried to him across the battle and echoed loudly in his ears.

“Sir Bernard! The Slann-Mage is doomed to perish by your sword!”

Bernard felt the words of power. Surprised at the responsibility with which the Fay Enchantress had entrusted him, he charged the Slann-Mage directly. The Slann-Mage too had felt the power and turned to face Bernard, fear and doubt emanating from the expressions of Saurus’ that bore him. Bolts of fire and energy threatened to sear his bones and rend the very fibres of his being. The Fay Enchantress threw them down, protecting him in his charge with scant regard to her own personal safety. Even as he watched, the hopelessly outnumbered Squires protecting her buckled under the immense onslaught of Saurus Temple Guards and gave way, leaving her open to attack!

The Slann-Mage renewed its magical attack on him. Shifting in his seat, his Brettonian Warhorse responded adroitly, carrying the weight of rider and armour with ease it dodged the bolt of white fire which incinerated a pursuing salamander!

The clouds parted. A shaft of light crossed the palm of the world with silver, coming to rest on the charging figure. The skinks and salamanders blanched, unable to bring their craven weapons to bear on such an imposing figure as a charging Knight of Brettonia in all his glory! For he no longer was Bernard, but Sir Bernard the Favoured and his charge was to slay the Slann-Mage or suffer Morgiana Le Fay to perish upon the battlefield. Bernard crashed into the Slann-Mage’s personal guards, forcing them back. Facing the Slann-Mage directly he raised his sword up high…and swung...

Bernard could not remember what happened next. At first he thought he had failed and died in his attempt. Regaining his strength he staggered upright and looked at the blackened earth which surrounded him. His faithful horse lay dead beside him, he himself was badly wounded. Before him lay the broken body of a once proud Slann-Mage.

Surveying the battefield, the Lizardman armies were in disarray. With no Slann-Mage to protect them, they were no match for Morgiana’s magical might. The mounted squires were putting down isolated pockets of resistance. A unit of archers had rallied and Brettonian bows were once again twanging into units of Lizardmen. Those that did not flee, either perished by the sword or were turned to frogs by Morgiana’s spiteful glance. By dusk, it was clear the battle belonged to Brettonia. The Slann had been taught to fear the thunder from the hooves of the Brettonian warhorse!

Morgiana entered the tent where Bernard’s wounds were being tended.

“Your Errand is at an end.” She announced simply. “The Lady of the Lake has bestowed her favours upon you today. You are now Sir Bernard le Favor, Knight of the Realm of Brettonia. It is customary at this time to bestow the Errand of Knighthood upon another, as you yourself were so appointed.”

Bernard swallowed hard, trying to clear his thoughts. “Send for the Captain of the Squires.” He commanded.

“He is dead.” came the reply from one of the attendants. “But there was one who stood beside the Enchantress when all others fled.”

“Send for him.” Commanded Bernard. Like it or not, he was the now in charge. The only knight to have survived.

The trembling squire entered the tent, protesting “I am not worthy of this honour. My knight is dead and many of my kindred slain, mine own captain I could not save.” He hung his head in shame.

At this juncture Morgiana intervened. “You are not to blame for their deaths. Rather your courage has given meaning to their sacrifice. You must further their honour by taking up the banner and providing purpose to their lives, and justification for their deaths. As long as you live faithful to the Code of Chivalry, they will forever be with you! It is the solemn duty of living to continue the work of the dead.”

The young squire knelt before Bernard. Bernard drew his sword and touched him lightly upon his shoulders with the flat of the blade. “In the name of the Lady of Lake, I bestow upon you the Errand of Knighthood, the right to wear armour and the right to ride a Brettonian warhorse. I bind upon you the Code of Chivalry with its Seven Commandments. I give unto you the responsibility of the defence of the realm, the protection of the innocent, and the relentless pursuit of the Holy Grail. May you one day sup from its holy contents. Amen. You may now rise Sir…”

Bernard paused, realising too late that he had forgotten to inquire of the young squire’s name. “Percival.” Finished the new knight. “Sir Percival.” Concluded Bernard.

Although young and trembling, Bernard caught a momentary glimpse of the future, of great deeds that this knight would perform. But then it was gone, which is well for such tales are the reserve of another long Chanson.

Outside it began to rain, but that was far from anyone’s mind. Now was a time of rebuilding, of remembering the dead, of accepting new responsibilities and burdens. No one spoke in that small tent, all preferred to sit in stunned silence. A silence broken only by the croaking of frogs in the rain.