Short and to the point

A wotsit is a small orange fluffy corn-based snack. The nearest American equivalent is a Cheeto. The main difference is that wotsits are fluffier and more delicious.

https://twitter.com/TechnicallyRon/status/826160828747481089

Grey's Law

Found on the internet.

[A wise quote. The idea that, "if you're not with us you're against us" is a fallacy in the general case but quite correct in specific circumstances. That is, if you know the harm your actions will cause but fail to try and avert it, then regardless of your intentions you may as well be regarded as malicious.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws (Grey's law)

Coming back to bite ya

Satire ? Politics ? Not much difference any more.

[Theresa May was quite right to try and ban violent extremism. The problem with her earlier, badly-drafted proposals was that they contained no sensible definition of "extreme" on which any kind of judgement could be made, though it would be hard to find a way of disqualifying Trump.]

http://newsthump.com/2017/01/30/theresa-may-to-prevent-dangerous-hate-preaching-extremist-entering-britain-on-state-visit/

Fighting back

There was an article going round recently about the need to create a new narrative with which to fight post-truth politics and hatred. Well, our fiction is already awash with it. From Star Trek to Doctor Who and Lord of the Rings, this is the West not as it is or ever really was, except perhaps in a few heroic moments, but how it wishes to be. At least in the past, when failures to meet these unrealistic expectations were seen as failures, or at worst were subject to spin to make it look as though everything was as it should be after all - the dreams were always regarded as the goal. Now these narratives of tolerance, compassion, and resistance to oppression are under a different threat on a scale not seen in decades. The aspirations of the West are being directly attacked as fundamentally flawed values. Yet they are not. For all the Western world's hypocrisy and many, many failures, the ideals of liberalism, equality and social justice are worthy aspirations, ones we should be proud to defend and not sink into self-loathing and cynicism at every failure, or to give in to fear and hate when a monster tries to tear them down.

#Resist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FQEOvrYU6Y

Whatever you do, don't be rude to the Queen

It's so very, very British.

A man from Leeds who started a viral petition to have Donald Drumpf’s state visit to the UK cancelled says he did so because he did not want the Queen to have to shake the new President's hand. Initially, Mr Guest said, he was not concerned about Mr Drumpf coming to the UK in his capacity as US President - he just did not want him to meet and embarrass the 90-year-old monarch, given his track record of “misogyny and vulgarity”.

Mr Drumpf's announcement on Friday of strict travel restrictions on people from seven majority-Muslim countries “changes things slightly”, Mr Guest said. “It’s added a new dimension to things and until that ban is lifted I don’t think he should come to the country at all in any capacity”. But Mr Guest said his primary concern is still the “poor old Queen”.

Mr Guest said there was not a specific thing Mr Drumpf had done that spurred him to start the petition, it was just the President's general demeanour. “It just seemed a very incongruous thing for this man, with all of the things he’s said, to be with the Queen,” he explained, adding that he thought Mr Drumpf might find an affinity with another member of the royal household — “I mean maybe he’d get on well with Prince Philip.. who knows”.

Currently at 670,000 signatures and rising.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/donald-trump-petition-uk-ban-sign-theresa-may-queen-latest-signatures-a7551981.html

Boop !

Found on the internet.

Science must be above politics

I know some of you think this is a great idea, but it isn't. It really, really isn't.

It's a seductive idea, isn't it ? Get a load of experts who are more interested in facts than ideology into politics - sounds great ! And in the short term, it would be. For a few glorious years we might get evidenced-based policies instead of those which are most appealing.

After that, things will turn sour. And it will end in nothing less than a catastrophe. I'm tempted to use the word, "apocalyptic".

Politics, in the current system, is inherently tribal by nature. Politicians are not always intrinsically motivated or externally incentivised to act in the wider interests or by what the evidence says, and consequently they do not. They put their own interests ahead of other concerns. And they are rightly untrustworthy. EDIT : Winning votes requires appealing to audiences with very different interests, and consequently evidenced-based policy is sometimes a "courageous" move in Yes Minister speak. This is a fault both of the political and education systems : it is not enough to simply change the politicians !

Put scientists in this situation, and nothing will change. By the voters who already (correctly) perceive scientists as politically independent and trustworthy, this will, for a while, be cause for celebration. But those people are largely politically irrelevant, because generally those are the ones casting sensible votes anyway. Not always, because people are complex and irrational enough that trusting science doesn't automatically bestow listening to their advice, but generally.

But it's the other group you really have to consider : those who think scientists are motivated only by their own self-interests and political concerns just like any other group, who don't understand how scientific inquiry works. It is those people who we need to reach out to the most. And it is precisely those people for whom this approach would sound the death knell to any hope of persuading them to listen to evidence, because to them it will confirm all their fears and delusions about scientists as a political group.

Worse will follow, because the scientists won't be scientists any more. They will be politicians, with all the inherently untrustworthy natures that implies. Scientific training will not be a defence against that, because scientists are people too. The politically independent nature of evidence and the determination of facts will cease to be. The boundaries between reliable sources of facts and politically-motivated opinions will not only be perceived to disappear, they will actually disappear. "Post-truth" and "alternative facts" will seem like a distant memory of happier, more rational days.

It's often said that science is true regardless of whether you believe it or not. And it is : that's the problem. When people don't believe it and act against the facts, disaster follows. Scientists are not always the best people to persuade skeptics of what they're doing, and making them into politicians absolutely, positively will not help with that. Quite the opposite.

It is absolutely imperative that scientific findings be as politically independent as possible. Remove the boundaries between science and politics - without a full-on political revolution and an entirely new political system - and we're doomed.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2016/09/would-i-lie-to-you.html
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/11/when-worlds-collide-science-in-society.html


http://inhabitat.com/trump-inspires-400-scientists-to-run-for-office/

Projectile owl

Found on the internet.

HUGS FOR ALL

To everyone in America Trumpsville, a great big hug. Because every time I check the news it seems to be getting worse. Yes, even if you voted for Trump that arsehole of a monster, even if you are sadly deluded enough to still think that somehow this is a good thing - you're getting a hug too.

Votes should not be unaltered if circumstances change

For my second argument, we return to the cottage. Suppose again that the group votes one evening that they will leave the next day. But when they wake up, they see a terrifying monster prowling around the garden. Given their previous decision to leave, are they democratically compelled to go out and face it? Or should they reconsider their plan in the light of this unforeseen and unwelcome development?

The referendum was held during the US presidency of Barack Obama. But Brexit would take place during that of, well, a terrifying monster. Some argue that Drumpf’s positive attitude to Brexit should encourage us to believe the UK will get a good and speedy deal from the US. Even by today’s dismal standards, that is a staggeringly irresponsible argument. Drumpf is, among other things, an avowed protectionist who will put “America First”, vows to “Buy American, Hire American”, and threatens trade war with China. There could be no more dangerous time to leave the EU.

https://medium.com/@richard.elwes/trenches-monsters-two-more-arguments-against-triggering-article-50-a3f06fa917ff#.sexhwm2x9