Laughing at ignorance

I found myself revisiting this picture the other day. I took this when I was thirteen, in a British Airways 747 high over the Arctic on the way from London to Los Angeles on my first overseas trip in January 1990. I was fascinated to notice the contrails from the engines were forming so close to the aircraft that they could be seen from inside, rather than trailing behind a little. Besides being a cool process to watch, it was also a great indicator of just how fast we were travelling, something you don't often get in an airliner. So I took a photo.

At top left is the port horizontal stabiliser of the 747. The contrail from the port inboard engine is in the bottom third of the frame, with a gap between it and the outboard trail above. It's indistinct and imperfect, but it's one of my favourite old photos. That was a cool experience.

Many years later, a particular conspiracy theory involving contrails would arise and catch my attention, as it confluences a few interests of mine. Basically the "Chemtrail" theory as it's known asserts that the trails you can see in the sky aren't the normal by-product of humidity and engine exhaust or aerodynamic processes, but some kind of secret evil plot to spray chemicals from altitude and affect the masses below, via depopulation, weather control, or whatever particular flavour of un-sense is being propagated that day.

Beyond the fact that on the scale alleged it's logistically impossible, technically implausible, and scientifically idiotic (among a host of reasons for it's utter improbability), the people that promote it are usually utterly uninformed about the finer details of aviation, meteorology and chemistry. If they were informed they probably wouldn't fall for this crap, but there you go. While the unfounded nonsense being promoted and sold as fact and 'truth' (and if you question the 'truth', you're either asleep, a sheeple, or a shill) is annoying to someone who actually knows what they are looking at, and the threats made by some of them against contrailing aircraft and pilots are actually unnerving, occasionally (well more than occasionally), there is some amusement to be had. Usually because the chemtrailers are so unaware, and aren't actually knowledgeable in the subjects they lecture on, not only are some of their "revelations" and speculations hilariously inaccurate (I've seen them ponder for days over the role of a "mysterious" aircraft seen on google earth that was visibly unflyable to name but one example. It was a grounded airframe used as a training aid), they are also easily pranked.

This video frequently does the rounds as 'evidence'. It's a USAF KC-10 aerial refuelling tanker, being videoed from another KC-10, allegedly "spraying" evil chemtrails while the pilots openly discuss it. Note the manipulation when the "stills" are taken and elsewhere.


Unfortunately for the chemtrail argument the original video was shot and posted specifically to satirise chemtrailers. And they fell for it, and continue to do so en masse. See if you can spot the differences:

The trail is an aerodynamic contrail, formed by an interaction of pressure, temperature and humidity as the aircraft passes through the air. The trail varies as the immediate local conditions do. It's a well known and understood phenomenon obvious to anyone who knows about it. Chemtrailers don't. There are no "nozzles" on the wings. What was identified as such are housings for mechanisms that raise and lower the flaps (and anyone can look up a diagram of a DC or KC-10 and verify this for themselves). There is a theory that because the maker of the conspiracy version isn't a native english speaker, the sarcastic tone of the commentary may not have been noticed. You can make your own mind up on that one.

If those promoting the chemtrail theory were actually expert in aircraft anatomy, aerodynamics, weather and science like they think they are, and presented it with properly derived evidence, verifiable and obtained through validated methods they might have more credibility. But they aren't, and they don't have any. As well as the wrongness of what they promote, I'm also fascinated by the disconnect that means all of the rational evidence that they are wrong is not only uninvestigated and ignored, but routinely dismissed as "disinfo". Like followers of many scientifically illiterate conspiracy theories, it's adherents are choosing to be ignorant. In a world where basic scientific literacy and critical thinking skills are getting more and more important to have (in my view at least), that's just depressing.

12 Things I hate about X-Factor

Note: this was written a few days ago, when it was slightly more current, but Ruaumoko had other ideas.

1. The host. I'm not sure what look Dominic Bowden is going for, but if it is slick smug sarcastic insincerity, he's got it nailed. Oh, and the paaaaaussssinggg.

2. Moments like this:

Man, that Stevie Nicks dude wrote some great songs back in the day. . . If you are going to judge material, at least pay the courtesy of fecking knowing it.

3. The X-factor they are looking for isn't talent. It is marketability. In some of the few moments of actual honesty on it, the judges near constantly refer to their charges ability to sell records to the "market". They stop short of referring to the performers as "units", but it isn't far away. It's not about making music. more about making money. It has nothing to do with good music, nothing to do with learning and honing your craft, of doing all the hard and unsung work, and it's hard not to see it as insulting to the musicians and performers that have paid their dues. It's designed to create an instant disposable product for an audience that generally doesn't know any better musically. I wonder how many in the rent-a-crowd studio audience knew who The Manic Street Preachers were without having to be told. Probably too busy waving their elbows as directed to care.

4. The show itself like most of its kind is a disposable product, designed to do nothing more than generate revenue for it's sponsors. Both the show and the performers it produces are intended to be short lived , the details forgotten by next season so they can do it all again. Whoever wins it will be a figurehead for whatever campaigning follows the show. If they are really lucky they might have a career afterward.

5. It's not reality. It's insincere, scripted and contrived at every turn. "Look, here's one of our hopefuls at McDonalds. Who happen to be one of our sponsors! And look, they happen to be talking about the show! How lucky it was our camera crew was present to capture this spontaneous moment!"
Let alone all the banter, arrangement, song selection to favour or disfavour a performer and pretty much everything else.

6. It doesn't find artists. It creates disposable carbon copy performers, to fit in a narrow mould. When they let contestants write and perform their own material rather than soullessly butchering other people's in a sort of hyper karaoke I'll be much more interested.Which brings me to point 7.

7. Butchering actually good classic songs and turning them into two-minute cheese-fests.

8. The public voting system is dubious at best, since it doesn't appear to be transparent, and there seems to be nothing stopping the producers from just making up the numbers anyway. Even if it is legit, it further reduces the talent factor, by way of turning the thing into a popularity contest. Not to mention raking in the cash at $1 a text.

9. It promotes the fantasy that the NZ music market is big enough to sustain pop mega-stars for more than a few singles. Bowden can say "living the dream!" as often as he wants, that doesn't make it true.

10. "Taking it to the next level". Etc.

11. The hype. It's inescapable. Inescapable enough that I can mercifully write this without having to watch too much of the show itself.

12. It's just wrong. Hey, no-one said this had to be rational. Like all rant lists, the objectivity is all mine.

Disagree

I had toyed with posting on this, but the excellent post at friend of this blogger From the Morgue today prompted me to add to the noise.

Right now in NZ, British American Tobacco is running a hugely expensive, verging on defending-the-indefensible-gonzo attempted saturation TV, print and street campaign against the proposed plain-packaging of cigarette packets, centred around their branding designs being intellectual property. More specifically they are framing it around the right to "own" and use that intellectual property (or more correctly, the profits that result from it), and whether or not you agree or disagree with them.

Beyond the "why" questions that Morgue astutely raises, I've never seen a campaign that evoked such instant visceral disgust in me once I realised what it was for, and the angle it was taking. I hope the ad-creatives that came up with it feel good about managing their impossible brief, a brief you'd expect to see as a joke on a comedy show. "We know our product is harmful, but we want to retain the ability to make it attractive to you anyway". Every part of it reads like some amoral black-comedy movie script; I'd laugh but it's already beyond satire. Their arguments aren't all that strong, especially the ones about plain packaging other products (ironically using the example of wine in one ad. Evidently they have never heard of cleanskins). BAT wants to own what it creates? How about owning addiction, emphysema and cancer?

Not content to leave BAT to it's WTF-ery, Imperial Tobacco right here in my home town has been giving away free cigarettes to it's factory workers under the guise of 'quality control'. I work in quality assurance, and this is so far from being valid as part of a robust quality system that again it would be funny if only it were a joke. It isn't a quality system I would want to be any professional part of, beyond my pondering it a little while ago, and not being able to think of any reason I'd knowingly work for a tobacco company.

I know I'm not supposed to be biased, but this is personal. I watched my father-in-law die a long and drawn out death, literally watched him take his last breath, from a smoking related illness. My daughters will never meet him, or know him beyond stories about what a good man he was. I've never smoked, or even wanted to besides a few puffs in my late teens in a failed attempt to discern what the attraction was. People have a right to choose to smoke, just I I have a right to choose to hate smoking and the way it is marketed. BAT can take their intellectual property, Imperial their free cigarettes, and fuck right off.

Breast can't always be best

As a father, this whole Weepu bottle feeding thing gained my attention (as well as the breastfeeding on facebook thing, and the daycare is bad mmkay? thing).

Not sure if I should link the Herald since they kicked off the whole saga in the first place with a mix of accurate and not so accurate reporting, and the footage in question wasn't actually banned, just removed before the ad screened. As a father who bottle feeds a child, I thought the footage in question made Piri even more legendary, against guidelines or not. He is only doing what hundreds if not thousands of NZ fathers do every day, and positive male parenting images in advertising of this quality aren't that common. I think its undermining of breastfeeding promotion as arguable at best, since that undermining is based on assumptions about what the bottle actually contains, and the ad isn't about feeding at all; it is about being smoke-free (and some of the most odious responses to it I've seen have compared bottle feeding to smoking). It also makes significant assumptions about the intelligence of the viewer.

In all fairness to the groups consulted about the footage and reacting against it, they were bound to say what they did. "Breast is best" is the official Ministry of Health line, a catchy slogan and noble ideal, and granted breastfeeding rates in NZ need improvement, but of all the mothers amongst my peers I know, only one (that I know of) ever declared an intention never to breastfeed.

Breast feeding though does not work for all mums. Not because they are too lazy, are too busy, haven't tried hard enough, not persisted long enough, not had enough support, or not used the right technique. Sometimes it just doesn't work, for many reasons. You are not a bad mother if you can't breastfeed. Both Sophie and Charlotte were breastfed initially for some months. Charlotte was unintentionally weaned when Fi had to go back to work so we could keep a roof over our heads (not to live in frivolous luxury like the stay at home judgementalists would suggest), as expressing and teaching don't really mix, and Sophie was weaned when she simply began demanding more than Fi could provide. It isn't the way we planned or wanted it to be, it just is.

I'm pro-breastfeeding, but not at all costs, and there just doesn't seem to be any balance in promotion or support a la "Breast is best, but whatever keeps the baby thriving is good too". In our ante-natal group four years ago bottle feeding was the thing that shall not be named - I get the impression reading around that it still is. This is a noble ideal, but the flipside is that many that fail to sustain breastfeeding feel like parenting failures as a result, and are occasionally subjected to public judgement (as are breastfeeding mums - we have issues), or otherwise accused of not having their children's best interests at heart. Out of curiosity I had a look at one advocacy group's NZ facebook site. There are a lot of useful things on it, good advice, good support. And some not so useful opinions, like people openly advocating fathers not get involved in feeding their infant children at all if it involves a bottle, and not really being challenged in that by the faithful. As a father, this attitude I find alternately infuriating and depressing. Those quiet moments (often in the middle of the night) can be precious, as well as giving your partner a break. I don't have functioning breasts (short of hormone treatment at least); how else am I supposed to feed the babe?

The thing I find about parental criticism (and it is about the one absolute truism of parenting: no matter what you are doing with your child there will be someone to tell you you're doing it wrong), is that it most often comes from people who presume to know both your exact circumstances, and how they compare to their own equivalents, which then results in an attitude of whatever worked for them is the best way and will work for everyone else. It just isn't so, and if you are going to judge me or my partner (especially in public), just know I'm going to be judging you right back.

Permanent Marker

"Well said, what people forget when they get these tattoos is that the skin gets old and then they just look trashy."

"I tell my kids to treat tattoos as useful warning signs that the wearer isn't all there."

"Tats are disgusting and I'll never marry a girl with them. It just spells uneducated and being a bogan."

"Tattoos are tacky. They make the wearer look grubby. They pigeon-hole the wearer as of a lower class and/or intelligence."

"Graffitti. Tattoos are nothing more than body graffitti and are as much of an eyesore."

"Tatts are suitable for fools, losers, common criminals, the deeply insecure and those who reject Christian values."

"I think of them as an IQ test and everyone gets to see the score"

If you agree with any of the above then you don't get it. They are a sampling of typical comments from people agreeing with this opinion piece published last week: Are tattoos a tragic mistake? (Stuff via the Sydney Morning Herald).

There were many other comments disagreeing with it (including one or two from myself), but the fact it attracted 500+ for and against comments from readers illustrates that tattooing clearly isn't as mainstream accepted as the author suggests. I know it's just morons on the internet, and I shouldn't get worked up about it, but when people are making judgements without basis on my morals and intelligence (not to mention my wife's, since she has a couple too), simply based on whether or not I'm baring my arms that day, it gets annoying.

The author makes a single good point in that tattoos are permanent, and you should think long and hard before getting one, but the rest of the piece is presumptuous garbage, from someone who doesn't like tattoos, and has only the barest insight into why people get them (like many tattoo critics). The peak of hilarity is the bit where she claims to be not preaching or judging, despite spending the whole piece doing exactly that.

I have two tattoos. I can bare or hide them as I choose. I'll probably get more before I'm done. I didn't get mine as a doe eyed teenager, on a whim, or on a wild night out (not that I'm criticising anyone who has done that. If you did, and are still happy with the results, cool). I spent years deciding what they were going to look like, and involved collaborators with them before taking them to the needle. I didn't get them to be cool, to copy anyone else or to fit in to some crowd. I got them because I like tattoos, have been interested in them for years and wanted some for myself (and have no concerns about how they will look when I am old by the way). While there are indeed some tragic examples out there, there are also some breathtakingly exquisite and beautiful ones too. I like the idea of permanence and I laugh at the notion that only the insecure or extroverted get them. Baring tattoos in public is a sign of self confidence if anything, and anyone who knows me personally will tell you just how extroverted I'm not.

While both of mine are generic types of tattoo, the specific designs are unique to me. There may be many tattoos like them, but these ones are mine. Both have obvious meanings, and not so obvious ones as well. "You're just doing it to be different, like everyone else" tattoo critics don't get that; it isn't the act of tattooing that is individualistic, it is the design, and what it means to the wearer. And while I've heard the odd disparaging comment directed my way when people thought I couldn't hear them, I have also had complete strangers come up to me and complement me on the designs.

I get that not everyone should get tattoos, not all tattoos are good ideas, and not everyone likes them. But here's the thing; I have no opinion on you getting tattoos or not, unless you ask me directly for advice. It's none of my business and they aren't compulsory. There are some design types I don't like and would never get, but that's me. If you don't have them, don't ever want one that's cool. Your skin, your business. By the same token I don't care if you don't like mine; they aren't on your skin, so it isn't your problem. I didn't get tattooed to impress anyone, or prove anything, or rebel against anyone. If you think I did, you don't get it.

My body is a temple-I just got the decorators in.

Near road death experience

Listening to: Barking - Underworld (2010). Seems an apt title to describe the way many people drive in this country :)

We nearly killed someone driving home from out camping holiday in Taupo yesterday. There was a fatal crash on the main highway, and we were diverted down a narrow back-road. When I say narrow, I mean barely wide enough to merit lane markings in the middle, and occasionally losing those too. While technically open road limited to 100kph, it is the kind of road you'd be dumb to go much faster than 80 on, and made me slow and pull over a little whenever I met any oncoming traffic (of which there was plenty since it was diverting from the other side of the crash site as well). So we are on a narrow unfamiliar road, which I'm driving at about 60-70 for comfort and safety. We get to this blind right hand corner when it happens.

A motorbike appears, coming the other way at speed, heeled over in the turn and on my side of the road. He's stuck in his turning arc and will hit us in about two seconds. Aside from the thought of "WTF are you doing on my side of the road you freaking idiot!", time briefly stopped at that point, before reflexes took over.

We had been driving along a section of road with a grass bank to our left with no verge, but luckily right then there was a gravel patch a couple of metres wide on the outside of the bend.
I pulled hard into it, braking heavily to the point where the car nosed down so much the skirt under the front bumper scraped the edge of the tarmac (resulting in the marks in the pics) as we came to a halt, hoping the ute behind us was paying attention and didn't hit us. The rider missed us by a couple of metres and sailed on, seemingly oblivious to just how close he came to being a hood ornament. After muttering a few things I hope Charlotte doesn't repeat we gathered ourselves and moved on, scared and more than a little angry at being endangered in such a stupid way.

There are a few aspects about it that piss me off. Detouring was fine, but travelling at a reasonably quick but safe speed (not crawling by any means) on the back road still caused traffic to pile up and tailgate me, since they obviously thought they should be going faster. If I had been going only a few k's faster we would have been wearing the guy on the bike. No ifs or buts, it was that close. The girls in the back would probably have been okay, but Fi and I in the front might have been in trouble.

The merchant banker on the bike annoys me most. To get on the road he has already been diverted by the flashing lights, police cars, and 'Crash Ahead' sign. Yet this reminder of consequences doesn't phase him (probably because he thinks it's somebody else's problem, and it won't happen to him anyway because he is a good rider) and so he just piles on like there is no-one else on the road, and nearly has a head-on with a family minding their own business as a result. This is how people die on the roads. I hope he got the shakes after our near miss. I hope he still has them.

The other thing that annoys was after regaining the main road we came across all the grinning idiots flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to warn of a police car up ahead. I don't know if this happens in other countries, but it seems to be a 'damn the man' tradition here. I see this all the time, and it is idiotic. There is a well rehearsed and tired argument that speed cameras are more about revenue gathering than safety, but it is a self selecting tax; if you don't want to contribute don't speed. I wonder what they thought when they got to the diversion, or if they heard about what happened up the road. Speed alone doesn't kill, but the attitudes behind speeding do.

I've said it before, but the attitude behind a lot of NZ driving habits is seriously warped. 18 people were killed in crashes over the Christmas/New Year period this season, practically all of them due to utterly avoidable stupid driving. I've also mentioned before that I survived a high speed crash (caused by my own stupid driving) when I was much younger. I wonder if more people had an insight into just how swift and violent an experience like that is whether it would make the behaviours safer or not.

After spending a week in a tourist town, we were expecting some hair-raising driving from the tourists, but while the overseas tourists in Taupo could be tricky drivers at times, the locals were worse. There were numerous episodes of craziness, but the most shining example was a guy in a farm ute we met in a Taupo carpark. Since there seems to be a bylaw that all carparks in Taupo must be illogically laid out (seriously, they are weird), we wound up reversing into a park from a long way out. Held up by us for all of 10 seconds, our ute driver smugly smiled and shook his head at us obvious noobs, before driving away. All the while he had an unrestrained Jack Russell terrier sitting in his lap. Can't see how that could go wrong. You're laughing at us mate but who is the bigger fool?

Skyhawk Mythbusting

Picture credit me.

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the disbandment of the combat element of the RNZAF, namely 75 and 2 Squadrons (A-4K Skyhawk), and 14 Squadron (Macchi MB-339). I was there as a guest, took the photo above, and it doesn’t seem that long ago.

In the decade that has passed, the Air Combat Force comes up from time to time again either in the media or other conversation (not least due to the debacle that was the sales process for the redundant airframes). The thing I noticed both while the force was still active and latterly is the amount of myth and misunderstanding out there on the topic, usually as not-that-funny-if-you-know-any-of-the-true-background kind of humour. The force was seen by many as at best a token, at worst as a “Dad’s Army” style joke; incompetent operators with ancient broken-down flying jalopies, just as threatening to their users as to any potential enemy.

The truth is as usual kinda different.

Growing up as a plane obsessed kid, the Skyhawk in particular was ‘our’ fast jet so I wound up focussing on it and wound up knowing possibly more than the average layperson about it (but much less than many others I know). Ten years on seems an appropriate time to kill some of the myths.

And to those readers who say this is long and boring and aren't going to read it, it's my blog so :P.

First some history.

New Zealand bought 14 brand new Skyhawks in 1970. Back then they were still very much a first line piece of equipment. It was originally conceived in the 1950’s as the smallest and cheapest way to get a nuclear bomb from an aircraft carrier to a target. It evolved into a capable light attack aircraft, and by the time we bought them, had established a reputation as a reliable and rugged little jet popular with its operators. While not a true fighter in the air to air sense, the qualities that made it a good attack aircraft also made it a useful dogfighter, hence it’s starring role in “Top Gun” in the 80’s (the USN used the Skyhawk in an adversary combat trainer role right up until the mid 2000’s). In the right hands a Skyhawk could humble a supposedly much superior aircraft. It might have been an old design, but it was a very good one.

Now on to the myths

Clapped out

This was probably most untrue thing said about them at the time of the disbandment, (one of a number of flat out untrue government public statements used to justify the decision-whether that was malice or ignorance is hard to determine), and caused a bit of offence among those whose job it was to maintain and fly the things. They were getting old and harder to maintain, but were still mission capable, i.e. able to do what they were tasked. No aircraft has an infinite life, and the end of the Skyhawk’s RNZAF career was certainly on the horizon, but clapped out they were not. Replacement by the F-16 from 2000 or so would have made it a moot point if the already signed and pending delivery deal had not been cancelled after a change of government in 1999 (the same deal would have also on-sold the Skyhawks and avoided the last decade of not selling them).

Old and Useless, always crashing

Closely allied to the ‘old’ argument is the implication that mission capability is solely determined by age. Age is a relative thing though, especially in combat aircraft. 20, 30 or more year lifespans for individual airframes aren’t uncommon these days. They might have been getting older, but they certainly weren’t useless, not least because from the 1990’s they weren’t quite the same beasts we started with in 1970.

By the early 80’s the basic 60’s avionics and systems in the jet were showing their age, and options for replacement were looked at. Since the funds weren’t around to buy new aircraft like the F-16 or F-18, the next best thing was done. We doubled the fleet size by buying ten surplus Skyhawks from the Royal Australian Navy, and rebuilt the lot by renewing parts of the airframe and replacing all the avionics with those equivalent to an F-16, optimized for our needs. The new systems also meant more modern and effective weapons could be carried. Known as the 'Kahu' upgrade, it was completed in 1991.

In terms of capability the upgrade meant effectively a brand new aircraft. In some respects the on-board systems were superior to both the FA-18’s operated by our neighbours in Australia, and the actual F-16s we scheduled to replace them. So while technically by 2001 they were 30+ year old aircraft, in other ways they were still in their prime, and still capable in the roles we used them for. It is worth noting that upgraded Skyhawks similar to ours are still in service with a couple of other countries as a front line aircraft. The US military only retired their last from true combat roles in the 1990’s, and kept a few on until a few years after we retired ours. It was certainly not in the same league performance wise as more modern types, but it was a reasonable compromise for our needs and means.

Along with the aircraft, the people maintaining and flying them were as good as anyone. It might be a joke for many Kiwi’s, but our small military is usually pretty good at what it does. Rather than always crashing, of the total of 24 operated only 7 were destroyed from any cause over 31 years. For a combat aircraft it is a very good record, and the RNZAF was very good at using the Skyhawk. It may be a small Air Force, but an incompetent one it is not and once out of a job here, the Australian and British Air forces in particular were more than happy to take on some of our pilots and technicians on reputation.

Never deployed anywhere

Unless you count the annual deployments around Southeast Asia and the Pacific for exercises, or the permanent basing of a squadron in Australia for a decade up until 2001.

Never used in combat.

The only time an RNZAF A-4 used weapons ‘in anger’ was to stop an illegally fishing trawler that was refusing to stop for the naval vessels pursuing it in 1976. While often seen as a bit of a joke, this is a pretty legitimate use of an aircraft like this in peacetime, and certainly delivered the message that we were serious about enforcing our EEZ.

What doesn’t seem to be well known is that preparations were made for deploying them for use in the first Gulf War in 1991 (we sent a couple of Hercules instead). They were also coincidentally deployed near the East Timor region in 1999 when that crisis arose, and were prepared for the possibility of being employed there also if the situation demanded it. As it was RAAF reconnaissance missions in the area at the time were counted as operational sorties rather than training ones.

Not enough of them and no-one is going to attack NZ anyway.

On the face of it it seems like a fair point, but it is actually a oversimplification that misses the real question by a wide margin, and taken to its logical conclusion brings into question the existence to the New Zealand Defence Force in general.

The thing is, the NZDF has never been capable of repelling a determined attack of New Zealand territory on its own. The intention has always been to operate with allied forces, and defending NZ’s interests is not necessarily the same as literally defending NZ soil. The question to be asked is not ‘who is going to attack us?’, but ‘what benefits do the various elements of the NZDF provide to each other and the country for the cost?’

While disbanding the ACF freed up funds for the rest of the NZDF (even if it wasn’t always used wisely, like buying twice as many new armoured vehicles as we needed), having it also provided many training and skills benefits (most of them not obvious to the layperson) both to the other elements of the NZDF making it more effective as a whole, and the country at large. Overseas they were a very visible contribution to regional security amongst our allies and trading partners. Along with the ‘clapped out’ argument, these benefits were either ignored, downplayed or completely misrepresented to the public by the government at the time.

Myths aside, by now the last RNZAF Skyhawks would have been grounded for a few years anyway. They are history. While the justification for having modern fighter aircraft in NZ is certainly arguable (despite the above I can see it both ways, although at the moment it is a moot point, since there aren’t going to be any flying with Kiwi markings anytime soon), by getting rid of them a statement is being made that not only are they not needed now, they never will be. The ‘benign strategic environment’ status suggested in mid 2001 was arguable at best then, and remains so now.

What is certain is that once gone, it is the kind of capability and skill base that takes years to re-establish if needed (waiting until you actually for-real need it is far too late) and only history will tell if it was the right call or not.

Things annoying me about the election

The first general election I voted in was in 1996. I've voted in every one since then, seldom for the same people twice, and mindful that democracy is a privilege, will be voting again next week.

But while the ability to vote is a precious one, gee the weeks leading up to an election can make it hard to appreciate.

Things annoying me about this election in particular:

-"Vote for me/us" billboards everywhere.

-Vandalising of said billboards by people who think they are being funny or making a point. Really they are doing neither; they are just being a dick. When such vandalism is by a well organised activist element of a political party it is even more dickish (and disappointing too), endorsed by the party itself or not. Covering up someone else's free speech with your own is not free speech.

-Media manufactured scandals that distract from the real issues, and give anyone not involved the chance to display hypocritically righteous faux outrage, all the while being grateful it wasn't them being recorded.

-People on social media and other public forums saying "I'm voting for X because I love NZ/democracy/kittens etc" or "If you vote for X you hate NZ/democracy/kittens etc". I don't care who you vote for, just as who I vote for is none of your business.

-The idea that a giant walking ego in a suit might for the third time have the power as an individual to determine the make-up of the next government. Winston Peters is a one-man indictment of the flaws of MMP voting.

-The fact that while I like some policy elements of most parties, they all have policies I don't like enough to make me not want to vote for them, meaning I don't feel particularly represented, and thus cynical about the whole thing. Also while I might not be a particular fan of the incumbents, the opposition don't exactly fill me with confidence either (NZ politics has been lacking in genuinely inspiring individuals and policy for a couple of decades now).

Hopefully I will have made my mind up by next week.

Smugly Blissful

Saw this the other day, and am in a grumpy mood anyway, so am taking it out on the internet:

Makes as least as much sense as an invisible omniscient omnipresent being creating everything out of nothing on a whim. No, in fact it makes more, since it even though the statement is a profoundly over simplistic generalisation the theory it mocks is backed up by repeatable observation and experimentation. Y'know, freaking actual science, something I bet the authors and propagators of this piece have little useful understanding of. Anyone who argues "Evolution is just a theory anyway" usually needs to brush up on the scientific definition of "theory". It is a bit more strict than the common one.

I have no general issue with religion, I really don't, but when it gets all "scientists, what do they know?" anti-science like this (aside from the literally holier-than-thou "my sect is better than your sect" BS that screws up everything it touches), it really pisses me off. Science and religion can co-exist, if only the fundies will let them.

Sucks to be a cyclist in NZ right now

5 cyclists doing nothing wrong taken down by careless, thoughtless, and reckless motorists in as many days, all dead, with another touch and go today.

Story link

As a cyclist and a motorist, I refuse to call these accidents. Accidents are genuinely unexpected and unavoidable in foresight. All of these deaths are neither.

At last count there are 470 comments attached to the above story following the usual antagonistic divide of motorist vs cyclist, with far more blinkered examples of the former, and few voices of reason. One should be wary of seeing this as a representative sample of population since it is self selecting, but an astonishing number seem to subscribe to the belief that cyclists have no right to be on the road, no right to any expectation of safe passage; whatever happens is their fault for being there. Dedicated cycling infrastructure in the form of designated lanes and safe areas and the like is slowly appearing, but is still rare, and nowhere near the norm, so bikes and other traffic are forced together. To be fair, while a lot of drivers (either maliciously or ignorantly) don't react to cyclists well, there are many stupid cyclists who give the rest of us a bad name by thinking the road rules don't apply to them because they aren't in a car, or worse translate the at times palpable antagonism on the roads into deliberate provocation. I could rant about my own experiences as a regular commuter cyclist, but that would take an entire other post.

While as cycling becomes more popular there is something of a quiet culture war going on around it at the moment, the bigger point being missed as the heads bang on the comment threads is just why these incidents keep happening. It should be a scandal that a young driver thought there was nothing wrong in navigating a blind corner at speed on the wrong side of the road (a practice that killed three cyclists in one incident). It isn't, because it is accepted that as a nation we suck at driving. Across all road users (cyclists included) there is a certain element with a huge attitude problem, mostly centred around 'me first, screw everybody else', and a total lack of consideration for other road users, and a lack of awareness of potential consequences.

It's everywhere, constantly. Just in one ten minute drive home tonight on quiet suburban streets I counted three separate incidents of the type of driving that causes crashes. On a long drive on the open road dangerous driving is a typically regular sight, people risking lives to get where they are going a minute or two earlier. Local readers can try a challenge if they want. Next time you drive, if it is safe, try sticking exactly to the posted speed limit, and see how long it takes to pick up a tailgater, then a queue. It won't take long.

Driver training and licensing in this country is a joke (again to be fair, there is no formal licensing or training for cyclists at all, despite a formal road code being drawn up for them. Bicycles are also not subject to vehicle related road user charges or levies, although most cyclists are car owners, and pay levies accordingly anyway). No formal education or training required, essentially just a multichoice test and practical assessment and you are good to go. Enforcement of driving laws is similarly laid back, no matter how much those drivers for whom speed limits are only a guideline bleat about speeding tickets being an easy means of revenue gathering (hint: if you don't want a ticket, obey the bloody LAW! ). We are very good at licensing car operators rather than drivers. Formal and defensive driver training should be mandatory because the fact that you are in control of a big piece of metal that has mass, inertia and momentum, which you only need to screw up handling once to kill yourself, or worse somebody else, seems to be lost on people. I won't claim to be a perfect wheel, but on observation most drivers are nowhere near as good and safe as they think they are. They think it won't happen to them, if they think of it at all. I've survived both serious bike and car crashes, so I know it can and will if you let it.

Factcheck Fail

So while the articles I commented on a couple of days ago were average at best, today media comment on the subject descended to a facepalming new low:

Helicopter had crashed before

This article is just flat out wrong. No-other way to say it. And the way it is phrased, I am kinda baffled as to how it got past the editors at all. Why did no-one in the writing or editorial process think to ask why an aircraft serialled 3809 was known as '06'? That sentence got my attention immediately as being weird, and it took about ten seconds of googling to figure out the actual story.

There is a bit of truth in it. NZ3809 did suffer an accident in 1990, was repaired, was returned to service, was used to support UN operations (albeit not being 'transferred' as stated). The only trouble is, it wasn't the aircraft that crashed on ANZAC day. That aircraft was serialled NZ3806, (which makes the '06 reference much more logical).

And which also makes the headline wrong, the lead and third paragraph wrong, and the whole article without merit. It's a misleading pile of high order inaccuracy which ties in well with a widespread media and uninformed public bias and perception that our armed forces are outdated, ineffectual and token at best, a joke at worst. And given its coverage in the print edition of at least two city daily's as well as on line, it is now going to be accepted as truth by many readers.

The media in this country have seldom covered any defence related story well in the past, and they aren't doing themselves any favours with this one either.

In the meantime spare a thought for the three families burying sons, brothers or husbands tomorrow*, and for the lone survivor.

*One of them was my age. It occurred to that if I had been able to join the service like I wanted, and succeeded in becoming a pilot, we would have been contemporaries. It's something that I've been pondering a bit over the last few days, the what might have been.

Just because it's there it doesn't mean you have to shoot it

So a party of five Norwegians came to New Zealand, went on a hunting trip, and shot some endangered species (link).

Wankers.

Aside from their ignorance and arrogance at coming here and assuming anything they see is fair game, shooting a Kereru on a branch is just fricking lazy. I could hit a Kereru on a branch with a stone if I wanted, given how large and slow moving they are when not flying. Hitting one with a rifle is hardly a display of awesome hunting skills and marksmanship (unless you throw the rifle at it).

Mini Rant

More of an addendum to my rant post

Like all newish parents, we have a brag book for those who are interested, including the above pic of my girl at about half a day old, wearing a t-shirt procured for her by her auntie (who is excellent at gift matching like this by the way).

So far two people have responded to this pic with utterances of "Oh that's terrible!" or "How could you do that?" in a "I sound like I'm joking but I'm really not" sort of way, like we should be embarrassed or just joking ourselves by stating so boldly we we are from.

Two is a small number, but it is enough for me to ask,


What the fcuk is up with that?


I've touched on this issue before, but now I have wider interests at stake I find this response a bit miffing. I'll be very nicely asking the next person to respond in this way to explain themselves.


Or am I just over-reacting?


Answers on a postcard please

Rambler

Listening to: Blue Sky Mining- Midnight Oil. Underrated follow up to the huge Diesel and Dust, this release saw the Oils move further away from their post punk origins, and try a few new things. When you listen to the earlier Oil's stuff, you can hear that Dust was quite a change in sound, and Mining went further down that road. Being the follow up to a huge success, it was a pressurised recording, and doesn't always work, but as with a lot of their work, the really good stuff isn't the singles, but buried in the album tracks.

Almost ten days since my last post. Not the longest absence (which I think is somewhere around 14 days), but enough to give me the guilts about not updating the thing. The last post incidentally confirmed a suspicion I have had for some time that I have people who read this that never comment (for various reasons, probably not least of which are my troll discouraging comment settings, which unfortunately bar casual commenters as well.

The absence is down to two things. Been busy, and trying to go to bed at sensible hours. Busy with socialising, modelling, sporting, working chillaxing etc. Noticed that even though I am not getting up to do the feed at 3am, my sleep still gets disturbed, hence the emphasis on sensible sleeping hours. Since most of my best writing is done after 10pm, naturally this is an impedance.

I also never seem to have enough time in the day to do all the things I want to do. Work, watch the news, hang out with the babe, play some sport, make some models etc etc. And those are just my hobbies (babe excepted, she is more of a vocation).

The other reason is that I haven't really had anything to blog about in the last week. Some of you might say "But you have a new child, that must provide oodles of material', and she does, but I don't want to turn this into a "my baby is the cutest/smartest/funniest" in the world blogs. She happens to be all of those things in my world, but I don't want to inflict that particular flavour on the dear reader at the moment. I am enjoying being a father, even if most of the time I feel hopelessly incompetent at it. It has its moments, and I often think back to the times a while ago when I worried about ever finding a partner, or ever being able to pass on my family name.

Being aware of the irony that I am currently blogging about not blogging, what can I blog about?

-I could rant about 'Everybody loves Raymond' replacing 'The Simpsons' at 5pm weeknights on TV3. Even if repeated ad nauseam, it is still nice to come home from work and chillax for half an hour with a favourite show, which 'Raymond' is most certainly not. It embodies everything I hate about american sitcoms. Ultra conservative (note that no character has sideburns. Small point but telling), and too guaranteed not to offend anybody. Everyones hair is perfectly styled, clothes spotless. And the kitchen is ugly ugly ugly. While it garnered numerous Emmys, I can't find anyone in my immediate circle who will admit to 'loving Raymond', hence don't understand its popularity.

-I could rant about the hating on John Key. I didn't vote for the guy either, but am over the incessant negativity about him from some quarters, some of it quite petty and childish. Constructive criticism is one thing, but unmoderated vitriol gets old, and puts people off message.

-I could rant about stupid drivers, which I have done before, and probably will again. Like the one who almost caused a pile up on the motorway on Tuesday morning in the rain. I was only doing 80 due to the heavy rain, and being tailgated by someone who obviously thought I should ignore the conditions and go faster. When I gently braked to intercept a slow line of traffic ahead, I looked up to find a mirror rapidly filling with car with nowhere to go. Still braking I moved to the right of my lane, while the fidiot moved left, missing me by about a metre. The fidiot then had the audacity to give me a toot like I had done something wrong. Fidiot.
Just like it seems practically everyone who can't see the 70 and 50 kph limit signs when driving through the constructions at Maungaraki. Honestly, I feel like the only one who bothers, since when I stick to the posted limit in these areas, I instantly generate a queue of tailgaters, combined with people zooming past me like the limit doesn't apply to them.
What is it with drivers in this country, that when temporary changes to speed limits (or less than temporary, these signs have been in situ for months) occur, they simply can't cope. Driving is treated too much as a right in this country rather than the privilege it should be.

-I could rant about txt english, and how much I hate it. I can live with it in text messaging, but anywhere else it is just annoying and lazy. Formal written english (which I think I am fairly fluent in) is almost a separate language from vernacular english anyway, but my concern is we are raising a generation of people to whom correct and competent written english is a foreign language. This was illustrated to me by a couple of high school kids who recently began posting on a forum I frequent. It's great that they are engaging in this way, but disappointing in that they demonstrably cannot type coherent english. I'm not talking about mere txt speak, I'm talking about complete incompetence, requiring several reads aloud to be understood. It's depressing that they can't even be bothered to proof read what they are writing, let alone write it correctly in the first place. I worry for these guys when it comes to writing covering letters.

-I could rant about players who feel the need to coach their teams loudly and precisely on court during the game. You're not big, you're not clever, and even your own teams want you to shut the hell up.

-On a similar note, I could rant about how I seem to have gone from really good form to not quite so good in my own game at the moment. Sometimes I feel like a really, really good player, other times like tonight I feel quite rubbish. Frustrating, as is the continual soul searching about whether team mates think I am playing well or not.

-Alternatively, I could not rant, and talk about how much I love summer. Summer is nice.

-I could not rant and talk about how cool my wife is for completing a Triathlon less than three months after having a baby.

-I could not rant and talk about how happy I am that Real Groovy survived its brush with receivership. Their new CD's may have been overpriced, their staff sometimes too cool for school, but nobody does sales bins like they do.

-Christmas is coming. I am looking forward to the break (which I will get this year, unlike last year when I was working in a stupid job), but haven't done any shopping yet. However my annual challenge to get through the season without once hearing 'Snoopy's Christmas' is going well.

Right that's enough. Now engaging the sensible bedtime option.

Billboard Fail

On the eve of the election, I feel compelled as many others have to comment on the state of our electoral billboards.
Why are they so rubbish?

Labour sticks with the same boring billboard they have been using since forever. Ironic that while the campaign slogan says that this one's about trust, they don't trust the electorate to deal with a photo of the party leader that hasn't been heavily and obviously manipulated.

National's leader on the other hand could probably use a little retouching. Or a hairstyle.

The other National billboards are a little better, at least showing a little imagination, and gasp! some policy!
Again uninspiring although Mark gets props for standing on the side of Kennedy Good Drive on Tuesday with a couple of helpers waving his own sandwich board like he was selling pizza.

The only party that has remotely incentivised me to consider voting for them after seeing their biilboard is the Greens, in an excellent campaign that has already been much commented on.

Happy voting tomorrow!

Music of the night #2 and Loose Change

Listening to: no music, just my house and TV noise.
Seem to be in a sequels thing here.
I think late at night, you're a little bit tired, your mind wanders a little, and maybe that song you're hearing opens your imagination a little more easily.
Lack of distraction definitely helps. Hence driving, lying awake in bed, being alone are all conducive to this.

Finally saw Da Vinci code the other day. Rated it about as highly as I did the book, which wasn't high....interesting ideas though.

Speaking of interesting ideas, the Hutt crew gathered at Stretch's place on Sunday night for our ritual spa/DVD evening. Fare for the night courtesy of D3vo was "Loose Change", an independently produced and internet distributed doco about 9/11 (google 'loose change' for more info). Specifically, that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and that for example the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner, but by a missile, and that the twin towers were demolished by explosives rather than impact and fire damage. The doco appears to be well known in the right circles, semi infamous in the wrong ones, and appears to have something of a following
The idea that it is all some kind of terrible hoax is intriguing to me, and I was interested to see if I could be compelled by some sort of incontrevertible smoking gun irregularity into thinking it had some substance. Wasn't to be.
The allegations were at times bizarre, evidence irrelevant (and at times contradicting the point the filmmakers were trying to put across), and some 'facts' quoted that I know, well, for a fact are incorrect (like saying the A-3 Skywarrior is in service in the US Air Force. Umm, the A-3 was never in service in the USAF, being that it was a US Navy aircraft. The plane in the clip even had 'navy' written on it. The USAF did use a version of the A-3 known as the B-66, but they were retired long before 2001, and were different to the navy version referred to. This may not sound like much, but it is a very very basic error which munches the filmmakers credibility for an aviation interested person like me. If they haven't checked a fact as easy to check as that, what else have they assumed to be correct that is in fact not?) . Images, quotes and information were taken out of context, huge leaps of logic made. Their investigative methodology as presented, frankly, sucked. Overall I found it a bit amateurish, and immature.
I was disappointed. I was ready to believe, but was only convinced that the version of events we all know is what actually happened. Just about every point made had (for me anyway) plausible explanations that don't require coincidence or conspiracy....I'm inclined to believe in conspiracies in that I think they are possible, but have a high standard of evidence, so approach them with an open mind.
Still it did provoke some debate in the lounge, which is probably a good thing, and probably the film's ultimate intention. Definitely not a waste of time and I'm glad I saw it, so thanks D!
PS I think the coffin nail in the 'missile hit the Pentagon' theory for me is that while dozens if not hundreds of witnesses have said they saw a 757, business jet, or some kind of aircraft hit the Pentagon, not one has said they saw a missile.....that and no-one has yet provided a good explanation of where the missing aircraft, passengers and crew are. There are ways to explain the seemingly unusual damage to the building that I can handle.
Thats my opinion anyway. Yours may differ, and thats alright. The saddest thing personally for me (apart from the ongoing worldwide consequences) about 9/11 is that I can never look at a Boeing 767 again without seeing one hitting a building. This matters if like me, you always turn to look at a plane you hear flying by......

Other peoples problems

Listening to: "Things like these" EP, Breathe.
Introducing a new feature to Off-Black: "Listening to". I usually listen to CDs while blogging. It helps the thought process and also lets me keep track of the time.
Anyway, I was going to rant.
Two days ago in my work area, two of the guys decided to have a full on shouting match. As one is arabic and the other mumbles, no-one has as yet figured out what they were arguing about, as the yelling was unintelligible. Anyway, both stormed of in different directions. As a result of the sulking, the piece of gear they were working on was left unattended for a while. The work was supposed to be finished yesterday, so I could use the gear today. As it wasn't ready, the schedule was changed, with my work that was scheduled originally for tomorrow being moved to Sunday. Now I was going to work Sunday anyway (and evenings until Thursday) , but during the day. The schedule change means I have to work Sunday night. This entirely shafts my plans for Sunday night, oh and Monday night too, as I won't be able to organise work to get away from work for the time I was planning to.
So because these two pillocks can't be professional adults, I miss two games of Indoor Netball and a regular social engagement. Not happy at all. Oh and I did three hours of not-my-regular-job research work for a manager last week and didn't get so much as a thank you. Meh.

Kiwi FM

Driving home from work tonight I noted that the radio frequencies previously occupied by Kiwi Fm have been taken over by More FM. Thus ends the first chapter in the Kiwi FM experiment. I'm not sure what it proved, other than that an all NZ playlist radio station was unnecessary, unviable commercially, and generally a dumb idea. I'll admit I believed in it at first, but soon realised it wasn't going to work. Without mythologising Channel Z too much, it's a shame nonetheless that it was sacrificed to this end.

Watching a doco on NatGeo about the origins of 9/11 while I write. The hatred and fundamentalism is depressing. Fundies annoy me, regardless of religion. They are not what religion is about, and pervert it to their own ends.