Recycling Smells.. SCENTS! Recycling Scents!

Okay, after all the world-righting it's time for a bit of a fun!

I've had a significant number of exhausted candles lying around for longer than I'd care to remember, and it was always a dream of mine (I don't always dream insanely big) to perhaps one day try reconstituting them!? Could it be done? I had no idea but it seemed reasonable enough.. get some wick, a few pencils.. Well the dream finally came to pass over this weekend when after yet another visit to IKEA I actually stuck to an agreement with myself (!) and visited a store next door to them called Hobby Craft - they were still there, and that's quite a thing for Sheffield. They had to do candle wick in some form I thought to myself, and true to form they did.. and more! This was both a joy and a pain as we were actually stuck there far longer than I intended, thanks to an overwhelming selection of just about any craft paraphernalia you could imagine, and even a modest but interesting collection of model spacecraft - I am not getting into that game again.. really! Far from doing things half arsed, I walked out with a pack of nine wicks (three differing sizes) pre-made with their bases, a glue gun for a ridiculously reasonable £5 (just under $6.85) and some spare glue sticks. To complete the effort I searched all today (Sunday) for a reasonably priced aluminium pitcher for the wax to melt in, but in the absence of even an unreasonably priced aluminium pitcher I settled for a small milk pan (£1.75/$2.40).

A worthy investment!

Returning home I set about trying my hand at reconstituting these candles, as had been my plan for soooo long.. and... it worked! At least I think it has. The wax took all of about ten minutes to reclaim from the glasses and a further ten cleaning them all, which I arguably didn't have to do but it has left me with some fabulous glasses to work with.

Reclamation at its best!

Three of the best and the aforementioned wicks, glued in their place.

For a first go I've not worried about scents since the reclaimed wax is already infused with various delightful aromas, and the process wasn't a complicated affair - I blended it together in batches which seemed sensible to my nose in a pick'n'mix kinda way (as opposed to picking noses) and they've taken on something of a Frankenstein consistency. Still they do seem very pleasant and it was all just an experiment. I had no idea half way through the process that I would entertain the idea of this as a hobby, but I have to admit I may have been bitten by a bug of some kind.. probably a good thing since I can now customise my nose flavours, and reasonably priced decent candles are quite scarce, to say nothing of how much you end up paying for good ones!

Settling in.. We shall see how they do.

To this entire end I would like to give a shout out to Jeff Standley from Standley Handcrafted for his timely and concise video on You Tube on the matter! I've learned the best time to pour your wax, how to cope with sink holes in your candles (I don't think you can apply the same theory to real sink holes, but I suppose someone could try a little top-up lava if they wanted) and how to use a pen body to set the wicks into place in their containers once they have glue on them - handy! He even had a glue gun for the job himself, which was after the fact for me since I only found his video this morning, after buying mine.. I often do things arse about face, and this time it paid off! Yes! The corner of my living room is probably thanking me for all this, and I've learned a bit in the process.

All in all it's made a change of pace, and you know.. any excuse for a bit of creativity really.

TTS - Roots of Education and Law

As our nature so surely rests in the animal, so then is education the root of humanity. This is where it all truly begins and whatever it ought to be it most definitely shouldn't be a ritual of rote learning, though poor choices seem to have left it so. The very notion that building successive generations on a foundation skewed upon the premise of passing exams is clear enough evidence of a system which spits in the face of overwhelmed teachers, and is broken or corrupt on an epic scale. It could be either, likely both given that this betrays the roots of education which rest in a plan conceived over a hundred years ago at the birth of the Industrial era, to make society useful to those self-apppointed leaders. There is a notable comparison between this concept and that of American gun ownership rules - both are built on principles from another era, seriously outdated and in need of revision to meet the problems of the present, in spite of the stubbornness which rises to meet such suggestions. Matters of real life which we have every opportunity to improve upon have been virtually side lined by the harder topical matters deemed necessary for our fabricated industries. That's not to say that this cherished knowledge isn't necessary or valuable, and a broad curriculum is needed and welcome, but there is much angst and hysteria surrounding but a mere part of the spectrum of education. Worse still, with the exception of specific events such as TED which do some good in bringing these matters up, barely any light seems to be cast by the mainstream towards that which deviates from the normal patterns pointed at in statistical analysis, reports and performance-related tweaks (it has to be said this is ironically exacerbated by technologies which have enabled the harnessing of such vast quantities of data which would otherwise be unmanageable). That's not to say such data isn't of value either, but it should not be centric at the expense of the individuality and development of the child, as both a student and human being.

Rituals based upon artificial models of behaviour, the inflexible routine exemplified in a typical school day - a fixed a time of day to start and finish, a set pattern of hours for lessons and lunch, likely does no less harm to the individual psyche from nursery to college than any ten to fifteen year stretch in prison, and all this from within halls which are supposed to promote betterment. Pavlov would be proud of the demonstration but probably less so of the result. Funnier still is the recent trend in the west looking to the east for inspiration since those students in Asia seem to do so much better on paper than our students. Setting aside the fact that eastern cultures have a different approach to work, education and family (largely as a result of an economic work/life balance demonstrably poorer than ours in the west, and most of ours aren't great), as well as the notable suicide rates amongst Asian teenagers, one has to question why their model should be seen as better when its value is being measured by industrial parameters. If they were to be strictly adhered to they would see virtue in all people being pushed to breaking point to balance the numbers in the bank. It's an inevitable Capitalist wet dream from the point of view of raw data, whether compiled by a 19th century ink-doodled log book or a 21st century digital spreadsheet - bigger numbers often equal greater results, and whilst I don't wish to paint any boss as overly ogre-ish I'm sure raw business would have it exactly that way if it could. This resistance to change and compromise is why it took a long while to begrudgingly get some workers rights into place. Were it not for the past efforts of unions we'd still be locked into more of a Victorian workhouse model than the refined version we're still lumbered with.

We should be taking a long hard look at what we really want and what we need to live with. We ought to be helping kids to be the best they can be by working with their inherent qualities and motivations instead of adopting patterns of conformity within a conveyor belt model of false reliability, however such reasons might be justified. Even if such practices were optimal for an entire generation in a given school, it would be no guarantee that the next would be as well suited, and this isn't even the case - no one child is the same. They should be treated as such, not pushed through a factory system. Reserve that habit for when you're in need of a million M32 thread screws, reliably pushed out to established spec tolerances, not for when you're trying to nurture creative talent. It's not right to merely accept the existence of individuality as some form of irritating anomaly to be tolerated and accounted for. If someone truly learns nothing else other than that which they are best naturally suited, at least they will have that to help keep them psychologically and creatively focused in a healthy way. I'm afraid to say that if the job is to be done well, the actual ethical basis of being a teacher cannot be encapsulated and compacted into a factory solution, fit only for churning information out. This is one of the main justifications I can fathom for keeping class sizes to a low maximum limit, since a teacher cannot possibly handle too many diverse personalities with any real effectiveness. Any efforts to establish a good working practice for schooling environments would do well to heed this when they decide how best to craft the environment. That suggests that the system within a school itself demands flexibility, in presentation, function, resource allotment, class times, lunch times, start and finish times. Of course there is still only a certain amount of time in the day, but slicing all that up into set routines where every individuality is expected to work and learn the same way will produce mediocre results irrespective of such force and control (which if you read the last blog gives some insight into why letting go of some forms of control in exchange for flexibility is a benefit and not a hinderance). Sometimes you just have to let go of the demands, with change required in unexpected places. I want to give a shout out to a few people who have done well to illuminate worthy avenues, and which have in turn helped me to explore ideas. There are doubtless others and I would encourage you to continue any exploration as I have, but to start you off here are a handful. Sir Ken Robinson gave not one or two, but three fabulous TED talks, and it's worth throwing Shawn Achor's similarly entertaining TED talk which looks at his research into the cult of the average. Little help seems to be gained from current governments in spite of their lip service to the people who promote these matters. Academies have sprung up in the UK promising revolution, but despite the official promotional line they're little more than rebranded grammar schools, funded by central government rather than local, and with a "convenient option" for private sponsorship. That such backing potentially arises from the same source as the problem leaves me with little hope that matters will be made right under such a model.

Much like the paperless office, so many opportunities for simplification seem to have been inexplicably bypassed altogether. The best developments are not only about taking the next step but drilling down into the matter to explore where it's possible to improve the quality, completely rewriting if necessary. To that end I would see changes made on multiple fronts to evolve a better way of living. The rule of law for example could be approached with a far less autonomous mindset, and be far more prosaic than it is. I think it's completely reasonable to pursue such a concept if we really want to resolve all the loopholes and caveats which litter our processes. Fairness and equity (that being "appropriate" and not necessarily "literal" equality) seem to sit at the heart of a better legal system. I'll drop a link to the piece I published elsewhere about the Code of Human Principles, a playful little diversion I set for myself which came into sharper focus as I considered how one might adopt a more simplistic model. It's imperative that we continue to impress the notion of a legal system which remains stoic and factual in itself, and yet we would also be remiss if we didn't try to handle the emotive matters. Society could be better served if we look to prevention rather than reactionary improvement alone. I don't claim for this to be perfection incarnate, although I've yet to break it. It's a test work in progress, and like any good model I made it with the intention of having any and all hypothetical cases thrown at it to test it's integrity, with the one caveat that it remains prosaic. The intent in its heart is two fold;

• As a set of rules designed to act as a conscience filter, to provide a guide to living a good life and help prevent transgressions. 

• As a foundation for philosophical debate and consideration for people charged with the dispensation of law when trying individual transgressions.

Life is complicated when you seek true justice. Rather than trusting upon an ideal of guidance and keeping intellect to the fore, it seems that the legal system has steadily built itself upon a pyramid of exemplification and test case. Doubtless followers of such history might look at the Code of Human Principles with either a sense of painful naivety, abject horror or both at its nakedness. Yet if you stop to think about it all I'm presenting here is the case for the dispensation of an intelligent justice. I tend to believe that cases should be treated as unique, even when there are similarities to be had at some level. That uniqueness in a given case can make true justice difficult enough to achieve, without the guidance and principles being similarly convoluted. I'm sure I don't need to cite examples - most of you reading this will at some time or other have encountered cases of injustice, either in the news or first hand. Granted a fair few of them will have seemed outrageous in the absence of any knowledge of the evidence, which is why I often think that some deeper thought ought to be applied to current reporting restrictions. Such matters are perhaps not always so worthy of being withheld, should that result in the report becoming a plaything for ratings, glamour and drama. Still it's a fact that people have been the victims of miscarriages of justice and this has to be accounted for if improvement is to be sought. To that end rules which inform and guide a resolution under circumstance have to be so much better ethically and morally than the listless sterility of compendious tomes, which by their very complexity become less of a guide and more of a blender into which a given case may simply end up being justified into fitting. I would invite you to consider the code as it's laid out. I'm not setting out on a crusade as such, but as with anything so designed it cannot be improved upon if it rests unchallenged.

TTS - Decentralisation and the Digital Village

Pondering our quaint habit of voting for those who lust for power rather than those who might be best suited for it, I thought I would muse upon the value of a change of ideals to favour smaller scale arrangements and decentralisation. It's clear that monopolistic systems and wealth inequity cannot continue unabated. Can such lofty goals be achieved? Would we want them? Let's ponder whether it might be a good idea.

In this context It's a generally accepted notion that more in less hands is largely a bad thing for society. We see the effects of this everywhere. It's the reason I tend to happily accept the ideal of a comfortable life in the midst of society rather than harbouring dreams of becoming uber-rich. It's the reason I generally tend to disapprove of projects such as the national lottery, whose consolatory charitable donations are really little more than a distraction from the fact that those lucky recipients should be getting their funds from proper taxes, and not from taxpayers paying twice for the one in a million chance to be a part of the problem. We need to be looking at how we can improve upon our lot not for the sake of something as shallow as money, but for the sake of making the best of what we have, in the most benign and beneficial way for the good of all. Certainly we have the beginnings of the necessary technologies in place and foundations upon which to build. The problems seem to lie in convincing the 1% minority of shareholders wielding most of life's tickets, effectively holding the world to ransom with their egotistical fear of losing their wealth and control, the latter of which they really never had any to begin with, hence their perpetual anxiety. I would propose that even if we cannot scrub it altogether, that we can at least try to mitigate the worst excesses of Capitalism, arguably one of the most destructive force we've imposed upon ourselves alongside the atom bomb.

Before you roll your eyes in anticipation of yet another rabid, foaming dog fever "attack on the system" let me say I'd grant the idea that overall Capitalism has probably been the lesser of many tried evils and holds a place of note in history, but that does not and cannot justify it remaining as the major motivator of our habits. Like fossil fuels it's time for a form of retirement. It's achieved benefits in terms of driving overall social development, but it's also been an extremely wasteful, sloppy and excessive bag of methodologies and is undoubtedly an insatiable monster which will eventually kill us all, if we aren't already a dead race walking. I would urge a consideration of the merits of a reduction in the scale of its functions, for reasons of both efficiency and duty of care. If the minority power brokers cannot be trusted to juggle ambition with reason and common sense we need to gradually usurp their power trips, and formulate methods for best use of our technologies to enable efficient, smaller, localised industries. Doing this ought to bring opportunity down to such a level that it would enable contributions from all who are able or who wish to, where a sustained effort beneficial to community can flourish free from the threat of aggressive takeovers or forced economic redundancy. There are few people except those obsessives running corporations who truly believe in or desire the burden of such structures in the form we see today, mishandling and swallowing up everything in their path, and it's for certain they themselves don't need them. If those unfortunates weren't so afflicted and driven by brazen egos then most would probably stop long enough to realise this. Possibly those who are at the very least genuine in their motives might consider alternatives. Corporations are always promoted in a positive glow as job and product creators, but seldom are they shown as drivers of inequity, grating against the fabric of society and at worst providing a self-fulfilling forum for corruption, especially when it comes to workers right's abuses and excessive profit margins - something for which Capitalism and corporations are both rightly condemned. Then there's the foodstuff for those systems. Whenever I discuss the subject of money itself I use the metaphor of engine oil. An engine relies upon the oil at its disposal, to be readily available in the right place at the right time for the whole to function properly. To watch an engine destroy itself under the stresses of too little oil or too much in all the wrong places is to understand why we see any collective system failing.The NHS is a very pertinent example, but any outfit which benefits from taxes as a means of capital investment and overall management will fail if its "engine oil" is hoarded and steered into extremely specific arenas. Analysis dating back ten years exposed the wealth of America's 1% to the tune of approximately 35% of their engine oil, and it will come as no surprise to anyone that here in 2018 this figure will not have remained the same. I can't think that the ratio is that much better in the UK, to say nothing of countless other countries around the globe.

Similarly if we cannot trust our governments to use our taxes responsibly, and they certainly seem overly comfortable with the notion of getting into bed with the corporations and doing what they want rather than in concert with the mood of the electorate and their remit, then we should be encouraged to stand up and demand a better application, by poll or ballot force. This could be done by altering our buying habits, or simple repetitive acts of cooperation between smaller structures and local amenities which already exist. Whatever form it takes I'd suggest applying ethically responsible forms of democratic power, where such actions provide benefit derived from public choice, via repositories which have a vested interest in seeing the system work successfully. In other words if the government can't be trusted to spend your taxes wisely, then at least let's have a mechanism by which you get to influence where your engine oil circulates, and at best a say in where your taxes are actually spent. If we do have to have any kind of government (and I suppose it's only realistic to consider that even with decentralisation you still need some overall structure) I'd suggest a deeper alternative form, which would see the dissolution of the politician as a discrete job. In their place I'd suggest a form of governance involving active members from all the various disciplines in life, positions conferred by their peers to work as an organisation which would probably physically appear to be very much like the UN, charged with the responsibility of debate and diplomacy for their chosen field. I'm making an assumption here (it's probably a fairly safe one) but imagine if you will Stephen Hawking working as both astrophysicist and "politician". I would think this would at least afford some measure of respect, a function of real responsibility, accountability, and with the help of the web a measure of direct communication between diplomat and worker - a valuable thread with which to keep all parties grounded and provide a sense of responsibility to the individual. This in itself is a sound justification for enshrining net neutrality, and it can only be a good thing if people who work within their passions are granted the means to share in debate. We can likely achieve much good, even unpredictable and inspiring results by way of a more level form of cooperation. Further there's the idea of utilising the web to enable people to remain in their communities away from the cities if they so choose, doing what they do best in their own comfort. That would mitigate a significant tonnage of both carbon emissions and commuter stress. Not fully - people and materials still have to move around, people still need to meet up and be together, but a network running less vehicles would mean that any necessary movement could arguably be achieved by more efficient, sustainable, affordable and cleaner means. With less people commuting, the cities too could be opened up a bit more to help those who do choose to live and/or work there - re-engineering them to be even cleaner and greener. Who wouldn't prefer a beautifully crafted city designed with tech and greenery working in harmony, as opposed to Ridley Scott's dystopian Los Angeles? On a personal note in the cases of my home city of Sheffield, less or better implemented concrete would also leave such places less prone to environmental hazards such as flooding (just because we haven't had a flood since 2007 doesn't mean it would never happen again - bureaucracies and history do conspire to repeat).

Smaller systems allow for more granular control. Hang on, I thought you just said there was no control? So I did. The lack of control rests in our incessant push to try and force the world and the unknowable future to conform to our demands, instead of bending to reality to make the best of that which we're served at any given world moment (see this blog). The control of which I speak here is something which we seem to forget on a daily basis - one of choice. It's about the virtues of honesty, authenticity, respect and awareness (for the self and others), the capacity to recognise and handle the ego when it interferes - and it does so all the time.. more so than you probably realise. If you want a head start with this then you could do much worse than to grab a copy of "The Art of Happiness", and probably a copy of "How to See Yourself As You Really Are" if the former doesn't decimate you enough. In spite of appearances we are not pre-programmed for destruction. It seems to me that notions of responsibility for our actions, seizing our imagination and sharing ideas, simple daily justice and fairness aren't so elusive if you can get the scale right. For once the scale gets too grand the concerns and needs of people slip all too easily between the cracks, and before you know it no one feels connected or responsible for anything anymore.

Look at us now. We owe it to ourselves to pick up that mantle.

That disconnect which we struggle with on a daily basis does not generally derive from the technology we have. We can no more wholly blame the computer or the smartphone for that feeling of lack of connection any more than you can blame a hammer for its duality as a tool of productivity and violence. You might as well blame pen and pencil. One of the main recent reasons for a computer to exist is communication and connection. It's all about how you use a tool, and that's where the internet is our real gem. We can communicate and organise so easily between one another by having the right structures in place, and with that we gain the freedom to exercise our lives with quality, and the wisdom to use it all.. Yes, wisdom. This last point is where the above books come in handy, and that will probably form the heart of the next blog.

I concede it's a massive problem, but it's still there whether we like it or not. So to help get things on track I suggest going back to the root, to re-draft that which we have lost. Community needs to be at the heart of this, for the sake of the sanity of the people working and living in them, for the sake of the resources and ingenuity going to waste, frankly for the sake of the delicate cradle we're all peeing in. We need to set aside our ego and look at the sorry state of that which created all we have both good and bad, including the 1%'ers.. our education.

"Control, Control, You Must Learn (Un)Control"

With the latest folly in the tech world and the FCC's blatant failure to realise that having someone as illegitimate as Ajit Pai is a corrupt and dodgy thing, I thought I might reflect upon things. Where do you begin with that?

In essence politics (and that is the forum by which we can best look at the function of our world as a whole) seems to broadly encourage the notion of voting for people on the basis of their ideology. Sometimes those ideas are good, often it's a mixed bag, all too frequently no good whatsoever. Whatever the intent I'd like to suggest that we should stop accepting this given process as a fundamental, unavoidable truth. Of course internet neutrality, at least in the US, is now caught by that notion and like it or not, as with many such matters, contrary to what the official press statements would have you believe all is not rosy. Most people are so busy getting whipped up by the media's current hysterical obsession with global tensions and Trump that they fail to realise we are already in the midst of a war - an information war. All our fundamental freedoms are under attack so plainly that you either you don't wish to see it or you cannot see it simply because it's everywhere - hidden in plain site, often the best place to put the worst matters. So let's cut to the chase, accept that we're in the deep end and consider what can be done to handle this problem. One cannot, or perhaps that ought to be should not, overcome this issue with violence. Of course we have to continue to resist and strive for the better path, but more than that perhaps the most important thing we can do to affect the outcome is resist the urge to violent confrontation and hold commune with that part which no one from the outside can ever truly reach - we have to change ourselves. We have to get used to the idea of attaining our goals whilst simultaneously letting go of our addiction and supplicant attitude to control. That sounds contradictory but it really isn't.. it's just a different approach to everything we've been lead to believe, which in turn is why I would suggest (and have done for a long time) that very central to this is a needed revolution in education, so unworkable and broken as it really presently is. Probably much of that which we have about us in society is fragmented and out of joint because we try to exert a forceful nature over matters which simply will not yield, whether man vs an act of nature or between groups of people, and the harder you push against the grain the worse matters become. One thing you can guarantee, and it has been the source of much harm in our time, is that humanity as a whole is a real force to be reckoned with, but that should not be let off the leash chaotically. This is where we fail, since that is precisely the aspect of ourselves which is most undermined, in exchange for political compliance - control within control.

If you've ever wondered why education feels crap and why you possibly (probably?) didn't enjoy your time at school, then I would suggest that you look to where education came from and why it exists at all. To have systems which would teach our kids to become the better parts of their selves would undermine the power base of those hysterical control freaks suffusing politics, who created education to serve the notion of making useful members of society. Essentially a politicians societal wet dream is one in which you are ideologically helpful but essentially stupid. This is why it was inevitable that they would cotton onto the internet as a threat, hence our information war. I would guess that they succumbed to their worst excesses when they wove business interests with the web, and funnily enough in the mad scramble for a new profitability model they created a double edged sword of commerce vs free expression - otherwise I'm pretty sure they'd have pulled the plug on it a long time ago. So, in order to counteract this perversion of the web's raison d'etre we need to evolve our communities and use the tools at our disposal in a smarter way - I'd perhaps suggest to use that communications tech to become co-habitually smaller but better connected. First and foremost I'd posit the idea that we need to help ourselves keep in touch with our daily humanity by keeping the nest small and recognisable, but accept the power and responsibility of the much greater whole which we represent. Learn to harness the force we are to be reckoned with, and do it with utmost self respect. Still neither that individual responsibility, nor the idea will be claimed overnight - not with the quality and content of education we have. Education needs to be taken from those who would continue to employ it as a tool of the workhouse, and evolve it to a tool of self discovery and communal assistance. For me, I see the very foundation of Buddhism - qualities of empathy, compassion and tolerance as being most welcome in all arenas. Why? Whatever your denomination of spirituality, full believer to atheist, it's undeniable that these matters speak to the heart of us all. The minority 1% of power brokers with their power trips need to be both helped back into their place and welcomed into the new way, otherwise you simply create another tiresome enemy, and the only enemy they really have is their own ego. They won't have the world be any other way than how they see fit to bend it, and all of them are trying to have it all their way - that's why they fail and why we all hurt. Probably through no fault of their own those who reach for power seem to have for the best part chosen to buy unquestioningly into the system. Indeed their ambition probably singled them out for power to those placed to bestow it, and like their mentors, underneath all the pompous justifications they simply ended up hurting themselves with a lack of self respect. If you were to ask most of them I'd say under the facades they'd define self respect as being better than the next person and grabbing what you can, when in actual fact that's precisely the cause of their pain. Like it or not, community is why we are here today, and why we have made it this far. Without a sense of right and wrong, underneath all the tiresome false competition and fury, we would already be extinct. Community will get us out of this hole. Perhaps that's essentially why life does go on, and why we seem to be able to miraculously continue as a whole in spite of (or maybe to some degree because of) ignorance.

To me the philosophy and the art in refining how that life goes on is the tricky part - to keep walking the path whilst removing or minimising the unnecessary acts which bring about painful transitions. It's a dour truth, but that can only happen when we care enough, and that can only happen when we encourage such platitudes. You can see how our collective pain is a self fulfilling prophecy on many levels, whether it's by forceful means or simplistic cycles of revenge. This is where notions of letting go of control come into play. If there is an overall objective I would suggest that either as individuals or as a whole we get as close as we can to it whilst allowing for and embracing failure along the way. So many times we're taught to fear failure, when in actual fact it's a natural part of life, and if we cared enough about one another then we wouldn't fear failure so much because we would trust that someone would be there to cushion us when we trip up, and if we cared we would be there for the person who trips because we ourselves would feel nurtured by the next person enough to care, and so on.. If embracing failure as a part of the overall goal is accepted, it's not so weird to consider the idea of aiming without having too tight a grip on the reins. Let the mission unfold as it will - that is far less painful for the whole. Learn to breathe into whatever it is you're trying to achieve and bend with the flow of the river. That doesn't imply that you don't try, but accept that the points from A to F are probably not going to go through B to E exactly as you might wish or predict, and react calmly in accordance with the next best step. That is true on a personal daily basis of choice, so it should be on an international level. Don't limit people into become something they don't want to be, or are not inclined to be, simply because it doesn't appear to add value to your goal. You have no idea how their natural line of exposition will affect you down the line. That's where education fails - look at the hysteria of measurable outcomes and exam grades. Of course it's good to know how well children are developing in order to to best help them, but their futures should not be dictated by the hysteria of the 1%'ers, fearful of bending to an unexpected or unwanted reality, as they so unreasonably expect us to do in turn for them. Day by day, plan by plan, work with what you have and be grateful at all times. If the cupboard only has a certain set of ingredients, work with what you have to make the best meal you can. If the food isn't to your liking then plan a new path towards something more fruitful, but without expectation, and enjoy the journey. Let go of control and accept that tomorrow will come, and if that doesn't happen then don't worry about that either, for you most certainly won't.

Focus On The Good

I believe I recall my friend Mark Moore’s hopes, by way of his enjoyment of my recent PC build blog, that I might continue to doodle my thoughts.. so here goes.

As part of the continuing effort to maintain the world base in favour of rich minorities, the latest argument being presented in the popular UK press this morning was one of several online pieces questioning why the NHS is so great anyway, and how throwing money at it can’t ultimately work. Here's one of them:

Our State Care System MAKES Winter Crises

To my mind this is at best voicing something we all might entertain by way of reasoning, whilst almost entirely missing both point and solution. The biggest question for the NHS isn’t to do with matters of how much money to throw at it, although the architects of its struggles know all too well how they’re inflicting their bias by starving it of the necessary funding – the old underfund, seed discontent and then privatise is a tired operating cliché best left behind to the remit of historians and the last century. Rather the issues broadly align with many aspects of life including the current underlying problems in America relating to the repealing of net neutrality, and similar notions being argued by Ajit Pai, who I would consider to be as innocent and unbiased in his professional matters as Jeremy Hunt is in his. One now hears people arguing the case for privatisation, citing “opportunity”, as the chosen byword to justify the actions taken. "Why shouldn’t those who can afford it have the chance to get something better, and why shouldn't our systems be based on this premise?" appears to be the MO. This is probably the most critical flaw of focus, and the argument which I think truly defines the difference between the “have’s” and “have not’s”. Someone else whose name I don’t think I ever knew If I’m honest, gave an interesting shout on social media the other day saying that people who were poor were merely envious of the rich - again similarly flawed, but helpfully insightful. In reality the arguments and solutions for net neutrality, the NHS and a whole host of other aspects in society really boil down to having relatively little to do with actual wealth itself (other than its distribution bias) but more about how people are encouraged to think and feel about one another when measured against relative “success”, and how easily the grip on community is lost when you build upon a world which already thrives on and encourages conflict and competition to inspire and drive change, rather than taking a more benign and thoughtful line of cooperation and community. As with so many things in life it’s as much about how you do it, as it is about what you achieve. 

Writer Michael Straczynski came up with a perfectly simple metaphor when he created the core conflict which raged through the better part of his sci-fi series Babylon 5. In it (SPOILER ALERT!) he pitched the greatest threat to the younger races by taking the two oldest, most prominent and powerful caretaker races in the locality and pitched them at loggerheads with one another over their duty of care. Until it all collapsed into egotistical chaos the Vorlons (who were ostensibly the good guys) were seen as the guardians bringing races together to work at their issues, sharing in one another’s achievements and folly for the betterment of the whole; The Shadows believed that you could only build the best by fostering conflict and warfare, the victors destroying the unworthy to rise from the ashes stronger than they were.. all on wash, rinse, repeat. The nature of reality allows for both scenarios to show a “measure” of success, but if you pause long enough to think about it the nature of humanity only really allows for one to be called the right way, and here is your nub. I don’t care if it sounds cloying or “hippy”ish (as though that’s a bad thing) - there really is no getting around it. Back to our own reality and the real solutions do not, and cannot be allowed to lie in fostering conflict and floating ideals of progress on the foundation of perceived envy and wealth. Anyone can have a personal or social impact with enough (or more) money within a system which is built around that, but in spite of that subscription I also happen to believe that the best way to judge the success of any such system is by how it treats it’s least wealthy. Answer that one properly and you realise that the trick to resolving our problems means first to accept that conflict is not acceptable when we’re all in the same boat, and competition (where it's not first and foremost for fun) is not a good catalyst for progress. Embracing the compassion which arises from knowing that no one gets out alive informs why it’s better to take the Vorlon line, and spend our time up to our necks in community and cooperation rather than in blood. To borrow from another person’s words, again person(s) unknown but definitely Aboriginal, restrain your ruthless warrior leaders.

If there is anything I would wish for you as the reader to take away from this it’s the following - I can think of nothing more demeaning and insulting to life itself than to be perpetually fighting between one another, over both bulk and scraps. By all means keep an eye on the big picture and share in ideas and possibilities – that’s where the sense of general direction comes from, but also realise your small part in the whole and the value of self-improvement. Not for the benefit of facile tangents such as the appearance of inner and outer self, your CV or prospects, but for your self-respect, and feeling of worth as a human being. Focus on building a good inner world of the self and all that extraneous mediocre crap which we keep being told is so important melts away, and at worst simply looks after itself anyway. That’s where the notion "the best way to help yourself is to help others" really comes from. That help doesn’t have to be literal, although it’s likely most welcome. Simply making yourself into the better person you can be will have a knock on effect of helping others. If you have no other point of reference, and are looking for a worthy battle, I can assure you it will be a good place to start. Trust me when I say even knowing all this I still find it difficult myself, but that's no reason not to begin.