Hattix

(Note: This is a recovered post from the old blog)

About time!

In the UK, the House of Lords has traditionally been our highest court of appeal (apellate court) where the Law Lords, former judges given peerage for exemplary service, would hear appeals. This separated judicial power from legislative power but did not separate legislative power from judicial power, the disjoin was only one way.

This made many wonder whether the House of Lords was fair under the European Convention on Human Rights. It became a very real danger that the House of Lords couldn’t provide a fair trial under that convention. Our archaic legal system was (and remains) a badly suited mess, Blair wanted to reduce the power of the House of Lords to further the cause of democracy; The House of Commons is elected, the House of Lords is not.

Detractors have claimed that the Supreme Court’s justices could use their power to elevate themselves above the House of Lords committee they’re succeeding, which Lord Phillips said was possible but unlikely.

I suspect the next step will be to a codified constitution, which may well be a dangerous step to take. Constitutions have a habit of becoming obsolete and dated, reflecting the views of their time and being very hard to alter.

For example, a clause (Second Amendment) in the United States Constitution came before the establishment of professional police forces, so provides for a peacekeeping militia, who did this job before police. Nowadays the Second Amendment has been corrupted into a "right to bear arms", a purpose it was never intended for and merely a byproduct – The militia being an amateur "police force", the amateurs would need weapons. The firearms debate goes on (I’m personally on the pro-gun side) but it’s not what the Second Amendment intended to do.

The Irish Constitution identifies the woman’s place as in the home and has numerous references to the Catholic religion, both guaranteeing freedom of faith in one sentence and outlawing it in another. Then again, it WAS written by a crazed bunch of religious terrorists in Fianna Fail who, back then, WERE little short of jihadists in all but name.

In both cases, the highest apellate courts have the power to strike down a law as unconstitutional, that is, running contrary to the protections afforded by the respective constitutions. Without a constitution and with merely codified law and case law, our highest appellate court has traditionally been somewhat underpowered. The best a Supreme Court can do is call a law "illegal" or "inconsistent" with other laws, but then it’s up to Parliament to change it or to change what it’s inconsistent with.

Some of the more authoritarian laws Blair enacted, such as warrantless searching ("Stop and Search") as well as the incredible and widely abused powers given to police and local councils by the Terrorism Act could use this kind of oversight as they are an abomination in the face of liberty.

I’d be quite pleased if the Supreme Court were to elevate itself above the puny committee of the House of Lords it replaced.

Now I’m no clueless amateur with Photoshop but the best artisan is always limited by the tools available. In my case, that tool is a Kodak Easyshare CX6200. Now Kodak’s consumer point and shoots aren’t exactly the greatest snappers and the Easyshare series are fairly close to the bottom. It’s a creaky old 2.0 megapixel (1600×1200) disaster.

The objective was to capture noctilucent clouds: Night time photography. This is all but impossible on a point and shoot, they simply don’t have the exposure or the sensitivity. The longest exposure it can do is half a second and the sensor is noisy as hell. A crop of a shot from the session is to the right, but brightened up a bit since this blog has a white background.

It’s a foul mess of noise and hot pixels, and while you can indeed see the clouds, it’s hardly a great image and there’s only so much you can do in Photoshop. Garbage in, garbage out. There had to be some way to give Photoshop more information about the image.

There is. Using a small mini-tripod (that’s why the hole at the bottom of your camera has threads), I placed the camera on the ground and fired off 18 shots, then covered the lens and did another. It’s imperative that the camera does not move and your subject is absolutely still.

In Photoshop, you then load the 19th (dark) image and subtract it from all the others using the Apply Image function. This removes junk added by the sensor such as hot pixels. It’s called darkfield subtraction and commonly used by amateur astronomers for exactly the same purpose.

The next step is to add all these images together. This CAN be done in Photoshop but it’d probably take forever. I use a piece of freeware called RegiStax 5 for it which has an incredibly awful interface. It adds all the images together and averages them, a process known as stacking. Noise, which is random from frame to frame, does not survive the averaging, but the detail of the image reinforces from frame to frame.

You then drop it into Photoshop, pull the curves around a bit and you get an image far better than any one shot could have been with much less noise.

Though this blog has been much less active than its predecessor (employment, father dying, baby girl being born, many tame excuses), I aim to reverse that in 2012. I’m still a prolific writer, I just don’t usually go out of my way to blog stuff. I really should do better.

Today we’re going to read about where Christmas came from and the key influences that made it what it is today. To do this, we need to go back 4,000 years to pre-Roman Europe.

Nearly all the Celts, Gauls, and other sorts of people like Visigoths and Iberians had some sort of winter solstice celebration. It was midwinter, an auspicious time which brought to an end the important harvest season and heralded the beginning of the sowing season. The sun is at its lowest, days at their shortest. Even today, more babies are born in July, August and September, nine months after the long winter nights.

4,000 years ago, celebrations, feasts and the occasional orgy were regional or even tribal with massive variance between neighbouring tribes. We need to advance 1,500 years for the first organised, “traditional” solstice celebration, the Roman Saturnalia.

The Roman calendar had ten months, covering 304 days. “Martius”, modern March, was the first month and there were 61 “unassigned” days between December and Martius. This was traditionally invented by Romulus around 750 BCE, though Numa Pompilius in 713 BCE added two more months, Ianuarius and Februarius. The solstice celebration fell on the 17th of December in most years and lasted several weeks.

Saturnalia was a “carnival atmosphere”, Roman social norms were discarded in the name of merriment and hedonism. Gambling was permitted and masters and slaves reversed roles, the masters providing service to the slaves as appreciation for their work during the year, in other places the slaves were invited to dine with their masters. Private parties exchanged gifts and a general atmosphere of reversal prevailed.

Both the Mishna and Talmud describe the “pagan” festival Saturna, which was to them invented by Adam, echoing the Hebrew, Assyrian and Babylonian practice of ascribing to the first men customs which they find foreigners doing and learn the foreigners had been doing since time immemorial.

As Rome became Christian in the 4th Century, Saturnalia was abandoned as a religious ceremony, but continued throughout the Empire as a secular celebration. Often the sacrifices and rituals were followed without knowing which deity they were intended to honour. The sacrifice to Saturn a wealthy family would make, one of a suckling pig, became the early-Modern time custom of eating ham.

The Christians found the celebration troublesome. They were a repressive theocracy and would not tolerate anyone else’s god or indeed any other gods. Saturnalia was banned numerous times, but local government knew it was unwise to provoke a riot and did little to enforce the bans.

Early Christians did not care one bit about birthdays of any kind, they noted (Origen) “Only sinners celebrate their birthdays” and Arnobius is on paper in Adversus Nationes ridiculing the practice of even considering that gods can have birthdays or even feast days. To Christians, the idea of Jesus having a birthday was at best inconsequential and at worst, pagan and heretical.

In the 4th Century, the Roman Christians had placed Jesus’ birth date on the 25th of December, Eastern Christians placed it on the 6th of January to connect with the Epiphany, but the Gregorian calendar was about to shake that up. The Gregorian Calendar moved everything 13 days later, so the actual dates became January 7th and January 19th. The Russian Orthodox Church still celebrates Christmas on the 7th of January.

The connection with “birth” was obvious, as the Romans had Saturnalia connected with Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, “The Birthday Of The Unconquered Sun”, an aspect of Apollo where the He had reached his most southern point in the sky and began to rise higher again. Some early Christians connected Jesus with Apollo, as a prophet was a messenger, like Apollo, and Apollo was the son of the Romans’ chief god. (This is a bit sketchy, Zeus was the secret father of an entire legion of sons, and daughters)

The word comes from the Greek “khristos”, a translation of Hebrew “masiah” (Messiah, a prophesised religious leader who would destroy the Romans and be king of the Israelites, Jesus did not fulfil this prophecy). The “mass” bit (Christ’s Mass) is simply Latin “missa” or “Eucharist” in English.

But through the years, other names have been attached. The Old English called it simply “midwinter”, the Vikings and Normans “"jol” or “yule”, their solstice celebration merged with Christmas in the 11th century.

Skipping ahead a bit to medieval times, the lot of the common man in Europe became both poor and short. Europe became a feudal war-economy of serfdom, not unlike modern Iran, of religious extremists in government and leading crusades against the liberal, wealthy and advanced Muslim Persians. The economic output of the poor was entirely taxed and used to fund the King and Pope’s wars.

By the Early Middle Ages, the main religious celebration was still the Epiphany, the visit of the magi. There were not “three wise men”, and only the Gospel of Matthew even mentions them. The number is not stated, some connect the number of gifts with the number of magi, but most scholars believe the true nature of Matthew’s passage is ascribing importance to Christ’s birth and that the number of magi who visited is not knowable. Tradition has painted them as astrologers, and put their number at twelve, in the East. They were not kings, nor where they astrologers. They were described as “foreigners”, “noble” and “from the morning”, the latter being a Hebrew term meaning “rising of the sun”. Most early Christians believed they were travellers from Babylon.

The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Ancient Greek and the word used is a loanword, the Latin “magus”: The Zoroastrian priestly caste. In the King James Bible, the translation is given as “wise men” in both Matthew, and in Daniel 2:48, however the same word is translated as “sorcerer” when translating “Elymas Magus” in Acts 13:6-11, and untranslated in the case of Simon Magus in Acts 8:9-13 (Simon Magus was a Messiah who actually fulfilled the prophecy which Jesus failed to).

As Christmas continued in popularity, Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus) was crowned Emperor on Christmas Day in 800 AD, Edmund the Martyr (former patron saint of England) was made King on Christmas Day 855,  William The Bastard was crowned King of England on Christmas Day 1066, so Christmas Day took on an association with Kings.

The High Middle Ages see Christmas extremely Anglicised as England’s cultural influence began to dominate Europe. The Roman suckling pig sacrifice became England’s Yule Boar. Misrule became popular, where the Roman Saturnalia re-emerged (from middle-age reverence of the ancients) in drunkenness, promiscuity, gambling and all kinds of blasphemy, were not just expected but encouraged.

The birth aspect became immortality, with evergreen trees being venerated: Holly, ivy, fir and pine trees, for example.

The Protestants brought the next great change in Christmas. Gift giving had been on New Years day, between those with legal relationships, such as tenant and landlord, creditor with debtor. The Protestants demanded that gifts were given not in the name of secular laws, but in the name of the Christ Child, Christkindl, and on Christmas Eve, but the Protestants had not yet had their last laugh.

Puritans in 1647 banned Christmas as hedonistic debauchery of papalism. Rioting broke out. “The Vindication of Christmas” was written in 1652 as a pamphlet in London and strongly denounced Puritanism as against the English way of life, noting the many Old English traditions which Cromwell had repressed. The Colonies of America also banned Christmas, indeed celebration of any kind was banned in Boston until 1681, but Christmas did not appear in Boston until the middle of the 19th century!

Our modern Christmas was first illustrated in Victorian England by Charles Dickens, in “A Christmas Carol”. Dickens wanted to portray Tudor Christmases as a family centred token of goodwill and generosity by the head of the household, as church-centred observations had dwindled to meaninglessness in the 18th century.

The Victorians also gave us another “tradition” at this time. Poorer families would save throughout the year in “Goose Clubs” to receive a goose at Christmas, for roasting. In time, this became a turkey (cheap imports from the Americas, few chefs will rate a turkey above a chicken or a goose in terms of suitability) and Christmas hampers.

The Christ Child had dwindled in popularity by this time, most gifts being in the name of “Father Christmas”, a derivation of the Norse Odin. Dutch settlers in New Amsterdam pictured a man in ermine furs, the furs turned inwards so giving a brown suit with white fringes. The white fringes were to remain as Father Christmas (A name still commonly used in England as a synonym for Santa) merged with Santa Claus.

Saint Nicholaus was a Christian who made sacrifices to sell his pre-teen daughters into marriage, essentially a child sex trafficker. He lives on as a virtual patron of children. How creepy is that?

We merged Father Christmas with Saint Nick in the late Victorian era, when the head of the household would gift his children via influence from Dickens. In true modern style, however, the next and last was done by corporate America.

Coca Cola took the New York (from Dutch New Amsterdam) image of Santa Claus and changed his outfit from brown Ermine to red Ermine in a large advertising campaign. Our red and white Santa was born.

I haven’t posted in awhile; my apologies. Neither has Hat, of course, but that’s Hat for you.

I have two things on politics (namely, Tory politics) I want to say quickly.

Poor Cameron, he’ll have an awful Christmas after this rebellion. Though I think the only happy Tory will be the likes of Mark Pritchard, who seem to be involved in quite an organised and sustained backbench rebellion against coalition politics.

Silly woman. Yes, the schools which show these videos ARE necessary to any reasonable debate. Really dear, you aren’t going to do well in the Daily Mail after last night.

That’s me done. Over and out.

I have just read a BBC article where a politician, Stephen Pound, has undergone a polygraph test in an “honesty about politics” experiment. After the test, the politician said it would be a “damn good thing” for all MPs to go through an annual polygraph test.

No. No it would not. For two reasons.

As the article clearly states, polygraphs are inadmissable in court; this is because they’re about as useful as tossing a coin to tell if someone is lying (Jeremy Kyle’s “97%” statistic is complete and utter nonsense, for the record; sorry if I’ve spoiled a small part of daytime TV for you). To be honest, I’d rather go and talk to a politician and flip a coin myself than have hundreds of thousands of tax payers money spent on paying for people who act as if they’re scientists doing some bogus and utterly useless test.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what this sounds like (annual, legislated “honesty tests”) is not the way to restore trust in politics. Placing politicians under constant suspicion will merely serve as justification for exactly that; for people to be constantly suspicious that the political class is full of liars and so we need to conduct silly tests on them to keep them in shape, meaning even if honesty was 100% consistent in the political class they’d still be treated as liars, not just in the electorate’s mind, but in law. Further, it wouldn’t address the issue which many people have with politics which isn’t that politicians “lie”, it’s often that they change their mind/break promises/adapt to unexpected scenarios; circumstances change, even if the electorate doesn’t understand this concept.

There isn’t a magical quick-fix to the growing apathy/distrust in British politics, but the solution is quite clear; the electorate needs to elect politicians that they trust, and those politicians must treasure that trust which has been extended to them (it’s a privilege, not a right). No hogus bogus omg-super-special-awesome-magical-test will make this happen.

Today the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre lowered the terrorism threat level. It had spent a year and six months at "Well I Never" before being downgraded to the level below. Below "A Bit Ruffled" is the "Oh Do Be Quiet" level. The alert system has never been below this level.

The American equivalent remains "WAAAAAH BOMB EVERYONE", its lowest ever level, while the French system has been on "Flee and Hide" since October 2006, when it was upgraded from "Find A White Flag".

Savvy commentators have openly wondered where all this counter-terrorism propoganda was in the 1970s and 1980s, when railway litter bins across the land were disturbingly explosive after exposure to Irishmen.

Two years ago, China eclipsed Japan as the world’s third largest economy, a list led by the European Union’s Eurozone (as it is a monetary union) and with the United States in second place.

This is just one marker, there have been many others. China’s manufacturing industry, for example, is in decline as more and more educated young Chinese are refusing the factory labour of their ancestors. The domineering “Made In China” label is now giving way to “Made in Vietnam” or, as on the inside of this Marks and Spencer shirt I’m wearing as I write this: “Made in Cambodia”

From years of bankrolling American debt, China has a phenomenal amount of cold, hard cash sitting around doing nothing. As early as 2000, China stopped exporting a multitude of things, usually raw materials, instead preferring to manufacture itself. China no longer exports neodymium ores or phosphate rocks: Neodymium for the tiny but powerful magnets crucial for our electronic devices and, by extension, the modern world. Phosphate is required for fertiliser, all those mouths need feeding and China would rather put food on her own table.

Mao Zedong might have set China back 20-30 years with his idiotic policies, but these are now in history and China is retaking her rightful place. For 16 of the last 20 centuries, the dominant world economy has been China. Even during the recession and financial crisis of the last few years, China bought up £12 billion of British industry and business and has even been noted to have interest in the High Speed Two London to Birmingham rail project.

China wants in on large civil engineering projects to give employment to its increasingly skilled workforce, it already produces almost all the world’s intricate consumer electronics and Pricewaterhouse Coopers has been constantly backpedalling on its prediction of China overtaking the US and EU, down from 2050 ten years ago to just 2019 last month.

Learn Mandarin.

I have just watched a speech by Mr. Miliband. I confess before I go any further that I am not a fan of the man who has thus far been a useless opportunistic leader of the opposition who has failed to give any sort of credible direction or alternative to the current administration.

The election results last month were not as good as they should have been, and this is because the Labour party are currently not doing anything other than whining and fighting amongst themselves in the  opposition benches. In his speech today, Miliband seems to have finally realised the need to give his party a direction; indeed, his rousing speech was quite a bold rally to try and kickstart some degree of movement.

The problem with this speech is that though he’s recognised the need for movement and apparently “knows” where this country needs to go to “fulfil the British promise”, he has still failed to give any sort of coherant idea as to where this is. No, I will not take a Mr. Balls style interjection telling me that it’s unreasonable to expect an opposition party to have a manifesto several years before a general election as this is really not what I want or expect*; I had however hoped that the opposition would have came up with something after all these months.

I don’t think the Labour leader (who over half his MPs didn’t support and got in narrowly on the backs of the trade unions) actually knows where he’s going. Truthfully neither do I, I don’t know whether he’ll last to the next general election or not, though he’s certainly going to give it his best shot; his intention of giving the Labour leader the power to appoint his shadow cabinet will serve as a brave effort to assert his leadership. I do however think I know where the labour party will be in five years unless things change pretty quickly, and that’s not in government.

Is a turn around likely? No, a poor start to opposition is rarely salvaged, as recent Tory leaders (before Mr. Cameron) demonstrate. Possible? Yes, though I think it’ll take more brilliance than Ed. M has currently displayed.

~Thingeh

*Though I expected the shadow chancellor to know whether it was the policy of his party to join the single currency or not…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13771099

Principled, passionate and determined to delivering the best patient care, not just cheap political cameos; this is what our healthcare service should aspire to. I love this man.

~ Thingeh

No, this blog isn’t a random rant about how awful this world is or how bored I am. Nor is the title the product of an imagination lapse or indifference to the topic under discussion. 

Ever read Ulysses? A lot of people haven’t, though since a lot of people have never read a book, this statement really is rather empty; forgive me. If you had, you’d know it’s a wonderful tapestry of symbolism, an orgy of…Anyway, written in 1921, it’s quite a triumph of “modernism” in literature, and is the first time I’ve came across the now widely used interjection, “meh”.  

It might well not be the first time the term has been coined, but “meh” (which is a beautiful development within modern culture, having rocketed into widespread usage in the past 20 years and was included in a BBC list of words which defined the decade: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8406898.stm) has certainly been around long before the Simpsons adopted it, ta very much.

If you’re wondering, this wasn’t intended as an English lesson; just a middle finger to a group of people who insist that the Simpsons invented a word which had been in existence for decades (though them playing an integral role in popularising it is indeed, indisputable).

~ Thingeh

EDIT: “invent is not the same as popularise -.-” <— Exactly my point xd.