1/4/2026
Afternoon everybody. I say that as it is PM at the moment here, but I generally write these over several days. So that's a generalised greeting and not really time sensitive.
Sadly, and rather earlier than expected, we have lost Button, the second of our Calico Cats. Her mother Custard died a few months ago of an aortic aneurysm, or more accurately we took her to the emergency vet and his recommendation was that the condition was unlikely to be improved by surgery. She was definitely unhappy with the sudden paralysis of her back legs, so we 'let her go'.
The picture is from December 2023. They tended to run about most of the time they were not sleeping, so here they are relatively unblurred.
Yesterday the results of Button's blood test came back and showed severe kidney failure. Her predecessor Maggie went the same way, 2015 I think, but rather slowly after a failed drug treatment. We decided to avoid putting Button through the slow process and she went gently, but sadly at the early age of about eight. It was a difficult decision but she was still able to frighten the birds as a robin discovered recently and jump onto chairs. Button (as in 'Cute as') was a very polite cat and would say thank-you when you opened the door or put down some food. Custard had been friendly enough but tended to get bored with excessive brushing. The name was short for Shark infested custard.
The overall temperature is gradually rising, but still provides the occasional 'lazy wind' (which goes through rather than around you) and the odd bit of hail. The sun is beginning to shine sometimes and the weeds are starting to sprout. I think we should reclassify plants less by their appearance and more by their persistence or behaviour.
Considering people:- It worries me that so many people are happy to be seen as racists and to support racists, but I guess I'm not surprised. I suppose they think they are being tribal, loyal or patriotic. We need more social responsibility or maybe self control. Today's perceived character defects (which do change) are exposed by various kinds of data leak and the changing mores. There are often various celebrity purges (remember when being gay could ruin your career?) Perhaps some individuals that feels 'different' in its private thoughts is happy to attack any other smaller group to avoid his, their or her differences being discovered. In times of low stress the eccentric or outsider is generally left alone, if they don't harm anyone else. Is this a part of the public decisiveness manufactured by the 'rich and powerful' that keeps people frightened to seem different. The bully's first tactic is to split the crowd until a fraction is weak enough to attack with impunity. When he has enough opportunistic thugs he can take it up a gear. I loathe the politically extreme, but we must stay within the law and we must protect the law from manipulative populists. People must be allowed to be bad in their heads or we'll start persecuting another perceived trait and become the next bully.
Watching the current geo-politics I am rather disappointed with the United States (although I'm sure 50% or thereabouts are relatively sane). A noticeable trait of the two party system is that they tend to juggle the voting environment until they are just about matched. So I do wonder how far any given group or party conceals its true nature so as to achieve the 50%. Would the Green party, under a proportional voting system gain rather more seats? We have to assume that the current left / right divide is quite artificial as there being a natural division of the population at that point is unlikely This would suggest that all two party politics is compromise to the point where nobody displays their true colours and leaders as just the (apparent) best fit for the multitude of easily led, and the entire game is to keep two gangs in the ascendant. Obviously the alternative would have challenges maintaining a coalition, but perhaps the public are generally more moderate than the media would have us believe. Most political effort goes into trying to gather the 'swing voters' and the majority are effectively disenfranchised. I think the single transferable vote, or one of the other proportional methods would allow the electorate to shatter the du-opolies. They are generated by carefully generated and entirely artificial geographical 'pocket' boroughs. I suggest that current government systems are designed to keep the power in the hands of two small carefully balanced groups, who while complaining about the opposition first make sure nobody else gets a look in. Challengers have to achieve 33% to get started, and since they have to collect from the two 50% blocks, inevitably start looking like them.
In case you are wondering I would suggest that more extreme 'left' and 'right' parties are actually irrelevant to what public needs and are just ways of further polarisation. They will moderate if they get anywhere near power. Separatist groups are simply those who feel (quite rightly) disenfranchised by geography or possibly by education. The two main parties see them as useful distractions.
The progress made by the PRC in tech and renewable energy by comparison with the US environmental backpedaling does make me wonder if we are backing the wrong horse. We in the UK seem to trust the US rather more than makes sense considering their human rights history. The Chinese regime has some appalling elements but I wonder if the North American Indian through time would feel more or less aggrieved than the Tibetan or Uyghur. Both regimes have employed slavery, ethnic discrimination and religious persecution, as has the UK. Is the perceived differential simply the length of time elapsed? Perhaps we should look at the relative curves of conflict, crime, poverty, pollution, literacy and health as frankly I'm not sure we are getting a very realistic appraisal. I don't think the terms left and right are meaningful now. We should be looking at democracy vs dictatorship and if it were possible 'relative contentment' which I would scale against the 'self termination' incidence or whatever term is used now. It's a crude measure, but never trivial or whimsical.
The grass is always greener as they say. That’s a perspective thing, literally in this case as looking straight down on grass (or hair) there appears to be less than looked at from a shallower angle. However it does mean that seen from further away gaps and flaws may be less apparent. South Korea seems dynamic, intelligent and interesting but is it really politically stable? PRC seems stable but I don’t like single party states much more than two party ones. As demonstrated in the US a single autocratic leader can change direction very quickly when perhaps the public are more steady. Rapid reaction can be very useful, but only if the judgement is sound, and that requires hindsight. I don't think the US has even demonstrated foresight. Sometimes things have to go seriously wrong to stimulate the general public into thought, so this may be the beginnings or cause of a re-evaluation. Plato asked potential politicians first if they would be willing to put the interests of the public before their own and secondly if they would they be willing to support the whole public and not just their supporters.
Unfortunately the people who want to be rich and famous are not the best candidates for political office, so I would exclude them unless they demonstrated beyond doubt that they would answer Plato’s two questions truthfully. The most effective way of selecting good candidates is to check their history in terms of voluntary unpaid public service. Obviously that wouldn't select those that would be good politicians, but it would eliminate many that would be bad politicians. I would also eliminate any that didn't have some work experience, such as those directly from university, or those inducted to a business where their experience had no bearing on their abilities or couldn't explain why they didn't start nearer the ground floor. There's nothing wrong with being popular, rich and ambitious, but there is nothing in those qualities that warrants a fast track, and might indicate that if there is such a thing as a nepotism gene, they might have it. Some skills do seem to be hereditary but the chances of the next best candidate being the son of the last best candidate are quite low. There is one version effective nepotism in that the monarch cannot run away with the family silver if he intends to leave it to his/her heir, and will tend to train the successor in situ. They can live in luxury but they can’t take castles with them. A few have snatched a bag of cash, but their new hosts demand some or all of it. Dictators often leave debts, so any prospect with a history of significant debts or bankruptcies, irrespective of the cause, are fundamentally untrustworthy. The same can be said of bureaucrats with unexplained income, property or ‘holidays’. 1. Don't trust anyone who smiles too much.
2. Negative politics will not progress your wants, it only weakens others.
3. Your opinions are not that different.
4. If it seems too good, it is usually carefully dressed bad.
5. Vague promises are false, otherwise they would be specific.
6 If the politician, bureaucrat or 'man of the people' is richer than the wealth curve predicted before office, it is benefiting itself, not the voter.
4,5, and 6 are really just "are you stupid or what?
I'll go and let the keyboard cool down now. Remember, if you agree with everything I've said, then one of us is redundant, so don't expect me to agree with all of yours. I won't even agree with mine in a month.
cheers
Jim
Above:- Button.
She and Custard could manage an authentic 'herd of elephants' impression on the stairs. For this reason they were referred to collectively as 'Thundercats' Even when walking they were audible at 20 metres.
