Gallery Blog

Archive for November, 2004

Sync It

Sunday, November 21st, 2004

Another productive gliding trip yesterday… Two aerotows to 3K ft, not good for the wallet, but good for practising co-ordination of rudder and ailerons.


  1. P2 on Puchacz, 21 mins. Use of trimmer – set the speed with the stick, then trim it out. Trimming for turns. Puchacz likes 50kt. Need to just relax in flight – it flies itself, I only need to get involved to change something.
  2. P2 on ASK-21, 23 mins. Different trimmer – harder work but easier to get to. Need lots of rudder – more than feels right. Rudder and stick move together.
    Three phases to a turn:
    • Start the turn
    • Controls Central, slight backpressure
    • Exit the turn


    Think of it in these phases and leave it to turn in the middle – no need to correct it every second!

Pre-flight: CB-SIFT-CBE

Controls

Check for full and free movement of all flight controls.

Ballast

Check that the aircraft is ballasted correctly, given weights of pilots. Within permissible weight range?

Straps

Everybody strapped in properly?

Instruments

Everything seems in order? Altimeter set to local zero, or absolute?

Flaps

Check for operation, set for take-off

Trimmer

Check operation, set for take-off. (Set for recovery on the winch, level flight on an aerotow)

Canopy

Check that the canopy is closed and locked. Close the DV panel.

Brakes

Check that the airbrake works smoothly and symmetrically. Check at fully open and half-open. Close and lock.

Eventualities/Engage Brain

What are the conditions? Where’s the wind from, and how strong? Options for forced landing/abbreviated circuits? What will approach speed be in the conditions today?

Approach – WUFSTALL

Water

Jettison any water ballast

Undercarriage

If it’s retractable, is it down and locked?

Flaps

What are the approach settings?

Speed

Approach speed for the conditions today? Is your assessment from pre-flight still valid?

Trim

Trim for approach speed

Airbrake

Hand on brake. Got the right lever?

Lookout

Anything else in circuit or on approach? Check both sides, high low and level

Landing Area

Pick a spot. Check for aircraft on the field, tractors, by-standers.

A good landing is one you walk away from. A great landing is one where you can use the aircraft again…

FOPAL debate

Friday, November 19th, 2004

Writing about The big bad Union sabbs? from Verbal Diarrhoea

I’ve decided to write up my email correspondance with the union on this matter, since I believe it to be a serious one.

Me -> president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk


From:   Max Hammond
To:   president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk
Date:   Friday - November 19, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject:   Friends of Palestine debate

Hi,

I’ve heard that an “emergency meeting” of the sabbatical officers decided to cancel a planned debate organised by FOPAL. I would like to know what actually took place, what your rationale was, and how this move is consistent with Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which confers upon you the duty to ensure freedom of speech, within the law.

Note Especially

”(1) Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.

(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) above includes (in particular) the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with

(a) the beliefs or views of that individual or of any member of that body; or


(b) the policy or objectives of that body. “

Regards,

Max Hammond

Simon Lucas -> Me

<br />From:   "Simon Lucas - President" <president @sunion.warwick.ac.uk><br />To:   M.L.Hammond@warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Friday - November 19, 2004 8:26 PM<br />Subject:   RE: Friends of Palestine debate</president>

Dear member,

The Students’ Union have asked the Friends of Palestine Society to postpone their event until security and safety criteria have been met. We seek to ensure that all events run by any part of the Students’ Union are safe for our members to attend and participate in.

The Students’ Union regrets that it is unable to reply individually to all emails and phone calls on this matter. We will inform our membership of any further developments through our website: www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk

(removed in-line quotation of my original message)

Me -> Simon Lucas

<br />From:   Max Hammond<br />To:   president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Friday - November 19, 2004 20:41 PM<br />Subject:   Friends of Palestine debate

Hi Simon,

> The Students’ Union have asked the Friends of Palestine
> Society to postpone their event until security and safety
> criteria have been met. We seek to ensure that all events
> run by any part of the Students’ Union are safe for our
> members to attend and participate in.

That does not, however, absolve you from your responsibilities to facilitate free speech.

> The Students’ Union regrets that it is unable to reply
> individually to all emails and phone calls on this matter.
> We will inform our membership of any further developments
> through our website: www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk

You have only addressed one of the issues that I raised in my first email. To re-iterate:

1. What happened? – I count this as partly answered.

2. What was your rationale?

3. How is this consistent with the legislation that I cited?

You have a choice now. You can easily defuse a serious situation which is now developing, by giving a full and clear account of what has transpired, and what the criteria for the event to go ahead are. Or you can proceed with brush-offs like the one you have just sent me, which will only serve to escalate the situation.

Your call.

Max

(removed in-line quotation of my original message)

published on union website, 22/11/2004

The Students� Union is no longer requesting that the Friends of Palestine (FoPal) society postpone its planned debate this Wednesday. Our concerns about security and safety have now been addressed and we are confident that the debate should be able to take place without incident.

Since there has been a great deal of uninformed speculation about this situation – let us now finally set the matter to rest by clarifying a few points:

1. The event was never �banned�. The Union did however ask FoP for a postponement on the basis of concerns about security and safety. The Union does not consider there to be anything inherently problematic about the event in itself. What was difficult was putting the necessary precautions in place on such a short time scale. The Union only became aware of the event when posters started going up a week ago whereas under Union policy we should have been consulted in the planning stage.

1. The request for FoP to postpone the event was not politically motivated. It was because of concerns for the safety and security of those attending. The Union has a duty to ensure that all events run by any part of the Students� Union are safe for our members to attend and participate in. We had legitimate grounds for believing that it might not be possible to guarantee that in this case.

1. The Union has always been keen that its members should participate in informed and open discussion about the issue of Israel-Palestine. We believe that open dialogue about such important matters is not only essential but is a key part of what people come to a University to do. We have no interest in curbing the freedom of speech of our members.

We hope that everyone now understands the true facts behind the situation. The Students� Union regrets that it has been unable to reply individually to all emails and phone calls on this matter; we have been busy trying to reach a solution.

We thank everyone for their patience and encourage those who turn up on Wednesday to do so with an open mind and a constructive attitude. It is clear that in the last few days passions have been slightly inflamed by this situation and it is in everyone�s interests that we now all work together to ensure that the debate is allowed to go ahead in a calm, mature and sensitive fashion.

Simon Lucas -> me

<br /><br />From:   "Simon Lucas - President" <president @sunion.warwick.ac.uk><br />To:   M.L.Hammond@warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Monday - November 22, 2004 5:56 PM<br />Subject:   RE: Friends of Palestine debate</president>

The Students’ Union is happy to make the following announcement:
link

All the best,

Simon

Me -> Simon Lucas

<br />From:   Max Hammond<br />To:   president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Monday - November 22, 2004 6:05 PM<br />Subject:   Friends of Palestine debate

Hi Simon,

> The Students’ Union is happy to make the following announcement:
> link
> &article_id=177

Thanks for that.

A couple of questions, though:

Which union body made the decision to ask for the debate to be postponed, and where are the minutes?

What were your “legitimate concerns” regarding safety?

Cheers,

Max

Simon Lucas -> Me

<br /><br />From:   "Simon Lucas - President" <president @sunion.warwick.ac.uk><br />To:   M.L.Hammond@warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Monday - November 22, 2004 8.27 PM<br />Subject:   RE: Friends of Palestine debate</president>

The directors of the Union made the call as a matter of operational practise. We make decisions all the time without having to minute them.

As for our concerns that is to a degree confidential, however you only need think back to two years ago this Thursday at the Union Council meeting where the Home Office had to send in full police protection for those entering the debate and special forces were called on to investigate death threats. Buses of protestors came down and fights were barely averted. It wasn’t nice – believe me, I was there.

This time however by some careful action we’ve been able to avoid going down the same route which is a credit to all those involved.

All the best,

Simon

Me -> Simon Lucas

<br />From:   Max Hammond<br />To:   president@sunion.warwick.ac.uk<br />Date:   Monday - November 22, 2004 9:05 PM<br />Subject:   Friends of Palestine debate

Hi Simon,



> The directors of the Union made the call as a matter of
> operational practise. We make decisions all the time without
> having to minute them.

Who are “the directors of the union”? Do you mean the sabbs? Surely on an issue as potentially inflammatory as this, transparancy is of the utmost importance. Democracy is impossible without freedom of speech, so any curtailment of this freedom must surely be explained in depth. To refer to this as an operational matter is misleading; you threatened to deny freedom of speech to some of your members, and that is not a routine operational matter, as you could theoretically have been called upon to justify your actions in court (Education (No 2) Act, 1986, section 43). I believe you probably had a good case for doing what you did, but you must be open about things.

> As for our concerns that is to a degree confidential, however

Do you not see the problem with this line of argument? “You just have to trust us that we can’t hold this debate for ‘security’ reasons”

> you only need think back to two years ago this Thursday at
> the Union Council meeting where the Home Office had to send
> in full police protection for those entering the debate and
> special forces were called on to investigate death threats.
> Buses of protestors came down and fights were barely averted.
> It wasn’t nice – believe me, I was there.

Quite. I do not disagree that there are issues to be addressed, my issue is with the way that the union has handled the whole fiasco. Posting “news” articles addressing your members as if we are naughty children by telling us that you “encourage members not to indulge in ill-informed comment” is not constructive. Comment was ill-informed because you have tried to keep the whole issue quiet.

[I think you mean special branch, rather than special forces. Although special forces attending warwick would have enlivened things somewhat!]

> This time however by some careful action we’ve been able to
> avoid going down the same route which is a credit to all
> those involved.

Indeed. I’m pleased that you’ve managed to sort this out to everybody’s satisfaction. It’s a nasty nasty problem to have to deal with, and I don’t envy you. What I’m trying to get across is that the playing field has changed somewhat recently, especially with the advent of warwick blogs. I’ve never seen such an immediate response to some union decision as I’ve seen with this event (and I’ve been here 7 years!) – and you could have calmed things down with a simple press release.

I can’t speak for the others, but what would have calmed me down quickly would have been:

“On Wednesday, the sabbatical team became aware of a planned debate organised by FOPAL. Considering the events two years ago, they made inquiries into the security arrangements for the event. Having not received satisfactory answers from FOPAL, they decided to ask FOPAL to postpone their debate until such issues had been addressed.”

No ranting about ill-informed comment. No brush-offs like the standard response that you sent out – that merely served to infuriate the people who read it. Tell people what has happened. Tell them why you have acted the way you have. Treat your members like adults and they’ll respect you. Postpone debates with condescending explanations, and you’re heading for an EGM.

Cheers,

Max

Come Fly With Me

Monday, November 15th, 2004

I’ve taken up gliding!

I’ve always been interested in aircraft and aviation, and so I thought I should probably make the most of the opportunity to take it up while it’s nice and easy. So I joined the gliding club and have been on a couple of trips so far this term. The weather precluded flying on the first one, but I got three flights in this saturday:

  1. P2 on Puchacz. 5 mins. Winch launch. Cable Break at ~600ft, so P1 flew an abbreviated circuit. 4 mins
  2. P2 on Puchacz. 5 mins. Winch launch to 950ft. Experimented with glider attitude control and speed.
  3. P2 on ASK21. 21 mins. Aerotow to 3000ft. Normal and Low aerotow positions—Prop wash in between! Turning and attitide control. Making turns using all controls:
    • Ailerons cause asymmetric drag on a glider. Right roll will cause left yaw, so must use right rudder simultaneously.
    • Centralise controls once desired turnrate reached, but need gentle backpressure during turn to keep the nose up.
    P1 Demonstrated stalls at low and moderate airspeed—wings not flying, high sinkrate. Recover with stick forward to gain airspeed.

Photo Gear

Sunday, November 14th, 2004

Follow-up to One Never Quite Knows from Group IV

Someone asked what I shoot with, so for interest, the stuff I tend to take out:


That’s pretty much the minimum kit. I keep UV filters on the front of all the lenses except the 50mm. I also carry with a 77mm polarizing filter (Also Nikon, buy it in the US where it’s half the price), and usually a Nikon A2 warm up. If I’m planning on doing any b/w I’ll bring with 77mm Yellow and Orange filters as well. I stick it all in a Lowepro Toploader 70 AW with a lens case on the side for the 18–35.

This lot is suprisingly compact – when I interrailed around scandinavia, I carried this as well as full camping equipment.

If I’m going heavier I’ll also bring my:


And use either an Orion AW or Specialist 80 – they only make the 85 now.

I like Fuji slide film, mostly Velvia 50, although I also shoot on Provia 100 and 400, and I’m having a play with Velvia 100 at the moment. B/W is mostly Ilford FP4 or HP5, although I shoot a little Tri-X and T-Max.

I’ve just bought a Nikon Coolpix 5200 which I prefer to the Canon Ixus cameras – I really wanted a “bring everywhere” ultra tiny, and that’s what I got.

I Love It When A Plan Comes Together

Wednesday, November 10th, 2004

Follow-up to It’s all about the feeling from Group IV

So I’ve been playing guitar again. Since I got my new and shiny Vox pedal, I’ve been spending a lot more time playing than I have for a very long time. It’s funny how it all comes back – suddenly it’s like the old days again, the strings are just in the right place, and magically my fingers are where they should be.

I like feeling my fingertips toughening up again. I like sitting right by the amp while I’m playing, so that the feedback gives infinite sustain, makes the instrument come alive.

I like the feeling that the instrument is just an extension of myself, that I’m not thinking about the technique any more, but just feeling the groove :-)

And God shall Smite me

Saturday, November 6th, 2004

Writing about web page http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame37.html

I don’t really know whether to laugh or cry when I read fanatical religious beliefs. Some of the stuff that I’ve read on Warwick Blogs over the last week or so has been every bit as terrifying as the kinds of things that are reported as coming from the Islamic terrorists around the world.

The first time I read these kinds of blog entries I thought that the author was just trolling but then the awful truth strikes: there really are people who believe that: homosexuality is sin. Abortion is murder. Euthenasia is culling. But the real worry is that they believe these things not because they have come to this decision themselves, but because their church has told them what to believe. That’s the really frightening thing.

It must be nice to have a religion. To not need to make one’s own moral and ethical decisions, because God has made them for you. And of course, the church (of whichever religion you subscribe to) has interpreted God’s intent for you.

When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History

Friday, November 5th, 2004

When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann


The 70th anniversary wasn’t noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago – February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation’s leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn’t have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language – reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state – and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he’d joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn’t know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation’s most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. “This fire,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion, “is the beginning.” He used the occasion – “a sign from God,” he called it – to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader’s flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation’s now-popular leader had pushed through legislation – in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it – that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people’s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic “Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn’t had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public – and there were many – quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police’s batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader’s public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a “racial pride” among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as “The Homeland,” a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl’s famous propaganda movie “Triumph Of The Will.” As hoped, people’s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was “the” homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the “true people,” he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation’s concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it’s of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn’t act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a “New Christianity.” Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared “Gott Mit Uns” – God Is With Us – and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation’s leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome “intellectuals” and “liberals.” He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, “Radio and press are at out disposal.” Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation’s leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public’s recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people “denounced” were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out – a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn’t enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation’s largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man – a master at manipulating the media – he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation’s most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe – at first – denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar’s Rome or Alexander’s Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader’s new first-strike doctrine would bring “peace for our time.” Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, “Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.”

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn’t think they’d succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only “one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief” (“Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled “anti-German” or “not good Germans,” and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation’s valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the “intellectuals and liberals” who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the “small war” annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn’t enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class’s way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany’s first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe’s successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine’s “Man Of The Year.”

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency’s initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named “lightning war” or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable “shock and awe” among the nation’s leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book “Shock And Awe” published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler’s close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: “fas-cism (fbsh’iz’em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it’s useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany’s response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society’s richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including “Unequal Protection” and “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight.” This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Men and Women

Thursday, November 4th, 2004

Things Other Countries Do Better (1)

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004

In UK airports, one is faced with many crowded and massively uncomfortable chairs, designed specifically to prevent people from lying down on them when faced with an extended wait in the airport.

In Frankfurt airport, as well as comfortable chairs, one is also presented with:

at strategic locations, for just such times.

I’ve never seen a children’s play area in a UK airport. In Frankfurt you have a 3-story spaceship (with ballpen in the bottom):

I think this all comes down to the way that customers are seen. UK airports seem to have been designed as if the passengers are an inconvenience (“Don’t you know we’re trying to run an airport?!”), whereas their needs are designed-in much better in Germany.

English

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004

Writing about an entry you don’t have permission to view

arent they cute we so often see them running about the warwick arts centre bless them perhaps we should put some milk out 4 them? or is it coz they want 2 cum ravin in da union n r attracted 2 da music? or sexy duncan?
neway pls drive slowly round campus because we dont want a repeat of dat butters dead deer on da road 2 westwood lying in its pool of blood with 1 of these cute lil hedgehogs
ill put a picture on wen (0f da hedgehog nopt da deer dat would b minging im not a road kill lover) wen aphs pictures get developed

Oh. My. God. On other posts I’ve been critical of the language skills of some of our overseas students. I don’t know if Sophie is overseas or not, but this looks like chav-txt. Sure, you can put anything you want on your blog, but for pity’s sake. That’s just not english.