Friday, 25 March 2016

Ol Doinyo Lengai


Ol Doinyo Lengai is unique in being the world's only active carbonatite volcano. It's tucked away in an out-of-the-way corner of Tanzania. It's not particularly big and, although it seems to be at least mildly active most of the time, it doesn't even glow in the daytime, just emits a dull isolated redness at night, something like an angry boil. It sits quietly and patiently upon the shores of Lake Natron, which is an altogether different image.

There is, or there was, an element of inconvenience in getting to the place, but this should be considered almost insignificant when set against the magnitude and majesty that awaits one upon arrival. In the context of the wider landscape Ol Doinyo Lengai is but a furuncle upon an almost unblemished skin, and an exquisitely beautiful one at that.

Of course, it is really so much more than this, much as the spectacular geysers at Yellowstone might one day blow the lid off the globe! 



Flooding at Lake Natron is unlikely to present a serious issue for generations to come. Drought might yet have its day, but 'flooding?' A sustained period of seriously heavy rains might even unzip the austere beauty of the place and transform it fully and truly into nothing short of a Paradise upon this Earth! Whereupon humanity would swiftly set about corporatising its assets and exploiting its material wealth. Then, not only would we have a Paradise, but we would also possess within it a yet more 'magnificent' and marketable paradise, bite-sized pieces even.

I'm certain that neither those residing upon the Somerset Levels, nor significant chunks of Yorkshire or Lancashire, would begrudge Lake Natron a significant share of their  overgenerous precipitation. Water, 'the bringer of life,' and yet it is also capable of so much more. The beauty that one natural phenomenon may provide, whilst also sweeping away so many of our precious acquisitions, is both curious and terrifying to behold. If only corporations could control nature I 'honestly' believe we'd have it cracked.



It's what we humans do so very well, working together for the betterment of all, that everything thereof and every part therein shall thrive. We could argue all day, as to which method might best achieve this, we One Nation Conservatives, but in this post that would be to digress. Working small scale, we would first need to help those most affected by unkind circumstance, and amongst these the victims of flooding.

"Thank the Lord Above for insurance," I say. It is thus, with responsible investment in the insurance corporations, that we can rebuild each and every tiny little boxed paradise within the overriding and greater 'paradise.' In rebuilding this 'aspiration,' the government shall unbutton its bulging pockets, and funds shall rain down as might alone dam up the cracks. In rebuilding tomorrow's 'paradise,' society's 'figureheads' and society's high-fliers might bleed benevolence, that we shall once again be healed.

But, just a minor point, even 'paradise' might require an element of policing; forget not that Eve was cast out, caught red-handed, with her hand in the cookie jar. This, a reference to those who might choose to exploit our benevolence. Insurance corporations at the ready, scammers and cheats cast out, the sky is already lighter, the air is sweeter.



Just t'other day I myself had cause to partake of our benevolent society. Nothing as serious as needing to refurnish a home recently scoured of content. Instead, unfortunate circumstance had brought about a trauma to our new-to-us car. The dent was small, the motorcyclist shaken but not broken- 'twas ensured that he arrived safely home- and the insurance claim was swiftly dealt with. Liability had anyway already been accepted.

The car was booked in within days. Had it been the 'old' car, the one that our two-year-old granddaughter had taken to calling the, "Crazy car!" I wouldn't have bothered at all. During journeys to and from Norwich she would sometimes list the faults, waving her arms and gesticulating like the great orator that she is.



"When can I pick it up?" I enquired. I was informed that the car would require, "a lot of work," and that the corporation would be hanging on to the vehicle for five working days. "Have you availed yourself of a courtesy car?" the lady behind the desk smiled, "the insurers will sometimes pay the cost of car hire," she elaborated.

The insurance spokesperson will flash those teeth at the camera and 'inform' the nation of the deep, deep sympathy that burns at the heart of each and every insurer, and that they will be losing serious sleep in order to ensure that flood-victims may soon be permitted to commence the rebuilding of their own private boxed paradises. There is, of course, no need for an equivalent bod to flash the furniture, in defence of the car-repair corporations that continue bleed the system. Those who may well be experiencing their second or even their third prolonged bout of happy bed and breakfasting would be best placed to appreciate this curious juxtapositioning.



They may well come to the conclusion that this is because the insurers of paradise are far too concerned with treading down those in pursuit of any-kind-of-paradise, at the behest of those in control of every-sort-of-Hell! A model for we 'One Nation' thinkers.

"So, this 'paradise," we should have enquired, "is it an 'inclusive' or an 'exclusive' model? Can I just run an eye over the blueprints?" Check the small print! "Is there a policy on 'homelessness?"

That is not my signature!


Tuesday, 8 March 2016

Set a Crisis to Patch a Crisis


Set a Thief to catch a Thief

This old idiom is, I think, fairly self explanatory, a sort of 'hats off' to counterintuitive thinking. Undoubtedly, there is a logic here, that we might search in the darker corners for the solutions to darker issues. But would we? Would we really work closely with or employ the more disingenuous reasonings of those who are well practised at bringing about an opposite conclusion to that which we had hoped to achieve?

Or maybe instead, 'set a crisis to patch a crisis,' might this instead suffice? 



The potential potholes with the former idiom, might be that the employment of those seeking to undermine a stated aim might also serve to further hone the skills of the wrong-doers. I guess that ultimately, within a system where money is the new religion, money will, more than likely, win the day. Ergo, can we more-lucratively bribe the 'thieves' within the system, than they will be able to asset-strip the same system from within?

Such a society- we might well chuckle at the very idea- would have us promoting the criminal classes to places where they might do battle with other criminals, yet all-the-while on our behalves. What an outrageous state of affairs this would be... and we would have good cause to know.



On the other hand, 'setting a crisis to patch a crisis,' well, isn't this exactly where we currently reside? To clarify, I think that it would be more than fair to consider the UK as having more than it's fair share of constitutional crises. For the sake of argument let's draw up a short list, shall we? 

So crises of a constitutional flavour then, as opposed to those of a more arguably fundamental nature: certainly 'the survival of the NHS,' undeniably 'state education,' definitely 'housing,' and then there's 'the creation of an accessible public transport infrastructure,' oh, and 'the regulation of the banking sector, and dare we include 'the monopoly of energy provision?' 

This is by no means an inclusive list; such a list might almost run away with itself. And with each further addition, we might argue that subjectivity has begun to slowly to usurp objectivity. 



For example, might we include 'flood defences,' should 'the provision of information' feature? Is 'gambling' yet enough of a national issue? Does the inclusion of 'the rise of the food banks' overstep the objective ideal? Would 'obesity' be far too judgemental? What about 'litter pollution,' what about 'democracy,' what about 'deregulation,' what about 'financial inequality,' what about 'taxation,' what about 'the legal system?' 

It could be argued, and I am doing just this, that it has become something of a fashion to 'declassify,' or else to diminish any looming crisis. Declassify a crisis and it not only enables some people to pretend that it is no longer a crisis but, worse than this, it enables the reclassification of any 'solution.' 



We might accept any crisis at face value, this as a first step to finding a solution. Or we might instead seek 'patch' things up. And, if we opt instead for this, what are these patches going to look like? Are they going to work? And what do we mean by 'work?' Might we not just end up 'hatching new crises to patch old crises?' And, if we do this, aren't we just reshaping the crisis? Cite 'tackling national debt' by using 'austerity.' Or we might conveniently actually create new crises,  from 'situations' disingenuously ignored, to patch newly inflated issues that were never there in the first place. Cite the 'deregulation' of TV gambling sites.' Now we are 'betting better,' apparently.

A minor interjection; it should be accepted that any given constitutional crisis remains just this, even if it has been so 'kind' as to exempt your good self. Should the most recent spate of floods not have taken with them the entirety of your worldly goods, this should in no way disqualify the prefix 'national' or 'constitutional' from the crisis. One person's good fortune with Saturday's football scores is not reasonable cause for the nation to celebrate. Nor is the acquisition of a further terrace of 'bargain' homes- until recently somebody else's- reason to celebrate 'investment property buying' on the BBC.  



Where money rules the roost, one person's crisis is another person's opportunity. There's nothing quite like a recession for a chance to accumulate an abundance of cheap assets. So, rather dependant upon from where you're viewing any crisis, even those high mortality crises might offer more than their fair share of good investment opportunities. 

We might patch things up, but what are those patches going to look like? Are they going to work? And, what do we really mean by 'work?' Perhaps we really hope to falter, so that we might redefine our goals, our aspirations, even the very crisis itself! We either aim to solve, or else we aim to deceive. We might not always hit the intended target, but if the aim was never to hit the target in the first instance...

I would contest that we are currently setting crises to patch crises, rather even 'hatching crises to patch crises.' So familiar have some become that we might even give these hatchlings names: Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith, Jeremy Hunt, watch them morph, watch them excrete, watch them pretend that they 'are' the solution, and watch the cancer grow! 



Hatch me another crisis to patch this crisis.