Gas Masks.. personally, I doubt their usefulness.

The thing is, most gases are transparent (although possibly tinted) and while they may obscure momentarily, do not really conceal.
Also, gases tend to rapidly disperse, so their masking effectiveness is not only partial, but also very brief.

Liquid masks may be a little better. Although many liquids are translucent, some are truly opaque to visible wavelengths. Surface tension effects in some fluids may help hold a fluid mask in place.
However these too may rapidly disperse, by evaporation, or especially by gravity. Unfortunately, the most opaque may also be the densest and so one advantage is outweighed by the other disadvantage.

Semi-solids (emulsions, gels, creams, pigments) are longer-lasting, with superior adhesive properties, and often have admirable opacity. They are therefore often used as face-packs or cosmetic pigments: applied coatings (for therapeutic or decorative applications, such as skincare, beauty treatments and face-painting). However these masking substances are somewhat time-consuming and labour-intensive both to apply and to remove. Also, they do have the limitation of being conformal: that is, the applied matter must necessarily be directly in contact with - and following the contours of - the face beneath. That fact limits the construction of novel surface shapes and textures; and may allow a skilled observer to correctly infer identity and even facial expression despite the mask, (which may or may not suit the wearer's intent).

So what are we left with? My own long-favoured option: Solids.
Solid masks can be transparent, tinted or opaque; can be almost instantly assumed or doffed; will remain in place (if suitably attached) indefinitely; may be sculpted to be very different from the wearer's own features; can be lightweight though strong, using materials such as expanded polystyrene; and may even incorporate animatronic additions (for realistic simulation of novel lifeforms) or technological enhancement of the wearer's own senses (such as infra-red or photomultiplier cameras for night-vision or to see through smoke or fog; audio-pickups for super-sensitive hearing, possibly beyond normal range of frequencies detected; voice-changing circuits and/or loudspeaker; perhaps radio-microphone and earpieces for communication with team-mates, in the field or back at a base-station).

Yes; I would advise using a solid mask, nearly every time.

Crux (Latin, noun): cross;

a crisis, a critical juncture, a crossing, a crossroads, a point of significant decision.

Of course, all decisions are made in the present.

Sometimes, it is necessary to destroy the imaginary past, to set the real future free.

Looking back over 2009, here's some Trustee-Speak I have encountered, with my attempted Translations:

  What They Said:                               What They Thought:

1."We have investigated thoroughly" = "We have refused to even look at any of the evidence which you have offered to show us, documenting and backing-up your detailed and - inconveniently! - factual allegations. 'Cos, since we didn't let ourselves see the proof, then we didn't have to admit your claims were proven!"

2."People are only human and make mistakes" = "Office-bearers were caught out doing wrong and, naturally, had done their best to cover it up by abuse of their power & influence."

3."No-one has acted nor is acting inappropriately" = "Any of us would do the same if we found ourselves in their embarassing position, for like them we too are all shifty cowards holding onto to power while afraid for our reputations."

4."We are concerned for you" = "We are worried that you might still make trouble for us."

5."Please engage again in a meaningful way" = "Please forget what you know, because you know too much.. we want you to go back to acting submissively, complying with expectations, like a good, quiet sheep - not a BAAAAAD one!"

6."People have moved on" = "Some people have run away from facing the uncomfortable truth - of the dysfunctionality exposed here. Other people were kept in the dark about it, or felt it was taboo to ask. And that's how it should stay."

7."We've put the past behind us" = "We are trying desperately to pretend this shameful fiasco never happened."

8."Openness & communication are core principles here" = "We want you, the members, to accept everything office-bearers tell you and trust unquestioningly - just believe everything's hunky-dory, and then it will be!"

9."We're doing what's best for the church" = "We're the leaders here. We've done some things that are wrong. The congregation needs church leaders it can believe in absolutely, or it will fall apart. If the congregation knew what had gone on behind the scenes, they wouldn't be able to understand - they would simply stop believing in us as leaders any more. If we owned up, there would be a public flogging! there would be a public execution! they would rip us to shreds! And that would bring guilt upon them, for are we not God's anointed leaders? and is not rebellion a sin? So, for the good of their own souls, they mustn't be allowed to know! Sacrificing our consciences to keep the peace is painful, but it's a cross we're willing to bear; and usefully, this enables us to see ourselves as dutiful heroes saving the day.
So, in protecting our reputations by keeping our wrongdoings secret, we really are doing what's best for the church."

10."You're welcome here" = "We are terrified of what you may say openly, and still do our best to silence you; at the same time, we are hopelessly trapped in the bubble of lies we have told, and hope you maybe can burst it, freeing us."

Those are my interpretation, which I don't insist are right in every aspect, but which I think are reasonable. Uncharitable? Maybe.. but perhaps necessary to balance misleading 'spin'. I think Trustees themselves have been confused about integrity versus loyalty; when the demands of those two were in conflict, they have not understood correctly which is right to follow. I think also office-bearers have confused 'being forgiven for wrongdoing' with 'getting off scot-free'. I forgive all concerned.. but I don't think they can nor should escape certain consequences.  
 

A wallaby whiskered in my ear:

What’s the difference between a human and an animal?

Here’s one.

A human is sometimes content to be.. ‘me – here – now’.

An animal.. almost always is.

* * *

Okay, an animal may (for example) feel a pressing need.. say, a bird, to migrate.

If so.. it does so!

Not discontented, because not disconnected. For it, need and fulfilment flow together, in an ever-living dance. How does that feel, for an animal?

*- Perhaps it feels an inner drive.. (a fluttering restlessness, to be ‘off and doing’; maybe an urge growing, reinforced and amplified, a communal excitement, to flock with a gathering throng of its own kind: ‘hey, here we all are, have you heard?, yes me too!, something’s happening, it’s time!’)

*- Perhaps it heeds an external call.. (an inkling of, a summons to, a far-off other habitat, ‘my right place to be’ now being somewhere over the horizon: ‘..that way!’)

(Both *-* descriptions may apply. The two statements need not be contradictory. They may be complementary. And in normal existence, I reckon they usually are. The animal’s contentment lies in finding.. or rather, in itself being.. the resolution of that prompting: its action is the answer.

Life-experience makes a statement, or poses a question, or issues a direction.. and the animal responds, by its behaviour making a query or guess or declaration of its own.. and so it goes on: a Conversation, a Conservation.)

Another example: a bear may feel its heart’s desire to eat.. and eat.. and eat.. And it does so; relishing as much food as it can happen upon. Mmmm, Berry berry nice!

Until it is roly-poly, jolly with happy healthy fat.

Meanwhile its heart’s desire has become.. to find a snug den. Which it does. Wander, nose, rummage, lurk.

Next it’s heart’s desire is simply to.. (yawn).. SLEEEEEEEEEP. And it dozzzzzzzzzzzzzze.

While the snow falls. Until Spring.

 

What an animal has as its life, is in each moment.. to do, with utter commitment and unuttered contentment, what it wants.. or is given.. to do.

(And.. 'unuttered' contentment, did I say? But that may only mean that we are  not well-acquainted with the signs of animal contentment. Why do birds sing? Did you know that bears purr?)

 Again – those two descriptions may prove hard to separate out, and may be truly united.. two faces of one coin, of which sometimes we may see one aspect, sometimes the  other. No coin has only one face.. Indeed, to be fair, such an odd possibility cannot even be countenanced!

Do we see duty and desire, craving and calling, as things opposed? A toss-up, a choice between incompatible possibilities? But.. perhaps the coin is perpetually spinning on edge, the faces' relationship a dual, not a duel.

 

Animal.. content..

Do we humans have to find life more complicated?

I just read 5 articles online which made me think. (The links are at the foot of this blog.)

They are about the Bush presidency, American foreign policy, climate change and carbon emissions, accuracy and integrity in reporting..
They illuminate too, for me, issues that a local congregation has struggled to face in the past eighteen months..
..A very basic issue of life:

"What is truth?"

I believe it is an important question. And I believe that in the way we respond to it, there are two kinds of people.

One kind, in answer to that question, would respond, "What are the facts? What do they mean? What can we do? What should we do?" They consider first what the facts are, and may go in search of more information, to decide.
('The facts' include, but are not limited to, facts about what human beings think, feel and do.)
This kind of person believes in an objective reality that conditions their behaviour. A reality that both limits, and indicates, actions they may take.
For them, Reality both "is" and "could be".

Their key concept is integrity - a loyalty to truth. Whatever that may be, whether personally convenient or not.

The other kind don't hear the question, exactly. They see it more as an opening, an invitation, an opportunity. They are likely to reply, "You're asking: What do we want to see, what do we want to do? Well, I'm glad you asked. I'll tell you!"

Facts? They don't really like to hear facts.. only affirmations. Facts are acknowledged and used by this kind of person (and referred to, selectively and opportunistically, to support their position) only if the facts appear to match up with their preferences and aims. But the facts are ignored or dismissed - or attacked, to discredit them - if they do not support the adopted worldview of these people (their worldview, which for them means their agenda).

These second people believe their decisions and behaviour do and should determine reality. They have their minds made up, and reality had better line up with that! Reality's prime duty - naturally - is to accord with their worldview.
For them, Reality simply "ought"!

Their key concept is loyalty - to their cause, their group. They believe all reality must bow in loyal service to that.

By 'reality' they mostly mean other people, and other people's ideas. (They don't really believe 'facts' exist, objectively; that would be too threatening! For them, all facts are personal: and, as in a relationship, subject to their manipulation).
So you asking them "What is truth?" becomes for them a different question, a question they have to ask about you: "Are you loyal? Are you with us, or against us? Are you on our side? Part of our team, cooperatively/obediently going for our same aims?"

The first kind of people may agree, or disagree, amongst themselves, on issues. They may well believe passionately in a cause, but acknowledge differences of opinion exist, and may even agree to disagree. They may be believers, in the religious sense; but they can be proven wrong, and at times will admit themselves proven wrong, by facts; it may hurt to do so, but they ultimately value truth and accept truth as arbiter, over and above their own 'rightness'.

The second kind of people define themselves by their agreement and rightness. Everyone who agrees is "us": "We all agree, we're right!"
Everyone else is "them".
They may approach you eagerly and appeal to you initially with a warm welcome to belong and invitation to cooperate. If you are agreeable, everything stays chummy.. possibly for quite a while. But if you ever dare to disagree, and to express that, then you soon find that in their world 'cooperation' really means 'obedience'.. a continuing participation in groupthink. Break with that, and you're out! Do so determinedly and insistently, and vocally and demonstratively, and you're not only 'out'.. you become a non-person to them. You are now routinely discounted, as one of those disobliging 'facts' that won't back their cause.. those inconvenient disloyal facts, that they have to either ignore or discredit, if they can't win you back to compliant agreeableness within the group.

I call the first people realists and I call their approach realism. Realism, I say, can accommodate both ideals and practicality, and needs both. Without ideals, we have mere fatalism, a passive resignation: "whatever will be, will be". Without practicality, we have mere fantasy.. living in dreamland, not achieving our dreams in reality.
Realists can pursue ideals but, they know, within practical limits. They carve from reality as from wood: with purposeful intent, having a visualized form in mind, but with awareness of the tendency of the grain and realizing that splits or knots may interfere with exact accomplishment of their original intent. If they are wise, they adapt and work with these discovered facts, and may even adapt their design to make good use of such distinctive features.

I call the second people believists, and I call their approach believism: "only believe, and say it is so, and it will be so".. which is why they have to have everyone agree, or find some way to discredit dissidents. Dissent is a physical threat to their reality, just as a hijacked jetliner is a threat to a tall building.
"It is by all agreeing it is so, that we make it so!"
This is partially true - and like many partial truths, dangerously so. It is a faith in the power of unanimous superstition; that is, a trust in magic.
Believism is only a caricature of spiritual faith. This believism is not really belief, since real belief depends on having some objective facts first, to believe in!
Any belief usually requires some faith (trust in an unseen reality).. for example, a belief that atoms exist requires faith. But the belief does not create the atoms. Whatever atoms may be, exactly, they are there - whether we believe in them or not.
But believism believes you can start with your preferred belief and have the facts turn up as ordered. God becomes defined (subconsciously, or even overtly) as "that supreme Power which is always on our side."
Believism is the engine at the heart of delusion and idolatry: groupthink, reinforcing and perpetuating itself.

Mercifully, reality always eventually intervenes to wipe it out.

   
There are times, of course, when we all need to believe decisively and to act determinedly to shape reality.. to make truth. "What is truth" is sometimes our choice.. from among alternatives that are really available. We (both kinds of people!) are agents, having the power (within limits) to shape reality.

That is different from attempting to make up truth. "What is truth?" is not solely what we choose. But the second kind of person acts as if this were so, and if brought face-to-face with clear contrary facts, is likely to feel that reality has let them down.. that the universe has cheated somehow, and personally betrayed them. For they have seen it as their right to be right.. always!

They may then resort to denial and lying rather than admit they were in the wrong. Or they may cover it with a cosy blanket.. admitting "mistakes were made".. which is comfortably non-specific, not calling anyone to account nor challenging anyone to change in ways others might measure and check up on. This mutual vague comfortableness thus enables the 'togetherness' (undivided agreement) to continue.

Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" details various societies which did just that - they collapsed, ending catastrophically, wiped out - through groupthink, believism and denial.. and also details other societies, which survived - through observant, active realism.
Which are we? 

Sometimes we may be observers who do not act as we should (passively inactive). Other times we may be agents who fail to observe as we should (acting rashly). Sometimes we may neither observe rightly nor act rightly.

When these failings happen in the government of a nation, it is disastrous. Not acting may mean ignoring tsunami forecasts with the result that thousands die. Acting rashly may mean going to war.

When groupthink believism, its collapse - then denial - happen in a church congregation, it is a sorry state of affairs indeed - a betrayal of trust, a betrayal of people, a betrayal of truth. Consequent embarassment can lead to cover-up, which is a mistake. An early awareness of unwelcome facts is something to be grateful for and to cherish, since undesirable circumstances are indicators - signals for action. Those people who highlight them, responsibly, alerting others, are to be commended, not discouraged and silenced. It is foolish indeed to criticise a fire alarm for making an annoying noise and simply to disconnect it.

Even if a fire's been attended to, it's a good idea to check that's been done thoroughly.. not just damping down the most obvious flames, leaving hidden embers smouldering that could flare up again later. This is why cover-ups are so bad, and why openly revealing the reality of the situation is so important. Don't be glib - dig deeper!
 

With regard to climate change.. well, we will see. An inconvenient truth is surely something we should be paying heed to.

A lack of information or feeling of powerlessness leads to worry, prompting a heightened search for pattern in events.

When we both observe rightly ("this is how reality is..") and also act rightly ("..so this is what I can and should do" -and do it!) then we experience a deep inner satisfaction. And peace of mind, rather than restless anxiety.

All agents, whether realist or believist, shape reality.

Believist agents, by force of ego and persuasive power, determined focus, and hard work, may accomplish much. Their domineering approach to reality may get them some distance. However, believism is unsustainable. Since they don't like to accept facts, sooner or later they will come unstuck. Some aspect of Reality will up and hit them in the face.

Realist agents, since they accept facts rather than denying them, can work cooperatively with Reality. Realism is sustainable. Realist agents are better able to shape reality for the better!

Links for Further reading/viewing:

A neat animation by Starkraven Madd to a song by Dr. Steel, We Decide It
(If you only follow follow one link here, I recommend this one).

The 5 articles I mentioned at the start:

What it will take to cut global warming in half

What are we going to do about the Marc Moranos of this world?

Rule No. 1 of journalism (and blogging)

Retreat from empiricism: On Ron Suskind's Scoop

Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush

With regard to climate change:
How it all ends (10-minute video)  and What's the worst that could happen? (book, out July 2009)

Marinade                                                                   © Graham Peter King 2009

 

I raise all my fish fingers, in praise of The Fin

(for great is the price he paid, letting us in) –

The Fin, who’s called Findus – the fish sent to find us

– a kind of flat fish, with a lop-sided grin.

 

He fed on the seabed, he swam counter-current,

and Findus’ twin eyes looked both upward and out.

The words from his mouth rippled forth, north and south;

it at first seemed absurd, what we heard with a pout:

 

“Don’t feed from the bait on the hooks that are dangled

– there’s plenty of far better food to be had!

And don’t be two-faced: let your sole face be upward.

There’s not two sides to every question,” he said.

 

We said, “Plaice, know your place!” (We were dab hands at changing;

first this way, then that, our shoal swam with the tide.)

As we all headed left, his voice sounded, bereft:

“There’s only one right way to swim,” he replied:

 

“Keep your feet on the ground, and your head above water..”

(That sounded like heresy! Fish suit the sea!)

“..Don’t you care that there’s air? If you don’t, then you oughter

– I’ll take you to breathe there, if you’ll follow me.”

 

We were all of us shocked when he first broke the surface,

then skimmed just above it for yards, fine and free:

‘What a feat!’;  ‘What are “feet”?’;  ‘Looks like fun!’;  ‘Utter disgrace!’; 

‘If he can do that kind of thing, why can’t we?’

 

‘Don’t break ranks!’ said the Elvers, ‘or else sharks’ll get us!’;

we milled in a circle till Findus returned.

Just as anticipated by we who had waited,

by some he was feted; by others, was spurned.

 

Deep councils were held; something fishy was smelled:

‘I don’t very much like the scent of this, chum!’

‘”Findus the Pathfinder”, they call him’;  ‘Keelhaul him!’;

‘He clings to the surface – he’s nothing but scum!’

 

‘If things go on like this, the whole shoal will be scattered!

It’s better that he should leave now – all agreed?’

With hard, jealous looks they dragged him to the hooks,

and there left him, impaled. We all watched him recede.

 

I saw the knife skinning the body of Findus;

it cut off his head and it sliced off his fins.

His insides, no doubt, were all filleted out;

his corpse was dropped back to us, packed in a tin.

 

How they gloat! ‘From a can, nothing can escape.

Can it!’ -to silence we few who said it was a shame.

So we secretly visit the tin with Fin in it:

‘Though his dream’s come to nothing, he wasn’t to blame.’

 

Imagine our shock when we find the tin empty!

The lid is rolled back – just some fresh oil within.

Two mackerel swim up in an almighty hurry:

‘We’ve seen him – alive!’  ‘Look – it’s Findus! It’s him!’

 

First skimming the surface, then diving towards us,

comes Findus, fins spread (now they’re wider, and glow).

Stunned by joy, ‘You were dead! At least, everyone said…’

Findus smiles: “Yes, I was. But I’m not now, you know.”

 

With the oil of his presence, we slip through the waters,

and readily glide into air – there’s a sky!

We don’t stay there with him, but repeatedly skim

in and out – telling others – “Get more fish to fly!”

 

Some call us ‘the Fingerlings – foolish, and shallow!’

and say we’re just small fry: ‘demented, deceived!’

The shoal-view’s their whole view; their confidence, hollow.

We’re following Findus! It’s truth we’ve believed.

 

He’s said that he’ll show himself openly one day,

and when he appears, all will soar – or else sink.

For now, fish make their choice: do they trust Findus’ voice?

Please, I say, don’t delay! There’s less time than you think.

 

I recently had opportunity for some close-up observation of a small hedgehog. I saw it waddle onto a footpath through a field used sometimes as a horses' paddock, a path which I follow sometimes as a shortcut to/from work.

There are 13 video segments recording this sequence. I present all the footage I have here, for you to see. I hope for your comments; I'm particularly interested in whether you consider this hedgehog's behaviour usual or unusual.

This hedgehog surprised me in several ways:
 
by being out in open daylight (7:45 pm, but with British Summertime having come into play a week or so before, this was before dark or even dusk);
by neither running away nor curling up as I approached;
by accepting a raisin I offered (which it chewed vigorously, but then rejected).

It seemed both unwary and also a bit unsteady on its feet, and seemed to remained unnaturally still for a long time.
It was not a tiny baby, which I'd expect to be naive, but was large enough that it must have gained some experience to have survived independently thus far. Yet if it had acted this way regularly, I'd find it surprising that it had survived.

This all made me think that it might be unwell in some way (injured, ill, confused or in shock) when I saw it.

<< Sorry this one video is on its side!

However I'm glad to say the hedgehog later became more mobile, foraging actively as dusk fell, evidently finding and eating things (worms emerging from their burrows, I guess, since it seemed to be pulling at something several times!)

I left once I saw it had found its own way back into shelter, under bushes atop a grassy bank, beside wire fence bordering a wide footpath (the direction from which it had first come).

 
I concluded that it was well enough to look after itself. If it had been ailing in any way before, it seemed better now.

(I was using a Sony DSC-S730 Cybershot digital camera; since Christmas I have been finding it a very useful tool!)

On Wednesday this week my second-cousins and I saw combat on water between geese and swans, viewing from Craigencalt Farm. I volunteer at the Ecology Centre here. There are three geese and two swans usually here on Kinghorn Loch in Fife, Scotland.The swans and geese were in two separate neighbouring groups on the waterfront. Maybe the geese got too close for mutual comfort, because the swans (initially placid) on our left advanced to drive the geese away, further to our right. Then one of the geese turned and chased a swan and must have grabbed it; we clearly saw the swan flee and the goose left with white feathers in its beak and dropping from its beak. Then a swan (the same or its partner) retaliated by again driving that goose and the others away to the right.

Since the loch (though small as lochs go) seems amply big enough for them all, and they are long-term co-habitants here, why the aggression between individuals of these species? Territoriality, or competition for favoured feeding sites?

There are leeches in the loch. This was the first I'd seen there. Some years ago my dad recalls seeing the loch floor thronged with masses of leeches. What would they all be feeding on?

 

We also saw toads including a pair in mating embrace (amplexus) in water at the loch-edge

I believe that discontent is necessary as a forerunner of change, and that dissent is underrated and too often frowned upon.

Not all disagreement with the way things are is just moaning, not all complaining is negative.

To accomplish change someone must often take a challenging and inspiring stand! We may think of Martin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela. But it's not only injustice on a world or national scale, that only a few notable figures can fight...
There are many injustices at a local or personal level, which familiarity often blinds us to - such as the everyday injustice of people not realising nor rising to accomplish their true human potential.

Justice comes only when love steps forward speaking its truth; That's courage, It's free, and freeing!

It needn't be heavy either - it can be fun! Like this: the B-52's Tell It Like It T-I-Is !

Are we really at our best when we are conforming to what has already been decided and done - just fitting in with 'the norm' around us, doing our best not to stand out from the crowd?

Or (as I believe) are we at our best when we are positively contributing - boldly and uniquely adding a distinctive personal contribution - being ourselves, where we are, unafraid?
(Maybe, feeling the fear but Doing It Anyway, to be ALIVE ! )

Is what I reckon.

Why not?...
Visit someone who's not expecting you.. Go dance in the rain.. Laugh, sing a new song!

I so admire the example of Juan Mann - the 'Free Hugs' man. That guy has changed and brightened the world, by daring to try one simple idea - to offer hugs freely to the people he saw passing through a shopping mall:

'Break out of the mould before the mould sets in'
- as the B-52's sing in 'Bad Influence' (that song title being ironic... it's what creative radicals risk getting called!)
And they follow up by singing
'If love's a grenade, I'll pull the pin'...

...meaning, that the love within us bursts out of us, creative energy gets spread around, only when we decide to actually do what we feel... expressing the potential that's stored up inside!

Good stuff gets too often stifled, left on the shelf of life's maybe some day's and I guess I could have's.

Pulling the 'pin' of hesitation out of this 'grenade' of love is the GOOD way to be a dangerous radical - dangerous only to the status quo, that is! - living as a 'deadly threat' only to stagnation, conformity and dreariness.
 
Is what's familiar so comforting we would choose it forever instead of adventurous living? Is the shell of well-worn habits so appealingly secure we would choose to remain imprisoned within it, never emerging into daylight and fresh air ?

Not so. For me at least.

And I hope for you!

'Volo ut Sis', title of the first album by my friends band the Scottish Enlightenment, is Latin and means 'I will it that You be' (or, to be clearer, 'I'm glad You exist and that you're You'!)

Exactly...

So please, come out and play!

Be seeing You!     ...and here's to a Happy Radical 2009!