text:
User Guide
User Forum
Not much to look at, but the beer looks nice....
Latest blog/rant from the developer, Mike Towle . . . . . . . .
2017-08-15 Tuesday:
Many governments are currently engaged in a worrying trend, they're borrowing from tomorrow to help shore up their finances today. The United Kingdom government is especially keen on this trend. But are they building up problems that will be impossible to resolve in the future?
I'll use the United Kingdom as an example, as living there, it's obviously the country with which I'm most familiar. But a lot of what goes on here is happening in many other countries. It's not exclusively a UK problem.
There was a time when businesses calculated the tax on the profit they made during their financial year, many months, and sometimes even years after the end of their financial year, and the actual tax amount was paid even later. Once all transactions were known and allocated, movement and depreciation of all assets and liabilities were known, the accounts had been fully completed, and the profit figure had been properly established. Then new laws were introduced to force businesses to pay their tax by a given date. This improved the governments cash flow. Then new laws were introduced for some businesses, whereby they had to pay tax in advance, based on assumed profits they haven't made yet! Based on what they made the previous year, which as any small business owner will tell us, is a very poor indicator of what they will make the following year. But the government is happy, as it further improved their cash flow. In the near future, all businesses will have to pay tax like this, 'on account'. This will be even better for the governments cash flow, in the short term. What they don't seem to realize is they are draining cash from businesses. This will impact investment. Which years from now will ultimately reduce profits and so reduce the tax receipts in later years. It could even cause some underfunded businesses to collapse due to lack of working capital.
But this is just the start. Back in the early 2000's the UK government came up with a great idea. Increase university fees so they are the highest in the world (excluding private universities), and lend the students the money to pay for them, and to make it even better, they charge an exorbitant interest rate. Most students will leave university with over $50,000 in debt, and rising. This loan then gets paid back via a deduction from their salary. It is, to all intents and purposes, another tax. This will decrease the buying power of graduates (many of which will no longer be able to purchase a house to live in as a result of student debt and rising house prices), which will in turn impact the economy. Which will further reduce the tax receipts available to later governments.
Then there is the abuse of the tax system by governments. In that they use it for social engineering and to attempt to control the economy. For example, in the UK there is a major housing shortage (thanks to the government.....), and so house prices keep going up. Many people living in other countries will be all too familiar with this. The UK government, rather than make any serious attempts to resolve the problem (ie. by promoting house building) decided to make it expensive for private landlords to purchase and rent out property. I won't go into the detail, but suffice to say the private residential market is no longer a good investment. In the short term, this is pushing up rental prices, in the long term it's preventing many individuals from making sound investments that would see them into the future, that would perhaps contribute to their pensions (perhaps reducing the burden on the state years from now). There are many examples where investments are highly taxed. The government tells people to save and invest, but then penalises them if they do so. If they keep the people poor, the pensions burden in years to come will that much greater Which of course is why they're increasing the age at which people can draw a state pension. They need to keep people working for longer. I'm just not sure the jobs will be there?
In the meantime, the real problems causing governments to be short of cash, such as ensuring all tax due is actually collected, and ensuring that tax is fair and large international businesses aren't allowed to make billions in profit and pay little or no tax, and money that is spent is spent efficiently (governments are spectacularly bad at this), and that 'white elephant' projects that cost billions with little cost justification never get off the ground, never get resolved. It would seem for most governments, these problems are too hard to solve, and so they look for other ways to increase revenue, with little thought at all about the consequences beyond their term in office. All the while, the country is increasing it's debt.
I shudder to think of the huge problems that lie ahead in say twenty years. When various governments have concocted all kinds of schemes to drain the cash from the current system, and expenditure is huge (partly due to considerable interest payments on all that state debt and an aging population), and the amount of tax being collected has dropped significantly. What happens when they run out of options? When they can't concoct any more schemes to drain cash from an economic system that is by then barely functioning due to a profound lack of liquidity?
Check out
National Debt Clocks
, it's scary.
Governments talk about getting the national debt under control, so we're not leaving a problem for our children. But borrowing from the future is doing the exact opposite.
2017-07-04 Tuesday:
I often discuss things that have little to do with accounts or accounting issues. Today, I want to discuss poetry! Check out
Skylark Publications UK
They're a non-profit foundation.
This organisation is run by Yogesh Patel. He wrote the book Free Accounting with Free Software, based on Adminsoft Accounts, but he spends a great deal of his time promoting poetry and writing in general. He was invited to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen for the launch of the UK-India Year of Culture. Please visit the Skylark Publications UK and offer your support. As a non-profit, all profits generated go to various charities.
Like most people, I wrote a little poetry while at school. Then I never touched the stuff! Most of us read the news, some of us with a little more time available read novels. But how many of us read poetry? Hundreds of years ago, poetry was written by a lot of people, and read by a lot of people. But time seems to have diminished our appetite. Today, while it may be down, it's most certainly not out. I would say it's starting to grow in popularity once more.
I admit I only tend to read poetry when I come across it by accident. I find it's like music, sometimes it works for me, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it doesn't even rhyme? But I guess that's me showing my ignorance.
I'm afraid I have two eyes: a commercial one and a scientific one, and I can't see poetry out of either! Unless you put it to music. Bob Dylan did OK out of it....
2017-06-23 Friday:
On 23rd June 2016 the United Kingdom held a referendum to either leave or remain in the EU. Now, one year after the referendum in which 'leave' won the vote with 51.89%, negotiations to leave the EU have hardly started, and no one seems to agree what Brexit actually means.
The campaigning leading up to the referendum was appalling. Both sides did not clearly state the case for remaining or leaving, and made a series of highly misleading statements. In the case of the leave campaign, those doing the campaigning and making some of those crazy claims are not the people who's job it will be to make it happen! After the referendum, now the hard work of the negotiations is at hand, they've not part of it. In the end, the vote was based more on gut feeling rather than informed decision. I'm pretty sure very few of the people who voted actually knew much about how the EU really works, regardless of which way they voted (including myself). Although I also suspect they know rather more now.
Those who voted for the UK to leave the EU say the referendum has taken place, they won, and those who voted to remain should just accept it and stop moaning about it. They have even nicknamed those who voted remain as 'remoaners'. For those that voted leave, it's the end of that debate, and they seem to want to shut down any further discussion. Which doesn't strike me as being particularly democratic. Especially as the vote was so close. The problem is, what does leaving the EU mean? Does it mean leaving the Single Market? The Customs Union? The EU Court of Justice? And a host of other EU related bodies and agreements? None of this was on the ballot paper. It was basically a simple 'Do you want to leave the EU, Yes or No' type question. Unfortunately, the answer is not a simple yes or no. The UK's relationship to the EU is vastly complicated, and symbiotic.
Those who want a so called 'hard Brexit', just want to walk away from everything EU related, and trade with them under WTO rules. They don't seem to appreciate the massive impact that would have on the UK economy. The people who voted for Brexit were voting for different things. Some voted because they want the government to have better control of our borders, and so limit immigration. Some voted because they don't like all the laws coming out of Brussels to which the UK is subjected. Some voted because they don't like the idea there is a law court with a higher authority than the highest court in the UK. Some voted because they believe the UK will be better economically, in the long run. And some voted for Brexit as a protest vote, not because they were particularly bothered about the UK leaving the EU So no one can agree on what Brexit is? Exactly what did the electorate tell the government to do?
The UK's prime minister Theresa May decided to call a General Election a couple of months ago. She said she wanted a 'strong and stable' government. I think the real reasons she called an election, is that a) the main opposition party, Labour, were very weak in the polls, and b) she knows full well the UK is not going to get a good deal out of the EU, and she didn't want to be facing an election in 2020 (when it should have taken place) with the 'bad deal' being blamed on her Conservative party. She thought her Conservative party would come back into power with a large majority. Giving her a lot of power, and another five years to wield it. She miscalculated. Her Conservative party did win the most seats, but less than it already had. So much less, it no longer had a majority, and was severely weakened. They had to do a deal with another party, the DUP, to give them enough seats to govern. Their loss, however, is probably a win for the country, because now they have to listen to the opinion of other parties (especially the DUP). Prior to the General Election, Mrs. May seemed to be veering towards a hard Brexit, and was not listening to anyone. But no more.
You can see all this has created a great deal of confusion!
Having voted to remain, I was disappointed with the result, and fearful for the future. Then I went through a period where I accepted the result, and thought we just needed to get on and get it done. The sooner the better, because there's little worse for business than uncertainty. Businesses can't put together any meaningful business plans, or make any significant investments when they have no idea what the economic and political landscape is going to look like. But now I've come to realise no one actually knows what Brexit is, including the government who are supposed to do the negotiating. Worse, they no longer even have a mandate to negotiate Brexit as they're barely in power, they're being held there by the tiny DUP party. Should the DUP withdraw their support, or some back bench Conservative MP's revolt, we'll have no effective government at all. Let alone one in a position to handle negotiations that will shape the UK for decades to come. I don't think I'm the only one coming to this conclusion.
The UK government fought the EU over the agenda for initial negotiations. This agenda was discussed on Monday 19th June'17, and the UK government lost. Today, Mrs. May has put forward a proposal for the three million EU citizens currently living in the UK, it was immediately shot down by the EU as inadequate. Looks like the UK government is about lose again. This is not what anyone voted for.
We can't just stop Brexit, as just over half the people voted for it. But it just doesn't seem like it's going to work out for anyone, whether you voted remain or leave. So what is the answer? Another referendum, followed by another election? Maybe. If you've made it this far through this rant without falling asleep, you'll be pleased to read that's my last comment on the matter. Until my next rant.......
2017-02-10 Friday:
For a web site that promotes and distributes PC based accounting software, you might think this blog sometimes goes a bit off message. You'd be right. Many of my blogs have nothing to do with accounts or software, and this one doesn't even have anything to do with our planet! One evening I found myself looking at the sky. There are around 200 billion stars in our galaxy and around 2,000 billion galaxies in the known universe. If my maths is right, that's 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Most with planets around them. So there must be intelligent life out there. But where is everyone?
The universe is 13.8 billion years old. Our own star, the sun, is a second generation star. It's 4.6 billion years old. So a LOT of stars have come and gone before our star was even born. These are all huge numbers. But it takes life a long time to get started, and then develop into something like us. Our planet was created at about the same time as the sun, from the same cloud of dust and gas. Life started around 3.8 billion years ago. Assuming life also started on some other planets, and it's pretty hard to believe that out of 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars life only started on a small planet orbiting this one, then it's also reasonable to assume that it started earlier on some than on others, and developed at slightly different rates. If you look back at how humans have developed, we first appeared around 200,000 years ago. A blink of the eye when you consider the Earth is 4,600,000,000 years old. It's only really in the last 1,000 years that we've become technically advanced. The last 250 years in particular. In fact, look how far we've come in just the last 50 years. Which is nothing terms of the age of a star or planet.
So, if intelligent life developed elsewhere in the universe, some of it could have reached the technological stage we're at now a long time ago. Probably millions of years ago. Try and imagine how advanced the human race will be in 1,000 years time, 100,000 years, or 10,000,000 years. Even looking 1,000 years into the future is impossible. The technical advances we'll have made in that time are far beyond anything we can imagine (even Star Trek is only set between about 150 and 370 years in the future, depending on the series). Yet there must be thousands, if not millions of intelligent alien civilisations out there who are thousands, if not millions of years ahead of us.
In 1961 Dr. Frank Drake produced an equation that helps work all this out. You can find details on this page on
. However, the equation does require some information that is currently unknown and has to be guessed at, which allows for quite a broad range of answers.
You would have thought they'd be a thriving interstellar community throughout our galaxy. It's an average size galaxy, and we're about two thirds of the way out from the center. If our galaxy was a city, we'd be in the suburbs. You'd have thought we'd be shouting at our alien neighbors to turn the music down! But it's very quiet out there.
We've found no evidence of aliens ever having visited our plant. Various Ceti projects have been searching the skies for over 40 years for alien radio transmissions, and found nothing. We've been sending probes out into space to explore the planets of our solar system for the last 50 years, and none have ever come across any alien hardware or anything to indicate someone else has been here before. Of course, it's always possible the signs are all around us, we're just so used to seeing things a certain way, we can't see what's actually right in front of us?
In the 1970's and 80's
Professor Carl Sagan
discussed the possibility of aliens having visited the earth thousands of years ago. But his cautious observations contrasted to those of
Erich von Daniken
who wrote several books on the subject. Unfortunately von Danikens less than careful efforts, perhaps due to an over enthusiasm for his subject, lead to some of his work being discredited. But amongst the extensive body of 'evidence' put forward by von Daniken, there are some items that still resist any explanation other than alien visitors.
Assuming we're not so blind as to miss evidence that's right in front our noses (and that may be a big assumption....), as I see it there are other possibilities:
Other civilisations are so advanced, they know the best thing is to leave us alone to develop all by ourselves. Until such time as we're ready to join the interstellar community. That could be hundreds of years away. In the meantime they make sure we don't get visited and don't receive radio or any other signals that might cause us all kind of problems if we realised we're not alone.
Alien civilisations are avoiding us because we're simply not of interest. We don't pick up any radio signals because technically advanced civilisations don't use radio to communicate.
There aren't any advanced alien civilisations out there, because life or intelligent life never developed anywhere else, and our planet is truly unique. Which seems improbable. Though I believe it's a central tenet of most religions, which is thought provoking.
Chillingly, a civilisation can only develop so far before it makes itself extinct. Either through war, or artificial intelligence which decides the animals that created it no longer serve a purpose, and/or that the existence of any form of intelligence serves no purpose. Alternatively, perhaps by some other method that hasn't yet occurred to us.
This last possibility troubles me greatly. The idea of extinction isn't very appealing, or course, and worse it's actually quite possible. Consider this: out of the 200 billion stars in our galaxy, lets say at some time life developed on 1 billion planets, of those, intelligent life developed say on just 1 million of them (that's 1 planet in 1,000). Bear in mind, these figures could well be overoptimistic. If each civilisation on average only survives being technically advanced for say 1,000 years (ie. from the point they discover electricity to their extinction), the chances of us living at the same time as another advanced civilisation in our galaxy look remote. If there have only been 1 million advanced civilisations in our galaxy, and each one on average lasts for 1,000 years, even if we strung them end to end they would only cover a time span of 1 billion years. But our planet has been around for 4.6 billion years, and the galaxy a lot longer than that. If we're late to the party, it was all over a long time ago, probably long before our ancestors even dropped from the trees and stood on two feet.
What ever the reason we haven't found evidence of intelligent alien life, we will one day have an answer. One way or the other. Sadly, that day will probably be long after my 'use by' date has expired! Perhaps one of my descendants, or one of your descendants will shake the hand of an alien, or stare at what's left of a once great civilisation that existed thousands years ago, just a hundred light years from where I'm sat now.
2016-11-18 Friday:
Many of you across the world may have noticed that the United Kingdom isn't actually very big! Yet a lot of people come from other countries to live and work here, and people are living longer, so our population is increasing. Currently the population is just over 65m, which is similar to France, which is a much bigger country. They have 306 people per square mile, the United Kingdom has 697 people living in that same space. As a result, there is enormous pressure on housing. There was a time when local councils had lots of council houses they could use to accommodate people who could not afford to buy or rent privately. But in the 1980's Mrs Thatcher forced all these councils to sell those council houses to their tenants on the cheap. She had a vision of a house owning population. The building of new council houses slowed dramatically. I guess councils were reluctant to pay for the construction of new houses that they then had to sell off. For a while it wasn't a problem, but as the population started increasing from late 1990's, it became a problem. It's now a very big problem.
The building of council houses is still far lower than it used to be, the stock of council houses is far less than it used to be, yet the demand for them has never been higher. As a result, the private rented sector has boomed. Private landlords have been buying up properties to let out. But there simply isn't enough houses to go around. Not enough houses are being built, council houses or private houses. The result is that rents have been going up and up (as have the value of the houses), it's simple supply and demand. What have the government done to fix the housing crisis? We'll they've made it a lot more difficult and expensive for private landlords to operate. This has resulted in fewer houses coming onto the rental market, and made it more expensive to own and rent out a house. Which means rents are going up even faster! More and more people are not just locked out of house ownership, but they're also being locked out of the private rental market. Just where are they supposed to live? Council houses? There aren't any! Of the few that still exist, the waiting list is huge. The closer you get to London, the worse the problem gets.
I can't understand why the government is doing nothing about it? Making things difficult for private landlords is not the solution, that was blatantly obvious from day one, although not to the government it seems. There are too few houses for the current population. We can't reduce the population (despite the Brexit vote), so we have to build more houses. It's not rocket science. The government needs to allow more land to be allocated for building, and needs to allow builders to build. At the moment, councils up and down the country seem to work to prevent or limit building as much as possible. When they should actually be bending over backwards to encourage it! These are the same councils that will complain about lack of housing stock, and will turn away the majority of people who approach them, people that are desperate because they have no where to live.
Of course the answer might be votes, as it so often is with any political party. They're a Conservative government (just right of centre for those not familiar with UK politics). The majority of their voters own houses, and they like to see the value of their houses going up. I'm sure this isn't having any bearing on government policy at all..... In the mean time, there are thousands of families who are homeless, and are living without hope. Often in appalling conditions. I watched a TV program recently where a couple with a new born baby were turned away by a council that simply didn't have anywhere to put them. Where were they supposed to live? The United Kingdom is supposed to be a developed, rich country. Yet so many of it's population live in poverty. Much of it created by the cost of housing.
I'm no fan of Donald Trump. But maybe we need a dose of his pragmatism and business acumen at the top in this country. Because political ideals are exactly that. They rarely deliver the results anyone needs. Mr Trump is not a political animal, he has no political doctrine to follow. What would he do if he was in charge of the United Kingdom?
Since writing the above, I've read an article on the BBC news website. It claimed that up until the late 1970's councils were building around 100,000 houses a year. In the year to end of June this year, they built 1,500. The article can be found
2016-08-27 Saturday:
German Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Roth has told the United Kingdom that negotiations to leave the European Union "will be very difficult". Well there's a surprise. And we all thought it was going to be a breeze! Of course we know the sticking point is going to be no unlimited market access without unlimited immigration. As most people who voted the UK out of the EU did so to limit immigration, this is going to be a problem.
The three cornerstones of the EU are: free movement of capital, free movement of goods, and free movement of labour. It seems we (as I'm in the UK) want the first two, but limits put on the third. I'm no economist, but I don't know how that works. Michael Roth may have been citing the blatantly obvious, but he's just towing the party line. Angela Merkel has been talking to the other European heads of state, to see where they draw the line. It's not hard to see where they might be coming from. They can't offer the UK a deal that would be as good as the deal we have while in the EU. Otherwise they'd be no point in anyone being in the EU! So whatever deal is eventually done, and I think it'll take years, our business relationship with the EU is not going to be as strong. Access to the market, movement of capital, and movement of labour are all going to be restricted in some way.
Though if it means less paperwork and less regulation maybe it really will be for the better. For small businesses, trading across the EU has always been a nightmare that seems to get worse as each year passes. And VAT legislation, oh my goodness...... It's actually easier for small businesses to trade with countries outside the EU than in it. Which rather suggests, for small businesses at least, the whole thing's been a bit of a failure.
So, two months after the referendum, am I still in the Remain camp? Oh yes. The EU needs a major overhaul, not just some tinkering around the edges, but real fundamental bottom up redesign! But despite its shortcomings, we're better off in it. It might be a mess, but we were all in it together. If we get a great deal with EU, I might change my mind. But I don't think it's going to happen. I'll miss being being part of the gang!
2016-08-14 Sunday:
I've just read that Sage, a huge software company based in the United Kingdom, have suffered a data breach which may have compromised personal information held in the on-line payrolls of 280 of it's business customers. Probably thousands of employees.
Sage are a very well know, very established company. Their accounting software products are respected and used by a large number of organizations including many accounting practices, certainly in the United Kingdom. Many people who learned bookkeeping did so on Sage software. They are a FTSE100 company, with annual sales of nearly $2bn. If this company, with all it's vast resources and presumably extremely tight security can suffer a data breach, what does that say about all those smaller companies offering cloud based accounting/payroll services?
I think part of the problem is that on-line services are marketed as 'The Cloud'. It's friendly sounding, trendy, and much hyped. The reality is 'The Cloud' can mean all sorts of things. Basically anything stored on someone's server connected to the internet. That server may be in the UK, USA, China, Russia..... You don't know. Because it's in 'The Cloud'. Your valuable data you have securely stored in 'The Cloud' could be anywhere, accessible by who knows who? In the case of this Sage data breach, I don't know where the server is, but Sage have said some one used an 'internal login'. I guess that's a special login that allows someone access to everyone else's private data? Why does such a login even exist? None of this sounds very safe or secure to me.
2016-06-25 Saturday:
The people of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union. Is this a triumph of democracy, or a catastrophic error of judgement? Does this mean the European Union has failed? For small businesses, the problems have started already.
As well as Adminsoft Ltd. I run two other businesses. One of them buys much of it's product from suppliers based on the European mainland: mainly Poland, Czech Republic and France. We operate the usual 30 day credit accounts, and order and pay in Sterling (Great Britain Pounds). When we tried to place an order on 24th June, the day after the Brexit vote, the supplier would not take our order. Sterling was no good to them now. We either had to work in Euro, or if we insisted on using Sterling we'd have to pay upfront. The order is to supply an order from a regular customer of ours. Are we supposed to go back to our customer and tell them it's cash upfront from now on? I wonder what problems the following weeks will bring? I worry this may be the tip of a rather large recession shaped iceberg.
When it was first announced there would be a referendum on the UKs membership of the EU, I sat on the fence for a long time. Eventually I opted to vote 'Remain'. My reasoning went like this: if we vote to leave, they'll be maybe four or five years of turmoil and uncertainty while the UK government sorts out a deal with the EU, and ploughs through over 40 years of legislation originated from the EU. During that time, big business will not invest in the UK, some will scale back their operations, some will move out. In this uncertain atmosphere many people will put off buying decisions. Due to the fall in value of the Pound, inflation might take off. Which all means there's a good chance the UK will fall into recession, maybe a bad one. It could take ten years for things to settle down. It looked like the cost in the short to medium term would be high. So is it worth it in the long term? In say 20 years time, will we be better off? I couldn't answer that question. No one can. So I decided leaving the EU simply wasn't worth the risk. The chance that maybe, just maybe, we'd be a bit better off in 20 years time wasn't worth the huge cost that I knew we'd suffer in the short to medium term.
Also, at the back of my mind is the nagging feeling that in today's wired world, where we can communicate with someone the other side of the planet as easily as we can communicate with someone just down the road, where big businesses are global, where even the tiniest businesses (like Adminsoft) can trade across the planet, shouldn't the UK be integrating with it's neighbours? Rather than pulling up the drawbridge? Surely it's much more forward looking to get closer to our nearest trading partners, rather than distancing ourselves? Europe has a lot of challenges and threats, surely we need to stand together?
'Great' Britain hasn't been 'Great' for over a hundred years. We lost our empire a long time ago. Now we're faced with losing the United Kingdom, as Scotland who are very keen to stay in the EU now want another referendum on independence. Some politicians in Northern Ireland want one too. They don't want border controls putting up between themselves and the Irish Republic again. And who can blame them? We should be demolishing borders, not creating them. Soon, the United Kingdom might just be England and Wales. As if all this isn't bad enough, the Brexit vote has encouraged many politicians in other EU countries to seek their own EU referendums. Several governments are under a lot of pressure. It seems Brexit may not just be responsible for the break up of the United Kingdom, but could also be the seed that causes the break up of the EU itself.
Of course, it could also be the kick in the posterior that many EU politicians need in order to make some
reforms in the EU. If they did, maybe the UK would consider a second referendum? If all the political turmoil caused by Brexit brought about an early election in the UK, any party promising a new referendum on EU membership would probably win hands down. Likelihood of this happening, dunno, could be as high as 50%?
Supporters of leaving the EU will say that we can now setup our own trade deals with other countries that somehow will be more beneficial than those setup by the EU. But precisely how is a country of 65 million people going to get a better deal than a trading bloc of 500 million people? No, I don't know the answer to that either.
Many people who voted to leave did so because they felt the sovereignty of the United Kingdom was under threat. But is sovereignty relevant anymore? I'm over 50 years old and I feel more European than British. Younger people even more so. In fact 75% of those in the 18 to 24 age range voted to remain in the EU. It's clear where they felt they belong, and where they saw their future. It's the older generation that has voted the UK out. Young people travel so much more now than they used to. They're highly mobile. They embrace other cultures and different ideas. A great many of them travel and work around Europe. Have we let them down?
Mass immigration was the top of the agenda for many people. And sure, we've taken in a lot of people very quickly, to the point where things like housing and health care are under strain. But the United Kingdom has an aging population. We're not having enough babies! So we NEED young people coming into this country to work and live. Otherwise, years from now the UK will have an old population with too few young people to support it.
The big question is: are we making things better for our children? As a result of Brexit will they have more opportunities than we did? There's a chance things will be better, but I think it's a slim chance. My fear is that on June 23rd we slammed the door shut on their futures. In ten to twenty years time, the United Kingdom (OK, maybe England and Wales) having suffered years of problems and recession may well be a poorer place, heavily in debt, and with an aging population. No longer the world's fifth largest economy, we'll be the country that young people can't wait to leave in order to secure themselves a better future.
Just remember, we did this to ourselves.
I suspect, many of the people who voted to leave the EU are regretting it already. We were told that a big chunk of the money that we pay to the EU would go to the National Health Service instead. Now we're told by the Leave campaigners that's actually not likely to happen. The immigration that many people are worried about will continue, because it will be a prerequisite to access the EU single market. I think what many people are now realising, is that when we leave we'll still be subject to all the rules coming out of the EU, but will have no say in them. Where ever the EU leads, we will have to follow. By leaving the EU we will not be increasing our power or authority on the world stage, we'll be reducing it.
Well, those are my thoughts on the matter. I really hope I'm wrong. I hope I can one day say "I know, I'm an idiot, I should have voted 'Leave' too..." I hope our government can do a great deal with the EU that satisfies the majority of the population (which means unfettered access to the single market, controlling immigration, no payments into the EU, and not being subject to all the legislation coming out the EU) and they can do it quickly. I also hope that at the same time they make some great trade deals with our trading partners outside of the EU, that are more beneficial than the ones we already have as part of the EU, and that the UK will prosper. But I'm afraid it all sounds rather fanciful.
I'll end on some good news though. For those of you outside of the United Kingdom, purchasing a Software Registration Key for Adminsoft Accounts in Sterling just got a lot cheaper!!!
2016-01-13 Wednesday:
Our government wants to be able to spy on the internet activity of every one of us. Doesn't matter who you are, or whether your behavior is completely beyond reproach. You're a suspect until proven otherwise, and you'll have to keep proving it.
In the United Kingdom they want to pass a law (part of the Investigatory Powers Bill) that will force all internet service providers to keep a log of every web site every person in the United Kingdom visits. They tell us it's for security. It's to keep track of terrorists. To find out what they're up to. Except any terrorist who wishes to communicate with other terrorists, or wants to look at a web site that would be incriminating, is going to use some anonymous method of browsing, perhaps an off shore proxy server. So their activity is completely untraceable. So where's the security?
They tells us there'll be very strict procedures in place to ensure only those who are authorized to look at this data have access to it. But the government has a really bad track record when it comes to data security (OK, and most other stuff too.....). It's not unheard of for them to sell old PC's or servers with confidential data on their hard drives, or to leave laptops, CD's, or USB memory sticks or trains or planes, or simply to allow someone access to data who should never be allowed access.
What if the web logs of some leading politician or celebrity are obtained by someone intent on blackmail? Is the government going to pay the ransom? Hardly. What if that person publishes the data? It could ruin someone's career, maybe their life. The old argument is, if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to hide. But when was the last time you used the internet to check out a health issue, or a tax issue, or a legal issue, or maybe to purchase something a little titillating for your partner? Would you want this browsing activity to be available to everyone? It's not about doing something wrong, it's about privacy.
This law will do little or nothing in the fight against terrorism. Possibly quite the opposite, it'll be a distraction. Taking away resources that should be put to better use. The real victims will be those innocent people killed because nothing untoward showed up on the terrorists internet access log. Then the government will insist the problem was they didn't have sufficient power, and they need to ban offshore proxy servers? Maybe all proxy servers? And maybe other sites or servers using a different technology to offer anonymity? If they can ban those sites, do they ban sites whose political views are maybe a little extreme? Do they end up banning all sites whose political views are not aligned with the government of the day?
The internet is slowly creeping into every part of our lives. We use it for entertainment, communication, as a source of news and information, to locate places we wish to visit, to arrange those visits through booking hotels, air and/or train travel. We're starting to use it to remotely control our central heating systems, to monitor our home/office security, even to locate our children and pets. I've only touched the surface, the list is getting longer. How much of this activity do we want the government to monitor? Technically, there's nothing to stop them from monitoring all of it. In the future, perhaps the near future, some misguided government at the behest of the security services may just find it irresistible. Perhaps the government of today is just laying the ground work?
We all thought 1984 had come and gone. But actually, it's still coming. Little bit by little bit.
If you would like to comment on any of the issues covered in Mike's blogs, or would like to suggest some improvements to the software, please email:
Previous year: 2015
Previous years:
Please click
for details of our cookie policy.
© 2017 Adminsoft Ltd.
2017-08-15 Tuesday:
Many governments are currently engaged in a worrying trend, they're borrowing from tomorrow to help shore up their finances today. The United Kingdom government is especially keen on this trend. But are they building up problems that will be impossible to resolve in the future..........


text:
Subscribe To Topics You're Interested In
I've already subscribed
NetherRealm Studios has issued the official launch trailer for Injustice: Gods Among Us. The DC Comics fighting game will arrive worldwide next week on the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii U.
Injustice depicts a sort of civil war between the world's superbeings. After a terrorist attack kills millions, Superman helps establish a tyrannical new government to keep society safe. Not everyone is happy with this new world order, though. Batman and others form a rebellion against this government.
The battles between the superheroes and supervillains take place in multi-level stages. Fighters can knock their opponents into different parts of the stage with a well-timed attack. Each stage also features a number of items that can be used as improvised weapons.
The basic objective in combat is to build your "super meter" and then use the energy stored there for special moves. The meter fills through combos or taking damage. When the "super meter" is full, the character can use their ultimate ability. For example, Green Lantern can throw a swarm of fighter jets at his opponent.
Injustice will hit North America on April 16th and Europe on the 19th. For last-minute pre-order options, check out the game's official website.
Subscribe To Topics You're Interested In

subset: commoncrawl


text:
All quotes tagged Monstrous
(15 quotes found)
"For Heaven's sake discard the monstrous wig which makes the English judges look like rats peeping through bunches of oakum"
"Dear Stephanie, I hardly know where to begin. I am on a monstrous machine that is taking me thousands of miles away from you. ... Parting may be 'sweet sorrow,' but I don't mean to be parted from you again. The next time I hold you in my arms you won't get away -- ever!"
"A plague more monstrous than anything we have experienced could spread with all the irrevocability of ink on tissue paper. Ancient scourges would quickly become modern nightmares."
"It's as busy as we can possibly get. It's monstrous. In terms of dollars bet, it's growing a little bit."


text:
Is there anything that could dissuade voters determined to elect Republican Nathan Deal as Georgia's next governor?
That must be going through the minds of Democrats across the state and even in the war rooms of the Democratic Governors Association, which reportedly pumped $1 million into ads on his behalf. And the Barnes ads have been vicious, attacking Deal for lax reporting of financial affairs and for using his congressional office for personal gain.
It hasn't been just paid advertising that's tarred Deal. Reports by multiple news organizations have brought out various instances of the infractions noted in the ads.
Topping it all were revelations that Deal is on the hook for loans used for a failed sporting-goods store owned by his daughter and her husband. The news reports say Deal didn't adequately report the loans and the extent of his financial troubles when he filed forms required by law of all candidates.
Yet, in the face of all the allegations, ads and bad news, Deal holds a lead over Barnes in polling.
Political veterans recognize several factors are at play.
First, it's just a tough year for Democrats, and Barnes may not be able to avoid that, despite skipping town when President Obama visited last month.
Second, Georgia essentially is a red state. Technically, it has remained purple as long as the labor commissioner, attorney general and agriculture commissioner posts were held by Democrats, but polls show the GOP winning all statewide races this year.
Third, Barnes is himself as much of a liability as he is an asset.
Having served as governor and continuing to be active with party politics and headline-producing legal cases, he has almost 100 percent name ID. That also means everyone has an opinion of him, so there is little opportunity for his campaign to use its considerable skill to redefine him.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen reveals that 44 percent of people surveyed have a favorable view of the former governor, but a chilling 50 percent have an unfavorable view.
As mothers everywhere have warned, it's impossible to make a new first impression. That's why the Barnes ads attacked Deal, because changing the minds of people who already have an opinion about Barnes is nearly undoable.
As evidence, consider that Barnes hasn't gained ground when Deal slips in the polls. When Deal's support departs, it turns to "undecided" rather than leaning toward Barnes.
Besides, the instant telephone polls nowadays run the risk of presenting a snapshot when news is too fresh for voters to have processed. Often, after having thought through negative news, voters will rationalize it and come back to their original position - especially if the follow-up reports aren't significantly worse.
Campaign operatives recognize the pattern and strive to depress turnout for the other guy enough to where their support is overwhelming.
In trying to do that, Barnes faces a fourth challenge. The ethical and financial shortcomings of which he's accusing Deal rarely have the potency to sway races.
Failing to disclose financial details strikes folks as a harmless clerical error. Going broke paying off a child's loans is something every parent can envision, and doing it in this economy carries even less of a stigma.
Remember that Christine O'Donnell just won the Republican senatorial nomination in Delaware, and Tom Graves won a special election and then the nomination to Deal's vacant congressional seat in recent months, despite similar allegations of financial insolvency and ethical breaches.
People tend to vote based on their own circumstances rather than those of the candidates. Poor constituencies have elected Rockefellers and Kennedys who were accused of being too rich and out of touch. At the same time, candidates ensnared in messy affairs, sex scandals and even criminal investigations have won elections.
The question voters weigh is, "Which candidate will affect my life in positive ways?" It may be that Roy Barnes has come to that realization, because he's begun airing ads and holding news conferences about his ideas for the economy.
Voters may never have a more favorable opinion of him, but if they feel both candidates are flawed, they may go for the one who is most likely to solve the No. 1 issue of jobs. That new strategy could be the change that - if it's convincing - ultimately alters the course of the election. It's just a really tall hill to climb.
• Walter C. Jones is the Atlanta bureau chief for Morris News Service. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com or (404) 589-8424.
© 2017. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
Killzone Shadow Fall developer working on a 'really awesome' new IP
Guerrilla Games isn't taking any time off after releasing Killzone Shadow Fall in November alongside the PlayStation 4. The developer is continuing to support the widely-successful first-person shooter with fresh content, while also working on a new IP that is "completely different" from the Killzone franchise.
In an interview with Eurogamer, Guerrilla Games producer Poria Torkan summed up as much as he could about the new IP without giving away any juicy details. "It's really awesome!" Torkan said. "It's exciting times. If I even say one word people will kill me."
The new IP has been rumored to be a role-playing game, but whatever the project ends up being unveiled as, Torkan said he's excited to see a major technical leap from Shadow Fall.
"If you compare Shadow Fall to the first games on the PS3, so if this is like the first generation of games which are coming, god knows what they will be like in four or five years," Torkan said.
"Compare the first games that came out on the PS3 to The Last of Us or GTA5. It's amazing. That's the thing. We had two-and-a-half years to figure out what we wanted to do with our engine and one-and-a-half years to figure out what we wanted to do with the hardware. Imagine when comparably technically advanced studios get four or five years under their belts with the hardware.
"We'll get our chance!"
As of January, Killzone Shadow Fall has sold over 2.1 million copies. A co-op expansion for the game is set to release sometime in the near future.
Be sure to check back in with GameZone.com for all your news about Killzone Shadow Fall and all things Guerrilla Games.
Source: [Eurogamer]


text:
The hottest trend this holiday season is definitely retro instead of techno. People are getting back to the basics with family time, tradition and gifts from the heart becoming the truly ''in'' things to look for this year.
The perfect place to start is your local senior citizen center. They are a veritable treasure-trove of gift-getting. Seniors like Opal Bridges and Mary Davis are continuing the crafting traditions of their youth while enjoying recreation and fellowship with friends at the Madison County Senior Citizen Center.
Bridges, a regular quilter at the center, learned her craft from her mother. ''When I was small, we'd go from one house to the next each afternoon in the fall and work on quilts to get ready for cold weather. The quilts we make to sell here at the center are made the same way, by hand, only on a different kind of frame,'' said Bridges.
Mary Davis, senior center staff member, is making a quilt for her daughter's Christmas gift with Bridges' help. Davis explained, ''Creating something like a quilt feels good, but we also have other crafts here like dolls, jewelry, ornaments, pillows, table sets and all sorts of things.''
Eloise McCurley, director of the Madison County Senior Center, said, ''The quilters here are practicing what's becoming a lost art. They do beautiful work on all the crafts they make, and we try to make sure the prices are very reasonable so people will come back and buy from us again.''
Ruby Pledger, director of the Jackson County Senior Center craft room, is also working to keep the crafting traditions alive. ''In a few years, there may not be any people left who can quilt by hand. Twenty years ago, I had at least 12 or 15 people at the center who could quilt, now we only have four. We encourage young people to come and let us teach them what we know, and we encourage people to shop with us. We have just about anything you can think of here, and it's for a good cause,'' said Pledger.
A selection of the homemade gifts for sale as Christmas presents at the Madison County Senior Center.Dot Paul/Staff
McCurley explained, ''We are required to bring in a certain amount of income as a part of our funding. It's called Program Income and without it the senior center could not continue. We provide meals for shut-ins, as well as meals for those who are able to come to the center for lunch. When people purchase gifts at a senior center, they are getting handmade crafts that help support much needed programs.''
Another gift alternative comes from Creighton Cutts who is putting new punch into locally made gifts with his Honeypots. Cutts invented a new method of candle making that has spread from Athens to sweeten shops around the world as well as National Geographic's catalog. The Honeypots are made from pure unstrained beeswax, incorporating locally picked and pressed flowers into the designs that often include carving. The Honeypot serves as a holder for the votive candle included with the purchase.
Cutts said, ''I started this as a means of financing marine research. I'm the associate curator of the Cumberland Island Museum off the Coast of Georgia. A portion of the proceeds from Honeypot sales goes toward marine research.''
If the loved one on your list has an artistic twist, you might consider a stained glass mosaic by Athens' Gerri Parker. ''I started doing stained glass 15 years ago, and as you know the lead in stained glass is toxic. I started looking for a way to work with the stained glass without the lead and began doing mosaics with tempered glass and sanded grout. I make fireplace screens, tabletops, garden accessories and birdhouses. If it's a surface you can glue a piece of glass to, I've got a piece of glass for it,'' said Parker.
Children of all ages (even the grown up kind) may love handcrafted kaleidoscopes by Greg Johnson, also of Athens. ''A few years ago, I was dating a girl who said she liked kaleidoscopes. I thought that would be an easy thing to make for her, but I quickly found out it takes a lot to make one. Today I recycle glass bottles of all sorts to make them, and I even sell kits for people who want to make their own,'' said Johnson.
More info
Senior Crafts and Quilts
Madison County Senior Citizen Center, Highway 29, Danielsville (next to the public library)
Jackson County Senior Citizen Center, 219 Darnell Road, Jefferson
The Glass Garden by Gerri Parker
(706) 372-3338
Honeypots by Creighton Cutts
Available at Frontier at 193 E. Clayton St.
Kaleidoscopes by Greg Johnson
Available at The Homeplace in Five Points
Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Sunday, December 16, 2001.
© 2017. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
Report a Deal
Thank you for reporting a deal that has something wrong with it. Please choose the reason you are reporting the deal below.
Reported Deal: Cabela's Fishing Utility Bag - $9.99 w/ Free Shipping to Local Store
Deals of the Day
GottaDEAL Forums
200,000+ Members
1,300,000+ Posts
200,000+ Topics
Join the Community!
Instant Deal Alerts
Score the hottest deals before they sell out!
Subscribe Today!


text:
Renzetti Traveler 2300 Fly Tying Vise
Have questions? Call us (414) 259-8100
Product Number: SC2300
Select Quantity
Need It Today? Pick up in store.
Business Hours
- Monday - Closed
- Tuesday - 10:00AM - 6:00PM
- Wednesday - 10:00AM -6:00PM
- Thursday - 10:00AM - 6:00PM
- Friday - 10:00AM - 6:00PM
- Saturday - 9:00AM - 4:00PM
- Sunday - Closed
The Renzetti Traveler 2300 Fly Tying Vise is an economical fly tying vise that will handle fly tying hooks from #28 to #4/0. It is anodized black to give it a great look while being non-reflective. From trout flies to tying saltwater flies this is a great fly tying vise.
Click here to see our other great Renzetti Fly Tying Tools.
Shop by CATEGORY


text:
No Mercy for Martin
The Pirate Queen: Queen Elizabeth I, Her Pirate Adventures, and the Dawn of Empire
By Susan Ronald
Harper Collins, 2007
|Even fifty years ago, it was possible for schoolchildren to read about the heroic exploits of Elizabethan sea-dogs like Francis Drake or Walter Raleigh, circumnavigating the globe or prowling the Spanish Main in search of treasure ships, all in the valiant service of their virgin Queen. Cloaks are thrown over mud puddles, courage is displayed under fire, and at the end of the day the Armada gets repelled every time.Well, the Armada still gets repelled, but these days it's a far grubbier sort of figure doing the repelling. Looters. Freebooters. Slavers. The bad guys.
This is a better, if duller, way to teach schoolchildren their history. A century ago, tales of sea-dogs featured no villains but the dastardly Spanish and no victims but them as well (a neat double bank-shot for the anti-Catholic bias that has for five hundred years pervaded the pedagogy of both Great Britain and the United States). It's important to remember, in these times perhaps moreso than in others, that a nation that launches peremptory and unprovoked violence upon others can be—must be—considered rogue.
Such was the England of Elizabeth, a bustling, rapacious England bursting with ambition and thirsty for cash. Elizabeth's grandfather Henry VII built a treasury out of caution. The tectonic phenomenon that was her father spent the treasury and knocked the whole Western world off its axis in the process. It was left to Elizabeth to do something more remarkable than either: to make a nation. And to do that, she needed money.
She had the ships—Henry VIII had instigated a vigorous program of naval increase, and Elizabeth continued it. And she had the mariners—England, an island nation, never lacked for expert seamen. And she had the political will, including a gift for indeterminacy that her grandfather would have deplored and her father would have found utterly incomprehensible; she could wink and then deny winking. She could, in short, look the other way.
This was a necessary talent in the period under discussion, because virtually everything done by any of her sea-dogs would have been an act of war if she'd officially approved it. Open war was an idea any Renaissance prince (Elizabeth was the last of them, and the greatest) in his right mind hated—not for the goals but for the rending cost, both in world opinion and in resources. But covert war, now that was a different matter. Covert war was the particular fad of the sixteenth century, and Elizabeth excelled at it in a way her father, given his nature, couldn't conceivably have.
The object of that war was Spain's hugely increased traffic in treasure, some of it from the New World. These treasure-ships traveled with minimal armaments and no armed escorts, like fat green apples floating across the oceans of the world. Elizabeth sending warships to pluck any one of these apples would have been an act of war. Elizabeth putting her name to a charter containing many other names and in any case not a baneful official thing at all was just a business venture, perhaps one gone horribly wrong. Horribly, but most importantly deniably wrong.
In 1494 at Tordesillas, the hemisphere-straddling naval empires of Spain and Portugal had agreed to split the world's waterways and anchorages between then, to the despite of the rest of the world. The rest of the world included the nascent English empire, full of ships and enterprising men but forced by the agreement of Tordesillas to choose between the seemingly barren shores of places like Newfoundland or the evergreen myth of the fabled Northwest passage. English mariners, faced with these maddening restrictions on their expanding livelihood, and the English monarch, faced with the temptation to risk everything for the better placement of her country … their position was largely the same, which might account for the weird extent of loyalty her sea-dogs afforded Elizabeth (either that, or the fact that she represented the only deep pocket in the realm).
Into this sordid and sweaty arena steps Susan Ronald in her new book The Pirate Queen, Queen Elizabeth I, Her Pirate Adventurers, and the Dawn of Empire (Harper Collins, 2007). Her goal is to tell the whole panoramic story of Elizabethan piracy: the landlocked politics, the international maneuvering, and the missions and expeditions themselves, from the circumnavigating heroics of Francis Drake to the moral (and often monetary) shortcomings of slave traders like John Hawkins. It's a large, forbidding task, and given its subject matter (and, alas, its execution), aquatic phrases like "washed up," "all wet," and most especially "out of her depth" come unbidden to mind.
The warning signs (that troubled waters might lie ahead, as it were) appear early in The Pirate Queen, starting with the central word itself. The author lays her schema before us:
'Pirate' is a word at the heart of the book. The word 'privateer' was not coined until the eighteenth century, and I had a terrible objection to using a word that had not yet been invented, and then to describe someone with that word used for the first time two hundred years into the future.
This is disingenuous at best, as any relatively alert reader will see in an instant. Regardless of its date of coinage, "privateer" is the more accurate description of Elizabeth's sea-dogs, connoting as it does (and as "pirate," to modern ears, does not) tacit official sanction. This is not a case of a newly coined word distorting our understanding of an older phenomenon (as would be, for instance, a writer calling Alexander the Great "gay")—it's a case of an author wanting to use a word readers will associate with Johnny Depp as opposed to one they'll associate with Johnny Hancock. After all, every Elizabethan merchant in London was engaged in entrepreneurial capitalism—are we not allowed to say that, just because, as they'd have put it in their own time, they wouldn't have connied un makins? What then should we call the pirates who bedeviled the Mediterranean in Julius Caesar's day, so many inconvenient centuries before the coining of "pirates"? Sailors with attitude? Maritime robbers? Ferguson?
But even a reader willing to grant Ronald her linguistic druthers and move on would be brought up short by her potted description of her setting:
In her time, the English Renaissance took root and flourished, spawning the great talents of Sidney, Gascoigne, Spenser, Kyd, Marlowe—and killing three of the five in 'service of the realm' prematurely. Great poets like Raleigh, the embodiment of courtly love and adventuring, as well as Dyer, a gentleman adventurer, too, help us glimpse behind the curtain of time into Elizabeth's court. Chettle, Nash, Lodge, and, of course, the remarkable Shakespeare, all found their voice in Elizabeth's England.
Quite apart from the jarring prominence of Gascoigne (so far in front of the "remarkable" Shakespeare! What did this Shakespeare fellow do, one wonders? Juggle?), there's the mystery of those hemi-quotes hovering over 'service of the realm'—what can they mean? Is the phrase an allusion to some original document (our author: "I have a passion for sources")? Or are they meant to excuse the phrase from any kind of accuracy? In light of the fact that Spenser, Kyd, and the mighty Gascoigne (presuming here that Ronald is referring to courtier George and not non-courtier George) all died in their beds, 'in service' to nothing at all and that Marlowe died in a rooming-house brawl possibly in the service of spycraft but certainly not in the service of the realm, the reader will wonder. In a world where Walter Raleigh is called a great poet and our juggling Shakespeare "remarkable," the reader will doubtless wonder about a great many things.
At least our author wants to be clear about one thing, which she writes at her book's beginning: "For those readers looking for a bodice ripper about Elizabeth's loves, I fear I would disappoint you in The Pirate Queen."
And it's true, no bodices are ripped in the course of the book. But the quote's wider implication, that what follows will not be romantic fiction but rather sober history … well, that claim is, to put it mildly, at odds with Ronald's rather obvious intent. She writes with considerable energy, yes, and she knows how to keep a narrative moving along, but all throughout there's a breathless, confessional intimacy that no amount of original documents could possibly authorize.
Take the example of John Hawkins' voyage to San Juan de Ulua, the port of Veracruz. He leads his ships into harbor and sends a request through Anthony Delgadillo to the port's viceroy, Don Martin Enriquez de Almansa, asking that his ships be allowed to restock and repair. Here's Ronald on the outcome: "When Enrique learned from Delgadillo that it was Hawkins who occupied the port, he was incandescent with rage. How dare this rover order him around?"
Leaving aside that hithertofore undocumented human capacity for bioluminescence, there remains the fact that the obvious natural setting for that invented last line is in a historical novel, as a line of dialogue.
Likewise her descriptions of her characters, which always sound like passages from Georgette Heyer's minor works:
Drake had an uncanny genius for sensing his enemy's weakness and, without the need for huge numbers of men and artillery, was able to achieve his nefarious aims. What's more amazing, as with any real genius, he made it all look so easy. San Juan de Ulua had been etched into his soul, and the resultant hatred for Philip, the ignominity of the encounter, and the fire against Catholic injustice in his belly would be stoked by further perceived wrongs until the day he died.
Etched souls and belly-fires, not to mention "nefarious aims," are the very stock and trade of bad historical romances (sometimes known as bodice rippers); one so seldom encounters them in the works of Macaulay.
Certainly the reader of bad historical romances would feel right at home with the level of prose Ronald's book provides. Spurs are always earned; hope is always hoped against; orders are barked with canine frequency; feet are always sprung to; tides are forever turning; hogs are lived high on; sailing is never separated from smooth; deeds are dastardly; nails are invariably hit on their heads; eyes are feasted; smithereens are blown; a thousand slow deaths are died; gears are stepped up; unawares are always blissful; points are dear and sometimes near and dear to hearts; shots tend always to ring out; whole cabinets of Holy Grails abound; tracks are always stopped in; quite non-Hebraic things are made or kept kosher; people often have other fish to fry; life is always risked in conjunction with limb; ruling is always done with an iron fist. It's enough to make the reader of legitimate history see red.
As in any self-respecting historical romance, heroes and villains are necessary to keep the reader's attention. Since John Hawkins was for most of his adult life actively engaged in slave trading—and since Elizabeth supported his efforts despite knowing with Tudor exactitude the evil they represented—they would seem to be prime candidates for the role of villains. But Ronald can't have that, gracious no. Hawkins was a dashing figure, dressed exotically and sporting rakish red hair, and Elizabeth? Why, she can't be the bad guy—after all, she's the Pirate Queen! Despite the iniquities they perpetrated in the name of cash, they come off quite well in Ronald's book, as do, of course, the more conventionally heroic Drake and Raleigh.
Enter poor hangdog Martin Frobisher, from the B-list of sea-dogs. Frobisher was a dog-loving no-nonsense Yorkshireman whose 'service to the realm' was unexceeded by any of his contemporaries, and yet Ronald never misses a chance to let fly a broadside at his expense. She says, without any of her precious original documents to back her up, that he was "well known for his tall tales," that he was "ignorant," "deceitful," and "unable to understand the importance of even the simplest mathematical exercise." Most scandalously, she claims Drake had to rescue him off the Isle of Wight during the battle of the Spanish Armada.
When bigger targets than one single person are required for villainy, Ronald is equally able to supply them. Take, for instance, her account of troubles in Ireland during Elizabeth's reign:
To make matters worse, many English colonists, or 'planters,' as they were called, had gone native, adopting Irish traditions and customs, the most unacceptable of which was 'coyne and livery.' 'Coyne' from the Gaelic coinmeadh, meaning the right of a great lord to demand hospitality of whatever nature for his person, had been coupled with the English 'livery,' by which the lord could demand whatever he needed for his horse … It was a uniquely Irish invention, grounded in extortion and intimidation that ran like a sixteenth-century protection racket.
The author rollicks on from there, without pausing to enlighten her readers as to how greed and the abuse of power are 'uniquely Irish' offenses. Must be in some original document somewhere.
All this would be bad enough but marginally salvageable if the book's history were sound, and given the author's loud protestations about being enamored of original sources, the naive reader—except for those kneecapping Irish, perhaps—would think this point at least was secure. But that poor reader has reckoned without nefarious aims and fires in the belly. Everywhere in her book, Ronald demonstrates one thing foremost: she will not let the facts get in the way of a rattling good yarn. And whenever she sniffs out such a yarn, the reader will look in vain for original sources to document it.
Take as one illustration an incident that took place during Hawkins' fourth slaving voyage. Two of his officers, Edward Dudley and George Fitzwilliams, fell into an argument and decided to settle by rowing ashore and fighting a duel. With apologies to the reader for the sheer amount of Ronald's prose they're about to endure, here's our author's account:
Despite being ordered to behave themselves, the confined spaces aboard ship and perhaps their ordeal led two of Hawkins's closest companions, Edward Dudley (captain of the soldiers of the fleet) and George Fitzwilliams, into a violent disagreement. When the men set off to row ashore and fight a duel, Hawkins rushed after them to stop it at once. He wasn't about to allow the Spaniards to have 'entertainment' at his men's expense. When Dudley was confronted by his admiral, he struck Hawkins above the eye with his sword in the heat of the moment, and Dudley was clapped in irons on the spot. Striking a superior officer was mutiny even then, and mutiny was punishable by death.
When Dudley heard his death sentence, the hapless captain of the soldiers fell to his knees and begged Hawkins to spare his miserable life. Hawkins told him to say his prayers, and when Dudley babbled to be forgiven yet again, Hawkins helped him to his feet, saying that would be the end of the matter. The men were relieved, and a thankful Dudley walked away a free, if chastened, man. There would be no rowdiness countenanced on this voyage.
If the curious reader consults the documentation for this dramatic little incident, they'll find not the slightest scrap of an original document. Instead, she provides two modern works, Hazelwood's The Queen's Slave Trader and Sugden's Sir Francis Drake. Hazelwood's account of the incident is, amazingly, entirely undocumented—and as such, Ronald should have ignored it as irrelevant. That leaves Sugden's version, which reads as follows:
Two of his officers, Edward Dudley and George Fitzwilliam, quarreled and resolved to go ashore to settle their differences by a duel. Hawkins only heard about it after Dudley had left, but he intervened, and, refusing to countenance Fiztwilliam quitting the ship, he recalled Dudley forthwith. No display of disunity would entertain the Spaniards while he was in command. Dudley was a hot-tempered man, and he stormed back to the Jesus, where he fell into so violent an argument with his commander that the two resorted to blows and then drew swords. In a brief altercation both Dudley and Hawkins were wounded before they were separated. Dudley had overstepped the mark, as he must have known as soon as he calmed down, and he found himself placed in irons and hauled before Hawkins. The penalty for mutiny was death, and attempting to kill or wound the commander of the expedition admitted of no less a charge. Everyone knew it, and yet there was much sympathy for Dudley among the spectators, a feeling that if he had acted wrongly it had been in temper rather than malice and that he should not suffer the ultimate penalty. While Dudley pleaded for his life, Hawkins menaced him briefly with a loaded arquebus. Then, as tension mounted, the captain suddenly pardoned him. It was a humane gesture which greatly enhanced Hawkins's standing with his men, reinforced the point he desired to make, and saved him a valuable officer.
So which is it, the reader wonders? Did both men leave the ship, or not? Did Hawkins rush after them, or not? Did both Hawkins and Dudley get hurt, or not? Did Hawkins threaten him with a gun, or not? Did Hawkins help him to his feet, or not? Sugden is Ronald's only legitimate source, and he doesn't clarify where he gets any of his details—presumably in bulk from Hawkins' own account of the voyage, but without reading that account, even the most industrious reader won't know what comes from where. All Ronald does with Sugden's version is jazz it up and dumb it down. That hardly qualifies as respect for scrupulous documentation.
The differences between the two accounts are immediately obvious, abundantly numerous, and extremely troubling. The whole point of venerating original documents is that they provide an invaluable foundation for trying to determine what really happened. Someone willing to overlook or actively distort what really happened is by definition writing fiction, not history.
(Then again, maybe what's going on here is just plain old incompetence in the handling of sources. For instance, when documenting the Inuit legends spawned by their contact with that rat Frobisher, Ronald's note #7 reads: "As part of local folklore, the Inuit verbally passed down from generation to generation that the Englishmen built themselves a kayak, and rowed away." In note #11, about two inches down the page, she writes this: "An Inuit legend handed down from generation to generation that the five lost Englishmen built themselves a boat, and sailed away." Rowed or sailed? Her source for one or the other is Kenneth Andrews' Trade, Plunder, and Settlements, round about page 177, but if the reader wants to know what Andrews says on the subject, they'll have to check for themselves; this reviewer is simply too tired).
In the meantime, it looks like the days of breathless, romantic writing about Elizabethan sea-dogs aren't entirely over after all. All those miserable slaves crammed into Hawkins' ship holds would not be pleased.
Steve Donoghue used an early inheritance to build a powerful observatory in the Rhineland, which, after Tycho Brahe's sudden death, was the most significant source of astronomical data in Europe. He met Kepler once in a beer hall in Prague and begged him to abandon the flawed Ptolemaic system, though to no avail. Presently he stargazes for fun and, just as fun, hosts the literary blog SteveReads.
Leave a comment!


text:
"Certainly Louisiana Tech has a lot of tradition and history in women's basketball, but overall I think it is a very good draw for us. It's an opportunity, if we play our best, to advance."
Related quotes
"I think you have to send a message out to those outside the state, ... that Louisiana is in fact taking care of its business, getting its financial house in order and getting its incentives to get people back."
"[Caruthers Dorm had been closed and was scheduled for demolition before Katrina hit. Louisiana Tech officials decided to repair the building's air conditioning system and take in evacuees. On Monday, the Green Wave moved into the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth floors, sharing a facility with] 3-month old babies to 90-year-olds, ... Our hearts go out to the people who have been displaced. And when you hear their stories, it's amazing. . . . It's emotional because of all the unknown."
"We knew coming in that we had a very tough task ahead of us with Louisiana Tech and all their experience and tradition of the program."
"Hawaii, they've proven how good they can be. Louisiana Tech is much improved from last year. Utah State is better than the second place (regular season) finisher (UTEP) last year."


text:
Boeing on Monday snagged a new Mideast customer for its much-hyped 787 Dreamliner at the Dubai Airshow, a day after it signed a record-breaking deal for 50 wide-body planes.
Oman Air and Boeing Co. said the carrier has ordered six Boeing 787-8 aircraft, though the planes won't translate into additional business for the Chicago-based plane maker. That's because Oman Air is taking over orders previously placed by Kuwait-based aircraft leasing company ALAFCO.
No one at ALAFCO was immediately available to comment on the deal, and it wasn't clear why it transferred the orders.
Oman and Boeing didn't provide financial terms of the order. Each 787-8 costs $193.5 million at list prices, though airlines often try to negotiate discounts.
"Our decision to order the 787-8 is part of Oman Air's long-term growth strategy to expand and modernize our fleet with newer, more fuel-efficient airplanes," airline CEO Peter Hill said in a statement.
Japan's All Nippon Airways operated the first commercial flight of the 787 late last month following a series of manufacturing delays. The cutting-edge plane is made of lightweight composite materials and is attractive to airlines because it promises to be 20 percent more fuel-efficient than similar planes.
Long lines of curious spectators have lined up in Dubai to step aboard a 787 display model, which is making its debut at the Mideast airshow.
Oman Air is the flagship carrier of the Sultanate of Oman, which sits on the southestern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. The airline, set up in 1993, is far smaller than Gulf behemoths such as Dubai's Emirates and Qatar Airways.
Qatar Airways is among the regional carriers that have already signed up for the Dreamliner. It has ordered 30 of the planes and has options for 30 more. The carrier is expected to announce additional aircraft orders at this week's show.
Its Dubai-based rival Emirates, the region's biggest carrier, on Sunday placed an unexpectedly large order for 50 more Boeing 777s, signaling it remains optimistic about its ambitious growth plans despite the shake global economy. Boeing said he deal, worth $18 billion at list prices, was its biggest-ever single order in by value.
Gulf airlines have boomed in recent years by funneling travelers from far-flung global destinations through hubs such as Dubai and the Qatari capital Doha.
European plane manufacturer Airbus predicts the Middle East will require some 1,920 new planes worth more than $347 billion through 2030, according to a forecast released Monday.


text:
Silvery Checkerspot (Chlosyne nycteis) (Doubleday, [1847])
Diagnosis: This is a small to medium-sized checkerspot (wingspan: 33 to 45 mm) with an orange to tawny upperside and dark brown markings. The amount of dark markings can vary widely. The submarginal row of black spots on the hindwings always has white centres to some of the spots, unlike similar species that have solid black spots. The hindwing underside has two distinct bands of silvery-white oval spots and one large silvery crescent in the dark brown outer band.
Subspecies: The eastern populations of this butterfly west to central Manitoba are the nominate subspecies. The western population, particularly around Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba, is the paler subspecies reversa.
Range: In Canada, this butterfly is most commonly found in southern Quebec and Ontario. In Ontario and Quebec it is widespread, north to Moosonee on James Bay. In Nova Scotia, a single colony was recorded near South Milford (Ferguson, 1954) and it is recorded sparingly in New Brunswick. In southern Manitoba it can be common but is local. In the Canadian National Collection in Ottawa are three specimens dated 1907, from Regina, Saskatchewan, taken by the famous entomologist James Fletcher; Chlosyne nycteis has not been seen in the province since then (R. Hooper, pers. comm.).
Similar Species: The hindwing underside pattern is unmistakable.
Early Stages: The larvae are black, with purple streaks and an orange stripe along each side; they are covered with brown bristled spines; the head is black. Foodplants are various composites (Asteraceae): sunflower (Helianthus spp.), aster (Aster spp.), and coneflower (Rudbeckia spp.).
Abundance: Throughout its Canadian range, the Silvery Checkerspot is local and sporadic in terms of abundance from year to year.
Flight Season: The single generation emerges in early to mid-June and flies until mid-July in most of its Canadian range.
Habits: This is a butterfly of wetter areas, especially along the edges of streams. The males regularly patrol their territories with an alternating flapping and gliding flight.
Remarks: Colonies of the Silvery Checkerspot appear to come and go in many locations, sometimes with many years between sightings. At Point Pelee, Ontario, this species was not recorded from 1928 to 1982 (Wormington, 1983) and only once since then, in 1987 (Hess, 1988).
© 2002. This material is reproduced with permission from The Butterflies of Canada by Ross A. Layberry, Peter W. Hall, and J. Donald Lafontaine. University of Toronto Press; 1998. Specimen photos courtesy of John T. Fowler.
- Date modified:


text:
This product is no longer available.
You can try these similar gifts instead.
Les Miserables Piano, Vocal and Guitar Book and CD
Arranged for piano, vocal and guitar performance, this terrific songbook is made up of 80 pages, featuring 14 vocal selections from the beloved Broadway musical with beautiful full-color photos from the production.


text:
No theme this week, just lots of pain, most of which will probably be forgotten by the time you read this, just as this is forgotten as soon as you finish reading it. It's very sad and unfortunate that an innocent woman was killed in an accident involving a jitney, but it's also inexcusable that the Miami Herald and others would exploit that tragedy in their propaganda campaign against free enterprise and the public's right to travel as they choose. Nobody needs to -- or should be permitted to -- break any laws. Any idiot and everyone else knows that minibuses -- and all drivers of any vehicles on the roads -- should be required to carry auto insurance. And everybody should obey the rules of the road, whether anyone else does or not. In a perfect world the trains run on time. But to take one tragic mismove and use it to blackwash thousands of working people is unacceptable. The Metro commission should quit coddling their failed transportation system and give us blues-and-collared types a chance to survive on the streets. And the Herald should quit acting as the incompetent establishment's mouthpiece. If Metrobus can't compete, that's their tough token.
And what about those three dolphins at the Links? Late last week the entire planet -- even National Public Radio for chrissakes -- was involved in the case of two "retired" slaves and a companion who escaped their wardens at Ocean Reef and ran for freedom, despite, in the case of Lady, having been held hostage in forced labor for three decades. Yeah, that old saw about imprisoned dolphins enjoying their captivity certainly holds true. Yeah. Here's a question no one bothered to ask as of Friday, when Ocean Reef was attempting to recapture and reincarcerate the animals: Why does the club want the mammals back if they are retired? And here are bonus questions you can answer for me: The dolphins once were free in the ocean. Ocean Reef took them. The dolphins return to the ocean. Can't anyone take them at that point? Who owns the free?
There's not much to it, and I'm certainly not recommending you buy it, but scenetalk has lately been clattered with comments about the "best and worst" issue of South Florida (dated August but out for a while now, a magazine concept we've never quite understood). That's because they included a category called "Best Local Musicians," and really, who better to determine that than the rock-and-roll savages over at South Florida? Anyway, can't argue much with their choices: Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids, George Tandy, Nestor Torres, Cell 63, Iko-Iko.
No question that Marilyn Manson belongs on that list, but it's time now to drop the "Spooky Kids." The moniker, that is. Manager John "I Live Out of a Suitcase These Days" Tovar says there's nothing more to it than a name change, so chill on the rumors, sports. Just a name change. We called Marilyn himself, woke him from a deep sleep, in fact, just to make sure. We're sure. Marilyn Manson has also been building up a following in Tampa. And Tampa band Factory Black, also a TCA client, has been reversing that by playing here on a sort of exchange basis. Factory Black is currently recording a nine-song CD for fall release.
Black Janet, like all bands with "black" in their name, is busy recording their next full-length release. Janet takes time to play the poorly spelled "A Midsummer's Nite Screem" -- along with Six Silver Spiders and Son of Elektra -- at Squeeze tonight (Wednesday). There will also be a "screem" contest.
I'll tell you where to go: Velvet Taxi and others are planning another one of those groovy underground bashes at Churchill's Hideaway this Saturday. Little Nicky Yarling sits in with Arthur Barron this week at the Back Room in the News Cafe. And South Beachites are all lit up about the Thursday nights at Island Club, known as Havana Night and starring Nil Lara, sipping tequila and painting sonic art with a variety of stringed instruments and guest musicians. About twenty fans show up, suck down one-dollar Cuba Libres, and escape to the island, or at least one appealing aspect of it.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
All you Bill Clinton supporters will want to tune in to Rock and Roll Revisited this Sunday at 6:00 p.m. on WLRN-FM (91.3). Host Bob Pianka will spotlight the work of Clinton campaign mastermind Elvis Presley.
Local rockers Public Sanctum perform original songs live to benefit Actors Playhouse on Monday at 8:00 p.m. What's additionally cool is that the band will play on the children's set, which means they'll be in a castle.
Butthorn of the week: So J.C., who's not a butthorn, is there at the Cameo, enjoying the Rollins Band concert, when he notices a couple of nice young ladies brawling like sailors. Being a gentleman and good samaritan, J.C. attempts to intervene, at which point he gets punched in the face by one woman and yelled at by the other. Oh well, girls will be girls. (Sorry, that's a Bush-induced joke.) Women can also be butthorns is what I meant to say.
The media circus: Go to the library and get the July 30 edition of the New York Times and read Jon Pareles's take on the Body Count contro. Especially if you yourself are a cop. "If police groups don't like a song, they can make it disappear," is one point Pareles makes. It wasn't that long ago that a certain government's "cops" could make Jewish and other people disappear like a song. Millions of them, in fact.


text:
Angels nail spot in state tournament after stifling Clarissa
CARLOS - Despite beating the Clarissa Flyers 7-4 on Sunday in the Region 14C tournament, the Detroit Lakes Angels' margin for error was razor-thin in several innings.
In the end, a win is still a win and Detroit Lakes booked a return ticket to the state amateur baseball tournament for the second straight season.
"We've started playing well at the end of the year and our pitching and defense have been coming through in the last week or two or so," Angels player/coach Phil Kirchner said. "That's what wins games."
Most of the Angels' damage came in the second inning when it put across five runs.
Singles from Andy Kratzke and Terry Haus - each bringing in two runs apiece - finished the rally and put Detroit Lakes ahead 5-1.
Kratzke had his first chance to make a difference with the Angels after being drafted by the Perham Pirates following the Hi-10 League playoffs to help give regular catcher Taylor Fuhs a break.
After not playing much thus far in the playoffs, Kratzke said the adjustment wasn't that difficult.
"It's not too bad," he said. "I played with lot of these guys back when back they played in Perham. You just don't try to do more than you physically can.
"It's a game that I've played since I've been little, so it's not too hard."
He went 2-for-3 at the plate, while also drawing a walk.
Chad Griffin started the scor-ing with an RBI double to left that plated Noah Johnson.
Johnson led off the inning with a single and stole second.
All in all, the Angels brought 10 men to the plate in the second.
Clarissa could have jumped out to a large in the first, but was limited to scoring just the game's first run.
Detroit Lakes starter Nick Berg struck out the first two Flyers batters before struggling with his control.
Berg allowed a single and then three straight walks to score Jared Morrill from third.
But Berg induced a popout to get out of the jam.
He pitched 4 1/3 innings - allowing eight hits and two runs - after throwing three innings of relief in Saturday's win over Carlos.
The Flyers' big inning came in the fifth when they scored three to cut Detroit Lakes' lead to 5-4.
Mike Hinzmann and Scott Lieser had RBIs. Hinzmann's came from a single and Lieser hit into a fielder's choice.
Hinzmann scored after Angels reliever Matt Huberty's throw to first on a routine play was off target.
With runners on second and third, and two outs, Huberty induced an easy fly to get out of trouble.
The only other spot of trouble that Huberty got into came in the sixth with runners first and second with no outs. A grounder, strikeout and a long fly ended the Flyers' last real chance for a comeback.
Clarissa's loss came down to unfulfilled chances. The Flyers stranded 14 baserunners on the afternoon.
Two insurance runs came late in the game for the Angels.
Haus walked to lead off the fifth. After making his way to third, he scored on Joe Cuchna's wild pitch.
Kratzke scored Detroit Lakes' final run in the ninth after leading off the inning with a hit. Kirchner doubled him in.
The Angels have a week off before the Region 14C title game next Sunday in Carlos. The game gets underway at 1:30 p.m.
Angels stats
Detroit Lakes vs. Clarissa in Carlos, Region 14C playoffs, Sunday, August 3.
Angels 050 010 001 - 7 9 1
Flyers 100 030 000 - 4 10 0
Detroit Lakes
AB R H Bi
Fuhs 5 1 2 0
Omberg 5 0 0 0
Kirchner 4 0 2 1
Haus 4 1 1 2
Johnson 3 1 1 0
Nustad 3 0 0 0
Olson 3 1 0 0
Griffin 4 1 1 1
Kratzke 3 2 2 2
Totals 34 7 9 6
AB R H Bi
Johnson 4 0 1 0
Kuhn 5 0 2 0
Morrill 5 2 1 0
Blum 4 1 1 0
B. Hinzmann 4 0 2 0
M.Hinzmann 3 1 2 2
Lieser 5 0 0 1
Greenwald 4 0 0 0
Cuchna 4 0 1 0
Totals 38 4 10 3
Pitching (ip-h-r-er-bb-k) Detroit Lakes: Berg 4.1-8-2-2-3-8, Huberty (WP) 4.2-2-2-1-4-2. Clarissa: Noland (LP) 1.2-5-5-5-2-0, Cuchna 4.1-2-1-1-2-2, B. Hinzmann 3-2-1-1-0-1.