tomo,
That's pretty depressing. As you say, the BBC "coverage" is highly tendentious. They affect to lament that so many health ministers just sat on the issue. It's pretty obvious that there's something constant behind that passing parade of ministers, but no spotlight lands on those faceless bureaucrats.

Fits the pattern of the Post Office stuff of course, though the sheer size means the health system is bound to be more rotten. The irony of being exhorted to "protect the NHS" a couple of years ago...

My Twitter experience has shrunk somewhat since they switched to the x.com domain. Often don't even see the tweets, and no chance with the responses. I suppose it might work better if I signed up, but I'm not about to.

Latest Brendan O'Neill is an interview with Sall Grover, an Aussie trying to defend her right to maintain a women-only website. It has been under heavy attack from trans activists. Apparently $500,000 so far in legal costs in the amusingly named Tickle v. Giggle case in Australia's Federal Court, and likely to be $1.25m by the time it gets heard in the High Court. She's very articulate. Liked this bit (quite near the end):

My barrister in our case, she boiled it down so beautifully. She said that a woman is not a thought and that discrimination law can not be based on a thought. This came from the Australian Human Rights Commission saying that you really didn't even have to dress as a woman if you don't want to. You don't have to do anything like that. You just have to think it.

And how on earth can anybody be guilty of discrimination for not knowing what someone thinks about themselves?

...

My position is: think whatever you want, just don't make *me* think it. If saying you're a woman is what gets you out of bed every morning and live your best life, cool! I don't care. I only care if you're making me, and by extension everybody else, believe it. So who's the illiberal one?

What I'd add is that, just because someone *says* they believe something doesn't mean its true. We see that with words vs. actions in climate, in pandemics, in pre-election polls and many other situations.

Still, I don't see ignorance of one's true thoughts slowing the rise of the thought police.

Oops. Meant to include a link to the Berlinski interview.

.,
Thanks for the link. Ugh indeed. I used to think that it was an irrational fear that people had of clowns, but that trio is creepy.

tomo,
Thanks. Was interesting to read about the Besler setup. What were they thinking! Then again, I suppose that might have led to a recip. steam->steam turbine->turbine evolutionary path. I do like the thought of stokers shovelling away to keep the plane aloft...

Quite enjoyed the John Anderson interview with mathematician David Berlinski. Good to hear his scepticism on global warming, but I think his great rationalism slipped a bit when it came to COVID. He said how impressed he was with the fast development of the vaccines, and said (apparently in all seriousness):

Needless to say I've had myself immunised 11 times, just to be on the safe side.

Hmm. He was also on shaky ground (as far as I'm concerned) in his criticisms of Darwinian evolution. It was an interesting line of reasoning. Paraphrasing:

1. Everyone agrees, mutation is a random process.
2. Evolutionists hold that selection solves the problem of randomness, imposing direction.
3. But the environment is itself random, so 2 doesn't solve the problem

Interesting, as I said, but not very good. Ok, so the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs may have been a random event, but subsequent changes were very much directed (eruptions, darkness, etc.) and gave a non-random selection pressure for what would emerge.

Not sure what the great worry with randomness is anyway. The dice have to fall some way, and we have to deal with it, from the vagaries of weather to the factoid that identical twins have different fingerprints.

Anyhow was an enjoyable interview though, once again, sound quality wasn't great. Was from a couple of years ago; I think he's lifted his game since then.

https://i.ibb.co/7vTDhHK/GNq-Quj0-WYAAm-CTf.png

tomo,
It's nice to think that Fauci might reap some portion of his fair reward. Nothing wrong with hoping, as long as expectations stay low.

Wood powered ships: even dafter than battery powered ships. By the time you've stowed your fuel, there won't be much room for cargo.

Though I think this:

...trees grow much more slowly than the time it takes to use them for fuel

is poorly expressed. If the ship burns two tons of wood per minute, you just need to set it against an area of forest that is adding two tons of of wood per minute. I'd guess that'd be quite a few acres. Now multiply that number of acres by the desired number of ships and we'll soon see how sustainable it is.

Skimmed through the Watergate video. Definitely some intriguing connections and interesting alternatives to the official history. Mostly it underlines my scepticism about history in general ("His story", as Mum used to say).

Mailman,
I hope he'll make a difference and, as I said to tomo, no harm in hoping.

.,
That link just gave me a Twitter "Something went wrong". Any hints?

One thing that surprised me in that interview with Victor Davis Hanson was how important he thought the American universities were in the grand scheme. In particular, he predicted that the IDF would wait until June before going for Hamas's jugular, the timing being because it would be between university terms, so no mass demonstrations at the campuses.

Is this just because Hanson's world centres on universities, or is the US government really *so* concerned about the opinions of academics and students? Have we entered the age of unrealpolitik?

Hanson and/or the US politicians might learn from Ms Sargon (as recently interviewed by Brendan O'Neill). She had an excellent label for the university activists: the know-nothing they-thems. Spot on.

ugh...