Cartoon Time.

Just Finished Reading: A Brief History of The Normans – The Conquests that Changed the Face of Europe by Francois Neveux

I was interested in reading this book because, of late, I have become increasingly interested in European and especially British history and seem, for an unaccountable reason, to have developed a fascination with the events leading up to (and the ramifications of) the defining Battle of Hastings in 1066.

As you might expect the majority of this book does not indeed deal with 1066 but with the centuries before that pivotal event. The Normans, or North Men, were originally of Scandinavian origin who settled in the area of what is now called Normandy after earlier raiding the French coasts with their Viking compatriots. Normandy was given to them by the French King on the understanding that they would protect the hinterland from future attacks. This they did, very successfully, but they also carried out their own raids further inland sometimes with, and sometimes without, the Kings permission or at least his blind eye. Inevitably, over time, the Normans married into the families of existing ‘royalty’ and became ‘royal’ in their own right. The crowning achievement of this process was William, Duke of Normandy – AKA William the Bastard, AKA William the Conqueror who, with as many barons as he could muster invaded England in 1066, defeated Harold at the Battle of Hastings and was crowned King that same year.

I hadn’t realised, until recently, that the events known as the Norman Invasion had produced pro and anti Norman historians. I knew that history is reinterpreted by each generation and that new artefacts are periodically discovered that change our views on historical events but I didn’t quite appreciate that history is also a fertile ground for philosophical factionalism – especially about such things as 1066. How naïve I was! I had only heard of pro-Norman historians recently so it was interesting to actually read one who was so blatantly of that party. Of course the author is French so should be assumed to have some bias in favour of William over Harold. What surprised me more that a little was a depth of feeling the author had over English complaints that they were in fact invaded and occupied by a foreign power so long ago. He virtually said, in all but these words, that we should just get over it and deal with the fact that we lost. Of course this brings out the interesting idea that we modern British (or English) still identify with the losing Anglo-Saxons rather than with the victorious Norman French. That alone speaks volumes. The Norman invasion, it would seem, was initially successful but over time the invaders have been absorbed into the English society they sought to conquer. Obviously the Normans had a huge impact on the future of the English but not as much as this author proposes or would prefer. Pro Anglo-Saxon historians continually point out that English society in 1066 was one of the most modern and sophisticated in Europe at that time and that the outcome of Hastings was far closer that some other historians would have us believe. It is intriguing to speculate as to what the world would now be like if Harold had not died on Senlac hill but had led his troops to victory over the Norman usurper.

Speaking of Harold’s death, the author perpetuates what many now consider at least questionable if not an outright myth – that Harold died and the battle was lost because of a lucky (or skilfully aimed) arrow in the eye and that he wasn’t the rightful heir anyway so got what he deserved. Both of these assertions, and much more besides, are being challenged by English historians and a whole new mini-industry seems to have grown up around this world changing battle almost 1000 years ago. I am looking forward to reading their accounts and will pass on my thoughts here. Although rather biased (in my opinion) this is still worth a read if only to get the French side of the story.  

Cartoon Time.

I think that most cat 'owners' have had this conversation.... [grin]

FREE-FLOATING PLANETS MAY BE MORE COMMON THAN STARS

From NASA

May 18, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Astronomers, including a NASA-funded team member, have discovered a new class of Jupiter-sized planets floating alone in the dark of space, away from the light of a star. The team believes these lone worlds probably were ejected from developing planetary systems. The discovery is based on a joint Japan-New Zealand survey that scanned the center of the Milky Way galaxy during 2006 and 2007, revealing evidence for up to 10 free-floating planets roughly the mass of Jupiter. The isolated orbs, also known as orphan planets, are difficult to spot, and had gone undetected until now. The planets are located at an average approximate distance of 10,000 to 20,000 light years from Earth.

"Although free-floating planets have been predicted, they finally have been detected, holding major implications for planetary formation and evolution models," said Mario Perez, exoplanet program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. The discovery indicates there are many more free-floating Jupiter-mass planets that can't be seen. The team estimates there are about twice as many of them as stars. In addition, these worlds are thought to be at least as common as planets that orbit stars. This adds up to hundreds of billions of lone planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone.

"Our survey is like a population census," said David Bennett, a NASA and National Science Foundation-funded co-author of the study from the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind. "We sampled a portion of the galaxy, and based on these data, can estimate overall numbers in the galaxy." The study, led by Takahiro Sumi from Osaka University in Japan, appears in the May 19 issue of the journal Nature. The survey is not sensitive to planets smaller than Jupiter and Saturn, but theories suggest lower-mass planets like Earth should be ejected from their stars more often. As a result, they are thought to be more common than free-floating Jupiters.

Previous observations spotted a handful of free-floating planet-like objects within star-forming clusters, with masses three times that of Jupiter. But scientists suspect the gaseous bodies form more like stars than planets. These small, dim orbs, called brown dwarfs, grow from collapsing balls of gas and dust, but lack the mass to ignite their nuclear fuel and shine with starlight. It is thought the smallest brown dwarfs are approximately the size of large planets. On the other hand, it is likely that some planets are ejected from their early, turbulent solar systems, due to close gravitational encounters with other planets or stars. Without a star to circle, these planets would move through the galaxy as our sun and others stars do, in stable orbits around the galaxy's center. The discovery of 10 free-floating Jupiters supports the ejection scenario, though it's possible both mechanisms are at play.

"If free-floating planets formed like stars, then we would have expected to see only one or two of them in our survey instead of 10," Bennett said. "Our results suggest that planetary systems often become unstable, with planets being kicked out from their places of birth." The observations cannot rule out the possibility that some of these planets may have very distant orbits around stars, but other research indicates Jupiter-mass planets in such distant orbits are rare.

The survey, the Microlensing Observations in Astrophysics (MOA), is named in part after a giant wingless, extinct bird family from New Zealand called the moa. A 5.9-foot (1.8-meter) telescope at Mount John University Observatory in New Zealand is used to regularly scan the copious stars at the center of our galaxy for gravitational microlensing events. These occur when something, such as a star or planet, passes in front of another more distant star. The passing body's gravity warps the light of the background star, causing it to magnify and brighten. Heftier passing bodies, like massive stars, will warp the light of the background star to a greater extent, resulting in brightening events that can last weeks. Small planet-size bodies will cause less of a distortion, and brighten a star for only a few days or less.

[It’s quite a weird thought that there are potentially billions of planets just merrily floating about between the stars. I imagine – because they’d have little chance of holding onto a stable atmosphere – that the odds of them carrying life would be slim indeed but you never can tell. A Jupiter like planet – if such places can sustain life – would be just as likely to be habitable in deep space as they are orbiting a star. It’s certainly an interesting addition to the range of potential environments to be considered when we think about the potential of life in the Galaxy.]

Just Finished Reading: Terrorism – A Very Short Introduction by Charles Townshend

I guess that I can date my interest in terrorism back to the early 1970’s during the last big upsurge of activity. With the IRA bombing cities across the UK, the various Red Brigades operating in Italy, Germany and Japan, Action Direct in France, The Weathermen in the US and our very own home grown Angry Brigade in England hardly a day went by without some mention in the press or on the TV. Then, of course, those of us who are old enough will remember the birth of Palestinian terrorism, hijackings and various other attacks designed to bring attention to their situation.

All of this, and more, was covered in this excellent little volume by the author of ‘Easter 1916 – The Irish Rebellion’ which I reviewed here back in September 2010. Odd as it initially seem the author began by struggling to define terrorism (in distinction to acts of terrorism) and found it – just like many before him, to be a difficult process indeed. Most definitions used to date, he suggests, are either too inclusive or too exclusive to be of much use. Moving on the author went on to discuss the different types of terrorism drawing on the rich historical record for examples – The Terror of the French and Russian revolutions, the 19^th Century revolutionary terrorists in Europe and the USA, their more contemporary followers in Latin America in the 20^th century and the nationalistic terror of Ireland and the Basque region of Spain, ending with a brief overview of religious terror which has been around a lot longer than we generally think.

Finally the author recounts some of the ideas and some of the ways nations have attempted to combat terrorism and a very interesting analysis of how most terrorist campaigns end – between 1968 and 2006 only 10% could reasonably claim victory whilst a similar percentage had been successfully crushed by direct military force. Contrast this with around 40% being terminated by police investigation and a slightly larger percentage (43%) ending in political settlement. These figures certainly make a mockery of the present ‘war on terror’ which should have been focused on police action leading towards some kind of political understanding. After all, when all is said and done, terrorism is a crime – normally encompassing murder and property damage. Existing laws may need periodic ‘tweaking’ to keep pace with developments but, I contend, most terrorist activity can be controlled (but never wholly eliminated) by the police, the courts and, in exceptional circumstances, military special forces under the direction of civilian authorities.

As weapons technology progresses (if you can use such a word) more and more deadly devices will fall into the hands of people who are willing to use them for their own political objectives which they think will be advanced by killing civilians and making the world take them seriously. This I think is inevitable. What we must not do in response to this threat is either abandon our liberal democratic way nor fall for the apparently seductive charm of perpetual war. What we can do is to treat terrorism as crime and respond accordingly. Bombs will always go off from time to time and innocents will die but by controlling our response to what is reasonable and proportionate we can prevent or at lest reduce a great deal of future damage and even more casualties: the opposite, in fact, to what we are doing right now. A highly recommended book that puts the ‘war on terror’ into perspective.       

Cartoon Time.

Nightmare.....!

Just Finished Reading: Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro

Kathy, Ruth and Tommy have always known that they’re special. Growing up in the exclusive English school at Hailsham they have been taught from an early age that they must take the greatest care of themselves and each other. Only slowly do they find out what is in store for them when they leave their safe harbour and make their own way in the world. Looking back on those days 31 year old Kathy (played by Carey Mulligan in the 2010 movie adaptation) must come to terms with her knowledge of all of their fates as she cares for Ruth (Keira Knightly) and her long love Tommy (Andrew Garfield) as they play their part in society.

[SPOILER – For those who haven’t read the book or seen the movie and want to I’d advise you to stop reading here – SPOILER]

OK, has everyone logged off who doesn’t want to hear the rest of it [pauses, looks around]. Right……

I found this book to be quite a struggle but not because it was difficult to understand or because it was badly written per se. I was irritated by its style first and foremost. Told in flashbacks it meandered all over the place as the narrator Kathy related stories of her youth and her relationship with Ruth and Tommy. Quite quickly we find out the secret of their existence (OK you were warned that there would be spoilers). They’re all clones. Now this didn’t come as a huge shock to me as I’d heard about this particular angle before I read the book. What did surprise me much more was that the clones themselves didn’t seem particularly bothered (or interested overmuch) by that news. There was some childish nonsense about finding the real-world person they were a copy of but only to discover how things might have turned out if they didn’t have that other thing hanging over their heads – because being clones was only part of it. They were actually being specifically bred to provide the larger society with organ donations which would eventually, and inevitably, kill them. What did they do with this news? Absolutely nothing except hold on to the vain hope that if they could prove they were in love that they’d get some kind of stay of execution for a few years before calmly being led off to slaughter.

A theme throughout the book was the idea that the children were encouraged to produce works of art and that the best of these – poetry, paintings sculpture – would be taken away each year for reasons unknown. Near the end of the book Kathy and Tommy find out what really happened to them. They were exhibited to patrons who were interested in the welfare of the clones and wanted to prove that they were practically human so should be treated in a humane fashion not, apparently as they were elsewhere, like cattle. This whole theme made me more than a little angry. To me it was bloody obvious that these clones were less than human because, after being informed that they would be killed at the whim of a largely uncaring society they did not even conceive the idea of rebelling against it. They calmly went on with their lives and right up to the moment of their inevitable death on an operating table remained proud of their sacrifice for the greater good. Where was a Clone Resistance I asked myself? Why no suicides as acts of aggression against the system that bred them? But of course the novel had no political and a minimal sociological aspect to it. With them it would have been completely different and would have actually deserved the name of Science-Fiction.

Reading some of the reviews on the back I was struck by one from the Sunday Times which described it as “A novel with piercing questions about humanity and humaneness”. I think they missed the point. I don’t think it was about how we treat people at all. I think it was about how we treat our animals that provide us with food and clothing. Do we treat them well right up until the moment we kill them and eat them or do we treat them like things bred to be eaten and, therefore, hardly to be thought of. Or do we actually treat our fellow creatures with somewhat more consideration and not eat them in the first place? Kathy, Ruth, Tommy and the rest were cattle and behaved like cattle even assisting the State in their own slow executions. Like cattle they were rounded up, herded and killed whenever someone needed a heart or a kidney or a few feet of intestines. Maybe the book did exactly what it meant to do – it got an emotional response out of me. It certainly did that! It also means that I will never read anything else by this author.