caldrail

Just around the corner from where I live is a nice little spot called Queens Park. Its the remnant of an abandoned railway tunnel entrance that was turned into a public park, now surrounded by housing developments that sprang up in the 20's and 30's. Its a lovely place with a natural patina thats difficult to achieve deliberately. The central lake is surrounded by thick bushes and trees, lots of overhanging willows and pines on small islands, and the local waterfowl use it as a hotel with free room service from generous bread-wielding pensioners. The old glasshouse has long since gone. I remember visiting it when I was young, admiring the desert and jungle foliage exhibitions and being amazed at the damp heat required for the lush vegetation to prosper. Now its a concrete frame with ivy decoration, an open space where an entrepeneur has recently had his cafe removed. Perhaps its just that I'm familiar with it as it is. I'm comfortable with it. Its a quiet haven of nature in the middle of town. But its under threat.... The council want to renovate it. They want wide open grass verges around the entire lake, to rid the park of the overhanging tree, to encourage families to wander around with somewhere to let their boisterous offspring off the leash. Thats all very well, but if you don't fit that category? The council did the same recently to Lydiard Park, a much larger public space. Whilst it genuinely looks clean and tidy it also looks empty, artificial, naked without the expected undergrowth and wooded paths. It looks awful not to put too fine a point on it, and after spending five million pounds ruining Lydiard some genius wants to spend more of our taxes ruining Queens Park. I've sent an email to them. I hope they read it, I also hope they understand that not everyone wants indentikit parks everywhere, that not everyone wants the same thing from public space. Somehow, you can't help feeling that with big money driving the project, my email won't go much further. More Uneasy Feelings With Queens Park under threat of being transformed into a boring grassy wilderness inhabited by three year old tribesmen, its as well to remember that another beauty spot is under threat too. Coate Water, a canal reservoir thats been a public place for a a hundred and fifty years, is known as Swindons Gateway To The Country. Not for much longer. The government has OK'd a development on the flood plain adjacent to the motorway that runs behind it. Coate Water - Swindons Gateway To Another Vandalised Housing Estate. Heartfelt Message of the Week Please please please will people stop seeing big bucks and realise that sometimes a valuable asset can be ruined by throwing cash at it. I might be just a lone voice in the soon to be renovated wilderness, but natural beauty can't be created with bulldozers.

Yes indeed... If the ultraviolet and water pollution doesn't get you, offialdom will!

No, but if you suddenly turn up with a suntan it means you've done something different, perhaps a holiday or a job outdoors. The claims advisors are quick to spot stuff like that.

The reign of Hadrian is usually described as a turning point of the Roman Empire. From the expansionist conquests of his predecessor Trajan to the withdrawal and consolidation for which Hadrian is known. Its entirely possible to see Hadrian as something less than the energetic administrator he is usually described as. He was quick to assume power and his claim to roman domination was not necessarily legimate. Anecdotes picture him as a somewhat distant, authoritarian, vain, obstinate, overly-liberal, self important intellectual, lacking charisma, restraint, or popularity, but it should not be forgotten that he spent half his reign visiting his provinces, that he applied humane laws to slavery, reformed finance, extended latin rights, and limited the excesses of gladiators bad behaviour. He was to be deified after died at the orders of Antoninus Pius, his succesor, despite the Senates deep reluctance to accord him the honour. At the start of his reign, Hadrian had many issues to deal with. Revolts in Northern Britain, Mauretania, Dacia, Judaea, and a suspected plot against him in Rome. He dealt with all them methodically, and in some respects, his decisions cost him popularity. The plot in Rome was merely a ruse to dispose of those loyal to Trajan. He certainly made use of spies to stay ahead of possible plots against him, co-opting the Frumentarii ('Corn Collectors') as his personal intelligence agency, a far greater step than the networks of informers previously encouraged by individuals in positions of influence. It is true that Hadrian withdrew from Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Assyria. He even considered abandoning Dacia, although the presence of gold mines meant that contnued occupation was profitable, and only a small portion was handed over to the Roxolani. The return of eastern territory and the Dacian solution won him no friends. The Trajanic conquests had been received well by the roman public, not to mention supplying the arena for games lasting 120 days - A third of a year in public entertainment. So, with the lack of public good will, and a desire to enjoy a comfortable life, its perhaps understandable that Hadrians policies were directed inwards. The reasons given are that these trajanic conquests were untenable, that the Roman Empire had overextended itself. This is very close to the truth, particularly in the east. It has been noted that in desert warfare, its easy to conquer large swathes of territory but very difficult to retain them. In time, Rome might have extended its roads and cultural influence in later years, but these frontiers were not secure, and for the most part, there was little to gain by keeping them. All this withdrawal is credited to Hadrians commonsense as a capable administrator, yet there are indications that Trajan would eventually have done something similar had not illness overtaken him. Mesopotamia for instance had risen in revolt before the war on Parthia had been completed. Also, two of the african limes ('Limits') intended to limit the nomadic intrusion in what is now southern Tunisia were built in Trajans time. Before Hadrian, the extent of roman territory relied on physical boundaries supplied by nature, such as rivers, hills, mountains, valleys, or whatever feature served the purpose. This unsophisticated demarcation nonetheless has the benefit of being readily understandable on both sides of the border. In some places it was deemed necessary to mark the border in a more finite fashion. The vallum, an earthen ditch and bank, had already been used sporadically and the first limes, a border fence, was constructed by Domitian in Germania Superior. The Principate was not a completely romanised entity. Like the layers of an onion, the extent of romanisation varied according to how far away it was from Rome. Its core was a small nucleus of solidly roman territory centered around Rome itself. Next was a layer around that of romanised provinces. Then a layer of regions less romanised, and so forth. Although the frontier was guarded by a system of watchtowers and roads, entry to the empire was not actually prevented. The roman legions were essentially an internal security force when not actively engaged in military operations abroad, and the suppression of enemy incursion was treated in the same manner. Therefore an enemy could enter roman territory at will, unimpeded by frontier defenses. The repulse of that enemy would take place further inside the empire. As the enemy advanced, they would inevitably meet a blocking force of roman soldiers. If the incursion was merely a border occupation that did not strike deep, then the roman legions would eventually arrive to send them back again. Inherent in this methodology is a need for time to organise a reaction to the enemy incursion. You could describe the legions acting in a similar way to anti-bodies converging on a virus. Hadrian changed this policy. Henceforth, the frontier would be actively protected as much as possible. Given the limitations of military support, a complete containment of the frontier was not a practical possibility. There is a suggestion made in recent years that Hadrian had intended that the empire would be a giant fort, a fenced-off boundary that physically prevented access. This is simply not the case. Although there were some widespread barriers constructed around the empire - Hadrians Wall, and the Limes in Europe and Africa, we must consider this as the evidence of a selective border control policy. Only those frontiers that were sensitive or a security risk were guarded in this manner. The security of the roman frontier did not rest entirely on walls and ditches. The watchtowers and military road patrols remained in place even in 'safe' border areas, but in addition, if it was considered necessary, the romans erected forts outside the empire, to act as forward bases. Hadrians Wall has two such forts to the north, constructed in Hadrians reign. These fortifications were effectively in hostile territory, and since the romans had little regard for barbarian sensibilities, having built them on their territory was of little consequence if border security was to be achieved. The roman provinces and territories once considered 'foreign' but under roman control were now embraced by a secure frontier. It seems that Hadrian had intended that the entire Roman Empire within this frontier system to become romanised. As a passionate sponsor of hellenistic art and literature his focus was on stabilising his empire and providing the background for a comfortable life. With the establishment of a secure border, the 'layered' empire could be replaced by a fully romanised empire, and development of outlying areas could be entertained to the extent that 'barbarian' culture could be brushed aside. This domestic policy was nearly a disaster. Hadrian had visited Judaea in AD130. A revolt had begun under Trajans reign and this was one of several that Hadrian had been forced to deal with early on. Jerusalem had been destroyed in the Jewish War and had remained a ruin since AD70. Hadrian promised the Jews that the city would be rebuilt. Unfortunately, he chose to rebuild it as a roman city, Aelia Capitolina, and this resulted in a second Jewish War. After three years of bitter fighting the Jews were defeated, and Judaea was named Syria-Palaestina thereafter. This event is significant, for whilst it represents a unique revolt against Hadrians otherwise adept rule, it also demonstrates his lack of regard for non-roman cultures, and indicates his desire for a truly roman world. Hadrian was an experienced soldier. He had served as tribune with the Legio II Adiutricis in Pannonia, Legion V Macedonia in Moesia, and the Legion XXII Primiginiae in Germania Superior. He had risen to the command of the Legio I Minerva, and although his war record doesn't seem particularly brilliant he nonetheless won awards from Trajan for his service.during the Dacian War. Having been a provincial governor in Syrua, he had direct experience of the frontier and especially that of the east. The most significant example of this is Parthia. Trajan had conquered a great deal of territory from the Parthians, and roman soldiers were bathing in the Caspian Sea for the first time. Unbeknown to him, Trajan had very nearly met a chinese delegation led by the exploratory general Pan Chao, and only parthian intervention had prevented it. Parthia was wealthy because it straddled the Silk Road, a major land trading route east and west, and it was this taxation of trade that was a major reason for Trajans war on Parthia. The Parthians themselves did not want to be squeezed by a chinese-roman alliance, hence their efforts to persuade Pan Chao to leave the romans alone, but there were personal reasons for Parthia to want Rome defeated. During his conquest, Trajan had captured the daughter of King Osroes I of Parthia. She had become a hostage, a guarantee of good behaviour. Nonetheless, Parthia, a kingdom of enough size to challenge roman supremacy, was preparing for war. Hadrian was told this when he dealt with the Mauretainian revolt, the other side of the Roman Empire, and he set out for the Euphrates border. That the hostilities did not take place is partly due to Hadrians superior political intelligence. His network of spies and contacts he had made in the east had served him well. However, Hadrian and Osroes made a settlement in which the parthian kings daughter was returned. There is an element of placation involved. Since Parthia was given much of what it wanted to fight for, the war was defused. There's no record I know of that mentions any settlement about the Silk Road and the tolls Parthia inflicted upon it, and its an important point, because this economic obstacle was one of the reasons for Trajans invasions of the east. There seems to be little or no effort made by Hadrian to improve foreign relations beyond defusing the conflict on his borders. He was almost isolationist in his stance. Certainly his actions regarding legionary discipline and standards imply an army retained in peacetime and kept busy in spite of it. Hadrian, as an experienced military officer, knew full well the hazards of an idle army. He never provoked his neighbouring states, and this reinforces the view that he was directing his efforts internally to provide secure frontiers for the first time in roman history. So what can we say about foreign policy in the Hadrianic world? Simply this - Hadrians foreign policy was to have as little to do with it as possible. A History of Rome - Le Glay, Voisin, Le Bohec Chronicle of the Roman Emperors - Chris Scarre Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire - Edward Luttwak Who's Who in the Roman World - John Hazel wikipedia.com

A - Take a nap. Chill out. I'm being conversational. Sorry if that doesn't appeal to you, but I don't care. Most of what you've posted in response to my answers is an attempt to look clever. Fine, I really don't care. You might have the luxury of time to spend finding all sorts of distantly related info on one thing or another, I have more important thingsd to do. It would help if you were able to phrase a coherent arguement, links or not.

Excellent. Briliiant. Correct. The same influences in human behaviour reoccur given similar circumstances. But why make this point? The point I'm making is that the increasing need to keep up with the Jonesii in the presence of increasing affluence is a corrupting influence, and one that hand in hand with increasing hedonism took the republic from an enviroment of public duty to one of selfish gratification. Other than that your arguement seems to be about one of linguistic sophistication and has no relevance to the original thread. Sorry, it just doesn't. Why not try to phrase a positive arguement instead of trying to disassemble mine? After all, you've just posted four times and gotten nowhere.

Do you actually suggest the Venusian gases are occasionally being dumped on Earth, across at least some 26 million miles (more than 3,000 times the Earth's diameter) of open space? And that such phenomenon contributes to the ongoing terrestrial global warming? Really? Strictly speaking yes it does. When the earth is in line behind Venus, the solar wind is delivering the gas it strips away in our direction. The amount is open to question - I would expect it to be somewhat small but perhap there's some expert opinion somewhere that might confirm that. The venusian atmosphere is composed of greenhouse gases and therefore makes a contribution to our own woes, but again, I'm being a lttle tongue in cheek and I wouldn't expect it to make a huge difference - perhaps I'm wrong about that? It would be interesting to note how often the planets are aligned in this manner. As for th distance, so what? Space is a vacuum - it contains next to nothing, and if the solar wind, a stream of particles emiited by the sun during the normal course of its existence, is pointed the right wy the gas will cross the gap effortlessly. Planets do share material sometimes. We have found lunar and martian rocks (well, tektites and pebbles really) on earth, sent here almost as shrapnel from the bombardment of significant meteorite strikes. The reverse will be true. Somehere on Mars it might be possible to find a remnant of the K/T Event for instance. Mars is the best example of atmosphere loss. Unable to protect its collection of gas molecules, the solar wnd stripped it away long ago. You might also like to know that earth loses atmosphere in this way, although the loss is minimised by the magnetic field that forces the solar wind around us.

I see. So a narrow definition of a word is fine when it suits you? Arguably any society is corrupted by the criminal element within it because there is a danger that such behaviour is accepted as normal in spite of the laws made by that state to stifle it. I vehemently disagree with MPC. He sees luxury in absolute terms when in fact it should be viewed as relative. A few coins is a luxury to a beggar. It takes a great deal more than that to seem luxurious to a wealthy man. In the roman world, society was graded according to wealth. The size of your purse dictated which social class you could aspire to, and since domination of the herd is a primal human instinct the romans could dominate by the application of wealth, since that was the fundamental principle on which their social status revolved upon. In effect, the republic was operating as a form of organised gang, like the mafia, with loyalty and obligation between social classes based on the exchange of wealth (favours and protection too for that matter). This brings up the question of what money is good for. As we have seen, it marks roman status and influence, since a wealthy man can be generous to those below him or bribe his peers if need be. Beyond that, how does roman demonstrate his wealth? If he simply shouts aloud how wealthy he is, he's either a braggart or a liar. So instead, the purchase of luxury provides a visible signal of your wealth. A man with finer houses and contents obviously has more money to spend, and so must be considered someone of higher status. This results in a situation where there is competition for visible signs of wealth, the evidence of luxury. I'm reminded of a roman who committed suicide because his lavish banquets had bankrupted him. We see Crassus becoming extremely wealthy by very dodgy real estate deals for instance. The vast majority of Dacia was kept not because Trajan conquered it, not because the conquest was popular and celebrated, but because it had gold mines. Caesar stepped ashore in Britain not only to gain the kudos of being the first to do so, not only to disrupt foreign support for the conquered gauls, but to seek the valuable metals he had heard were there. Augustus had begun colonising Germania not for imperial reasons, but for tax. He had sent a man known to be greedy to collect it. True, these men often had larger financial obligations, but more often the cash was used to fund their own personal objectives. You might argue that Augustus for instance always made a point of wearing ordinary tunics (despite the fuss he made over wearing toga's). True, he did not display the extravagance that many emperors would. In his case, he did not want to seem superior. He wanted to be seen as Princeps, First Citizen, and whilst he had every intention of retaining control he did not want to alienate the senate by the displays of majesty his great-uncle had. Caesar of course had no such qualms, and since he wanted to be dictator he felt it his right to adopt finery that senators would not consider for fear of being thought pompous. This brings up another side to the arguement. Whereas a man who makes a public display of grandeur will be sneered at by his peers, out of envy or disrespect, it is the private growth of luxury that marks the status of the roman, his ability to conduct financial deals in his own atrium. This private wealth and luxury becomes a desirable asset in its own right. Sulla, during his proscriptions, made sure his followers were rewarded by the 'redistribution' of such luxury, and such redistributions weren't unknown in other periods of roman history either. Men were gotten rid of simply because he had luxury that someone else coveted. Paul said of the romans that "The love of money is the root of all evil" - and that is a definition of corruption at its most basic, for with the accumultion of wealth comes the ability and desire to accumulate luxury. In Rome, as in any other culture, such luxury was bought by the exploitation of others. As for the modern definitions you listed, please find above another one that disagrees.

The US was bsed on classical principles (greek too, not just roman) because the educated men who sat down to write the constitution were knowledgable about such things and saw it as a superior system to the monarchies of europe. It is a parallel that the US threw off the kings and adopted a republic. The further parallels wll arise as a result of similar events. The american geographical isolation however distorts the comparisn for obvious reasons. The submergence of religion in modern industrial societies is not so clear cut. Christianity has failed to adapt to the changes in society and has increasingly been seen as irrelevant (I will spare you my own views on it, most of you have already heard them) but then isn't the american south strongly christian still? The increasing influence of islam has been offset somewhat by the militantcy that surrounds it, but it remains a growing influence nonetheless. Further, the significance of religion depends on the general mood and state of society, plus the availability of charismatic individuals able to preach their message. Without the disciples, christianity would have disappeared before it started. With the right person exploiting the media, there could just as easily be another religious awakening in the future, another harsh and moralistic phase such as that we saw in Cromwells time. Human society goes through these cycles. It accepts a certain enviroment then gets gradually bored or indifferent to it, until a point is reached where another such phase begins again.

As an unemployed person I have to say there are one or two disadvantages to being on the dole. One is that everyone else think you're a lazy good for nothing sponging off the state, the second is that your Claims Advisor thinks you're a lazy good for nothing sponging off the state. She called my name out and as I stepped forward to her desk, she raised her eyebrows at my suntan. Fresh from my journey home from Newcastle a few hours earlier I looked like I'd spent the weekend on a tropical beach. It must be said, the weather on our weekend in Newcastle was glorious. Somehow, I doubt my excuse will be. "Hello Mr Caldrail. You alright?" Ummm.. Yeah... Bit tired... She looked straight at me with that maternal 'I know you've been naughty' look. And it works. I closed my eyes, sighed, and proceeded to explain my naughty weekend. It was a roman history field trip. I guess thats not the usual excuse is it? Her expression hadn't changed. She pointed at my jobsearch record. "What happened to that part time job?" Which one? Oh... That one.... No, I got nowhere with it... It was that moment I realised what she meant. I glanced up in horror at the prospect of being blamed for working whilst receiving benefits. She had that maternal look of 'Don't lie to me Caldrail'. No really, I was on a roman history field trip... Excuse of the Week Goes to Barry George, recently cleared of tv presenter Jill Dando's murder after eight years in jail. "I knew I was innocent" He said, "I was stalking someone else."

Life is incredibly tenacious, although its more complex forms are very fragile. Its also noticeable that the chemical structure and physical laws of this universe are conducive to the development of organic life - and thats the problem, because the conditions are hard to come by. A planet must form quickly to gather an atmosphere or the gas is stripped away by the solar wind. It should have an iron core to form a protective magnetic field or again, the atmosphere is lost. Mars has already lost its own, and Venus is slowly losing atmosphere steadily (it dumps its gas on us occaisionally, one more arguement in the global warming debate ). On top of that, the planet must be free of bombardment, have sufficient water and sunlight, and orbit within a narrow band of acceptable temperatures. Its a pretty tough list of conditions. The famous equation for the probable existence of intelligent life is way too optimistic.

What effect can luxury have on society? Firstly, it makes people less concerned with the welfare of others. If there is no luxury in life, people do tend to be more supportive to each other. Once luxury is available to those who can afford it, then it becomes a quest in itself. People vie for the most obviously luxurious lifestyle and derive some status from it. Since Rome was a society with very stratified status, what could be better than a display of luxury? It would define your wealth and influence visibly. The increasing hedonism of the late republic was noted by Mommsen. A pointless arguement, since once a luxury is accepted as normal then people seek more for the reasons given above. You're thinking in absolute terms. Society views itself according to its current viewpoint, not its past, and therefore the concept of luxury is relative. Then why do thieves break into houses to steal tv's? Why are cars stolen? For profit. The availability of luxury is limited and if offered at a lower price away from the marketplace, there will always be those willing to pay for luxury in order to establish their own comfort and status on the cheap. In that respect, what is so different from Rome? Is the traffic in stolen luxury not evidence of corruption? Do not drug dealers live luxurious lives off the misery of their customers? You can't get much more corrupt than that. Or shall we include the deals done behind closed doors in politics. A gift, and the agreement is made. It seems very logical to me. I live in a town, and thus witness the effects of luxury-seeking first hand. If you want to call me simple-minded you're welcome to, but expect an arguement.

Rome did not have a national army. It was never actually a nation to begin with, being a city state with imperial expansion. Instead, it had lots of mini-armies. A legion was not a unit in a large army, it was an army in its own right, and the concept of raising a 'levy', an annual army, was traditional. The Reforms of Marius had not doomed the Republic at all. Whilst it changed the format of the roman military and made it much more of a permanent institution, it was roman politics that doomed it. But lets remember - the Republic did not die. Far from it, it was still present in all its forms under the Principate, so it might be said that the Republic was still in place under the rule of the Caesars. It had allowed dictators to dominate. Dictatorship can be very popular with its people. It might provide a dynamic, strong rule, unfettered by committees and continual debate. It might be the focus for personal loyalty and popularity as opposed to a faceless group of remote politicians. After the internal struggles of leadership I can well imagine the public were only too glad to see the back of it, and since Augustus was careful to foster his popularity, there was no reason to oust a man who had brought peace to Rome. The Senate, divided and self obsessed, were not happy, but given Augustus's power base it was difficult to do more than wait in the wings for his failure. In effect, the loyalty of the roman legions had allowed certain men to seek ambition in political life. Where the Republic failed was its inability to establish loyalty to Rome, and that must be laid at the feet of the Senate.

The vikings established colonies in Greenland on the basis of simply that, colonisation, not raiding. One of the major reasons for expansion by the vikings was exactly the same as other warrior cultures - a unified, combative society with means to travel. Their members wanted new lands, to expand their own interests. Without this, they could only turn on themselves in the quest for personal ambition. The decline in warm temperatures certainly killed off the viking colonies in greenland. However, there were other factors present in the difficulties experienced in europe, such as disease. The Black Death reduced populations to something like 25% of its former size if I remember right. However, agriculture had been advancing during the Warm Period and this wasn't lost.

I've just watched an advert on tv. Its sponsored by the government, and tells us that if we don't act now our world will become hotter with dire results to our comfortable lives. It ends with a a view of the world wrapped in a red hot atmosphere. Thats a chilling message isn't it? It is of course designed to frighten us out of our complacency. It is, without doubt, propaganda. Our government is socialist and whilst it has politicans in the public eye who proclaim their wish to further the prosperity of their voters, it harbours many in the background who have no such wish. A fundamental feature of human society is that there will always be people who seek status, to have more than anyone else, to leave the Joneses in poverty while they revel in their relative wealth. Socialism in theory exists to prevent that by redistributing wealth. Its who receives that wealth that defines an ideal socialist government from a bunch of self-serving fat cats. Idealism is all very well, but as George Orwell observed, human beings will not change their spots. Paradise Lost On your local high street you come across travel agents selling foreign holidays. The list of possible destinations varies from the mundane to the exotic, and these little tastes of paradise are almost considered as socially mandatory. Yet the appeal of these locales hides a reality of the world which we tend to ignore in the quest for sun, sea, and sand. A newly wed couple shot in Antigua. A young woman is found on a beach in Thailand. Another left in a japanese bathtub. Still another left in a suitcase in Brazil. Backpackers thrown from a bridge or buried in the outback in Australia. Others left for dead in a chinese ditch. Paradise or not, you have no choice but to remember that the world can be a dangerous place. Dogs of the Week This weeks accolade goes to a pair of rottweilers on the sands of Whitly Bay, Northumberland. I

The comparison between ancient and modern is popular in some circumstances, not others. When looking at snapshots of social history and organisation these comparisons are very popular, because its easy. For instance, I regularly read that one roman military unit or rank is equivalent to one of ours in the modern day. Such comparisons rely on coincidence, not in form or function, and for that reason, they are fundamentally flawed. However, human social dynamics have not changed at all. People organise themselves into communities because we're social animals, and we gain survival advantages from doing this. Now if you apply a microscope on such things you simply focus on the differences, but if you stand back back and take in a broader picture, there are similarities of cultural development. Societies are not static - they change with time and circumstance - and whilst these changes cannot be charted exactly there are certain developments that reoccur over time. The thing is, we look at ourselves as something apart from nature, which believe is wrong. We are animals (whether we like it or not) and therefore obey instinctive guidelines for behaviour honed by evolution. The organic quality of the universe manifests itself time and again in all manner of ways, and the trick is not to compare two isolated cultures but to compare them all and if you consider the generic progress and decline - the similarities emerge. Its as if cultures have a birth, growth, maturity, and death, with their 'lives' altered by the events surrounding them. This view isn't popular with some people, especially those with detailed knowledge of a particular culture or two, but social behaviour is part of humanity - its encoded by genetics, instinct, and educational inheritance- thus we ultimately tend to do the same things over and over. Specifically then, you will find some huge differences between the US and Rome. Generically, you will see underlying it are the same behavioural developments that are part of mankind.

This period equates to the build up toward the Medieval Warm Period, which although produced hotter summers than today, allowed crop bonuses and aided agricultural recovery from the dark ages.

Our government thinks we drive like idiots regardless. I do think they'd rather we had gizmo's fitted so the we all get chauffered to our destinations by a microchip. Then again, they'd rather we didn't drive cars at all. That way their gas guzzling limousines would be a sign of status and not a green embarrasement.

Stop the earth. Minerva wants to get off. Stop climate change? How? Its been changing for billions of years. The current warming, apart from some variance, has been going on for at least 10,000 years. There weren't any cars back then. So who was responsible for climate change? Nature. The earth wobbles, the whole thing wobbles, and there's absolutely nothing you or anyone else can do except attempt to survive it, which is what we should be looking toward. The reason I brought up the subject is that green issues are generating exactly the same behaviour as religions. Anyone who doesn't repeat the mantras or obey the rituals gets ostracised. You cannot combat climate change. Its just not possible. We don't have anything like the climate engineering potential to do that. Thats the propaganda element. The government is telling us that we can. Nonsense. All they want is a compliant public all pulling together against a common threat. The threat in this case is global warming. The government want to be seen as being positive, as doing something to help their public. Truth is, it won't stop the temperature going up or down will it? Thats exactly what I mean about the religious overtones of the green agenda. You feel absolved because you adopted the desired attitude. Belief is what you hold to be true, religion is what someone tells you to believe. Who cares whether you feel guilty or not? Making the world a better place is a fine motive, but chances are all you've done is follow someone elses guidelines on how to live. You therefore feel you've done your bit, and so feel guiltless, but what have you actually achieved? Nothing. All you've done is stand in line and obey orders without thinking about it.

Spot on Neil. Its all about money. Thats what the control of the public is in aid of. Our government likes spending money. Ours. So if you save pennies with effiicient appliances, you can afford higher taxes. Also, I would point out that my last two cars were deliberately spiked and as a result its unlikely I'll be driving a car at all for the forseeable future. Does that make me any better off? No, because I've already lost the opportunity for well paid jobs because of my lack of transport.

Yes I've seen that problem in the railroad mags we get over here, and I've wondered how you guys cope with it. Over here, train services are cancelled until further notice. But hey - our country grinds to a halt after three snowflakes hit the asphalt.

It may well do. It also encroaches very heavily on personal liberties too - not because the world is changing, but because politicians like to exercise control over peoples lives and the threat of global warming is functionally no different to the threat of catastrophe, a day of judement, or simply being banged up in hell. Take your pick. Either way, the public perception is limited to whatever information is available and whose megaphone is loudest. Thats why the government issues those terrifying tv ads telling us the world is about to fall apart and only if we act NOW can we stop it. Which of course is ridiculous. The world isn't falling apart, its changing, like it changes in stops and starts all the time and has done since day one. Acting together really isn't going to change matters is it? I mean, just how powerful do these politicians actually believe we are? - thats just human folly and ego. And as far as stopping it is concerned, nobody has a megaphone loud enough to manage that. Guilt, irony or doing nothing are certainly not going to solve the problem. You see? You're doing it too! People are being brainwashed into believing that if they're doing as they're told the temperature rise will cease. Course it won't. Humans like to blame, to seek scapegoats, to point out the disbelievers and persecute those they believe are harming their interests. It just will NOT do any good. The world is changing - now - right in front of us - and if we sit still worshipping at the altar of greenness it won't make any difference to our fate whatsoever. Sea levels are going to rise whatever car we drive or how often we seperate our rubbish into coloured plastic bags - so why don't we start figuring out what to do when our immobile nests are inundated? When our infrastructure collapses? When we can't buy food in the supermarkets or take holidays in sunny exotic locations? Thats what will hit or miss, not this messianic devotion to changing light bulbs. Codswallop. You're just trying to sound intelligent. All I'm sceptical about is politicians integrity. Face it - you'll never find an honest one. Personally, I think life is a great deal richer than a seat in the House of Commons. Oh? You have a copy of my autobiography? I have some problems finding the religious analogy here. Soul ecology? You do like inventing phrases don't you? Read the newspapers. Watch the news. There's plenty of religious analogies in the 'green agenda'. Perhaps if you spent less time navel gazing and joining disparate words together you might actually start realising what the reports are telling you. Shoot politicians. Buy swimsuits. Rent houses on mountaintops. Dare I suggest building wooden aircraft carriers in your back yard? She's not the only one. And I'm not quoting Mr. Lennon's idealism; it's called pragmatism. No, its called running with the crowd. Lemmings do that too.

It caused network delays over the weekend, but very kindly they had it fixed for my return to Rushey Platt This sort of thing is expected on british railways. In autumn we get too many leaves on the track, in winter its the wrong kind of snow.

So the average westerner is destroying the planet by carrying on their comfortable lives? Oh how guilty we're being made to feel. Most of what we're told about global warming and the need to this that or not the other is nothing more than a shamefaced ruse to economise services and allow the government more tax profit to waste on their own comfort. Greener lifestyles? Don't make me laugh - the world is changing with or without us, and the results of climate change are not going to spare you because you adopted the green gospel. Constantine did something similar back in the 4th century AD - he got everybody involved in that christianity thing - not because it was worthy, but because it allowed him to control the public a little more easily. These days, fears of climate change are being exploited by governments for exactly the same reason. Keep the faith sister.