Chrome Plated

Technology is a wonderful thing, in moderation, but I do sometimes wonder whether its impact upon daily life may not be a little overrated.

Take Google Chrome, for example. For those who've missed they hype, it's a new, reasonably cool, web browser made by, erm, Google. Certainly, for those involved in associated fields, a Google web browser is a significant development. But, when all's said and done, it's just a piece of software. Does it really warrant a feature in most of the daily papers, not to mention countless blog posts, forum discussions etc?

I wouldn't have thought so, but then I am notoriously disinterested in these things. I have no doubt that, at some point down the line, it will present me with some difficulty or other that will result in much irritation before it is resolved, but until then I can't work up much enthusiasm about the product.

For a quick roundup of the bigger technology blogs, and what their pundits think of this early release beta version of Chrome, check out this article in the Telegraph. Clearly most of them worked up quite a bit of enthusiasm, leading me to wonder briefly whether this latest round in the ongoing Google / Microsoft scrap really is big news and I'm just missing the point.

But I don't think I am - I can see the ramifications, I understand the strategic importance of a fast browser optimised for web applications, I know what that could do to Microsoft (and what Google hope it could do, in the long term) and I don't really care. Even if those clever bods at Google have calculated correctly, it will take months or years before a mainstream version of Chrome makes Google Apps and their newfangled AppEngine viable threats to M$.

In the meantime, I have far more pressing things to worry about than a new web browser, even one with the Google logo on it - believe it or not, the internet is only a very small part of life, and I can go for days or weeks at a time without even thinking about it. Honest!

Billy Seggars.

High Heels Race

In July, I mentioned the Russian high heeled racing babes that were the Sun's major high point in a very dull time for the news.

Now it looks like the Aussies have followed suit - and maybe even gone one better. According to this article, also from the Sun (nice to know they're so consistent!) 265 stiletto-shod birds stampeded their way around an 80 meter race course at Sydney Harbour. The event beats the previous record of 150 stiletto racers, held in Holland.

First across the line was 18-year-old Aussie blonde beauty Brittney McGlone, a professional hurdler according to the Telegraph, who trousered the £2,350 first prize and a pair of Terry Biviano stilettos. Good on you, Brittney!

But strewth, mate, I reckon journos from the Sun missed something when they said the race was run by 265 WOMEN. Take a look at the slide show accompanying the article. Specifically, have a butchers' at picture 9, contestant 433, second from the left. That is surely a bloke, clattering along in high heels amongst with the women. Isn't it?

Not that I have any problems with men in high heels, any more than I have a problem with men in tights - and I know from my logs that many readers positively adore males in pantyhose, judging by the number of folks who have been googling for men in tights in public.

And for that kind of money, I don't blame them - show me the best part of £2.5k and I'll happily gallop around in high heels. And tights, too, if required - Seggars B is not proud, though Mrs S might have something to say about it, if she finds out.

Billy Seggars.

Oh My Darling

He's not the sharpest political knife in the draw. In fact, he's probably a spatula. And yet, of all the sleaze balls in Gordon Brown-Trousers' government, Chancellor Alistair Darling is the only one to come clean about the extent of the economic crisis now engulfing Britain.

Only last week, the soon-to-be-former Prime Minister was toughing things out, putting on a cheery (for him) confident (for him) expression and telling us that the credit crunch wouldn't be biting nearly so hard in a few months' time. I didn't believe him then, and I most certainly don't believe him after reading about the Chancellor's comments to the Guardian.

We're in the thick of the worst economic problems for 60 years, he says, and warns that the impact is going to be more profound and longer lasting that people think. No more than this person thinks, that's for sure. I've seen this problem coming for the past year or more, and fully expected it to be at least as vicious as it currently seems to be.

Still, Darling seems to have his finger on the pulse of the common man, who still can't quite get to grips with the idea that the economic good times are well and truly over. He's also quite accurate divined that voters are "pissed off" with Labour. No shit, Sherlock!

We've been getting ever-more pissed off with them for quite a while, but their behaviour over the past year or so has been even worse than usual. What with the election that never was, the total lack of referendum on the EU Treaty, a seemingly bottomless tide of sleaze engulfing Labour and even the Speaker of the House and the effects of years of Gordon Brown-Trousers' economic incompetence coming home to roost, we've had quite enough of a Labour Government, thank you.

Darling seems to have grasped that, dimly, and hopes that frank admissions of pissed-off-ness will get him through the next few weeks - or, at least, absolve him of the blame for most of the problems created by Gordon Brown-Trousers when HE was Chancellor. And, in a way, he deserves to survive, insofar as any Labour minister should be within 100 miles of Whitehall. Most of his problems really do stem from the incredibly incompetent actions of his predecessor, who, even now that he's moved on, still seems to be balling up the economy.

With the inevitable in-fighting over leadership about to break out again, the Labour party could do worse than consider Darling as a caretaker leader. Nothing on Earth is going to win them the next election, but, in their death throes, Brown, Miliband et al could do an awful lot more damage to Britain before they are finally ejected by a downright disillusioned electorate. Perhaps, if the more temperate Chancellor were to be allowed to run the show, he could at least guide the party to a soft landing instead of the full throttle crash that seems inevitable right now.

They may then be able to sort out their differences in private, without trashing the country in the process, and set about mounting an effective opposition to Crazy Cameron's new landslide majority. And make no mistake, such an opposition is going to be sorely needed. Cameron is little better than Blair (I discount the idea that he's no better than Brown, on the basis that a maddened rhino would be a better bet than the current PM) and we're going to need something to keep him in check. Darling might just be the man to do it.

Billy Seggars.

My What A Big Missile

Goodness me, we seem to be still alive. Several days have gone by, and still those big bad Russians haven't reduced us to radioactive slag. Much as this may be a subject for rejoicing, however, it has (or hasn't, as the case may be) happened despite, rather than because of the antics of Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.

Oh. My. GOD. What the hell is that cocky little bantam doing now? Fresh from trying to upstage Gordon Brown-Trousers and looking like a treacherous little upstart for his troubles, he's had a quick jaunt to Ukraine this week. Where, right under the nose of a highly pissed off and downright twitchy Russian administration, he has preached the benefits of the democratic choices Ukraine has made, and went on to say that supporting those choices was the right thing for a British Foreign Secretary to do.

Democracy. Right. Yes. Good. Well done to those bods in Ukraine, maybe we could have some democracy over here, when the Government doesn't think it would lose power by it? But their Russian neighbour, particularly under the rule of Putin and Medvedev, isn't all that big on democracy, is it? In fact, it's very much like waving a red rag at a bull, except this bull is really a bear, and it's quite red enough already, thank you very much.

It's quite obvious that Miliband thinks he's someone of stature, an impressive figure on the international stage who is in a position to draw subtle lines in the sand and demand that Russia doesn't cross them. In reality, his posturing looks ridiculous. It's very, very difficult to take him seriously at the best of times, and now is most definitely not the best of times. He might look slightly better as he squares up to the old enemy if only he'd get rid of that pathetic bum-fluff moustache, but as it is he closely resembles an ant giving orders to a dinosaur - and by that, I don't, for once, mean Gordon Brown-Trousers.

On the same day, the Sun ran an article headlined, "If the West arms Georgia it's 'war'". The article gave a nice summary of the mounting hassle, stressing that Russia wasn't afraid of a new Cold War, that the situation closely resembled that on the eve of the First World War and that a US ship bringing "humanitarian aid" had docked in Georgia's Black Sea port of Batumi. Of particular interest was the sidebar, by the Sun's political editor, George Pascoe-Watson, titled "Face Up To The Bear".

It gave a bullish list of reasons why we shouldn't be all that worried by Russian posturing, pointing out that "80 per cent of its military hardware is defunct or outdated. Its defence industry is in tatters and its 1.1million-strong armed forces are poorly trained." Which all sounded very encouraging, until I saw today's headline: "Russia tests out new lethal nuke."

Sporting a 550-kiloton warhead, Russia's new Topol missile was launched from Plesetsk and landed on target at the Kamchatka peninsula some 3,730 miles away. Their new toy has a maximum range of over 6,000 miles - which, as the Sun helpfully points out, is far enough to reach the UK - can devastate an area 14 miles wide and is kitted out to avoid "enemy" defence systems. Doesn't sound all that defunct or outdated to me!

It doesn't sound it to the boy Miliband, either, who's suddenly spouting piffle like "nobody wants all-out war with Russia." No, they don't. It's the last thing we want. But we don't want a Foreign Secretary who struts around Eastern Europe then shits his pants at the first sign of a missile that just might reach the UK, either.

Miliband's youthful looks go hand in hand with a total lack of experience, zero backbone and an ego like an airship. Letting him flap around loose in the middle of a crisis is pretty much guaranteed to make things worse, and right now I don't think that's such a good idea. If we can give his job to somebody who actually knows what they're doing, and has a working knowledge of both politics and diplomacy, it might - just - be possible to calm things down before Russian pride, American gung-hoism and New Labour political games combine to kick off WW3.

And besides, how much worse could they do? America will have taken note of the missile test, and, after some careful calculation using all his digits, President Bush will have worked out that the dratted thing can probably reach the US. Russia has made moves and statements that leave it very little room for manoeuvre on the diplomatic front, and one thing Russians really, really hate is losing face to the West. They have effectively chased the donkey up the minaret, and we need to find a way of letting them appear to get it safely down again before Bush makes an ass of himself by blasting both the donkey and the minaret to fine powder. All of which Miliband could have stopped if he hadn't been too busy playing power games designed to boost his standing in the Government, and the Government's position in the polls.

At this rate we'll be lucky to get through another week before someone gets trigger-happy. Again.

Billy Seggars.

Brown's Green Tax Grab

I'm no fan of so-called "green issues". Global warming, as it used to be called before it was found not to be and was rebranded as the more flexible, less easily debunked "climate change", has always struck me as the perfect means of parting well-meaning folks from their cash on the pretext of saving the world.

Whether the climate is changing or not, clever marketing bods have seized the opportunity to hike prices by imposing a "green premium", allowing folks to get a warm and fuzzy feeling every time they buy a low quality, high cost, allegedly environmentally friendly product. The ability to spot a mug and exploit their gullibility is basic human nature, and most people have learned to distinguish reality from marketing hype - we expect it, compensate for it and even get a kick out of "falling for it" in some cases.

It's all part of the game we play with traders. They want to sell us less for more, we want to buy more for less, and we usually arrive at some midway compromise without too much hassle. It's a great way for an economy to operate, but it's a lousy way to run a government. Unfortunately, according to the Sun, New Labour has been conning the British public out of £800 per year in extra "green taxes".

A United Nations report suggests that the social cost of Britain's greenhouse gas emissions is around $4.6 billion per year. The government estimates (and who would believe them, these days!) the figure to be £16.3 billion. But last year they raised £24.2 billion on things like fuel duty and road tax. BIG difference.

Who was Chancellor when all these taxes were being devised and implemented? Goodness, it wouldn't be the coward currently masquerading as the British Prime Minister, would it? Can we trust this bungling apology for a public servant with anything at all? Is there any scam he will not employ in his frantic attempt to balance the books before anyone figures out he's been cooking them for years?

Of course there isn't. Because, like all Labour politicians - like all politicians, come to that - they hold the electorate in contempt. Our function, from their point of view, is do what we're told and keep them in power. And, stupidly, that's exactly what we do. It's a bit like the merchant's hype in a way - we expect them to be sleazy, and get a kick out being right, as long as they don't cross the line between self-serving machinations and downright dishonesty.

But it's a disgusting state of affairs when, in the middle of an economic crisis of their own making, the government that wrecked people's pensions is caught out fiddling the levels of taxation on "green" issues. It's easy to see why they would, of course. They think the public are fooled by the scare stories of environmental collapse, they think there's a willingness to pay premium prices to stave of disaster and they want their cut.

But it's not right. The line has been crossed, there is no going back, and Gordon Brown-Trousers will have to go. The sooner the better, too!

Billy Seggars.