A Creative Person Who's Dormant . . .

  
. . . is a creative soul in torment.

Pithy I know.

It was a phrase that came to me a while ago, and which I duly noted but then forgot about. With though the recent changes I'm considering trying to instigate into my current lifestyle, it again entered into my mind and started me thinking anew.

For a while now I've realised that the nature of my working life has moved further and further from the creative aspect, to the more organisational and managerial side. However, after the initial buzz of new responsibilities and solving new problems, I wondered why I was no longer looking forward to work as much as I previously had. Then I realised. I was hardly ever exercising my creative muscles.

Some people I have worked with have expressed amazement at how certain jobs I do require new creative ideas daily. To them that would be their idea of hell, constantly having the pressure of coming up with something new for a subject that they might not always have a personal interest in. They love their job. Always the same spreadsheet, always the same options and variables, just different values to be input. To them the comfort comes in knowing what most days will entail. They can't understand why anyone should wish to work in a job where nearly every project is an unknown and has to be started from scratch.

However, the creative person thrives on the new, the unexpected and is often focused by the need to deliver something within a certain time period. (I know I do some of my best work with a deadline!) The buzz of having an idea and seeing it realised must be akin to the endorphin rush all my 'gym bunny' friends have after a hardcore workout session. 

But most creatives though, after that initial 'creative high', also need to share their work as a way of getting even more out of the experience, and so that I think will be my aim in the coming new year. Not only to be more creative, but to then share what I have done with others and learn what I can from the feedback that ensues. Assuming that anyone actually wants to look at my work!

So even though New Year's Resolutions can be a bit of a cliché, I figure . . . why not?

F1 - F'd Up

Apparently 'sense' has prevailed for the time being at the FIA after their ill-fated attempt to rewrite the Formula 1 rule book yet again. (World Motor Sport Council - Decisions press release 17/03/2009).

Today's new FIA Formula One World Championship press release (20/03/2009) is a rather embarassing U-turn, brought about purely by the amount of ridicule they've suffered from just about all corners for the last couple of days.

It seems that Messrs Mosley and Ecclestone are yet again determined to make the power play between the constructors and the governing body the main focus of the coming F1 season, rather than the actual competition itself.

Now I'm not sure whether there's a need in the first place for a revised scoring system, but assuming that all parties believe there is, then the ineptitude of Bernie's 'winner takes all' idea is so blindingly obvious that it beggars belief that anyone would even consider it.

As I understand it, the Drivers' Championship would be awarded pure and simply to the driver who had achieved the most wins during that season. In the event of a tie the title would go to the driver with the highest total number of points scored. Irrespective of what points are awarded to the first 3 places - can anyone see the blindingly obvious flaw with this system?

Well consider this, at the end of last season (2008) there were 22 drivers in the official rankings who could have started in 18 races. With Mr Ecclestone's 'new and improved' scoring system, the following scenario suddenly becomes a frightening possibility.

Driver 1 wins the first 4 races and then doesn't finish another race for the rest of the season, meanwhile 5 other drivers are going at it 'hammer and tongs' each winning every other race between them, though no driver has more than 3 wins to his credit. He does however have numerous 2nd and 3rd places etc. and all finish in each of the season's 18 races. All that however would count for nought with regards to the Drivers' Championship as they can't match the 4 wins of Driver 1. So you tell me, does that mean the best driver has won - I think not.

Now if I, and presumably others can see the flaw in Bernie Ecclestone's system, why couldn't the supposed experts who run Formula 1?

Yet another example of incompetent thinking by people in positions of power.

I personally hope the balance of power in F1 shifts away from the FIA / WMSC to FOTA. After all, they're the ones having to work with the cars and drivers day in day out to achieve the incredible feats of man and machine which makes F1 such an exciting spectator sport.

But then again, that's just my opinion.

"Winning isn't always finishing first.
Sometimes winning is just finishing."
- Manuel Diotte

"Passive Drinking"

On the 16th March 2009, the UK Government's Chief Medical Officer - Sir Liam Donaldson released the Annual Report on the State of Public Health (2008). Of the 5 topics he chose to cover, only one really made any impact in terms of news worthiness - Passive Drinking (apparently he came up with the term himself). And that I'm afraid is indicative of the level of thought that went into the conclusions Sir Donaldson came up with as a means of combating the rise in 'collateral damage from alchohol'.
I know we're all trying to go 'green' but his recycling of the 'price and access' ideology used so effectively against passive smoking is in my opinion ill conceived.
Basically his bright idea is that if you raise the price of alcohol high enough, it will deter people from getting drunk and thus stop these people from committing crimes and having accidents. Honestly, I kid you not. This incredibly naive display of reasoning would be laughable except for the fact that some of our politicians; who also lack the power of logical reasoning, are actually giving credence to Sir Donaldson's ill thought out solutions to our very real social problems.
No right minded person would deny that some people who are drunk will commit crimes or be involved in accidents (both of which use up vital emergency services resources). However, increasing the minimum price of alcohol is not the solution. Once again, the so called 'authorities' would rather take away my freedom of choice than make the individual responsible for their actions.
In a free market economy, I should have the right to buy alcohol as cheaply as possible, but if I chose to abuse that right by my subsequent actions, then the authorities should also have the right to make me pay as dearly as possible for my criminal/anti-social behaviour (whether that be by increased prison sentences or by having to pay for medical treatment of alcohol related injuries).

Sir Donaldson quotes figures that claim it would take 10 years to see the full effects of his policies, which could also create a total saving of £1 billion a year. I believe that if a zero tolerance approach to drunken behaviour was enforced, along with a policy of the NHS not covering self-inflicted alcohol related injuries (i.e if your drunken fall results in a broken leg you pay the medical bills - not the sober tax payer!) then I bet the fiscal savings and the effect on the community would be a lot greater and a lot more immediate than those envisaged over 10 years.

Well, I think I've written enough about this now. If anybody ever reads this and wishes to challenge any of the points I've made, then I'd be happy to go into further details.

References:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/AnnualReports/DH_096206

The Age of the Car (Driver)

So yet another commons committee has had yet another 'knee jerk' reaction to a very complicated problem and gone for the old 'raise the age limit' ploy. Quelle suprise!

This is the link to the BBC News story I read -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6904821.stm

Now on the face of it, it may seem like a completely sensible idea, but unfortunately those are the worst kind. They trick you into believing that this rather serious matter has been under thoughtful consideration and that some deep thinking has been going on. Oh dear, how wrong we would be to believe that.

Let's look at the arguments used.
(Quoted from the above BBC online article)

• one-third of road deaths involve a car driven by a person aged between 17 and 25
• this age group however accounts for just one in eight licence-holders
• In 1992, there were 12.6 deaths on the road for every 100,000 motorists aged 17 to 20
• By 2005, the figure had risen to 19.2.

Ok, so if we believe these figures (and I've no reason to believe we shouldn't) there is obviously a worsening problem here which affects most of us, as most of us at sometime have to use the roads whether in a vehicle or as a pedestrian (road traffic accidents don't care how you use the roads, just that you are).

But what do the MPs on the committee come up with as the answer to this problem?
(Quoted from the above BBC online article)

1. people learning to drive from the age of 17, but not taking the test until they are 18
2. drivers completing a set minimum number of lessons with a structured syllabus
3. extending hazard-perception training using computer simulators to encourage better habits in young drivers-to-be
4. a zero alcohol limit for all drivers for a year after passing their test
5. banning drivers from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 from 11pm to 5am for a year after passing their test

Considering the main proposal (1) would an increase of a year really make a significant difference? All the figures the committee quotes use the 17 to 20 or 25 age range, so for this new law to make any sense the actual figures would have to show that the majority of deaths were caused by the 17 year old age group. Is this the case? Where is the proof to back this implication up? If this first assumption doesn't bear scrutiny then what does that tell you about the validity of the arguments and the capability of the people doing the thinking?
Looking at (2), again most people would probably say it was a good idea, but look deeper. Obviously a structured syllabus is a good idea (though not a new one, it is virtually in place already if you are paying for lessons and using an ADI) it means that every driver is taught the same information and has the same skill set once they are given a licence. However to specify a minimum number of lessons is meaningless - any number would be arbitrary and would no doubt be based on averages (average driver taking an average number of hours to reach an average level of competence). A very average answer to a problem and one which would penalise every driver who was above average and had reached competency before the specified number of lessons and who would thus have to needlessly spend more money on more lessons just because of an arbitrary number!
With (3) well here we are starting to clasp for straws now as the committee tries to justify its existence. Quite simply if this idea is needed to improve hazard perception for young drivers, then it should also be needed to improve hazard perception for older drivers. Therefore, it becomes irrelevant as being an answer purely specific to the problem under consideration.
Similarly with (4) we have a recommendation which shouldn't be age specific. Infact, if the MPs had actually bothered to do any research they would know that older bodies are actually affected to a greater degree than younger bodies for the same amount of alcohol.
(University of Florida Study, USA - Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 2009.)
So once again we have a potentially good idea of benefit to all age groups, but irrelevant as an age specific fix to the problem in hand!
And last but not least, my favourite example of flawed thinking by the committee (5). It beggars belief that so called intelligent people; and I presume we all would expect democratically elected MPs to be just that, can come up with such a stupid idea (I use the word advisedly and it its proper context). This is a very real example of how seemingly innocuous changes to the law can have a disproportionate effect on the everyday lives of honest, law-abiding people. Why should it be illegal for an 18 year old person to offer a lift to a 20 year old person at 11pm? In what kind of society should that even be considered as being within the remit of a government to impose such a restriction? But let's take it from being purely in the theoretical world to actually how it would come into play in the real world. Jane (18) has just finished her shift as a waitress and is looking to leave work. It's 1am and her colleague Sarah (20) has just heard her parents can't pick her up due to a flat battery. As the last bus has gone and a taxi would cost £30 Jane offers Sarah a lift as it's on her way. Why should this scenario (one of many I could think of) ever be criminalised ?!
:-)

Oh yes, it's oh so easy to pick holes but do I have anything constructive to put forward?

Well actually I do, but as I'm not sure anyone else in the world is reading this, I'll save it for another post, another time.

Raison d'etre

Today I begin my first foray into the blogosphere.
I have no preconceptions, just an open mind
and a willingness to search for knowledge.
I will share my thoughts and eagerly welcome those of others.
I look forward to every twist and turn along my route,
for who knows where they may lead.

Be careful of your thoughts;
they may become words at any moment.
- Iara Gassen