July 2025 – John Vincent

The Wit of Tom Lehrer: Songs That Endure

I was first introduced to the pastime of Poisoning Pigeons as a student. No, not literally. The idea of a leisurely Sunday sitting in a park dispatching pests that poo on the public has appeal. In reality, I’d never do that. Tom Lehrer’s comic composition[1] was enough. I have a lot of sympathy with the theme of his delightful song. Pigeons are, after all, merely disease spreading flying rats.

Tom Lehrer has left us a legacy of humour, the like of which we may never hear again. It’s so wonderful that his whole catalogue of songs is in the public domain[2] for everyone to enjoy until the day we all go together, when we go. Even I could have a go at a rendition of one of his songs, don’t worry it’s not my highest priority for the day. Beside matching his musicality, speed and timing isn’t within my meagre capacities.

Despite the massive changes that the world has been through since Tom’s pen went to paper a great number of the lyrics remain pertinent. I can sing “Pollution” loudly and think of the water companies in England. Like lambs to the slaughter, they (we) are drinking the water.

I can’t think of rockets, present or past without thinking of Tom’s song about Wernher Von Braun. Expedience seems to be the order of the day in 2025. Once the rockets go up who cares where they come down[3]. I’m sure the song wasn’t written about the Caribbean, but it could have been.

“The Folk Song Army” song is a nice dig at the pompousness of a certain kind of popular liberal musician. Something of our age. Where performance is more important than real action.

Sending up both the classics and the movie industry, “Oedipus Rex[4]” is pure genius. All such ancient stories should have dedicated title song. A complex complex.

Yes, Tom Lehrer was preaching to the converted. His sharp humour doesn’t normally travel across right-wing boundaries where they take themselves hideously seriously. He digs at the ribs of conservatives, tickles liberals and ridicules the absurdities of authorities.

Goodbye Tom Lehrer. Thanks for all the smiles. Thanks for your brilliant comic imagination. A shining star in the firmament.

[1] https://genius.com/Tom-lehrer-poisoning-pigeons-in-the-park-lyrics

[2] https://tomlehrersongs.com/

[3] https://www.wsj.com/video/spacex-starship-explodes-sending-debris-across-caribbean-sky/B828779B-D067-4290-A06D-77F60A6B501D

[4] https://tomlehrersongs.com/oedipus-rex/

Why 12,500 Pounds?

Regulation is a strange business. It often means drawing lines between A and B. Bit like map making. Those lines on a map that mark out where you are and the features of the landscape. You could say that’s when all our troubles start but it’s been proven unavoidable. As soon as our vocabulary extends to words like “big” and “small” someone somewhere is going to ask for a definition. What do you mean? Explain.

For a while you may be able to get away with saying; well, it’s obvious. That works when it is obvious for all to see. An alpine mountain is bigger than a molehill. When you get to the region where it’s not clear if a large hill is a small mountain, or not then discussion gets interesting. Some say 1000 ft (about 300 m) others say much more. There’s no one universal definition.

[This week, I drove through the Brecon Beacons. Not big mountains but treeless mountains, nevertheless. Fine on a clear day but when it rains that’s a different story. This week Wales looked at its best].

Aviation progressed by both evolution and revolution. Undeniably because of the risks involved it’s a highly regulated sector of activity. Not only that but people are rightly sensitive about objects flying over their heads.

For reasons that I will not go into, I’ve been looking at one of these lines on a regulatory map. One that’s been around for a long time.

I cannot tell you how many discussions about what’s “minor” and what’s “major” that have taken place. That’s in terms of an aircraft modification. However, these terms are well documented. Digging out and crewing over the background material and rationale is not too difficult, if you are deeply interested in the subject.

The subject I’m thinking about is that difference between what is considered in the rules to be a “large” aeroplane and a “small” aeroplane. Or for any American readers – airplane. So, I set off to do some quick research about where the figure of weight limit: maximum take-off weight of 12,500 pounds or less originated for small airplanes (aeroplanes).

I expected someone to comment; that’s obvious. The figure came from this or that historic document and has stuck ever since. It seems to work, most of the time. A confirmation or dismissal that I wanted addressed the question, is the longstanding folklore story is true. That the airplane weight limit was chosen in the early 1950s because it’s half the weight of one of the most popular commercial transport aircraft of that time.

There is no doubt that the Douglas DC-3[1] is an astonishing airplane. It started flying in 1935 and there are versions of it still flying. Rugged and reliable, this elegant metal monoplane is the star of Hollywood movies as well as having been the mainstay of the early air transport system is the US. Celebrations are in order. This year is the 90th anniversary of the Douglas DC-3[2].

What I’ve discovered, so far, is that the simple story may be true. Interestingly the rational for the weight figure has more to do with economic regulation than it has with airplane airworthiness. The early commercial air transport system was highly regulated by the State in matters both economic and safety. Managing competition was a bureaucratic process. Routes needed approval. Thus, a distinction established between what was commercial air transport and what was not.

POST 1: There is no mention of 12,500 pounds in the excellent reference on the early days of civil aviation in the US. Commercial Air Transportation. John H. Frederick PhD. 1947 Revised Edition. Published by Richard D. Irwin Inc. Chicago.

POST 2: The small aircraft definition of 12,500 pounds max certificated take-off weight first appears in US CAB SPECIAL CIVIL AIR REGULATION. Effective February 20, 1952. AUTHORIZATION FOR AIR TAXI OPERATORS TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART 42 OF THE CIVIL AIR REGULATIONS. This was a subject of economic regulation in the creation of the air taxi class of operations.

[1] https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/douglas-dc-3/nasm_A19530075000

[2] https://www.eaa.org/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/2025-07-17_dc3_society_celebrate_90_years_douglas_dc3_airventure25

Our Bubbles

I’ll coin a way of thinking about the world that’s more empirical than the result of any in-depth study. Maybe it’s not even original. The idea came to my mind because of something someone said this week. It was part of seeing a wider world rather than their everyday experience.

As an aside, and not surprising given that I was 6 years old in 1966, my football team was West Ham United. Not because I lived anywhere near West Ham, or had any concept of what London was like, but that team had the best players. Bobby Moore and Geoff Hurst.

Be patient, there’s a link. “I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles[1]” is so tightly associated with West Ham it’s as important as those years after the 1966 England World Cup win. The club anthem of West Ham is a strange song for a long-standing English sports team. Especially when the club’s origins are more to do with the river Thames, its industry and docks.

Now, I know. It’s impressive and it’s akin to the so-called butterfly effect. A small event happens but it sets off a chain of events that become much larger, and unrelated to the original event. The song has endured, I suspect, because it sums up sporting success and failure. Hard to grasp, continually bursting but enduring because there’s always another opportunity to win.

If I’m going to discuss bubbles then that’s the first thought that comes to my head. Those ephemeral objects that float through the air. Perfectly self-contained only hanging together by tiny molecular bonds. Pretty bubble floating through the air.

Here’s what was said: “We live in a bubble”. Meaning those commonplace, often tedious, daily concerns and troubles that enclose our place and time. Bubbles can only be seen if an observer steps outside their boundaries and looks at the innumerable other bubbles.

I wander around with ahead full of thoughts and notions. They are often repetitious and going around in circles. That annoying job I’ve put off. Those awkward words that I now regret. That wondering how I’m going to tell someone that I’m not going to do what they want done. The list goes on and on. There’re good thoughts too. How much I appreciate my partners tolerance. How fortunate I am when compared with those mentioned in the morning News. Remembering a past success and a nice cup of coffee.

“We live in a bubble”. It’s so easy to take a point of view based on nothing more or less than the contents of our minds in own bubble world. Mental bubbles overlap. Several people may have bubbles that are more or less the same. In politics, I could say there’s a liberal bubble, a conservative bubble, socialist bubble, a fascist bubble. There’re all out there somewhere in bubble world.

Being an early riser, my first conscious act is to hit the “on” button on my radio. This week, I caught a prayer for the day by Steve Taylor[2]. He was making the point that it’s often our sense of separateness that is the cause of a lot of suffering. I interpret this as people being stuck in a bubble without comprehension of all the other bubbles in existence.

When we transcend our separate mental bubbles there’s a chance of better understanding. I’m not brave enough to say that this act would sort the conflicts in the world, but it would be a good start.

[1] https://youtu.be/H62SuMpMhc0

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002g4mn

What If We Brought Back a Dinosaur?

Daily writing prompt

If you could bring back one dinosaur, which one would it be?

View all responses

Let’s just say that the dino that I’d bring back, time machine permitting, would be the biggest vegetarian that ever existed. It would be downright irresponsible to bring back a meat-eater. Haven’t we seen enough excitable movies on the theme of what can go wrong? The last genetic recreation humanity needs is one that would like to eat us.

If reptilian brains had advanced as fast as homo sapiens maybe the world would be dramatically different. Still, they had several hundred million years, and they wasted the lot. Thus, there’s not much to fear when faced with a large slow-moving vegetarian.

As the planet warms, so there will be more habitable regions where big plodding 40-ton dinos can do some good. A spectacle for sure. And a way to reshape landscapes. Driving evolution in the wilderness.

Here’s a crazy thought. The permafrost in Siberia is melting. Carbon is being released into the atmosphere. That’s not good. Let loose a lot of ultra-heavy dinos across such a wilderness. Feeding on the forests. Fertilising the forests. Equally compressing and churning up the soil. That might keep some of the carbon locked up.

Lusotitan monsters[1] wouldn’t threaten humanity. They might be an asset as well as being fascinating. Large herbivores exist today. We might value them more in the sight of a large dino lumbering across the terrain.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ll5jcv

Exploration and Innovation

Is there a human on the planet who has never seen the Moon? I guess, there must be a small number. The Earth’s satellite comes and goes from the night sky. Its constancy can’t be denied. Lighting the way when it’s full.

Accurate measurements say that the Moon is drifting away from us. The pace is nothing to be concerned about. It’s not going to become a free flying object careering across the universe. Space 1999[1] is pure fiction. Let’s face it we haven’t even got a working Moon Base here in 2025.

What motivated humans to go to the Moon in the 1960s? The simplest answer is the explorer’s quote: because it’s there. A quote that can be applied to any difficult journey that’s being taken for the first time. It implies a human longing to explore. An insatiable desire to go where no one has gone before. That’s nice, only it’s a partial story.

Technology accelerated in the post-war era as science and engineering built upon the discoveries and inventions that conflict drove. Then the promise of peace dissolved into the Cold War. Sides arranged in immoveable ideological opposition. The technological race was on. Intense competition drove the need to be display global superiority.

Potentially destructive forces were, for once, channeled into a civil project of enormous size. The Apollo missions. The aims and objectives of which were “civil” in nature, however the resulting innovations had universal applications. Companies that made fighter jets and missiles turned their hands to space vehicles. Early rockets were adaptations of intercontinental missiles.

1969’s moon landing put down a marker in history that will be talked of in a thousand years. Putting humans on the Moon for the first time is one of the ultimate firsts. That first “small step for man” may be as important as the first Homo sapiens stepping out of Africa. A signpost pointed to what was possible.

More than five decades have gone by. Instead of looking up to the heavens we now look down to our mobile phones. Rather than applying our intelligence to exploration we strive to make machines that can surpass us. Of course this is not a true characterisation. Exploration has merely taken a different a direction.

Will humans step into the final frontier again? Yes, but not as the number one priority. Plans to return to the Moon exist. It’s the intense competition that drove the Apollo missions that is missing. The advantage of being first to establish a working Moon Base is not so overwhelming. Even this base as a stepping stone to the planet Mars is viewed as a longer term ambition.

One advantage of this century over the last is the advances in automation and robotics that have become commonplace. Modern humans don’t need to do everything with our hands. Complex machines can do much of the work that needs to be done. Footsteps on another planet can wait a while.

Enough of us continue to be amazed and inspired by space exploration. The challenge is not to achieve one goal. It’s to achieve many.

POST: I watched Capricorn One, the 1970s movie about a fake Mars mission. It could do with a remake. In many ways it is easier to fake now than it was with film and colour televisions the size of washing machines.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072564/

Rapid Change: Social Media’s Role

I don’t think we understand the impact our world of superfast global communication is having on human behaviour. A digital event happens with a group looking on, and gasping, and within hours it’s a talking point across great swaths of the INTERNET and social media. Worldwide in seconds.

We could be at a pivotal moment of human evolution. Every time humans have progressed there’s been something in our environment that has necessitated change. If we go back tens of thousands of years, it was the climate. People moved, searching for better prospects. When the rains disappear, migration happened. This still happens. Millions live in that time warp.

However, for those of us who live in communities where our basic needs are met, bar disasters, it’s different forces that motivate change. I say this after having watched a couple episodes of “Human[1]” a BBC series about the origins of modern humans. Billions of us fixate not on finding enough food or shelter but on scrolling.

I’m talking about a couple who got caught on camera. Obviously, they thought that their evening out at a rock concert was a private matter. It turned out to be anything but private. Suddenly these two people spark controversy and debate without any intention of doing so[2]. We live in a time where global social media can thrust a spotlight on any event, almost anywhere. The proliferation of high-definition cameras and the ease with which pictures spread has all speeded up in the last couple of decades. Any picture or video can go anywhere on Earth at lightning speed.

Past moments of human evolution never had these superfast phenomena to adapt to. Sure, we have had great steps in technology. I read that people are taller now than they were in medieval times. Industrialisation may have had downsides, but we are mostly better fed as a result.

Social media is not benign. It grabs attention, it demands an opinion, it drives rapid judgement and gets passed on to spark more cycles of comment and opinion. This conveyor-belt of comment and opinion takes on a life of its own.

There’s such a mix that it’s not always easy to determine what’s true and what’s people pushing their own certainties and prejudices. Judgements are expected to be immediate. Any appeal to caution and considered thought can be seed sown on fallow ground. Like a Vicar in an empty church.

These behaviours are being applied to the daily News and events like the recent Air India accident. Attention increases when there’s tragedy and mystery. There’s wisdom in saying that people should wait for the formal accident investigation to conclude. Only this does nothing to impede a rain forest of judgements. Real and self appointed experts fight to get their view top billing.

Maybe these are ephemeral and of no great consequence. I don’t believe that because, like it or not, decision makers are influenced by social media’s compelling nature. What this says to me is that adaptation isn’t an option it’s a necessity. Appealing to past custom and practice isn’t going to work. I don’t have an answer as to the nature of this adaptation. Sitting quietly waiting for attention to subside isn’t a good course of action.

POST: It’s kinda funny that a magazine like WIRED highlights how to dump social media. How to Delete All of Your Social Media Accounts: Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok, and More | WIRED

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002fc72/human

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/astronomer-responds-coldplay-concert-kiss-cam-moment-rcna219678

Lowering the Voting Age

The line-up of predicable grumpiness is no more than might be expected. For once the UK’s Government has decided to bite the bullet and make a long overdue change. It’s time to bring the voting age down to 16-years old. This is a policy that has long been advocated by Liberal Democrats. Wisely so. Like it or not, we have a stubborn geriocracy in Britan. Political influence is top heavy. An agenda dominated by issues toping the polls with older voters.

Yes, we did see changes, a year ago with the last General Election. More younger candidates winning. However, the average age of a Member of Parliament[1] floats around 50-years. This average age hasn’t changed much over decades.

Studies on what motivates candidates to stand for election often point to community engagement and activism being part of their lives. It’s only when, in mid-life, opportunities present themselves and support can be marshalled that they stand for election.

And the retirement community of the House of Lords is solely built on the notion that age brings wisdom. Sadly, so often this does not ring true. Ten minutes watching the Parliamentary channel is a good way to see a range of speakers from erudite to senile. From expert to confused. From informed to delusionary. On occasion a few sleeping on the comfortable red leather benches.

When the elderly hold so much political power it’s difficult enough to get 18-year-olds to take an interest in voting. This is not an argument for the status-quo. Far from it.

Those in the age group 16 to 18 years are interested in society and the direction it’s taking. Youth activism hasn’t entirely perished in the world of tick-boxing education. Loading students up with enormous loans, with learning establishments seeing them as revenue generators, and deaf ears to their concerns has done a lot to supress youth engagement in elections.

There’s a lot to be said for “no taxation without representation”. Young people do work. They do pay taxes. They should have a stake in how those taxes are spent.

What’s not to be presumed is that a new youth vote will automatically lean to the left of politics. It’s easy to make that sloppy assumption. It may arise because the prominent youth activist who get media exposure are those campaigning on environmental and social issues. That does not say much about the majority who may choose to go to a polling station.

I think the larger number of young voters, despite the media stereotypes, will likely vote the way of their parents and friends. Having been nurtured in a particular way this is not so surprising. The lazy stereotypes of riotous youths biting the hand that feeds them is only true of a few, it’s not the majority. It’s belonging to dusty Woodstock documentaries.

It’s for the political parties to up their game and campaign with young people in mind. Even with the best of efforts election turn-out is still likely to be low. At least the message is that the next generation matter. If these modest changes are blocked because older people fear the next generation that is a very sad reflection of our society. Surely, it’s better to have younger people invested in their communities.

[1] https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/

The Greasy Pole

I think we should be indebted to the writers of “Yes Minister.” And the brilliance of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne, and Derek Fowlds[1]. No mobile phones, lap-tops or tablets, wood panelled offices, a Minister with all the backbone of a jellyfish and the cunning and mountainous pomposity of Oxbridge’s best.

It’s the ultimate lesson for aspiring British politicians. Fresh faced, with ambition and desire to make a difference they are confronted with the custom and practice of centuries. A bureaucratic minefield that tops anything Brussels can produce.

At first, it’s easy to see Jim Hacker as naive to the point of merely being indulged by the civil service. He learns fast, as a good parliamentarian should always do. Fun being seeing him turn the tables on the Whitehall establishment. Often at the expense of hysterically awkward moments and sporadic cynical manoeuvrings.

Last night, I watched “The greasy pole”[2]. Without a doubt this episode remains 100% relevant. It first went out in 1981. The story’s themes are universal.

A proposed industrial development offers secure jobs and potential prosperity. It comes with a hitch. Activism and noisy protests aimed against the project. Industry and the civil service want the factory to get built. The Right Honourable James Hacker sits on the fence. Blows hot and cold but realises that his political career pivots around sinking the project. The Minister wins out in the end much to the discomfort of the department officials.

It would be easy to write the entire plot in terms of 2025’s political difficulties. This morning’s News ran a story that wasn’t so far off the plot of “The greasy pole.”

A new Labour government minister tells of publishing a report that favours a point of view he wishes to get across. He continually mentions the name of the author of the report. Mimicking Jim Hacker as he makes sure everyone knows the report’s author, just in case he’s made a mistake.

Although, with the complete ridiculousness of the past British Conservative governments it may have been said that satire is dead. No, it certainly isn’t. Here it was playing out on the BBC on my kitchen radio at breakfast time.

This is the stubborn reality. In Britain we have a new absurdly named political party called “Reform.” They are flying high in the opinion polls because some people think the word has a political meaning. However, if these would be politicians were to gain a position of power, would they conduct long-needed reforms? Well, given the competence of the people involved and given the historic clashes between elected officials and civil servants the answer is most certainly – no.

It seems to me that new Labour government ministers are slowly getting the hang of the job. One year in they are still a bit wet behind the ears. Gradually, they are climbing the greasy pole. At any moment, because of the nature of the job, down they can come, and they know it.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b006xtc3/yes-minister

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751819/

Aircraft Safety and Fuel Starvation

Unsafe. In common language it’s the opposite to being safe. So, take a definition of “safe” and reverse it. Let’s say to be safe is to be free from harm (not a good definition). That would lead to “unsafe” being subject to harm or potentially being subject to harm. The probabilistic element always creeps in since it’s the future that is of concern. Absolute safety is as mercurial or unreal as absolute certainty.

Let’s apply this to an aircraft. The ultimate harm is that of a catastrophic event from which there is no escape. Surprisingly, taking a high-level view, there are few of these situations that can occur.

Flying, and continuing to fly, involves four forces. Lift, Weight, Thrust and Drag. It’s that simple. An aircraft moves through the air with these in balance. Flying straight and level, lift opposes weight and thrust opposes drag.

Yes, there are other safety considerations. If there are people on-board. For example, it’s important to maintain a habitable environment. At higher altitudes that requirement can be demanding. Structural integrity is important too. Otherwise flying is a short-lived experience.

In the recent Air India fatal accident, the four forces of flight were not maintained so as to make a continued safe flight possible. The wings provided lift but the force that was deficient was thrust.

Two large powerful engines, either of which could have provided enough thrust, were unable to do so. The trouble being fuel starvation. Fuel starvation occurs when the fuel supply to the engine(s) is interrupted. This can happen even when there is useable fuel on board an aircraft[1].

Sadly, in the records there are numerous aircraft incidents and accidents where this has happened. Quite a few fuel starvation incidents and accidents occur because of fuel mismanagement. This can result from a pilot selecting an incorrect, or empty, fuel tank during a flight.

Now and then, it is the aircraft systems that are at fault. The pilot(s) can be misled by a faulty fuel indication system[2]. In one notable case, a major fuel leak drained the aircraft’s fuel supply[3].

When there is useable fuel on-board an aircraft, the imperative is to restart and recover. It is not uncommon or unreasonable for there to be a delay in restarting engine(s), especially when a fuel starvation event is entirely unexpected. Diagnosis takes time given the numerous potential causes of a starvation event.

In cruise flight there is time available to perform a diagnosis and take appropriate corrective action. Both take-off and landing have their hazards. Both are busy times in the cockpit. When looking at the worldwide safety numbers, less fatal accidents occur on take-off than landing. The numbers Boeing provide put take-off at 6% and landing at 24% of fatal accidents. Each one only occupies about 1% of the total flight time.

Although these are the numbers, my view is that, even though take-offs are optional and landings are mandatory, the requirements for adequate thrust are most critical during take-off. This is arguable and it reminds me that safety assessment is never simple.

[1] https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/G-YMMM

[2] https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/322358

[3] https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/323244

Absolutely!

Daily writing prompt

List 10 things you know to be absolutely certain.

View all responses

For some obscure reason my mind goes immediately to René Magritte. A painter who knew how to play with reality and illusion. “This is not a pipe.” A painting is not a pipe, but rather an image of a pipe. So, why not say so.

I could say that there is nothing that we can be totally certain about. Afterall, some deep thinkers imagine that we live in a simulation where nothing is real. Personally, I don’t go with that theory. It’s absurd in the sense that the next question becomes – who made the simulation? And for them, could they not be part of a greater simulation? That would create a Russian doll set that would go on to infinity. And we all have a problem with infinity.

Let me go for 10 things that I think to be certain within the bounds of my limited knowledge.

My name. It gets used by those I met. Documents have it well recorded. My parents were consistent in using it. So, I’ll say that it certainly is John.
Earth. The existence of the planet where I live. The ground beneath my feet. The physical mass that generates enough gravity to keep me here.
Water. Now, I’m listing the four classical elements (Earth, water, air and fire). I depend on them every day. To walk, to drink, to breath, to keep warm in winter.
Air.
Fire.
Space. A generic name for the huge expanse beyond the Earth. Even with no personal experience of Space, I’m certain that it exists. Its precise nature is another matter.
Food. The existence of which sustains me. Without it I’d perish.
My senses. My five senses – sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.
My size and shape. Measurements taken and recorded. Hight, weight and a proliferation of other dimensions. Not that they are static.
My emotions. Facts aside, so many likes and dislikes, engage, distract, motivate and repel with such consistency that their existence cannot be denied.

Having produced this fine list, I will now press the big red button marked do not press. Is there any reason why I shouldn’t engage the infinite improbability drive?