So, in purple_pen's review of The Dark Knight, she mentioned in passing that she cannot believe it is wise for anyone to ride around on a big powerful motorcycle while wearing a long flowing cape. And, she is of course, entirely correct. I'd go further than this, though. I'd say it's not advisable to ride the Batpod at all. I mean, look at it:



You have to lie on top of it, which is hardly ideal weight distribution. The twin engines are in the wheels, which is going to do all sorts of horrible things from the point of view of physics if one of them misfires or something, and LOOK AT THE FRIGGING TYRES!! This has been one of my bugbears for ages. Comic book motorcycles are clearly designed by people who have never ridden on two wheels. Judge Dredd's is a classic:



Big fat square-bottomed tyres. On four wheels, these are great. They add to stability of a car, and give you better grip. On two wheels they are downright dangerous. A car moves best when it is hugging the road with all four wheels. This means that the chassis needs to remain as parallel to the road as possible. Square-bottomed tyres help with this.

Bikes are different. In even the slightest bend, a bike needs to lean. Square-bottomed tyres stop the bike from leaning and create instability. The squarer the tyres, the worse this is. This is why motorbikes generally come supplied with tyres like this:



See? Round! The bike can corner properly, without becoming unstable.

On the Batpod, Batman's cape is the LEAST of his worries.

* gets down off soapbox, looking slightly abashed *

Click the picture for more.

I talk a lot about national politics, but not as much about local.

My local MP is standing down at the next election. I think this is a shame, because she's been a bloody good local MP, and stands for a lot of things that I believe in. She fought to stop VAT being added to motorcycle helmets, for example, and has been a strategic rebel in a number of votes where I have backed her view over the government's.

So why am I posting about her today?

She is doing a STERLING job of standing up for sense and reason against the idiocy of Dorries and her ilk today, right now, as I type, in the chamber of the house of commons. Her and her cross party coalition of Evan Harris and John Bercow have even started taking the urine a little bit:

Scroll down to 2249/NC11: Amendment #9 and giggle mightily at the masterful pisstake of the salami-slice technique to outlawing abortion.

Christine McCafferty? ILU. You rule.

The twelve week motion has been resoundingly defeated, but there are a fair few left to go. My gut tells me we'll be down to 22 weeks, but I hope for the status quo. We shall see. Lets hope we also get rid of the two-doctor rule, if not completely then at least below 12 weeks.

ETA: 16 weeks is also gone, but worrying that Lib Dem Roger Williams has been taken in by the faux-science of foetuses happily surviving at 20 weeks...

ETA summore: 20 weeks is gone, 190 votes for to 332 against. Is that a bell I hear tolling for Dorries in the distance?

ETA yet more: 22 weeks is gone! YAY! Now just the "two signatures" amendment to go... come on Sense and Reason! Lets make it a full house!

The Perceptual Differences of Students - purple_pen is frustrated that students seem unable to remember she's a Doctor, when they are quite able to remember that her male colleagues are Doctors. Evidence that perceptions of what women should be are more deeply ingrained in us all than we realise?

---

Road Tax for Motorbikes - I've blogged about this before, but nobody seemed able to answer whether or not it was true, so this is a "just in case" measure. I don't think it's too much to ask that we simply get the same treatment as cagers car drivers. Via uk_bikers

---

The Outlawing of Extreme Porn - I can understand outlawing pictures of actual illegal things, even though I think it's counterproductive. But I can't understand outlawing pictures of people pretending to do illegal things. It smacks of I don't like it, and therefore it ought to be banned. It's at this point I'd remind everyone of John Stuart Mill: The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. I don't like extreme porn. I don't find it titillating, and I don't want to look at it. But if other people do want to look at it, and nobody is hurt in the making of it, then I do not think it should be banned. I've heard enough tales of what goes on in the porn industry to think it ought to be better regulated to make sure that actresses and actors are consenting, and I also wish with all my heart that there was at least some porn that I didn't find dull and/or misogynistic and objectifying; but it seems to me that the solution to this is not to make porn even more shameful and restricted.

---

The Realities of a Non-Monogamous Relationship - many people seem to think that if a person is in a non-monogamous relationship of some kind that they must necessarily be shagging about like billy-oh. This is not necessarily the case, as is ably detailed in this article. What does happen though, is that a lot of the pressure and stress and panic of relationships is instantly dissolved. Those of you who can't get your heads around the idea of non-monogamous relationships might find that this helps. It might not, too, like, but it might. Via minnesattva

---

As flagged up by uk_bikers, the "green" motor breakdown and insurance company Environmental Transport Association is claiming that the new VED scheme that starts in 2009 won't apply to bikes:

Under new emissions-based rates of road tax announced last week in the Budget, vehicles that produce less than 100g of CO2 per/km will pay nothing – unless they are motorcycles. Despite emitting less than 100g per/km, many motorcycles will next year pay double according to the Environmental Transport Association.

The new rates discriminate against motorcycles despite the fact that CO2 emissions for motorcycles of all types are already below the average level for petrol and diesel-engined cars.

A 125cc commuter bike currently pays a vehicle excise duty of £15 – the rate in 2009 will more than double to £33.

Andrew Davis, director at the Environmental Transport Association said: “A doubling of tax for motorcycles that produce less than 100g of CO2 per/km makes a nonsense of the revised rates of vehicle excise duty – it appears that motorcycles are subsidising the new zero rate of vehicle excise duty for the lowest-polluting cars. At a time when we are struggling to meet emissions targets and high petrol prices, a case must be made for the small-capacity motorcycles that produce less CO2 than cars and use far less fuel.”

Now, call me mental, but following a sceptical comment on the original thread I went through the whole damn thing ^# myself, and sure enough, the only mention of bikes is

As announced in the 2007 Pre-Budget Report, in 2008-09 only, the VED rates for motorbikes in the lower band will be frozen, with higher bands increased by £1-2; and rates for heavy goods vehicles, special types vehicles, combined transport vehicles and all vehicle categories linked to the basic goods rate will be frozen. Changes to VED rates for 2008-09 will take effect from 13 March 2008. (t)

Now, I'll admit that I can't find what that little t in brackets means (apart from that it applies in some way to travellers within the EU as well) but I can't find anything in the budget about bikes being subject to a separate system of VED after 2009... Yet the table showing the VED rates for after 2009 is clearly labeled cars, and cars only.

Anybody care to take a stab at clearing this up one way or the other?

---

^# warning, that link will open a huge file - there are more options for finding out what was in the budget here.

So, thanks to stimpy_lfs on the uk_bikers community (probably amongst others) the BBC have altered their earlier misleading headline about motorcyclist tax evasion (my entry about this is here), and added some stuff from the MCIA which makes the article more balanced. However, there are still a couple of disturbing things in the article.

Firstly from September, new legislation will allow the police, DVLA and local authorities to take action against unlicensed vehicles even if they are not parked on public roads. This is very worrying. Does this mean that the rusting heap of metal that used to be a motorbike in my mum's friend Tracey's garden is suddenly going to have action taken against it? What of SORN? They can't just say that and not tell us the detail of the legislation! I shall therefore be digging into this a bit and reporting back later.

The second thing that worried me was Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker called for a move to a road pricing system that would enable VED to be abolished. I was so incredulous, I had to read that again. Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker called for a move to a road pricing system that would enable VED to be abolished. What in the BLUE BUGGERY FUCK is anyone calling themselves Liberal, even in passing, doing supporting a system which basically involves overt surveillance and minute record keeping of every movement by every driver on the roads? How in the name of Cthulhu's bollocks did this get to be party policy?

We already have a system of taxation in place which means that drivers pay per mile, and pay more for having big gas-guzzlers than they do for little green cars. It's called petrol tax. I know people protest about it every time petrol tax goes up, but if you tell them that the alternative is having their every move noted by some faceless bureaucrat then I'm sure they'll change their tune; especially given the recent record of faceless bureaucrats with data safety. Apart from anything else, I thought Lib Dems were against needlessly complicated bureaucracy? What's the point in supporting a system which will be cripplingly expensive and complicated to run when there's a simple and direct system already in use? I thought that was a Labour trait?

Honestly, politicians. Bloody useless morons, the lot of them.

---

Still, some things give me hope. One of them is this excellent piece on si_blog which strangefrontier pointed me at today. There's something uplifting about the thought that each successive generation has slightly fewer hang-ups about sex than the last. Think about how recently it was that Peter Tatchell formed OutRage! 1990? 1991? How far we've come in less than two decades... Then again, as there are still people who seem to think that the best way to help women out of exploitation in prostitution is to BAN BAN BAN maybe we haven't come that far. IMHO, if you charged the "customers" of trafficked women with rape, whilst legalising and taxing "normal" prostituion, you'd see a far greater reduction in the use of trafficked women as sex slaves than you will by cracking down ever harder on prostitution in general. There is nothing that will do more for the lives of prostitutes than having brothels subject to random inspections by the HSE...

---

And finally, it's nice to be able to applaud Diane Abbot outside the confines of the This Week studio. I disagree with her on a lot of things, but on the right to abortion, I think she's spot on. She's quoted in this piece on Liberal Conspiracy, and the whole article is well-worth reading. I have very very VERY little patience for people who label themselves "Pro Life". I have never had an abortion, and I don't know that I ever could, but the point is that it is MY choice to make and I absolutely would not judge another woman for making that choice in the other direction. To deny me that choice is profoundly misogynistic, because it is to say that the rights of the unborn (potentially male) embryo are far more important than the rights of the real, living, actual human being carrying the embryo.

But, like tinuvielberen said in a completely unrelated post today, once a woman gets pregnant, none of her needs or desires matter anymore. She stops being a person, right?

Amused Cynicism has blogged about the BBC's misleading, anti-bike article which states that 40% of bikers are evading road tax because 40% of bikes are SORNed. i suspect that, were anyone to investigate this, they would find that the vast majority of these untaxed bikes are in bits in someone's garage or garden. Notwithstanding that, though, there is a very good case for arguing that bikes should be exempt from road tax anyway, as Amused Cynicism makes clear:

Road Tax for motorbikes is between £15 and £64 a year. However, since the amount of damage a vehicle does to the road is proportional to the fourth power of the wheel loading, bikes do very little damage to the road — most is done by lorries and cars. So bikes are subsidising larger vehicles. Bikes also do not cause congestion, because they can be ridden between traffic lanes. So every person who goes from being a car driver to a motorcyclist is actually helping other road users, by reducing congestion and therefore the other road users average journey times. Because motorbikes use little fuel, they also help to reduce carbon emissions and other forms of pollution.

So bikers are good for congestion, good for the environment, good for reducing the UK’s dependence on imported fuel, good for reducing pollution, and are subsidising the cost of repearing the wear and tear other road users do to the roads. There are not “stealing” from other road users, in fact quite the opposite they are making them better off.

Since bike use benefits society in so many ways it ought to be encouraged. One good start would be abolishing road tax for bikes.

I agree completely. I have thus signed the Petition Gordon petition which exists on this subject, and encourage you to do so too.

Other bike-related petitions you might like to consider:

- Do not introduce EVCS for motorcycles. If a four-wheeled vehicle is stopped by EVCS, it is not going to fall over, crush anyone, throw anyone into the path of an oncoming vehicle, etc. etc. A motorcycle needs to remain under its rider's control at all times.

- Remove VAT on motorcycle safety clothing. This is a no-brainer, surely?

- Exempt motorcycles from congestion charging schemes by law. Motorcycles do not cause or contribute to congestion, and therefore should not be subject to congestion charges.

- Use non-slip road paint. So simple, you would think it would already be in effect, but it's not.

- Let bikes use bus lanes. Because it's safer than dodging cars who, either through ignorance or malice, are trying to kill you.

- Confiscate the phones of drivers who are caught using them while driving. Because these are a prime cause of SMIDSY accidents.

- Stop replacing traffic coppers with speed cameras. Again, another no-brainer.

and, because I'm not without a sense of fun:

- Abolish the speed limit on the motorway. Because it was only created because of that guy in his AC Cobra spooking a few old dears. Speed safety is a matter of judgement, not absolutes, and should be left up to the driver/rider. Sometimes a motorway is safe to ride at well over 100mph; sometimes you need to be less than 50. It works well enough in Germany, so why not here?

... are divided into two groups. Firstly the OMG you're INSANE! petitioners:

FFS stop my neighbour's cat crapping in my yard! (I adore the url of that one!)
I have no clue about my own bloodline, let alone anyone else's. Seriously, you have to read the full text of this one, it's comedy gold.
The human body disintegrates at thirty miles an hour! This one really shows the damage that stupid speed limit legislation has done.
Parents should teach their children dangerous occult practises, not schools!
It looks like English, but is it? If anyone can work out what this one is actually asking for, I'd be grateful...

Secondly the nice idea, but it'll never happen ones:

I'd love to see this happen. Sadly, too many rich people in positions of power. But, the way to bring state schools into line with private schools is to tax private schools like buggery and use the proceeds to fund state schools. Not removing choice, but evening the playing field.
Make public transport free! Well, IMHO a renewable deposit for a pass would be a good plan; then if you vandalise, you lose your pass and your money and can't use public transport.
Give MPs a taste of their own medicine. We're actually seeing the fruits of this locally with councillors; I don't see it happening in Westminster any time soon, though. Still, there's always the fabulous TheyWorkForYou
Footballers get paid too much! Well, yes, they do, but this is because idiots are willing to pay stupid prices for tickets and strips. Stop buying the Man U shirts and suddenly they'll stop making as much money It =/= rocket science.
I've been saying this for years. Sadly, vehicle excise duty is more about the database than the tax, these days, so this will never happen. But, for pay-as-you-go road tax, it can't be beaten, and certainly won't cost billions like Darling's madcap plan.
This is a far better solution, IMHO ;)

With reference to the HMRC losing my (and every other person in the UK with a child under 16's) name, address, date of birth, National Insurance number and bank details in two easy to use discs (see this entry):

Mister Mat has just pointed out to me (whilst rubbing his hands together and giggling with glee) that under the Data Protection Act any entity registered on the Register of Data Controllers has quite stringent obligations to store data securely. One who fails to do so can be booted off the register by the Information Commissioner. Obviously, someone who is affected by the breach has to place the complaint... Now, can we think of anyone who has been affected by the breach who might want to do such a mean-spirited thing? I think we can... >:D

I do feel a little bit sorry for poor old Darling, though. Clearly this is a cock-up of monumental proportions which has been brewing for some time. Like somebody said in a comment on this entry on PoliticalBetting.com: imagine if Blair had held on for a few more months. Gordon would be being slapped in the face with this, instead of Darling. Alternately, imagine if Gordon hadn't bottled it last month, and had called an election. This would now be confirmation of Tory inability to manage the economy on the scale of the Major Years and the poor old Tories would be reaping the whirlwind. So, on reflection, I'm rather glad it's Darling that's being the patsy for this, as I reserve a special level of hatred for him after the complete arse he made of transport when he was running that. I'm afraid bikerness runs deep.

ETA: No2ID have a cunning plan too. Who knows; between all the cunning plans doubtless being hatched right now, we might actually make a dent in something...

Today's Sexism Watch is brought to you by shishmish (with a sly wink to strangefrontier, the world's biggest Spitfire fan): the British Dietetic Association have been talking about the decline of the brewing industry, which is, of course, at least one fifth the fault of women. Now, never mind the fact that they refer to lager and Proper Beer as if they are the same thing, where does this assumption come from that smaller glasses is the way to attract women? The idea that men drink pints and women drink halves is entirely culturally imposed. In my experience (of a ten to telve handpump real ale pub) the beer connoisseurs of either gender tend to drink halves, because that way they get to try more different beers before falling over.

Ah well, yet again, it appears I am a bloke in a female body.

In which case, as a bloke, I feel I ought to do the blokish thing and post a list. These are the not-randomly selected highlights of the Petition the Prime Minister website at the moment:

Good Ideas

Change Organ Donation from an "opt in" system to an "opt out" system
Make Sex Education a Foundation Subject. (I'd add to that: stop letting people opt out of it).
Enforce existing road safety laws instead of making up new ones. Actually, enforcement of existing laws rather than making up new ones would be good in a lot of arenas, but really, I'd LOVE to see some ten year old on a mini moto being pulled over by the rozzers and asked to produce his licence and CBT certificate, and questioned on why he wasn't showing L-plates... >:D
Another bike-related one: please don't use External Vehicle Control on a vehicle which is kept upright by the movement of it's wheels. If you force a car to brake with EVS, the car stops and the driver shouts a bit. If you force a bike to brake mid corner with EVS, the bike falls over and the rider dies.
If you're going to have hate crime at all, make it include ALL hate crimes, and not just some.

and, yeah, I know some of you won't agree with me on this one, but please let me have my child educated without having her indoctrinated into a religion.

Less Good Ideas

I Can't Be Arsed to Fill In an HC1 Form. Please make it so I don't have to.
Plastic glasses suck! Please don't make us drink from them!. Srsly, I prefer a proper glass too, but if it's that or close the pub?

Clearly, these people are on crack ideas

Train the Paras to use Parachutes. Not the petition starter who's on crack here, but the MOD - what's the point in having a parachute regiment that can't use parachutes?
Ban TV programmes that show things I don't like!
We'd like permission to continue mutilating our pets, please.

Today is the start of the 100th Isle of Man TT Races. The TT is something of an anomaly, these days, in our increasingly risk-averse society, and it's with that in mind that I want to talk about it.

Every year at the TT, a couple of people die. Many more are seriously injured. This inevitably leads to calls for it to be ceased, banned, done away with. Yet everyone who participates in the TT, and every one of the spectators, knows that they are at a higher risk of fatality than average just by being there. They know this, and they go anyway. A gentleman on radio four this morning was talking about his son who died racing at a recent TT, and he said "my boy might be dead now, but he died living his dream, and how many of us can say that?"

Risk is something that is increasingly taboo in modern Britain. If you ride the Mountain at the TT, hell, even if you ride a motorcycle in every day life, you are looked at askance by many people. There's an impression that everybody thinks you're a little bit mad. The term "nanny state" tends to be brought out at this point, but I don't think that it's necessarily the state that's the driving force behind this. Yes, our present government seems intent on drafting in even more measures to protect us from the nebulous risk of terrorism, but my view is that's more about power-grabbing than Nanny Statism. Motoring Journalists continually bemoan the prominence of the "health and Safety Nazi", but I don't believe that the humble Health and Safety worker is at fault here either. I think it's us.

For some reason we appear to be going down the road of trying to eliminate risk. I make no bones that I don't understand this. I have said before on numerous occasions that I can't understand how the times we are living in now merit the kind of response that those in power are giving us, but the majority of the country and the media seem to think that this is not only acceptable, but laudable. I know that I'm in the minority in thinking this, but it's WEIRD. In the seventies and eighties we actually WERE getting blown up by the IRA on a fairly regular basis. One of the few things that I agreed with the arch-demon Thatcher's stance on was that this was not pleasant, but that to change policy because someone threatens you with a bomb allows the person with the bomb threat to win. The day after the Brighton Bombing, the day after she was herself almost killed by a terrorist, she said "the fact we are gathered here, now, shocked but composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed, but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail."

That kind of attitude from a British PM seems odd now, in these days of control orders and Belmarsh prison and the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act. And it's not just the big freedoms which are being eroded in the current climate. We've all heard the stories of children playing conkers being forced to wear safety goggles by schools who live in terror of being sued by parents of injured children, for example. And then there is also the proposal to prosecute the parents of under-sixteen year olds who drink alcohol. A lot of the things which I did myself as a child would be viewed with horror by modern parents. Climbing thirty foot trees without a rope or a care; shooting empty cans off the back wall with my dad's air rifle (without ear defenders!); being dropped off at school of the back of my dad's motorbike; being allowed, nay, encouraged to drink my dad's home-brewed beer... These things would lead to accusations of irresponsible parentage these days.

I don't think that my parents were irresponsible. I think my parents were the model of responsibility. They recognised that the elimination of risk is not only impossible, but undesirable. Just as one doesn't make an omelette without breaking eggs, just as one doesn't prevent terrorists from changing one's way of life by changing one's way of life in fear of them, one doesn't learn to judge and deal with risk without experiencing it. Risk is necessary. If we don't take risks, as a species, we stagnate. If the Wright Brothers had thought that the prospect of injury from their Heath Robinson contraption was too great and had decided not to take the risk, well, the environment would probably be a lot better off, but I'd have never met missdiane.

From the smoking ban to the nebulous prevention of terrorism measures, every day in this country choice is being taken away from me, freedom is being taken away from me, in the name of eliminating risk. As a (fairly) responsible adult, I see this as patronising in the extreme. I am quite capable of researching the risks of a given activity and deciding for myself whether or not that risk is acceptable to me. So, today, I celebrate the TT. One hundred years of sticking two fingers up at those who deem that risk in the pursuit of fun is unacceptable. One hundred years of throwing yourself around the tiny roads of a tiny island at impossible speeds, just for the thrill and joy and exuberance and adrenaline of it. I'm there in spirit, if not in person.

So, it’s been a while since I posted, and the more that’s changed, the more has stayed the same. India and Pakistan are squaring up to each other again (which is going to be fun for those of us who live in and around Bradford). Iraq and Afghanistan are in an even more parlous state than they were last time I wrote. Israel and Lebanon are at it again as well; and in more prosaic news, I got kicked off metaquotes for a minor rule infringement (Oh! The drama!). But rather than chanting "we’re all going to die in a nuclear war! We’re all going to die in a nuclear war! And I can’t even metaquote people about it!" I find myself seeking the silver lining. Or possibly burying my head in the sand. I shall leave it to you to decide.

One thing which is increasing my happiness quotient is that the ID card issue which I was so worried about because of its far reaching consequences looks like being quietly shelved until after the next election, by which point we will have a new prime minister whichever party wins and (hopefully) it will get permanently kicked to the kerb.

Then there’s the tantalising possibility that the cash for peerages row is going to keep on bubbling up until it engulfs our dear Prime Minister. There’s talk that he might be arrested, since two government ministers have been "helping the police with their enquiries" already, and I’ll be most amused if he gets hoist by his own petard for the ridiculous increase in power he has given the police. After his recent comments on the judiciary, is there anyone willing to bet they WON’T throw the book at him, should the case get to court? Just the merest possibility of this happening gives me GLEE!! feelings…

In less earth-shattering areas, I have become very active in Doctor Who fandom since season two/twenty-eight started, mainly to complain, like the old git that I am, about how much better the show was in Colin Baker’s day, and how Doctor Number Ten’s scripts are atrocious. I was extremely amused this morning to read (in an ancient copy of Doctor Who Magazine) somebody saying almost exactly the same things about Colin Baker with regard to the Tom Baker era.

But possibly the most exciting news of all, as far as I’m concerned, is that I shall be receiving my new motorcycle next week. We all have our little routes of escape from terrible reality, don’t we? Sometimes I like to listen to the radio in the dark, for example, or to go on a long run with the dog somewhere deserted. But the best method of escape is to climb aboard my bike and go somewhere completely random. The countryside near to where I live is so beautiful, and the moorland roads are quiet enough to appreciate it without getting stuck in frustrating traffic. There’s such a sense of freedom to motorcycling, which I never get in a car, and I’ve been like a child in the week before Christmas all week.

All of which goes to prove something which I have long suspected.

Human beings can’t live in a constant state of fear. We just can’t. The government keeps on trying to ramp up our fear levels so that they can strip away our civil liberties; there’s a constant threat that the whole world will be engulfed in a terrible war, and our leaders keep trying to use petrol as a fire extinguisher; the media is full of increasingly hysterical stories of death and destruction… And for the most part we all ignore it. We get on with our daily lives, perhaps with a sad shake of the head, or a blog comment.

I’m undecided as to whether or not this is a good thing.

On the one hand, it just goes to show human adaptability. No matter how horrible situations might get, no matter how terrible the outside world becomes, we intentionally get tunnel vision and concentrate harder and harder on the little things to protect ourselves from the horror of the big picture. We complain about the storylines on Eastenders because it’s a comforting, normal thing to do when the world is going to hell in a handbasket; and the cynic in me says that it’s the reason why Eastenders was invented. It IS comforting to think that however bad things get there will still be some semblance of normal life going on.

On the other hand, the activist in me wants to scream at the indolence. If all those of us who think that things are WRONG were to rise up and right the wrongs then the world would be a better place, or certainly a more interesting place. But there’s a little weasel voice at the back of my head saying that maybe that’s what the warmongers think they are doing – rising up and overthrowing evil. And of course, I’m far too indolent myself to do anything other than complain in my blog about the indolence of others.

So, if the situation in the middle east does explode in the next few days, or if India and Pakistan DO start hitting the nuclear button at each other, what will my likely response be? Sadly, I’m not deep enough for it to be “oh the humanity!” or a more original equivalent thereof. I can practically guarantee that if something catastrophic happens in the next few days, my response will involve “…and I didn’t even get to ride my Triumph!”

Hurrah for the indomitable human spirit.