mad dogs and Englishmen . . . .

On the move . . .

2008-08-30T22:42:00.005+01:00

I'm in the process of moving 'mad dogs etc' to a new home. The job may take a a few days and but I hope the end product will be a bright and shiny new blogsite for mad dogs and Englishmen [and anyone else who cares to visit].

UPDATE the new site is now ready for viewing. Click here for the new mad dogs . .

Fairy Tales are good for kids?

2008-08-11T16:25:00.003+01:00

If you think fairy stories are just harmlessly entertaining tales which are ideal for teaching children good wholesome moral values take a look at this posting on the mental floss website. Here are the summaries of a few medieval fairy tales with their original plots and endings. Some are quite well-known in their modern format, such as 'Cinderella' and 'Snow White', and others are less well known, but what they all have in common is that these are the original stories which abound with murder, treachery, incest, cannibalism, torture and, this is bad news for those who like a neat and tidy ending, there are very few 'and they all lived happily ever after' conclusions.

Click here and enjoy, but don't read them to your kids.

The end?

2008-04-21T19:33:00.008+01:00

I've just read through a newspaper column in the The Guardian, 21.4.2008, about the possible forthcoming parliamentary upheaval over the abolition of the 10% tax band. And it leaves me breathless. I read it several times to make sure I hadn't missed anything or had really understood it but, no matter how hard I tried to find some hidden inner message, the meaning remained the same.

What the author is saying, in effect, is that it is more important to preserve Prime Minister Gordon Brown's reputation, save face and avoid a climb-down than it is to look after some of the poorest people of our country. Thank you, Ms Ashley.

Brown must have done one of two things when he frigged his 2007 budget, either he was fully aware of what he doing, in which case, contrary to what he has been telling us, he is a callous, calculating liar who cares nothing for those at the bottom of the social heap, or he made a mistake, in which case, contrary to what the spin merchants have tried to tell us, he is an inept and bungling halfwit, there is no plausible third explanation. Either way it is a lose-lose outcome for him. But his sins don't stop there. First of all he denied that there were any losers as a result of his budget saying that everyone was compensated in some way by other measures of the package, when that wouldn't wash he said that the problem was exaggerated. He has now reached a point, along with his Darling mouthpiece, at which he admits that something may be wrong but insists it is too late to do anything about it. I suspect, will now resort to some heavy-handed bullying, behind conveniently closed doors, to 'persuade' each of the dissenters to quieten down.

If the motion put forward by Frank Field wins this could be the end of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he has tied himself too closely with this matter to escape, and if that happens, so be it. If this causes problems for the government, tough - that's life.

Right now 5.4. million people are going to be worse off for the next year unless something is done about it soon. Promises, such as we have heard from Alistair Darling, of looking into the matter at some unspecified future date, and maybe taking undefined action in future budgets is not good enough. Waiting a year for something that might, or might not happen, simply to save face for someone else, no matter who it is, is morally unjust and not acceptable.

Toughing it out . . .

2008-04-19T23:05:00.006+01:00

Every politician wants to make his mark on the world; some do it on their terms and some only manage it by accident but they all get there in the end. At some time in every wannabe world leader’s career there will come a point when it is necessary to show your mettle, stand up to, or face down, an opponent. As western citizens we expect them to be tough – we have no respect for politicians who appear weak in any way. Contrast the careers of Sir Alex Douglas-Home and Michael Foot with those of Margaret Thatcher and Harold Wilson. Who was hated most, and who got the cheers and who got the jeers?

Listening to endless hours of drivel from friend and foe alike and then dishing it out, of course, is not something for the oversensitive or faint of heart. It’s the same the world over, Tricky Dicky [Nixon], Charles De Gaulle, Nikita Krushchev, - I could go on quoting examples ad nauseam, in fact, as I’m in the mood, I think I will - Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, Tony Benn, Jo Stalin, Nasser, are/were all immensely popular in their way and all made their mark amongst their people and often beyond by standing firm against an opponent.

Right now our dear leader is faced with something of a hostile scenario; after months of being accused of dithering, boorishness, oafish clumsiness and kow-towing to big business he must make his stand, assert his authority over his party and show that he will not be pushed around. Like any sensible leader facing battle he must choose his ground and select a position which gives him an advantage. To some degree his choice is limited but, following the military maxim ‘never take on someone bigger than yourself’, he has selected his target with [some] wisdom.

The removal of the 10% income tax band, introduced in the 2007 Budget when our leader was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, has not gone down well with much of the populace, and the ensuing noise has even woken a few MPs from their slumbers. The reason behind the disquiet is simple enough, this tax change has resulted in many [over 5 million people] of the poorest paid people in the country having to pay more tax while those further up the social heap are left financially better off. For someone receiving £50,000 per year a change of three or four pounds per week, either way, would hardly be noticed, for someone paid £15,000 per year the same change will have a noticeable effect. As this negative change applies to the poorest only it becomes very difficult to see how talk of ‘redistribution of the tax burden for the overall benefit’ can be justified. Whichever way the politicians wriggle the poorest are being told to pay more and the better off are paying less – no weasel words, no matter how skilfully applied, can get round that.

However, the rebels, who are demanding that this be put right forthwith, are told they are hiding after nothing. The Prime Minister has put his foot down and will not move, ‘there will be no climb-down by the government over the 10% tax band’ is the gist of the messages heard.

So there you have it; it must pick a fight don’t choose the biggest bully in the yard, hit the weakest and stand firm. Maybe I’m missing something here but I don’t see this winning many friends or elections.

I'm swimmin' in the rain, just swimmin' in the rain . . .

2008-04-18T13:40:00.005+01:00

If you want to go swimming in Sunderland [Wear] you can can go and splash around in their spanking brand new rain puddle. It has taken a a few years to build and a few million pounds in bottle tops and washers to pay for it, but Sunderland now have the only 50 metre swimming pool in the North East of England [apparently Berlin has 11 of them]. It's a truly modern construction with movable booms and floors so it can be adapted for almost every water activity, diving. competitive swimming, synchronisd swimming and a bit of good old-fashioned fun.

It's quite a lavish creation but also very 'green' in that it has been designed for maximum fuel efficiency and minimum waste of resources. The water is collected from the roof, treated and cleaned in the downstairs water plant, so every time you jump in you are swimming in the rain . .

Liberty

2008-04-13T23:15:00.008+01:00

We could do worse than remember Martin Niemollers words -

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me —
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Right now similar things are happening in our country. First they took our freedom to dissent and demonstrate in Parliament Square [and after a long struggle begrudgingly gave it back, with limitations], then they took away our right to privacy and set up cameras all around our streets, then they claimed the right to shoot us dead if we happen to look ‘suspicious’, then they took away our right to freedom of expression by inventing terrorist 'thought crimes', then they took away our right to habeas corpus and extended the time they could hold a terrorist suspect without charge, then did it again and now they want to do it yet again. If we continue to allow the government to get away with this what happens next? Vigilance and a loud and vociferous resistance to these changes are vital if we are to preserve any semblance of normal life rather than living in a government-induced state of fear.

Contrary to what some politicians are telling us you do not preserve freedom by sacrificing it. Nor is freedom for security a legitimate or sensible trade-off. Benjamin Franklin’s words are as valid today as when they were first written

“one who would give up essential freedom for temporary security deserves neither freedom nor security"

Darwinism

2008-03-14T14:46:00.019Z

It’s uncertain which of the three schools of thinking, creationist, intelligent design or natural selection, if any at all, would claim John Darwin, the undead canoeist, as the final proof of their theory, maybe no one at all, as he doesn’t seem to do much credit to any of them.

It is a while since we last heard of Mr. and Mrs Darwin but on Thursday, 13^th March 2008, a hearing was held at Leeds Crown Court at which they both entered pleas to the various charges brought against them. Mr Darwin pleaded guilty to seven charges of obtaining money [possibly as much as £250,000] by deception and one of obtaining a false passport and not guilty to nine other charges. Mrs Darwin pleaded not guilty to all of the charges brought against her. That's the dry bit of the tale over with, and summarised here in this article on The Times website.

There has been much speculation about the whole story but in particular around the possible motivation. As might be expected, the investigative journals of the world have been digging deep to see what insightful nuggets of muck can be found. One novel theory as to why he gave himself up to the police is that by so doing he would force his wife into giving herself up, but this has is its variations - and drawbacks. The first story, posited by the Glasgow Daily Record, is that he believed his wife was being unfaithful to him but The Sydney Morning Herald goes further than this saying that Darwin believed his wife was about to leave him for another man and leave him penniless, further details here. While this may be plausible, doesn’t it seem a little OTT to put yourself at the mercy of the fuzz, especially after committing a string of frauds, just to stop your spouse having an affair? Would this fit in with Darwin's previous patterns of behaviour? If other stories are to be believed he regularly indulged in affairs himself so would he be bothered if his wife did the same. Maybe, but maybe not. Does this fit in with the initial story heard last December when he entered a London police station? To all intents and purposes he seriously expected to get away with his amnesia story, although a moments serious thinking might have told him otherwise.

The News of The World has another story to tell, not of any planned scheme but of a penpal affair between Darwin and a female prisoner – someone had to find a seamy element to this sooner or later. How he met up with someone else while behind bars is left unexplained but if this is correct it will not be the first time he has been involved with other women or confused reality with fantasy as shown in this article in the the Daily Mail.

Guessing from these stories and allegations it would seem that John Darwin is more comfortable in a fantasy world than in the real world. Maybe he himself realises this and is looking forward to a long stir of porridge, it could be just what he needs to avoid getting himself knotted up in further harebrained antics. Or perhaps, as an ex-prison officer, he is feeling a little homesick and wants to return to more familiar quarters. Who knows?

But to return to the initial question of this article, if JD were presented as the ultimate proof of the theory of life then intelligent design would come a very poor third in the race JD having displayed a total absence of IQ, natural selection staggers home in second place after failing miserably to do its job in eliminating a seriously weak link from the gene pool and on the basis of all the stories and fantasies involved in this tale Creationism wins by a mile.

Crime doesn't pay.

2008-03-03T14:44:00.022Z

This is topic close to the heart of many people, money and what happens after someone steals, embezzles or obtains it in a dishonest fashion and is subsequently caught. It seems that there is no simple answer to this; how society responds depends on a lot of rather complex, largely unwritten, rules. For instance, the type of crime you commit and how much you have stolen both have a bearing on the outcome but also where you have stolen it from, who you are and who you are connected with.

Take the recent case of the MP who allegedly misused Parliamentary allowances to feather his nest, reported here in The Times and here in The Independent. Over a period of 3 years he paid his eldest son, Henry, a salary as a research assistant, while he [Henry] was studying at Newcastle University. More recently he entered into the same scheme when his second son, Freddie, went to university. After the second time around someone blew the whistle and it was claimed that the money was being paid for no real purpose whatsoever. An enquiry was held into the matter and the committee could find no evidence of any work being done. The only supporting evidence was the say-so of the Conway family members.

Reports are a little fuzzy and confusing regarding how much money was involved, a lot depends on which newspaper you read, but so far as I can gauge the figures below are somewhere in the region.

HC £11,773 per year for 3 years, plus 4 £10,000 bonuses. Total £75,319
FC £10,000 per year for 3 years, plus pension contributions. Total £45,000

For siphoning off a sum of money in excess of £120,000 from public funds Derek Conway was suspended from Parliament for 10 days, must repay £13,161, and has now lost his place in the Conservative Party. No prosecution, no instant dismissal from employment, none of the of the penalties which would have applied automatically had a canteen worker or cleaner stolen a few supplies from the storeroom. Apart from the loss of party membership and the 10 days lost pay, it is now back to 'service as normal' for The Honourable Derek Conway, having made a net gain for his offspring of over £100,000.

A few articles covering this . . . . .
The Daily Telegraph
Guido Fawkes' blog
The Guardian

**** you Jack. I'm alright.

2008-03-01T20:10:00.005Z

Contrary to popular belief The Times isn't every Englishman's favourite newspaper but it does throw up interesting little articles now and again. While rummaging amongst some old copies recently I came across this item. The British, and English particularly, have always considered themselves as kind-hearted and generous though perhaps not overly so. Within our isles there are many variations, as you might expect, and some regions are well-known for opposite traits; the Scots, Aberdonians especially, are reputed to be thrifty and Yorkshire people are careful, as they put it, for example [or just plain tightfisted], but behind our stoic outward facing masks we all have beating hearts of gold. At least that is what we like to tell ourselves and anyone else who is listening. Unfortunately, as Richard Morrison points out this notion simply doesn't square up with facts collected by the Office for National Statistics. During the last 50 years we have been less and less willing to give to charity, and at the same time have become more and more uncaring for others. If you have the means and the opportunity it is OK to flaunt your wealth, preferably in the most contemptuous and shameless manner possible, it is perfectly acceptable to cheat others and to put down those less fortunate than yourself. Morrison pins everything down to an absence of 'love' in our society, I would use the word 'care' but otherwise, in essence. agree with what he says, if anything I would be even less charitable than he is in describing our society, we are simply a bunch of greedy and selfish, uncaring tightwads.

An Italian Hero

2008-02-21T23:43:00.011Z

I was passing the time in a reading room recently, working my way through the newspapers of the day, as one does, filling in bits of crossword puzzles, dozing and drinking tea, though not necessarily in that order. Stuffed a way in a corner was the remnants of a backcopy which I idly glanced through until I came across an article about a marathon runner. This was a character who had been briefly introduced to us at school but I had never really got acquainted with him as he was quickly pushed back out of my mind to make way as we moved on to Corn Law, Tariff Reform and other more important matters. This was not the original marathon runner, Pheidippides the soldier who fought in the battle of Marathon, ran to Athens to deliver the good news and then dropped dead, but a pastry shop assistant whose achievements were no less remarkable in that he completed the 1908 event, lost the medal, but won the hearts of millions of people around the world.

Dorando Pietri began his running career in an almost casual fashion, perhaps by accident, when, in 1904, he took part in a local race at Carpi which featured Pericle Pagliani, the then top runner in Italy. According to accounts available Pietri was still in his working clothes when he ran but he beat Pagliani. A few days later he participated in a 3,000 metre race at Bologna and won! What had prompted him to do that is unknown, bravado, a bet with his pals or Italian dottiness and eccentricity, is unknown but during the following he began his rise to international fame. In 1905 he won the Paris 30 km race, his first international success and in 1906 won the qualifying Italian marathon for the Athens Olympic games, held later that year. During the Athens marathon he retired from the race, due to an intestinal illness, while he was in the lead by 5 minutes. By 1907 he was the undisputed long distance champion of Italy, for every event from 5,000 metres upwards.

At the 1908 London Olympics the day of the marathons race was an unusually hot one by UK standards (78 degrees F) and this took its toll on all of the 56 starters. Three-quarters of the way in to the race Pietri was in second place and several minutes behind the leader but when he was told Hefferson was having trouble he increased his pace and a few miles later overtook him. After entering the stadium for the final lap his troubles began when he took a wrong turn and was redirected by an official. He then fell from exhaustion but was helped back to his feet and struggled on. Different stories give varying counts of the times he fell, all we know is that it happened several times and each time he was helped on his way by officials and Arthur Conan Doyle, no less, who happened to be standing by. Of his 26 miles and 365 yards, taking 2 hours, 54 minutes and 46 seconds the final lap had taken 10 minutes to complete [no one actually timed this section so we only have anecdotal information]. And only in the final moments had any other competitor entered the stadium!

Several theories have been put forward to explain his condition on entering the stadium - excessive heat, his efforts in the final half of the course to speed up, gargling with wine during the race - but these are speculative. And the nearest he got to using drugs was to take balsamic vinegar during training.

From any of the BW photographs available of those final moments many differences between Pietri and a modern athlete can be seen. There is even a difference between himself and the officials surrounding him. There is no imagery or PR at work, he is noticeably small, skinny, one might say weedy, the very picture of the underdog and this had an immediate appeal to the masses. He had finished by sheer will and determination.

Immediately after the race the USA team lodged a complaint which was accepted by the committee and Johnny Hayes, who came in second, was awarded first position. Undoubtedly the USA complaint was technically correct, Pietri had been redirected, assisted and helped to his feet by officials who should have had no influence on his performance. But whatever anyone wants to say no one can alter those staggering ten minutes when he was in the stadium alone. That is an impressive lead to have gained, coming up from behind, by any standard.

In the months following he was invited to America to compete in a tour of races. Twice he competed against Johnny Hayes and twice he beat him. Of the 22 races he participated in on tour he won 17. He continued his professional racing career for another 3 years and retired after winning his final race at Goteburg, Sweden.

He died in 1941, at the age of 56, of a heart attack.

"I Used To Ride A Bike"

2008-02-21T22:31:00.014Z

I was clearing out some storage space recently and dug up a stack of ancient magazines. Before committing them to the recycling bin I had a quick glance through a few of them and came across this little gem. I'm not sure exactly when I started cycling, but I know I was still at school, and I've been doing the same with varying degrees of enthusiasm ever since - although I suspect I need to do more if I am to avoid gaining weight. If I'm not careful I may end up as the subject of this verse -

'I used to ride a bike'

All motorists get up my nose
But the type I most dislike
Is the one who has to tell you
That he used to ride a bike.

He approaches you at lunch stop
With a loving sort of look,
You try to hint you're resting –
But tact's not in his book.

Oh, the cafés where he used to stop.
The characters he knew.
The distances he covered.
He rode twice as far as you.

He's over thirty now, of course
(his waist looks forty-two),
So he's had to pack it in for good –
But how he envies you!

All cyclists need protection Lord,
But one thing we implore –
Protect us most of all from bores
Who've swapped two wheels for four.

Bill Tordoff

The Užupis Constitution

2008-02-18T11:59:00.010Z

A few years ago the district of Užupis, in the city of Vilnius, declared itself to be an independent republic. A President and bishop were appointed, four flags were designed [one for each season], and a suitable constitution was duly drawn up. The 41 rights which form the constitution are engraved on mirrors, attached to a wall on Paupio Street. In addition, it has a palace, an army [of 12] to defend it and a National Day [1st April], which may give some idea of just how important this shabby little area has become. More details here and here and probably the most thorough in-depth analysis just here.

Here is a translation of the terms of the constitution -

Everyone has the right to live by the River Vilnelė, while the River Vilnelė has the right to flow by everyone.

Everyone has the right to hot water, heating in winter and a tiled roof.

Everyone has the right to die, but it is not a duty.

Everyone has the right to make mistakes.

Everyone has the right to individuality.

Everyone has the right to love.

Everyone has the right to be not loved, but not necessarily.

Everyone has the right not to be distinguished and famous.

Everyone has the right to be idle.

Everyone has the right to love and take care of a cat.

Everyone has the right to look after a dog till one or the other dies.

A dog has the right to be a dog.

A cat is not obliged to love its master, but it must help him in difficult times.

Everyone has the right to sometimes be unaware of his duties.

Everyone has the right to be in doubt, but this is not a duty.

Everyone has the right to be happy.

Everyone has the right to be unhappy.

Everyone has the right to be silent.

Everyone has the right to have faith.

No one has the right to violence.

Everyone has the right to realize his negligibility and magnificence.

Everyone has the right to encroach upon eternity.

Everyone has the right to understand.

Everyone has the right to understand nothing.

Everyone has the right to be of various nationalities.

Everyone has the right to celebrate or not to celebrate his birthday.

Everyone shall remember his name.

Everyone may share what he possesses.

No-one can share what he does not possess.

Everyone has the right to have brothers, sisters and parents.

Everyone is capable of independence.

Everyone is responsible for his freedom.

Everyone has the right to cry.

Everyone has the right to be misunderstood.

No-one has the right to make another person guilty.

Everyone has the right to be personal.

Everyone has the right to have no rights.

Everyone has the right to not be afraid.

Do not defeat.

Do not fight back.

Do not surrender.

It

2008-02-17T11:22:00.002Z

Surf-boarders do it standing up,
Some people talk about it,
Campanologists do it for a change,
We set to it.

Divers do it in rubber suits,
Miners get down to it,
Card-players do it on the table,
We press on with it.

Walkers do it on the hills,
Orienteers run for it,
Policemen do it in their helmets,
We revel in it.

Pot-holers do it horizontally,
Drivers do it on four wheels,
Rock climbers do it in awkward positions,
We delight in it.

Sky-divers do it from great heights,
Ornithologists do it behind bushes,
Randonneurs do it day and night,
We relish it.

Sailors get wet doing it,
Cyclists do it silently,
Weathermen prefer it with a warm front,
The joy of it.

Basics of Cycling

2008-02-16T22:02:00.003Z

With the approach of Spring and the prospect of long days of sunshine and fresh air, for the benefit of the uninitiated, I have cobbled together a guide to the basics of cycling.

Beginning with the cycle itself. The main part of the cycle is the frame, the main function of which is to provide you with something to which you can attach other components e.g. bells, bottles, brakes. Many enthusiasts attach as many as possible while the puritans frown on anything which might impair the aerodynamic efficiency of the machine. The choice of faith is yours.

For the technically-minded the frame is made of jointed steel tubes - the top-tube, down-tube, seat-tube – plus the head-set, seat-stays, wheel-stays, fork-blades and the bottom bracket. You need a saddle and seat-pin, to enable you to sit on it, a stem and bar to steer it and a crank, crank-levers, pedals and a chain-set to make it move. Wheels give the machine an aesthetic quality and brakes come in handy at tea-stops.

To help the rider cope with all the variations of terrain, e.g. up-hill, down-hill, on the flat, etc., most modern bicycles are fitted with derailleur gears. These consist of a block of sprockets (cogs) fitted to the rear hub and one or more chain-rings (bigger cogs) fitted to the crank. The highest gear is the smallest sprocket at the bottom of the block and the lowest gear is the biggest at the top of the block and chain movement is controlled by the right shift-lever. To travel fast, drop the chain down to the highest gear at the bottom of the block and to move slowly pull the chain up to the lowest gear at the top of the block. OK ,so far? The chain-rings give added efficiency to the use of gears, reduce leg-strain and, most important of all, provide an additional lever to play with so you don't get bored. The smallest chain ring – the granny-wheel, for the technically-minded – is used with the lowest gears and the largest is used with the highest gears and are controlled with the use of the left shift-lever.

So, to go uphill slowly, with your feet spinning fast, you change the gear down by pulling the right shift-lever up to the highest sprocket and push the chain down to the smallest chain-ring with the left shift-lever. And to go downhill fast, with your feet turning slowly, you change gear up by dropping the chain down onto the lowest sprocket, by pushing the right shift lever forwards, and switch to the largest chain ring by pulling the left shift lever backwards. (We'll deal with the ins and outs of hub gears next time).

And now for a few buzz-words to put you at ease with other riders –

Head wind – an unfriendly wind

Tail wind – a rare phenomenon

Break wind – what the rider in front does.

Crank – the bit that makes the bike move

Bottom bracket – where the crank belongs

Hitting the bonk – a touch of hypoglycaemia

Honking – a technique used to climb steep gradients; not to be confused with . .

Honking – what sometimes happens after climbing steep gradients

Sachs – something Scottish cyclists talk of

Peugeot – foreign word for purgatory. Reputed to be a punishment for too much Sachs.

Steerer – front rider on a tandem cycle

Stoker – rear rider on a tandem cycle (these must be kept in the correct order!)

Eccentric Bottom Bracket Assembly – another item peculiar to the tandem cycle.

Happy daze.

At The Bus Stop

2008-02-14T11:14:00.004Z

"Did yiu 'ear abaht that gurl dahn ower street.”

“No? Worrabaht her?”

“She's in th' clab."

"Eihh? Wot d'you mean – in th' clab?"

"In the clab. Yu kno-ow – the puddin clab."

"O-Oh! You mean she's gorra ban in the avven. Whoy di’n’t you say? Well Oi never. Fings they get up to these days"

"Y' wouldn't fink it possibul wiv all them rubber pills an' contraventives an' wotnots they 'ave these days".

"Don't you get withdrorl symptums frum them – or sumfink?"

"Dunno. We never had nuffink like that – we used the Rhythumm Method".

"The Rhythumm Method – wossat?"

"Well, er, you just, sort of, do it, sort of – in rhythms an’ waves, like."

"Oh. An' did it wurk?"

"Course it did."

"'ow many did you 'ave?"

"Eight."

Onion Love

2008-02-14T10:57:00.006Z

How does this grab you? Just the stuff for ripping away all the saccharine images of love and romance and getting down to the real business of relationships. I first heard it several years ago and it was relatively old even then, but it has stuck in my mind ever since.

Valentine

Not a rose or a satin heart,
I give you an onion.
It is a moon wrapped in brown paper.
It promises light, like the gentle undressing of love.

Here. It will blind you with tears, like a lover.
It will make your reflections a wobbling photo of grief.

I am trying to be truthful.
Not a cute card or a kissogram.
I give you an onion.

Its fierce kiss will stay on your lips, possessive and faithful, as we are,
For as long as we are.

Take it.
Its platinum loops shrink to a wedding ring, if you like.

Lethal.
Its scent will cling to your fingers,
Cling to your knife.

Carol Ann Duffy

"Come Back To Afghanistan"

2008-01-28T15:01:00.000Z

Here is another book giving a different angle to mainstream media to help you fill in more spaces of the Middle East jigsaw puzzle.

The author, Said Hyder Akbar, was born in Afghanistan, left while he was a child during the Russian occupation, moved to Pakistan and then to the USA with his family. He comes over as a mixture of Afghan but with a strong US flavour; which gives him valuable insight into why things happen as they do, why they don't work, why some ideas were doomed to failure before they started, plus a few hints as to why the US government seems unable to learn from its calamities.

Come Back To Afghanistan is both an entertaining and informative read

"Murder In Samarkand"

2008-01-21T12:58:00.001Z

This is not exactly a ‘hot off the blogosphere’ posting as the book I have just completed reading was published several years ago. However, the lessons to be learned are as horrifying and as relevant now as they were in 2006. Just as Mr Murray states in his book many of us believed that being British came with certain values, fairness, justice, protecting the vulnerable and standing up to the bullies for instance. In the past we haven’t always managed to live up to these ideals but we tried. Now it seems that these things no longer matter, at least to our government, as it supports despots, accepts torture as an acceptable method of obtaining ‘intelligence’ [it made an attempt to get this idea on to the statute book only a few years ago, the only thing which stopped it was a group of Law Lords], repeatedly suppresses the truth and uses fabricated evidence to justify actions or achieve other ends. Does this sound like something good that you would want to tell your international friends about? If you want some insight into the way our government [and I cannot stress ‘OUR’ enough] is going and why, then reading this book ‘Murder in Samarkand’ is a must.

While not everyone would approve of Craig Murray's personal behaviour it is hard to see how anyone who believes in the truth can ignore story as it demonstrates how spin, convenience, expediency and the lack of truth have permeated our government.

In the early days of his posting his first concerns were to raise the profile of the British Embassy in Uzbekistan and make it better known amongst the British businesses which were attempting to operate there and achieved considerable success in this area. However, it was not long before he began to come across signs of corruption within the country and his attention was absorbed by other matters. This was bad enough but the most disturbing facet of this episode was the cold silence of the Foreign Office to his reports. In time the silence became more active and attempted to shut him up. The British government were following that of USA who were propping up the dictatorship in Uzbekistan as a partner in their War on Terror; it was therefore up to the Ambassador to keep relations sweet and avoid anything less pleasant. Truth simply didn't matter. This conspiracy to silence existed all the way to the very highest levels of the Foreign Office, allegedly including the Secretary of State himself. During Mr Murray's time in Uzbekistan the American government was running its Extraordinary Renditions programme, shipping arrested people to secret places around the world, one of which was Uzbekistan and, it is alleged, our government had an active part of this process. This is a story of cynicism, cruelty, terror, torture and murder and involves the author in several close and unnerving encounters of his own. If this were a thriller it would certainly sell well, but this is not fiction. If you want to see just how much politicians are prepared to debase themselves and the values of their country, read this.

Craig Murray is now the Rector of Dundee University.

Atmospheric Inspiration

2008-01-07T20:40:00.000Z

Is this Divine Guidance/Inspiration? I was looking at the log of hits for the blog the other day and saw one or two that had arrived via Google searches. Out of curiosity I did equivalent searches using the same criteria as the original visitors, just to see what they had been looking for and might have found. One had been looking for 'CO2' 'absorption' and something else, which I can't remember, and it produced the usual list of websites relating to climate change, ozone layers, carbon dioxide, etc plus a little gem near the bottom of the first page which was something about carbonating beer. This was a website advertising [Heath Robinson style] equipment for carbonating beer on the cheap. Almost instantly the penny dropped; here is the answer to all our climate problems. Suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere, carbonate the booze with it and let the binge drinkers swallow it!

Consuming Passion

2008-01-07T15:22:00.001Z

Isn't this just what we wanted all along, a sensible article about eating and some simple advice about diet, all of which can summed up in the opening seven words - "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants".

According Michael Pollan, the author, we are victims of an all-round conspiracy driven by the government, the food manufacturers, the nutritionists and the other million and one 'experts' who 'advise' us what we should and shouldn't eat. And it doesn't take much logic to see why they are so keen to close our eyes - if we followed the advice contained in those seven words the food manufacturers would be out of business, the experts would be out of a job, the government would have less to tell us and one lever less to mess us around with.

What Mr Pollan has to say fits in well with my own experiences, both here and while living in Asia. There, people ate real vegetables and meat, not stuff processed in factories with additives injected, which was bought directly from local producers. There were no rules about which bits of which animal were permissible as food, which was totally contrary to many of the guidelines laid down by our own government. I cannot remember one part of a chicken, other than the feathers, which was not eaten [feathers would be used for other purposes] and every part of a pig was eaten, offal and all, but the bulk of the menu consisted of vegetables. The people were not obese, didn't suffer the same disorders we do and were generally in a far better and healthy state than most Brits. Read more here.

Identity crisis

2007-12-10T14:17:00.002Z

The saga of John Darwin [not much indication of Intelligent Design there] is priceless. As it continues to unravel every new snippet of information, adding to the twists and contradictions, brings more entertainment into the dark days of winter and raises more smirks and smiles. The allegations already made by the police and those which they are considering are serious enough but that's not what has grabbed everyones' attention; it's not everyday that a story so fascinating, so funny, so breathtakingly loopy comes to light . . . and there's still lots more of it to come . . . In addition to the story itself everyone has been finding their own angle and digging up their own meaning.

First, in 2002, Darwin does his Reggie Perrin act and apparently gets away with it. Then he resurfaces more than 5 years later, looking very svelte, suntanned and well-presented, claiming to be a missing person but having no memory of any events after 2000. His wife, who has cashed in his insurance policies and sold their UK properties has done a bunk to Panama and, when contacted by the press, says she is delighted to hear of him being refound. Then things start unravelling as sightings of the 'dead' man come to light and even photographs. So both Anne and John Darwin begin to adjust their stories. Both sons, meanwhile, have claimed they knew nothing of their father's disappearance or their mother's involvement in the alleged fraud, but both apparently left their jobs before John Darwin reappeared.

Only someone from Britain could be so stupid and so amusing at the same time. What a shame that the Darwin Awards are only given to those who succeed in genuinely killing themselves. Couldn't the organisers set up a new category Least Best Attempt or some such? Or maybe we need to establish something entirely new, a Reginald Perrin Award. Any volunteers for the panel of judges?

There's obviously a lot more to come from this story, enough to keep us entertained during the coming months.

Give a Ted a bad name . . .

2007-12-05T10:50:00.002Z

Now that Ms Gillian Gibbons is safely home maybe it is ok to speculate on the real reasons why she was imprisoned. It certainly takes some swallowing that anyone could possibly be upset or offended at a child’s toy being given the name of a human being. We can accept that there is a cultural difference between western countries and African countries when it comes to children’s toys; only in the wealthy western countries are children brought up with cuddly animal toys, and that has only been happening in the last century; but is that enough of a difference to create a situation in which someone can be offended by the eccentricities of a western teacher? How long did it take for the person to be offended? Instantly? This is something we have little or no definite information about but the impression gained, and it is only an impression, is that there was a lapse of time between the event and the complaint being made, which suggests that the information may have been passed around until it finally found someone waiting to be offended. It is difficult to visualise precisely what the plaintiff imagined he/she was going to achieve – publicity, a blow against the interfering West, closure of Unity school? All possible and all very short term gains, except the latter which may be so damaged and discredited it never reopens.

Ms Gibbons appears to be the innocent party on every count – she did not name the bear, and when the choice was first made by the schoolchildren she asked if it was ok to choose that name, so she showed cultural sensitivity right from the beginning. The complaint was made by a private citizen – a parent or a teacher, depending on which newspaper you read – but after that the Sudanese equivalent of the CPS would have taken charge. Wouldn’t it have been possible for someone with his head screwed on the right way round to have thrown the idea out before it even reached the courts? On reaching the court would it not have been possible for the judge to have dismissed the case? Or were there other matters to be considered.

This episode does Sudan no credit, which may be why the government responded to Lord Ahmed and Lady Warsi so well, does the Islamic faith even less good and relationships between westerners and Moslems living in the west least of all. Unfortunately Mo the Ted is just the sort of stuff to make ideal ammunition for the groups of extremists and their sympathisers so it may not be out of order to expect trouble in the near future. From the Moslem nutters who look for any excuse to have a go at the decadent west and from the neo-Nazis who can’t wait to expel them from the planet.

Putting in a good word for the Atheists

2007-12-02T21:10:00.001Z

In a recently published document, entitled Spe Salvi [Saved by Hope], Joseph Ratzinger [Pope Benedict 16^th] warns the world of the evils of atheism.

“Pope Benedict XVI has launched a powerful attack on atheism, saying that it was responsible for some of the ‘greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice’ in history.” Telegraph.co.uk

In the document he goes on to assert that justice is not man made but is divine; if we try to create our own justice we end up in a world without hope. Precisely how the logic of this thinking slots together is unclear to me but I’m sure someone can put me right. This is just one more in a series of announcements, encyclicals and speeches, setting out the Pope’s ideas of how the church relates to all else in the world and how the world should relate to it. Earlier this year he asserted that the only way to God was via the Catholic church, thereby resurrecting the medieval notion that there is only one holy church [the Roman church] and that everything else is inferior and not worth bothering about.

But back to the more recent ~~attack~~ encyclical. I differ from His Holisox and feel that he missed the mark somewhat and I would like to put the record straight. There is no trickery in the words I use, no masking of meaning, no mysticism, no unsubstantiated assertions, only plain facts.

As a general rule atheists don’t . .

- hate you for being homosexual

- stand in your way if you want to learn more about science

- insist on being lead by celibate numbskulls

- interfere with education

- interfere with human rights

- hide priests who have been caught playing with little boys balls

. . . and looking further back in history atheists were never renowned for . .

- launching crusades whenever someone of a differing faith appeared in the Middle East

- instigating inquisitions

- putting people on stretching racks if they asked awkward questions about the bible

- burning people at the stake because someone said they were b/witches

- collaborating with the Nazi party

. . but while the above statements are true I would accept that they do not represent an overwhelming proof that atheists never indulge in evil.

Making an attack of this kind and blaming the ills of the world on to some unconnected group is, to my mind, the mark of someone who is in a potentially weak or vulnerable position, or who feels that his organisation/faith/creed is not robust enough to withstand scrutiny or criticism from outsiders, which ought to be nonsense as Christianity has been around for a long time now. But maybe we really shouldn’t be too surprised at this outburst as the pontiff set out his stall at a very early stage, making it clear there would be nonsense, no namby-pambying or softening of the faith while he was in charge – so out went any notion of dialogue with other faiths, all ideas about modernising the Catholic church were scrapped and the way forward now, apparently, is to return to the Middle Ages as soon as possible. Without doubt, he is a focused man and with clear vision of where he wants the church to go – or as others might see him, narrow-minded, bigoted and with a penchant for all things medieval.

Time to shaddup!

2007-11-20T11:32:00.000Z

Mr Langham has entered into 'pity me' mode, outpouring his heartache and anguish, all triggered by an unhappy and abused childhood. And he still insists his downloading for which he was sent to gaol was purely research and was done compassionately causing him even more angst! Just doesn't wash; he did something illegal and distasteful for which he was caught, tried, found guilty and sentenced. No amount of soft-soaping and pleading is going to change that; the pleas of 'I was abused' and 'I was only researching' are no justification at all, even if they turned out to be true. All this meuling simply makes him less believable and prompts one to think that staying inside for the full sentence would not have been a bad thing. At least we would have have a few more months of peace.

His best course of action would be to shut up and find something else to do. Show-biz is over.

Global Warming? Re-adjust the clock!

2007-08-26T20:57:00.001+01:00

This one is just so smart I have no answer. The warming of the atmosphere has a very straightforward explanation after all, you just need to open your eyes to what is going on around you and it becomes obvious.

All the interfering with natural processes which we do obviously has its consequences, and fiddling around with the time, as we do each year to 'save' daylight, is no exception. Read the full article here and here.

I heard, on the radio, that the writer sent this in to a local paper as a hoax; I don't know if he/she expected it to be published but the Arkansas Gazette seems to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.