Sausages

One aspect of food packaging has irritated me for some time. Most packaging comes with a 'serving suggestion' picture on it. These pictures fall into one of four categories.

One: Not irritating; and thus not interesting.

Two: The lovely. These pictures show an item of culinary delight which includes the ingredient inside the packaging. Unfortunately, the packaging does not include a recipe indicating how the contents become the whole dish or what other items are required. This is more of a disappointment than an irritation.

Three: The self-evident. The tub of ice-cream with a picture of two scoops of ice-cream in a bowl with a spoon. Well I was hardly going to eat it off of the floor, was I?

Four: The imbecilic. I recently purchased some Sainsbury's Taste The Difference pork and bramley apply sausages. They are very nice sausages, as are all in that range, I thoroughly recommend them.

On the packaging is the inevitable serving suggestion picture. The way in which the designers recommend eating six pork sausages is thus: A bramley with a sprig of sage. That is correct, the serving suggestion for a packet of sausages does not include any sausages.

I can quite understand wanting to put a picture of a bramley apple on a packet of sausages which have bramleys in them. That would be logical and a sensible way of decorating these sausages. Putting the words 'serving suggestion' on this picture does not do anyone any good.

Just in case you missed my point above: The serving suggestion for a packet of sausages. Does not. Include. Any. Sausages.

This is absurd. Completely absurd.

England versus Western Australia

The BBC match report of the England versus Western Australia warm-up game.

Geraint Jones, in the team as a specialist batsman, scores a primary.

Chris Read, wicketkeeper-batsman, scores fifty nine.

Richard Dawkins, a continuation

A reader of my blog made a few comments about my treatment of Richard Dawkins in my previous post. My response to those comments is below. I have edited them slightly in order that they make more sense away from the context of the reader's comments. Also, they are slightly disjointed, again because of the lack of context, back I think it all makes sense.

Before my reply though, I would like to add that the previous post was intended as a humorous image of hell. My intent was not to attack either Richard Dawkins or Ian Paisley, that was merely an added bonus.

My reply:

I don't take issue with the content of Dawkins' work. For the most part I agree with it; in the original post I explicitly recognised his ability as a biologist. His views on religion may be exaggerated, but I have no argument with the core of his arguments. Naturally, as a believer, there are some things I outright disagree with.

What I find ironic is his attitude and method of delivery. He makes a big show of being the rational scientist with an open mind fighting the evils of the superstitious religious nonsense. Yet he is as closed to differing opinions as the con-evo southern baptist, the hardcore papist or even your typical middle of the road liberal Anglican. He is as much a religious fanatic as Paisley is. I do not hesitate to call either bigoted.

Absolutely many religious movements have been vicious, nasty things. Some get it right, but they don't tend to last long. But that is true of any organised piece of humanity, be it a government, a public service or a bunch or randoms in the pub. The problem isn't religion, or God; it is humans.

That in itself is another danger of the science can solve and cure everything camp. Science can't by itself, it needs to be pointed in the right direction. That pointing may come from God, or it may not, but to uphold science as God leads to the assumption that something that can be done, should be done. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, napalm and Portsmouth say otherwise.

A small corner in hell.

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our
brains drop out." - Richard Dawkins.

For a long time I have been seeing that quote as it is the signature of someone on a mailing list to which I subscribe (http://www.york.lug.org.uk/). Each time I see it, I chuckle.

I have this vision of (a particularly Victorian fire and brimstone type) hell in which there is a little room, locked for all eternity. Inside this room are Richard Dawkins and Rv. Ian Paisley (snr).

Both are very intelligent men. Dawkins is a leading evolutionary biologist of great knowledge and Paisley a politician of renown. They are also two of the most arrogant, narrow-minded bigots in the public eye today. Neither are capable of rational debate; Paisley preferring to shout as loudly as possible into the nearest microphone and Dawkins ranting in paperback. More importantly neither seem capable of admitting that anyone except themselves may have a valid opinion.

To confine two such polarised and fanatical men in a room together could be cause of much amusement to an anthropomorphised satan.

Not that I am judgemental you understand.

Holiday

As I am sure you have noticed, I haven't posted anything for a while.
I haven't really had anything to say that would be of any interest,
not even to me.

Time for a holiday for this little duck. I am sure that I will
return at some point in the not too distant future, but for now,
assume a lack of quacks.

God bless you all, I shall see you soon.

More newspapers

I was disappointed to discover that more European newspapers had published the cartoons that have caused much offence to Islam.

I will repeat again that they have every right to do so if they wish; this doesn't change the fact that I think they are wrong to do so.

The original publication by the Danish paper can be accepted if only because they did not understand that such offence could or would be caused. Now that the issue is known, I can see no excuse for repeated publication.

I do not accept the argument that it is a defence of the free speech principal. Such a defence could easily have been made in a written article without the offencive material. I can not see the case is made any stronger by using the pictures.

After some thought I can see only two reasons why the other newspapers would publish the pictures. Either they assume some natural superiority of their own feelings and cannot accept that their actions do cause harm or they have malicious intent and wish to deliberately cause offence.

They have every right to do so though and the fact that I think they are wrong to do so doesn't change that.

Danish paper apologises

For those who haven't followed this story in the news, a brief recap.
A Danish newspaper published some caricatures of Mohamed. Images of
all of the prophets, in particular of Mohamed, are considered
offensive and possibly blasphemous in Islam. A large number of
Muslims were offended by the images and responses ranged from a
formal protest by the Danish Muslim association to a boycott of
Danish products in middle-eastern countries.

I am glad that the paper has apologised for the offence that it has
caused, but equally glad that is hasn't apologised for publishing the
pictures in the first place.

I will defend absolute freedom of speech completely but I will repeat
until I am blue in the face that with freedom comes responsibility.
You should be able to publish such pictures if you wish but you have
to be prepared for the consequences of your actions and to take
responsibility for them

Many have argued that the response of those offended in this
particular case was not appropriate and that may be so but those
people are responsible for their actions and the newspaper is
responsible for its actions. I am glad that the paper recognised
this and apologised for offending people whether it intended to cause
offence or not.

Confessions

In the wake of Holy Blood, Holy Grail I am now reading the
confessions of St. Augustine.

What a delight. Wonderful words and more truth and wisdom in a
single paragraph than in the whole of Holy Blood. Read them.

The two little wrens are in my tree again. So cute.

Holy blood, holy grail

I have (very nearly, only a couple of pages left) finished The Holy
Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael, Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry
Lincoln.

I did consider reading the Da Vinci Code after all of the fuss that
there has been about it but the opinions of several people that I
trust (my Mother, Front Row, The Guardian) tended to describe it as
interesting idea, low grade literature. So I decided to avoid the
alleged dodgy writing and read the book that Da Vinci Code was based
upon, namely Hold Blood.

My general conclusion: interesting idea, low grade writing and
history.

The premise of the book is well thought through and generally
internally consistent. So was the X-Files. I have little problem
accepting the concept of a shadowy organisation working through
several hundreds of years to achieve certain aims, I would be
surprised if there weren't many such. Unfortunately, evidence and
rigour are decidedly lacking through out. Referencing is variable,
sometimes very good and sometimes appalling. Some grand claims are
made on the basis of evidence and documents which are conveniently
unreferenced. Many suppositions are made, which is fine, this is
history after all, but then treated as fact upon which further
suppositions can be built, many times over. Again in itself this is
fine, but there is so little evidence and so many alternative
interpretations that it is very difficult to accept this as anything
other than vague theory, which may have a basis in truth or even be
mostly true but then again may just be a long fairy story.

There was one other thing that bugged me slightly. There was a bit
of a rant about synthesis of techniques in academic disciplines,
which I largely agree with, and it seemed that the booked showed a
genuine attempt to develop such aims. Except for the slight
omission, explicitly stated, of even the slightest use of theology,
which is something I feel has some bearing on the subject. And then
of course, the authors make several isolated and very strong claims
of a very theological nature with no attempt to support them and no
possibility of accepting that they may be wrong.

On a journalistic integrity scale of 'The Star' to 'The Guardian' I
give this a 'Sun'; worth a giggle, not worth taking too seriously.

Self-inflicted irony

I recently continued by support of the Make Poverty History campaign by send an e-mail via their website to the Treasury.

Shortly afterwards I received an e-mail from the Debt Relief team at the Treasury. Imagine my indigation at receiving a stock text mass answer reply.

Imagine my amusement as I realise the irony of my indignation.

I must applaud the Treasury though. Of the dozen or so e-mails and letters that I have sent via Make Poverty History and similar organisations, I have received replies to only two; this one and one to my MP, Hugh Bayley, about AIDS.

Book Meme

Top 50 books on whatshouldireadnext.com. Bold the ones you’ve read, italicize the ones you haven’t but plan to, and markthe ones you definitely won’t read in red.

The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
The Catcher in the Rye - J.D. Salinger
The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy - Douglas Adams
The Great Gatsby - F.Scott Fitzgerald
To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
The Time Traveler’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman
All the Harry Potters - J.K. Rowling
Life of Pi - Yann Martel
Animal Farm: A Fairy Story - George Orwell
Catch-22 - Joseph Heller
The Hobbit - J. R. R. Tolkien
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time
Lord of the Flies - William Golding
Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
1984 - George Orwell
One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden
The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold
Slaughterhouse 5 - Kurt Vonnegut
Angels and Demons - Dan Brown
Fight Club - Chuck Palahniuk
Neuromancer - William Gibson
Cryptonomicon - Neal Stephenson
The Secret History - Donna Tartt
A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess
Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
American Gods - Neil Gaiman
Ender’s Game - Orson Scott Card
Snow Crash - Neal Stephenson
A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - C.S. Lewis
Middlesex - Jeffrey Eugenides
Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
The Lord of the Rings - J. R. R. Tolkien
Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
Good Omens - Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman
Atonement - Ian McEwan
The Shadow Of The Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
The Old Man and the Sea - Ernest Hemingway
The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood
The Bell Jar - Sylvia Plath
Dune - Frank Herbert

Snippets

Here are a few snippets that I kept from the Guardian for some reason
(probably to turn into a blog post). Enjoy and consider:

"Globalisation doest not apply to the service sector, where 20
million people work. It is a term used to disguise the hard truth
that GDP growth is irrelevant to those who don't share in it. GDP
per capita is a meaningless statistic that pretends all wealth is
equally shared. Class-blind economics conveniently celebrates growth
even when it enriches the well-off at the expense of the low paid."

"I think the idea [a national curriculum for under-fives] is
ridiculous. I would wipe my child's bottom with any official
national curriculum for pre-school children that came through my
door!

For the under-fives, the main responsibility lies with the parents,
the most important people in the child's life. Here is what should
really be on their curriculum:

Talking to them from birth, all time, and taking their dummies out so
they can talk back. Giving them a routine and sense of discipline.
Not being afraid to say no; somebody has to be in charge and it has
to be the adult, children can't cope with being in control even if
they like to push against the boundaries. Feeding them good food
when they're hungry, but not panicking if they miss a meal and not
making mealtimes into a battle. Acknowledging that they get fearful.
Teaching them politeness. Letting them fail and realise that
getting it wrong sometimes is not a disaster. Giving them
responsibility, but not beyond their years. Letting them get used to
their own company and liking themselves. Giving as much love as you
can, because you never spoil them by loving them. Going with your
instincts and not being hidebound by what other people say."

Odd Hits

There is something odd going on. I am getting vast numbers of hits
from search engine queries on 'rudolph randolph adolph'. By vast, I
mean relatively speaking, we are still talking under double figures
each day.

This blog archive (May 2005) is the culprit:

May 2005

If you remember, I had three little bulbs that was I attempting to
grow in my office. I named them after the three twisting single
front somersault moves. They never grew. There is probably no
connection.

I suspect there is some sort of quiz or competition asking people to
find out what they are. If you are such a person, please let me
know.

Oh well, I least I rank highly on google for some obscure things.

Two thoughts

I m back from the Christmas break and back in the office.

Two little thoughts to get you thinking (and commenting):

The word invalid, used to describe people who through sickness or
disability may not be able to walk or suffer weakness or such things.
Look at that word.

IN - VALID.

I am not usually one for political correctness, but on reflection
that is one word I am glad to see falling out of common usage.

Is alcoholism, binge drinking and smoking a form of self-harm?

Answers on a postcard please.