Personal

My fingers have been twitching on the keyboard over the last week or so desperately wanting to comment on the situation in Gaza, but you have to be so careful as any criticism - explicit or implicit - of Israel will automatically be treated by many as antisemitism.  But my fingers will stay still no longer.  So, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation it is clear to me that what is going on there is not war - it's slaughter.  And although I have no doubt that Israel doesn't give a fig for what I think, I find that completely unacceptable. If, as Israel claim, Hamas are deliberately concealing their troops and matériel in or near schools and hospitals and such, then the answer is to put your soldiers on the ground to sort it out.  A soldier can differentiate between a child and a terrorist, or between a hospital patient and a terrorist - a bomb or a shell cannot.  Of course doing it that way increases the likelihood of casualties among your soldiers, but that's a decision you have to make. But if you do decide to go down the bombs and shells route then you will have to deal will the righteous opprobrium that goes with it.

Straight from the cow.

I've no particular views on milk - it's just white stuff that I put in my tea and coffee, but the news that the Foods Standards Agency has decided that the public should be given wider access to "raw" milk - i.e. unpasturised - has brought back childhood memories of milk being delivered to our house from a churn on the back of a horse-drawn cart.  I assume this was from a local farm and was the real stuff. Indeed my recollection is that "pasturised" milk was looked down on as an inferior, nasty-tasting product.  Mind you, my other recollection is that you had to drink it pretty quickly - in those pre-refrigerator days it went off very fast, particularly in the summer.

Level playing field?

How things have turned round - fifty or sixty years ago it was commonplace to see signs advertising rooms to let specifying "whites only" or "no blacks or Irish" and suchlike.  All very illegal now of course.  But what's happening these days?  Signs are starting to appear saying "muslims only" or "asians only" and similar.  Is this not illegal?  Yes it is, but of course you have to tread carefully nowadays to avoid being accused of racism or Islamophobia.  So it seems to be in danger of turning into a "one law for us and another for them" situation.

Aargh!!

I bet most of you know that "The Scream" is the title of a painting (four of them actually) by Edvard Munch, but have you ever heard of The Wilhelm Scream?  I hadn't until recently.  It appears to have its origin in a 1951 film called "Distant Drums" where an actor playing a US cavalryman is shot by an Indian arrow and lets out a short sharp scream.  His character was called Private Wilhelm - hence the name.  It seems likely that it was not in fact the actor who screamed but a "voice extra" by the name of Sheb Wooley. Nothing particularly remarkable about the scream except that for whatever reason it has become a "stock" piece of audio which has been used since in over 200 films including many well-known ones such as the Star Wars films, the Indiana Jones trilogy, the Lord of the Rings movies and so on.  So the next time somebody gets shot or falls off a high building or gets munched by an alien monster, listen out for the Wilhelm scream.

Goodness will out?

After a depressing few days it comes as a relief that sometimes - just sometimes - something happens which makes you proud to belong to the human race.  Doesn't happen often, but here's one for you. An American couple had a daughter who tragically died at six weeks old and during that whole time was in hospital hooked up to tubes and machines.  Her father published a photo of her in that state and said what he would like more than anything else would be to see what she would have looked like without the tubes and paraphernalia. The response was amazing - people throughout the world got going with Photoshop and produced images of her as the beautiful baby she was underneath it all. Makes you think that maybe all is not lost in this sad world.

R.I.P.

Dora Bryan - Not for any particular reason save that throughout my life she has always seemed to be around - The Blue Lamp, The Green Man, A Taste Of Honey, St Trinian's. Dinnerladies, Last of the Summer Wine - she's always been there. So her death leaves a hole.

What's in a name?

A BBC presenter at the Commonwealth Games referred to "the principality of Wales" and this it seems has provoked anger, fury even, from some Welsh social network users,  Why??  Do you have a monarch - no? - then you are not a monarchy.  Do you have a president - no? - then you are not a republic.  Do you have a Prince - well yes, nominally.  So you're a principality - get over it!

What now??

Talk about there being two sides to every coin!  When the cruise ship Costa Concordia ran aground and partially capsized off the Italian island of Giglio it initially had an adverse effect on their tourist economy - it was seen as an eyesore and its association with the deaths of 32 passengers put holiday makers off.  So now, two and a half years later, as it has finally been righted and is due to be towed away, this must be good news for the island?  Well no, quite the reverse - for some 30 months the island has been home to thousands of workers involved in the salvage operation and they of course have been spending their money in the island's shops and eating places.  But they will all now go home and the inhabitants fear the effects on them of things going back to "normal".  Like I say - two sides.

Ha ha

Oh, I think we really do need cheering up, so here's a groan-worthy joke -
          A woman has twins, and gives them up for adoption. One of them goes to a family in Egypt and is named 'Amal.' The other goes to a family in Spain, they name him 'Juan'. Years later, Juan sends a picture of himself to his mum. Upon receiving the picture, she tells her husband that she wished she also had a picture of Amal. Her husband replies, ''But they are twins. If you've seen Juan, you've seen Amal.''

Breaking news... er, nothing really.

There's an old saying - the devil makes work for idle hands - and this is what seems to be happening with the media and the crash of flight MH17.  Newspapers and news channels cannot abide there being no news, and so the temptation is to make stuff up to fill the void.  Because it has been four or five days now since the plane came down and nothing really has happened, this gives endless scope for the media to indulge in their own flights of fancy.  Let's face it, at the time of writing this it has not yet been definitively determined that the plane was shot down by a missile, and yet this has been treated as an established fact pretty well from day one. Which reminds me of another old saying - if you say something often enough and loud enough it becomes true.  My advice?  At this juncture, keep calm and treat everything you read and hear with caution.

We stand - - somewhere or other.

Apparently Ed Miliband is going to tell the party faithful that they are "moving on" from New Labour without returning to Old Labour.  Which leaves them where, precisely?  Labour-somewhere-in-the-middle?  Labour-without-a-purpose?  Labour-neither-one-thing-nor-the-other?  Just what is their image to be?

Beauty parade?

One daily paper has been castigated for publishing pictures of the newly promoted female cabinet members and commenting on their dress and hairstyles and so on. Whilst holding no particular brief for that paper, surely this is simply the sort of treatment any prominent women is likely to get?  The fact that they are MPs is neither here nor there - if you are female and in the news for whatever reason, the way you dress, the way you do your hair, the way you are made up is going to be scrutinised and commented on.  And I wouldn't mind betting that the majority of readers who take an interest in that sort of thing, are themselves women!

Hypocrisy?

Find it difficult to stomach America's calling the downing of flight MH17  "an outrage of unspeakable proportions".  It may be around 25 years ago, but have they forgotten Iranian Air Flight 655?  Let he who is without sin...

Elephant in the room?

Talking about Flight MH17 which has crashed (shot down?) on the Ukraine/Russian border.  As is so often the case, I feel that the crucial question has not been answered - or even asked.  What on earth are commercial airliners (and apparently MH17 was not the only one) doing overflying a known war zone??

Moving on...

I was surprised and a little sorry to hear that William Hague will not defend his seat in Parliament at the next general election.  He's always struck me as one of the more sensible, level-headed Conservatives and I think the party, and the House will miss him.  Thankful though that Ken Clarke intends to continue as an MP even though he has lost his cabinet position.  One of the few politicians who you feel is being straight with you even if he's telling you things you don't want to hear.  We could do with more of his sort.  And the fact that the teaching unions are rejoicing that Michael Gove will no longer be Education Secretary is a sure sign that he was doing something right!

Never touched 'im, ref!

Now it's over, what did you think of the World Cup?  I think the right team won, although as is often the case the final itself was a bit of a disappointment.  One thing to come out of it for me was a comment made by one of the TV pundits - think it might have been Glenn Hoddle - when the conversation turned to why players tend to go to ground dramatically following the most minimal of contact from an opposing player.  "They go down" he said "because they know they've no chance of getting a free kick unless they do".  And that's brought me looking at matches in a new light - because he's right.  Holding, shirt-pulling, flailing arms - you'll see it time and again, but if the player offended against stays on his feet it goes unpunished.  So I am now less inclined to criticise players who go down - as I see it - too easily, and more inclined to criticise the referees.  Foul play is foul play irrespective of whether the player fouled stays on his feet or not.  If it were punished as such, we might see rather less of the embarrassing rolling-around in agony and subsequent miraculous recoveries which do nothing for the reputation of the game.

More "progress"??

I suppose it was bound to happen.  If you go back to my post of 18th March 2006 you will find me complaining of how over the years my bank has reduced and reduced the number of cashiers there to serve you.  Well now it seems Barclays (which is not my bank) are to take this approach to the ultimate - there will be no cashiers, just self-service machines.  There will be staff there to help you use them, but as I see it that's not the point.  A machine will only do what it is programmed to do, and if that's not what you're after then no amount of "staff armed with iPads" is going to make any difference.  Don't think I want to go quite as far as "come back Mr Mainwaring" but what happened to the idea that banks were there to offer a service?

OMG...!

Come on own up - why do you watch beach volleyball?  It's 'cause the girls are all fit and wear bikinis, yes?  Apparently the authorities are trying to ensure that female handball players dress similarly, indeed they are even stipulating about the size the bikini tops and bottoms should be (small needless to say) and this it seems is not going down well with the Spanish team.  Not sure though whether the objection is to having to dress that way, or whether it is because similar rules do not apply to men players!

We didn't qualify, but so what?

So you thought tonight's World Cup final was between Argentina and Germany? Well think again - according to North Korean television news it's actually between North Korea and Portugal!  I don't know whether this is a wind-up or not, but it's on YouTube and just wacky enough to be true!

Is this wickedness?

An Irish Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should not take part in yoga, or tai chi or reiki (whatever that is) because it "goes against our religion".  He did not explain himself, other than to advise his flock that they should not "put [their] soul in jeopardy for the sake of these contemptible things".  It has been suggested by others that his objection may be that these activities have connections with other religions, like Hinduism, Shinto or Buddhism. But whilst they may have originated more as spiritual exercises, I would imagine the vast majority of those who use them today, do so for their physical benefits.  The priest, who is currently at Lourdes, has said he will explain his comments fully on his return, so that should be interesting.

Ha ha - I think!

Heard about the university environmental studies student who, in answering an exam question about vehicle emissions, wrote that in the future all cars would be fitted with catholic converters!?  Funny, yes, but this was a university student??  Gawd 'elp us!

Would you like a cup of tea??

So loneliness is the new scourge of the elderly apparently.  I don't wish to downplay it, but I am always wary of these "one size fits all" approaches to the human condition.  I'm sure there are old people living on their own who feel lonely and isolated - I'm equally sure (speaking as one of them) that there are old people living on their own who are quite content to be doing so and who would not welcome any approach by well-meaning "do-gooders" trying to get them to socialise or join some local club or other.  All this seems to have come to a head as a result of the body of an old lady being found in her flat where apparently she had been lying dead for some six years.  The immediate reaction is that this is somehow shameful, and an indictment of an uncaring society, but maybe she was one of those who was happy with her own company and wouldn't have wanted it any other way. I am irresistibly reminded of the old story of an elderly person standing at a kerb minding their own business and being dragged across the road by a boy scout when they didn't want to cross anyway. Don't stick everybody in the same pigeonhole!

Cui bono?

Yes, it's that phrase again!  It seems that all houses are to be fitted with "smart meters" to monitor gas and electricity usage.  And this will be compulsory - no opting out, and the cost of course will be passed on to us as consumers.  And who will this benefit?  The energy companies of course, who will no longer have to employ meter readers.  So we will end up paying to save them money - isn't that wonderful?!!

Watch out for the samurai!!

At the end of the Second World War and as part of their surrender terms, Japan amended their constitution, so as to provide (the famous Article 9) that as a country they renounced war and the threat or use of force as a means of settling disputes. The Article also stated that they would not maintain any land, sea or air forces. That this was unrealistic quickly became apparent, and the Article was soon "interpreted" to mean that they could keep armed forces provided they were purely for self-defence. So as not to be unconstitutional, these forces had to be created as extensions of the National Police Force, and remain so to this day.  The interpretation of Article 9 has been the subject of much debate in Japan ever since, and in particular the extent to which the concept of "self defence" could extend to helping other friendly countries, or countries with which they have treaty obligations, if they came under attack.  The Japanese cabinet has recently ruled that it will accept this idea of "collective self defence" and if considered necessary will send its forces (still strictly policemen) to fight overseas.  Whether in the twenty-first century Article 9 is any longer relevant is a discussion that the Japanese are still having, with a small majority it seems in favour of keeping it.

We need a new carpet...

There was this idea in some Scandinavian country some years ago that fines, rather than being imposed in monetary terms, should be expressed in hours worked - so if you were fined 20 hours pay say, then the more you earned, the more you would end up paying.  And that got me thinking about inflation.  Inflation is a bad thing, right? Well no actually.  Why do you buy stuff?  Well firstly, because you want it, but also because you know if you don't buy it now, by the time you do get round to buying it, it will almost certainly cost you more.  That's inflation.  So if there were no inflation, there would be no real incentive to buy now.  Even worse, deflation - every incentive to delay buying, on the basis that the price will come down.  But this of course takes no account of your pay - which is where we come back to the Scandinavian idea.  Real inflation is the rate at which prices are rising related to the rate at which your pay is going up.  In other words the real price of that TV set or that three-piece suite is not the pounds-and-pence price tag so much as how many hours do you have to work to pay for it. And if your pay is going up faster than the price is rising than why buy it now?  So the economy needs inflation - but not too much.  All very complicated,isn't it? 

How things have changed?

My eye was caught by the story of a Christian group in Gloucester who wanted to hold a bible class meeting in the building which was the home of their founder, but which is now a pub, and the landlord refused his permission on the grounds that "religion and pubs don't mix".  So why did this resonate with me?  Well, I remember when I was a kid that a church in a nearby village burnt down, and the local pub immediately offered their premises for them to hold their services there, and this went on for several months until the church was able to build a makeshift meeting hall for themselves. Now admittedly this was back when opening hours for pubs were very restricted, and I don't think that there was ever any clash between the building being used as a pub and as a church, but it was a generous act and well received by all those in the village and beyond.  So they can mix!

Ba gum!

The Tour de France cycle race starts in Yorkshire today (why???) and some wag has come up with a French-Yorkshire phrase book for the occasion.  I particularly liked Le cycle helmet =  t'at, and Sa jambe est cassé = there's nowt wrong wi' 'im!  Just my nit-picking nature, but in fact shouldn't that be Sa jambe est cassée?

What a bummer!

I have a loyalty card from a certain supermarket - not in fact the one I regularly shop at - and as a result of having that loyalty card I get occasional money off vouchers to use in the supermarket. And, let me be frank, I usually use these vouchers to stock up my booze cupboard - scotch, vodka, gin, rum and the like. But now - and I am told that this is the result of a government diktat - it seems I can no longer use these vouchers for the purchase of spirits, nor do I get points on my loyalty card for the purchase of spirits.  Very sad - but I find it difficult to see the sense in it, because the restriction apparently only applies to spirits and liqueurs - not wine or beer.  And assuming this is part of the government's "drink sensibly" programme, I would have thought that the main problem lay with beer drinkers, to a lesser extent with wine drinkers, and least of all, spirit drinkers.  So like I say, I can't see the logic.

Best watched after a few drinks?

Do you have a favourite "so bad it's good" film?  For me it has to be "Escape to Victory" - the film where a football team of PoWs in the last war are forced to play the German national side and use the match as cover for an escape attempt.  Its strength was also its weakness - the fact that with the exception of Sylvester Stallone (the obligatory American for American audiences) and Michael Caine, the majority of those taking part were professional footballers and not actors.  So the football was good and authentic - the acting was pretty crap.  But apparently they're talking of remaking it? Why??  It is a classic of its type.  Leave it alone.

Whooooosh!

An American physicist has suggested that the speed of light, as traditionally given, may be wrong. And this got me thinking about the speed of light.  We were taught at school that it was 186,240 miles per second (actually a little more).  And then later, when metric measurements became the norm, I had to relearn it as 300.000 kilometres per second (very slightly less actually).  But what doesn't normally get mentioned is that the speed of light varies depending on the medium it is travelling through. The above figures are the speed of light in a vacuum.  In water it's about 25% slower, and in glass some 33% slower. Even in air it is very slightly slower - but by only about 50 miles per second.  So not quite the constant we were always taught.

Saddle my horse!

Forgive me if I indulge in a little local nostalgia.  Walsall, here in the Black Country, has a world-wide reputation as a centre of leather-making, and in particular, saddlery (the football team are known as "The Saddlers").  One of the oldest saddle-making firms there can trace their history back to the late 18th century. And now they've had to call in the administrators.  Terribly sad - not least for the couple of dozen or so skilled workers who will probably lose their jobs.  Demand for high-class saddlery is still there, so hopefully the administrators will be able to salvage something.  I wish them well.