As October becomes November, I often feel a little nostalgic. Because November is "Remembrance" month, and having "done some time" with the forces (specifically the RN), I like to look through the list of "deaths in service" and remember those who're on the list, mainly through no fault of their own and are no longer alive.
Guilt maybe ? dunno. But I find it comforting that if it was me on that list, that at least somebody would remember me.
Then of course, it comes to today. Christmas day.
It should be a time of peace and calm. Uneventful is good, as it means that we can get on with whatever we've decided to do for the time of year.
Yet I often feel (again) nostalgic, maudlin and perhaps a little guilty, remembering the friends who are still here, yet I haven't managed to find (or make) the time, too visit in the last year.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who hates being middle aged. Remembering the earlier years, in my 20's and early 30's when I could just make a phone call and pile over for pretty much no excuse, just to turn up, have a drink or maybe a bite to eat, etc.
Only to find that 10 or 15 years later, I end up taking my life far too seriously, realising that I'm stuck in the rut of work, sleep, work, sleep. With every bit of bad or serious news heard or seen on the various media outlets, seeming like another weight on my shoulders.....
Sometimes wishing I had "the bottle", just to say bollocks to it all and as the Aussies would put it, "go walkabout".
But I can't. It seems that all I can see from this navel gazing point of view, that I have too many responsibilities for that.
So the best I can do, is to say that friends, past and present, you're in my thoughts and that I really hope you're enjoying the time of year with those who're closest to you, and that the time passes uneventfully and peacefully as you'd like.......
Tuesday, 25 December 2012
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Constitutional Clarity ?
Here in the UK, we like to pride ourselves, that we are a "fair minded" nation. Wish would be a nice thing to be, if that were the case.
Ha! I can imagine you reading this thinking "what the fuck is this idiot on about now?".
Fair enough question (there it is again, the word "fair").......
So, too start with, I'll quote the definition of "fair"
As you can see, there are a number of meanings (the above quote is only the first part of the entire definition according to this location there is more of it if you feel inclined to look it up) for such a small, 4 lettered word.
So given that we, as a nation (British) feel that it's one of our qualities or attributes, why does it seem that we are unfair to ourselves ?
Ok, so I understand that to non-English speakers, or at least those attempting to learn to speak English, it can seem quite daunting as it does appear that some words have many meanings, yet some meanings can have a number of words (and the word chosen, will often depend on the audience it's aimed at, or the target audiences educational standard/ability, or the "type" of people it's aimed at i.e. class of person, a professional body, etc).
Language will often be used in different ways, in different places, which can make it hard to understand, or at least hard to understand the point of view that is being displayed. My attitude is that while this might be the case, why shouldn't we have a "standard English", that is defined from a specific place (place in this sense, would mean a "Standards organisation" of some sort).
But where ? Well maybe a good place to start, might be something like the "Concise Oxford Dictionary" which is also known as the "Oxford English dictionary" or OED. I'd guess that this would need to be enshrined in law, but as long as the OED didn't try and "protect" words or language, so that they could derive some revenue from their use, I can't think of any reason why this couldn't happen.
Ok, so the last paragraph has thrown up a small phrase, well a word actually, that is often considered as a "bone of contention", the word "Law".
Why is it, that the legal world find the need to use English, in such an archaic, mysterious and generally hard to follow (except for linguistic experts and the "legal types" themselves) ? Perhaps it's so that they can look down their noses at the rest of us, in a patronising way so as to make the presumption of ignorance, stupidity or any number of words that can be used to project arrogance toward the target of their words ?
After all, it's government that are supposed to "make" laws. Can't they just make the laws so we can all understand them ? Instead of how it seems to be at the moment, where the government "make" a new law, but it seems that it means nothing, until a Judge has decided exactly what it means, so it can be properly enacted within a court of law.
Lets face it, government and the judiciary work, pretty much, hand in hand. Yet they seem to operate with a large amount of the "unfairness" I alluded to earlier.
The UK/Great Britain, is the largest industrialised country on the planet, not to have a formal written constitution and an accompanying "Bill of Rights". In many cases, people claim to have a right to something, it doesn't matter what they're claiming, according to the UK/British government, they don't have any such "right". Yes, there are a few "rights" that come down from historic legislation, but most of the "rights" that you do have, have been granted to you by the EU - the largest number of which, have been granted under the "Human Rights" European legislation, which in turn, was accepted into UK law under our membership of the European Union.
So if you haven't already worked out what I'm really asking for, it's a Formal Written Constitution and accompanying "Bill of Rights", and "Standard English". I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be too difficult for this to happen, except that the "ruling classes" have to much of a vested interest for this not to happen. It means that they still get to bully the general populace around, exploit us in various ways and allows "business" and commerce to "take the piss" and engineer how we act, work and "are", to their own end.
All you currently end up with, is the two fingered "V" sign and the attitude of "fuck you".
Maybe it's time we did something about this apparent "unfairness".....
Ha! I can imagine you reading this thinking "what the fuck is this idiot on about now?".
Fair enough question (there it is again, the word "fair").......
So, too start with, I'll quote the definition of "fair"
adjectivefair
2.
legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.3.
moderately large; ample: a fair income.4.
neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good: fair health.5.
marked by favoring conditions; likely; promising: in a fair way to succeed.6.
Meteorology .
a.
(of the sky) bright; sunny; cloudless to half-cloudy.b.
(of the weather) fine; with no prospect of rain, snow, or hail; not stormy.7.
Nautical . (of a wind or tide) tending to aid the progress of a vessel.8.
unobstructed; not blocked up: The way was fair for our advance.9.
without irregularity or unevenness: a fair surface.10.
free from blemish, imperfection, or anything that impairs the appearance, quality, or character: Her fair reputation was ruined by gossip.11.
easy to read; clear: fair handwriting.12.
of a light hue; not dark: fair skin.13.
pleasing in appearance; attractive: a fair young maiden.14.
seemingly good or sincere but not really so: The suitor beguiled his mistress with fair speeches.15.
courteous; civil: fair words.16.
Medicine/Medical . (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs and other favorable indicators, as appetite and mobility, but being in some discomfort and having the possibility of a worsening state.17.
Dialect . scarcely; barely: It was just fair daylight when we started working.
As you can see, there are a number of meanings (the above quote is only the first part of the entire definition according to this location there is more of it if you feel inclined to look it up) for such a small, 4 lettered word.
So given that we, as a nation (British) feel that it's one of our qualities or attributes, why does it seem that we are unfair to ourselves ?
Ok, so I understand that to non-English speakers, or at least those attempting to learn to speak English, it can seem quite daunting as it does appear that some words have many meanings, yet some meanings can have a number of words (and the word chosen, will often depend on the audience it's aimed at, or the target audiences educational standard/ability, or the "type" of people it's aimed at i.e. class of person, a professional body, etc).
Language will often be used in different ways, in different places, which can make it hard to understand, or at least hard to understand the point of view that is being displayed. My attitude is that while this might be the case, why shouldn't we have a "standard English", that is defined from a specific place (place in this sense, would mean a "Standards organisation" of some sort).
But where ? Well maybe a good place to start, might be something like the "Concise Oxford Dictionary" which is also known as the "Oxford English dictionary" or OED. I'd guess that this would need to be enshrined in law, but as long as the OED didn't try and "protect" words or language, so that they could derive some revenue from their use, I can't think of any reason why this couldn't happen.
Ok, so the last paragraph has thrown up a small phrase, well a word actually, that is often considered as a "bone of contention", the word "Law".
Why is it, that the legal world find the need to use English, in such an archaic, mysterious and generally hard to follow (except for linguistic experts and the "legal types" themselves) ? Perhaps it's so that they can look down their noses at the rest of us, in a patronising way so as to make the presumption of ignorance, stupidity or any number of words that can be used to project arrogance toward the target of their words ?
After all, it's government that are supposed to "make" laws. Can't they just make the laws so we can all understand them ? Instead of how it seems to be at the moment, where the government "make" a new law, but it seems that it means nothing, until a Judge has decided exactly what it means, so it can be properly enacted within a court of law.
Lets face it, government and the judiciary work, pretty much, hand in hand. Yet they seem to operate with a large amount of the "unfairness" I alluded to earlier.
The UK/Great Britain, is the largest industrialised country on the planet, not to have a formal written constitution and an accompanying "Bill of Rights". In many cases, people claim to have a right to something, it doesn't matter what they're claiming, according to the UK/British government, they don't have any such "right". Yes, there are a few "rights" that come down from historic legislation, but most of the "rights" that you do have, have been granted to you by the EU - the largest number of which, have been granted under the "Human Rights" European legislation, which in turn, was accepted into UK law under our membership of the European Union.
So if you haven't already worked out what I'm really asking for, it's a Formal Written Constitution and accompanying "Bill of Rights", and "Standard English". I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be too difficult for this to happen, except that the "ruling classes" have to much of a vested interest for this not to happen. It means that they still get to bully the general populace around, exploit us in various ways and allows "business" and commerce to "take the piss" and engineer how we act, work and "are", to their own end.
All you currently end up with, is the two fingered "V" sign and the attitude of "fuck you".
Maybe it's time we did something about this apparent "unfairness".....
Monday, 30 July 2012
Light reading......
http://www.progress.org/archive/fold144.htm
It still takes a bit of thinking about, if economics are your world, but I found it very interesting.......
Well done Fred E. Foldvary.
It still takes a bit of thinking about, if economics are your world, but I found it very interesting.......
Well done Fred E. Foldvary.
Monday, 16 July 2012
Whoop de fucking do !
Wow ! The Olympic Torch relay runner has just gone down the main road, at the end of the garden.
Big, fucking, deal !
Do the Olympic organisers and the government think we're all fucking stupid ?
I mean ? How fucking much has all this crap cost us ?
I know the powers that be, couldn't have forecast the economic downturn, but you can guarantee that does stop them plugging the fuck out of anything that takes the collective national mind off the negatives that come out in the news day after day......
Plus it feels like a conspiracy, that between the government, the Olympic organisers and the media, are telling us that we must be happy and cheerful because of the events surrounding and directly from the games.
Well, I'm already fed up with it all. I've got very little interest in it all (most of the events I like get zero coverage), so wny force it down our throats ?
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
Bloody stupid ideas.......
This is, of course, opinion !
With foods, etc, some locations are known for either the quality and standards or the food/cuisine, yet other places "think" their food ideas are good, yet everyone else seems to .find their tastes/flavours, mediocre (here included).
There could be many reasons why that could be, yet some things just don't go together.
One of the few things North American agriculture has given us, is the humble peanut. Now I like peanuts. Peanuts can be found used in a number of different ways, but one thing that's hard, is to extract the taste and use just that with something else. Of course, I know they're not a true nut, but legumes, and you can process them and use other flavours to compliment (a good example being a stay i.e. ground peanut, chilli and sugar or honey).
Now, while I might be missing out, there are somethings, where its pretty obvious, so why some of the US based mead makers can't get their heads round the concept is beyond me. Or is it that the people who do understand that somethings just don't mix, and don't want to try mad combinations, or just don't bother to say anything ? (forum rules etc, perhaps just being polite ?)
Well, you'd be aware that I like to make meads, but the point of this is to question some stupidity I've come across, and that stupid idea is "peanut butter mead".
Now if you're making a gloopy spread for bread, then peanut would be fine, but with nut flavours, its proved hard to concentrate the flavour enough to use it with alcoholic drinks. Not impossible of course, but certainly not easy.
I suspect peanut oil would be broken down by the alcohol, and some material would either emulsify, or settle out as rancid slime.
For many reasons, nut is hard to incorporate into many recipes (in whole lumps, with decorative justification seems to work) its not the easiest of materials to use.
Plus, its just a bloody silly idea in a mead.
A bit like "pumpkin pie". It's a finished thing, not an ingredient (plus pumpkin is bland as fuck, so why they "bang on" about it, is a mystery. "Spiced pumpkin" ? Perhaps. Maybe I just haven't tasted pumpkin that's been prepared nicely ? Equally possible. Or it might be that for historically cultural reasons, it just didn't.catch on elsewhere).....
So go on you lot ! I've nothing against innovation or invention, but take time to consider why something isn't used in a certain way. It's probably been tried somewhere and hasn't worked. Or perhaps, for chemical type reasons, its just a fucking stupid idea.........
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Who gives a fuck !
Why do the media wankers keep telling me how wonderful the Olympics and/or the jubilee celebrations are ?
Most of the sporting events that I like to watch, get zero coverage, its all the high profile crappy that gets the TV time.
The fucking jubilee is about the queen having enjoyed sixty years of living, at tax payer expense, in complete luxury and all she has to do is open a few public buildings, make a few speeches and sit in the passenger part of a very comfortable car waving to the crowds of mug punters......nice work if you can get it !
So shut the fuck up, all you TV, radio, newspaper and other media pricks! Cos I just don't give a fuck.
All the jubilee is to me, is an extra day off work. The Olympics is a load of self promoting sport bullies trying to show us how clever, fit and healthy they are........
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Fashions from the past........
When I was a kid (in the 70s), there was this "fashion" for so called, "Platform shoes". Which wasn't really a good look, irrespective of whether it was womens or mens footwear.
That type of footwear looked like it was "orthopaedic", designed for people with foot or leg disabilities.
Now it so happens, that the FOL (father-out-law...... we're not married, just shacked up) buys the Sunday Mirror (part of the "Mirror group" newspapers) as his paper of choice on a sunday. Fine.
They publish a shiney suppliment magazine, that has pictures of "celeb's" (celebrities i.e. somebody worth celebrating - which amazes me as I haven't heard of most of them, and of the ones I'm aware of, most are "Z list"). Anyway, it seems that some fashion designing fuckwit, has managed to use these platform soles, and sometimes heels on the womens footwear. Convincing these women, who after all, seem to have more money than sense, that they look good.
Well, I've got news for you! They look shit! They make you look like you're wearing "Spastic shoes" (damn, I haven't used that phrase since I was a horrible bugger of an 8 year old). But it's true, they make you look like some sort of retard, to use American parlance.....
Sure, if you're not that tall, and want to appear taller, then heels are fine. A flat, thin soled, yet high heeled shoe, in the right shape is aesthetically pleasing in appearance. It accentuates the length and shape of the leg, but heavy/thick soles may you look like a "spacker"!
It could be that you think you're "cutting edge" in your fashion sense ? Well you're obviously not, because a lot of stuff that is labelled "fashionable" is ugly looking. It doesn't matter who designed it, if something is ugly looking, that's the way it will remain. In fact, if something is ugly looking and you're wearing it, just because some so called "famous designer", "designed" it, then it's even worse. It makes you look a complete fool, not only because that "thing" is ugly, but because you probably paid a shit load of money for it.
So well done, you fucking idiot. Just carry on, so we know that you're just another foolish "mug punter"!
That type of footwear looked like it was "orthopaedic", designed for people with foot or leg disabilities.
Now it so happens, that the FOL (father-out-law...... we're not married, just shacked up) buys the Sunday Mirror (part of the "Mirror group" newspapers) as his paper of choice on a sunday. Fine.
They publish a shiney suppliment magazine, that has pictures of "celeb's" (celebrities i.e. somebody worth celebrating - which amazes me as I haven't heard of most of them, and of the ones I'm aware of, most are "Z list"). Anyway, it seems that some fashion designing fuckwit, has managed to use these platform soles, and sometimes heels on the womens footwear. Convincing these women, who after all, seem to have more money than sense, that they look good.
Well, I've got news for you! They look shit! They make you look like you're wearing "Spastic shoes" (damn, I haven't used that phrase since I was a horrible bugger of an 8 year old). But it's true, they make you look like some sort of retard, to use American parlance.....
Sure, if you're not that tall, and want to appear taller, then heels are fine. A flat, thin soled, yet high heeled shoe, in the right shape is aesthetically pleasing in appearance. It accentuates the length and shape of the leg, but heavy/thick soles may you look like a "spacker"!
It could be that you think you're "cutting edge" in your fashion sense ? Well you're obviously not, because a lot of stuff that is labelled "fashionable" is ugly looking. It doesn't matter who designed it, if something is ugly looking, that's the way it will remain. In fact, if something is ugly looking and you're wearing it, just because some so called "famous designer", "designed" it, then it's even worse. It makes you look a complete fool, not only because that "thing" is ugly, but because you probably paid a shit load of money for it.
So well done, you fucking idiot. Just carry on, so we know that you're just another foolish "mug punter"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)