Wonderland

Once upon a time, there was a magical kingdom with a beautiful princess.



Princess Grace woke up to a brand new day. The sun was shining and the birds were singing. Her beautiful golden hair which never needed brushing cascaded over the wonderful soft bedlinen and all was right with the world. She looked forward to the adventure that today would bring. Every day brought a new exciting adventure which completely filled her day with a joy that was almost overwhelming and every night she went sleepily to her beautiful bedroom with its soft comfortable bed and she went instantly to sleep to dream of the next wonderful day.



Truly life was wonderful. What a lucky girl she was.

Some of her friends asked why she was so lucky, but she didn't know. But it didn't bother her. She just looked forward to the next exciting adventure. Would it be a meeting with a prince? A magic carpet ride? A royal ball? So long as it was lovely she didn't mind. Every day should be like this.

Fun, Fun, Fun (?)

I watched my recording of Anne Widdecombe’s documentary about Christianity and comedy, shown in the week leading up to Easter.

She warned us at the start that “some Christians may find this film difficult”. Well it does have Anne Widdecombe in it. Still I stuck with it, as she suggested. Her aim was “to find out what is happening, and why is it so funny to say Christians are stupid.” A laudable aim, slightly diminished by the fact that she didn’t actually show any clips in which people said that Christians are stupid. (There were some which pointed some out some absurdities and difficulties in the stories in the Old Testament, admittedly. Oh, and there was a clip of Frankie Boyle saying that it “was absurd to say that Jesus was married, when everyone knows he rose from the dead and flew up to heaven” but he didn’t say anything about the intelligence of believers. )  

Other questions asked at start “Is Christianity more subject to ridicule than other faiths?” “Is what I regard as most sacred now merely fodder for a cheap gag?” (Answers on a postcard?). I think we can see from the outset what direction the argument is likely to go.

Still, you don’t necessarily expect Anne Widdecombe to be able to look at an argument objectively and take on other people’s points of view. This is after all the woman who, when presenting a programme in the history of Christianity series about the writing of the Bible, said that she didn’t care what all the scholars said, she was going to stick to what she wanted to believe, and a few facts weren’t going to get in her way in that regard. We needed to take this into account continually in what followed.

Anyway, on to the content of this programme. “Jokes about Christianity are everywhere you look.” I think she is looking in different places to me. I always didn’t quite follow her leap of logic from Christianity being an allowable subject for comedy but taboo in politics, to the assertion that “it is OK to talk about Christianity so long as you don’t take it too seriously.” Still, maybe the steps between these assertions can be filled in. We’ll allow that as acceptable hyperbole.

But before we got on to jokes about Christianity, we had a clip of her in panto. I suppose jokes about ugly sisters are de rigeur and not strictly offensive, but I do think that her action of making gratuitous, offensive and hurtful (and unfunny) “jokes” about the Liberal Democrats might be more carefully considered if she’s going to claim she’s offended by other people’s jokes about something important to her. Maybe it’s a matter of perspective.

Marcus Brigstocke explained calmly why comedy made a point and how it gave him an outlet to express his views on a religion which he found “horrible”, when it condemned friends of his and prevented women from “achieving their position in society”. He also explained coherently why he might mock prayer, when Anne asked. He would also potentially mock Jesus; Marcus is a political writer, and Jesus was a political figure. Anne listened carefully to him and gave him no reply.  She explained in voice-over that Jesus was not a political figure, but was “special” – “too big to be mocked”.

Then there was a clip in which she watched, and we saw a bit of, an excerpt from “Goodness Gracious Me”, season 3, which, apparently due to protests from Christians, has earned a lifetime ban – she had to get special permission to watch it. She was “wounded” by this clip. The writer, Anil Gupta, explained carefully and patiently to her that the sequence was not a joke about Christianity, but about British Asians not understanding English ways and English religious practices, specifically communion. (The whole series was always about Asians trying to be more English and failing miserably, and covered a host of other topics. The Church of England, being quintessentially English, naturally was covered in this idea.) And the clip, if you watched it, did show exactly that. There was no comedy aimed at the sacred act, it was all about character. The satirist Marcus Brigstocke discussed it with her and he was gracious enough to consider her woundedness and reflect when she explained she was “bereaved”, although he did ask how long the bereavement lasted. (I thought Jesus was alive, but that’s just me, I suppose.)

If only Anne could show the same respect to Anil Gupta as Marcus did to her.

I am outraged. This programme which I didn’t see at the time had been forbidden to me – by whom? I may say that to me it was not offensive, was funny, and was in keeping with the series tone. In fact it was very clever.

I’ll skip quickly through the rest. Anne watched Life of Brian, which was considered by many to be outrageous at the time. She found it silly, childish and pointless. I agree with the first two, mostly. She wasn’t offended. She didn’t seem to consider that if something widely condemned and banned at the time can now be seen widely as being funny and making pertinent comments (George Carey said he found it very funny) and quite acceptable, then maybe Christians in the past have over-reacted – and that maybe some still do? There’s a reference about beams in eyes that comes to mind. Steve Punt made the incisive comment when he said that to understand eg the cheesemaker joke you needed to know the actual content of the Sermon on the Mount. Thus it is a joke for Christians, not about them.

Steve Punt also made the comment, on discussing the content of the Bible, that if Christianity and comedy are sometimes opposed, then in his opinion it was a fair fight due to the profile of “aggressive American creationists”. Some clips of Americans seemed to support his view. Punt also explained why he wrote comedy about Christianity and not Islam. His words were “I’m not entitled to, I don’t know enough about Islam”. This did seem to contradict Anne’s view that wider society has lost its Christian base knowledge.

Anne did find some religious comedy by Anil Gupta funny, notably the sequence about praying, from Citizen Khan. It seemed to me she was on very thin ice but I suppose it was being funny about Muslims so it was all right. I thought praying to Mecca was a sacred act, mind. Perhaps I’m wrong there. Maybe it was about character; some Muslims being stupid?

She was also amused by a 13^th century beautifully illuminated copy of the Book of Psalms, which contained at the bottom of some of pages, cartoons added by the monks that were frankly filthy and disgusting. If there was any humour that offended me, it was this addition by Christians to copies of holy works. I guess you had to be there.

Anne found one or two Christians to agree with her position on comedy, and only George Carey to disagree. Many people had turned down her invitation to appear. Well it would mean meeting Anne, to be fair.

Interestingly she did not summarise the problem with any conclusions. It finished with Marcus sharing his favourite religious joke with her. She seemed to find it amusing.

 

 

Silence is Golden

Except it isn't available.

Used to be that libraries were quiet places. A respite to ponder, read, browse in peace.

My local library is more like Piccadilly Circus. Two assistants were having a conversation while sorting out the shelves. So all right, it's good to be sociable with your workmates and it must be difficult sometimes to be completely quiet all day. But there are lunch-breaks .... it's not as if they were talking about what they were doing. I went and stood by them to embarrass them into keeping schtum but it didn't seem to work for long.

The customers are no better. Seems like the library is a place to meet your mates for a conversation. Why not go to the coffee shop?

And when the assistants are helping customers, it would be good if the customers went up to the desk, particularly if they're a bit deaf, so that the conversation could be quiet? Rather than standing a few yards away, as they were doing? Mind you even when the young mum went right up to the counter the librarian wasn't so quiet.

We don't have to librarians in glasses glaring and shh-ing at the slightest squeak. But a bit of an effort?

Buy a few signs, Tameside.

Deck Of Cards - New Version

A bunch of students were heading on a long hike and came to a town called Bala, where they decided to rest. That evening being Wednesday, some of the students went to therapy. Those who had manuals took them out and began to discuss their life-scripts, but one student had only a deck of cards and began to lay them out. The therapist saw this and, having issues with being perfect, was cross, and said “Put away those cards and come and see me in the morning” and threw the student out of the group.

When the student returned in the morning, the therapist and his supervisor were there. “Why have you brought this student here?” said the supervisor.

“For playing cards in therapy”, said the therapist.

“I hope you have a good explanation” said the supervisor.

“I do”, said the student. “It’s like this …” and he began:

‘I have been on a long trip and during that time I have had neither my training manual, my copy of TA Theory, nor my notes from Eric Berne’s lecture series. But I have had a deck of cards which has helped me to get through the difficult times.

When I see the Ace, I remember that I’m OK. I knew that anyway.

When I see the two, I remember that every transaction takes place between two people and that there are two roles in counselling, therapist and client, and I know which one I want to be.

When I see the three, I remember the three ego-states, Parent, Adult and Child. And all the sub-states which are quite a lot more. I like the Little Professor most.

When I see the four, I think of the four life-positions in the OK Corral.

When I see the five, I think of the five drivers “be strong”, “try hard”, “please me”, “hurry up”, and “be perfect”. and the five schools of TA. Except that there are now six drivers.

When I see the six, I think of the six patterns of personality adoption identified by Stewart and Joines and the six types of social behaviour – withdrawal, ritual, activity, pastime, games, and intimacy.

When I see the seven, I remember the seven elements that make up a script and the age up to which parents give us general injunctions.

When I see the eight, I think of the eight therapeutic techniques; four are interventions and four are interpositions.

When I see the nine, I think of the nine types of complementary transaction. And some have ulterior ones.

When I see the ten, I think of the ten modes in the OK Modes Model, four effective and six ineffective. (Nancy Porter)

When I see the Jack, or Knave, I remember that I am a prince but I have been turned into a frog.

When I see the Queen, I think of my mother who as controlling parent did this by teaching me the five restrictive rules of stroking.

When I see the King, I think of Eric Berne, who developed his own theory of therapy when his application to the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute was turned down, and I wonder what his drivers were.

 

There are 52 cards in a deck, the number of countries which had TA Associations in 1992, so it must be true.

There are 12 picture cards, the number of script injunctions.

There are 4 suits, the number of categories of goals.

There are 13 cards in a suit, the number of people in a group session, counting the therapist.

If I add up the spots on the cards, I get 365, the number of hours it would take to learn all the theory of TA, and nearly as many as the number of games.

So you see my deck of cards is as useful for therapy and counselling as all the TA Journals and text-books put together.’

And the therapist now had enough stamps for a racket so threw him out, so the student with his awareness of himself and of phoniness went on to be a successful gestalt therapist.

Travellin' Man

Well I have to say that's really good advice, I'd never have thought of that. In fact I kinda thought that it wouldn't matter if I was, ooh say a couple of hours late for an event, they'd wait for me to get there. Or at least re-run it. Doesn't everywhere else do that? Football matches wait until everyone arrives, plays don't start until everyone's ready. The Olympics will do the same. Apparently they won't though.

But now I have to plan my journey as well? Simply wandering around hoping to find it won't do?

I don't think I'll bother with the Olympics sounds like too much trouble.

Oh wait, I wasn't going to bother anyway. Maybe they'll think of a sign for the M60 that actually says something useful to me? No, I didn't think so.

Speak To Me

Nothing like going abroad to make you think about languages. And nothing like going to Holland to think about the English language.

Dutch is apparently halfway between English and German. Simple example ... "straat" is halfway between "street" and "strasse". You can read the signs above the shops (well I can tell what Wijn means anyway, lots of others).

So where did the English language come from?

French, Spanish and Italian are all obviously derived from Latin. Yet not all the same ... but when you get used to how they differ you can predict to some extent what the word will be ... verb conjugations and constructions etc. (I used to know all this stuff, not now.)

We assume this was because the Romans conquered all these places ... but the Romans conquered England. The pre-existing language was not English, but Welsh (Cornish, Celtic?). English, from the Angles, came afterwards surely? How did it supplant the Romano-British language? Why was it different from Dutch/German (Flemish)?

Expert on the history of language, someone?

Long Time Growing

In the beginning, there was nothing, no time, no space, no matter. Absolutely nothing at all.

Then very suddenly there was something. And this something was formless and although it filled the space, that is only because the new space was unimaginably* small.

And then in an unimaginably* small instant, space expanded unimaginably*, and the energy (for that is what had filled the space) began to take form – although in a very primitive way. And the space was still very small and time had barely started. You might say it was a new phase.

And the echoes of these events are still seen today, by those who seek.

And a long time later the small nearly formless pieces began to combine together into units that made bits of matter, and bigger bits of matter, and into what we see today. Because by now there was a lot of space in which this could happen. And it could be considered to be the next phase.

And an unimaginably* much longer time later, creatures developed, and some of them developed into mankind. But mankind did not know how it had happened. And they used to make up stories about it because they did not know. And this was another phase.

And some said these events did not need a God to be present for them to have happened. But some believed in God nonetheless. (Even though it became unfashionable.)

* some texts say incomprehensibly

Hitsville UK

Am watching Top of the Pops 76 repeated on BBC4 weekly (well nearly, come to that in a minute).

It really did use to be the must-watch pop programme on TV. Well, there wasn't much else. You could see what the people looked like who'd made the records you'd bought or were thinking of buying ("stockmarket for your radio", thank you the Rezillos).

Well ... up to a point.

I hadn't seen the ones that are now showing because in May and June 1976 I was at University and the TV room (singular) was not comfortable and usually somebody wanted to see something else - although not usually during TOTP, admittedly, even the intellectuals who posed as not being interested had to watch. Room always busy.

Blimey, TOTP was in a dire state in 1976, reflecting the charts and the state of British pop music in general. We really did need punk - which was just on the horizon. When the Number 1 progression goes Brotherhood of Man (weeks on end), Abba, (OK that was a good one, Fernando, but it hung on for ever, several weeks at number 2 before the top and still at number 4 "currently", JJ Barrie (appalling piece of schmaltz) and the Wurzels (fun once, but then really tiresome, comedy record without any comedy), then the charts are in trouble.

But that isn't TOTP's fault (although they probably take some blame for who they publicised).

So this is about the programme itself. They were clearly in trouble getting people on, groups go on tour, I know but TOTP was breaking its own rules consistently. In short, it was no longer a chart show.

So all right the first one on was always a new release, fair enough, this week the Surprise Sisters (who?) with Got To Get You Into My Life, which never troubled the Guinness Book of Hit Singles compilers. Last week the G Band (renamed even though Paul Gadd had not yet been found out) with Don't Make Promises (You Can't Keep) which I bought although clearly no-one else did.

And then seemingly every week several not actually in the Top 30 - and some which didn't make it there at all - although "bubbling under" probably, all right they were going up and so in a sense if it's next week's chart, well OK. Prediction is difficult.

But "this" week (now I'm getting to that), a classic. No less than 6 acts not on the chart performing on the 13 June is a new record (groan). (Because BBC4 is not actually showing it every week, it is already slipping in the schedules. They started together at the beginning of May and are now two weeks adrift. By the time we get the 1976 Christmas chart, it will be February here, at this rate. Henceforth we shall regard 13 June as "this" week. "How much does BBC4 care about this show?" is a question worth asking though.)

So apart from the Sisters, we had on the show but not in the 30, Bryan Ferry on film (was a big hit in a week or two and it is a fantastic film), two of Ruby Flipper dancing to Maureen McGovern (don't see the excuse for that one, can't they dance to something in the charts, the alleged point was to cover for acts that couldn't make it into the studio) which did make No 15 eventually, the Sensational Alex Harvey Band, good value but not there right now, Flintlock (no never heard of them either) who struggled up to No 30 in time, and Osibisa's follow-up to Sunshine Day which statistics indicate hit the dizzy heights of number 31.

And then ...

There used to be a rule that once a record had gone down, it didn't get on again even if it started going up again. Now that was a shame sometimes when some yo-yo records were still quite popular or if there were a one-week blip, but a rule is a rule.

But clearly this rule did not always apply ...

On this week's show were Slik with Requiem. Number 30 in the charts. Down from .. not sure, 24? And not the first time they'd broken the rule, two weeks ago, this classic yo-yo had dropped out of the 30 and still been on. I've counted 4 times Slik were on with this one, and I may have missed one. And 2 of those broke the rule ...

Now it's lovely to see the fresh-faced Midge Ure again so many times and I didn't mind the song, even though its wonderfully atmospheric beginning and original lyrics for what's only a lost-love song both get lost a bit in the poppy chorus ("This is a req, only a req, this is a requiem ..") but you have to ask "Just what hold did he have over the producer of TOTP in the mid-70s?" Were they really the only band he could get hold of at short notice on a Tuesday?

But while we ponder that one, one final question for BBC4. What are you doing with the editing?

Each week (...) there is a 30 minute version at 7.30 on Thursday - and a 40-minute "repeat" in the middle of the night. It's very amusing (well it's not really) when the V+ box preview and the BBC iPlayer give you a brief blurb including some of the acts who are on - and then you think afterwards "hang on, I didn't actually see Cliff, did I drop off in the middle?", but it's only because he got edited out of the shortened version (which is also the iPlayer version), although the preview/description clearly says he would be on. You wonder if you've got the wrong show (particularly given the dates thing).

Come on BBC4, don't get tied to this modern thing where every programme between 7 and 11 has to be 30 or 60 minutes. Can you be bold enough to plough your own furrow? BBC1 may have lost it, but you don't need to. And have some integrity of what you show.

As Seen on TV

We've been much enjoying the BBC2 series Episodes a vicious satire on television production, (mostly in America). Brilliantly acted by Stephen Mangan and Tamsin Greig who we knew were good from Green Wing and others, but also ... Matt LeBlanc has been a revelation. Who knew that Joey could do that?

This and The Trip may just be the future of television comedy, or at least the direction it should be following.

Shopping

This blog hasn't had a magazine review for a while, so here's a new one. It's the Morrison's supermarket Jan/Feb issue and it's a classic.

"January is a month for looking after yourself and enjoying lots of healthy food ..." are the first words you come across in the editorial. It's not just the editor who thinks so, either.

"January is a good time to cook nutritious meals that taste great and make you feel great, too", says Aldo Zilli on page 31.

Well that's all right then. I'd like to know though which are the months when I shouldn't be looking after myself, and when it is a bad time to cook nutritious meals (or maybe just ones that don't taste great, there's a logical conjunction in there that needs analysing). Should I start on Feb 1 with a big pile of chips? (Actually you can treat yourself to some "moreish" Morrisons chocolate which is much cheaper if you buy two bars*, but I'm not sure when you're allowed to get started on that.)

We know what they mean. We didn't get the Nov/Dec issue but I bet it was all about treats for Christmas (I'd have money on the phrase "long winter nights" turning up, too, no cliche unspoken) and adverts for lots of chocolate. So having persuaded you into all that, now they can press on with ".... lose those extra festive pounds ... how do you cut back without feeling you're missing out?" (I'm back in the editorial again).

If you think I'm cynical, I'm sure I'm not the only one, the Morrisons' (and others') marketing department is there too. Oh, I beg your pardon: "Editorial opinions expressed ... are not necessarily those of Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc ..." Maybe Morrisons don't think I should look after myself in January and Jenn Cooper will get a rocket for saying so? Who can say?

While we're being healthy, Michelin-star chef Paul Rankin "tells us why he loves chip butties". Er, mixed messages? He's got a favourite ingredient .. how cheffy is that? The temptation to put extra-virgin olive oil in his butty must be overwhelming. Or not.

Now some things to put in your diary, I hope you've got plenty of space:
23-29 January is Farmhouse Breakfast Week. No you don't have to go out into some wild cottage in the country thankfully, but it's a campaign to start the day with this important meal. There's a picture of a boiled egg and French bread but otherwise I don't have a clue what a Farmhouse Breakfast is, so you'll have to go to the website www.shakeupyourwakeup.com to find out the events in your area (maybe there is a farmhouse to go to, wouldn't that be fun?) and "inspiring" breakfast ideas.

February is National Heart Month, including Wear Red day on the 25th. The British Heart Foundation is 50 so is having lots of celebrations to raise money (sic).

Bramley Apple Week starts on February 6. It's the best apple for cooking and it's grown only in Britain. I think we should stop being so mean to other countries and export them some trees.

And Feb 3 is Chinese New Year (celebrations on the 6th in Leicester Square) so there are some "healthier" recipes to celebrate. Do you think the Chinese will mind this insult to their culture? I wonder if they produce healthier Christmas dinner recipes for us and what Morrisons would think of them?

(Helpfully, all the recipes in the magazine tell you how much salt, fat etc there are in "one serving", whatever one serving is. I feel a spreadsheet and lots of graphs coming on.)

And don't forget Burns Night on January 25. Start the day with a Farmhouse Breakfast and finish with haggis, neeps and tatties and a whisky sauce (now you're talking).
And the Brighton Half-Marathon on 20 February. I think it's a bit late for me to sign up now though.

There is helpful advice too.

"Wrap rhubarb in plastic and store it in the coldest part of the fridge for up to a week." (Paul Thornton). I wonder if he means to say " ... no more than a week"? Perhaps it's the other way of looking at it.

Now one piece of advice I don't understand though. They give in five categories (energy, sugar, fat, saturated fat, and salt) a Guideline Daily Amount (GDA). This is a new one to me. Is it a recommended amount, a maximum, or a minimum? And why not call it one of these?
The sugar one is called total sugar so that one's clear but the other's aren't so-called, suggesting rather that they're what you should have or work towards - and 2500 calories for a man seems on the low side?

Why's it matter?

Back to the editorial: " .... we've included a few more indulgent recipes to treat yourself to - 30 per cent or under your GDAs". Er, but should I be making sure I get somewhere near the other 70% too? Maybe the chocolate will help me get there? Or a swift couple of pints with the lads?

There are some good things. There are some nice recipes and some for children to get them cooking too. There's very little overtly from "nutritionists" (but I think we need to look at this GDA thing and just how much fat you should have) and the keep fit advice is sensible and practical and not overdone with encouragements for vitamin pills and whatnot. I note that Zumba is an "exiting" (sic) new dance craze. Maybe everyone leaves early?

You can forgive the adverts and it's interesting where the chickens come from (and that the correct weight is 2.25 kg).

Three heaped tablespoons of cooked lentils count as one of your five a day. Geez that's a lot of lentils.

One excellent piece of advice when going shopping. Make a list and "you'll be surprised how much money you save ... you're not tempted to buy more than you really need" I wonder how much the store managers approve of that?

Oh I have to report one piece of sexism before I finish.

The tasting panel (soup this month) has 4 members - all mothers. Not even a token man, far less a balance. Maybe men are thought to be incompetent? Or maybe it's laziness. Must do bettr, Morrisons. But then there's no male customers at all pictured; I suppose some of the letters could be from men. Oh there is Scott, 15, and the packed lunches his mum makes for him.

I wonder what March and April are good months for?

*£1.19 each or 2 for £2. Er, two please!

Money (That's What I Want)

There aren't many upsides to having a not very active bank account, but at least you don't get phoned up by the bank all the time (actually I did the other day, but they haven't troubled to phone back). But my wife does.

Which is interesting. We haven't given them this phone number. And it's not in the book under the name they have. So how did they get hold of it? They have had to actively seek it out .... he doesn't know that we KNOW that.

My wife asked them. He didn't know (I didn't get the name clearly but I don't think it was James this time, it has been him several times before when we lived elsewhere). Or he wouldn't say. We'll call that a fudge rather than anything else. But the lies do come later.

We asked him to delete the number from his records. He said he would. I believe that to be a lie. Even if he wanted to or was able to, his managers wouldn't let him. Because then they couldn't pester us.

We tried the being nice "we know you've been told by your manager ... you've got a horrible job .... but we don't want phone calls" etc. No good. He persists even when it's clear we have no interest in what he wants to say.
He asks if we are satisfied with the service we get from the bank. We say no, the major problem being that they phone us up out of the blue when we do not want it. He doesn't take the hint.

We explained that we know that they phone up because they want to interest us in new "products". He says they don't. So that is lie number 2. Much as it would be lovely to believe what he says - that he sits around thinking about us and worrying that we are not happy with our bank account - it is difficult to believe that the bank would under-employ him in that way. We know he has to make a certain amount of phone calls to show that he is trying to sell some new product (God help him if he has a target quota of positive responses, he's on a loser at this house).

At least this time he didn't try to say - as James once did - that it is not secure having money in their bank and we should move it (over the telephone, for goodness' sake, who the hell is this man, what proof of who he is can he give us?) to an account in which we can't just get at OUR money, we "just" have to phone up to organise it, how is that an improved service?, when the clear answer to insecurity is we should take the whole lot out of this insecure bank. We like having our money on call without having to phone up and all the identity checks that would involve. Oh that time we had "too much" money. He'd sharp complain if we had too little - oh no that's right he'd actually love it as then he can charge us for an overdraft; no we're not falling for that one. We will keep a sufficient float, thank you, he doesn't know our circumstances and we aren't telling him.

Even his own words don't make logical sense, we are doing well he says, so why do we need something different? There was a lot more that was self-contradictory but mercifully I've forgotten it.

Apart from the bloody cheek of the banks trying to advise us how to manage our money, when they can't manage their own. Socks under the bed full of money have never looked so attractive.

New Mysteries

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Sat-Nav.

No?

I think it has a ring to it.

Fighting For Strangers

Three fixed points in the gaming (and indeed general) calendar:

Beer and Pretzels - third Saturday in May
Midcon - third weekend in November
and
The Live Draft - first (but this year, second) Saturday in September.

You get to annoy people at all three, but perhaps most enjoyably at the Draft when someone has been following a player for several minutes waiting for his chance to draft him - and you take him the pick before. 15 minutes later, Mark said he was still cross with me. Result. And only a L6 Returner who's not quick. But it was at least a more interesting choice than a L3 OG with 65S.

The thing is you know they are only little bits of computer code but you get strangely attached to them. (Groome and John this time are lamenting "old boys" who are now retiring.) So although now they are strangers, you hope in time they will be old friends (unlike several of the little so-and-sos who came to nothing - Groome again, cut a first round pick who never played ..)

Oxygene

Listen.

Can you hear it?

Someone calling?

Someone you know?

God's Spirit is all around, filling the world.

Comforting, warming.

This Spirit is grace and truth and peace and love. He is powerful, always in motion.

He never sleeps.

He wakes those who do sleep. His work is never done.

The Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss. He spoke "LET THERE BE LIGHT" and light appeared.

Power and energy exploded.

He lived in Saul and David, Elijah and Daniel. Dry bones came to life in the desert.

The energy was not spent.

He is persistent, relentless, empowering, encouraging.

As he drove the prophets he drives the saints.

He lived the martyrs, spoke the missionaries, taught the teachers, healed the doctors, thought the thinkers, showed the guides, led the wanderers, found the displaced.

They were all together in one place. There was a wind from nowhere and tongues of fire. It spread through the 12 and they spoke in tongues.

He is lightning and flood and turmoil.

He disturbs, discomforts, distresses, destroys.

And purifies.

He is light that cannot be quenched, heat that cannot be cooled, sound that cannot be silenced.

He is everywhere. He is in you.

He is your guide, your strength, your soul.

Are you listening?

Albatross

Why do everything when you can do nothing?
What is the point of activity?
It's under control or it's not.
What's the difference?
In the end? What means it?
Who is it for?
Still.
The rest is silence (?)

Autobahn

What comes next in the series: 3, 2, 1, 2, 1?

Well it's arguable if that is the right series, I suppose. Technically it's either 3, 1, 2, 1 or 3, 3A, 2, 1, 2, 1. The first is what you see and the second is what is actually the case.

The answer of course is 27.

It is a sequence I've got to know well.

Well it's easy if you live round here. They are the junctions you come to if you drive past Manchester Airport toward the M62 (or M67 if you like).

You come to J3, then the next is 3A (but you skip it; technically it's after J3 but you only come to J3A if you don't go off at J3 in which case you don't get to J2, you eventually finish up at J5 heading toward 6, if you know when to turn left), then J2 (which you don't see since you can't come off at it from an anticlockwise direction) and J1 are on the M56. Then you come to J2 and J1 on the M60 - and then you come to J27 on the M60 and start going down again. (Circular road, geddit?)

But it is a bit of a surprise when you're looking for J2 and you have to go 3, 1, 2 and it's the wrong one. Wha'appen? as you might say. Well it took me a while anyway.

And you come down off the Kingsway and want to go West and you can only go along the M56 although you can practically touch the M60 so then you come off at J2 and along the A560 and up the A5103 (I think) and that does take you on to the M60 at last but you've skipped 4 junctions.

And don't get me started on J18. Nightmare.

But I guess it does actually work. I thought Bristol was bad there you only get in the wrong lane, not the wrong damn motorway.

Let There Be More Light

The salesman from npower came round again to the doorstep, promising to save us money again. What does he think he's doing?

1. He can't possibly know that he can save us money unless he knows things he shouldn't. So he's a liar or he's invaded our privacy. He hasn't done any research, he doesn't know who's not got gas and he doesn't know who owns their house and who doesn't. He doesn't know anything.

2. All the companies say that. Therefore at least all but one are lying or deluded. Or their salespeople are which is just as bad.

3. He expects you to take his word for it! If you ask for a leaflet or something with information to work it out, he hasn't GOT any, let alone any to give out.

4. Who buys off the doorstep like that? You need time to think about it.

5. He's on commission. OK some people on commission really do have a good product, but you still have to have an element of caution. He doesn't care whether you get the right product or if the price will go up as soon as they've locked you into a contract. His money's made.

6. He's got a rotten job. That's no excuse to go around making stuff up. And what confidence do you have in someone if that's his best shot? He's not interested in providing a service (like putting in a gas pipe).

7. Why isn't the pricing simple so you can understand it? Because then you'd see if you had a good deal or not. The power companies aren't competing on price like supermarkets. They couldn't reliably promise to if they wanted to, because of the speculators and the international situation. The point of privatisation was stated to be that competition would drive prices down and thereby be better for consumers. Balderdash and piffle exposed.

Who Do You Think You Are

I'd never seen him like that.

We'd spent a fair bit of time together one way and another up to that point, shared some good times, some bad times, some trying times, but I'd never seen him like that.

He was mostly good with people, patient (too patient), kind, caring (of course, you know that), he made time for people, he listened, he explained - and he forgave of course.

Yes, he got exasperated and he could be forceful, sharp, when he needed to be and he even got a bit cunning on occasion. And he could make his point. I remember after the mountain thing he tore Peter off a right strip - I was never sure exactly why, I think I missed something - but even then he was in complete control of himself.

And sometimes when you thought he'd be right angry he was only a bit sad and disappointed. He was sad sometimes, and tired and frustrated and maybe a bit short but we'd had some laughs too along the way, specially when he told his funny stories. (Some of them weren't so funny when you thought about them, mind.)

And he'd coped with the confrontations and the accusations and the put-downs and the plain lies.

Anyway, this time -

He lost it.

I mean, he really lost it. Completely and utterly. I'd never seen him like that.

It was only a few minutes, but it's stayed with me.

It was near the end and he went into the temple and he saw what was going on and he went berserk.

He was like a wild beast. He went for the nearest table and gave one heave and upended it just like that and all the money went all over the floor and out the door and they were all scrabbling about for it. Someone came up to remonstrate with him and I thought he was going to flatten him but he just pushed him over and carried on, smashing the place up.

We were even going to say something but he turned round and looked at us, just for an instant, that's all, and we froze.

His look stopped us dead. That, and his words - he was roaring, barely coherent - but something about we were all thieves and could we not keep one place holy, just one, and I felt like I was guilty along with all the rest - but I wasn't was I? I'd never seen him like that. And I don't want to see it again, ever, but I can't forget it.

And in a moment the energy went out of him, not surprising, suddenly he realised where he was, I suppose, and he just walked out and we followed him. We gave him a couple of minutes, just in case.

And then we tried to understand.

I got it, I think, eventually.

He could cope, more or less, with the day-to-day stupidity and ignorance and the pettiness and selfishness of us all, yes me too, but the thing that sent him over the top was the deliberateness, the knowingness of it. It was like a defiance.

I think something happened to him from it - it seemed to give him the last bit of determination that maybe he needed that week.

But anyway from that few minutes, I think I learned something I hadn't really worked out before. I understood now about floods and plagues and fires and exiles. I understood that God could get angry.

And I never want to see that again.

Blinded me with Science

A very good programme on Horizon on Tuesday in which David Baddiel explored education. The hook was that he wanted as a parent to know if you could balance attainment with, well I suppose being "normal", emotionally healthy or whatever. It did rather turn into the usual travelogue of 10-minute pieces and opinions which were not summarised let alone compared and contrasted but at least it was an attempt to do some science ie examine a few theories and the evidence provided rather than a weak form of sociology which is normally what you get.

BBC doesn't seem to do transcripts any more now, it's just "33 days to watch it again on I-player" so pending me doing that I'll have to go from memory.

Very struck by the teacher who reckoned there was a 3-word weasel phrase you should never use - "you're so clever". See the point; you lock the child into a success-oriented pattern where they can't try anything new or challenging in case they suddenly look not-clever. Hard to avoid, but David at least found "I can see you've worked really hard" which looks OK. I guess "you've done really well" is borderline acceptable.

But then paying kids who do well seemed pretty successful too. Blow delayed gratification, get them started on reward now (money!) and they'll see the benefits immediately and get them into a pattern. Note the reward is for consistency - full attendance - and effort put in. There would have to be some allowance for kids who get sick?

Slightly concerned about the two lads 8 and 10 who have respectively GCSE and A-level Maths and want to be actuaries - just what their dad wants them to be. Still they seemed happy and friendly and to have a secure home life. I wonder if they'll still want the same thing at 14 and at what age anyone will actually let them be an actuary, which seems to be a pertinent and unexplored point. David did say the proof was in the eating.

And have we learned to teach reading at last? Don't hold your breath. Phonics (or phonetics?) is still in but the research evidence is still a bit thin (admittedly really difficult when you can't have a control group, but still no attempt at really proving why it works). Some interesting ideas on dyslexia that it is really about sounds and not shapes. More to say there. And a proper mention of dyscalculia and an an experiment that seemed to replicate it? Now that is science.

No-one really knows how anyone learns anything though.

Money (That's What I Want)

Two classic quotes from Shakespeare.

The first is from Henry V (I think, willing to be corrected):

"First thing, let's kill all the lawyers".

The second is from Hamlet:

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be".

There speaks a man who had a mortgage.

Which is unlike me, since two weeks ago today. Brave new world?