Environment, contemplations & concerns

Russian Pop music

2009-07-02T13:39:00.001-07:00

I discovered Russian pop music in 2003 in the middle of Siberia in Novosibirsk. It was pouring out from the private busses, from the markets and from weekend parties. I could not avoid it. I obtained a CD. Since then until recently, my exposure to Russian pop were limited to two CDs. I can’t really understand Russian. Perhaps this helped to enjoy the songs all the more.

Then came You Tube. Russian pop music has exploded into the living rooms with access to the internet for those who would bother to search for Russian pop. Apart from the music being Russian, is there much of a difference to such music compared to EuroAmerican pop (shortened to Europop) in English, except the obvious linguistic difference? I don’t know. Contemporary Russian pop music seems to have learned everything from its Western counterpart and there is not much stylistic difference in instruments or tunes generally – this music is basically Russia’s answer to your standard poptastic hit parade. But I certainly prefer to think that this music forms its own genre – best dubbed Russian Pop for absolute simplicity. Unfortunately, whereas there are some excellent Russian male artists I have only researched if that is the word, the female ones. What makes Russian pop music so absorbing?

OK, I’ll be frank. The women on Russian pop videos are often more attractive, more feminine, more traditional and more everything compared to the Europop selection. Their videos are stunning. Generally women in Russia (that I met) were more cultured, more educated and seemed to respect the respectable – they were extremely hospitable. There are more of them as pop artists, there is more variety and it is more irrepressible. Finally, my enjoyment is perhaps all the greater as they just sound like lovely women, but I don’t have to bother to or can’t understand what they say. They say that music can be more relaxing if the brain does not have to interpret the music, so classical can be more relaxing. Perhaps foreign language pop has the same effect.

Little bits of Russian we can pick up like “Na Pravda” in Natalya Baleskava (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHDOHp1yZmo) - a girl in trouble about her boyfriend. Russian pop is a sure way to sharpen your Russian language skills if you are interested. Sometimes Russian songs are just plain silly and fun as well as colourful. Just watch Krasky in Oranzovaye Soltsne (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxAgdk-2FHA) - a woman who is bundles of energy, but may be no ballerina. The above two artists are not easy to find if you want to download their hits. Two pop groups have become reasonably known so you can download their music. I refer to T.A. T. U. and Via Gra. TATU are famously lesbian though this may be just for show. My Russian hostess in 2003 was shocked by them. The Russian version of “Not gonna get us” by T.A.T.U. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPPm4y3s_58) features them driving along a snowy scene in a gigantic truck. T.A.T.U. are not quite my favourite, I think Via Gra have more pleasant music. Check out their answer to “diamonds are a girl’s best friend” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4vqHatFlkw) or “Brilliantly”, also the name of an album. For shoes, bums and a fairy tale ending, their Poptyka 5 is quite fun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdR4ur5VqpE) to watch. These hits can now be downloaded and I’ll explain how (at least for people in the UK). Much as these videos are good, some of the best ones are taken down as have their equivalents with Europop. However, if you or they thought YouTube would kill the ability for any of these songs to make royalties, you’d be dead wrong. The latest music download sites are having their playlists explode thanks to the YouTube exposure. You can now download Russian, Brazilian, Japanese or anything else or you will soon be able to. YouTube is manna and some of these Russian groups now have YouTube channels. Take the group Fabrika. Their channel is: http://www.youtube.com/user/fabrikaband. I recommend a song that seems to have the refrain Die Die Die! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Goxfb-8w4&feature=channel) - though this actually means give, give, give as lovers would say in Russian – so the mermaids sing. Fabrika have been around for quite a while. One of the most famous solo singers is Tatyana Bulanova, quite a song bird with tens of hits to her name. She is featured in Wikipedia. Some of her best stuff has since been taken down. Her song Angel is accompanied by a sci fi video that would credit any Hollywood space based CGI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krWC3dzFveQ). Russian songs often sound very traditional and innocent. Try Natali (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxl-W645-I) - though I can’t say much about this singer. Another solo talent has the unusual appellation Unnesenie Vetrom. Her song Kakao had one of the most brilliant videos I had seen until it was taken down. The next best video featuring this is tacky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6IgIrmTjc) and fails to reveal her talent. Someone could use this theme to help sell drinking chocolate. In Blestyashie, an ex girl band (there are so many Russian girl bands – Fabrika, Via gra, Tatu, Krasky, Non Stop) was featured the current solo star Shana Friske. You may see her in A ya … May I mention one further solo star with a good voice: Sveta in A mosh niet, A mosh da (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44C7MX7uI3w). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25YxZ9x2A4E). Finally in the context of videos indicating a certain amount of blatant sexism and female liberation, try Pod Zapretom by Non Stop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHur0yHNr88).

So how can you actually buy some of this music. Well I found the solution today though it is a partial solution via the downloadable application called Spotify. Try their website. Spotify are collecting all the world’s music in a listenable format and if you find the albums and songs, you are directed to sites you can download this stuff legally. Unfortunately, the majority of stars or groups listed above are not on it, but maybe, they will want to join given that it is not just Russians who want Russian pop music. I have always enjoyed foreign music including Abba – so much more exotic, exciting and yes, the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

My favourite classical composer is Tchaikovsky, a genius and a saint from Russia. Amongst nations representing Western Culture, Russia is probably number one for culture with all the nuances and history that the word represents. Music, science, painting, novels, short stories, plays – you can find it with Tchaikovsky, Chekov, Pushkin, Tolstoy and Mendelev. Of course, others have caught on, and now the Russian’s are in the vanguard of a new explosion of music, dance and fashion. With regards to Europop, they are unrivalled in my opinion except by the USA, the UK and possibly Sweden. They are on the threshold of making an explosive takeover – but hold on.

Ironically, when I tuned to Russian radio channels to get the latest pop, I noticed that they were playing English pop instead. Obviously, many Russians look up to the Western World for their music, while I, preferring something totally other though vaguely familiar go for the Russian pop. Enjoy, but no need to get addicted I hope. There’s so much beauty, dance and vitality with male and female stars from the Russian pop scene. In Russian culture as one lady explained to me: we don’t want to be like English women, they want to be men! Soviet Lady is back with a vengeance and she still retains her femininity – quite a challenge in these apparently politically correct times. I have put together some Russian song playlists on You Tube and you are welcome to contact me with an email if you want me to share my playlists.

Review:Hypatia of Alexandria (Revealing Antiquity) (Hardcover)

2009-05-23T16:54:00.000-07:00

Review: Hypatia of Alexandria (Revealing Antiquity) (Hardcover)

by Maria Dzielska F. Lyra - translator

176 pages

Publisher: Harvard University Press (27 Jun 1995)

“The last scientist who worked in the Library was a mathematician, astronomer, physicist and the head of the Neoplatonic school of philosophy – an extraordinary range of accomplishments for any individual in any age. Her name was Hypatia. …. Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, despised her because of her close friendship with the Roman governor, and because she was a symbol of learning and science, which were largely identified by the early Church with paganism. …. On her way to work she was set upon by a fanatical mob of Cyril’s parishioners. They dragged her from her chariot … flayed her flesh from her bones. Her remains were burned, her works obliterated, her name forgotten. Cyril was made a saint. The glory of the Alexandrian Library is a dim memory. Its last remnants were destroyed soon after Hypatia’s death. It was as if the entire civilization had undergone some self-inflicted brain surgery, and most of its memories, discoveries, ideas and passions were extinguished irrevocably.”

– Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, Macdonald Futura Publishers.

Socrates was executed by the state of Athens as a scapegoat for its defeat by the Spartans. His crime was being a free thinker in a short age of turmoil. He was however fondly remembered and documented. I first heard about Hypatia from Carl Sagan’s Cosmos.

She has often been represented as a pillar of wisdom in an age of growing dogma. Unlike with Socrates we know much less about her life and teachings. She is remembered precisely as a martyr who was sacrificed rather than executed by a literalist Christian mob inspired by "St" Cyril, apparently as she was regarded as a threat to Christendom and theology by certain regio-political figures. Enough material on her survived not least owing to the strong memories evoked at the manner of her despatch which turned her into a historical icon.

This excellent, short, well sourced book is a biographic scenography in the best sense of the word. It does not sadly cover the destruction of the great library or go into great length about the history and politics of 4th century Alexandria but it blows the cobwebs and embelishments that are associated with this enigmatic figure leaving a strong, uncompromising educated presence who would have been of extreme high standing to have obtained the death she received at the hands of bigots.

As head of the Platonist school in Alexandria from 400, Hypatia was a teacher in philosophy and mathematics and she remained a Pagan despite rumors to the contrary. Her pupils did include Christians, Pagans and foreigners and she represented a stark, uncommon, female presences among men, as a scholar and teacher.

Hypatia remained a virgin and spurned a romantic suitor by showing him some menstrual rags indicating that there was “nothing beautiful” about carnal desires.

Dzielska’s scholarly contribution uses the best sources, teasing through the myth, as she begins her book. These include the novel “Hypatia” by Charles Kingsley from the 1850s (a clergyman who admired Darwin and wrote the Water Babies) among numerous fictitious and semi fictitious accounts and eulogies that have appeared since the 18^th century from the Enlightenment phase of European history.

The principal sources include the letters of Hypatia’s pupil, Synesius of Cyrene with further references by Damascius, another pupil. Other sources include Socrates Scholasticus. A great deal of Hypatia’s work was linked with her father Theon Alexandricus, with whom she produced joint publications, particularly concerned with mathematics such as an edited version of a commentary to Euclid’s Elements.

The importance of Hypatia is that she represents a phase in history where Greek religion was being destroyed by the then politicised Roman state religion. Hypatia represents a tragic victim of this dark phase when a great deal of knowledge was irrevocably lost (e.g.Gandy and Freke, the Jesus Mysteries etc.,). At the time of Roman Emperor Atallus, when Hypatia was killed, Egypt’s classical civilization with its traditions of gods and mysteries was being erased. Greek temples like the Seraphium dedicated to the god Seraph, also celebrated in the library of Alexandria, were being turned into churches. It was a time of turmoil and the Western Roman Empire was in sharp decline – indeed 415AD marks the fall of Western Rome. It was effectively then that Egypt also fell from one of a classical civilization to a weakened, Christian polity, ripe for Islam a few centuries later. Edward Gibbon in his fall of the Roman Empire had much to say on this.

Dzielska’s is probably the most scholarly account on Hypatia and one of the best places to begin an understanding of Hypatia as legend and history.

The publishers are probably going to come out with a new edition given the upcoming film Agora. Here is yet another fictionalized account with Rachel Weisz playing Hypatia. Weisz seems made for the role after her Egyptian capers in the film Mummy and its sequel. In the upcoming Agora, romantic interest is provided by her Christian slave. I shall be content enough to admire the sets that are supposed to bring ancient Alexandria back to life in loving detail.

(NB: the illustration above is a Roman woman from the period evocative of Hypatia)

Accidental Encounters - strange ways that couples meet

2009-05-09T06:35:00.001-07:00

By accidental encounter, I mean the way that men and women meet in the most unexpected circumstances. I think we all know about this, but this is a first formal list I’ve created. By accidental I mean, not meeting by introductions, dating sites, through friends, at parties, at social gatherings in particular or by meeting at work. The definition is lose but I’m looking for contrived “when Harry met Sally” scenarios. Sadly most of my examples are fictional, but where the story is true, I’ve sort of stated it as such. Do you know if a couple have met by having a car accident? Or how about going to your neighbour given you’ve run out of sugar? What about milk men falling in love with women on their rounds? I think we all love accidental and contrived encounters, I certainly wish them but they seem rare in real life. In the film Hitch starring Will Smith (2005) he’s always aiming to create the perfect accident to get couples to meet, though it is a disguised accident.

In the film Notting Hill, the character played by Hugh Grant spills orange juice on the character played by Julie Walters. Eventually they marry.

In the film Rebecca and possibly the book by Daphne Du Maurier, Mr De Winter is about to jump off a cliff and is stopped by the future Mrs De Winter played by Joan Fontaine.

True story about a car mechanic working for a road rescue service. He found his wife as the victim of a breakdown.

Some people have met by dialling a wrong number and entering into a conversation.

In the film Brief Encounter written by Noel Coward, the Dr meets his brief encounter with the housewife played by Ceila Johnson, when she gets something in her eye, and he helps her to get rid of it.

A number of men have fallen for nurses while at hospital (I know this is not too unusual).

In 101 dalmations, (I can’t remember the actors), a male and female dog walker meet and they get interested with each other, given their dogs are (again not too unusual) as well.

In the film Back to the Future, Michael J. Fox’s character falls off a tree in front of a car. The car driver takes him to his house where his daughter, Marty’s mother falls in love with him. It was supposed to be Marty’s father who falls for his mother this way, when he falls off the tree while being a peeping tom and watching his theoretical fiancé.

One millionaire found his wife while being in church and following a woman’s red hat. That drew him and they met. (again not too unusual)

In the film Maid in Manhattan, she meets him as a cleaner (I’ve not seen this film in full, sorry I’m guessing). I get some attractive cleaners myself and we play music while they clean, but they’re all married.

Monks and nuns in Buddhist monasteries have fallen in love, disrobed and married. We have a related example in the film Sound of Music where Maria the nun falls in love with Mr Von Trapp.

In the film Back to the Future III, Doc Brown meets Miss Clayton by rescuing her while she is just about to go over a cliff. They get married (another “my hero” get together).

In an ancient Indian Buddhist story, the king watches a fat woman urinating, and noting how delicately she does it, decides to marry her (Jataka stories, translated by Cowell).

In another, the king hears a girl singing with happiness and asks why. This is the king Pasenadi who meets Mallika. She makes Mallika his chief consort. (Dhammapada commentary)

In another Buddhist story, two Brahmin parents figured the Buddha would be a good match for their daughter after reading his footprints (without seeing him first – the Dhammapada commentary).

I know another Buddhist story where a woman’s skin is so soft that every man who touches her starts to desire her (Jataka Stories translated by Cowell).

In a Russian fairy story, the king lost when hunting, knocks at a country cottage. He is overwhelmed by the beauty of the woman who opens the door and remains frozen – I don’t know if they lived happily ever after.

The Kalama Sutta - Freedom to think

2009-05-07T16:36:00.000-07:00

Too many people in the world (including the author) rely on second hand sources to back their particular views concerning truth and reality. This is especially evident with the religious views that people hold. As far as most people are concerned, religion encapsulates holding on to perceptions of right and wrong without objective criteria except some special book or other, typically described as a “word of God” or more loosely as scripture, on the basis of faith or belief. To do otherwise may be reprehensible according to these very scriptures, resulting in suffering in hell or at least, being exiled from your community who happen to hold on to those particular beliefs.

The antidote to religion, especially in the sense of a set of views grounded in belief or suppositions without evidence is commonly attributed to science. The problem with science, which does depend on evidence and empirical observations is that there are certain things like ethics, how we think, life after death and ghosts that can’t be explored to an adequate level of unambiguous satisfaction, based on peer reviewed observations. For example, science can’t explain if and why murder is wrong, other than to suggest that it carries certain risks and actions that are quite risky could shorten ones’ life or make one unpopular. Science has not succeeded in explaining ghosts, despite repeated sightings. They are just too difficult to measure and observe, as are dreams and thoughts. I for one, trained in Science, considers that some of our deepest problems such as death, consequences of actions, ghosts and angels remain unexplained by the Scientific method alone.

Classical Greece and India, from around 500BCE present models of civilization compatible with both these aspects as do certain modern societies. Rationality versus religion is sometimes a rather tired argument. Yes, we need rationality. We also need the capacity to explore things symbolically – this encapsulates music, literature, philosophy, myth and religion.

A particular problem with religion is the way that scriptures are used to justify acts based on terror and cruelty, especially in certain religions, both in history and in the present day. Almost as bad is when scripture is used to justify ways of seeing the world that contradict evidence: in other words, when scripture supports a culture of folly and ignorance. This is not just a problem with religion, but with modes of thought based on dogma, fixed views and fanatical devotion to something or someone. We can see this with political creeds like certain forms of communism, fascism or when people allow an unquestioning obedience in political figures as with the Ayatolla Khomeni of Iran. How many times have you seen certain unsavoury people saying in such and such a book that is the word of God, it says this, which justifies my controversial act … ? – or words to that effect. Can there be no First Amendment that can allow one to dismiss the word of God if one finds it disagreeable? We contradict ourselves in even having to cite a First Amendment or alternative text, given once again, we are resorting to a secondary source. But something in us tells us, if we are sane, that there can be grounds for blasphemy. Without blasphemy “a victimless crime”, most progressive modes of thought including several religions and scientific theories would simply not exist. Blasphemy represents one form of creativity, originality and freedom – unless it goes wholly against certain ingrained notions such as knowing that cruelty and harshness are not usually the best ways of getting things done.

The Kalama sutta (sutta means discourse) from the Pali Canon has long being recognized as enshrining an opportunity to freedom of thought. Although Buddhism is recognized as a religion, it is certainly not a religion in many senses of the word and has rather been characterized as a philosophy or a system of education. The sutta is set in a town called Kesaputta occupied by a group of people called the Kalamas. They had watched various religious teachers coming and going, and the contradictions they represented. My quotations come from a translation by Ven. Thanissaro at www.accesstoinsight.org.

“Lord, there are some priests & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other priests & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable priests & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?”

The Buddha started off by acknowledging that doubt had arisen about what is uncertain and said:

“Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.” Or “you should enter & remain in them.”

The Kalama sutta is not a carte blanche for people to do/think exactly as they please, but more an invitation to accept or reject things based on their own experience. Here, acceptance and rejection of a certain doctrine is predicated on whether the roots of ill, Greed, Hate and Stupidity are present or absent. The Buddha recommends that modes of though based on their opposites are likely to be more appropriate. Here the Buddha explicitly rejects forms of authority based on scriptures, traditions and teachers. He makes it clear here and elsewhere, that skepticism is encouraged with regards to his own teaching. Indeed, asking questions is encouraged in Buddhism including questions like: “What is good?” “What is ill?” “What when done by me could lead to suffering/happiness?”

It is worth digressing here to state that the Buddha met a certain teacher Sanjaya, who advocated that nothing was certain or could necessarily be believed in. The Buddha asked Sanjaya whether this view applied to Sanjaya’s own teaching. Sanjaya was stumped. If he had said yes, he would be declaring his teaching void. If he said no, he would be contradicting it.

French philosopher Blaise Pascal said: “God can't be proved. But if God exists, the believer gains everything (heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything (hell). If God doesn't exist, the believer loses nothing and the unbeliever gains nothing. There is therefore everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God.”

To some extent the Buddha said something similar in the Kalama sutta, with regards to life after death. He said that if there was a life after death, the good person has little to fear, but if there was no life after death, at least he could die praised and contented. On the other hand, the bad person would risk having to suffer, if there was a life after death. In this particular sutta, the Buddha is open about life after death.

The Kalama sutta anticipated many of the arguments in Tom Paine’s “The Age of Reason” concerning God, religion and morality. Voltaire stated that if God presented him with one important book it was the book of reason as opposed to the Bible. Again, the Kalama sutta was definitely ahead of its time, with regards to the 18^th century Enlightenment phase of western civilization.

When we are children, we need to be told what to believe, and we trust adults almost instinctively. If we did not, we would probably not survive quite so well, given our experiments like touching flames, or jumping into deep water could kill or injure us. Many of these instincts are encouraged in certain societies even as adults, where blasphemy is punishable by death, still operating in the 21^st century. Given the repeating cycles of history, teachings like the Kalama Sutta encourage freedom in many senses of the word.

Given, however, that we should ideally be able to be independent of secondary sources, where do we turn? Well, most of us can never be as grown up like Einstein or for that matter like the Buddha. We don’t need to re-invent the wheel when it is already given, but we can use its presence to take us to fulfillment. The Kalma sutta does not say that scriptures are evil and should be rejected out of hand, it states that they have to be evaluated according to our own instincts and experience.

In many ways, the ultimate scripture is nature itself. As Ajahn Chah, a Buddhist teacher has explained – everything, can teach us. When you look around you, you are seeing reality that is more raw, true and potentially meaningful than any holy book. Many of us enjoy sunsets and powerful art invokes a moment of truth, captured for our imagination. I’ve heard that a Buddhist monk was once on a train in a conversation with a westerner. The westerner asked him whether he agreed that Buddhist art was the best in the world. The monk said no. He said that the most beautiful art was that of the present moment. By being aware of the now, of the breath, perhaps in the context of mindfulness (also taught by the Buddha) – we have a source of scripture that is always there without any library or preacher to hand.

Tom Paine was right – religion, particularly based on cruelty, animal sacrifice and a wrathful creator has to be a mistake. We can unplug from the proverbial word of God. From time to time, it is useful to have a Kalama sutta because without it, we could all become part of a herd of sheep, walking around, following the flock, rather mindlessly and guided only by blind belief and tyrannical opposition. We can unplug from various assumptions and axioms like “music is bad” (as advocated by strict Sunni muslims) or “health and safety” (advocated in modern Britain). We can also unplug from the media, news, celebrities or popular movements. We have a yardstick to evaluate whether to take on board or reject whatever view we are presented with, knowing that it need not be taken seriously merely because it is in scripture or said by someone considered important.

Minimum Wage - In praise of being a monkey.

2009-04-08T09:19:00.001-07:00

"If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!" (?) I can remember the Britain that existed before the Labour party came into power in 1997 and I can remember the Britain after. Labour introduced the minimum wage. Britain before the minimum wage was not too different, though arguably it is worse after it. The minimum wage has not really changed a thing except to make it harder for desperate people like me get money when I'm desperate. Most of the press and population, indeed the general consensus seem to go along with the minimum wage - it is argued that it was a good thing that can give a civilized wage. For me a wage is a wage and if you don't like it, you can try getting another one. Welfare provision should exist and should not be conflated with the minimum wage. It should be there to help the too young, the too old or otherwise sick and incapable people of living in reasonable comfort.

There is an argument for the minimum wage in agriculture. Before the Labour party of 1997 in the UK, a minimum wage existed for farm workers. Agriculture is often subsidized as food production can be an urgent matter, particularly taking into account wartime shortages or periods of scarcity or hyper-inflation. Given that food is so vital, farmers will always need workers and traditionally if not a minimum wage, workers were looked after to an extent on the farm, receiving a portion of the food and in a modern context, where they may have to be peripatetic, a legally enforced minimum wage. Similarly, soldiers who fight on behalf of the state would be entitled to receive some sort of minimum wage.

Leaving aside exceptions as above, a minimum wage is decided by the market. The typical cost of a weekly rent or a loaf of bread will dictate the sort of wages workers will expect to work at the lower end of a spectrum. Workers in a certain guild will know what their fellows are paid and will refuse to work for masters who pay below what their peers get as an average. In an interesting experiment, two chimps were required to work and one was paid cucumbers and the other paid grapes. When the cucumber chimp discovered what its peer was paid, it literally downed tools and refused to work until it too was paid grapes - grapes being more desirable in taste and energy than cucumbers. People will tend to react no differently. People understand what a minimum wage is and will make choices based on what is available and what they need. The terrible problem with a legallyenforced minimum wage is that it rises quite exorbitantly along with inflation, and year on year, the minimum wage goes up, and employers are required to keep pace.

Here is one result of the legally enforced minimum wage: A thriving black economy. In Britain today there is a cadre of workers, especially immigrants who are not even legal residents paid way below the legal minimum wage in industries such as gathering shellfish or in care homes for the elderly. These people are very happy to earn below the minimum wage as they typically earn a lot more than they may do in their country of origin. They get to live contentedly where they are without being detected by the authorities and they can keep their options open about saving up and going back, or working themselves up to becoming legal residents with proper wages. The authorities don't really take as much action as they could and these people make a huge contribution to the "British Economy" saving the government welfare provision and helping the middle classes to obtain their necessities in life or luxuries, without having to pay through the nose for them. Unfortunately, the under-classes, those with not much experience or education in Britain, the native people, can't get jobs so easily as they would legally require to be paid the minimum wage and many employers prefer to get the same work done cheaper using the black economy. This leads to resentment, racism and a growing wave of crime with so many people, born and bred in Britain losing out in competition against foreign workers.

The bottom line, enunciated by critics before the minimum wage came along remains the devaluation of the local currency and spiraling wage inflation. The great and the good politicians who gave us the minimum wage have been voting themselves huge pay rises ever since they came into power. Most of them don't get paid according to what they do but according to who they are. When a politician decides what a minimum wage should be, he/she will willy nilly award himself/herself a maximal wage given they place themselves so far above the minimum level. Similar wage rises apply to the top civil servants, lawyers and judges. It actually contributes to a disparity in wages between the private and public sectors, with the private sector paying closer to the minimum wage for jobs less than the white collar level. The money that I earn simply is not worth what it is meant to be with a minimum wage in place. If I earn one pound, it is immediately rated against the standard of the minimum wage rather than against its own intrinsic merit. Pretty soon, the pound becomes small currency and loses its status. As an institution the one dollar or the pound come to be regarded as worth a fraction of what it was once considered and treasured to be. Every penny just does not count any more, until you make a certain packet of them first. The minimum wage does contribute to price rises in most goods and services. As a wry observation, it is not the employer who will administer a legally enforced minimum wage, it is you the customer or the taxpayer. You will invariably be required to pay more in costs and taxes.

I've never had a proper job in my life. I have done more than ten jobs and still don't earn an average wage (I happen to be a student at the time of writing). For this reason, given the high standards of paper qualifications I've obtained, I should be begging for a minimum wage. However, the best jobs I have done were done on, or below the "minimum wage". One of them included pulling up birch saplings in a forest, where birches were not considered appropriate for the heathland they were trying to encourage. This was the sort of job where I could rest on a bed of moss and stare at the blue sky before getting back to work and counting my hours of work. Sadly, the people who employed me then could not afford to employ people in the same capacity without obtaining a substantial grant, thanks to legally enforced wage inflation. They would not stoop to employing people below an affordable level illegally, and this sort of job remains undone in the modern, minimum wage world. Similar jobs that can't really get done as efficiently include litter picking, clearing up weeds from rivers to make their courses swifter (stopping them flooding their banks when excess rain falls), clearing up drains or sewers. Hence we end up with mountains of rubbish, rivers flooding their banks, overflowing sewers and a countryside that is not effectively managed. There are of course voluntary bodies and people who would be willing to work for nothing, but this is a crux in the argument against a minimum wage.

When it comes to labour the minimum wage represents the punishing adage "my way or the highway". You have the option of working for nothing on a voluntary basis or not working at all in that particular job on a longer term as they could not afford to pay you. This particularly applies to vital but often unsung jobs and services. E.g., a charity dealing with taking care of wildlife or animals could theoretically only rely on volunteers, but most of them would be short term and they would lose some of their best people who could possibly only afford to work a short while. The only long term volunteers they may get would be retired older people who lived off their pensions and could afford to sustain a voluntary effort. Thus, even if you enjoyed such a voluntary role, if you wanted to work for this organization you would be barred from it as the only two options would be, working for nothing (which you can't afford), or working for the minimum wage (which the charity can't afford). Surely it would be better if you worked for something in between and you may be able to just, afford that. The most satisfying job in the world may be a low paid one, but the minimum wage could take away your right to work if that organization can't afford the minimum wage. Thus the minimum wage creates unemployment, underemployment and destroys so many vital niche jobs that could be starting points for many careers. It abolishes my right to work for a wage I choose should it be below the minimum wage within a legal framework. It creates a thriving black economy that demands illegal immigrants or the jobs are exported to countries where the wage is a lot smaller. Consequently the local population where the wage is enforced lose jobs and get resentful (how many factory closures have you heard of?). Charities and the voluntary sector suffers without being able to afford key members of staff who may start on a voluntary basis and the minimum wage discourages several menial jobs essential for the well being of the environment such as rubbish clearance. The rich still get richer and your money loses its value, year on year. I would rather have something rather than nothing when it comes to income - so thanks New Labour for nothing. If you pay peanuts you get monkeys? Tell that to the monkeys in the houses of parliament.

How to get a PhD

2009-04-01T09:43:00.000-07:00

I did a PhD the hard way in the UK. What you need more than anything else is a driving desire to do some research and an idea of how that research and its completion will help bring benefits to the area of your interest and to the wider community and environment in general. This may of course mean finding a better career path.

It's probably easier to get into a PhD immediately after an undergraduate or Masters program but you can do it later in life when you may be sure that it is what you want to do. After realizing you want to do this, and mustering the interest, you need money, an institute of learning and a supervisor.

Money represents stability, and you can't do the PhD with ease if you are not stable. You need to eat, sleep, relax and be able to afford a rent/mortgage. You may have to rely on your friends, parents, college or institution, spouse or employer to support you one way or another.

Good PhDs always need a great deal more support than your supervisor, even if you have the money. More important than your supervisor, is the institute of learning you choose. The institute will represent your connections and these may be strongly associated with your supervisor. You may simply register with the institute to pursue your work elsewhere as I did – but wherever you work will mould, not just your PhD, but your career. A pleasant and supportive institute is best. After your PhD, this institute may represent a badge of honour.

A supervisor is not as crucial though it can be the difference between joy and grief in the process of your research. You'd be lucky to find a supportive supervisor, many just take the credit and do the minimum. You will ideally need many other academics to help you, to deal with various technical aspects you can't do yourself. You may need extra training as in statistics, molecular biology, experimental methods. On a PhD you should always be willing to be open to learn and apply new skills. Finally, you need to work very hard in quiet surroundings: privacy and room to do your work is vital. A library with the references you are after is ideal or if you are lucky, an office. These days the internet is essential. Communicating with helpful friends, colleagues and institutional affiliation in the widest sense of the word are vital.

If you don't have enough money, you could do your work on a Part time basis and work the rest of the time. Say three days of work and two days for research. University jobs are ideal as they create time in the long holidays for you to pursue work. They also offer internet access and other perks including quiet places with heating (or may be AC), a stimulating environment and theoretically, access 24/7, yes a PhD often demands burning the midnight oil, though you can sleep for part of the day.

The process of doing a PhD is typically divided into three phases: finding a project and reviewing the literature; doing the research including experiments or fact finding and writing up. If you choose an area that is obscure like a genus of fish that no one has heard of, or the life of some obscure writer, it will be easier in the sense that you will have little background material and will generate the research yourself. In other words, if you are in virgin territory, you don’t have to worry too much about keeping up with the latest findings or dong a huge amount of raking over past literature. You have more chances of being original and creative. The downside is that attracting funding may be a lot harder. If you go into an area that everyone’s already busy with like finding a cure for aids or cancer, you will be able to get funding (subject to more competition), but will have far more literature to keep up with. It will be harder to define what the most original aspect of your work is.

Typically, finding the topic you want to work on is the easy bit. It is when you get your teeth into it, that it becomes hard. Actually phase 1 and 2 are done together. Lots of people say that you should begin your write up while doing research. This is true but only up to a point. You don’t start by writing your theses, but by writing preliminary reports and abstracts of your work. These will yield the templates to do your final write up. Don’t confuse the templates for the final write up.

Writing up can be the hardest or the most pleasant stage of your work depending on your perspective. Anything from 3-6 drafts and redrafts may be needed. Here I’d like to digress by speaking about your most important tool, the laptop.

I went through three laptops during my work over eight years. The PC based laptops needed changing quite frequently under the circumstances. Then I got an Apple Macbook Pro and realized just how versatile it was. I could have Windows and Mac on the same machine running simultaneously. The Apple environment presents greater stability and ease with features like “spotlight” to find things with rapidity and screen capture, so you can generate images in a trice based on images you generate yourself or from the internet. There is a lot of free software available to make your life easier like “Seashore” a graphics package. There is no problem with Windows exclusive software as you can blend both worlds together. By the way, don’t forget to make backups of your project. Driving my writing using one of the best machines on the planet made everything a lot easier and more pleasant (and no, I’m not being paid for that plug – at least not yet).

Here’s another tool you may find useful. A USB powered flatbed scanner like a CanoScan Lide machine. You can take it to a library and scan documents as a PDF directly into your laptop. The flatbed machine can be transported easily along with your laptop to a library.

Once again I come back to people. You will need emergency funds and lots of help and assistance. Ask, ask and ask again. Be humble, go on your knees and be generous in your acknowledgments. Send people little cards, to say just how much you appreciate their help.

Feel free to be bold and creative in the layout of your theses with lots of sections (no need to number sections and subsections slavishly, I divided my theses into 5 “Parts” and further into “chapters”) and illustrations as may be needed. I was really helped along in the end by working in a library with friendly staff who go me all the references I was after. Most of my theses got together AFTER most of the work was done, given I had to revise and revise the original beyond the scope of what I thought. Being ambitious will cost you time – don’t overdo as you’d be lucky of more than 10 people are actually interested in reading your theses. What comes after is more important.

Here’s the usual good advice. When writing up, you write the introduction and abstract at the end to tally with your conclusions and discussion. Start with writing about the methods used and results before moving to discussions and conclusions. Finally, you can work back into your intro piece and blast your trumpet about just how unique your discoveries are.

In the end, you may be THE expert in your chosen field - don't be cowed, be confident. Be ready to share your research with the wider world by publishing.

A PhD may be the hardest thing you ever do. It may involve amazing journeys to exotic places. Be prepared to eat frugally and live on a budget. There is no guarantee it will do your career any good although you may be able to make a greater social contribution than without your degree.

PhD programs differ from country to country. Books like “Saving planet Earth as a career” that I’ve reviewed here can help. Read one about “how to do a PhD” or similar, when you begin your PhD. Never underestimate the workload – take it in your stride. At least it sounds impressive to tell the people you know “I’m doing a PhD” – and enjoy the rare privileges of being a student (even if most of the time, you don’t even know if you will ever get it). It may actually be more frustrating after a PhD but by then, you will hopefully be someone else.

Trusting sons vs daughters

2009-04-01T04:37:00.000-07:00

If you have only one child, the question does not apply. Neither does the question apply if you are dividing your assets before you die, or as part of a will, into equal or unequal portions by prior agreement with your children as a total giveaway of your life's work.

Suppose however, that you expect a relationship of dependency with your children not with a big d but with a little d. Suppose you would like to be looked after by one or more of your children then is it better to trust your sons or your daughters? You could be a divorcee or a widower who has obtained a lump sum from your job on your retirement, or live in a big home that you may wish to share with one of your children's families. If you would like to be cared for as a parent, would you be better off in making material investments into sons or daughters?

In the West, being a burden on your children may be regarded with disdain. In other cultures such as in India it is sometimes regarded as a great privilege and blessing to have the opportunity to cherish and support your parents, to put back a tiny fraction at least of the investment one's parents may have given one. We would not wish to be cold shouldered by our children, in the hour of our greatest need if we have them. If children look after parents it may bring blessings for them, both spiritual and practical because your children's children will learn by observation and may look after your children when they too are old.

It is a statistical fact that parents will live up to two years longer if they have one or more daughters, because daughters will give special care and attention to parents, more than sons. In this sense, daughters are a blessing, in your old age.

Suppose you are a parent who has just divorced. Property prices are skyrocketing and you want to look after yourself, and ensure a good future for your children. You have just got this lump sum from your pension and/or your divorce settlement. You have a sons and daughters. Where will you make the bigger financial investment keeping in mind being looked after in the future?

It is up to you and I only provide this advice based on experience. Give the bulk of it to your sons if you wish greater security and comfort. Traditionally, in an Asian context there was no question about this but why is this somewhat sexist sentiment relevant perhaps to you?

It is simply because your daughter's identity will depend to a greater or lesser extent on her boyfriend or husband. Generally, men tend to dominate women rather than the other way round (and this would be with the woman's permission). Your daughter may initially offer you a lifeline she may be more assertive and practical with finances - but you can't trust her motives or future plans no matter how sincere she may be. If she gets together with a man, the extent to which she can be relied on and trusted will depend on the nature of the man. He would put his mother and father first and the daughter will be expected to "serve" them as a first point of call. You may be sidelined.

If on the other hand, you pass your money to your sons, even if they don't look after you like a good nurse they may well ensure that your domestic arrangements are up to scratch and that you are reasonably looked after. Perhaps your son/s may buy you an investment property in their name and pass it on for you to live in as you please until your death, but if it was your daughter/s - well, you may have to leave prematurely, speaking as a generality. Based on individual circumstances, this advice may need to be turned on its head - older children could get more preference be they sons, or daughters, but as I said I am writing from experience.

I am aware of a family where the daughter (who happened to have a stronger relationship with the mother at the time) took the upper hand while her brothers were busy, and persuaded the mother to give most of the money to her - which she invested into a property in her (the daughter's) name. Eventually, the daughter became quite bossy and domineering and the mother wanted to leave, but by now, the mother's pension money was also tied up with the property. The daughter ended up getting a boyfriend who literally attacked her mother, but being loving and giving, she had to defend his actions as he brutalized the mother and got very possessive of the daughter - he may have had his ways of persuading her for his/their future material ends. The mother had no option but to leave for her security sake to live with one of her sons. The daughter and her boyfriend effectively walked off or threaten (as things stand) to walk off with the mother's money and pension, profiteering greatly from an investment now entirely lost in a legal sense to the parent and her sons. Legally very little can be done if the property of the parent is tied under the daughter's name as "landlord". It is not easy to plan for your daughter's partner especially after marriage. Your sons however will put you first hopefully anyway. Have no expectations with what you give.

The overall moral is, think before committing your money with any of your children. Think about their age, their virtue and their sex with regards to future partners. Think about how to divide your assets between all of them to minimize future fall outs and act in your best interest with any "preferential" investment. Don't ever have confidence that you can dominate your children - especially a favorite, to maintain an investment you make to them for your sake. If push comes to shove, a male heir will be more likely to keep his word and commitments than a female because your daughter's future relationships and their impact on you are less certain, than the relationships of your sons. It was Andrew Carnegie, once the world's richest man who said that making money was easier than giving it away for advantage.

Skinned alive in Chinese fur farms

2009-04-01T04:30:00.000-07:00

I received one of those emails from a friend – an action email about some kind of suffering or other and to send copies of it to friends and sign a petition etc. The sort of email one will either act on or delete without much thought. The enclosed video was harrowing and horrifying showing a Raccoon dog (it looks a bit like a Raccoon but is a dog) being skinned alive in a fur farm in China. At the end, even after all its feet had been cut off, the animal was still alive and had sobered up after its vain struggles. Like something out of a horror film like “The Fly” it raised its head, blinked with its remaining eyelashes and then lay its head down to continue dying for anything from 10-20 minutes. Yes sir, in Chinese fur farms they are skinning cats and dogs alive. Apparently its easier. Why bother doing anything else? It’s only part of a globalized industrial process with China as a major provider of fur lined clothes that are cheap and fashionable. Since then, a petition is going around and the Chinese embassies have sent out a press release about these “isolated incidents” and why they are concerned about it as much as anyone else. There is no evidence anything is being done about it. People who know the Chinese and some other far eastern countries including Japan and Korea are aware that sometimes they seem to have a “cruelty gene” – and that expression was supplied by a European lady I know once married to a Chinese gentleman. Actually, I think we all have something of the cruelty gene, but according to our culture, will not express this much if at all.

Once upon a time I used to skin dead birds and mammals (mostly things that were found dead) to prepare study skins. Skinning animals is quite important when butchering a large mammal. The worst bit is when the skin comes off the head and you see these dark eyes exposed against the fleshy head. In Siberia, where people breed and herd reindeer and live off them, animals are slaughtered very fast - a slit to the throat. They are not even aware of their fate just before, and die a quick death. All the meat is eaten and the skin is turned into materials and clothing, especially thick warm boots. In the past more than now, the bones were also used. This is the appropriate use of an animal, an appropriate way of dispatch and use of the skin. The native American cultures of the USA had a similar relationship with buffalo. The Chinese fur farms offer no comparison.

Here the carcasses of still living animals are piled high on top of dead ones to rot away and may be even feed the caged ones awaiting a similar fate. The caged animals can see their compatriots being taken out, stamped on and skinned alive and sometimes there is a crowd of people who are laughing (according to the report of this Raccoon dog I read). Young puppies, cats and dogs in a living hell. Sometimes without the skin they even manage to stand.

Our skin is the largest organ of our body. Without it we would die fast enough from dehydration and rapid infection based on conditions. Normally the loss of skin would be associated with death such as in a fire. Few animals in nature would have to face being skinned alive. Once deprived of a skin death is practically guaranteed and it is a painfully slow one in the fur farms. Even though it is easy to see an animal as a body with a skin and see the skin as so much like a garment, it is important to understand that the skin is (as much as a the skeleton) an integral part of the animal; not a superficial addition. Our clothes are superficial but an animal has no clothing. When an animal is skinned, if it is alive, it changes from a whole being into something less, yet conscious.

That skinned, live, animal was probably the most humiliated and deprived creature I had ever seen. Deprived of any kindness or sensitivity, being abased and made a laughing stock and losing the only thing capable of affording it protection against the elements. Yet it bore its last suffering in a sober fashion. What more could it do than to stare at that camera, blink and lie its head down? These acts of mass vandalism are going on right now.

To correctly use an animal perfectly, even if exploiting it fully is to rear it from birth, feed it, take care of it in reasonable circumstances and then kill it without it even knowing, quickly and then to make full use of it. In the USA an autistic woman who understood cattle, recommended a clever method of leading them to the slaughter so that they still had their friends and died fast. In Japan, they produce luxury beef from cattle who are reared like pets in the finest surroundings with fresh grass. Sweden has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world in the context of agriculture. Each situation has to have its standards: In the UK wanton cruelty to animals is illegal, no skinning of animals alive would be allowed. However, in Nicaragua (as reported in a recent BBC Wildlife magazine) where there are no similar laws, as an example of modern art, the artist starved a dog alive and people were coming and watching the dying exhibit while it was held.

When we go to a supermarket most of the meat has sort of been reared responsibly but as for the fish, well that has probably been caught without much care about animal welfare and with many hundreds of non target species dying in the process. The problem is there is very little legal regulation about fishing conduct or practice, especially in international waters with absolutely no policing except for the likes of Greenpeace. We don’t really think twice about buying four cans of cheap tuna (tuna being higher up in the food chain than mere sardines or plankton) for the price of two. These are wild animals. They have typically not been harvested with sensitivity and nature picks up the tab. We as uneducated consumers continue to think we deserve our healthy cheap food that we pay for that was in effect, stolen from the natural world (historically we only stole a little, now the big ships have bigger appetites). Only ethically sourced and produced fish is OK to eat in these days of industrial fishing I say.

Back to fur farms. It is really very difficult to do anything except to avoid buying clothes from China lined with cheap fur and sign a petition. You could let other people know but then, I am not really too keen for you to see the video I saw. The problem is, when you watch horror movies some of that horror can rub off on you unless you can really come to terms with it with peace, understanding and compassion/love. I feel ashamed to be a human, but I can act in this world most strongly only from being in the human state. Let us try to avoid wanton cruelty and not pretend like some people that life exists to be exploited by our species any way we wish with no thought for consequences. If you think like that, you are not being fully human.

I cannot apologise to that dog on behalf of the human race – god only knows what its final thoughts were as it looked into that camera, but I hope that whatever it was trying to communicate has been appreciated by someone to some extent so as to help prevent such cruelty in the future.

The Best Binoculars for Birdwatching

2009-04-01T04:28:00.001-07:00

Binoculars are essential for bird-watching. The choice of binoculars depends on your budget, your choice of terrain and the level of your professional involvement in nature watching.

If you are a beginner or buying for a child you should go for a reasonably priced or even cheap pair with sufficient light gathering qualities. Binoculars come with two numbers such as 8x40. The first is the magnification. For bird-watching 7-10 inclusive is fine. The second is the diameter of the objective lens (mm), that is the lens furthest from the eye through which the light enters. If you divide the diameter by the magnification - you should get a value of 5 or better for good light gathering including at dawn or dusk or if you operate in a forest environment. So 8x40 or 10x50 will both yield a value of 5. If the value is greater than 5 (7x50) you will have even more light gathering power for working on subjects in shadowy conditions at closer range. Thus If you operate in open spaces with large distances, a larger magnification such as 10 will be preferable to a smaller, but the larger the magnification, the heavier the binoculars may be and this can lead to hand shake. For practical birdwatching binoculars of magnification 7-10 inclusive is more than adequate with an objective diameter that yields a value of 5 if divided by the eyepiece. The smaller the magnification, the closer you can focus and this can make certain binoculars attractive for closer up work like butterfly watching as well as birds. You should ideally have close focusing of 10 feet or less.

When the light enters the binoculars, it has to go through several lenses and at each lens some of the light will be reflected leading to a dimmer light reaching your eye. It is better to have fully coated lenses which minimize the reflected light and the highest standard of prism is made from a type of glass called BAK4 - and it is useful to look to this level at least of glass quality. Most binoculars have lens coatings and this is what gives them their colors (red, blue or green). These coatings are very similar to those used on anti reflective spectacles. You can check the quality of the light getting through by holding the binoculars at arms length and looking through the eyepiece lenses (the ones that join the eye). You should see a point of light where the light is entering through the objective lenses (make sure the caps are off and the unit is facing a source of light). The larger andmore circular this is, the better the coating. If the spot of light is square, there is a loss of light and clarity. The diameter of the spot of light is called the exit pupil measurement and this is what you calculate (in mm) by dividing the objective diameter (in mm as above) by the magnification.

Traditional binoculars are called poro-prism binoculars. The eyepiece and objective lenses are staggered. Roof prism binoculars are more sophisticated but not necessarily better. In these it looks like the light goes straight through though actually the light is refracted even more (bent, reflected and twisted). Poro-prism binoculars gather light more readily and offer better depth perception in judging distances. If you get a reasonably priced, light pair of binoculars (around or less than 2 pounds (1kg)) - at about 8x magnification this should be fine to start with. Companies like Bushnel and Audbon or organizations like the RSPB all sell good pairs like this.

Roof prism binoculars can be more compact and fully sealed unlike poro-prism ones. This can make them more waterproof and fog proof and there will be no condensation issues if they are sealed with an inert gas like nitrogen inside. These are more expensive to buy as they have more lenses inside which need to be fixed in place and minimize light and color distortion.

The eyepiece lenses can have rubber eye-caps to help spectacle wearers and binoculars often give "eye relief" figures, which is the distance that the eyepiece lenses can comfortably be held away from the eyes with a clear image. If you wear spectacles try and get eye relief of at least 15mm.

OK, now I'm going to make your life easy and recommend three websites (two in the same place) which effectively answer the above question better than I can. You can find more information than I can provide and one of the pages provides a detailed list of brands and prices - it is a lot better for you to check them yourself before you buy. I wish you well in your purchase as bird-watching is definitely an environmentally friendly activity - good for you and in the long run the birds that you see. Some manufacturers actually engage in helping to research and conserve birds, and if you get your binoculars from them, part of your money will also assist avian conservation.

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/binoculars1.html

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Publications/LivingBird/Winter2005/Age_Binos.html

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/gear/binoculars/

Peanuts - Credit crunch food

2009-04-01T04:07:00.000-07:00

The cultivated peanut Arachis hypogaea originates along with chilli, chocolate and tomatoes from South America. They’ve probably been eaten for at least 7000 years. It’s not exactly a nut, more an underground bean. Weight for weight peanuts contain more nutrition and can be compared head to head with that other ubiquitous pea, the Oriental soybean (Glycine max). Unlike soy, peanuts behave like nuts, they are available in their raw form more abundantly and I’m going to tell you the easiest way to enjoy them. They truly are a whole food, fairly nutritionally complete and one of the simplest, cheapest and environmentally friendly options for your menu or as an ideal party snack with your friends.

You can compare the nutritional breakdown between peanuts and soy from Wikipedia or a similar site. Raw soy is largely water but raw peanuts have comparatively little water. In the raw peanut the nutritional breakdown is (with soy values is brackets): 48% (0.18%) good fat, a staggering 25% (3%) protein and 21% (6%) carbs. Dried soybeans have about 23% protein (and by the way raw peas have around 5% protein). Weight for weight the protein content of peanuts is huge, better than soy. Finally peanuts do have a great many vitamins and minerals. Peanuts are ideal as a snack especially if you prefer a vegetarian diet: rich in protein. In this context they also represent an environmentally friendlier option than say having to eat something like pork raised on soybean (a lot of animal protein is raised on agricultural grains that could instead have been eaten directly).

The easiest and sometimes best way to eat peanuts is without anything added, but they are tastier when cooked (you can eat them raw). Buy yourself a large bag of peanuts and if you can’t find the raw stuff, buy a bag designed as garden bird food – (my latest batch was ostensively for birds and it was OK for me, you can buy large bags in Asian or Indian shops for human consumption). Place a small quantity in a bowl and put it in the microwave on high until some of the nuts start gently browning and are roasted. Take it out at shortish intervals to give it a stir (you’ll get the hang of it). For a small bowl, three minutes may be fine. You can scrunch up the nuts and winnow away the thin husks – blow them away if you wish. This way of cooking is very similar to the “dry roasting” in a wok practiced in many Asian countries, only cheaper and faster. They taste better roasted and you get more fiber if you eat the husks. Peanuts done like this, are extremely good as a snack in parties and popular. They are definitely the healthier option compared to nuts with added oil, salt or sugar.

Amateur of Professional?

2009-04-01T03:53:00.000-07:00

In addressing this question I have to be sensitive to the fact that the word Professional in particular is used and nuanced differently depending on where you come from. If you come from the USA, to be a Professional can indicate the pinnacle of expertise, someone more reliable than the one with no grades, someone who cares more about his vocation than simply doing it for the money. In the UK it implies similar things, indicating someone who may be traditional/conservative and well practiced but conversely, it can indicate someone maybe a bit narrow minded. In both cultures, the word Professional could imply something other than a total compliment. In a country like India, the word Professional effectively implies someone who makes a middle class or above middle class salary compared to someone in the lower echelons of society. Typically, the term Professional would never be an insult. This meaning does apply, though to a lesser extent in the UK and USA.

When we look at singles advertisements, you often find women wishing to meet a “solvent, professional”. In a series of advertisements for Apple computers, there are mini conversations between the casually dressed young man, who happens to be creative, versatile and sensitive representing Apple with a bespectacled man in a suit representing “PCs”, whose image is less complimentary. In the first instance, basically a woman is looking for someone reliable and financially strong. In the second instance, the guy in the suit has the handicap. As a generality, being a Professional is age related. Young people aspire to being unique while you have to aim for more respectability as you grow older: your income may depend on your reputation.

In the film The Truman Show, at the time Truman is beginning to realize that his life may be just entertainment, he begins to threaten his actress wife (played by Laura Linney), who bursts into tears in a coded plea for help from the directors “How can anyone expect me to carry on under these conditions? This is...unprofessional.” What does she mean? What are the viewers expected to pick up from this? Evidently that in some sense, she is going beyond the call of her acting job and straining its smooth output.

Charles Tetworth in his book Wielding Power describes the traditional trend in career structure to which we now sometimes append the title “professional”. In the case of a traditional small scale industrial outfit, you began as an Apprentice. If you started off at a cobbler, this is where you would begin to learn to make shoes and you can’t make an income for yourself. Perhaps the modern day equivalent of a student/intern or trainee. The second stage was the Journeyman. The journeyman knows enough to earn from his craft but is not highly regarded. He still lacks experience. The Master is a Journeyman who has ripened in his field. People can trust him in his allotted role. I would like to question of a Professional is always a Master.

All of us will need the services of a professional, be it a lawyer, a doctor or a car mechanic. There are a number of times when you could easily do with less than a professional, especially if you can’t afford it. Many professionals belong to accreditation schemes and may be the member of some body that confers them membership – if they fall below standards, they could get kicked out. If we know that a doctor is a member of “the guild of good physicians” or words to that effect, they may be more reliable. On average we would expect a professional to be someone with integrity, who is honest and sincere but charges a good rate.

It is when it comes to money, status, authority and reputation that the word Professional can begin to jar. Professionals may belong to a bureaucratic structure that has to do things in a certain way, when a more efficient method may plainly exist. Professionalism may deny creativity and spontaneity or even subjectivity. The disadvantages associated with being a professional could amount to:

Being arrogant and unfriendly
Too expensive/overpaid
Has expert knowledge but no kindness/understanding
Has little time for his “customers” or perhaps his family
An overbearing authority figure
Hide bound, dogmatic and fixed
Dress the same, look the same, act the same
Can be badly wrong in their judgement compared to an amateur

By contrast an amateur is someone who may pursue a career without being qualified in it. A nurse may in fact be an amateur doctor. Amateur artists may be just as good as professionals. Being an amateur implies someone who loves the subject without knowing it fully. An amateur has the disadvantages of not being a professional but she may have the following advantages:

Does not charge for the work/works for love
Is experienced but still needs to consult someone else
Can’t afford to be rude – typically kind and sincere
Can afford to look and act spontaneously with creativity
May be unique individuals

In combining the best of both, I would hope that who-ever I come in contact with for a “consultation” has a reasonable ethical framework within which to act – would at least try and be nice to animals, children and older people. I often find that many professional comedians and research scientists have rather low standards of ethics. As long as everyone laughs at their jokes or they have good references with a pile of published articles to boot (respectively), they could be taken seriously, right?

Well, one of the biggest serial killers in history, Dr Harold Shipman from the UK was a respected GP. I happen to know a few scientific people who may actually be psychopaths in disguise, and the more respectable they become, the more grounds for suspicion they can engender. Quite a few Professionals are loathed by their employees while being revered by Society. The bottom line is, academic qualifications simply don’t compare to moral qualifications, and Professions don’t or can’t check up on the moral integrity of their members.

There are those who are both amateurs and professionals – at least fictitious ones we could all recognize. The television pathologist Quincy, played by Jack Klugman; Lt. Columbo played by Peter Falk; a string of fictitious detectives including Inspector Poirot. In this vein, there is the amateur who beats the professional – Mrs Marple; Jessica Fletcher (Murder she wrote – played by Angela Lansbury) …. Typically, many heroic figures have to hide behind a veneer of modest amateurism in order that they can continue to save the world in so many ways, think of Clark Kent, constantly berated by his editor who can’t recognize the hero behind the glasses.

When it comes to real life it is always a compromise. What about nuns or ascetics who live in poverty? Are they professional hermits? We now have terms akin to Master such as guru/expert/pundit/sage and rarely, prophet. As I have so much doubt about all these, I think I’ll stick to being an amateur. Newton was wise enough to state that he stood on the shoulders of giants, and frankly I’m not going to a let my reputation stand in the way of a good job, or at least I hope I don’t.

Since this was written, the term Ampro is used to cover the best of both.

Does the media care enough about the environment?

2008-07-21T15:02:00.000-07:00

Everyone with a modicum of education is aware that the world’s environment is in crisis. Put it simply, the natural world as existed before the advent of industrialized exploitation is shrinking and elements of it are becoming extinct too fast for people to even care. Some scientists believe that we are experiencing a mass extinction event like the one that deposed the dinosaurs sixty five million years ago. Sadly, if this trend continues, we will be the ultimate victims, or at least, the world will simply not deserve to be called Earth.

We would expect our televisions and alternative media channels to be howling with rage and indignation. We would expect them to take our supermarkets and politicians to task for contributing to the destruction of our world. For example, the British supermarket Sainsbury’s sells some 700,000 tonnes of tuna in the UK annually, add that to the tally of Tesco, Asda Wallmart and a handful of others and you can see where and why tuna numbers are plummeting. Does anyone care? Is the media paying any attention? Or take the example of the British Prime minister Gordon Brown at the time of writing saying that if the supermarkets will carry on giving away free plastic bags, he will have to take action: rather like a policeman telling a thief that if he does not stop burgling …. When all the prime minister has to do is to follow the lead of several governments and impose a tax on them.

I look at the typical Sunday newspaper. One glossy magazine for men. Another glossy magazine for women. A sports section. A business section. A travel/holiday section. Perhaps even a gardening section. And there will also be endless features devoted to beauty/fashion/books/films/television/gadgets. An environment section? No. No one is interested in the E word. The E word is bad news. It’s too liberal, makes you feel guilty and no one really understands – right?

Actually the E word is more than the sum of its perceptions. It means new kinds of architecture, - think of a large building which allows trees and plants to grow on its roof; a building that helps compensate for the green space it may have destroyed. It means new kinds of energy: think of an air-conditioning system that is solar powered. It means environmentally friendly food like Alaskan Salmon that has been sustainably harvested. It means super-efficient hybrid cars. It means decentralized energy production based on waste and renewables. It means making money on scrap and commercial recycling. It means encouraging the disappearing house sparrow and countless species of bird, mammal and insect. It means using sewage to power our towns. It can mean lots of things including a celebration of the diversity of life itself.

Instead, the media is obsessed with news connected with some tin pot leader or other; what they said; what some celebrity wore; what they said; comedies, jokes, entertainment and even some deep profound theory about Kandinsky or the world we once had but not anymore. I do not decry these things, but the E word is largely absent. Most editors think that we are not interested. I for one, find most media without the E a total turnoff.

So until the media does begin to pay attention, we just have to tune in more wisely and act as consumers and communicators more wisely. We have to harangue the editors and tell them why we can’t be bothered with their desultory output and create the channels on behalf of creation ourselves. Our politicians will only do something in their self interest, so we have to act ourselves and hopefully, keep the flag flying for biodiversity and the big E.

Why I don't like the British Labour Party so far

2008-06-03T07:20:00.000-07:00

As an unmarried man I have gained very little from the Labour Party since it was elected in 1997. I do not see any reason to vote for them in particular but just let me vent my spleen a little.

The only thing that Labour has done for me is to make it easy for me to give more money to charity without it costing more.

The Labour Party created the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly - they have added to the break up of the United Kingdom and added layers of bureaucracy and additional taxes on Joe Public. I left Edinburgh ...

They increased taxes and raided pensions. Pensions have been marginalised by Labour.

They created the minimum wage, which means that for a person like me unable to find jobs easily, it became even harder. It is my right to earn £1 per hour if I want. The Labour party made this illegal.

They support charities like World Vision through DFID. WV is responsible for a global movement of Christian evangelization destroying native religions and cultures. The DFID denies any wrong doing while carrying on giving away millions of public money.

Labour spout on about the greenhouse effect but have done palpably little to help preserve rainforests or ocean life unlike John Major's government which created the Darwin Initiative.

Under Labour the UK has become a province of the EEC, pawns to a regime that is unaccountable, expensive and damages world fish stocks second only to Japan if not worse.

Labour wrote the Human Rights act into law. Since then terrorists, hijackers and sundry criminals as well as compensation addicts have benefitted to boot.

Labour have destroyed the Post Office or Royal Mail. My local post office is shutting down and life will become that much more complicated.

They have increased my taxes even though I'm a low rate tax payer.

They have cut Science funding and I have found it practically impossible to get grants as a PhD student.

They want to build on greenbelt land and destroy the countryside in the south of Britain.

They have never adequately funded alternative energy and now want us to swallow many more nuclear power plants instead of wind, sun and tidal or better insulation for homes. For the latter their grants and promotions have been wholly inadequate.

They did not make biodiesel cheaper by knocking duty on biofuels. My fuel bill has gone up.

They did not control immigration to Britain. They don't know how many people were to come and opened the floodgates to EEC migrations without any check or balance. They have failed to regulate immigration and divested this country of any sense of identity.

They have introduced silly laws that are all too politically correct.

They have destroyed families by cutting back on the marriage allowance and promoting alternative and single parent families with legislation to boot.

They as politicians have given themselves the biggest pay rises in history.

They have weakened and marginalised the Royal Family - denying a Royal Yacht.

They have not lifted a finger to enhance the Commonwealth.

They took us into Iraq that killed more than a million people over all on the basis of lies.

They have not done anything to enhance public transport and have instead poured billions more into the NHS with GP salaries skyrocketing to levels that GP's don't deserve.

The present Prime Minister has been anything but visionary or inspirational.

All in all, they have presided over destroying whatever that was good such as the post office, introduced dreadful laws, not done enough to help sustain biodiversity and helped destroy Britain .... and now as a government they are fiscally bankrupt and engaged in deficit financing.

Human Rights?

2008-03-18T12:27:00.000-07:00

In 2000 the European Convention on Human Rights was ratified into the state legislature in the UK. Since then, there have been countless tragic-comic mishaps to British justice making it quite difficult for the British government to deal squarely with criminals and terrorists from abroad. Furthermore there is today in Britain, a human rights legal industry that will seek to obtain compensation and damages, particularly from public bodies designed to serve society – if any breach in “human rights” is noted.

A car thief gets onto a roof. He is surrounded by the Gloucestershire police force which he pelts with tiles. While under siege on the roof, he demanded a bucket of KFC and Pepsi as his Human Rights would be abused if he went hungry – and he was handed these by the police. He returned the drink which was beneath his taste. The incident was gold dust to journalists. An Italian born killer of a London school Headmaster could not be deported as the judges ruled it would go against his Human Rights. When the government tried to expel a group of Afghan airline hijackers they were once again thwarted by the Human Rights Act. The hijackers by their act obtained free entry into the UK.

The European Convention of Human Rights was a conceptual framework to protect defendants in the light of Nazi atrocities from 1945. In an age of suicide bombers and terrorists, certain aspects of this convention is falling right into the hands of terrorists when apprehended, who can then claim Human Rights (even though their intentions would have killed hundreds potentially) and escape any meaningful form of punishment. Several politicians are now seeking to repeal the Human Rights Act which is fine on paper but is doing the very opposite of safeguarding the interests of the innocent, which was the motive for its well meant existence.

In ancient Greece from 1000BCE, as stated in Homer’s Odyssey there were guest rights. Foreigners had the right to be entertained by willing householders with food and rest and in return, the guests could return the privilege to their host if the host, his family or countrymen visited their land. This hospitality extended to other nations. Alexander William Kinglake, visiting the Middle East in the 1840s noted that when he visited a house the hosts insisted that it was not their house but belonged to the visitor. Around 600BCE Cyrus the Great granted rights to his citizens to practice their religions freely in an ancient Persian charter of freedoms. “Rights” are linked to the golden rule spelled out in many ancient religions: do unto others as you would wish to have done unto you. Emperor Ashoka around 270 BCE granted rights to his citizens and wildlife with notions of ethical standards for all, based on Buddhist principals. In the ancient traditions, rights implied freedom of religion, freedom from slavery, the rights to property rightfully earned and the rights to travel freely.

The modern concept was formalised in 18^th century Europe during the French Revolution. Tom Paine, drafted the Rights of Man, a tract as a defence of the values and rights of an individual as opposed to those of an unswerving monarchy or a similar dictatorship. That is, the rights of citizens as opposed to the classical Divine Right of Kings and Queens, particularly when they abused their citizens citing words to the effect of “Mon Dieu et mon Droit” (My God and my right). In this vein, Philosopher Locke proposed natural rights. That people possessed rights by virtue of being human. In 1776 some of this famously entered the American declaration of independence “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” On the basis of a series of wars, further rights such as the Geneva Convention became enshrined and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) came to fruition in 1948. This was a non binding legal code, urging nation states to guarantee various freedoms from persecution to their citizens on a rights-duty basis.

I do not wish to argue against our inborn notions of rights and what they represented from the ancient to the modern day – however, I do think that Rights have been emphasised over Duty and most ancient traditions appreciated the concept of Duty as well as Rights and we can’t have one over the other. Let us go back to Cyrus’ charter of rights:

“And until I am the monarch, I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. Until I am alive, I prevent unpaid, forced labor. To day, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion. People are free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights.” – Emphasis mine. Do the modern day declarations of rights take into account “provided that they never violate other’s rights?” – somehow, I don’t think so. In the modern day, the rights of all have somehow become “inalienable”.

We tend to live in societies obsessed with the rights of the individual when humans by their very nature are social animals, with a social contract. We simply cannot live in glorious isolation no matter how saintly we may be. Unlike several reptiles, born with the capacity to look after themselves, humans like kittens need to be nourished on milk from infancy and given an education on how to hunt and prosper in the big bad world.

It is sometimes in the interests of the commercial classes today to emphasize your rights – your rights to spend and borrow money in the pursuit of what you deserve: “because you’re worth it”.

You can ONLY have rights in an extended sense if someone else’s rights and privileges are reduced on that account. You could either have the right to have $100 or share it out for equal rights with $50 each if there were two people. You can’t have the extended right without depriving someone else even in a small way. Today, people in developed countries obtain the fruits of the equivalent of 18 hectares of land (if all people lived like this the Earth could only support 200 million people or we’d need 5 planet Earths). Millions of animals and plants are sacrificed to produce our tasty cheap food at the mounting costs of pollution, cheap labour and future disasters waiting to happen, it’s not necessarily that bad, it’s worse as Green activists like to say. If we were prepared to consume more thoughtfully, the rights of forests and ocean life to exist in a better state would be somewhat granted.

You can’t have rights without duties. Parents look after their children with the hope of keeping something alive. If the children turn back and abuse their parents, then they would have abused their native rights. Whatever “rights” we enjoy are obtained by service and effort towards our employers, friends and relatives. Without these duties we would be jobless or thrown out of any inheritance. As environmentalist Satish Kumar has written “You are, therefore I am, a declaration of dependence”. The world is totally interdependent. Rights thinking frequently ignores this. I repeat that Cyrus the Great declared in his charter “people are free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights”. His charter is covered in most modern legislation not couched in “rights” terminology.

I think that rights is probably just code for values and ethics like being fair. When people say "human rights abuses", they actually mean, actions that are morally reprehensible towards fellow people. Good manners are instilled us from a young age to both help us survive, to be useful to others and finally to be good or Godly depending on your preference. I would particularly like to question Human Rights. If there are rights must we emphasize Human? Wouldn’t it be easier to go back to good old fashioned Natural rights in a traditional context?

The modern day notion of Human Rights applies to standards of behaviour of the state towards actual or perceived troublemakers. When organisations say “human rights abuses” they mean the exercise of punishments on an unfair basis, or simply the practice of cruelty by the state. In an age of terrorism, terrorists don’t exercise any notion of Human Rights but all governments are expected to stick with these, sometimes questionable ideals. When my mother got abused recently her “Human Rights” did not protect her. How many times have you been humiliated or done down where you know your “Human Rights” would not save you? They can’t save you from illness or death. Human rights or none, people suffer from famine or war. Should we not appeal more to ethics than to rights in ensuring the sharing of prosperity and correct justice?

Under these circumstances I prefer to vaunt values and ethics above rights. My cat sitting under my desk knows its duties (crooning a great deal). It does not have any Human Rights. It breathes and eats and sleeps as I do. Instinctively I am aware that my Human Rights are not going to save me from very much. If I enjoy certain freedoms in society, originally they had nothing to do with Human Rights legislation, but from more complicated legal codes and obligations; a social contract. Human Rights may save terrorists but they won’t protect me from being a victim of terrorism. I think we seriously need to question Human Rights and the Human Rights industry. I cannot see why humans should always take precedence over animals. I certainly don’t believe that all men were created equal except in a vague notional way. To cut a long story short, except on some silly bit of paper somewhere I don’t really have any Human Rights at all. Just a bit of intelligence and comfort contingent on paying my taxes and keeping up associations as far as my sense of duties and energies allow. I endeavour to maintain and cultivate values and ethics and it is these, not rights that raise people above the level of animals, though many people end up behaving far worse.

Earthquake

2008-02-29T06:33:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday morning it was Tuesday night in the USA. I was waiting to listen to the Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama debate at my PC. Around 1AM, in Harrow, in the bedroom, I heard what sounded like a train, a distant rumble and then I felt the shaking beneath. As I live not too far from a station, at first I thought it must be a big train, but when the ground shuddered I knew it was an earthquake. It moved from one corner of my flat facing south east towards the south west. The ground shivered, and metallic objects like heaters rattled. It only lasted about 7 seconds but was quite monumental. The second earthquake I can definitely note from the UK and my whole life.

The next day, they revealed it had been about 7 on the Richter scale and has caused a bit of damage close to its origin in the north east of England. If you can imagine stamping you foot on the ground and creating such a thump that many in the UK could feel it, you can understand the magnitude of the energy released in this event. Any bigger and my walls could have cracked.

It ran like a ripple, making solid ground, trees, concrete and houses everywhere shake in one go - this is an unimaginable amount of force and connects us to the vast forces beyond our control that we mostly have the hubris to ignore.

Not many that I know were awake at that time and most people slept right through it, but the bed of a friend of mine shook as recalled by his wife. One person in east London awake at that time did not feel a thing though the call centre at LBC were inundated shortly after - he said.

At least in the South East of the UK earthquakes are rare and I shan't worry about it for insurance purposes just yet.

An introductory piece

2008-02-25T09:04:00.000-08:00

Thank you for visiting this page. It is a sunny February in Harrow. The cat is snoring on the bed, stuffed with fish chow and my mind is preoccupied with a Japanese comment for a You Tube video of mine on overfishing that we should kill whales because they are eating up all the fish. Love may or may not change everything (courtesy of Climie Fisher) but the internet certainly does.

I regard myself as "an internationalist" a traveller through time and the cosmos. Pretty soon I'll be dead and who knows may be continuing on another voyage or at least part of me will. Everything is inter-connected. Divorce cannot be an easy option unless you are awake. While alive, I listen to NPR radio or Cspan or radio 4 or the BBC World Service, whatever the flavour of the month. I can also listen to a radio station from Sri Lanka where I grew up. Three of these stations would have been impossible to connect to without the internet. The internet has broadened my world. I suppose I am lucky and you are too, to have access to this endless entertainment and newsfeeds from all corners of the known universe.

Of course, I still try and investigate those frontiers beyond Google, beyond the internet. Trying to find a last, sacred place where I could really feel that I'm safe but cyberspace is also so inviting.

Before I die, I would like to give back something to those from whom I've taken so much - to paraphrase from the film Contact with Jodie Foster. Notably, the Earth, the air, the water, soil and biodiversity, friends and relatives, teachings and systems of learning from men of old. Last but not least, I take from the present moment.

To me the prime concern is the environment and relationships. Our relationships with our fellow creatures. Questioning our systems of civilization not so much to improve them, but just to keep some of them going a bit longer. All systems seem to exist to perpetuate themselves - so I supplicate upon the altar of Google and in return for bits and bobs, for the moment make myself a little more available.

Civilization - the art of living with lots of people with the minimum of discomfort as Nanamoli wrote. So here's to maintaining the comfort zone and seeing just how much of it we can do without.