an additional and entirely unrelated post - about hiccups

On a completely different topic to the earlier post today - Hiccups!
I had hiccups earlier, which I always find rather annoying. I seem to get them several times in one day and then nothing for weeks. Anyway, earlier on, when walking through the city centre I started hiccuping. This would not have been too bad, maybe just a little painful in the abdominal area, except that I can never seem to help making a silly and embarrassing noise whenever I hiccup. So I found myself walking through town making strange outbursts of noise every 3 or 4 seconds. Due to my embarrassment this meant that I kept laughing nervously to myself, which I imagine gave the impression that I was somewhat unhinged. Although when I eventually caught a bus up to the hospital (no, don't worry I didn't go to the hospital about my hiccups, I was meeting someone) I did get a seat all to myself, despite it being very busy. I guess nobody wanted to sit next to the lady with the mental hair who was sat alone randomly shouting "UMPH" or "HARRIP" every 3 seconds and then giggling.
Anyway, all this reminded me of when I was much younger when I used to go to my Grandparents house after school. I arrived one day hiccuping away in the usual uncontrollable manner, and by the time my Granddad arrived home over an hour later I was still hiccuping away. So Granddad shared with me his secret method for curing hiccups - apparently all you have to do is ask someone to pull your ears straight out from the side of your head quite hard whilst you down a glass of cold water in one go. Determined to get rid of the hiccups I asked Grandma to pull my ears, downed a glass of water and lo and behold the hiccups were cured.
So from then on, that was my fail safe hiccup cure - every time I got hiccups I would ask someone to pull my ears whilst I had a drink.
However in a work meeting earlier this year, I discovered that in certain situations - like important work meetings with your seniors - even if you are hiccuping away, it is not advisable to ask your line manager to pull your ears for you.
When I later told my Granddad about this even he cracked up laughing and told me that he had been winding me up when he suggested it all those years ago. I still find that it does work, although I have no idea how.
Anyway, I made the rational decision on the bus today that I already looked and sounded mad enough without going up to a random stranger and asking them to pull my ears for me. And by the time I reached the hospital my hiccups had gone away all by themselves.

ink on paper

I have been reading in the news the past couple of days about a book which is soon due to be published in the UK and US called "the jewel of medina", which is apparently about the child bride of the islamic prophet mohammed.
To cut a long story very short it seems that when US publishers random house sent the manuscript to a university lecturer of middle eastern studies to try and get a positive quote for the cover, she decided she did not like it and contacted several muslim groups to inform them that the book mocked them and their religion and took the p*ss out of mohammed, and that the book was actually soft core pornography. (despite the author claiming there are no sex scenes in the book)
As a result, random house decided not to publish the book.
However a British publisher has decided to go ahead and publish the book and as a result his home was firebombed at the weekend. There have also been further threats made against the publisher if he goes ahead with the publication. Some islamic extremists have even been quoted in the papers saying that this kind of behaviour (i.e. writing and publishing a book about mohammed) deserve the death penalty.

All this has left me wondering how on earth we have ended up at this point in our society? Surely a novel is just telling a story, a way to express oneself, a piece of artwork, or a way to pass the time. If an author wished to write a book that was very negative about islam or mohammed then they should have every right to do so. No one is forcing anyone else to read it. I also find it disturbing that these islamic extremists are seemingly allowed to make this kind of threats, basically threatening murder, with no kind of action being taken against them. I am also wondering how all these muslims can be so certain that the book does "dishonour" islam since it has yet to be published - have they all read advanced copies of the proofs? Or are they going on the say-so of one american woman who did not like the book?

I think people should be able to write pretty much what they want. Nobody forces people to read anything, it has to be said that it does take a certain amount of effort to obtain and read a book - it is not like you could "accidentally" read a several hundred page novel.
And if it is a question of muslims (or, to clarify, radical and extremist muslims from what I gather) not liking the fact that something is being published which may offend them then suddenly you will arrive at a point where no literature is allowed - virtually everything that is written has the capacity to offend someone but that does not mean it should be banned. I personally find much of the koran to be rather offensive such as in its attitude to women, but it is just a book - admittedly one that has a worrying level of influence over many, but a book nonetheless. And just so you do not think that I am discriminating against one group only I feel the same way about the bible - a book chock-a-block full of rape and murder. (I will say that I have also read several non-fiction books which have been offensive in their views one way or another. I could even borrow "mein kampf" from my local library if I so desired, a book which would surely be considered offensive to jewish people? Yet my library stocks a recent reprint of this book and as far as I know, none of the librarians have been threatened over this.) I will bet there many people find the views expressed in some of the popular British newspaper offensive, but that does not mean they should be shut down, banned or firebombed.
I am worried that the publication if this book will lead to a situation like that following the "mohammed cartoon" incident a while back. I also doubt that many of those getting all angry and violent will even read the book.
I think that the reaction of these extremists has probably done a great deal to increase knowledge of this books existence. I had not heard of it before all the recent media interest, but I shall certainly try and get a copy now, to see what all the fuss is about.
I just hope that no one gets hurt as a result of a book, but considering that many of the conflicts in the world are between different religious groups I guess that is asking too much.

"your woman"

I am still furious - seething - about an incident earlier this afternoon, so I thought I would share it with you.
On the way home from the studio earlier I decided to pop into the supermarket for a couple of bits and pieces (bagels, yoghurt, potatoes and tinned pineapple if you were interested). Now, as regular readers will know me + supermarkets is not always a good idea, as I find that they are a hotbed of all the things I hate about society - such as the fat people complaining about their weight and adding a weight watchers ready meal to their trolley full of fizzy drinks, biscuits and cake, but I am still angry about what happened today, and justifiably so in my opinion.
When I went to the checkout with my boyfriend the woman at the till informed us that she was closing and so we went and queued at the adjacent checkout. A few moments later another couple went to the same till, heard the same, and joined the queue behind us. All fine and dandy. A few minutes later however another man went to the checkout that was closing and started to unload his basket. As expected the woman at the till told him she was closing. Rather than queue elsewhere though the man just said "well, I only have 3 things so it'll be OK".
This annoyed me and I mentioned something to my boyfriend. We were all startled a minute later when the man started shouting at my boyfriend, who had not even looked at the man. As the man repeatedly said, in an aggressive tone "whats her problem, eh, whats wrong, eh?" my boyfriend, who is a quiet, non-confrontational type just stated, calmly and reasonably that it was a little unfair as everyone else had moved elsewhere, and the woman on the till was about to end her shift. For some unknown reason this seemed to enrage the man, who started mouthing off big time at me, my boyfriend and the woman at the till. My boyfriend and I turned away, but he started having a go at my boyfriend again, until he turned round and said that this was all rather silly. The next thing we know, the man storms off, shouting over his shoulder as he did so "why don't you learn to control your woman".
Well, that is like a red rag to a bull for me, I was furious. Firstly what the eff? Control your woman? What am I, some automaton? Secondly, why was he having a go at my boyfriend anyway, when he had not even done anything?
Well, furious Mediterranean tempered me called after him as he went away "you know, women in this country are equal to men, and I can speak for myself". I was so angry I felt like steam was coming out of my ears.
Fortunately everyone was in agreement that the man was out of order and that his comments and attitude were offensive. I do not know why the man kicked off so much in the first place, I never even said anything to him, or in his earshot, so I can only assume that he knew he was in the wrong which was why he turned so aggressive. But why not say something to me if he had a problem with me? And why does he think we are still living in the dark ages?
Needless to say I am still angry, what a stupid thing to have said, "control your woman"! I mean, if he was going to go down the whole ridiculous gender stereotype route, why was he doing the shopping anyway?
I am sure I will laugh about it later, although I will no doubt continue to despair over the misogynistic attitude still prevalent in so many even in this day and age.

let's abandon science!

It has been in the news today that despite growing evidence that the drug ecstasy is not particularly dangerous the government do not wish to downgrade it to a category B drug.
Yet again we see the government ignoring scientific fact and expert opinion and then wondering why hardly anyone trusts or respects their decisions.
It is estimated that about 1 in 3 adults in this country has taken an illegal drug at some point, and yet due to the ridiculous legal stance on drugs if these people were caught on the perhaps one time that they took something their life would be effectively ruined. Make no mistake, it is not the drug that would ruin peoples lives, it is the legal status that makes them so dangerous. For example many teenagers and young adults have tried cannabis at some point. Most probably did it one or two times and never bothered with it again. Others may have decided they enjoyed it and taken it more regularly. The vast majority will have suffered no side effects, a few may have felt sick or dizzy. There was nothing about the occasion that would lead to them becoming criminals, taking more drugs, dropping out of their education or becoming unemployable. Nothing, that is, except the law. If, on the occasion they tried it they had been caught by the police chances are they would be arrested, which would lead to a criminal record, and probably mean they would lose their college place or job. Once unemployed and unemployable they are far more likely to turn to crime in order to support themselves, or become depressed and become dependent on drugs or alcohol. An older person who was caught with a substance such as cannabis may lose literally everything - their home, their job, their spouse and their children. It is not the drug that does this, it is the law.
With regards to cannabis use, there is a tenuous link that suggests that in an extremely small number of cases (less than 500 in the UK), taking the drug may exacerbate mental illness, or trigger a mental health problem in susceptible individuals. This has not been firmly proven, and it is worth considering that the British Crime Survey suggests that up to third of British adults has tried cannabis. This would mean that over 10million people have taken it at some time or another. If these 500 cases of mental health problems were genuinely caused by cannabis then this is a tiny minority. To put it into perspective,

Alcohol was the main or secondary cause of 207,800 NHS admissions in 2006/7

(source BBC)
The amount of illnesses, deaths and injuries caused by alcohol is shocking, but as this is a socially acceptable drug nobody really seems to care. Even government controlled information fails to explain the real dangers of alcohol, such as cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, brain and organ failure and poisoning. Government propaganda machine "frank", who ran a high profile and extremely misleading campaign against cannabis a couple of years ago even tells teenagers that

Just enough [alcohol] can make you feel great

(source: talk to frank), despite the fact that

Alcohol Deaths
Rates in the UK continue to rise
The number of alcohol-related deaths more than doubled from 4,144 in 1991 to 8,758 in 2006.

(source: national statistics)

It is also interesting to note that many MP's have admitted to trying cannabis when they were younger. What they fail to realise is that if they had been caught on that one occasion they would never have been allowed to become a member of parliament.
It has been said in today's news articles that around 250000 Brits take ecstasy each month. It has also been said that Ecstasy has caused around 200 deaths in the last decade. To put that into perspective, in 2007 there were 242 deaths caused by paracetamol, the lowest number since records began (source: national statistics) The Home Office has stated that "there is no safe dose" of ecstasy, hence its stance that this should remain a class A drug. I would like to point out that the reason there is no safe, standardised dose is because of the illegality of the drug, and the fact that this forces its production and distribution into the hands of criminals. If the government wanted to protect the public from unnecessary harm they ought to legalise and control the sale of currently illegal drugs, so that people knew what they were taking. They would also be able to claim tax on the hundreds of thousands of transactions that must be taking place every day if the statistics on levels of consumption are to be believed.
I believe that all drugs should be legalised, in order that people could access a clean and safe supply. There is no reason why even a heroin addict cannot function normally in society if the social stigma of the drug, it criminal connections and its legal status were changed. After all, heroin is basically morphine, a drug which is given to many when in hospital, including newborn babies, women in labour, the elderly and the infirm. Morphine itself is not that dangerous. Street heroin however is very dangerous - it is controlled by criminals, the dosage is uncertain, it is mixed with extremely dangerous substances (such as bleach, brick dust) which can cause extreme damage to the veins along with other side effects, users are often forced to inject with dirty needles which leads to HIV, AIDS, hepatitis and most overdoses are caused by differences in strength and purity. Of course the legal status of the drug means that anyone caught in possession will face years in prison and be unlikely to work again upon their release. The attitude of the legal system towards drugs and drug users is the real danger to our society.
The website Flat Earth News has more information on the propaganda surrounding heroin than I could possibly write here, and I urge you to take a look at the article (linked above).
I truly believe that each individual adult of sound mind should have the right to do as they please with their own body so long as they are not harming others - if that means taking drugs, eating too much food, violent but consensual sex, body modification ranging from ear piercing to breast implants via tattoos and scarification then let them do it, so long as they do not harm others. Most drug use would not harm others of it were not illegal. If drug users could legally purchase a clean, safe and regulated supply of their chosen drug, whilst remaining in gainful employment then why is it a problem? By keeping drugs illegal the government is simply handing over the control and supply of these substances to the gangs and criminals, forcing people into crime and lying to the nation as a whole. It does not make any sense to do this, financially or otherwise. The government should stop listening to their own propaganda, start listening to to the facts and science and do something sensible for once.

Catholics and Cancer

You may have seen in the news over the last couple of days that a Catholic school has decided not to allow its female pupils to be given a vaccine which will protect them from getting cervical cancer later in life. It cites its reasons for the refusal as the possible side effects of the vaccine, which may, in some cases, include faintness or dizziness. Er, hello? This is a vaccine which will prevent these girls from getting cancer! Given a choice between cancer and some slight, temporary dizziness I know which is the sensible choice.
Some religious leaders have objected against the vaccine as they believe that as 70% of cervical cancer cases are believed to be caused by the HPV virus, which can be transmitted through sex, that to vaccinate teenage girls will lead to sexual promiscuity. Well, firstly this is a ridiculous argument, and secondly, even if it did lead to more girls having sex before the age of 16 (although it is not the age, but the marital status which concerns the ignorant religious fundies who believe the promiscuity argument) then at least they would be doing so without the risk of dying of cancer.
I don't think I will ever be able to get my head around the stupid and backwards approach that most religious people have about sex, but when you are willing to risk lives it just makes me want to scream.
However I don't really know why I am surprised at this catholic schools response - after all the pope could effectively halt the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa by uttering 3 words, that I doubt we will ever hear him say: "wear a condom".
Sorry I cannot post more today, my battery has nearly run out and I cannot find the charger, but for related pondering please see my earlier post "girl+boy=xxx"

an absolute disgrace

I thought I would just write an update to an earlier post where I talked about the muslim man who had encouraged children to flog themselves with knife blades. Unfortunately this man has escaped prison. Full article below:

Devout Muslim avoids jail over child flogging

A devout Muslim who was found guilty of child cruelty for encouraging two boys to beat themselves in a religious ceremony has walked free from court.

By Chris Irvine
Last Updated: 8:22PM BST 24 Sep 2008

Syed Mustafa Zaidi, originally from Pakistan, was spared jail and was instead given a 26-week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months.

The boys, aged 13 and 15, were forced to flog themselves with a zanjeer zani, an implement containing five curved blades, during the Ashura ceremony to commemorate the death of a Shia Muslim spiritual leader.

The 44-year-old was also prohibited from allowing or encouraging anyone under the age of 16 to beat themselves during the next 12 months.

During the ceremony in January, the boys both received multiple lacerations to their backs, with several deep cuts, something Zaidi claimed was "normal practise".

Zaidi, from Salford, also flogged himself during the ceremony at a community centre in Levenshulme, Manchester.

The boys admitted they wanted to beat themselves, but not under duress and not using Zaidi's zanjeer zani. They also admitted they had flogged themselves with a smaller zanjeer zani from the age of six in Pakistan.

They had required hospital treatment for multiple cuts. Police were called two days later and Zaidi was arrested.

Zaidi said: "You cannot call this an injury. This is talking about a religion and it is a miracle in some people's eyes."

He admitted he had ignored an announcement made to the congregation urging children under 16 not to use the zanzeer, but insisted it was an "emotional time" and the boys wanted to flog themselves.

Judge Robert Atherton, at Manchester Crown Court, told him: "It should be clearly understood by everyone that the jury's verdict was not a comment upon that ceremony and no-one should misinterpret it as being such."

He added: "You must realise that the law recognises that children and young persons may wish to take part in some activities which it considers they should not."

(Source telegraph.co.uk)

stating the obvious

I have just been looking through some property web sites, not because I am thinking of moving, just because I am rather nosy and I like to look at pictures of other peoples homes and I like to see how much they are on the market for (yes I am a nerd, sorry about that) and I have found myself feeling an almost irrational level of irritation at the frequently employed term of "architect designed house". I mean, who else is going to have designed the house? I would have hoped that all houses were designed or approved by an architect at some point prior to their construction. OK, maybe some houses have been designed by not very skilled architects, or are bad designs by normally good architects, but they are still architects, no? So what are you trying to prove by mentioning that your house is "architect designed"?
I have yet to see a property listing that describes a house as "chef designed", or "teacher designed" or "travelling salesman designed". If a property has been designed by a very highly regarded architect, then why not mention them by name so I can Google them and find out what kind of other designs they have produced. Otherwise, to list the fact that an architect drew up plans for your house, which is what architects do, is simply redundant.
I realise that I am rather more annoyed by this than is logical, but really. It is like buying a new hardback book with "author written" on the front, or a painting with "artist created" in the blurb - pointless and unnecessary.

How Do I Look?

Following on from yesterdays rant, sorry, blog post I have come to the conclusion that many obese people are suffering from some kind of reverse body dysmorphic disorder.
Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) is an illness where sufferers become fixated on some aspect of their appearance, believing that they are ugly, or that some part of the body is wrong in some way such as believing the features are not symmetrical, or that some part of them is out of proportion. The condition can become serious and can have a detrimental affect on the individuals life.
I think that I may have discovered a little known condition, which is literally the reverse of BDD. I will call this condition Reverse Body Dysmorphic Disorder (Reverse BDD).

Reverse BDD is characterised by the following symptoms:
Thinking that an extremely unattractive body is actually very attractive and highly desirable.
Displaying the unattractive body as much as possible, even when it is inappropriate to do so.
Frequently commenting on how good they look.
Drawing attention to areas of the body which are disproportionate or misshapen.
Criticising people whose body does not match up with the Reverse BDD sufferers ideal.
Buying clothing is sizes that are too small or are otherwise unsuitable.
Spending long periods of time in front of a mirror admiring their body.
Frequently trying to catch sight of their body in other reflective surfaces.
Feeling an irrational level of self confidence in the area of personal appearance.

Some examples of Reverse BDD behaviours are as follows:
Wearing extremely tight or revealing clothing to display disproportionate areas of the body.
Wearing tight or revealing clothing, or clothing that is too small, even when going to work.
Drawing attention to themselves and their body frequently, for example an overweight person insisting that they are "big and beautiful", and that their frame is more "natural" or "real".
Criticising those with a figure that would commonly be recognised as attractive.

This condition is the only reason I can come up with to explain why so many overweight and obese people insist on wandering around wearing hot pants, miniskirts, leggings, skintight jeans and tight low cut tops.
If they are not suffering from Reverse BDD then there is no way they would stand in front of their mirror every morning, pull on some much too tight and skimpy piece of clothing and think they looked good enough to leave the house. Unless they do not have a mirror. Or eyes. Or any honest friends.

I would just like to say that it is not my intention at all to make light of BDD, which is a genuine illness. For more information on Body Dysmorphic Disorder please visit The BDD Foundation.

weight a minute

OK, deep breaths before I launch into this one, because this is a topic that makes me very angry. I was going to post on separate days about the separate issues around the subject of weight, but then I thought, why not just create one mega rant blog post? So, here it is...
Firstly, regardless of what anybody may have told you, big is certainly not beautiful. Whoever told you that was lying. Nobody has big bones, unless they are suffering from some rare kind of skeletal giganticism. And chances are, it is not your glands causing your massive weight gain. It is eating too much that makes you fat.
Now, to start off I will say that there are a few people - and I mean a very small minority - who suffer from a health problem that causes weight gain, conditions such as under active thyroid, or people who are taking steroid based medications to control serious medical conditions. One of the things that really winds me up is that gluttonous types, who seem unable to stop scoffing and then claim it is their "glands", are actually being incredibly disrespectful of those who have a genuine medical condition, and this ultimately leads to people making the wrong assumptions about those who are actually ill. I will also say that regardless of the rubbish I hear people spouting about their obesity being caused by poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), it does not give you an excuse to be fat. It may be that overweight women are more likely to develop PCOS, but having the condition does not make you fat, nor is it an excuse to pig out. I was diagnosed with PCOS several years ago. For what it is worth, I have a BMI of about 20. If celebrity gossip magazines are to be believed Posh Spice (Victoria Beckham) has PCOS. She is not fat. I have other friends with the condition, and they too are slim. It may be that the condition increases your likelihood of gaining weight, but if that is the case then you should be even more aware of what you eat. On the topic of "big bones", I asked a close friend of mine, who works in medical imaging whether obese people have larger skeletons than slim people - the answer was an absolute "no" (although there is a chance that carrying that much excess weight will lead to the bones becoming slightly denser in order to support that body). Another commonly spouted myth is that you can be big and healthy. I am sorry to burst your bubble here, but this is not the case. Imagine picking up a 10kg bag of rice, and carrying it with you everywhere. How would you feel after a day of lugging that around with you? When you go to bed, lay that 10kg bag across yourself, how easy is it to breathe? Imagine hauling that around with you constantly - your body will be more tired, your joints will ache, you are putting extra pressure on your heart, your lungs, basically over your whole body - and that is just 10kg extra. You are certainly not doing yourself any favours. A few years ago I was rather ill, and at the time I could not do very much and spent a lot of time either in hospital or at home resting. I did not adjust the amount of food I was eating and as a result I went up to 65kg and a UK size 14. Realising that I was not helping myself I reduced my calorie intake, and by some amazing coincidence I lost the excess weight, and quickly. It only really hit me how much strain I had been putting on my body when I went on holiday a couple of years ago, when I was back to my usual 54kg weight, and took a backpack that weighed, conveniently, 11kg. On arriving at my destination and walking around all day carrying my bag, it hit me just how much strain I had put on my body when I was heavier.
As a thin person, it constantly angers me that people feel that they are entitled to comment on my appearance, things like "you look like you need a good meal", "don't step on that grate - you might fall through", "don't hug her too hard, she may snap" or "it is windy today, be careful you don't blow away". As the average weight of the population increases, so do these irritating and offensive comments. Anybody that knows me will tell you that I love my food but the thing is, I know when to stop eating, and I know what things I should eat. By all means have chips if you want them, but have thick cut chips, and grill them rather than frying them. Oh, and don't eat them every single day. I do love good food though, so for people to comment on my weight, or to insinuate that I have some kind of eating disorder is really rather offensive - plus, to make those comments to someone who is genuinely suffering from anorexia or bulimia is really not very likely to aid their recovery. I have a very close friend who is naturally very slim, and the comments and abuse that he receives are nothing short of bullying. Yet if a slim person were to stand at the bus stop making comments about fat people there would be uproar.
Magazines are often criticised for featuring slim models and celebrities and not featuring more "normal" (read overweight) women. Well, I don't want to buy a magazine full of fat people, and if I were a clothing designer I would want to display my clothes on skinny people for the simple fact that the clothes look better displayed in this way. Not only that, but the same magazines are often featuring articles on how bad skinny women supposedly look (which is really nice considering that most of the time it is natural) and have articles on subjects such as "men prefer curvy women", "big is beautiful" and "skinny backlash" to name a recent few. Humans are not meant to be fat, we are designed to be slim. If we were still needing to hunt for our food, rather than toddling off to the supermarket, then fat people really would not survive for very long at all. And the claim that magazines featuring slim celebrities leads to young girls becoming anorexic merely displays the ignorance of those making the comments, and undermines the emotional trauma that is often a precursor to developing an eating disorder. If we look at the facts, about a third of the population is now overweight or obese, and it is thought that in a few years time this could be well over half the population. In the same time that there has been a proliferation of women's magazines launched, that generally feature slim models and celebs we have seen a marked increase in the amount of people who are overweight. Therefore, the logical assumption is that featuring slim women in magazines is more likely to lead to obesity than it is to anorexia.
The increase in weight of the average Brit is also likely to be a huge drain on the NHS in coming years as we see a huge rise in the number of heart attacks, bowel cancers, circulatory and respiratory disorders and diabetes, and is likely to be far more detrimental to society than the relatively few cases of eating disorders.
So many children nowadays are overweight and I find this tragic. I am fairly liberal in my views, and to some extent I feel that if an adult wishes to overeat to the extent that they become obese then it is their own problem (that is if we ignore the financial implications for the country in the future). If they do chose to do this, then a large (excuse the pun) part of me thinks we should let them. But to inflict this upon a child? That is child abuse. No child should be overweight, they should be burning so much energy as they play and grow and learn that they really should not be putting on weight. As for what many parents are feeding their kids, it is just appalling. I live quite near a primary school and the amount of overweight children I see waddling up the road every morning is just heartbreaking. It has become a common thing to hear that "children do not like vegetables". Firstly, this is just plain stupid, of course certain people will dislike certain flavours, but there is so much variation that to write off an entire (and essential) food group is ludicrous. Secondly, we are talking about children, who need the nutrients contained in fruit and veg to grow properly. If you give them a plate of vegetables, and they refuse to eat it, just do not give them an alternative. By the time they have refused two meals they are unlikely to refuse a third, whatever it contains. By giving in and presenting the child with an alternative of rubbish, the child is merely showing that despite their lack of nutritional knowledge they are smarter than their parents. The parents who prepare themselves a healthy balanced meal, and give their kids junk food are the worst of the lot. They are your child, you are supposed to be raising them to be well socialised, healthy and strong individuals - do you hate them so much that you wish to inhibit their development? Or are you so lazy that you would rather fry a portion of chips than cook a decent meal?
I often hear people say that they're are too tired to cook a proper meal at the end of a day. Well, why does a decent meal have to require that much effort? Microwave some rice, put it in a bowl with some salad leaves and a couple of tomatoes, maybe add some shop prepared cooked fish and in 5 minutes you have a healthy, filling meal. Or chuck an onion, some garlic paste and a can of tomatoes in a pan with some boiling water, add a stock cube and 20 minutes later you have fresh soup. Do the same without the water, pour over pasta, and yet another quick and healthy meal is ready. I cannot see how that is more difficult than the ready meals and fried rubbish that people eat instead. Maybe if these people ate decent food they would be less tired at the end of a day and would have more energy to create interesting and healthy meals.
Another commonly spouted idea is the one that "men like bigger women". A quick poll of my male friends indicates that this is not the case. Whilst there will inevitably be some men out there who do prefer obese women (known as "feeders" and "chubby chasers" I believe), they will probably be a minority. After all, regardless of all that higher brain function (which so many people seem to be lacking anyway), when we chose a mate the main reason biologically is to find partner who will help us produce the healthiest offspring. That person is unlikely to be hugely overweight as they will not provide the healthiest children. Obviously we humans do subvert the biological impulses to some extent, but the fact remains that the majority of people do not necessarily set out to find an overweight partner.
Overweight people will sometimes complain that they are discriminated against int he workplace because they are fat. Ignoring political correctness as I often do, I will say that if I was the manager of a small business then I would be less inclined to appoint an obese candidate. because even if they claim to be healthy they are statistically more likely to become ill, thus needing more time off work, than a healthy, slim person. On the subject of discrimination though, as I said before, it seems to be acceptable to comment on the frame of a slim person, but not of a fat person. Not only that, but if I go into any high street clothes shop the size 8 clothes cost the same as the size 18 clothes, despite requiring only half the material. That is unfair, surely? (Although it is admittedly not a particularly important issue in the grand scheme of things.)
It is depressing that it has become normal in our culture for people to be overweight, as it is not doing anyone any favours. Those people that have medical conditions are left to deal with the assumptions made about them, slim people are criticised for being the way they are, even being held up as examples of ugliness or illness, and children grow up too unfit to run around and play properly.
A common criticism made by fat people is that I, as a slim person, do not have a right to comment of obesity. I would argue that as I live in the same country and culture, and so am exposed to the same products and temptations as they are, but I am not fat means that I am actually in the very best position to comment on this problem.
I would not even mind so much if people just said "yes, I am greedy, and I regularly overeat, and I know that I am not in peak health but this is my body to abuse" rather than coming up with a glut of pathetic, guilt inspired excuses.
The pharmaceutical companies keep coming up with miracle weight loss pills because they know it is big business, and alternative therapies abound with supposed weight loss aids. The NHS is performing more and more operations that restrict the amount a patient can eat, at the taxpayers expense, and the country is full of excuses for why they eat as much as they do. The only true way to maintain a healthy figure is to ingest the same amount of calories as you use. If you want to lose weight, you need to burn more than you eat. To gain weight, simply eat more than you burn. The only diet plan that is actually going to work and provide lasting results is to eat less and do more. It doesn't mean starving yourself, it doesn't mean knocking yourself out in a gym, it just means cutting back on the calories and doing a bit more exercise.
So please, lets stop hearing the rubbish about obesity and lets be honest. Chances are that you are fat because you eat too much and you are lazy. Stop complaining, get up and do something.

green cross code

If you were going to choose an animal to represent road safety, what animal would you choose? I am unsure which would be the best, but I can tell you now that I would not use the hedgehog, the animal most likely to be seen splattered across a dual carriageway. Never mind though, because that is the one the government uses.
The other day, when in my local library, I spotted a poster for the green cross code (in the adult crime section of all places - surely the children's section would have been a more obvious choice?), with said hedgehogs, and I was surprised to see that the safety message has changed over the years. When I was a child, we were taught "stop, think, look, listen". Nowadays it seems that it is too much to expect children to think, as the new motto is "stop, look, listen, live". Not only are today's children incapable of thinking, they also need the consequences of their actions pointing out to them. This really does not bode too well for the future.
Mind you, I do not hold out much hope for the whole safe crossing of roads for some of the people in my city, every day I see bizarre, reckless, lazy and stupid behaviour when I am out and about. I will share with you some of my favourite examples (and lets not comment on the psyche of a person who has favourite examples of road crossing errors)
1) Crossing a busy road a few metres away from a safe crossing point.
I live fairly near a busy hospital, on a main road in the inner city. At the end of the hospital road is an area where five different roads converge, and in places the road is four lanes wide. It is also a major bus route through the city. In order to get from the hospital to the bus stop there are a series of pelican crossings to negotiate. This may, at peak times when the roads are busiest, take 5 minutes to do safely. To me, it is worth spending 5 minutes to ensure that I live, and can safely cross the road uninjured. However it would seem that the majority of people cannot be bothered to spend a little time and energy to walk to the crossings and reach the bus stop safely. They would rather run headlong into 4 lanes of traffic and hope for the best. The other day I saw a woman stranded in the middle of the road as she had completely mistimed her mad dash. It was like watching a real life human version of the game "frogger". Why not just use the crossings?
2) People who wait on the pavement, but push their pushchair, complete with baby, into busy traffic.
I mean, why? Why would you do that? I see this so often, and every time I see it my heart skips a beat. If you do not care for your own safety then fine, but shoving your child out into the oncoming traffic - do the parents have no concept of what they are doing, or do they just not care?
3) Crossing the road in front of oncoming emergency services vehicles.
It takes a special kind of person to do this. One who is so important that they need to cross the road more urgently than that fire engine/ambulance needs to reach its destination. A speeding ambulance, on its way to the hospital with a seriously ill patient? Pah, that is nothing to the lady who needs to buy bread and milk from the corner shop. Either that or these people are so strong that they do not need to worry about the speeding fire engine bearing down on them, sirens and horn blaring, as it rapidly approaches on wet tarmac...
4) Running out in front of buses.
So you have worked all day, you are tired and want to get home to put your feet up, it must be too much effort to wait for the bus to pull away from the stop. So why not get off the bus and then dart into the road, oblivious to whatever vehicles may be overtaking? This is most effective on a winter night, when you are clad all in your black office clothes. Because really, after a day at work, its taking the p*ss to expect you to walk 5 metres to the zebra crossing.
5) Parents who cross a road with their children trailing behind them.
I am coming to the conclusion that many parents hate their kids. Why else would you ensure that you crossed the road safely, but leave your little one stranded on the far side of the road, or on the island in the middle?
I am sure there are many other examples, but I think you get the idea.
On the subject of road safety though, a recent trip to the supermarket, when about 5 different people drove their trolleys straight into me or the shelves did make me feel quite concerned - after all, the majority of these idiots probably drove their car to the supermarket. I certainly find this rather worrying. It is quite disturbing, when you consider the level of intelligence (or lack of) of some of people, that they are allowed to be in control of a vehicle, when they can barely control themselves.

Rama-don't

So we are part way through the muslim month of ramadan, possibly the most foolish month of the year.
For those that do not know, during the month of ramadan, muslims abstain from eating, drinking, smoking, swearing and sexual activity during daylight hours. Er..right. Apparently they do this in order to increase their chances of getting into heaven, and to remind them of all the people who are forced to go without, such as those in developing countries.
Now, to be fair, if an adult wishes to deprive themselves of food and water for 15 hours a day, then I say let them - just as long as this does not impact on other people. The problem is that it does affect other people. Before you think I am just being incredibly intolerant, please let me explain my views.
A good example of how this can be dangerous to others is a situation I found myself in 2 years ago.
I had been taken into hospital with a cyst on my leg, which had appeared suddenly and become swollen and infected. I went to the local walk in centre, and was immediately told to lie down, not move and wait for a surgeon to come and see me. I had been expecting some cream or maybe some antibiotics, but apparently it was more serious than that - if the cyst burst on the inside I could be left with blood poisoning - not good. So as I was wheeled into the emergency admissions ward of the local hospital I was feeling pretty nervous. A nurse came to check me in, explained that I would be having surgery as soon as possible and asked me when I had last eaten, so they knew when it would be safe to put me under a general anaesthetic. The pain had got pretty bad by this point and someone came and gave me an injection of morphine. I then spent the next couple of hours in a drug induced daze and waited for the surgeon to come and speak to me. When he did arrive, in the early evening a little before sunset, even I, in my drug induced state could see that something was not quite right. As the surgeon picked up a pen and began to explain the procedure his hand was shaking violently, and he looked absolutely washed out and exhausted - not a very reassuring sight. As he started to write on the consent form he dropped his pen on the floor, and gripped the table, swaying slightly. At this point, taking into account the surgeons name and skin colour I asked him if he had been fasting for ramadan, to which he told me that he had, and had not eaten or had a drink for over 14 hours. It was at this point that I decided that potential blood infection or not, I was not allowing this man to slice me open in the state he was in. To my surprise, the medical staff could not see what my problem was, but how was I supposed to feel safe in his hands with him brandishing a scalpel when he was unable to hold a pen?
I had a brief chat with a nurse, who understood my concerns and told me I could have the operation at 6am the next morning when the surgeon had eaten.
It may have been this mans religion causing him to put his patients in danger, but in my opinion that is not an excuse.
And it is not only surgeons that may be affected. There are many muslim bus drivers in my city - would you want to be on the roads with someone driving a huge and heavy vehicle when there faculties have been dimmed by a lack of food and water? Not to mention all the other drivers who have gone without for so many hours.
If you think I am overreacting then try what I tried today. I was up late last night, and had eaten some toast just before 4am, around the time that fasting for ramadan begins, so when I got up this morning I decided to have a small cup of water and see how I felt as the day progressed.
By 4pm I felt awful. My head was pounding, my throat and mouth were dry, I was shaky and clumsy and my reactions were slower (as I discovered when I dropped my phone). At this point I gave up and got some food and drink. Yet people in this state are operating machinery, driving, performing medical procedures...to me this is selfish and foolish. Not only that, but I have met several muslim women who have carried out this month long fast even while pregnant. If you do not care about your own welfare surely you would care about your growing, unborn child?
Despite the fact that this is not a muslim country the local radio station has given over hours to ramadan broadcasting, the local council avoid holding meetings around prayer times to accommodate the minority of the workforce who are muslim and hospital tests are being rearranged for those who do not want the procedure while they are fasting. To me this is sheer lunacy.
If the argument that the reason for the fast is to remind muslims of all those living in poverty, then why do so many of the households near me seem to spend the whole day preparing a banquet? A couple of my muslim friends have even told me that they eat better at this time of year than any other - but only at night time.
If the argument is that it brings you closer to "god" then I can only assume that they mean that as it can take only 2 days without water or fluid to die of dehydration, by abstaining for 1 day you are 50% closer to dieing and therefore 50% closer to "god" and "heaven".
It is simply not a sensible thing to do, and I do not understand why we are so accommodating of bizarre religious practices, rather than just saying "whoa, you are doing what??" and questioning these strange beliefs.
Many of those who are fasting claim to feel more "spiritual" at this time of year, but I have a better explanation - that light headed, floaty feeling is a result of not eating enough, not of being on a "higher plain".
Whichever way you look at it, fasting like this is not healthy; never mind the delusions that are causing you to act this way (if I told you the giant purple monkey-frog had forbidden me from eating you would have the psychiatrists out to get me), it is not good for the body either.
So, as I said before, if you wish to behave in this way, and it will not impact on anyone else, then sure, go ahead. But if your actions could affect others than stop being so selfish and foolish, and have something to eat.

a happy post, some of which is about cats.

I thought to myself, why not ignore all the horrible, annoying, stupid, cruel and nasty stuff for one day? Why not bury my head in the sand like the vast majority of people seem to and not read the news, not listen to the radio, ignore the television and keep myself ignorant of the days developments. I may regret this, if anything big has happened today and I have missed it I will be kicking myself, but it is only an hour till midnight and then I will have completed my 24 hour news abstinence. I cannot say that my life will be at all enriched by this, but maybe I will be a little happier. That is if my twitching finger can keep from clicking the Google news tab for just a minor current affairs fix...
So instead of bitching about the world and the people in it, I decided that today I would share some nicer stories with you.
First, I will tell you about my trip to the supermarket today. I decided to walk up, as it is only about 2 miles and I wanted some new toothpaste (the one I bought the other day made my mouth taste like something had died in it when I got up the next morning) and I really fancied some melon too. So I grabbed a jacket, wired myself up to my ipod and set off walking. Now I tend to try and walk in time to my music, as it is easier to keep pace, although it must look a little strange when a fast song ends and a slower one starts as I find myself inadvertently pausing, then setting off at a new speed. So when Justin Timberlake (yes, he is on my ipod, now you all know my secret) finished singing "sexyback" and eels came on singing about wooden nickels I found myself doing a strange shuffle to try and get back into step. Which was all well and good until the next track started: "I wanna be a hippy" by Technohead (an immense tune, you must agree) and I found myself power walking up the hill with a demonic grin. Whenever I find myself smiling when I am out and about, and alone, I worry that everyone will assume I am thinking rude thoughts, although this probably says more about me then it does about them. At least I didn't start singing along as I walked. I mean, I mouthed the words, but that's OK, isn't it? Anyway, I kept walking and didn't even stop to contemplate the bizarreness of an Asian man collecting his daughter from the local catholic primary school and wrapping a headscarf over her head and shoulders. Luckily the rain held off until I was virtually in the supermarket so I didn't get too wet either. Once in the supermarket I ignored the rude people who kept walking into me with their trolleys, and did not concern myself with the fact that most of these people displaying a total lack of spatial awareness had probably driven to the store, and instead had a lovely conversation with two elderly ladies at the checkouts. When I left the supermarket I did not get angry about the buses that failed to pull into the bus stop, despite being flagged and told myself to just stay calm. In the end I made it to the local library just before it closed and picked up the books I had requested, so I have some interesting reading material for the weekend too.
I did not even take a sneak peak at the newspaper headlines whilst I was out. All in all it was not a bad trip, and I may even have burned a few calories. Actually that reminds me, according to the wii fit, I have reached my target weight today, which means I am finally back at 8.5 stones, so I rewarded myself with a packet of dairy free chocolate eggs. Yummy.
Earlier on today my cats all got extremely excited when a free sample of cat food arrived in the post. They went crazy when they heard it drop through the letterbox, so I decided to share the biscuits between them, which they loved. However when I came home from the supermarket I discovered that they liked them so much that someone had retrieved the packet from the bin, and shredded it.
My cats are amazing, and although some of my friends think I am a cat lady, I maintain that I am not for the following reasons:
1) I only have 4 cats. You need 5 or more to be a true cat lady
2) I do not collect carrier bags. I mean, I save the ones I do get, but that is not really collecting them, it is just being environmentally friendly by reusing them. There is a difference. Likewise with the coat hangers. It is not that I am collecting them...it is just useful to keep a few extra, you know, just in case...
3) I do not refer to them as "babies" and I do not call myself "their mum"
4) I have a boyfriend.
The other day I bought some new slippers, they are like big furry spangly moon boots with pompoms on the back and I have since discovered this was a mistake, as my Siamese cannot leave them alone. I found him with them this morning and I am still unsure whether he was trying to make love to them or kill them. Needless to say, they are looking less white and spangly already, and he keeps biting my toes through the fabric. They are very warm though.
Damien, my big old rescued moggy, has learned a new trick this week. He collects all his little toy stuffed mice from around the house, lines them up outside my bedroom door and serenades them for about half an hour at a time. Usually at about 2am. As loud as he can. So that's fun.
My Oriental cat keeps on peeing in the bath, and my rescued Birman cross is sabotaging his diet by moving as little as possible (hence his nickname of "the hungry cushion".) I do not know how he keeps his weight up really, he has been on a diet since I got him, over 3 years ago, but the less you feed him, the less he moves and as such has found an equilibrium where he manages not to lose weight. He will also eat anything he can lay his paws on, including bananas, cereal, bread, raisins, doughnuts and frozen chips. The latter was rather amusing - I must have dropped the frozen chip on the floor when putting a few on a tray in the oven, and I found him sat trying to bite it and looking hugely perplexed by its icy nature. He gave up trying to eat it, and rested his paw on it instead, before suddenly lifting that up and staring at his foot, as if trying to understand why that too was now so cold.
Generally speaking, all the cats really want to sit on your knee as soon as you sit down with the laptop or a book, but desert you if you put on the TV or sit just talking, shout as loud as they can between the hours of 2am and 6am, hide if anyone who is visiting wishes to see them, use the litter tray as soon as you get in the bath or shower, take the packaging for sanitary towels or condoms out of the bin and display them downstairs if relatives are visiting, sneeze on your food or in your glass given half a chance, pretend they really love you if you are eating scrambled eggs and pull the towel in the bathroom onto the floor if the heating is on so that they can sit on the towel rail and get warm. The younger two cats will also sit and yell at the little plug in electric heater if they are cold and want it to come on.
I have also noticed that the Siamese and the Oriental have a rather disconcerting habit of trying to suffocate me when I am laying down - they always want to lay across my face, totally blocking my mouth and nose. They also seem to have passed this tip onto the Birman cross, as he would previously try and lay on my chest. Now he will climb onto the pillow, pad at my eyes, half suffocate me and dribble into my ear, purring madly all the time.
But despite all their weird and annoying quirks and habits I do think they are great. So maybe I am cat lady after all.

still here, still annoyed

Well, we are all still here and the world has not ended. At least, I don't think it has, but then maybe if we all switched to another dimension at the same time, would we even notice? Maybe we have switched to a place where people are less, well, stupid and they are all nice to one another? However, a trip into town earlier today would indicate that this has not happened. Oh well. I wonder what all those people who are convinced the world will end on a certain date do after the day has been and gone like any other? Hopefully they will realise they are fools, feel suitably embarrassed and then get on with life, minus the ridiculous ideas and beliefs.
Unfortunately one woman in the city centre today had not followed that path. Oh no, she was going for full on annoying in-your-face offensive craziness, entering shops with her guitar and singing loudly and tunelessly away all manner of hymns and religious songs, interspersed with preaching. You know the kind of thing "you are all sinners, you will all go to hell, all that is wrong in your life is a punishment from the lord for turning your back on him, yada yada, I am crazy and malicious etc" The thing that amazed me the most was that the security guards in the shop I was in did not try and move her on because apparently she "was not doing any harm". Well actually I think she was, she was being rude, offensive and insensitive. If she believes in her craziness then she is simply a deluded woman in need of mental health services, but why inflict these bizarre and unpleasant thoughts and ideas on the rest of us? It makes me want to stand in the city centre with a megaphone explaining why religion is so horrible and explaining evolution to people. What hope is there for humanity when these kind of ideals are allowed to rule, against overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary of everything these religious nuts sprout? We have faith schools and preachers spouting their poison to children, and yet the government actively promotes this. Creationism is being taught in some science classes to avoid "offending" those of a religious persuasion. Well I am sorry, but go right ahead and offend them if that's what it takes to teach them scientific fact. Children are not and should not be religious, the parents may be but in my opinion it is abhorrent to inflict these cruel practices on children. Do away with faith schools and religious classes in schools, teach children the FACTS about life and science and the world around them, and if at 18 they decide to start talking to some imaginary dude in the sky then refer them to their local mental health worker or psychiatrist and stop this awful and dangerous nonsense once and for all.

end of the world?

There are so many things that I could get upset or angry over today, so many things that I could rant about.
Things like Alistair Darling saying to trade unions that workers should be exercising restraint and not taking a pay rise, when he and so many other MP's are earning huge amounts, with pay rises and have voted to keep their £20k+ expenses packages.
Or I could get all angry at the story in the Independent today, citing that

Surgery is 'only means to healthy weight loss'

Which is a pile of smelly doodoo. There is a really simple way to lose weight, other than not getting so fat in the first place, it is known as EATING LESS AND DOING MORE. It is not rocket science. Why not teach this method to your obese children. In fact, just go and listen to the song "fat children" by Tim Minchin, you will get my point.

But hey, there is apparently no use me getting all bothered by the many stupid things happening all around us, because according to the doomsayers the world will end tomorrow anyway, when the particle accelerator thingummy goes live at CERN.

So, instead of getting all angry or upset I recommend you take a look at the photoshop disasters or engrish.com websites and have a good laugh instead.

Scottish Television

According to articles in the media today a commission set up by Alex Salmond in Scotland has found that Scotland should have it's own television channel - funded by UK taxpayers at a cost of £75 million. Quite honestly I think this is ridiculous. I have no issue with Scotland, nor with Scottish people, but I do take exception to £75 million being used to set up a channel out of public money when the government seems unable or unwilling to do anything to ease the burden of rising fuel and living costs for the most vulnerable in our society, or any number of other more urgent matters.
The whole Scotland thing is getting rather annoying in many ways. Scots can take part in British politics, the PM is Scottish, but English people cannot sit on Scottish parliament. In terms of broadcast media, the BBC, which is publicly funded, makes programmes for all of Britain, yet some Scottish people (like those on the aforementioned commission) claim that Scotland, with a population of roughly 5 million should have its own, separate channel. Well, in that case the BBC should become the English Broadcasting Corporation and stop funding Scottish programming. One of the reasons that Salmond et al have claimed a need for a Scottish channel, is that the BBC is, they say, largely London focused. Well, then by the same token, surely Yorkshire with a population of just less than 5 million according to the 2001 census should also have its own publicly funded TV channel, made by and for Yorkshire people? Somehow, I cannot see that suggestion being taken as seriously, can you?

stressed? me?

Why on earth would I be stressed? I mean, I was only shaken out of bed by the council workmen using a steam roller and pneumatic drill, right outside my house. On a Sunday morning. With no warning. After only 6 hours sleep. I mean, what's stressful about that?
The same council workmen who fail to turn up at least 2 days a week, the same council workmen who actually do about 4 hours work a day when they do arrive. The council workmen who are claiming high levels of "overtime" pay, for work they could and should have done in the week.
So really, I have no idea why I feel stressed. Could it be because the council have informed me that there is no council or police power over noise and antisocial behaviour? (interesting for next time we have a party) Could it be because none of the local councilors are available on a Sunday? Could it be because this is the one day a week that my hardworking NHS employee boyfriend and I actually get to spend together relaxing, and now it has been completely disturbed? Or the fact that the only people interested in doing anything are the local newspaper?
No, I have no idea where my stress could have come from.

walk this way

This kind of follows on from yesterdays post when I mentioned the bizarre walk that many young men adopt when wearing their baggy crotch-at-the-knee trousers. One of the things that always amuses me is the way the local "gangs of youths" (to coin a tabloid phrase) walk in such strange ways, presumably to look hard. Just to set the record straight, I have checked and there is no way that these people are suffering from any disability, other than the delusion that affecting an "I have been shot in the ankle" walk is somehow pleasing to the ladies. It seems that the higher you are in a particular gang, the more extravagant your gait. I have recently seen the "shot in the leg" walk, the "my testicles are swollen like melons" walk, the "uh-oh I followed through" walk, the "must stop my trousers from falling down" walk and the "spent 6 hours on a horse" walk.
It would seem that many of these lads also assume that women are turned on by the following:
spitting on the pavement as a woman walks past
grabbing testicles through trousers and leering
swearing loudly into a mobile phone
really greasy hair.
I am making this assumption as I can think of no other reason as to why they would do these things otherwise.
All I can see is that these boys have a lot of growing up to do.

clothing and fashion

Fashion is a strange thing, but there are a few clothing related topics that have bothered me lately:

Children's Clothing
Why do some people allow their children to dress in such inappropriate clothing? The other day I saw a woman walking along with her small daughter, she was probably about 5 years old. Despite her young age the girl was dressed as though she were a grown woman heading to the pub - high heeled black knee length boots, a tight miniskirt, tight strappy vest and large dangling earrings. Now, the whole piercing of children ears is something that angers me at the best of times, quite frankly I see it as nothing other than abuse and mutilation of a child, but even aside from that, why on earth would you dress your child in such adult clothing? Allowing a young child to wear high healed shoes is wrong. Yes, as a young girl I would have loved a pair myself, and occasionally I would be allowed to play outside with friends wearing "clompy shoes"; high healed shoes that belonged to the mother of my friend, and we would "clomp" up and down the drive pretending we were adults. But aside from that game my mother was very firm in the view that high healed shoes were not for children. The real issue I have with allowing children to wear high heeled shoes is that it can have long term health implications. At such a young age your body is growing and developing, your bones are changing and wearing high heels can damage your posture, your spine, your hips, your knees and your feet. Why on earth would you want to dress your young daughter in such a way that she is more likely to have these problems as she gets older? I have problems with people dressing babies in shoes for the same reason. I often see very young (ie in a pushchair, unable to even stand up yet age) babies dressed in the latest fashionable shoe or trainer. This will not allow the babies feet to develop properly, so on top of it being a very expensive and rather silly trend, it could also be damaging that child's feet - forever. Why would you do that?
The other issue I have is with the style of some children's clothing. I do not think young children should be wearing clothing that, for adults at least is designed to be "sexy". By this I mean tight fitting, low cut tops for girls, short tight dresses and skirts, tracksuits that sport the "playboy" logo, sometimes even across the backside of the trousers. In young boys I do not think it is right to have them wearing t-shirts that display violent images (such as the AK47 t shirt I saw on a child recently) or rude words. Yet it seems increasingly common. If that was not bad enough it is even possible to buy padded bras and g-string pants for girls as young as 7. I can not think of any reasonable argument as to why that is acceptable.
Anyway, that brings me onto:

Adult Clothing
Sometimes I see people dressed in the silliest ways. I mean, fair play to them, if that is the look they are trying to achieve, but sometimes I do find myself wondering why they chose a particular look.
Today I saw a youngish bloke, probably about 18 or 19 years old, dressed in the common style of baggy jeans and a t-shirt, but he had made an unusual modification to his outfit - he had tucked his jeans into his sports socks. Now, I have seen this quite often when people tick their tracksuit bottoms into their socks, but jeans? That's a new one on me. Going by the pristine nature of his bright white shoes, I think it was maybe so that the world was able to get a good look at his new footwear. The whole look of this style has made me wonder though - with the baggy trousers at the top, tucked into tight socks, the whole "chav" look is moving closer and closer to...breeches! How long before we see teenagers hanging around in full Henry the 8th style outfits?
A common look around here is men who wear their trousers so low that the waistband is actually fastened somewhere around their thighs, with the crotch around the knees. I am sure they think they look incredibly stylish, but actually they just look as though they are still wearing nappies, and have just filled their boots (I think this is partly to do with the way they walk, which I presume is to prevent the trousers from falling off completely). Anyway, on top of it looking rather daft, it means they are walking around with their boxer shorts on full view - and I don't want to see that. This is not a sexist comment, I also find the bizarre female fashion for having your pants or g-string sticking above the top of your hipsters distasteful. I can understand if it is an accident, but much of the time it does seem to be intentional. Having said that, it is worse when you see the builders bum cleavage, on men and women.
The thing that puzzled me the most about the male trend for having your crotch somewhere around your knees was that quite often the inside leg measurement seemed to be correct still - I mean, the trousers still came to the tops of the shoes and were not dragging along the floor. I think I have fathomed this one out though: my theory is that these men are actually avoiding paying the added VAT on adult clothes and are instead buying jeans from the children's range. If they buy them baggy enough, the legs still fit, but they have to fasten them around their thighs as they cannot get them any higher. So really, rather than indulging in a peculiar and silly fashion, these men may actually just be trying to beat the credit crunch.
Last but not least I am curious as to why you can now purchase wellies with high heels? What is the point? Wear them anywhere muddy and the reduced surface area means that you will just sink further into the mud. Can anyone enlighten me as to why this is a good idea?

Grrr

I just went online to confirm my details on the electoral register and was mightily annoyed when I reached the homepage, to be offered the chance to register my details in about 10 different languages. Surely, if you are going to vote in British elections you could at least be bothered to learn English? Is that really too much to ask?

Libraries

I love libraries and I think they are a wonderful institution in this country. I visit my local library at least once a week and I can lose hours in there, just browsing the sections and reading. I think libraries are great.
Less wonderful however are the amount of rude people I often encounter in the library. Despite a large sign on the door to my local library asking people not to use their mobile phones, and several smaller signs inside, it is now common to see people wandering around the library, chatting away at full volume. Every time I visit at least one mobile phone will ring - at least put it on silent mode or crying out loud. Another problem in my local library are the amount of people who walk around with their mobile playing loud music. I mean, this is annoying at the best of times, but when your in the library? Just turn it off.
On the subject of mobile phones and rudeness, why do people feel compelled to answer their phones even when they are already talking to someone else? In the library today I observed a woman in the queue to return her books. Just after she had reached the front of the line her mobile rang. Despite the fact that you are not meant to use a mobile in the library, and regardless of the fact that the librarian was talking to her she just took out the phone, answered it and launched into a conversation. I find this staggeringly rude, but it seems pretty common. I have also noticed that when I am in the doctors, or in a shop, the receptionist/assistant may be talking to you/serving you and yet of the phone rings they just seem to stop mid sentence and walk off to answer the phone. So rude! Why can't people show a few manners?

random thoughts from my sleep deprived mind

You know how yesterday I said that having only 3 hours sleep for 3 nights running was not great for my cognitive ability? Well, 4 nights running is even worse. I am cold and I ache.

This week we have been having some work done on the house to combat the damp problem and I find it stressful having anything like this done, just because of the mess, the upheaval, the feeling that I can't just go out and do what I want, I need to be around all the time. It is not even that I have anywhere I need to go, it is just the feeling that I cannot choose to just go for a walk or whatever.
My house is quite old, Edwardian and built roughly 100 years ago, so obviously over time small issues have cropped up. I do not know a lot about the history of this house, but I am told that it was stood empty for almost a decade in the 80's before the previous owners bought it and moved in. Unfortunately the last occupants did little maintenance to the actual fabric of the house, instead focusing on "cosmetic" improvements (none of which are to my tastes). So although they did things like tiling the bathroom, fitting wardrobes to the main bedroom, painting and wallpapering throughout they neglected the rather more important elements of building maintenance such as mending the roof or the guttering, fixing the ancient electrics, addressing the rising damp etc. One of our first tasks when we moved in was to have the entire roof replaced as the original slates were in a bad way, which had allowed water to get into the joists and into the walls of the house. Were this water has come down the walls and met with the rising damp it has obviously caused problems. So the work we have been having done aims to combat these issues. Now the roof and guttering is fixed we do not have any external leaks but some damage had been done. We are having the walls downstairs "tanked" to stop the rising damp, and to stop any damp coming through from outside and already the house feels drier and smells better. We have also had the supports in the cellar replaced, and 2 air bricks added to improve ventilation. The work should be finished tomorrow and once the plaster has dried out we can hopefully get the electrics done before winter. We also have plans to have the ugly old gas fire removed and we are considering getting a wood burner instead, depending on the state of the chimney.
The plus side to all of this work (other than the obvious benefits to the house) are that for the first time since we moved in I have been down into the cellar. I know, I have lived here over a year and never plucked up the courage to climb down, but today, brave little me has conquered her fears and been down for a look. It appears that the cellar may have been used as an air raid shelter during the war as the bricks are 3 layers thick and there is a thick metal sheet over part of the ceiling. I found that interesting.
The down side to the work, other than the upheaval is that it means I have had to shut the cats in one room as it would be too dangerous for them downstairs at present. They seem happy enough, and don't seem too annoyed with me, but I still feel a bit mean and I miss having them around me all the time.

As I am so tired at the moment, through having to get up when I really need the sleep and then being unable to sleep when I have the chance I decided to have a cup of coffee earlier this evening. Although I love the smell and flavour of coffee I only drink it very rarely as caffeine does not really seem to agree with me. I think this is about the 5th or 6th cup I have drunk this year, and as usual I am now regretting it. I thought it may stave off the tiredness, but instead I am as sleepy as ever, except all my muscles are twitching, I cannot stop fidgeting and my heart feels a little too fast. It is not particularly pleasant.
I seem to have a similar tolerance to alcohol - one glass of wine and I am talking even more gibberish than usual, my legs ache, the room spins and I spend the rest of the evening regretting taking the drink. Hence why I do not drink alcohol.
On a vaguely related side note I once read that if your feet are aching on a night out rubbing a shot of neat vodka on them dulls the pain. My friends all insist that to combat foot pain you really should just drink the shot and be done with it. One tip that has proved useful regarding shoes is this:
If you will be on your feet all day line the inside of your shoes with cotton wool, preferably from a roll, making the padding thickest under the balls of your feet and your heels. Personally, to stop the cotton wool all scrunching up I actually stick it to my feet with electrical tape (it doesn't rub and peels off easily). It may look weird when you take your shoes off, and is not very glamorous, but it really does work to prevent sore feet. Although I would not advise it with sandals!

The other random though I will share with you today is a bit bizarre, but it got me thinking.
Apparently Hebrew was not written with vowels, so when people refer to "god" as "jehovah" it is because they have extrapolated this from the letters YHWH. Now, this got me thinking. Jehovah, as a name sounds fairly cool, but surely the letters YHWH could have had different vowel sounds that are less god-like. How about worshiping a dude called Yohowoho? or Yahiwihi? I think you will agree that these sound much less powerful and almighty!
Just a thought...

sleep deprivation

The only thing I really feel capable of saying today is that 3 hours sleep a night, 3 nights running, really is not conducive to interesting blog posts.