I previously wrote about how giving people more money by increasing benefit levels for kids, had been portrayed as more children dependent upon benefits, therefore more children in poverty....even though the extra income made them much better off.
Parents on the lowest incomes had gained as much as 15-30% on their total income while others on already higher incomes also made gains, by becoming entitled to additional benefits. Because there were now more parents receiving benefits the skewed logic was that poverty had increased.
I followed up with another report about kids being "taken out of poverty" because their parents were not as far short of whatever % of median income defined being poor. They hadn't actually made any gains, it was just that through loss of jobs and/or reduced hours, median income had gone down.
So some people - above poverty levels - had seen incomes reduce but those on lowest incomes, whose incomes had not changed but were now not as far short of higher incomes were now apparently "better off" even though they didn't have more money and costs had not decreased. I swear this is not made up.
Well, a couple of weeks ago I was reminded of this nonsense when I saw a report that whereas the UK and most of Europe had seen increases in child poverty, Canada was being praised for having reduced child poverty.
I really couldn't see how Canada could have improved this. Welfare rates routinely remain unchanged for years. The amount of money one is allowed in the bank before it negatively impacts entitlement - sorry, they don't like that word in Canada, it should be eligibility - is unchanged for over 10 years. In my province, the property tax rebate for those on low incomes is the same as it was more than 20 years ago. It must have been a tidy sum back then.
Anyway, last night on CBC I heard a preview (can one have previews on the radio?) of an upcoming broadcast where they'd be discussing the increase in kids in poverty in Canada.
So which is it, more kids living in poverty or fewer?
I'm reminded of a statistic along the lines of a third of car accidents involve those who were driving drunk. So two-thirds of them are caused by sober drivers!
Monday, 24 November 2014
Friday, 24 October 2014
Luis Suarez
Luis Suárez on ‘right path’ after seeing therapist to cure biting problem
So says the Guardian headline.
“I think all the bad things I have been through are in the past,”
I'm no expert but isn't part of "the cure" about taking responsibility? There doesn't seem to be any of that. He's been through bad things. Not caused them?
“Everyone has different ways of defending themselves. In my case, the
pressure and tension came out in that way. There are other players who
react by breaking someone’s leg, or smashing someone’s nose across their
face. What happened with Chiellini is seen as worse. I understand why
biting is seen so badly.”
Huh? Footballers react to pressure with outright violence? And he's playing it down. It's just seen as worse, apparently, nothing exceptional about it.
So let's await the next incident because it surely seems there will be one.
Wednesday, 1 October 2014
What is a 'jobsworth'
It's a common description of someone usually having to apply some rule.
I've decided that a useful definition is what someone who doesn't want to lose their own job calls someone else who also doesn't want to lose their job.
In short, a hypocrite.
I've decided that a useful definition is what someone who doesn't want to lose their own job calls someone else who also doesn't want to lose their job.
In short, a hypocrite.
Friday, 19 September 2014
Time for a champions league reboot
Just as the champions league is a tough competition with
several top sides from the top leagues in Europe, the 'old' UEFA Cup was
also a tough competition for the very same reason.It also
contained teams about to become domestic champions and finals involved
new champions while the old champions final could feature teams already
deposed.
The Champions League is unquestionably a better version than the previous one but it's come at the expense of losing what was a very good competition in its own right. Two if one includes the Cup Winners Cup, particularly as that competition could also feature teams among the best of the rest.
We could retain the best aspects of the champions league and get the other stuff back with a limit of two clubs in the CL from each league currently getting 3 or 4 places. This maintains the strength of the CL by allowing, for example, Real and Barca, Man City & Chelsea, Bayern & Dortmund, Benfica & Porto, Juventus & Milan etc while adding glamour to the Europe (which really needs to be renamed) teams like Inter, ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal, Atletico.
If domestic cup winners were included in the renamed Europa it would be a large tournament but they could split it into two halves, mostly knockout, so there are not too many matches and the two winners of each half BOTH get places in the CL next time but they still play a Cup final, the winners getting a spot in the CL group stage itself.
Winning domestic cups means one can compete with the glamour names of Europe as they are no longer all in the CL and the two CL places available make the second tournament a whole lot more attractive.
You might argue that the big teams won't go for it. But I don't see why not. If you're Arsenal, Liverpool, ManU, Everton, Spurs for example, three of those are not going to get in the CL.
Currently they'll be faced with only one place for the Europa - people forget that two of the three spots go to FA and League Cups - and coming up against many underwhelming names. They'll also consider themselves at a disadvantage the following season by having to play Europa while their other rivals can focus on the league.
All of Arsenal, Liverpool, ManU, Everton, Spurs could instead be looking forward to a more meaningful tournament competing with the sort of teams regularly and currently making the CL quarter final stages.
There really is room for two top tournaments and with no falling from one to the other.
The Champions League is unquestionably a better version than the previous one but it's come at the expense of losing what was a very good competition in its own right. Two if one includes the Cup Winners Cup, particularly as that competition could also feature teams among the best of the rest.
We could retain the best aspects of the champions league and get the other stuff back with a limit of two clubs in the CL from each league currently getting 3 or 4 places. This maintains the strength of the CL by allowing, for example, Real and Barca, Man City & Chelsea, Bayern & Dortmund, Benfica & Porto, Juventus & Milan etc while adding glamour to the Europe (which really needs to be renamed) teams like Inter, ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal, Atletico.
If domestic cup winners were included in the renamed Europa it would be a large tournament but they could split it into two halves, mostly knockout, so there are not too many matches and the two winners of each half BOTH get places in the CL next time but they still play a Cup final, the winners getting a spot in the CL group stage itself.
Winning domestic cups means one can compete with the glamour names of Europe as they are no longer all in the CL and the two CL places available make the second tournament a whole lot more attractive.
You might argue that the big teams won't go for it. But I don't see why not. If you're Arsenal, Liverpool, ManU, Everton, Spurs for example, three of those are not going to get in the CL.
Currently they'll be faced with only one place for the Europa - people forget that two of the three spots go to FA and League Cups - and coming up against many underwhelming names. They'll also consider themselves at a disadvantage the following season by having to play Europa while their other rivals can focus on the league.
All of Arsenal, Liverpool, ManU, Everton, Spurs could instead be looking forward to a more meaningful tournament competing with the sort of teams regularly and currently making the CL quarter final stages.
There really is room for two top tournaments and with no falling from one to the other.
Wednesday, 10 September 2014
Last day at work. Ever
Today was my last day at work, 10 years ago.
Ten years of not having to work for a living. Bliss.
Ten years of not having to work for a living. Bliss.
Monday, 8 September 2014
A few words on Breaking Bad
I loved it.
I began watching for the first time a couple of weeks ago and saw all 62 (I think) episodes, finishing up Saturday. Doctor Who was the only other TV or Movie I watched in that time.
The Sopranos edges it for me but it was a great two weeks. The use of music was very effective, especially where it just seemed so inappropriate to the scene, like the prison killings, but worked superbly.
The pre opening title scenes were unique. Never seen anything even close to that style used.
Great TV.
I began watching for the first time a couple of weeks ago and saw all 62 (I think) episodes, finishing up Saturday. Doctor Who was the only other TV or Movie I watched in that time.
The Sopranos edges it for me but it was a great two weeks. The use of music was very effective, especially where it just seemed so inappropriate to the scene, like the prison killings, but worked superbly.
The pre opening title scenes were unique. Never seen anything even close to that style used.
Great TV.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
Tumbleweed and FIFA
No premier league football again. Unlike a lot of fans, I quite liked the weekend breaks of the last few years. No Saturday matches but there would be England games on the Friday and Tuesday plus the associated newspaper reports and blogs. It was fun.
For some reason, FIFA has now increased the gap between the two international games and there are two weekends with no premier league. Same for other countries.
So we actually have three weeks with no premier league football and only the same number of international matches to compensate.
I can't help but wonder if this is connected to world cup 2022 when they are talking of moving it to winter.
The adjustment required to domestic leagues to accommodate such a move goes beyond the seasons immediately prior and after the world cup. This will be even harder to sort out if the leagues are to have international breaks stopping domestic football for three weeks at a time.
Expect to see FIFA dropping the idea in a couple of years time, claiming how they are 'helping' by doing this and ignoring they created the problem, then worsened it, in the first place.
edited....it seems I was mistaken about the three week gap. It was just the usual two weeks. The same two international games were just Weds/Mon rather than Fri/Tues. The lengthening of the gap between them must have just made it seem like a three week gap overall.
Thursday, 4 September 2014
You turn if you want to. The manager's not for turning
Roy Hodgson was never my choice as a manager for England. But I thought he did rather well at Euro
2012 given the lack of preparation time and the personnel difficulties
adding to problems.
I thought there were positive signs leading into the World Cup suggesting his first choice tactics were not really those of the Euros after all. Results aside in Brazil, there were still reasons to be optimistic. I saw no reason for him not to stay on.
But how can he defend that dismal showing last night? What on earth was wrong with saying "yes, it wasn't good was it. We'll have to put that right for Monday." That's all he had to say.
I thought there were positive signs leading into the World Cup suggesting his first choice tactics were not really those of the Euros after all. Results aside in Brazil, there were still reasons to be optimistic. I saw no reason for him not to stay on.
But how can he defend that dismal showing last night? What on earth was wrong with saying "yes, it wasn't good was it. We'll have to put that right for Monday." That's all he had to say.
“The fact is it was a big night for Wayne, with a lot of responsibility weighing on his shoulders"Really? Superstar Rooney with all his experience, 96 caps, captain of Manchester United, been England captain before. In a friendly against Norway. That was a weight on his shoulders?
Dear god.“I thought the performance was quite good"
But not, it seems, for Hodgson's England.“...Sterling, Sturridge and [Jack] Wilshere. These players have the potential to lead us forward and excite football crowds."
Unbelievable arrogance. Somebody in authority needs to decide what Hodgson sees is no longer important. He reminds me of someone else who was not for turning."Although I risk being in a group of one, I have been watching football for a long time and nothing you say will change what I see.”
Monday, 1 September 2014
Show some sensitivity, UEFA
UEFA has already come down heavily on Polish football club, Legia, for what most people think was the mildest of transgressions.
Instead of naming a player for the match squad and not playing him because he was suspended, they simply didn't name him for the squad for the duration of his suspension. They didn't even choose a replacement so they didn't even gain by having an additional player.
So when he appeared for a few minutes in a match already over as a contest as Legia were winning 6-1 on aggregate, UEFA decided to reverse the result and Legia lost their victory and place in the next round of the Champions League.
Celtic, the opposition on the lucky end of the travesty of a decision took their place and justice, of sorts, was done when they lost from a winning position.
But the fans of Legia just staged the protest in the picture. UEFA is investigating.
Hopefully they'll understand the fans' frustration and take no action. They really ought to be able to just issue a "watch it" warning. But don't bank on it.
Anything more will just be bullying.
Sunday, 31 August 2014
Desperate for Prawns
We made our own recipe for a rice dish that we make with chicken, prawns or both. Originally we bought a shrimp ring as it was the cheapest way but then we started seeing BOGOF or half price deals for bags. Same thing of course.
It worked out cheaper and the bonus was the prawns were bigger.
These deals came around so often we'd buy a few bags and when stocks were low we'd look for another deal to top up. We got used to paying $8 or £9 for 900g worth. Somewhere around $1 for 100g became a very common price, the deals came around to one of the four supermarkets so often. Funnily enough the generally most expensive one usually had the best prawn deal.
But over the last year, the good offers have stopped. The "normal" price has increased and package sizes have been reduced too.
$9 worth that used to provide for 2 or 3 dinners for five, according to whether we had chicken as well, might just about do one now. If padded out with chicken.
It's become a bit of a luxury. But the meal has always gone magnificently with a Rosé wine. And these days I rarely enjoy a red wine and even my favourite white doesn't taste right.
I read something recently about Prawns from Thailand being the product of slave labour. Perhaps that's the reason for the higher cost if nations are boycotting that product and paying more elsewhere, passing the extra cost on.
But there appears to be something of a shortage too.
Now, of course, if I see something that's only expensive rather than a bank breaker, it stays in the shop if it's from Thailand.
There's something here called popcorn shrimp - just as there is chicken popcorn. They're not expensive. I have no idea if it's available in the UK. It's just shrimps (or chicken) in breadcrumbs. Like that old staple pub meal of Scampi (in the basket).
Now I've previously cooked breaded salmon in meals with sauces and you'd never know the salmon was anything but normal salmon. Even the breadcrumbs just disappear. Probably they thicken the sauce a bit.
So I hit upon the idea of doing the same with the popcorn shrimp I found in the bottom of the freezer; I was that desperate.
They worked very well. These were already cooked, unlike the salmon, so I only added them at the end. The breadcrumb coating remained attached and there was a little but of mushiness to them.
But it was fabulous to have our prawn dinner and a large glass of rosé again.
It worked out cheaper and the bonus was the prawns were bigger.
These deals came around so often we'd buy a few bags and when stocks were low we'd look for another deal to top up. We got used to paying $8 or £9 for 900g worth. Somewhere around $1 for 100g became a very common price, the deals came around to one of the four supermarkets so often. Funnily enough the generally most expensive one usually had the best prawn deal.
But over the last year, the good offers have stopped. The "normal" price has increased and package sizes have been reduced too.
$9 worth that used to provide for 2 or 3 dinners for five, according to whether we had chicken as well, might just about do one now. If padded out with chicken.
It's become a bit of a luxury. But the meal has always gone magnificently with a Rosé wine. And these days I rarely enjoy a red wine and even my favourite white doesn't taste right.
I read something recently about Prawns from Thailand being the product of slave labour. Perhaps that's the reason for the higher cost if nations are boycotting that product and paying more elsewhere, passing the extra cost on.
But there appears to be something of a shortage too.
Now, of course, if I see something that's only expensive rather than a bank breaker, it stays in the shop if it's from Thailand.
There's something here called popcorn shrimp - just as there is chicken popcorn. They're not expensive. I have no idea if it's available in the UK. It's just shrimps (or chicken) in breadcrumbs. Like that old staple pub meal of Scampi (in the basket).
Now I've previously cooked breaded salmon in meals with sauces and you'd never know the salmon was anything but normal salmon. Even the breadcrumbs just disappear. Probably they thicken the sauce a bit.
So I hit upon the idea of doing the same with the popcorn shrimp I found in the bottom of the freezer; I was that desperate.
They worked very well. These were already cooked, unlike the salmon, so I only added them at the end. The breadcrumb coating remained attached and there was a little but of mushiness to them.
But it was fabulous to have our prawn dinner and a large glass of rosé again.
Tuesday, 26 August 2014
Breakfast
Today's Guardian has a 10 of the best B&B's in Britain.
From one of the 10: "Snuggle up in the kingsize bed, complete with Hungarian goose down, before ambling out into the pretty south-facing garden for a breakfast basket of organic goodies."
So typical of the guardian! I love the paper, but come on.
One of the joys of staying in a B&B is having the 'full English" in the morning. Having it cooked for you makes all the difference and it is a rare treat, whereas I imagine the person having the organic goodies probably does that as a matter of routine anyway.
That's as bad as the Brits I remember holidaying in Austria and getting out their 'British' tea and jam at the breakfast table - along with the more 'familiar looking' sliced loaf they bought in the local shop in readiness.
From one of the 10: "Snuggle up in the kingsize bed, complete with Hungarian goose down, before ambling out into the pretty south-facing garden for a breakfast basket of organic goodies."
So typical of the guardian! I love the paper, but come on.
One of the joys of staying in a B&B is having the 'full English" in the morning. Having it cooked for you makes all the difference and it is a rare treat, whereas I imagine the person having the organic goodies probably does that as a matter of routine anyway.
That's as bad as the Brits I remember holidaying in Austria and getting out their 'British' tea and jam at the breakfast table - along with the more 'familiar looking' sliced loaf they bought in the local shop in readiness.
Friday, 15 August 2014
It's just so wrong
A very heartwarming story in the paper today. A couple, both 41, have discovered they have cancer. Just days apart.
While she awaited a biopsy result, he had a colonoscopy which identified inoperable cancer and then her result indicated cancer too. Both face a ton of treatement including surgery as well, for her. He has a likely two years to live, her prognosis is not stated.
They have kids of 6, 10 and 12. It's terrible.
Someone decides to raise funds for them and it's very moving reading of some of the donations. Over $60,000 has already been raised and the money, initially declined, may be needed for any number of things. Loss of earnings when having treatment; costs of attending hospital if some distance involved, perhaps out of province; prescription drugs - even if they have a good plan, co-payments will mount up. This is Canada and drugs cost a lot.
It really does portray people in a good light.
But then I remember where I come from and, despite all the cuts made by UK governments, all this is taken care of back in Britain for people in their position.
Canadians are very caring and all that. But why the fuck are they not putting these efforts into getting their government to take care of the people properly?
In terms of treatment within hospital and it being free at the point of service with nobody worrying about paying for it, it's on a par with the UK. That must have been fought for once upon a time. I can't imagine government just did it out of generosity.
Canadians are always complaining about "their tax dollars" and tax gouges, yet they are rightly proud of Medicare. But why does that not extend to enabling full treatment and the necessary safety nets to prevent hardship?
While she awaited a biopsy result, he had a colonoscopy which identified inoperable cancer and then her result indicated cancer too. Both face a ton of treatement including surgery as well, for her. He has a likely two years to live, her prognosis is not stated.
They have kids of 6, 10 and 12. It's terrible.
Someone decides to raise funds for them and it's very moving reading of some of the donations. Over $60,000 has already been raised and the money, initially declined, may be needed for any number of things. Loss of earnings when having treatment; costs of attending hospital if some distance involved, perhaps out of province; prescription drugs - even if they have a good plan, co-payments will mount up. This is Canada and drugs cost a lot.
It really does portray people in a good light.
But then I remember where I come from and, despite all the cuts made by UK governments, all this is taken care of back in Britain for people in their position.
Canadians are very caring and all that. But why the fuck are they not putting these efforts into getting their government to take care of the people properly?
In terms of treatment within hospital and it being free at the point of service with nobody worrying about paying for it, it's on a par with the UK. That must have been fought for once upon a time. I can't imagine government just did it out of generosity.
Canadians are always complaining about "their tax dollars" and tax gouges, yet they are rightly proud of Medicare. But why does that not extend to enabling full treatment and the necessary safety nets to prevent hardship?
Monday, 4 August 2014
Season Preview
Obviously Chelsea and Man City will be battling for one and two.
I thought Chelsea blew it last season and should have won. City followed their first title (under Mancini) with a disappointing season and I think the same may happen again and that lets Chelsea in. But...
I'm unconvinced by Chelsea's signing of Diego Costa. Looks a good football league forward but not Premier League material.
Lack of European football last season massively helped Liverpool. It doesn't follow, though, that it will be a massive hindrance this season. Even without Suarez.
The thing is, they've been so long out of the picture that they are in the third seeds pot. This means that, like Man City previously, they face a ridiculously tough group stage.
Assuming Arsenal win their play off match they will be one of the pot one seeds again. Chelsea are already there so that means there are only 6 pot one opponents for Liverpool and that will be Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern as teams to really avoid and then Benfica, Atletico Madrid and Schalke/Dortmund.
Hard to say what Atleti will be like after losing a few players but it's 50/50 that Liverpool will draw one of the super three and you wouldn't bet on them against the others.
Pot two could see Schalke/Dortmund, Juventus or PSG, so again 50/50 for tough opponents. Others could be Ajax and Olympiacos. Even Basel have proved difficult.
Supposed 'whipping boys' could be Roma, Anderlecht, Monaco.
Porto and Napoli will be somewhere too.
There's every chance that Liverpool's CL 'run' will end early and maybe no parachute into the Europa either.
If that happens, they may be just as free to concentrate on the league as last time, just missing Suarez but with a little more strength in depth.
Arsenal got off to a great start last season and then fell away mainly because of a poor record against the other top teams. Will that poor record change?
Alexis Sanchez should be good for them but may 'replace' rather than add something. Rotation and how Wenger handles it will possibly be an issue, but the main thing is likely to be their record against the rivals.
ManU were atrocious last season. Having said that, they still did okay in Europe and were decent away. They also won and drew against Arsenal. There have already been massive signs of improvement and without Januzaj and van Persie too. I see them as having a psychological edge on Arsenal and early fixtures may see ManU tot up some points advantage.
When the more difficult games come, they may have built some confidence that sees them through, especially as there's no European distraction.
I see ManU coming third to Chelsea/City and Liverpool battling with Arsenal for 4th. Arsenal to edge it if Liverpool make the CL knock out rounds.
I thought Chelsea blew it last season and should have won. City followed their first title (under Mancini) with a disappointing season and I think the same may happen again and that lets Chelsea in. But...
I'm unconvinced by Chelsea's signing of Diego Costa. Looks a good football league forward but not Premier League material.
Lack of European football last season massively helped Liverpool. It doesn't follow, though, that it will be a massive hindrance this season. Even without Suarez.
The thing is, they've been so long out of the picture that they are in the third seeds pot. This means that, like Man City previously, they face a ridiculously tough group stage.
Assuming Arsenal win their play off match they will be one of the pot one seeds again. Chelsea are already there so that means there are only 6 pot one opponents for Liverpool and that will be Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern as teams to really avoid and then Benfica, Atletico Madrid and Schalke/Dortmund.
Hard to say what Atleti will be like after losing a few players but it's 50/50 that Liverpool will draw one of the super three and you wouldn't bet on them against the others.
Pot two could see Schalke/Dortmund, Juventus or PSG, so again 50/50 for tough opponents. Others could be Ajax and Olympiacos. Even Basel have proved difficult.
Supposed 'whipping boys' could be Roma, Anderlecht, Monaco.
Porto and Napoli will be somewhere too.
There's every chance that Liverpool's CL 'run' will end early and maybe no parachute into the Europa either.
If that happens, they may be just as free to concentrate on the league as last time, just missing Suarez but with a little more strength in depth.
Arsenal got off to a great start last season and then fell away mainly because of a poor record against the other top teams. Will that poor record change?
Alexis Sanchez should be good for them but may 'replace' rather than add something. Rotation and how Wenger handles it will possibly be an issue, but the main thing is likely to be their record against the rivals.
ManU were atrocious last season. Having said that, they still did okay in Europe and were decent away. They also won and drew against Arsenal. There have already been massive signs of improvement and without Januzaj and van Persie too. I see them as having a psychological edge on Arsenal and early fixtures may see ManU tot up some points advantage.
When the more difficult games come, they may have built some confidence that sees them through, especially as there's no European distraction.
I see ManU coming third to Chelsea/City and Liverpool battling with Arsenal for 4th. Arsenal to edge it if Liverpool make the CL knock out rounds.
Thursday, 31 July 2014
Beingdrivenmad
Thespacebar onmylaptophasbeen playingupforweeksnow.
I'vetriedfixingit but I can't. Alladvice - andImean all is tohave areplacement keyboard.
I'mreluctant totryfittingit myself. Ihaveseen themon ebay for anything between $6 and $60.
I foundaguy whowoulddoit, including thekeyboard, for $40 whichseemedagooddeal.
But thenhedidn'thavetheright oneafter all. Sowhat wasthepointoftaking the serialnumber andsaying hehadone?
He'sordering one but it'staking longerthanoriginally said. Hegot intoacash flow problemthatIcouldrelatetoandIpaidupfront. I regret itnow. Idon'tthinkhe'sgoing todisappearintothenight, after allIhavehisaddressand phonenumber andI'vecalledandspokentohim.
Butit'snowlooking likeanother 4 weeks. AndifIorderonemyself it'sstill going tobe 4 weeks and thentheremy becustoms andcouriercharges making it another $60 or $70.
Obviously I can use a USB keyboard. I canpickupacheaponefor $10, but having gotusedtomy lovely laptop,I want anicekeyboard totypeon.
Ah well.
I'vetriedfixingit but I can't. Alladvice - andImean all is tohave areplacement keyboard.
I'mreluctant totryfittingit myself. Ihaveseen themon ebay for anything between $6 and $60.
I foundaguy whowoulddoit, including thekeyboard, for $40 whichseemedagooddeal.
But thenhedidn'thavetheright oneafter all. Sowhat wasthepointoftaking the serialnumber andsaying hehadone?
He'sordering one but it'staking longerthanoriginally said. Hegot intoacash flow problemthatIcouldrelatetoandIpaidupfront. I regret itnow. Idon'tthinkhe'sgoing todisappearintothenight, after allIhavehisaddressand phonenumber andI'vecalledandspokentohim.
Butit'snowlooking likeanother 4 weeks. AndifIorderonemyself it'sstill going tobe 4 weeks and thentheremy becustoms andcouriercharges making it another $60 or $70.
Obviously I can use a USB keyboard. I canpickupacheaponefor $10, but having gotusedtomy lovely laptop,I want anicekeyboard totypeon.
Ah well.
Sunday, 27 July 2014
Some recipes are just too involved
I'm all in favour of 'cheat' recipes. I don't mind made up sauces at all, as long as they are good. Colmans, for example, work a treat.
What I really dislike are those recipes that require an expedition to the back of beyond, or across the Andes by frog, for the ingredients that then sit at the back of the cupboard, never to see the light of day again.
The Guardian recently had one of their helpful 'leftover' recipes. This one was for leftover carrots. Why they'd be leftover heaven knows, but one of them was for Carrot Kofte. It sounded very nice.
But olive oil, dried apricots, spring onions, lightly toasted pine nuts, garlic clove, dried breadcrumbs, Aleppo pepper or chilli flakes, fresh coriander, fresh parsley, dried mint, egg, salt and freshly ground black pepper, tahini, yoghurt, juice of 1 lemon, smoked paprika.... all for "leftover" carrots.
Really?
What I really dislike are those recipes that require an expedition to the back of beyond, or across the Andes by frog, for the ingredients that then sit at the back of the cupboard, never to see the light of day again.
The Guardian recently had one of their helpful 'leftover' recipes. This one was for leftover carrots. Why they'd be leftover heaven knows, but one of them was for Carrot Kofte. It sounded very nice.
But olive oil, dried apricots, spring onions, lightly toasted pine nuts, garlic clove, dried breadcrumbs, Aleppo pepper or chilli flakes, fresh coriander, fresh parsley, dried mint, egg, salt and freshly ground black pepper, tahini, yoghurt, juice of 1 lemon, smoked paprika.... all for "leftover" carrots.
Really?
Saturday, 26 July 2014
A picture is worth a thousand words
Bodies from the shot down plane arriving back in The Netherlands.
Thursday, 10 July 2014
A short way of saying what I said before
Just a research piece really, for later use.
England's UEFA/Europa cup entrants since top four entered the champions league:
2001-02: Leeds (5th place) Chelsea (6) Blackburn (10) Fulham (13 intertoto) Ipswich (18 and relegated)
Competed with: PSG;Porto; Lazio; Parma; Lyon; Bremen; Sporting.
2002-03: Liverpool (5) Blackburn (6) Southampton (8) Man City (9)
Competed with: Valencia; Sporting; Roma; Dortmund; Benfica; Barcelona; Parma; Marseille; Inter
2003-04: Newcastle (5) Middlesbrough (11) Millwall (league 1!! cup losers)
Up against: Lazio; Benfica; Sporting; Parma; Sevilla; Valencia; Villarreal; Schalke
2004-05: Bolton (6) Middlesbrough (7)
Up against: Sporting; Monaco: Roma; Sevilla; Marseille
2005-06: Spurs (5) Blackburn (6) Newcastle (7 int) West Ham (9)
Against: Braga; PSG; Parma; Sevilla; Benfica;
2006-07: Spurs, Everton, Bolton (567) Blackburn (10 int)
Against: Villarreal; Braga; Bayern Munich; Benfica; Marseille; Sporting
2007-08: Everton (5) Villa (6int) Portsmouth, Man City Spurs (89 11)
Against: Milan; Braga; PSG; Sevilla; Valencia; Benfica; Schalke; Dortmund; Marseille
2008-09: Everton,Villa, Fulham (567)
Against: Roma; Villarreal; Benfica; Valencia; Sporting; Benfica; Juventus
2009-10: (567)
2010-11: Spurs (5) Fulham (8) Stoke (13) Birmingham (18 rel)
Against: PSG; Sporting; Lazio; Braga; Valencia; Porto;
2011-12: (458) Chelsea champs out top 4
2012-13: Spurs (5) Swansea (9) Wigan (18 rel)
Sevilla,Valencia, Lyon, Porto, Napoli, Benfica. Juventus
2013-14: (5+6) Hull (16)
Lyon, Inter, Villarreal, Sevilla.....plus the parachuters.
Summary - 13 seasons.
03/04 seems to be the change. Most years since then have not been the next top places.
England's UEFA/Europa cup entrants since top four entered the champions league:
2001-02: Leeds (5th place) Chelsea (6) Blackburn (10) Fulham (13 intertoto) Ipswich (18 and relegated)
Competed with: PSG;Porto; Lazio; Parma; Lyon; Bremen; Sporting.
2002-03: Liverpool (5) Blackburn (6) Southampton (8) Man City (9)
Competed with: Valencia; Sporting; Roma; Dortmund; Benfica; Barcelona; Parma; Marseille; Inter
2003-04: Newcastle (5) Middlesbrough (11) Millwall (league 1!! cup losers)
Up against: Lazio; Benfica; Sporting; Parma; Sevilla; Valencia; Villarreal; Schalke
2004-05: Bolton (6) Middlesbrough (7)
Up against: Sporting; Monaco: Roma; Sevilla; Marseille
2005-06: Spurs (5) Blackburn (6) Newcastle (7 int) West Ham (9)
Against: Braga; PSG; Parma; Sevilla; Benfica;
2006-07: Spurs, Everton, Bolton (567) Blackburn (10 int)
Against: Villarreal; Braga; Bayern Munich; Benfica; Marseille; Sporting
2007-08: Everton (5) Villa (6int) Portsmouth, Man City Spurs (89 11)
Against: Milan; Braga; PSG; Sevilla; Valencia; Benfica; Schalke; Dortmund; Marseille
2008-09: Everton,Villa, Fulham (567)
Against: Roma; Villarreal; Benfica; Valencia; Sporting; Benfica; Juventus
2009-10: (567)
2010-11: Spurs (5) Fulham (8) Stoke (13) Birmingham (18 rel)
Against: PSG; Sporting; Lazio; Braga; Valencia; Porto;
2011-12: (458) Chelsea champs out top 4
2012-13: Spurs (5) Swansea (9) Wigan (18 rel)
Sevilla,Valencia, Lyon, Porto, Napoli, Benfica. Juventus
2013-14: (5+6) Hull (16)
Lyon, Inter, Villarreal, Sevilla.....plus the parachuters.
Summary - 13 seasons.
03/04 seems to be the change. Most years since then have not been the next top places.
Sunday, 18 May 2014
At last
I have finally found a curry and wine pairing that goes really well.
I'm quite happy to use 'cheats' in cooking and I can recommend VH Thai Red Curry Sauce in a jar. Just a few pieces of chicken breast, onions, mushroom, whatever you fancy partly cooked and the sauce added to simmer. Very very nice.
The wine was a Rosé; Beringer Zinfandel. Nothing fancy but a reliable wine so far. It went superbly.
I'm quite happy to use 'cheats' in cooking and I can recommend VH Thai Red Curry Sauce in a jar. Just a few pieces of chicken breast, onions, mushroom, whatever you fancy partly cooked and the sauce added to simmer. Very very nice.
The wine was a Rosé; Beringer Zinfandel. Nothing fancy but a reliable wine so far. It went superbly.
Saturday, 17 May 2014
School Proms catching on in the UK
The humble school disco is almost a thing of the past, with an estimated 85% of UK secondary schools now holding a prom during June or July...In reality, many of the proms are relatively low-key dinner and dancing affairs in the school hall but at some, girls in particular feel under pressure to spend hundreds of pounds on the right dress, hair and beauty treatments, stretch limos and professional photography, as well as pre and post Prom parties.
Anger over rising costs has spilled over in parents' forums... "Why have we adopted this American thing?," one asks. "Why are 16-year-olds having a limo? I can't afford money for dresses that will be worn once. I would like to meet the person who first thought a prom was a good idea at a British secondary school and slap them."
"We live in quite a deprived ex-mining town so it's not like my daughter's school isn't already aware there are parents who will be struggling," says another. "Yet for proms, you should see it. Last year a few people arrived by helicopter, I kid you not!"
Others, though, reckon the cost is worth it. "I would spend around £500 on my daughter's prom as a way of treating her for finishing a big part of her education," says one parent. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime thing and a pretty big deal at that age."
So why not spend it on something like a good holiday then? Something with a more lasting memory and lasts a bit longer than a once worn dress and something that's over in a couple of hours.
Why is it that people with money to burn are the ones without much sense?
Friday, 16 May 2014
Another example
From the same writer as yesterday's comment.
It appears to be a reference to articles about "keeping your man" or "winning him back."
I'm pretty certain that I've seen plenty of articles about how, when a wife cheats, it's because of something she's unsatisfied with "at home".
It may also be the cheating husband may be missing something too, but that tends to be put on the base level of something like a blow job while the wife misses more intellectual stimulation.
Of course, there's some truth to the guy "thinking with his dick" but one can take it too far.
“If your husband is cheating on you, it doesn't mean that you need to get prettier -- it means he's a scumbag.”Fair comment. But where's the recognition that wives cheat too?
It appears to be a reference to articles about "keeping your man" or "winning him back."
I'm pretty certain that I've seen plenty of articles about how, when a wife cheats, it's because of something she's unsatisfied with "at home".
It may also be the cheating husband may be missing something too, but that tends to be put on the base level of something like a blow job while the wife misses more intellectual stimulation.
Of course, there's some truth to the guy "thinking with his dick" but one can take it too far.
Thursday, 15 May 2014
Have we gone back in time?
I've been paying attention to one of the feminist writers in the Guardian lately. It's like being back in the 70s and 80s when you could tell the distaste in some mouths when they utter the word men.
A few weeks ago there was a column about sexist men demeaning women by the way they use their name.
Now I read this and I thought but women do the same to men too and men to men, women to women.
Of course men are far more likely to be in positions of power over women and there's obviously something wrong in that. But what she's describing is those in power demeaning their subordinates. It's not sexist men. It's not even sexist, if it's negative and all people do it regardless of their sex.
Today, in a column about naming and shaming alleged rapists - those who have not even been through a legal process let alone having been convicted - she was in favour of what amounts to opening the door to vigilantism. Let alone dismissing innocent until found guilty.
The men should have been subject to the law courts not some internal university finding of 'responsibility' allowing the writer to say they were allegedly guilty.
I decided to check back over previous columns. Does this make me a stalker?
Anyway, in a column called Feminists aren't 'man-haters' – we just don't like men who are sexist and in answer to a made up question "Why don't you just say 'I don't like men' and get it over with?"
She says
Of course, to be a journalist, she'll have had a very good education. She should really be above that dig at those less fortunate.
But all of those things are not exclusive to men and their behaviour to women. I've experienced or witnessed all of those things from women towards men.
It's just bad behaviour. By focusing exclusively on bad behaviour only when it comes from one sex really makes it appear as if she is singling out men.
Germaine Greer was never like this.
A few weeks ago there was a column about sexist men demeaning women by the way they use their name.
Like most things men call women when they want to diminish them, "Jessie" (rather than Jessica) is meant to remind me that no matter what I accomplish – the number of books written, articles published, speeches given – I'm still "just a girl". But it's the overly-familiar infantilization that really makes my skin crawl. Very creepy Uncle Chester.
As it turns out, it's not just me. Behind every female with an opinion is a man with a sneering nickname for her.
Sophia Wallace, a photographer and feminist artist, tells me, "In professional contexts, I suddenly become 'Sophie' with people who have an issue with me. Usually they think I have exhibited too much leadership and are trying to bring me down."
When I asked Rebecca Traister, a senior editor at the New Republic and author of Big Girls Don't Cry: The Election That Changed Everything for American Women, about men calling her something other than her name, she responded: "Becky, Becky, Becky." Slate's Amanda Hess gets "Mandy". The Guardian's own Jill Filipovic told me, "Male commenters pretty regularly call me 'Jillly' when they're trying to be condescending."
Now I read this and I thought but women do the same to men too and men to men, women to women.
Of course men are far more likely to be in positions of power over women and there's obviously something wrong in that. But what she's describing is those in power demeaning their subordinates. It's not sexist men. It's not even sexist, if it's negative and all people do it regardless of their sex.
Today, in a column about naming and shaming alleged rapists - those who have not even been through a legal process let alone having been convicted - she was in favour of what amounts to opening the door to vigilantism. Let alone dismissing innocent until found guilty.
The men should have been subject to the law courts not some internal university finding of 'responsibility' allowing the writer to say they were allegedly guilty.
I decided to check back over previous columns. Does this make me a stalker?
Anyway, in a column called Feminists aren't 'man-haters' – we just don't like men who are sexist and in answer to a made up question "Why don't you just say 'I don't like men' and get it over with?"
She says
I don't like men who are sexist. I find that males who think of themselves as above me because of gender are generally unlikeable fellows. (And, for whatever strange reason, are usually terrible spellers, too.) I don't like men who call women they don't know "sweetie", "honey" or cutesy nicknames – it's obnoxious and condescending. I don't like men who harass women on the street, making comments about their bodies or telling them to smile. I don't like men who control women in relationships, abuse them or hurt them sexually. I don't like men who use the social and political power they have to further discrimination against women in a desperate bid to maintain their status.
Of course, to be a journalist, she'll have had a very good education. She should really be above that dig at those less fortunate.
But all of those things are not exclusive to men and their behaviour to women. I've experienced or witnessed all of those things from women towards men.
It's just bad behaviour. By focusing exclusively on bad behaviour only when it comes from one sex really makes it appear as if she is singling out men.
Germaine Greer was never like this.
Sunday, 11 May 2014
No bugger's going to read this but
I'm going to say it anyway.
The England Football Team.
Clearly suffering through lack of numbers playing at the top level. I'm not in favour of quotas, I would prefer to see it happen naturally.
But there is a clear link between so few players - down to about a quarter at the top level now, compared to three quarters when the rest were Scots, Welsh, Irish and Northern Irish - and poorly performing England. It's just not in the simplistic way some see it.
I'm not just talking about results as one can look at 'before' and 'after' and see there's not a huge difference. I'm taking into account the performance on the pitch as well; how impressive did we look? And I don't think the Euros are a fair comparison either. The finals have only come to resemble world cups in terms of size relatively recent. Also the general higher quality of the teams at a Euros can sometimes distort the picture, as in the WC2010 that saw Holland in the final and Italy knocked out at the first stage followed by Italy making the final of Euro 2012 while Holland went out at the first stage losing all their games. A 'good' Euro might simply be a lucky draw and a 'bad' one the reverse, as with Holland and, indeed, the one where England were supposedly in a weak group and the two finalists that tournament were both England's opponents in that group.
The first thing to do is to look at star players and how important they were to the team.
Back in 1982 England went into the WC with injury doubts for Kevin Keegan and Trevor Brooking. Both major players. Yet without them, we qualified from the first group stage with a 100% record including matches against Czechoslovakia and a star studded France of the Platini, Rocheteau, Giresse era.
Going into WC86 we were all concerned about whether Bryan Robson's shoulder would hold up. It didn't and we lost him in the second game. But we still had good performances, getting through to the knockouts and then the infamous quarter final with Argentina.
For WC 98 the country's fans were rocked with the news that Paul Gascoigne was left out of the squad. But we had other midfielders like McManaman, Beckham, Anderton, Ince, Scholes, Merson. We only made the second round this time - facing Argentina again and another penalty defeat and 10-11 - but we did look good.
Then we come to the 'after' era. WC 2002. We all suddenly know what a metatarsal is as Beckham breaks his toe. The nation is on tenterhooks waiting daily for the latest on how he's recovering. See, there's really no point in us going to the WC if he's not fit. That's the difference compared to the 'before' era. And, ultimately, we disappointed when we couldn't take advantage of playing ten man Brazil and having led the game too.
The whole thing was repeated again for WC 2006 when it was Rooney's broken metatarsal. Once again there was really no point in going if he couldn't recover. We still had Owen for goals, of course, but that was still nothing compared to the plethora of strikers we had in the 90s like Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Owen, Fowler and all available to choose from.
Of course, as soon as he recovered to actually start a game, Owen was out of the finals with his injury in the first few minutes. We made the quarter finals and again went out on penalties and down to ten men. Again.
But aside from the backs to the wall QF, we were pretty rubbish throughout.
Then there was WC 2010 which I would prefer to forget but it's impossible. We were diabolical. The worst ever.
Now look at the actual squads over the 'before' and 'after' eras. Shilton or Clemence. Seaman or Flowers. Then into the noughties and it's Robinson or....er....and then James (yes, really!) or....
We had that business with Green and Carson when they were asked to step in. And now it's the same with Hart or....er.....
2002 - Danny Mills, Trevor Sinclair, Wayne Bridge, Darius Vassell
2006 - Bridge again, Jermaine Jenas, Stewart Downing, Scott Carson
2010 - James & Green, Michael Dawson, Stephen Warnock, Matthew Upson, SWP.
We never used to have squads padded out with players like that. You'd be hard pushed to find their equivalents in past England squads up to and including the 90s especially several each time.
That's where the difference lies; with more England qualified players available they're not necessarily going to be better or make the England team better, although with more of them the possibility of a real gem increases
But any absences for whatever reason - form loss, injury, suspension - are more likely to be covered by players of a similar ability, just as they used to, with no great loss of performance level.
The England Football Team.
Clearly suffering through lack of numbers playing at the top level. I'm not in favour of quotas, I would prefer to see it happen naturally.
But there is a clear link between so few players - down to about a quarter at the top level now, compared to three quarters when the rest were Scots, Welsh, Irish and Northern Irish - and poorly performing England. It's just not in the simplistic way some see it.
I'm not just talking about results as one can look at 'before' and 'after' and see there's not a huge difference. I'm taking into account the performance on the pitch as well; how impressive did we look? And I don't think the Euros are a fair comparison either. The finals have only come to resemble world cups in terms of size relatively recent. Also the general higher quality of the teams at a Euros can sometimes distort the picture, as in the WC2010 that saw Holland in the final and Italy knocked out at the first stage followed by Italy making the final of Euro 2012 while Holland went out at the first stage losing all their games. A 'good' Euro might simply be a lucky draw and a 'bad' one the reverse, as with Holland and, indeed, the one where England were supposedly in a weak group and the two finalists that tournament were both England's opponents in that group.
The first thing to do is to look at star players and how important they were to the team.
Back in 1982 England went into the WC with injury doubts for Kevin Keegan and Trevor Brooking. Both major players. Yet without them, we qualified from the first group stage with a 100% record including matches against Czechoslovakia and a star studded France of the Platini, Rocheteau, Giresse era.
Going into WC86 we were all concerned about whether Bryan Robson's shoulder would hold up. It didn't and we lost him in the second game. But we still had good performances, getting through to the knockouts and then the infamous quarter final with Argentina.
For WC 98 the country's fans were rocked with the news that Paul Gascoigne was left out of the squad. But we had other midfielders like McManaman, Beckham, Anderton, Ince, Scholes, Merson. We only made the second round this time - facing Argentina again and another penalty defeat and 10-11 - but we did look good.
Then we come to the 'after' era. WC 2002. We all suddenly know what a metatarsal is as Beckham breaks his toe. The nation is on tenterhooks waiting daily for the latest on how he's recovering. See, there's really no point in us going to the WC if he's not fit. That's the difference compared to the 'before' era. And, ultimately, we disappointed when we couldn't take advantage of playing ten man Brazil and having led the game too.
The whole thing was repeated again for WC 2006 when it was Rooney's broken metatarsal. Once again there was really no point in going if he couldn't recover. We still had Owen for goals, of course, but that was still nothing compared to the plethora of strikers we had in the 90s like Shearer, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Owen, Fowler and all available to choose from.
Of course, as soon as he recovered to actually start a game, Owen was out of the finals with his injury in the first few minutes. We made the quarter finals and again went out on penalties and down to ten men. Again.
But aside from the backs to the wall QF, we were pretty rubbish throughout.
Then there was WC 2010 which I would prefer to forget but it's impossible. We were diabolical. The worst ever.
Now look at the actual squads over the 'before' and 'after' eras. Shilton or Clemence. Seaman or Flowers. Then into the noughties and it's Robinson or....er....and then James (yes, really!) or....
We had that business with Green and Carson when they were asked to step in. And now it's the same with Hart or....er.....
2002 - Danny Mills, Trevor Sinclair, Wayne Bridge, Darius Vassell
2006 - Bridge again, Jermaine Jenas, Stewart Downing, Scott Carson
2010 - James & Green, Michael Dawson, Stephen Warnock, Matthew Upson, SWP.
We never used to have squads padded out with players like that. You'd be hard pushed to find their equivalents in past England squads up to and including the 90s especially several each time.
That's where the difference lies; with more England qualified players available they're not necessarily going to be better or make the England team better, although with more of them the possibility of a real gem increases
But any absences for whatever reason - form loss, injury, suspension - are more likely to be covered by players of a similar ability, just as they used to, with no great loss of performance level.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)