Laddie woke Bonnie up at 5:45 this morning with an urgent toilet need. At 6:30 I was ready to take him for his walk, and he refused to go. As I needed to give one of the walkers an anniversary card, I went anyway. When I got back I was just in time for Laddie to be sick on the mat by the back door. I put some bread in the toaster and went to collect my email. The fire alarm went off - the toast, the last 2 slices of bread, had caught fire. And there was no email that needed dealing with.
So what? I am off to Aix-En-Provence on the TGV, leaving in less than an hour. I am not taking my computer, just a couple of good books, a palate desperate for Côtes du Rhône and a body in need of the sun. It is going to be fine, and in the low 70s.
Somewhere in Aix is a pavement café that is going to see an upturn in trade.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Sunday, 26 September 2010
I wish I understood people
I take my dog to Twywell Hills and Dales, where both he and I have friends we can walk with. Some early mornings when the sky is clear at about 7 a.m. there seems no nicer place to be. But there has been, over the last several months, a growing problem.
Most of the dog walkers understand the reasons for clearing up after their dog. Leaving the mess for someone to tread in is bad enough. We all know how nasty cleaning your shoes can be. And being country people, many of them are only too aware of the problems that the bugs in dog faeces can cause to sheep and cattle. These nasty pathogens can survive in the soil for several years, so the potential for damage is long lasting. And there are problems for humans too. Happily the most serious forms of these are not found frequently. No-one knows how many digestive issues stem from getting dog mess on your hands. But if you get it in your eye, the damage can be serious and long lasting. The Daily Mail recently carried a story about a child who fell in a playground and got some of the stuff on her hand. She was crying and rubbed her eye. At the time the story was carried she was in danger of losing the eye. The pathogen damages the eye and the result can cause sight problems, even (thankfully very rarely) blindness. But however rare, it happens, as the Daily Mail story shows. And one child injured in this way is one too many.
So a group of responsible dog walkers got together with the site management to discuss what could be done, and several ideas came up, most of which will be implemented. One of these was to try to educate the public with a series of posters, believing that most people are reasonable. That has indeed proved to be the case, and there has been an improvement since the posters went up.
But there are others who take no notice. Whether they don't care, can't be bothered, are too ignorant or anti-social, or just think they won't get caught I do not know.
This morning I noticed that one of the polite explanatory posters explaining why dog walkers are asked to clear up was not in place. A closer look showed that it had been ripped off, and it was lying in the path. I picked it up, and found that it had been stamped into a heap of dog mess, so I got a handful of the stuff. Happily I carry clean-up bags and so on, and was able to limit the damage. But what kind of attitude is that? What kind of person not only allows their dog to shit on the path but tears down the "Clear it up please" poster close by and turns it into a trap?
Dog wardens now patrol Twywell Hills and Dales. They are empowered to issue fixed penalty notices. So someone soon is going to find their bad behaviour is expensive. There are few bad dogs, but plenty of bad owners.
Most of the dog walkers understand the reasons for clearing up after their dog. Leaving the mess for someone to tread in is bad enough. We all know how nasty cleaning your shoes can be. And being country people, many of them are only too aware of the problems that the bugs in dog faeces can cause to sheep and cattle. These nasty pathogens can survive in the soil for several years, so the potential for damage is long lasting. And there are problems for humans too. Happily the most serious forms of these are not found frequently. No-one knows how many digestive issues stem from getting dog mess on your hands. But if you get it in your eye, the damage can be serious and long lasting. The Daily Mail recently carried a story about a child who fell in a playground and got some of the stuff on her hand. She was crying and rubbed her eye. At the time the story was carried she was in danger of losing the eye. The pathogen damages the eye and the result can cause sight problems, even (thankfully very rarely) blindness. But however rare, it happens, as the Daily Mail story shows. And one child injured in this way is one too many.
So a group of responsible dog walkers got together with the site management to discuss what could be done, and several ideas came up, most of which will be implemented. One of these was to try to educate the public with a series of posters, believing that most people are reasonable. That has indeed proved to be the case, and there has been an improvement since the posters went up.
But there are others who take no notice. Whether they don't care, can't be bothered, are too ignorant or anti-social, or just think they won't get caught I do not know.
This morning I noticed that one of the polite explanatory posters explaining why dog walkers are asked to clear up was not in place. A closer look showed that it had been ripped off, and it was lying in the path. I picked it up, and found that it had been stamped into a heap of dog mess, so I got a handful of the stuff. Happily I carry clean-up bags and so on, and was able to limit the damage. But what kind of attitude is that? What kind of person not only allows their dog to shit on the path but tears down the "Clear it up please" poster close by and turns it into a trap?
Dog wardens now patrol Twywell Hills and Dales. They are empowered to issue fixed penalty notices. So someone soon is going to find their bad behaviour is expensive. There are few bad dogs, but plenty of bad owners.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Why, why why?
I take non-religious funerals. Among the worst are those where a loved family member has died far too young in a car accident. Sometimes the feelings of loss and grief are made worse by being mixed with anger over an irresponsible act that has caused this horrible experience.
Sometimes the feelings are very strong, and stay with me long after the funeral. The sympathy for a grieving mother, wife or sister can be overwhelming. And the following day I get into my car and drive.
A few days ago I was in that situation. I drove up the road to take the dog for a walk, travelling on a winding wet road at or about the 60 mph speed limit, and some crazy kid came roaring up behind me as I went into a right hand bend. He raced past round the bend on the wrong side of the road, and gesticulated at me when he got in front. There was no way he could have had any idea if there was traffic approaching. The road is busy, used by heavy lorries from an industrial park and a land-fill site.
He was lucky. But another time and I'll be phoning his mum to make an appointment to discuss his funeral arrangements. His showing off will have become his family's devastation.
Why do people do this? The place I walk the dog has its main exit onto a single carriageway road. Just up the road is a sharp bend, and a sign indicating the park entrance. As you pull out of the park and join the road it is a common experience that someone comes round the bend at a lick and somehow manages to break when they see your accelerating but still slow moving rear end. Everyone knows the park entrance is there, so why take the risk?
A work colleague was in an accident - he'd been hit when he tried to drive across two lanes of fast traffic. He said "I thought there was time". That's it - you think it's okay (if you think at all) but you're wrong. Why put your life on an error-prone judgement? Why not just wait until it is certainly safe?
I have seen so much madness, so many foolish, irresponsible risks, lately. I get paid for taking funerals, but I'd still much rather not have to take them for young men who have brought about their own early death. Sitting with their wives or families talking about them and their funeral is gut-wrenching.
Sometimes the feelings are very strong, and stay with me long after the funeral. The sympathy for a grieving mother, wife or sister can be overwhelming. And the following day I get into my car and drive.
A few days ago I was in that situation. I drove up the road to take the dog for a walk, travelling on a winding wet road at or about the 60 mph speed limit, and some crazy kid came roaring up behind me as I went into a right hand bend. He raced past round the bend on the wrong side of the road, and gesticulated at me when he got in front. There was no way he could have had any idea if there was traffic approaching. The road is busy, used by heavy lorries from an industrial park and a land-fill site.
He was lucky. But another time and I'll be phoning his mum to make an appointment to discuss his funeral arrangements. His showing off will have become his family's devastation.
Why do people do this? The place I walk the dog has its main exit onto a single carriageway road. Just up the road is a sharp bend, and a sign indicating the park entrance. As you pull out of the park and join the road it is a common experience that someone comes round the bend at a lick and somehow manages to break when they see your accelerating but still slow moving rear end. Everyone knows the park entrance is there, so why take the risk?
A work colleague was in an accident - he'd been hit when he tried to drive across two lanes of fast traffic. He said "I thought there was time". That's it - you think it's okay (if you think at all) but you're wrong. Why put your life on an error-prone judgement? Why not just wait until it is certainly safe?
I have seen so much madness, so many foolish, irresponsible risks, lately. I get paid for taking funerals, but I'd still much rather not have to take them for young men who have brought about their own early death. Sitting with their wives or families talking about them and their funeral is gut-wrenching.
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Papal visit
I was annoyed about the papal visit when it came out how much of the bill was going to be met by our already over-burdened tax payers. I didn't see why I should pay to be told how to behave, how my country's legal code should be framed, and so on, by someone whose views are centuries out of date. Nor did I see why a visitor who has managed the cover-up of criminal acts by his employees should not face British justice. I planned to join the protest, but in the end I had to pull out.
Why? Because I have some values that took precedence over waving a banner at an ignorant old bigot who would probably never see it. In this case, the values were those of compassion and gratitude. My old dog is nearing the end of his days. When I had to decide whether to travel or not it looked worse than it does now. But I did not think it was fair to him, or to his relief minder, to leave him at such a time. He trusts me, and seeks my company, especially when his arthritis hurts, so how could I leave him?
Joe Ratzinger is the head of an institution that teaches that suffering human beings should be kept alive in their distress till the bitter end, no matter what. I won't treat my dog that way. I'll give him all the care I can, and when his time comes, I'll take him to the vet and comfort him to the end. So who is Ratzinger to lecture me or anyone else on the great Enlightenment values that his organisation fought tooth and nail against for the last several hundred years?
It's a bit rich to hear Britain's history with the Holy See lauded by our governors. How short is our historical memory? Who excommunicated an English Queen? Who tried to enforce Catholicism on the English when the people had rejected it? Have we forgotten the succession crisis and the Glorious Revolution of 1688? And who, recently, told us that those who decide our laws had got it wrong because we insist on treating people equally, no matter what their sexuality? Who tried to blackmail the last Parliament by threatening to withdraw services from couples seeking to adopt if we insisted on our equality laws? Which group of terrorists had explosives planted under Parliament, history's first would-be suicide bomber being a certain G Fawkes? And they are still at it! Not literally bombing the government but still trying to over-ride and gain exemptions from our laws, made by the people we elected. And the man he is here to beatify, J H Newman, was an implacable opponent of our national church. Welcome him? No way!
And all that was before he came! This morning David Cameron is reported as being grateful to Joe Ratzinger, former member of the Hitler Youth, for challenging us to think. The truth is that he wants to stop us thinking. The Roman Catholic church has never been in favour of free rational thought. It began the Inquisition to prevent it, and is still fighting a rearguard action. Rome wants us to stop thinking about our liberal human values and so giving equal rights to gays and women. He rightly calls child abuse a terrible crime, but he certainly doesn't want us to think about the terrible crime his organisation committed in sheltering abusers. He thinks he is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, so he doesn't want us to make up our own minds on ethical matters. And he is mightily offended if we question the existence of God, or the status of a certain ancient Jewish preacher. Nor should we think for ourselves about contraception. Instead he prolongs poverty and spreads AIDS by opposing the use of condoms. His organisation has forbidden its members even to discuss the ordination of women, which he compares as a sin with child abuse. So he cannot be, and historically the Roman Catholic church never was, in favour of the free expression of opinion that we value so highly.
Challenging us to think? All Joe Ratzinger wants us to do is to renege on our reasonable and rational assessment of the role of religion and superstition in society.
Why? Because I have some values that took precedence over waving a banner at an ignorant old bigot who would probably never see it. In this case, the values were those of compassion and gratitude. My old dog is nearing the end of his days. When I had to decide whether to travel or not it looked worse than it does now. But I did not think it was fair to him, or to his relief minder, to leave him at such a time. He trusts me, and seeks my company, especially when his arthritis hurts, so how could I leave him?
Joe Ratzinger is the head of an institution that teaches that suffering human beings should be kept alive in their distress till the bitter end, no matter what. I won't treat my dog that way. I'll give him all the care I can, and when his time comes, I'll take him to the vet and comfort him to the end. So who is Ratzinger to lecture me or anyone else on the great Enlightenment values that his organisation fought tooth and nail against for the last several hundred years?
It's a bit rich to hear Britain's history with the Holy See lauded by our governors. How short is our historical memory? Who excommunicated an English Queen? Who tried to enforce Catholicism on the English when the people had rejected it? Have we forgotten the succession crisis and the Glorious Revolution of 1688? And who, recently, told us that those who decide our laws had got it wrong because we insist on treating people equally, no matter what their sexuality? Who tried to blackmail the last Parliament by threatening to withdraw services from couples seeking to adopt if we insisted on our equality laws? Which group of terrorists had explosives planted under Parliament, history's first would-be suicide bomber being a certain G Fawkes? And they are still at it! Not literally bombing the government but still trying to over-ride and gain exemptions from our laws, made by the people we elected. And the man he is here to beatify, J H Newman, was an implacable opponent of our national church. Welcome him? No way!
And all that was before he came! This morning David Cameron is reported as being grateful to Joe Ratzinger, former member of the Hitler Youth, for challenging us to think. The truth is that he wants to stop us thinking. The Roman Catholic church has never been in favour of free rational thought. It began the Inquisition to prevent it, and is still fighting a rearguard action. Rome wants us to stop thinking about our liberal human values and so giving equal rights to gays and women. He rightly calls child abuse a terrible crime, but he certainly doesn't want us to think about the terrible crime his organisation committed in sheltering abusers. He thinks he is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, so he doesn't want us to make up our own minds on ethical matters. And he is mightily offended if we question the existence of God, or the status of a certain ancient Jewish preacher. Nor should we think for ourselves about contraception. Instead he prolongs poverty and spreads AIDS by opposing the use of condoms. His organisation has forbidden its members even to discuss the ordination of women, which he compares as a sin with child abuse. So he cannot be, and historically the Roman Catholic church never was, in favour of the free expression of opinion that we value so highly.
Challenging us to think? All Joe Ratzinger wants us to do is to renege on our reasonable and rational assessment of the role of religion and superstition in society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)