What Do You Think Today?

[TheFallen]

Did anyone 'get' the Le Pétermane thing or was I just p*ssing into the wind

I checked it out when you changed it first and saw that it was the stagename of a French flautist and left it at that.

I just rechecked it see that he was actually a 'flatulist' which is something altogether different

Aaah, the benefits of being a linguist. I remember many MANY moons ago having the crucial difference between the French verbs répéter and repéter drummed into me. For reference, the former means "to repeat", whereas the latter means "to fart again".

Remember folks, those little accent thingies, although seemingly small and insignificant, are kinda important. So, next time Fros(t)y gets all curmudgeonly about your omission of an umlaut or something, or I get all snippy about your not having used an acute e (é) somewhere you should have, you'll know why.

[I'm Murrin]

You know what this means? We need to start popularising the word "peat" as a euphemism for fart.

[peter]

Thanks Ali - I'll get my head around what I might want to do with this and then post [I'm guessing the 'Work in Progress' thread is the best place.]

Now now Murrin - try to leave me with a shred of dignity intact!

[michaelm]

With regard to the accent thing, there's an even better one in Spanish.

"Mi papá tiene 50 años" means "My father is 50 years old"

"Mi papa tiene 50 anos" means "My potato has 50 anuses"

[Orlion]

With regard to the accent thing, there's an even better one in Spanish.

"Mi papá tiene 50 años" means "My father is 50 years old"

"Mi papa tiene 47 anos" means "My potato has 50 anuses"

It is a little known fact that in Spanish, 47 and 50 are the same number

[michaelm]

With regard to the accent thing, there's an even better one in Spanish.

"Mi papá tiene 50 años" means "My father is 50 years old"

"Mi papa tiene 47 anos" means "My potato has 50 anuses"

It is a little known fact that in Spanish, 47 and 50 are the same number

Oops!

[peter]

I'm reminded of a newspaper report I read about a Koranic scholar who suggested that a small mis-translation from the original texts meant that the sucessfull Jihadi arriving in paradise would possibly be presented with 100 white raisins rather than the 100 white virgins commonly expected. The reporter suggested that there would quite possibly be a significant number of disgruntled suicide bombers knocking around were that proven to be the case.

[Morning]

[Wildling]

I'm reminded of a newspaper report I read about a Koranic scholar who suggested that a small mis-translation from the original texts meant that the sucessfull Jihadi arriving in paradise would possibly be presented with 100 white raisins rather than the 100 white virgins commonly expected. The reporter suggested that there would quite possibly be a significant number of disgruntled suicide bombers knocking around were that proven to be the case.

Sounds like something Douglas Adams would have come up with.

[peter]

How are we supposed to pick the bones out of what we read in the press. Lets take the example of Lord Freud's recent and much publisised 'gaff' in which it was reported that he had said that disabled people were very often "frankly not worth" the minnimum wage of £6.50 per hour - and that some way should be found to for employers to pay them less.

The bastard! The complete and utter bastard!

Lord Freud [a bizzre choice perhaps as 'welfare reform minister', not being a man much experienced in the area of financial hardship] has made numerous crass and offensive remarks over the course of his career and following the above [apparently] hearless comment baying calls were made in the headlines and 'comments' columns of the left-wing press for his sacking. But then you continue to read and in the right wing orientated sheets a different tale is told. Freud they said was being hounded with no justification; his comments were being taken totally out of context and presented in a distorted fashion Here, they said, is how it really runs. Lord Freud was involved in a serious debate on the fringes of the Tory Conference about the very real problems of getting the disabled [and particularly the mentally disabled] into productive work, firstly to aid the economy as much as possible, but mainly to enhance their own self-esteem and quality of life. He made his comment, not in respect of the 'moral worth' or value of disabled individuals, but as to how they might be seen by potential employers. Further, we were told, he had not for a moment suggested that they should be paid less than the minnimum wage, merely that the employer should only foot say, £2 per hour of the payment, with the balance being made up by a state subsidy. The story it was claimed, was dredged up weeks after the conference in an unholy alliance between the Labour Party and it's allies in the left wing end of the press, so that the Tory party could once again [prior to the election of next year] be fixed in the public mind as the 'nasty party'. To bolster the case a number of celebrity or high-end parents of disabled children threw their support behind the Minister saying that anything that would enable their ofspring to partake of a more 'normal' and integrated life would be a positive step forward and was to be applauded.

So what are we, the readership, to make of these oposing positions; Lord Freud, candidate for Bastard of the Year award, or angelic champion of the down-trodden and marginalised. You can [and will] probably say that the truth lies 'somewhere in between'. But the problem is that this type of twisting and spinning is there in every story we read - and not always in the overt and simplified way that the example I have given demonstrates. The twists are often much, much more subtle and layered to ever greater depth. How in Gods name, without going right back to the source material for all these stories, are we ever - ever - to make any judgements of value in the face of this mendacity of presentation.

[peter]

Tesco's are under the hammer from all sides at the moment. Rising food prices and stiff competition from the 'discount' sector are making swingeing cuts into it's profits and thereby reducing it's share value. The 'Hugh Fernly-Whitingstall food lobby' is mounting it's offensive against 'big shopping' with it's misty eyed bullshit about supporting the 'little shops' and now the tax/fraud office are nose deep into it's affairs hunting for evidence of malpractice.

Let's get one thing clear. Without these big food retailers we, the average Joe in the street would still br grubbing around looking for our meat and two veg and three flavours of ice cream, and women would still be trudging around for a whole day a week atempting to pull together the measly fare on offer in order to feed their family - and all for thirty percent of your disposable income instead of the ten percent it now costs you.

One of the big sticks the supermarkets are bashed with is the way they treat their suppliers, which is hard. If they can buy cheaper abroad they do so and 'screw the harvest'. But hang on - these guys are in business; at what point are they supposed to buy more expensive stuff just in order to support the home market and take the fall themselves [or worse, pass it on to me!]. At what point did the farmer or the other suppliers jump up and say that we, the other low end workers had to be protected against measures designed to keep us earning less money per week than we need to live on. And how exactly are these guys supposed to fill the bellies of sixty-five million hungry people without bankrupting them if they don't act ruthlessly on our behalf and always cut the best deal they can. There is no more effective a means of stirring up discontent in a people than letting it get hungry and the supermarkets, so maligned, are what stops it from happening.

[aliantha]

Hmm. Yes and no.

On one hand, I agree with you that supermarkets have brought down prices. On the other hand, the cheapest stuff -- and the stuff they push the hardest -- is the highly-processed, non-nutritive crap that's basically killing us.

And the bit about family farmers not really caring abot other low-wage earners is true enough. But the government, at least here in the US, has been propping them up with farm subsidies....hmm. That's an interesting thought. I wonder whether Big Ag's roots are in those farm subsidies -- whether, in other words, the formation of those mega-agriculture corporations was spurred in part by a desire to get a cut of that gummint money. Hmm.

Anyhow, as an aside, Vicki Robin has been pushing for an eat-local movement. She had a challenge going this summer (which I didn't participate in because I suck) whereby you were supposed to try to get the vast majority of your diet from sources within a radius of 50 or 100 miles or something. I heard it wasn't easy.

[peter]

Thing is Ali that by the mid 21st C. there is going to be upwards of 9 billion people to be fed on this planet. The only way this can be aceived is by the economies of scale advanced by Big Ag doing what it does best [in places like the agricultural belt across the USA] , and that is production on a vast scale to feed not just the home market, but also all those peeps who live in areas that are not suited to production at that level. At the end of the day it is the Monsanto's, DuPont's and Cargill's which will do this.

[Vraith]

Thing is Ali that by the mid 21st C. there is going to be upwards of 9 billion people to be fed on this planet. The only way this can be aceived is by the economies of scale advanced by Big Ag doing what it does best [in places like the agricultural belt across the USA] , and that is production on a vast scale to feed not just the home market, but also all those peeps who live in areas that are not suited to production at that level. At the end of the day it is the Monsanto's, DuPont's and Cargill's which will do this.

But what creates the cheapness and productivity? And what is the cost of those things?
Look at land use, management, and pollution, water use, management and pollution, subsidies [of farms and fuels], resistant weeds...

If total costs are included, big Ag suddenly doesn't look so efficient.
And there's a pretty good case that they're actively harmful, and will only get worse without changes.

[peter]

But is there not also the possibility of the changes being achieved [sure, with a certain amount of prodding and cajoleing by government] by the big companies themselves. I read that some of the huge dairy units where thousands of cows are milked are now running at near zero carbon footprint as a result of bio recycling of waste etc on site. I just can't see the 'small is beautiful' idea ever working to provide the degree of 'food security' that the burgeoning world population will require.

[Vraith]

I just can't see the 'small is beautiful' idea ever working

to provide the degree of 'food security' that the burgeoning world population will require.

It doesn't have to be small...it does have to be ACTUALLY efficient [not the illusion of it that exists now] and not self-destructive [which most of it tends towards now, with a few exceptions] and not other-destructive. [again, look into land, water problems].

And I forget the numbers...I tracked them down once, I think they're around the watch somewhere...there's enough food RIGHT NOW to feed 10 or 12 billion people.
Food insecurity doesn't have one damn thing to do with not enough food.

[aliantha]

There are certainly places in the world where food needs to be brought in. I'm thinking in terms of drought-stricken regions, and places where the growing season is too short to sustain the existing population. But yeah, when we're paying farmers to keep their land fallow in order to prop up prices (we do still do that, don't we? That's what farm subsidies are for, at least in part, right?), then there's something fishy going on.

[peter]

Sky News leads today with the Headline. "Terror Warning; Brits not safe anywhere in the world." This hyperexagerated leader-hook is in response to a Forign Office statement stating that UK citizens should be vigilant against possible reprisal attacks anywhere in the world as a result of our support for the USA re the bombing of IS [not that it has been that great as I understand but there you have it].

Well, I suppose there is an element of truth in this - yes, there is always a small risk that somebody somewhere is 'gonna get ya' for something your country is doing somewhere else in support of somebody else, but lets face it - the risk is minnimal. And it has always been there, at all times and in all places. Countries like the UK and the USA make enemies; for everything you do in respect of forign policy that supports one group of people another group are pissed. But if you take all this stuff to heart in too big a way, then you ain't ever going anywhere - and perhaps that's just the way they would like it! I like the Indian approach to terrorism; when the Mumbai Express was blown up killing many hundreds of travellers it took the country a matter of days to get it up and running again and then it was business as normal. When questioned about the lack of securirty checks etc on passengers boarding the trains one official said "We transport three million people a day on our trains. How can we begin to check all their bags and parcels without bringing the system to a standstill."

[aliantha]

I know lorin is a big fan of the Global Entry program. In exchange for a background check and a hundred bucks, the TSA will let you get on a plane without having to unpack and take off your shoes first. Gotta love capitalism...

[peter]

In India, the train I travelled from Lucknow to Varanassi had a sign above the inner carriage door "No Guns or Explosives to be Taken Beyond This Point'. When I asked the guard [tentatively] if I might have a cigarette in the end of carriage corridor he beamed and threw open the door of the [moving] train. Pulling down a small foldable seat for me to perch on by the open door we both sat their happily smoking my cigarettes under the prominant 'no smoking' signs. Ah well, that's India!