"In spite of all the enforced physical and mental primitiveness of the life in a concentration camp, it was possible for spiritual life to deepen. Sensitive people who were used to a rich intellectual life may have suffered much pain (they were often of a delicate constitution), but the damage to their inner selves was less. They were able to retreat from their terrible surroundings to a life of inner riches and spiritual freedom. Only in this way can one explain the apparent paradox that some prisoners of a less hardy makeup often seemed to survive camp life better than did those of a robust nature…From 'Man's Search for Meaning' by Viktor Emil Frankl
The experiences of camp life show that man does have a choice of action. There were enough examples, often of a heroic nature, which proved that apathy could be overcome, irritability suppressed. Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions of psychic and physical stress.
We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms — to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way."
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Man's Last Freedom
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
An Obituary
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, but in times past he walked with great men and had a long and productive history.
He will be remembered as having imparted many valuable lessons, such as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and Maybe it was actually my fault afer all.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound principles. He planned and set goals, never spent more than he earned and always believed that adults, not children, were in charge. In life he was seldom overtaken by events because he always considered the consequences of each action and was careful never to overlook the obvious.
His health started to fail when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were put in place. News reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash and playground conker tournaments banned on health and safety grounds caused him much distress.
He declined further when teachers were required to obtain consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student but could not inform her parents when the girl became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. And although he continued bravely to speak out his voice grew faint, possibly as a result of being beaten frequently about the head with The Rule Book by those who hide behind it as an alternative to independent thought.
His condition became grave as the churches became businesses, criminals received better treatment than their victims and you could no longer defend yourself from a burglar in your own home because the burglar might sue you for assault.
Our friend finally lost the will to live when a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of fresh coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, sued the restaurant and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; by his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason. He is, however, survived by his four stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, It's not my fault, and I'm A Victim. All four of these are now squabbling over his legacy.
Not many attended his funeral because, sadly, so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, please spare a moment to reflect on his passing. If not; join the majority, shrug your shoulders and do nothing.
He will be remembered as having imparted many valuable lessons, such as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and Maybe it was actually my fault afer all.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound principles. He planned and set goals, never spent more than he earned and always believed that adults, not children, were in charge. In life he was seldom overtaken by events because he always considered the consequences of each action and was careful never to overlook the obvious.
His health started to fail when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were put in place. News reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash and playground conker tournaments banned on health and safety grounds caused him much distress.
He declined further when teachers were required to obtain consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student but could not inform her parents when the girl became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. And although he continued bravely to speak out his voice grew faint, possibly as a result of being beaten frequently about the head with The Rule Book by those who hide behind it as an alternative to independent thought.
His condition became grave as the churches became businesses, criminals received better treatment than their victims and you could no longer defend yourself from a burglar in your own home because the burglar might sue you for assault.
Our friend finally lost the will to live when a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of fresh coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, sued the restaurant and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; by his wife, Discretion, his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason. He is, however, survived by his four stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, It's not my fault, and I'm A Victim. All four of these are now squabbling over his legacy.
Not many attended his funeral because, sadly, so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, please spare a moment to reflect on his passing. If not; join the majority, shrug your shoulders and do nothing.
Friday, 13 January 2012
Kindle for PC
For those of you who already love your Kindle here's a nice little application from Amazon. 'PC to Kindle' does what it says; install the prpgram and you'll get a right-click option in Explorer that will let you dispatch one or more documents to you kindle with the minimum of fuss. Even easier than emailing to your Kindle email address.
http://www.kindlepost.com/2012/01/send-to-kindle-for-pc.html
Can life get any better than this?
http://www.kindlepost.com/2012/01/send-to-kindle-for-pc.html
Can life get any better than this?
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Undemocratic Democracy
Well, here we go again.
The Greek Prime Minister may not have been making too many wise choices recently with regard to his country's finances but just the other day he distinguished himself. His call to give the Greek people a referendum on the latest Brussels-imposed series of swingeing austerity measures was like a breath of fresh air, and for two reasons. Firstly, because the Greeks ought to be given a voice. Their whole society is undergoing rapid and far-reaching change and it's only fair they should be consulted. But also secondly, and I feel far more importantly, because of the outcry it's provoked. Across Europe leaders of every flavour have been queueing up to denounce the Greek decision and say what a terrible idea it is that the people should be given a say in what their politicians are doing. One Radio 4 interviewee this morning expressed his fuming outrage at this "total lack of Greek support for the European project".
Interesting comment, that. The truth is that the European leaders do have a project and it's most inconvenient for them when democracy gets in the way. The Euro is a prime example. The Greek economic crisis is not a new thing, their economy has been in a mess for a good fifty years; they are vastly indebted, hardly anybody pays their taxes and their highly-paid public sector is vast and flabby. Anybody with half a brain could have seen the problems coming and that according to the figures Greece should never have been allowed into the Euro in the first place. But the figures were an inconvenience to the great European agenda so they were fudged, and here we are today. And it wasn't just Greece - several other nations were borderline cases for Euro membership too but were nonetheless triumphantly welcomed with much European flag-waving and booming recitals of Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
Most European governments do everything they can to avoid consulting their people on anything concerning Europe, our own included. They always have, but in recent years their fancy footwork to sidestep referenda on Europe or the Euro makes Strictly Come Dancing look like the painful hobblings of an old man with a stick. And what about the referenda we do get? Think back a little and you may remember that the Irish voted 'no' to the Lisbon treaty in 2009, and what happened? They re-ran the vote! Imagine if our next General Election didn't elect the government those in charge thought best for us. What would we say if they discounted our choice and told us to keep trying until we see it their way? Over my dead body - but that's what Europe did in 2009 and the Irish government let them.
An isolated occurrence? I'm afraid not. The Danes voted 'no' to the Maasticht treaty in 1992 and that one was circumvented as well. No wonder then that the Danes were denied a referendum by their own government on the Lisbon treaty in 2007. Wouldn't want the Danes throwing a spanner in the works a second time, would we?
Europe, when it was formed out of the ashes of the second-world war, was a good idea with noble aims but where are those aims today? The current crisis is exposing just how undemocratic Europe has become and how far it has strayed from its original purpose, and it is also exposing some senior Eurpoean politicians for the duplicitous and self-advancing scum they are. Which ones? Well, why don't you listen to their own voices on the radio and the TV and decide for yourself?
The Greek Prime Minister may not have been making too many wise choices recently with regard to his country's finances but just the other day he distinguished himself. His call to give the Greek people a referendum on the latest Brussels-imposed series of swingeing austerity measures was like a breath of fresh air, and for two reasons. Firstly, because the Greeks ought to be given a voice. Their whole society is undergoing rapid and far-reaching change and it's only fair they should be consulted. But also secondly, and I feel far more importantly, because of the outcry it's provoked. Across Europe leaders of every flavour have been queueing up to denounce the Greek decision and say what a terrible idea it is that the people should be given a say in what their politicians are doing. One Radio 4 interviewee this morning expressed his fuming outrage at this "total lack of Greek support for the European project".
Interesting comment, that. The truth is that the European leaders do have a project and it's most inconvenient for them when democracy gets in the way. The Euro is a prime example. The Greek economic crisis is not a new thing, their economy has been in a mess for a good fifty years; they are vastly indebted, hardly anybody pays their taxes and their highly-paid public sector is vast and flabby. Anybody with half a brain could have seen the problems coming and that according to the figures Greece should never have been allowed into the Euro in the first place. But the figures were an inconvenience to the great European agenda so they were fudged, and here we are today. And it wasn't just Greece - several other nations were borderline cases for Euro membership too but were nonetheless triumphantly welcomed with much European flag-waving and booming recitals of Beethoven's Ode to Joy.
Most European governments do everything they can to avoid consulting their people on anything concerning Europe, our own included. They always have, but in recent years their fancy footwork to sidestep referenda on Europe or the Euro makes Strictly Come Dancing look like the painful hobblings of an old man with a stick. And what about the referenda we do get? Think back a little and you may remember that the Irish voted 'no' to the Lisbon treaty in 2009, and what happened? They re-ran the vote! Imagine if our next General Election didn't elect the government those in charge thought best for us. What would we say if they discounted our choice and told us to keep trying until we see it their way? Over my dead body - but that's what Europe did in 2009 and the Irish government let them.
An isolated occurrence? I'm afraid not. The Danes voted 'no' to the Maasticht treaty in 1992 and that one was circumvented as well. No wonder then that the Danes were denied a referendum by their own government on the Lisbon treaty in 2007. Wouldn't want the Danes throwing a spanner in the works a second time, would we?
Europe, when it was formed out of the ashes of the second-world war, was a good idea with noble aims but where are those aims today? The current crisis is exposing just how undemocratic Europe has become and how far it has strayed from its original purpose, and it is also exposing some senior Eurpoean politicians for the duplicitous and self-advancing scum they are. Which ones? Well, why don't you listen to their own voices on the radio and the TV and decide for yourself?
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Why Getting it Right so often Goes Wrong
It may disturb you to learn this, but almost nothing ever gets done properly.
Take the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan for example. I read a report today that told me what I suspected almost from the moment it happened. In their report in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Johannis Nöggerath, Robert J. Geller and Viacheslav K. Gusiakov said:
"The tsunami countermeasures taken when Fukushima Daiichi was designed in the 1960s were, arguably, marginally acceptable considering the scientific data then available. But, between the 1970s and the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting tsunami; however, this was ignored by both the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, and government regulators. The regulatory authorities failed to properly review the tsunami countermeasures in accordance with IAEA guidelines and continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate without sufficient countermeasures, despite having received clear warnings from at least one member of a government advisory committee..."
As an engineer this comes as no surprise. Almost everywhere I've ever worked makes the mistake of failing to consult the people at the sharp end, the ones who really know what the job entails and what it will take to do it right. Engineers know how to design things that won't go wrong, doctors know how to treat patients and sales assistants know how to keep customers happy but most of the time they don't get a say in how their organisation is structured and how their jobs are done. Instead these decisions are taken by managers, finance boards and steering committes that have no idea what really goes on at the shop floor. This causes a number of issues such as poor staff morale, inefficiency and wasted resources but the real problem is more subtle. And more worrying.
Let's suppose you're hiring a photographer for a family event. You'd explain to them exactly what you want them to achieve, and then you'd ask them what they would need to deliver that - what the cost would be, how much time they will need at the venue and what approach they recommend. A project like that has a good chance of success - you started off on the right foot by asking a professional to do a professional job and giving them the resources they need to achieve a professional result.
Unfortunately, though, most projects are anything but. What usually happens is that you tell the photographer they can only have half the money, must be in and out in fifteen minutes and you've already decided the shooting order - take it or leave it. Well, business is business so many photographers would just shrug and take the job anyway. They know the customer is not going to get a great result, they know corners will be cut and risks might be taken, but after all they are working within the constraints imposed on them so they will do the best they can under the circumstances, take your money and leave the consequences with you. And anyway, what's the problem? Less-than-perfect photographs wouldn't be the end of the world.
True - but a nuclear power plant like that just might be.
So often in today's world the driving principles are politics, vested interests and short-sighted economics instead of the quality of the outcome, and the result is Fukushima - a sub-standard bodge job that was never really fit for purpose and which almost blew up in everyone's face.
The same underlying mistake is repeated everywhere, over and over again, both throughout our public services and in many private companies. Decision-makers lose sight of the fact that without the product, their organisation would not exist. The product - be that a nuclear reactor, a satisfied customer or a healed patient - is everything. And their organisation is filled with people who have dedicated their working lives to providing that product in the best way possible but who rarely get listened to. Instead of making decisions for excellence they make them for expedience, and instead of creating products to meet a specification they make them fit a budget. And worst of all, they so often ignore the sage advice of Proverbs 11:14 - "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety".
Take the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan for example. I read a report today that told me what I suspected almost from the moment it happened. In their report in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Johannis Nöggerath, Robert J. Geller and Viacheslav K. Gusiakov said:
"The tsunami countermeasures taken when Fukushima Daiichi was designed in the 1960s were, arguably, marginally acceptable considering the scientific data then available. But, between the 1970s and the 2011 disaster, new scientific knowledge emerged about the likelihood of a large earthquake and resulting tsunami; however, this was ignored by both the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, and government regulators. The regulatory authorities failed to properly review the tsunami countermeasures in accordance with IAEA guidelines and continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate without sufficient countermeasures, despite having received clear warnings from at least one member of a government advisory committee..."
As an engineer this comes as no surprise. Almost everywhere I've ever worked makes the mistake of failing to consult the people at the sharp end, the ones who really know what the job entails and what it will take to do it right. Engineers know how to design things that won't go wrong, doctors know how to treat patients and sales assistants know how to keep customers happy but most of the time they don't get a say in how their organisation is structured and how their jobs are done. Instead these decisions are taken by managers, finance boards and steering committes that have no idea what really goes on at the shop floor. This causes a number of issues such as poor staff morale, inefficiency and wasted resources but the real problem is more subtle. And more worrying.
Let's suppose you're hiring a photographer for a family event. You'd explain to them exactly what you want them to achieve, and then you'd ask them what they would need to deliver that - what the cost would be, how much time they will need at the venue and what approach they recommend. A project like that has a good chance of success - you started off on the right foot by asking a professional to do a professional job and giving them the resources they need to achieve a professional result.
Unfortunately, though, most projects are anything but. What usually happens is that you tell the photographer they can only have half the money, must be in and out in fifteen minutes and you've already decided the shooting order - take it or leave it. Well, business is business so many photographers would just shrug and take the job anyway. They know the customer is not going to get a great result, they know corners will be cut and risks might be taken, but after all they are working within the constraints imposed on them so they will do the best they can under the circumstances, take your money and leave the consequences with you. And anyway, what's the problem? Less-than-perfect photographs wouldn't be the end of the world.
True - but a nuclear power plant like that just might be.
So often in today's world the driving principles are politics, vested interests and short-sighted economics instead of the quality of the outcome, and the result is Fukushima - a sub-standard bodge job that was never really fit for purpose and which almost blew up in everyone's face.
The same underlying mistake is repeated everywhere, over and over again, both throughout our public services and in many private companies. Decision-makers lose sight of the fact that without the product, their organisation would not exist. The product - be that a nuclear reactor, a satisfied customer or a healed patient - is everything. And their organisation is filled with people who have dedicated their working lives to providing that product in the best way possible but who rarely get listened to. Instead of making decisions for excellence they make them for expedience, and instead of creating products to meet a specification they make them fit a budget. And worst of all, they so often ignore the sage advice of Proverbs 11:14 - "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety".
Saturday, 21 May 2011
The Kindle for Preachers
I got blessed with an Amazon Kindle recently and thought I'd share my impressions for the benefit of anyone else considering this remarkable device.
First, it's not a smartphone. If what you want is a touch-sensitive colour screen on which you can watch mindless You-Tube clips, make stupid noises, pour virtual pints of beer and play angry birds then don't get a Kindle - get a life. If, however, you want a device that lets you carry an entire library of electronic books and other documents around with you, and lets you read them almost instantly, any time and anywhere, then you want one of these.
Oh, and did I mention it's also about a quarter of the price?
It's about the size of a paperback book but half the thickess and weight. And if you don't count the experimental features (it has a basic web browser, it can read your books aloud to you and it can also play MP3s) then the controls are so simple you can master it in minutes.
The screen is unique. Firstly, it's big. And secondly, it's black-and-white. That, however, is one of it's great strengths because the printed word is generally black ink on white paper and because of that the Kindle is the easiest electronic display to read that I've ever seen.
Rather than being a multi-megapixel LCD the screen is actually e-paper. This means that the background is white, and stays white, but not the kind of white that's generated by some lamp glowing behind it. It's a surface and it doesn't glow from within. Rather, it reflects light just like the page of a book does, which means you can read it just as well in full direct sunlight as you can indoors.
Try that with an I-Pad or a laptop.
The text appears as black e-ink on this white e-paper and you can vary the size, font and layout to suit your eyesight and preference at the touch of a button. This makes it great for both personal reading and as a real-time source for preaching, teaching or public speaking of any kind. All you have to do is upload your notes to it (more on this later) and press the 'forward' and 'back' keys to navigate. It's so well designed for this that you can hold it in one hand and turn the pages with your thumb.
Also, because this kind of display takes very little power, a fully charged battery lasts an entire month. Yes, you heard me - four whole weeks. No remembering to lug some stupid charger around with you when you travel. No plugging it in every single night. No plaintive cries of "Me battery's runnin' out!" when you need it to work at a critical moment. Just like a book, the Kindle will always be there for you whenever you need it.
Capacity-wise it can store hundreds of books and documents which you can group into collections for ease of access. Brilliantly, though, you can re-think your collections as often as you want, and deleting a collection doesn't delete the documents you've stored in it. You can also store a document in multiple collections if you like, or in none of them; it's entirely up to you.
The Amazon site offers thousands of e-books, and a surprising number are free. For example, The Complete Works of John Bunyan, the King James Bible, The Works of Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare's Plays and many other classics are completely free. What isn't free you'll generally find for under a fiver, and very often for much less that that. You can either buy from the Amazon website or browse directly on your Kindle and, assuming you've got internet access, the book will be on your device in moments.
For preachers and teachers though the killer feature is the ability to put your own documents and notes on the Kindle, but before I deal with this I need to explain how it connects to the internet.
The basic Kindle comes with built-in WiFi, so whenever you're in range of a wireless hotspot you've got the 'net. For a bit more outlay you can also have 3G capability so your Kindle can be on-line no matter where you are. In both cases, downloading anything you've chosen from amazon is free - you just pay the price shown in-store, even if that is zero. However with 3G access the download of your own document (as opposed to a purchased one) will cost you a small fee, whereas over WiFi - even onto a 3G equipped Kindle - it costs you nothing. For that reason, for me, there's nothing to be gained by the 3G connectivity. If I'm at home or in church I'll always have WiFi so I can download my notes for free, and I have no need to do so while riding in a speeding car or sitting on a park bench.
So how does it work? When you buy and register a Kindle they give you an email address, and to put a document onto your device you just email it to your Kindle and on it goes. Simple as that. Text files, Word files and PDF files will all work though native PDFs don't make the most of the reader's capabilities. And if your internet's broke and you're really stuck you can still plug it into your computer via USB and do it the old-fashioned way.
Are there any drawbacks? Not really, but there are a few things worthy of mention.
First, the device will auto-power-off after five minutes of inactivity. While this might seem a drawback for preachers, let's face it - if you're still droning on out of the same twenty lines of your notes after five whole minutes then you're congregation might well die and decompose before the end of your sermon. And if it does go off, just flip the power switch and it will be back on - showing exactly the same place in the text as when you left it - in less than two seconds.
Secondly, when you 'turn the page' there is a momentary flick of the display. When I first saw this I thought "That's annoying; I'll never get used to that." But within five minutes of using the thing I'd stopped noticing and it's never bothered me since. Trust me, you will too.
And thirdly, If you're planning to get one I would strongly recommend you shell out the extra for the proper Amazon case. It opens like a book and protects the screen really well, it's also solid but light enough to sit nicely in your hand. You can get them in different colours and you can also get them with a little pull-out LED lamp in the corner that will let you read in darkness (it's e-paper, remember - there's no backlight).
So, what do you think of the Kindle? Do you have one? Are you thinking of getting one? If you've tried preaching from one, how did you find it? Got any tips?
Post a comment and let us know.
First, it's not a smartphone. If what you want is a touch-sensitive colour screen on which you can watch mindless You-Tube clips, make stupid noises, pour virtual pints of beer and play angry birds then don't get a Kindle - get a life. If, however, you want a device that lets you carry an entire library of electronic books and other documents around with you, and lets you read them almost instantly, any time and anywhere, then you want one of these.
Oh, and did I mention it's also about a quarter of the price?
It's about the size of a paperback book but half the thickess and weight. And if you don't count the experimental features (it has a basic web browser, it can read your books aloud to you and it can also play MP3s) then the controls are so simple you can master it in minutes.
The screen is unique. Firstly, it's big. And secondly, it's black-and-white. That, however, is one of it's great strengths because the printed word is generally black ink on white paper and because of that the Kindle is the easiest electronic display to read that I've ever seen.
Rather than being a multi-megapixel LCD the screen is actually e-paper. This means that the background is white, and stays white, but not the kind of white that's generated by some lamp glowing behind it. It's a surface and it doesn't glow from within. Rather, it reflects light just like the page of a book does, which means you can read it just as well in full direct sunlight as you can indoors.
Try that with an I-Pad or a laptop.
The text appears as black e-ink on this white e-paper and you can vary the size, font and layout to suit your eyesight and preference at the touch of a button. This makes it great for both personal reading and as a real-time source for preaching, teaching or public speaking of any kind. All you have to do is upload your notes to it (more on this later) and press the 'forward' and 'back' keys to navigate. It's so well designed for this that you can hold it in one hand and turn the pages with your thumb.
Also, because this kind of display takes very little power, a fully charged battery lasts an entire month. Yes, you heard me - four whole weeks. No remembering to lug some stupid charger around with you when you travel. No plugging it in every single night. No plaintive cries of "Me battery's runnin' out!" when you need it to work at a critical moment. Just like a book, the Kindle will always be there for you whenever you need it.
Capacity-wise it can store hundreds of books and documents which you can group into collections for ease of access. Brilliantly, though, you can re-think your collections as often as you want, and deleting a collection doesn't delete the documents you've stored in it. You can also store a document in multiple collections if you like, or in none of them; it's entirely up to you.
The Amazon site offers thousands of e-books, and a surprising number are free. For example, The Complete Works of John Bunyan, the King James Bible, The Works of Thomas Hardy, Shakespeare's Plays and many other classics are completely free. What isn't free you'll generally find for under a fiver, and very often for much less that that. You can either buy from the Amazon website or browse directly on your Kindle and, assuming you've got internet access, the book will be on your device in moments.
For preachers and teachers though the killer feature is the ability to put your own documents and notes on the Kindle, but before I deal with this I need to explain how it connects to the internet.
The basic Kindle comes with built-in WiFi, so whenever you're in range of a wireless hotspot you've got the 'net. For a bit more outlay you can also have 3G capability so your Kindle can be on-line no matter where you are. In both cases, downloading anything you've chosen from amazon is free - you just pay the price shown in-store, even if that is zero. However with 3G access the download of your own document (as opposed to a purchased one) will cost you a small fee, whereas over WiFi - even onto a 3G equipped Kindle - it costs you nothing. For that reason, for me, there's nothing to be gained by the 3G connectivity. If I'm at home or in church I'll always have WiFi so I can download my notes for free, and I have no need to do so while riding in a speeding car or sitting on a park bench.
So how does it work? When you buy and register a Kindle they give you an email address, and to put a document onto your device you just email it to your Kindle and on it goes. Simple as that. Text files, Word files and PDF files will all work though native PDFs don't make the most of the reader's capabilities. And if your internet's broke and you're really stuck you can still plug it into your computer via USB and do it the old-fashioned way.
Are there any drawbacks? Not really, but there are a few things worthy of mention.
First, the device will auto-power-off after five minutes of inactivity. While this might seem a drawback for preachers, let's face it - if you're still droning on out of the same twenty lines of your notes after five whole minutes then you're congregation might well die and decompose before the end of your sermon. And if it does go off, just flip the power switch and it will be back on - showing exactly the same place in the text as when you left it - in less than two seconds.
Secondly, when you 'turn the page' there is a momentary flick of the display. When I first saw this I thought "That's annoying; I'll never get used to that." But within five minutes of using the thing I'd stopped noticing and it's never bothered me since. Trust me, you will too.
And thirdly, If you're planning to get one I would strongly recommend you shell out the extra for the proper Amazon case. It opens like a book and protects the screen really well, it's also solid but light enough to sit nicely in your hand. You can get them in different colours and you can also get them with a little pull-out LED lamp in the corner that will let you read in darkness (it's e-paper, remember - there's no backlight).
So, what do you think of the Kindle? Do you have one? Are you thinking of getting one? If you've tried preaching from one, how did you find it? Got any tips?
Post a comment and let us know.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Oh. No...
In case you haven't noticed, the British people just gave a resounding 'No' vote to voting reform, and in particular the replacement of our first-past-the-post system with the Alternative Vote (AV). That's quite interesting in itself, but what was more interesting was to hear the whinings of the high-profile champions of the defeated 'Yes' campaign on the radio and TV, telling us how we've missed a great opportunity but they were still right all along and will keep on chipping away at us until they get the result they want.
Hang on a minute - I thought this was a democracy, and the people just spoke.
It was an overwhelming and decisive 'No' vote and that surely should settle the matter once and for all. Or are we still back in the bad old days of the European referendums where more than once they've simply rerun the vote because they didn't get the answer they wanted the first time? How inconsiderate of the people to cause problems for their politicians.
Not this time, though. That's it guys, game over. Nobody wanted it. Let it go - and let's get on with more important things.
Why do I say that? Because the outcome of this referendum reveals two things. First, that quite a number of our politicians are still hopelessly out of touch with the will and desires of the people they say they represent. But we already knew that.
Secondly however the referendum shows us something else.
It shows us that the people spoke. They didn't do what the politicans told them to do. They made their own minds up. They saw through the arguments of the experts and leaders who pushed them into a referendum they didn't want, and they confounded them.
If you look at the trends in our society I believe we're going to see this more and more. This isn't like the days of old. This is the internet generation, the day of wikileaks revelations, of bloggers saying what the establishment won't, and of rebels tweeting to the world things their governments desperately want to suppress. More and more people now are thinking for themselves, gathering their own information and coming to their own conclusions. The establishment don't like this very much but it's too late, the genie is out of the bottle and no amount of frenzied cork-pushing is going to set things back to the nice, safe, predictable way they were before.
What we've just seen in the UK is, I believe, a microcosm of this. For the last ten years successive governments have been wringing their hands at the loss of the British identity. "What is Britishness?" they cried. "Where did it go? When did we lose it? How can we bring it back?" Well guess what boys, it's been a long dark night but I think there's a glow on the horizon.
For the last two and a half generations we've lost our way. Blown by every wind of thought and political doctrine we've put up with every kind of social experimentation. We've seen liberalism fail. We've tried the science-will-solve-all-your-problems 'White Heat of Technology'. That was supposed to give us a three-day working week and the paperless office, remember? We've tried liberal parenting and that gave us drink-fuelled thuggery and the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. We've tried secular humanism and it cost us our soul. We've tried immigration, importing others to do the lowly jobs Britons didn't want. They did them, and did them so well that we now bemoan their prosperity and success. We've tried both left-wing and right-wing economic and political dogma, both promising utopian success but leaving a twisted legacy of chaos. We've messed with the schools and the health service so many times we've forgotten what they are for. We've built tower blocks and torn them down again because they don't work. And most recently we've swallowed the line that if you live beyond your means and pile up the debt then the economy will keep growing forever and we'll all be fine. Instead, we got the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
But something is happening in Britain. People are waking up and asking their own questions. They are beginning to make up their own minds about who they are and what they want. Like glimpses of sun between the clouds, when I read between the lines I see Britishness coming back. That sense of honesty, justice and fair-play. That sense of compassion for the less fortunate. That sense of moral obligation to step in and help, to stand for what's right and to sacrifice if need be to see truth win out in the end. More than anywhere else I see this in the young, and that gives me hope.
Yes, we still have criminals and idiots (some on the streets and some in high office). We still have news reports of hideous crimes and acts of the grossest evil. But behind it all, if you have the eyes to see, things are changing for the better. We're rediscovering our spirituality. We're rediscovering our own inherent value and dignity. We're rediscovering who we are.
You might not be able to see it yet, but I do. Britain is changing. Revival is coming, people, and we need to get ready to embrace it.
Hang on a minute - I thought this was a democracy, and the people just spoke.
It was an overwhelming and decisive 'No' vote and that surely should settle the matter once and for all. Or are we still back in the bad old days of the European referendums where more than once they've simply rerun the vote because they didn't get the answer they wanted the first time? How inconsiderate of the people to cause problems for their politicians.
Not this time, though. That's it guys, game over. Nobody wanted it. Let it go - and let's get on with more important things.
Why do I say that? Because the outcome of this referendum reveals two things. First, that quite a number of our politicians are still hopelessly out of touch with the will and desires of the people they say they represent. But we already knew that.
Secondly however the referendum shows us something else.
It shows us that the people spoke. They didn't do what the politicans told them to do. They made their own minds up. They saw through the arguments of the experts and leaders who pushed them into a referendum they didn't want, and they confounded them.
If you look at the trends in our society I believe we're going to see this more and more. This isn't like the days of old. This is the internet generation, the day of wikileaks revelations, of bloggers saying what the establishment won't, and of rebels tweeting to the world things their governments desperately want to suppress. More and more people now are thinking for themselves, gathering their own information and coming to their own conclusions. The establishment don't like this very much but it's too late, the genie is out of the bottle and no amount of frenzied cork-pushing is going to set things back to the nice, safe, predictable way they were before.
What we've just seen in the UK is, I believe, a microcosm of this. For the last ten years successive governments have been wringing their hands at the loss of the British identity. "What is Britishness?" they cried. "Where did it go? When did we lose it? How can we bring it back?" Well guess what boys, it's been a long dark night but I think there's a glow on the horizon.
For the last two and a half generations we've lost our way. Blown by every wind of thought and political doctrine we've put up with every kind of social experimentation. We've seen liberalism fail. We've tried the science-will-solve-all-your-problems 'White Heat of Technology'. That was supposed to give us a three-day working week and the paperless office, remember? We've tried liberal parenting and that gave us drink-fuelled thuggery and the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. We've tried secular humanism and it cost us our soul. We've tried immigration, importing others to do the lowly jobs Britons didn't want. They did them, and did them so well that we now bemoan their prosperity and success. We've tried both left-wing and right-wing economic and political dogma, both promising utopian success but leaving a twisted legacy of chaos. We've messed with the schools and the health service so many times we've forgotten what they are for. We've built tower blocks and torn them down again because they don't work. And most recently we've swallowed the line that if you live beyond your means and pile up the debt then the economy will keep growing forever and we'll all be fine. Instead, we got the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
But something is happening in Britain. People are waking up and asking their own questions. They are beginning to make up their own minds about who they are and what they want. Like glimpses of sun between the clouds, when I read between the lines I see Britishness coming back. That sense of honesty, justice and fair-play. That sense of compassion for the less fortunate. That sense of moral obligation to step in and help, to stand for what's right and to sacrifice if need be to see truth win out in the end. More than anywhere else I see this in the young, and that gives me hope.
Yes, we still have criminals and idiots (some on the streets and some in high office). We still have news reports of hideous crimes and acts of the grossest evil. But behind it all, if you have the eyes to see, things are changing for the better. We're rediscovering our spirituality. We're rediscovering our own inherent value and dignity. We're rediscovering who we are.
You might not be able to see it yet, but I do. Britain is changing. Revival is coming, people, and we need to get ready to embrace it.
Thursday, 31 March 2011
What's the Alternative?
In case you haven't heard (and apologies to my American readers), there is a referendum on 5th May to decide whether or not to change the UK voting system to the Alternative Vote (AV). I've been asking friends and acquaintances what they think and I'm surprised at how few understand what the vote is really about and what's at stake.
Which means, of course, that it's time for a post.
The first problem is that the referendum is happening at the same time as several other votes which seems to be confusing people. One person I spoke to thought the polling card they received was "only for the local council and I can't be bothered with that."
Not true - and when I explained there was also a referendum of national importance on the same day it was the first time they'd heard about it. Somehow this referendum hasn't captured public attention, and that's worrying because the issue at stake affects all of us. This is a crucial vote - if the outcome is 'Yes' then all future elections will use the Alternative Vote and our current system will be tossed into the dustbin of history. And if the result is 'No' then, to quote one commentator, "that will finish voting reform for a generation".
What difference will this make to us? What is the Alternative Vote? Who is promoting it, and why?
If you don't know, read on.
Our current system is 'first past the post' and the name describes it well. Every voter has one vote and can vote for just one candidate - the one they think most worthy of their support. All the votes get counted up and the candidate with the most votes wins.
As the eponymous Meerkat would say, "Simples!"
Critics of the system, however, say that if you vote for a minority candidate your vote is effectively wasted; since your candidate can never win, your voice never gets heard. And when you multipy that up across all the seats in the country, the party that 'wins' might do so without the support of the genuine majority of all those who voted. There was plenty of argument on those lines after the last election gave us the first hung parliament since 1974. (Some, of course, think parliament ought to be hung, particularly after the expenses crisis, but that's another story).
By contrast, under the Alternative Vote you don't select one candidate but rank all the candidates in order of preference, your favourite gets '1', your second choice '2' and so on. If the top candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast, they win and that's the end of it. If they don't, the funny business starts. Since the top candidate got less than 50%, the lowest-scoring candidate is eliminated (since they clearly can't win), and the votes of those who ranked that candidate first get re-examined. The second-place choices of all those people then get allocated to the remaining candidates to see if that puts any of them up to 50%. If it does, that candidate wins. If it doesn't, then the votes for the next lowest candidate get reallocated and so on until somebody wins.
The Yes campaign say that makes AV fairer and reduces the number of safe seats by forcing candidates to appeal to a wider cross-section of the voters than just their traditional core support. They also say the AV removes the need for tactical voting by freeing voters to honestly express their preferences in the knowledge their vote will never be wasted.
I have several problems with this.
Firstly, it's too complex. Anyone can put an 'X' beside the candidate of their choice, but having to number candidates in order of preference will be too off-putting for some. Must I number them all? Can't I just choose one? Can I pick my first, second and third and leave the others blank? Or should I just give up altogether and not bother? Actually, you can choose just one - but only if you mark the candidate with a '1'. If you put an 'X', your vote won't be counted.
What a mess.
Secondly, since I live in a 'safe' seat where the candidate of my choice never stands a chance, my vote under this new system is almost certain to help elect someone who is only my second, or even third, choice. How wonderful is that? At least under the current system my vote, although 'wasted', genuinely expresses my preference. Under AV it gets redirected to elect someone I rated only second best, and yet they have the gall to tell me that's better. I'm afraid I'm with David Cameron on this one: "When it comes to our democracy, Britain shouldn't have to settle for anyone's second choice." (Vote referendum: Clegg v Cameron, by Brian Wheeler, BBC News, 18 February 2011).
And thirdly, introducing AV will clearly benefit the smaller parties - which is why you'll find most of them in favour of it. The Liberal Democrats have never yet managed to win a majority under the current system or even come close, so from many elections across many years it's clear that their policies - voting reform included - simply haven't been attractive enough to the British people. Yet due to an accident of fate here they are, and their prize for getting a share in government is the chance to drink from their personal holy grail - to change the voting system to one that favours them more in the future. Now why, do you suppose, they might want to do that? Is it to reform democracy and make things fairer for the voter? Is it to usher in a nobler age of "new politics"? No, I fear it's actually old politics at it's cynically-motivated worst - politicians once again furthering their own interests and using the electorate to do it. Sorry, my Right Honourable friends, but in this case I strongly suspect the emperor has no clothes...
The key question, though, is what do you think? And will you turn out on May 5th to express that opinion? You ought to - it's your vote, after all, and that's what this referendum is all about.
Which means, of course, that it's time for a post.
The first problem is that the referendum is happening at the same time as several other votes which seems to be confusing people. One person I spoke to thought the polling card they received was "only for the local council and I can't be bothered with that."
Not true - and when I explained there was also a referendum of national importance on the same day it was the first time they'd heard about it. Somehow this referendum hasn't captured public attention, and that's worrying because the issue at stake affects all of us. This is a crucial vote - if the outcome is 'Yes' then all future elections will use the Alternative Vote and our current system will be tossed into the dustbin of history. And if the result is 'No' then, to quote one commentator, "that will finish voting reform for a generation".
What difference will this make to us? What is the Alternative Vote? Who is promoting it, and why?
If you don't know, read on.
Our current system is 'first past the post' and the name describes it well. Every voter has one vote and can vote for just one candidate - the one they think most worthy of their support. All the votes get counted up and the candidate with the most votes wins.
As the eponymous Meerkat would say, "Simples!"
Critics of the system, however, say that if you vote for a minority candidate your vote is effectively wasted; since your candidate can never win, your voice never gets heard. And when you multipy that up across all the seats in the country, the party that 'wins' might do so without the support of the genuine majority of all those who voted. There was plenty of argument on those lines after the last election gave us the first hung parliament since 1974. (Some, of course, think parliament ought to be hung, particularly after the expenses crisis, but that's another story).
By contrast, under the Alternative Vote you don't select one candidate but rank all the candidates in order of preference, your favourite gets '1', your second choice '2' and so on. If the top candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast, they win and that's the end of it. If they don't, the funny business starts. Since the top candidate got less than 50%, the lowest-scoring candidate is eliminated (since they clearly can't win), and the votes of those who ranked that candidate first get re-examined. The second-place choices of all those people then get allocated to the remaining candidates to see if that puts any of them up to 50%. If it does, that candidate wins. If it doesn't, then the votes for the next lowest candidate get reallocated and so on until somebody wins.
The Yes campaign say that makes AV fairer and reduces the number of safe seats by forcing candidates to appeal to a wider cross-section of the voters than just their traditional core support. They also say the AV removes the need for tactical voting by freeing voters to honestly express their preferences in the knowledge their vote will never be wasted.
I have several problems with this.
Firstly, it's too complex. Anyone can put an 'X' beside the candidate of their choice, but having to number candidates in order of preference will be too off-putting for some. Must I number them all? Can't I just choose one? Can I pick my first, second and third and leave the others blank? Or should I just give up altogether and not bother? Actually, you can choose just one - but only if you mark the candidate with a '1'. If you put an 'X', your vote won't be counted.
What a mess.
Secondly, since I live in a 'safe' seat where the candidate of my choice never stands a chance, my vote under this new system is almost certain to help elect someone who is only my second, or even third, choice. How wonderful is that? At least under the current system my vote, although 'wasted', genuinely expresses my preference. Under AV it gets redirected to elect someone I rated only second best, and yet they have the gall to tell me that's better. I'm afraid I'm with David Cameron on this one: "When it comes to our democracy, Britain shouldn't have to settle for anyone's second choice." (Vote referendum: Clegg v Cameron, by Brian Wheeler, BBC News, 18 February 2011).
And thirdly, introducing AV will clearly benefit the smaller parties - which is why you'll find most of them in favour of it. The Liberal Democrats have never yet managed to win a majority under the current system or even come close, so from many elections across many years it's clear that their policies - voting reform included - simply haven't been attractive enough to the British people. Yet due to an accident of fate here they are, and their prize for getting a share in government is the chance to drink from their personal holy grail - to change the voting system to one that favours them more in the future. Now why, do you suppose, they might want to do that? Is it to reform democracy and make things fairer for the voter? Is it to usher in a nobler age of "new politics"? No, I fear it's actually old politics at it's cynically-motivated worst - politicians once again furthering their own interests and using the electorate to do it. Sorry, my Right Honourable friends, but in this case I strongly suspect the emperor has no clothes...
The key question, though, is what do you think? And will you turn out on May 5th to express that opinion? You ought to - it's your vote, after all, and that's what this referendum is all about.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Mind Your Language
While leafing through a magazine the other week I came across a full-page advertisement for an upcoming film ('movie' to my American readers) which had a notice down in the bottom right-hand corner stating that the film contained "Strong Language".
This, of course, got me thinking. They were referring to swearing of course, the kind of language you might want to avoid in polite company, but why is such language described as "strong"? Strength normally suggests potency, effectiveness, the ability to influence, the posession of power being of renown. And presumably, therefore, if profanity is "strong" then other non-profane utterances are somehow by comparison weak, ineffective and of lesser use.
Strength also carries with it the idea of renown, and by extension honour, praise, respect, admiration and being considered of worth and value. (Think about it - have you recently praise or admired someone for their weakness? It's the strong that we talk about and respect.) Does this mean, then that "strong" language is somehow better, more praiseworthy and of innately greater value than other forms of speech? We certainly seem to be hearing more and more of it; our cinema and TV screens are awash with graphic expletives as producers and directors seek to grab the attention of a bored and fickle public by outdoing everything that went before. You can barely walk down the street now without encountering sewer-mouthed idiots F'ing and cursing away without any consideration or regard for the child by your side or the old lady two steps behind you.
Strong language may be everywhere, and so ingrained in our culture that it has almost become part of us, but universal popularity doesn't make something right and just because everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's healthy. If you doubt this, I offer you the following suggestion: eat excrement - after all, ten million flies can't be wrong.
No, rather than being "strong" this outpouring of verbal violence is weakening our language. Many people seem to have lost the ability to express themselves adequately using just normal words. They have become incapable of expressing strong emotion, deeply held conviction or even of simply arguing a point without swearing. And yet, at the same time, those "strong" words have now become so commonplace that they themselves have lost their meaning. I come across people on a daily basis who drop the F-word into almost every sentence without it adding anything to what they are saying. It's as if that word has become something they say just because they ought to, a verbal full-stop or comma perhaps.
It is, however, very possible to communicate both clearly and powerfully without resorting to strong language. When I was at school we had an English teacher named Mr Gould. An almost-bald giant of a man, he always came to school in a suit and he never, ever swore. Yet he told errant pupils in no uncertain terms exactly what he thought of them and every one of his classes was attentive and calm. I remember clearly one lesson in which some lad was whispering to his friend at the back. Mr Gould straightened himself up in his chair, placed his big hands palm-down on his desk, fixed the young man with one of his famous hard stares and thundered, "Silence, boy, or I will cleave your brains apart with an axe!" In today's misguided age Mr Gould would probably be suspended for such threats, but we all thought he was brilliant and he was by far the most popular teacher in the school.
And what about that other linguistic traversty, "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics"? Well excuse me, but aren't all lyrics meant to be explicit? What exactly would the point be of lyrics that did not explicitly convey the emotion or meaning of a song? Again, we have a generation falling into the trap of feeling they cannot adeqautely express themselves without filling their lyrics with F-rated profanities and thinking they are really cool for doing so. I beg to differ: if you want explicit lyrics try listening to the the old hymn Jerusalem by Willam Blake. Or if that's too old for you then perhaps the song Eleanor Rigby by Paul McCartney, Heavenly Homes by Bill Nelson or Money by Pink Floyd. You'll find there a far more eloquent and emotionally charged experience that you'll ever get from some foul-mouthed barely educated bling-toting wannabee rap star with his hat on backwards.
Friends, it is time for us to rise from this lazy cess-pit of linguistic filth and reclaim the language we once knew how to use. As Ephesians 4:29 says, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."
Let me know how you get on.
This, of course, got me thinking. They were referring to swearing of course, the kind of language you might want to avoid in polite company, but why is such language described as "strong"? Strength normally suggests potency, effectiveness, the ability to influence, the posession of power being of renown. And presumably, therefore, if profanity is "strong" then other non-profane utterances are somehow by comparison weak, ineffective and of lesser use.
Strength also carries with it the idea of renown, and by extension honour, praise, respect, admiration and being considered of worth and value. (Think about it - have you recently praise or admired someone for their weakness? It's the strong that we talk about and respect.) Does this mean, then that "strong" language is somehow better, more praiseworthy and of innately greater value than other forms of speech? We certainly seem to be hearing more and more of it; our cinema and TV screens are awash with graphic expletives as producers and directors seek to grab the attention of a bored and fickle public by outdoing everything that went before. You can barely walk down the street now without encountering sewer-mouthed idiots F'ing and cursing away without any consideration or regard for the child by your side or the old lady two steps behind you.
Strong language may be everywhere, and so ingrained in our culture that it has almost become part of us, but universal popularity doesn't make something right and just because everyone's doing it doesn't mean it's healthy. If you doubt this, I offer you the following suggestion: eat excrement - after all, ten million flies can't be wrong.
No, rather than being "strong" this outpouring of verbal violence is weakening our language. Many people seem to have lost the ability to express themselves adequately using just normal words. They have become incapable of expressing strong emotion, deeply held conviction or even of simply arguing a point without swearing. And yet, at the same time, those "strong" words have now become so commonplace that they themselves have lost their meaning. I come across people on a daily basis who drop the F-word into almost every sentence without it adding anything to what they are saying. It's as if that word has become something they say just because they ought to, a verbal full-stop or comma perhaps.
It is, however, very possible to communicate both clearly and powerfully without resorting to strong language. When I was at school we had an English teacher named Mr Gould. An almost-bald giant of a man, he always came to school in a suit and he never, ever swore. Yet he told errant pupils in no uncertain terms exactly what he thought of them and every one of his classes was attentive and calm. I remember clearly one lesson in which some lad was whispering to his friend at the back. Mr Gould straightened himself up in his chair, placed his big hands palm-down on his desk, fixed the young man with one of his famous hard stares and thundered, "Silence, boy, or I will cleave your brains apart with an axe!" In today's misguided age Mr Gould would probably be suspended for such threats, but we all thought he was brilliant and he was by far the most popular teacher in the school.
And what about that other linguistic traversty, "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics"? Well excuse me, but aren't all lyrics meant to be explicit? What exactly would the point be of lyrics that did not explicitly convey the emotion or meaning of a song? Again, we have a generation falling into the trap of feeling they cannot adeqautely express themselves without filling their lyrics with F-rated profanities and thinking they are really cool for doing so. I beg to differ: if you want explicit lyrics try listening to the the old hymn Jerusalem by Willam Blake. Or if that's too old for you then perhaps the song Eleanor Rigby by Paul McCartney, Heavenly Homes by Bill Nelson or Money by Pink Floyd. You'll find there a far more eloquent and emotionally charged experience that you'll ever get from some foul-mouthed barely educated bling-toting wannabee rap star with his hat on backwards.
Friends, it is time for us to rise from this lazy cess-pit of linguistic filth and reclaim the language we once knew how to use. As Ephesians 4:29 says, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."
Let me know how you get on.
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Happy New Year
How are you getting along with your New Year's resolutions?
I'm still keeping one that I made back halfway through last year - to prioritise and to focus my time and effort on the things that are most important. That's why I havent been blogging much over the last few months; I simply haven't had the time...
Don't get me wrong - I like the internet. It's a great way to interact with people you might not otherwise be able to reach. When Paul or Jesus wanted an audience they went to the marketplace or the synagogue or the river - nowadays their first step might well be to open an account on Facebook.
Using social media, though, is quite different to being defined by them. If we're not careful we can get so caught up in the world of Twitter and Facebook that we replace the living of real life with the promoting of an airbrushed image of ourselves for the approval of others. We end up spending more time and effort documenting our lives than we do enjoying and experiencing them. That's why I've not been blogging so much - it would have been easy to cook up topics and simply keep on posting but that would have been self-defeating. The reason so many of you read this blog is to pick up the odd little nugget from my life - my real life - that might be of some value to you also. And if I'd spent more time writing than living it would have merely been writing for the sake of it, divorced from its subject, devoid of real value and to be honest not worth the effort of reading.
If you really want to know, I've been spending a few months just being with those I love, working very hard, serving God and puzzling through a few challenges. Several times I thought, "Hmm, I ought to do a post..." but didn't really have anything to say. Then finally I realised that not having anything to say was actually quite an important message in itself, and so I wrote this.
I'll give you some updates as the months go by, once the things I've been up to have soaked down into my soul and distilled into something worth communicating. Until then, I offer you the same challenge I've embraced - prioritise, spend your time and effort on the things that really matter to you, and don't waste your energies on mindless self-promotion. Wait a little while, and you'll find that in the silence both your message and your purpose will become clear.
I'm still keeping one that I made back halfway through last year - to prioritise and to focus my time and effort on the things that are most important. That's why I havent been blogging much over the last few months; I simply haven't had the time...
Don't get me wrong - I like the internet. It's a great way to interact with people you might not otherwise be able to reach. When Paul or Jesus wanted an audience they went to the marketplace or the synagogue or the river - nowadays their first step might well be to open an account on Facebook.
Using social media, though, is quite different to being defined by them. If we're not careful we can get so caught up in the world of Twitter and Facebook that we replace the living of real life with the promoting of an airbrushed image of ourselves for the approval of others. We end up spending more time and effort documenting our lives than we do enjoying and experiencing them. That's why I've not been blogging so much - it would have been easy to cook up topics and simply keep on posting but that would have been self-defeating. The reason so many of you read this blog is to pick up the odd little nugget from my life - my real life - that might be of some value to you also. And if I'd spent more time writing than living it would have merely been writing for the sake of it, divorced from its subject, devoid of real value and to be honest not worth the effort of reading.
If you really want to know, I've been spending a few months just being with those I love, working very hard, serving God and puzzling through a few challenges. Several times I thought, "Hmm, I ought to do a post..." but didn't really have anything to say. Then finally I realised that not having anything to say was actually quite an important message in itself, and so I wrote this.
I'll give you some updates as the months go by, once the things I've been up to have soaked down into my soul and distilled into something worth communicating. Until then, I offer you the same challenge I've embraced - prioritise, spend your time and effort on the things that really matter to you, and don't waste your energies on mindless self-promotion. Wait a little while, and you'll find that in the silence both your message and your purpose will become clear.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Going Potty
Enough of all this election stuff! I have a challenge for you - the Garden Organic One-Pot Pledge to be precise.
Now I know the word 'garden' puts off some of my readers. I know at least one otherwise sane and reasonable individual who actually pays someone else to tend his garden for him! But there are good reasons why the One-Pot Pledge should interest even so misguided a soul.
Firstly, you don't have to do any gardening. All you need is just one pot, a square foot of earth or concrete to stand it on and just a couple of minutes per day. Anyone can do that.
Secondly, the whole idea of the One-Pot Pledge is that you use your pot to grow something of your own choosing which you then pick and eat.
Food! Now we're talking! But how many of us know where our food really comes from? How disconnected are we from the realities of how things grow, the soil, the seasons and the weather? We drive to our supermarkets and expect every fruit and vegetable that takes our fancy to be permanently in season and waiting for us on the shelf with no concept whatever of what it took to place it there. And we're the poorer for it.
How far did that sad vegetable travel to reach you? How many hours and days has it sat in cold storage or rumbled around in the back of a truck? When you pick something you've grown it goes straight from pot to plate, and you can't get fresher than that. Try it - I guarantee you'll taste the difference.
And finally there's the educational value. If you have children, what better project could there be? It will get them outdoors during the summer months and teach them the value of perseverance. As they see their chosen crop starting to sprout and grow they will learn that effort produces results and the unalterable rule that life involves seed-times and harvests. You can get them to do all the work and you never know, you might learn something too.
So what could you grow? Pretty much anything, but there are a few I'd reccommend. If you like salads then there are a variety of cut-and-come-again salad leaves that are very easy. And as long as you don't crop every leaf in one go they will keep on producing. Also for salad lovers I'd suggest radishes and/or spring onions. They're quick to mature and take little space, and once you taste these home-grown you'll realise what you've been missing. One tip with these: pick and eat them as soon as they're ready while they're young and tender. If you try to grow them big the texture and flavour will suffer. And my final suggestion - strawberries. Grab a cheap strawberry plant from your local garden centre or DIY shed and bung it in. It will reward you with delicious, sun-warmed fruits that will make you realise you never really knew what a strawberry was.
Success, of course, is all-important so let me give you some tips.
First, the pot. Choose a decent sized one; a pot any less than eight inches in diameter can dry out surprisingly fast on a hot day and wreck your plants. Choose one that holds a good quantity of compost and you'll only have to water once a day. I'd also recommend a plastic pot for the same reason; terracotta looks great but dries out quicker. And if we really are in for a barbecue summer then steer clear of black plastic unless you want your plants cooked before they even reach the kitchen.
Chuck a one-inch layer of small stones, broken bits of crockery or even crushed-up polystyrene into the bottom then fill the rest with general-purpose potting compost. Don't go right to the top though; leave a rim around the pot to make watering easier.
Finally, stand your pot on a couple of spaced bricks to make drainage easier. And here's another tip: if you have problems with slugs and other crop-munching sons of belial then pop the bricks into a tray that's kept constantly filled with water - most of them can't swim.
So there you have it. For a very modest outlay and a minimum of effort you could enjoy fresh, chemical-free home-grown healthy produce and now is the perfect time to start. And if you live in Bishop territory and ask nicely I might even give you a pot, some soil and strawberry plant free of charge. But wherever you live, post a comment if you're going to have a go. Tell us what you're trying and how it turns out, and if you need any help or advice feel free to ask and I'll do my best.
Off you go, then; - get growing!
(For more on Garden Organic and the One-Pot Pledge check out http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/).
Now I know the word 'garden' puts off some of my readers. I know at least one otherwise sane and reasonable individual who actually pays someone else to tend his garden for him! But there are good reasons why the One-Pot Pledge should interest even so misguided a soul.
Firstly, you don't have to do any gardening. All you need is just one pot, a square foot of earth or concrete to stand it on and just a couple of minutes per day. Anyone can do that.
Secondly, the whole idea of the One-Pot Pledge is that you use your pot to grow something of your own choosing which you then pick and eat.
Food! Now we're talking! But how many of us know where our food really comes from? How disconnected are we from the realities of how things grow, the soil, the seasons and the weather? We drive to our supermarkets and expect every fruit and vegetable that takes our fancy to be permanently in season and waiting for us on the shelf with no concept whatever of what it took to place it there. And we're the poorer for it.
How far did that sad vegetable travel to reach you? How many hours and days has it sat in cold storage or rumbled around in the back of a truck? When you pick something you've grown it goes straight from pot to plate, and you can't get fresher than that. Try it - I guarantee you'll taste the difference.
And finally there's the educational value. If you have children, what better project could there be? It will get them outdoors during the summer months and teach them the value of perseverance. As they see their chosen crop starting to sprout and grow they will learn that effort produces results and the unalterable rule that life involves seed-times and harvests. You can get them to do all the work and you never know, you might learn something too.
So what could you grow? Pretty much anything, but there are a few I'd reccommend. If you like salads then there are a variety of cut-and-come-again salad leaves that are very easy. And as long as you don't crop every leaf in one go they will keep on producing. Also for salad lovers I'd suggest radishes and/or spring onions. They're quick to mature and take little space, and once you taste these home-grown you'll realise what you've been missing. One tip with these: pick and eat them as soon as they're ready while they're young and tender. If you try to grow them big the texture and flavour will suffer. And my final suggestion - strawberries. Grab a cheap strawberry plant from your local garden centre or DIY shed and bung it in. It will reward you with delicious, sun-warmed fruits that will make you realise you never really knew what a strawberry was.
Success, of course, is all-important so let me give you some tips.
First, the pot. Choose a decent sized one; a pot any less than eight inches in diameter can dry out surprisingly fast on a hot day and wreck your plants. Choose one that holds a good quantity of compost and you'll only have to water once a day. I'd also recommend a plastic pot for the same reason; terracotta looks great but dries out quicker. And if we really are in for a barbecue summer then steer clear of black plastic unless you want your plants cooked before they even reach the kitchen.
Chuck a one-inch layer of small stones, broken bits of crockery or even crushed-up polystyrene into the bottom then fill the rest with general-purpose potting compost. Don't go right to the top though; leave a rim around the pot to make watering easier.
Finally, stand your pot on a couple of spaced bricks to make drainage easier. And here's another tip: if you have problems with slugs and other crop-munching sons of belial then pop the bricks into a tray that's kept constantly filled with water - most of them can't swim.
So there you have it. For a very modest outlay and a minimum of effort you could enjoy fresh, chemical-free home-grown healthy produce and now is the perfect time to start. And if you live in Bishop territory and ask nicely I might even give you a pot, some soil and strawberry plant free of charge. But wherever you live, post a comment if you're going to have a go. Tell us what you're trying and how it turns out, and if you need any help or advice feel free to ask and I'll do my best.
Off you go, then; - get growing!
(For more on Garden Organic and the One-Pot Pledge check out http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/).
Sunday, 25 April 2010
A Matter of Policy
Have you been following the televised leader's debates?
After the first debate the opinion polls showed a surge of support for the Liberal Democrats following a better-than-expected performance from Nick Clegg, and some of the viewers and listeners comments were remarkable.
"I thought Nick Clegg was wonderful", one lady enthused, "and I've decided I'm going to vote for him now".
In other words, she was going to vote not for the Liberal Democrats but for Nick Clegg; for the personality not the policies, for the man and not for the manifesto.
I'm not bashing Mr Clegg or the Lib Dem's but I am saying that it's a mistake to be beguiled by the way a politician presents himself in the media and let that sway your allegiance. What matters, surely, is not the cut of their suit, the earnestness of their face or the quality of their smile but the policies they espouse and will pursue if they get voted in.
Another interesting bit of coverage has been the Election Call on Radio four, where listeners could phone in and put their question direct to party leaders on-air. I've listened to a few of these and noticed a recurring trend - many of the callers were unashamedly shallow, shortsighted and selfish.
One man I heard bashed David Cameron over his proposal to give a tax rebate to married couples. "That's unfair!" he raged. "My partner and I have been together thirteen years; why won't you give me a tax break? How come we can have money if we get married but won't get it if we're not?" Mr Cameron's answer, that marriage deserved to be recognised and supported, fell on deaf ears. All the man was concerned about was whether he could get a few quid or not, and he couldn't see further than that.
This is a critical election, and we need to take the long view. Of course we will be concerned for the immediate wellbeing of ourselves and our family, but we should also consider the impact of our chosen party's policies on our wider society. We slammed the bankers for placing short-term self-interest over the world's wider good - we need to be careful not to do the same.
My plea to you, then, is to make the effort to consider the policies of the parties. What will they do on Europe? Would they take us into the Euro or out of the union altogether? What about defence? What about ID Cards? What about the economy and repaying our immense deficit? Where do they stand on issues of morality? Would they clean up politics or 'reform' the system for their own benefit? What is their attitude to the environment? What about freedom of thought, speech and religion? These are important questions.
It might also be instructive to check not what the candidates say they will do, but what they and their colleagues have actually done. If you're thinking of re-electing a serving MP, try entering "name-of-MPvoting record" into your favourite search engine. Or if you're thinking of voting for the other side, check out the record of some of the MPs they already have. Actions, after all, speak louder than words - a fact worth remembering in the light of the recent expenses scandal, perhaps?
So let's choose our next government not on a whim, or on the basis of a televised debate, but with as much care as we'd take if were about to buy a costly TV or a car. We'd check the specifications, read the reviews, compare the options and make sure that when we finally handed over our cash we were getting value for money. Anyone who didn't do that we'd consider a fool, yet how many of us will sign away the next five years of our future without a second thought, or maybe not even bother to vote at all?
I believe May 6th will be a defining moment. We all, together, need to take it seriously and make sure we get it right.
After the first debate the opinion polls showed a surge of support for the Liberal Democrats following a better-than-expected performance from Nick Clegg, and some of the viewers and listeners comments were remarkable.
"I thought Nick Clegg was wonderful", one lady enthused, "and I've decided I'm going to vote for him now".
In other words, she was going to vote not for the Liberal Democrats but for Nick Clegg; for the personality not the policies, for the man and not for the manifesto.
I'm not bashing Mr Clegg or the Lib Dem's but I am saying that it's a mistake to be beguiled by the way a politician presents himself in the media and let that sway your allegiance. What matters, surely, is not the cut of their suit, the earnestness of their face or the quality of their smile but the policies they espouse and will pursue if they get voted in.
Another interesting bit of coverage has been the Election Call on Radio four, where listeners could phone in and put their question direct to party leaders on-air. I've listened to a few of these and noticed a recurring trend - many of the callers were unashamedly shallow, shortsighted and selfish.
One man I heard bashed David Cameron over his proposal to give a tax rebate to married couples. "That's unfair!" he raged. "My partner and I have been together thirteen years; why won't you give me a tax break? How come we can have money if we get married but won't get it if we're not?" Mr Cameron's answer, that marriage deserved to be recognised and supported, fell on deaf ears. All the man was concerned about was whether he could get a few quid or not, and he couldn't see further than that.
This is a critical election, and we need to take the long view. Of course we will be concerned for the immediate wellbeing of ourselves and our family, but we should also consider the impact of our chosen party's policies on our wider society. We slammed the bankers for placing short-term self-interest over the world's wider good - we need to be careful not to do the same.
My plea to you, then, is to make the effort to consider the policies of the parties. What will they do on Europe? Would they take us into the Euro or out of the union altogether? What about defence? What about ID Cards? What about the economy and repaying our immense deficit? Where do they stand on issues of morality? Would they clean up politics or 'reform' the system for their own benefit? What is their attitude to the environment? What about freedom of thought, speech and religion? These are important questions.
It might also be instructive to check not what the candidates say they will do, but what they and their colleagues have actually done. If you're thinking of re-electing a serving MP, try entering "name-of-MP
So let's choose our next government not on a whim, or on the basis of a televised debate, but with as much care as we'd take if were about to buy a costly TV or a car. We'd check the specifications, read the reviews, compare the options and make sure that when we finally handed over our cash we were getting value for money. Anyone who didn't do that we'd consider a fool, yet how many of us will sign away the next five years of our future without a second thought, or maybe not even bother to vote at all?
I believe May 6th will be a defining moment. We all, together, need to take it seriously and make sure we get it right.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Vote!
A few people have complained that I haven't posted in a while. They're right, of course, but I have a good excuse. There's been a huge project on at work so I've been working almost every weekend on top of all the other things I do, and on the occasions I did manage to carve out a little time for myself I spent it recovering instead of blogging.
However there are some things important enough to bring even the most reluctant out of retirement, and one of them has just occurred. Gordon Brown has announced a general election to be held on May 6th.
Now this isn't a political blog and I won't presume to tell you how you should vote, but I am very concerned that you do.
You see, I've been hearing a worrying number of people recently saying they "don't think they will bother", and though I'm a mild-mannered man I'm afraid that sort of sentiment makes me indignant to the point of shouting.
Our vote, the privilege we have to influence the way our country is run and by whom, is one of the most precious things we posess. Yes, they might be all as bad as eachother. And no, your vote might not change the outcome, particularly if your allegiance is to a minority party, but you should thank God with all your heart that you have the freedom to cast it.
Thank God you live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship or a one-party state with an all-seeing secret police and a nice network of labour camps for those who don't agree. Some people don't have the opportunity you view as such a light thing. What would they say to your apathy?
'Use it, or lose it' springs to mind.
Think I'm being extreme? Do you not feel a debt to the dead of two world wars who fell amid unthinkable, inhuman carnage so you could have the privilege you now treat with such indifference? If you are a woman, do the heroic struggles of the suffragettes mean nothing to you? Or the sacrifices of so many who have fought and died to buy your freedom down through the ages?
Shame on us if we have become so self-absorbed as a society and individuals that we "can't be bothered" any more. Shame on us if these things no longer move us. Shame on us if through our apathy and indifference we allow an unsavoury candidate or government to take office and then go whining about the consequences. If we can't be bothered to vote, we get the leaders we deserve.
Make the effort, then. Turn off the TV, log off Facebook for half an hour, leave Twitter for the birds, let the grass grow and the carpet stay dirty. Don't even read my blog. Take your children with you to the polling station and explain to them what you're doing and just how important it is. Get out there on May 6th and, when you hold that ballot in your hand, reflect for a moment and give thanks.
Then cast your vote with gratitude and pride, but don't - whatever you do - tell me that you "can't be bothered".
However there are some things important enough to bring even the most reluctant out of retirement, and one of them has just occurred. Gordon Brown has announced a general election to be held on May 6th.
Now this isn't a political blog and I won't presume to tell you how you should vote, but I am very concerned that you do.
You see, I've been hearing a worrying number of people recently saying they "don't think they will bother", and though I'm a mild-mannered man I'm afraid that sort of sentiment makes me indignant to the point of shouting.
Our vote, the privilege we have to influence the way our country is run and by whom, is one of the most precious things we posess. Yes, they might be all as bad as eachother. And no, your vote might not change the outcome, particularly if your allegiance is to a minority party, but you should thank God with all your heart that you have the freedom to cast it.
Thank God you live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship or a one-party state with an all-seeing secret police and a nice network of labour camps for those who don't agree. Some people don't have the opportunity you view as such a light thing. What would they say to your apathy?
'Use it, or lose it' springs to mind.
Think I'm being extreme? Do you not feel a debt to the dead of two world wars who fell amid unthinkable, inhuman carnage so you could have the privilege you now treat with such indifference? If you are a woman, do the heroic struggles of the suffragettes mean nothing to you? Or the sacrifices of so many who have fought and died to buy your freedom down through the ages?
Shame on us if we have become so self-absorbed as a society and individuals that we "can't be bothered" any more. Shame on us if these things no longer move us. Shame on us if through our apathy and indifference we allow an unsavoury candidate or government to take office and then go whining about the consequences. If we can't be bothered to vote, we get the leaders we deserve.
Make the effort, then. Turn off the TV, log off Facebook for half an hour, leave Twitter for the birds, let the grass grow and the carpet stay dirty. Don't even read my blog. Take your children with you to the polling station and explain to them what you're doing and just how important it is. Get out there on May 6th and, when you hold that ballot in your hand, reflect for a moment and give thanks.
Then cast your vote with gratitude and pride, but don't - whatever you do - tell me that you "can't be bothered".
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Pancake Day
This coming Tuesday, the 16th February, is Pancake Day here in the UK.
Officially this day is Shrove Tuesday, the day before Ash Wednesday which is the first day of the season of Lent. The word shrove comes from the old English word shrive, which means to obtain forgiveness of sins by confession and penance. On a lighter note, Shrove Tuesday was also the last opportunity for a feast involving things like sugar, flour and eggs which were often given up for lent and therefore needed using up. If you put those ingredients together and add a bit of righteous haste, you get pancakes!
We celebrate this edible family tradition every year without fail, and if you'd like to partake too but are 'culinarily challenged', here's all you need:
Add a little vegetable oil to a fying pan and heat until hot. This is a key; for good pancakes the oil needs to be so hot it is just beginning to smoke. So open a window then pour some batter into the pan, tilting the pan around so it gets filled by a thin, even layer. Cook this for about 30 seconds or until the bottom is golden brown, then flip and cook the other side. Take the pancake out onto a warmed plate (keep it flat, don't fold) and cover to keep warm. Repeat with the rest of the batter, occasionally adding a little more oil to the pan as required.
Great! Now you've got your pancakes the next question, of course, is how to eat them. Basically you need to coat the pancake with a dollop of something nice then fold it or roll it up. Here are some variants:
Have a great pancake day! And let me know how you ate yours.
Officially this day is Shrove Tuesday, the day before Ash Wednesday which is the first day of the season of Lent. The word shrove comes from the old English word shrive, which means to obtain forgiveness of sins by confession and penance. On a lighter note, Shrove Tuesday was also the last opportunity for a feast involving things like sugar, flour and eggs which were often given up for lent and therefore needed using up. If you put those ingredients together and add a bit of righteous haste, you get pancakes!
We celebrate this edible family tradition every year without fail, and if you'd like to partake too but are 'culinarily challenged', here's all you need:
- 100g plain flour
- 2 eggs
- 300ml milk
- 1 tablespoon vegetable or sunflower oil
- pinch of salt
Add a little vegetable oil to a fying pan and heat until hot. This is a key; for good pancakes the oil needs to be so hot it is just beginning to smoke. So open a window then pour some batter into the pan, tilting the pan around so it gets filled by a thin, even layer. Cook this for about 30 seconds or until the bottom is golden brown, then flip and cook the other side. Take the pancake out onto a warmed plate (keep it flat, don't fold) and cover to keep warm. Repeat with the rest of the batter, occasionally adding a little more oil to the pan as required.
Great! Now you've got your pancakes the next question, of course, is how to eat them. Basically you need to coat the pancake with a dollop of something nice then fold it or roll it up. Here are some variants:
- Tate & Lyle's Golden Syrup - Sorry if you can't buy this overseas; it's a British thing. Its a thick, thick, golden liquid that sticks to your spoon and is sweeter than anything could ever be.
- Honey - Not bad; give it a try. The runny sort is easier to work with.
- Maple Syrup - A sweet American import. Just pour it on.
- Mincemeat and squirty cream - Another British thing; this is not minced meat; it's the heavy concoction of preserved fruits you get in minced pies and Christmas puddings. Use a spoonful straight from the jar and let the kids enjoy adding their own aerosol cream.
- Pie fillings - The fruit kind you get in tins. Just drop in a spoonful and maybe add some squirty cream or sugar.
- Chocolate spread - Personally I think this is going too far, but each to his own.
- Fresh fruit - Thinly sliced strawberries, with a sprinkling of sugar or a hint of cream, are very good.
- Ice cream - Use a soft type, don't add too much and eat quickly.
Have a great pancake day! And let me know how you ate yours.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
A Snowball's Chance
Ah, I do love quantum physics. It's the strange scientific realm where everything is possible - and I do mean everything.
In the 'real world', if a ball bounces off a solid object or another ball, even if both of them are moving, we can say with certainty what will happen. Observe this same collision ten thousand times and every time the result will be the same - which is just as well if you're trying to learn how to play squash or pocket the eight-ball in pool.
Scale things down to the quantum level, however, and strange things start to happen. If we watch two particles colliding, for example, the outcome according to quantum physics becomes anything but certain and the predictability of conventional Newtonian science lets us down. Not only do things happen that we would expect to see happening, but things we wouldn't expect also happen, and occasionally things take place that seem completely impossible. In real-world terms, it would be like throwing a snowball at someone but having it turn aside in mid-air and miss the target. Or, even more bizarrely, flying straight back to smack you in the face.
Sounds insane, doesn't it? But these aren't the deranged ramblings of a mad theorist who ate too much cheese before settling down for the night; these are real, measurable effects.
At the quantum level of matter every outcome is possible, even the impossible ones, and if you watch for long enough you will see them actually happen. Thus it becomes impossible for us to say that in a given situation a particular outcome will occur; all we can do is quote the probability, or chance, of each concievable (and inconcievable) result.
This kind of thinking is weird and uncomfortable, so weird that even Einstein didn't like it and made his now famous assertion that "God does not play dice". Developments since then have shown, however, that God really does play dice - and He's very good at it.
One of the 'shouldn't-ever-happen-but-sometimes-does' effects that occur at the quantum level is really strange. To use a real-world example again, if we saw a car being driven at speed toward a solid wall what we'd expect would be a loud bang followed by the tinkle of falling glass and the quiet hiss of escaping steam. What we definitely wouldn't expect is for the car to pass through the wall as if it simply wasn't there and continue on it's way totally unaffected. Quantum particles do this sometimes; it's called tunneling. If moving particles hit a barrier, most of them get stopped but some pass straight through it, like the girl in the X-Men films who can walk through solid walls. It sounds quite insane, but it's an observable effect and it's coming to a smartphone near you.
This wierdness is harnessed in a material called QTC (Quantum Tunelling Composite) recently invented by a Yorkshire-based company and already licensed by two Japanese corporations that make components, particularly touch screens, for mobile phones and other portable devices. Embedded within the material are conductive nanoparticles which, if they were in contact, would allow the material to conduct electricity. It doesn't, however, because the particles are slightly separated - except for the tiny current that flows anyway because some of the electrons quantum-tunnel through the insulation that surrounds them. Compressing the material forces the conductive particles closer together, this increases the probability that tunneling will occur and so the current rises.
What does this give us? Pressure sensitive material!
Think of a touch screen that responds not only to the speed of the finger swiped across it but also to how hard the finger presses and how that pressure varies throughout the stroke. It would make the best of today's touch-screen devices seem as clumsy as a mechanical keyboard. Imagine also placing that material on the surface of a mechanical hand and giving it what we humans take for granted - touch sensitive skin. A robot with a hand like that would be able to sense how much pressure it was applying with it's fingers and adjust accordingly - enter the gentle robot surgeon, the kitchen helper that can hold an egg without crushing it, or the prosthetic that allows the wearer not just to move but also to feel. That's a massive improvement over a simple motorised claw, and it's all thanks to quantum physics.
Regular readers will be wondering if there's a spiritual angle to all this. Well, sometimes we humans gain a little knowledge and then become arrogant, strutting intellectually around God's universe like we own the place and telling him how He should behave. That's when God lets us discover something like quantum physics to show us that there's far more to Him and to the hidden mysteries He's created than we're ever likely to understand. As the book of Ecclesiastes so neatly puts it, "God is in Heaven and you are on the earth. Therefore let your words be few."
The Bible states, and quantum physics confirms, that "With God, nothing is impossible." So be careful next time you decide to throw a snowball, because if there's one thing that quantum physics shows us above all else, it's that God has a really mischievous sense of humour.
In the 'real world', if a ball bounces off a solid object or another ball, even if both of them are moving, we can say with certainty what will happen. Observe this same collision ten thousand times and every time the result will be the same - which is just as well if you're trying to learn how to play squash or pocket the eight-ball in pool.
Scale things down to the quantum level, however, and strange things start to happen. If we watch two particles colliding, for example, the outcome according to quantum physics becomes anything but certain and the predictability of conventional Newtonian science lets us down. Not only do things happen that we would expect to see happening, but things we wouldn't expect also happen, and occasionally things take place that seem completely impossible. In real-world terms, it would be like throwing a snowball at someone but having it turn aside in mid-air and miss the target. Or, even more bizarrely, flying straight back to smack you in the face.
Sounds insane, doesn't it? But these aren't the deranged ramblings of a mad theorist who ate too much cheese before settling down for the night; these are real, measurable effects.
At the quantum level of matter every outcome is possible, even the impossible ones, and if you watch for long enough you will see them actually happen. Thus it becomes impossible for us to say that in a given situation a particular outcome will occur; all we can do is quote the probability, or chance, of each concievable (and inconcievable) result.
This kind of thinking is weird and uncomfortable, so weird that even Einstein didn't like it and made his now famous assertion that "God does not play dice". Developments since then have shown, however, that God really does play dice - and He's very good at it.
One of the 'shouldn't-ever-happen-but-sometimes-does' effects that occur at the quantum level is really strange. To use a real-world example again, if we saw a car being driven at speed toward a solid wall what we'd expect would be a loud bang followed by the tinkle of falling glass and the quiet hiss of escaping steam. What we definitely wouldn't expect is for the car to pass through the wall as if it simply wasn't there and continue on it's way totally unaffected. Quantum particles do this sometimes; it's called tunneling. If moving particles hit a barrier, most of them get stopped but some pass straight through it, like the girl in the X-Men films who can walk through solid walls. It sounds quite insane, but it's an observable effect and it's coming to a smartphone near you.
This wierdness is harnessed in a material called QTC (Quantum Tunelling Composite) recently invented by a Yorkshire-based company and already licensed by two Japanese corporations that make components, particularly touch screens, for mobile phones and other portable devices. Embedded within the material are conductive nanoparticles which, if they were in contact, would allow the material to conduct electricity. It doesn't, however, because the particles are slightly separated - except for the tiny current that flows anyway because some of the electrons quantum-tunnel through the insulation that surrounds them. Compressing the material forces the conductive particles closer together, this increases the probability that tunneling will occur and so the current rises.
What does this give us? Pressure sensitive material!
Think of a touch screen that responds not only to the speed of the finger swiped across it but also to how hard the finger presses and how that pressure varies throughout the stroke. It would make the best of today's touch-screen devices seem as clumsy as a mechanical keyboard. Imagine also placing that material on the surface of a mechanical hand and giving it what we humans take for granted - touch sensitive skin. A robot with a hand like that would be able to sense how much pressure it was applying with it's fingers and adjust accordingly - enter the gentle robot surgeon, the kitchen helper that can hold an egg without crushing it, or the prosthetic that allows the wearer not just to move but also to feel. That's a massive improvement over a simple motorised claw, and it's all thanks to quantum physics.
Regular readers will be wondering if there's a spiritual angle to all this. Well, sometimes we humans gain a little knowledge and then become arrogant, strutting intellectually around God's universe like we own the place and telling him how He should behave. That's when God lets us discover something like quantum physics to show us that there's far more to Him and to the hidden mysteries He's created than we're ever likely to understand. As the book of Ecclesiastes so neatly puts it, "God is in Heaven and you are on the earth. Therefore let your words be few."
The Bible states, and quantum physics confirms, that "With God, nothing is impossible." So be careful next time you decide to throw a snowball, because if there's one thing that quantum physics shows us above all else, it's that God has a really mischievous sense of humour.
Monday, 8 February 2010
The Foam Strikes Back
A while ago I promised you an update on my experiences with the memory foam pillow. I know it's been a while, but I wanted to make very sure I was happy before I came back with an endorsement.
I'm still sleeping better and glad to find I'm not permanently tired like I used to be. Sleep is certainly an under-rated activity and something we probably all should be doing more of. But in my case it wasn't so much the quantity of sleep as the quality of it; I could sleep for ten hours and still wake up shattered, which was no good at all. The new pillow is helping, though.
I'm also glad to report that so far the pillow hasn't developed a head-shaped cavity. It has, though, become a little softer and more willing to mould - perhaps an indication that memory foam gets better with age and that you have to persevere to get the best from it.
All in all, then, the foam pillow has got to be the best forty quid I've ever spent, and if it ever becomes unserviceable I'll be getting another to replace it.
Hmm. I wonder what memory foam matresses are like?
I'm still sleeping better and glad to find I'm not permanently tired like I used to be. Sleep is certainly an under-rated activity and something we probably all should be doing more of. But in my case it wasn't so much the quantity of sleep as the quality of it; I could sleep for ten hours and still wake up shattered, which was no good at all. The new pillow is helping, though.
I'm also glad to report that so far the pillow hasn't developed a head-shaped cavity. It has, though, become a little softer and more willing to mould - perhaps an indication that memory foam gets better with age and that you have to persevere to get the best from it.
All in all, then, the foam pillow has got to be the best forty quid I've ever spent, and if it ever becomes unserviceable I'll be getting another to replace it.
Hmm. I wonder what memory foam matresses are like?
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Have Your Say?
So, Gordon Brown is suddenly anxious to make sure that we, the great British people, have the chance of a referendum on his proposed changes to the voting system.
That's nice.
Pity about all the other critical referenda that he and his Government carefully avoided giving us. There's the Lisbon Treaty (in violation of a manifesto promise), the war in Iraq, the identity card proposals and the question of whether expense-fiddling MPs should be thrown into the town stocks and pelted with rotting fruit to name just a few.
Let's face it - none of the current crop of politicians want to risk a possible public veto. They'd rather hide behind their election mandate and implement their ideology for five years regardless of what anybody thinks.
Yes, our political system does need to change. But not by tinkering with it so a bunch of ploiticians who know they're doomed can climb back onto the gravy train that much sooner. The change we really need is for politicians of all colours to realise their high office is a position of accountability and trust and that they are there not to build a career or make money but to serve those that elected them.
That's nice.
Pity about all the other critical referenda that he and his Government carefully avoided giving us. There's the Lisbon Treaty (in violation of a manifesto promise), the war in Iraq, the identity card proposals and the question of whether expense-fiddling MPs should be thrown into the town stocks and pelted with rotting fruit to name just a few.
Let's face it - none of the current crop of politicians want to risk a possible public veto. They'd rather hide behind their election mandate and implement their ideology for five years regardless of what anybody thinks.
Yes, our political system does need to change. But not by tinkering with it so a bunch of ploiticians who know they're doomed can climb back onto the gravy train that much sooner. The change we really need is for politicians of all colours to realise their high office is a position of accountability and trust and that they are there not to build a career or make money but to serve those that elected them.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
On Shaky Ground
The recent earthquake in Haiti was a terrible disaster which caused a lot of damage, and regrettably some of the recent comment about it on BBC Radio 4 has been rather similar.
It all Started on Wednesday's Today programme when John Humphries decided to interview a notable Anglican Archbishop about the tragedy. I was at work with the radio playing quietly in the background when Humphries threw the Archbishop the 'old chestnut' question; If there really is an all-powerful and loving God, why did he allow such death and destruction to happen? I pricked up my ears at this, turned up the volume and waited for the Archbishop to answer.
He didn't.
He waffled, manoeuvred and came out with such rarified theological vagueness that I had no idea what he was talking about.
"I'm sorry, Archbishop," Humphries said, "But I don't think I understood that, and you didn't answer the question. How could a loving God permit such a tragedy?"
Again he evaded the issue, and as the interview ended I was left shaking my head and thinking, 'If I was a non-believer, I'd walk away from that thinking that he didn't answer because he had no answer; that in the face of such suffering faith comes up empty and those who profess it are left with nothing to say.
That was bad enough, but in true 'unbiased' BBC fashion two days later Humphries replayed a clip of the Archbishop's flounderings and then wheeled out a humanist.
"Simple logic," he declared dismissively. "If God really existed, and was all-powerful and all-loving then there is no way he would have allowed this to happen. No earthly father who loved his children would build a home for them knowing it was dangerous; knowing the roof might fall in and crush them, knowing they were likely to suffer injury or death. No earthly parent would do that."
Ah, there it is. The mistake these people so often make is that they insist on building their tower of logic on a false foundation using only the bricks that happen to come in their favourite colour. And the Archbishop didn't help, because although the Bible offers clear and authoritative answers to these questions he didn't seem to know what they were. So the poor listeners were left to sift through the mess left by an expert who didn't know his subject and a fool who delicately left out the one thing that would otherwise have blown his argument to shreds.
No wonder our nation is in such spiritual darkness.
The flaw in the humanist's argument is this: God did not build a dangerous house for his children. In Genesis 1:31 we clearly see that after creating the heavens and the earth, the sea, the dry land, mankind and all of the animal kingdom, 'God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.' So when God created the world, it was perfect. The earth was a paradise, and life was a paradise. That's the way God always intended the human experience to be.
The reason the world is in the mess that it is today is because man broke it. After Adam and Eve rejected God in Genesis chapter 3 and chose to do their own thing (the Bible calls this 'sin'), God says in Genesis 3:17 "Cursed is the ground because of you..."
God begins to run down the consequences of their choice, but he does it with tears in his eyes. He's not saying 'You insignificant worms, since you've dared to disobey me I will now smite you with all these punishments'. Rather he cries, 'Children, don't you realise what you've done? Don't you know what you've brought upon yourselves?'
The Bible is very clear on this. Natural disasters, planetary distress, sickness, disease and death, accidents, misery, pain, injustice, hatred and every example of man's inhumanity to man is an inevitable outworking of man's original decision to turn his back on God.
John Humphries was asking the wrong question. If you really want to know what happened in Haiti then don't blame God. Blame the shopworker dipping into the till. Blame the feral youth assaulting the pensioner in the dark alley. Blame the businessman cheating on his wife. Blame the politician who misleads the people. Blame the persuasive speakers who use national prime-time radio to lead us ever further into spiritual darkness. Blame all who have ever lied, cheated, lusted, cursed, hated or hurt. Blame every one of us. Blame yourself.
Ouch.
Instead of admitting this, though, we rail at God. We shake our fists and accuse Him, we hurl our indignation into His face when all God has ever done is weep for this fallen world and the pain that fills it; pain that is a direct result of the fall of man.
But hang on, if God originally built the house safe and good but now it's dangerous, would a loving God leave His children there to suffer the consequences? Wouldn't an all-powerful God be able to step in somehow and fix it?
God did. He did the only thing that could be done to address such a grave problem. He intervened personally in the form of Jesus Christ to deal with the root cause - mankind's sin. The whole point of Christ's birth, life and death was not to start a religion but to rescue mankind from a mess that they could never fix by themselves. Just as the problem flows from a decision, God approaches every member of mankind individually (sensible if you think about it, since suffering is individual) and invites them to be a part of the answer. Yes it will take time, but when God's plan comes to fruition it will have been worth the wait. The book of Revelation tells us that on that day "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away". On that day, Isaiah tells us, "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the cub lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them." Romans 8 tells us that right now "the whole creation groans and suffers together" but when that day comes "the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God's children".
Free-thinkers like our logical friend run screaming from such an answer, but if we apply the logic they're so fond of we see that in reality there is only one other option. Since the problem is sin, God must either save us from our sin or remove our ability to sin. He could do the latter by taking away our free will, by not having given us the capacity to think and choose in the first place. This would prevent us from bringing evil upon ourselves but only by reducing us from glorious creatures of judgement, intellect and appreciation made in the very image of God to little clockwork automatons mindlessly shuffling along our predestined courses in a perfect but nightmarish world.
When I was a boy I had a model railway which was very realistic. The trains ran through forests and fields beside a river that actually flowed, and they were always on time. Lights burned in the houses when darkness fell and even the windmill turned, but the people on those trains were nothing but ornaments. They never got on or off because they loved someone, cherished a great work of art, dreamed great dreams or wanted a day at the seaside. I, the omnipotent railway god, sat at my controls and everything moved at my design, but for all that activity there was no life. I don't think any self-respecting humanist would prefer such a solution. And quite frankly, neither would God.
So, having sorted that mess out, let's get to the real question that all the contributors on Radio 4 should have been asking. How should we respond to something as terrible as the earthquake in Haiti? Quite simply, our response should be the same as God's - compassion should move us to intervene and do all that we can to help. I've already visited the DEC website (http://www.dec.org.uk/). I pray you'll find it in your heart to do the same.
It all Started on Wednesday's Today programme when John Humphries decided to interview a notable Anglican Archbishop about the tragedy. I was at work with the radio playing quietly in the background when Humphries threw the Archbishop the 'old chestnut' question; If there really is an all-powerful and loving God, why did he allow such death and destruction to happen? I pricked up my ears at this, turned up the volume and waited for the Archbishop to answer.
He didn't.
He waffled, manoeuvred and came out with such rarified theological vagueness that I had no idea what he was talking about.
"I'm sorry, Archbishop," Humphries said, "But I don't think I understood that, and you didn't answer the question. How could a loving God permit such a tragedy?"
Again he evaded the issue, and as the interview ended I was left shaking my head and thinking, 'If I was a non-believer, I'd walk away from that thinking that he didn't answer because he had no answer; that in the face of such suffering faith comes up empty and those who profess it are left with nothing to say.
That was bad enough, but in true 'unbiased' BBC fashion two days later Humphries replayed a clip of the Archbishop's flounderings and then wheeled out a humanist.
"Simple logic," he declared dismissively. "If God really existed, and was all-powerful and all-loving then there is no way he would have allowed this to happen. No earthly father who loved his children would build a home for them knowing it was dangerous; knowing the roof might fall in and crush them, knowing they were likely to suffer injury or death. No earthly parent would do that."
Ah, there it is. The mistake these people so often make is that they insist on building their tower of logic on a false foundation using only the bricks that happen to come in their favourite colour. And the Archbishop didn't help, because although the Bible offers clear and authoritative answers to these questions he didn't seem to know what they were. So the poor listeners were left to sift through the mess left by an expert who didn't know his subject and a fool who delicately left out the one thing that would otherwise have blown his argument to shreds.
No wonder our nation is in such spiritual darkness.
The flaw in the humanist's argument is this: God did not build a dangerous house for his children. In Genesis 1:31 we clearly see that after creating the heavens and the earth, the sea, the dry land, mankind and all of the animal kingdom, 'God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.' So when God created the world, it was perfect. The earth was a paradise, and life was a paradise. That's the way God always intended the human experience to be.
The reason the world is in the mess that it is today is because man broke it. After Adam and Eve rejected God in Genesis chapter 3 and chose to do their own thing (the Bible calls this 'sin'), God says in Genesis 3:17 "Cursed is the ground because of you..."
God begins to run down the consequences of their choice, but he does it with tears in his eyes. He's not saying 'You insignificant worms, since you've dared to disobey me I will now smite you with all these punishments'. Rather he cries, 'Children, don't you realise what you've done? Don't you know what you've brought upon yourselves?'
The Bible is very clear on this. Natural disasters, planetary distress, sickness, disease and death, accidents, misery, pain, injustice, hatred and every example of man's inhumanity to man is an inevitable outworking of man's original decision to turn his back on God.
John Humphries was asking the wrong question. If you really want to know what happened in Haiti then don't blame God. Blame the shopworker dipping into the till. Blame the feral youth assaulting the pensioner in the dark alley. Blame the businessman cheating on his wife. Blame the politician who misleads the people. Blame the persuasive speakers who use national prime-time radio to lead us ever further into spiritual darkness. Blame all who have ever lied, cheated, lusted, cursed, hated or hurt. Blame every one of us. Blame yourself.
Ouch.
Instead of admitting this, though, we rail at God. We shake our fists and accuse Him, we hurl our indignation into His face when all God has ever done is weep for this fallen world and the pain that fills it; pain that is a direct result of the fall of man.
But hang on, if God originally built the house safe and good but now it's dangerous, would a loving God leave His children there to suffer the consequences? Wouldn't an all-powerful God be able to step in somehow and fix it?
God did. He did the only thing that could be done to address such a grave problem. He intervened personally in the form of Jesus Christ to deal with the root cause - mankind's sin. The whole point of Christ's birth, life and death was not to start a religion but to rescue mankind from a mess that they could never fix by themselves. Just as the problem flows from a decision, God approaches every member of mankind individually (sensible if you think about it, since suffering is individual) and invites them to be a part of the answer. Yes it will take time, but when God's plan comes to fruition it will have been worth the wait. The book of Revelation tells us that on that day "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away". On that day, Isaiah tells us, "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the cub lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them." Romans 8 tells us that right now "the whole creation groans and suffers together" but when that day comes "the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious freedom of God's children".
Free-thinkers like our logical friend run screaming from such an answer, but if we apply the logic they're so fond of we see that in reality there is only one other option. Since the problem is sin, God must either save us from our sin or remove our ability to sin. He could do the latter by taking away our free will, by not having given us the capacity to think and choose in the first place. This would prevent us from bringing evil upon ourselves but only by reducing us from glorious creatures of judgement, intellect and appreciation made in the very image of God to little clockwork automatons mindlessly shuffling along our predestined courses in a perfect but nightmarish world.
When I was a boy I had a model railway which was very realistic. The trains ran through forests and fields beside a river that actually flowed, and they were always on time. Lights burned in the houses when darkness fell and even the windmill turned, but the people on those trains were nothing but ornaments. They never got on or off because they loved someone, cherished a great work of art, dreamed great dreams or wanted a day at the seaside. I, the omnipotent railway god, sat at my controls and everything moved at my design, but for all that activity there was no life. I don't think any self-respecting humanist would prefer such a solution. And quite frankly, neither would God.
So, having sorted that mess out, let's get to the real question that all the contributors on Radio 4 should have been asking. How should we respond to something as terrible as the earthquake in Haiti? Quite simply, our response should be the same as God's - compassion should move us to intervene and do all that we can to help. I've already visited the DEC website (http://www.dec.org.uk/). I pray you'll find it in your heart to do the same.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Big Brother
Have you seen the Big Brother house? Walls wreathed in flame, skulls, and a kitchen based around a mortuary slab with paintwork described as 'autopsy green', all to express that 'hell lies in others'.
And they call this reality television.
Pardon me, but exactly whose reality is this supposed to be representing? The zero point zero one percent of the population who regularly eat live babies for breakfast and have an unhealthy interest in the works of Aleister Crowley? Since the promoters of this vacuous tripe cannot by any means claim to be representing reality, the more worrying possibility is that in their quest to make money they end up influencing it.
What sort of society have we degenerated into when the most interesting thing we can think of is to watch a bunch of wannabee minor celebrities plunged into a contrived situation under carefully designed psychological pressure just so we can see who gropes who? When we laugh like horses as they posture and scheme to avoid eviction? Have we really toiled through the long night of five thousand years of social, intellectual and moral progress just for this?
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner this sort of stuff disappears from our screens the better.
And they call this reality television.
Pardon me, but exactly whose reality is this supposed to be representing? The zero point zero one percent of the population who regularly eat live babies for breakfast and have an unhealthy interest in the works of Aleister Crowley? Since the promoters of this vacuous tripe cannot by any means claim to be representing reality, the more worrying possibility is that in their quest to make money they end up influencing it.
What sort of society have we degenerated into when the most interesting thing we can think of is to watch a bunch of wannabee minor celebrities plunged into a contrived situation under carefully designed psychological pressure just so we can see who gropes who? When we laugh like horses as they posture and scheme to avoid eviction? Have we really toiled through the long night of five thousand years of social, intellectual and moral progress just for this?
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner this sort of stuff disappears from our screens the better.
Saturday, 2 January 2010
Happy New Year
It's the time of year again for New Year's resolutions. You know the sort of thing; lose weight, exercise more, spend less - a thousand and one good intentions prompted by the purchase of a new calendar. Problem is though, the calendar usually lasts much longer than our resolve.
It's strange how we think that the new year provides special potential, that somehow we're much more able to change when the year does than at any other time. Truth is, though, that there's no difference between the minute before midnight on the 31st December and the one that comes after it. They're only man-made divisions of time and both provide the same sixty second's worth of opportunity.
When we make New Year's resolutions but fail to see them through we can fall into despair and think everything is lost, but in reality we can make a new start at any time. This is a great truth we often miss, and one that's worth remembering. Every day is a new day, and every morning brings new possibilities. So does every minute and every hour. You can't change the past, but you can shape the future, and every second that passes is a chance to strike out in a new direction.
This year, resolve not to be held back by negative thinking, small faith and past failures. Let go of old grudges, clinging resentments and the "I Can't" mentality. If you make up your mind to change on the inside, things will change on the outside. "With God, " the Bible says, "all things are possible," so even the giants you can't manage are possible with His help.
Be encouraged, my struggling friend, and press forward constantly for all God intends you to be, whether it's the first of January or the twenty-sixth of November. Refuse to give up, don't stop believing and never quit. That's the way to have a Happy New Year.
It's strange how we think that the new year provides special potential, that somehow we're much more able to change when the year does than at any other time. Truth is, though, that there's no difference between the minute before midnight on the 31st December and the one that comes after it. They're only man-made divisions of time and both provide the same sixty second's worth of opportunity.
When we make New Year's resolutions but fail to see them through we can fall into despair and think everything is lost, but in reality we can make a new start at any time. This is a great truth we often miss, and one that's worth remembering. Every day is a new day, and every morning brings new possibilities. So does every minute and every hour. You can't change the past, but you can shape the future, and every second that passes is a chance to strike out in a new direction.
This year, resolve not to be held back by negative thinking, small faith and past failures. Let go of old grudges, clinging resentments and the "I Can't" mentality. If you make up your mind to change on the inside, things will change on the outside. "With God, " the Bible says, "all things are possible," so even the giants you can't manage are possible with His help.
Be encouraged, my struggling friend, and press forward constantly for all God intends you to be, whether it's the first of January or the twenty-sixth of November. Refuse to give up, don't stop believing and never quit. That's the way to have a Happy New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
