[blogfocus tuesday] lad, lass, lad, lass, lad ...

Haute cuisine

7 more lads and 7 more lasses here …

Continuing the food theme and Steve, of Opinion Dominion, takes us skyward for some haute-cuisine:

Dinner in the Sky takes place at a table suspended at a height of 50 metres by a team of professionals. Benji Fun, our partner in this event, is the worldwide leader for this type of activities.

My attitude to heights might be little unusual. I like flying, and I enjoy it more on a small aircraft than a huge one. (I feel it is more "natural" for a Cessna to fly than a 747.) But when it comes to buildings, I can get a little nervous standing on an apartment balcony if it is any more than a few stories up. Maybe it's the tilted angle of that photo, but for some reason it makes me feel queasy just thinking about trying to enjoy food while strapped into a seat with 50 m of air between my backside and the ground.

Liz, la femme contraire, is down on a world icon, just as I’ve been with Anna Politkovskaya:

I read Xtopher Hitchens' exposure of the arch reactionary Mother Teresa of Calcutta yesterday (see link). I know it is a few years old but it's still worth a read for those who still harbour any illusions of the saintliness of this character.

I had long disliked her brand of Christianity - one that proclaims itself 'apolitical', one that advocates the giving of charity yet never questions a system which allows so many people to starve or die of treatable diseases, while others have many times what they need. This type of Christianity is in fact not 'apolitical' but is in fact deeply conservative, as Hitchens stresses.

Chicken Yoghurt has a different opinion about Hitchens but his opinion on Mother Theresa I couldn’t find:

A few months ago, I found myself within spitting distance of Christopher Hitchens after attending a lecture by him on Thomas Paine. Having, however, now read this review utterly destroying Hitchens’ book about Paine (via Dave), I’m now regretting that I resisted, as crude as this sounds, the urge to spit.

As graceless and liverish as Hitchens was in the question and answer session after the lecture, and as unnecessarily foul-mouthed as he was at the later book signing, at least, or so I thought, his lecture on Paine was worth the entrance fee. Except, now having read the review, I realise that not a word that Hitchens uttered about Paine that night is to be trusted.

Heather Yaxley asks: “Should corporate blogs exclude PR?”

Should employee - and executive - blogs exclude public relations? Interesting post by Chris Anderson (author of the Long Tail) on how blogging has inverted corporate norms, particularly shifting from secrecy to transparency as a default communications mode. He states that employee bloggers are increasingly trusted to blog without “PR review” and that there is a new “radical transparency” in some companies including early product development discussions, CEO venting and management in public.

Everybody has had a go at Polly Toynbee, the most unlinked woman in the sphere and here Blognor Regis gives one of the best takes on her: Hypocrita sinistra:

Just why is Polly Toynbee loathed so? Easy, because she's the very definition of the I'm alright jack, pull the ladder up, lefty hypocrite - hypocrita sinistra. Hypocrita sinistra can usually be heard emitting a screeching whine, 'What about the poor?' often while they are busy polishing their Beemers.

However much they try to fool themselves into believing that the relationship is symbiotic, and indeed many are deceived by the creature's cunning, hypocrita sinistra are in fact parasites who hitch a ride on the back of an unwitting government those that fund it. They grow fat on good intentions and steer well clear of outcomes as they are rightly considered poisonous. The species' most obvious markings … and so it continues. Worth a read.

The interestingly named Beach girl leaves the Wren Chapel sacrilege to comment on the Sudan:

I have refrained from writing about Darfur for several reasons. One reason was that I believed the reality of what I would find regarding the UN member-states involvement against trying to stop the genocide militarily would confirm my suspicion that the UN is increasing an Islamic-controlled organization with collusion from willing European nations, themselves not yet Islamic-controlled but the nations nonetheless joining their international policies with those of the Islamic-controlled nations. [That is a rough sentence, so please excuse.]

Another reason that I have refrained is that I see this as a civil war, the aim of which is to rid Sudan of Christians (5%) and animist/indigenous beliefs (25%). That the international community of the usual UN suspects is supporting the dominate Islamic-oriented government goes a long way to explaining why nothing will be done to end the genocide. And the government has the guns.

Newmania, normally a demure chappy, puts the boot into Priti thingymabob, the latest darling of the right:

One thing that horrifies me is the disappearance of working class political representation from parliament . On this basis it is hardly likely that much will be achieved . I would like to see the Conservative party reconnect with its working class support , not focus exclusively on the centre "Liberal " voter. I would like to see more talk about social justice and less about image friendly subjects like the "environment ".

I am concerned at the rampant inequality between classes that widens daily .What we get as our "representative MP s ? Priti thingymabob . Asian , oh goody, but the sprig of a long line of bureaucrats last seen getting kicked out of Uganda by the blacks for feathering their nests at their expense. She knows nothing of disadvantage .

The eternally delightful Lady Ellee goes for: momentum increases for England to become independent, will this add extra credence to a campaign to oust St George as England’s patron saint and replace him with St Edmund? Should St George remain our patron saint if he never set foot in this country? Should we not have a true English saint holding that very privileged title, a plan which has already angered Labour MPs.

St Edmund was originally England’s patron saint until he was usurped by St George around 1100AD. But there is strong feeling in East Anglia to bring St Edmund back, he was a former king of East Anglia who was martyred in the year 869 for refusing to renounce his Christianity. Bury St Edmunds MP David Ruffley has actively taken up the campaign, handing in a petition to Downing Street last Monday, St Edmund’s Day last, joined by organisers from the local newspaper and radio station.

However, he was surprised by the hostile reaction from Labour MPs when later in the week he presented the petition in the House of Commons. He said petitions were normally read out in silence, but there were shouts of “Saint George” from the Labour side.

A vital issue, I think you’d agree. Tiberius Gracchus also goes for the historic touch, placing Russia and in particular, Gorbachev, under the microsope, where the latter squirms on the glass slide under Gracchus’ unrelenting gaze:

Gorbachev's era was characterised by hostility to Russia from those who liked their foreign policy in simple shades of red and white, similar things are at the root of what is going on today with regard to Russia.

The Economist has called Putin a fascist, others envisage him as a communist. The truth doesn't lie in those simple labels- Putin's regime does have a bad human rights record in Chechnya and a Russian democrat might well be disturbed by some of the developments that have taken place- but as a threat to the West, we misunderstand Russian foreign policy if we read it through a simple prism of opposition to the forces of capitalism.

We find even in the days of Communist Russia that most of the senior members of the politburo could not be easily categorised in those terms- Gorbachev and the men he led can't be described simply as reds opposing the forces of capitalism.


Everybody by now knows the unfortunate incident which occurred to Jackie Daniki [which she has updated, by the way but it might just have brought her a new readership. Silver lining or not? Here she gets stuck into the blogbashers:

Not a day goes by when I don’t read a column or opinion piece in the ‘mainstream’ press and think, “Yeesh, I read better blog posts than this many times a day.” This piece about how people online have egos (try to stop your eyes from rolling back in your head as you read it), by the Guardian’s American Editor, Michael Kinsley, is one such example.

It’s so bad that I cannot even be bothered to detail exactly why and how it is bad. He’s either phoning it in or can’t do any better; either way, how does he stay in work? I have a feeling his very web-savvy colleagues at the Guardian - many of whom (gasp!) have their own blogs - will be fairly embarrassed at being associated with this drivel.

Dave Hill is not given to “boot in the groin” journalism, so this piece really surprises:

Last week saw publication of a report by the Foundation for Information Policy Research into the government's proposed Information Sharing Index, or "Children's Index" as it is often known. I've written about it here and here. The Telegraph's coverage of the report's findings prompted this letter from Minister for Children, Beverley Hughes.

“Sir – You do your readers a disservice in your news item 'Child database will ruin family privacy' (November 22) by not challenging the findings of the authors of the report [Children's Databases: Safety and Privacy].”

The following day, the report's authors responded:

“Sir - Beverley Hughes, the Minister for Children (Letters, November 24), does a disservice to families by an evasive response to our report to the Information Commissioner on the range of databases being set up to monitor children.”

Now let me restate their case in plainer language: Beverley Hughes is a twister, a sophist, a shirk, a flannel merchant, an exploiter of fearful emotions, a coward who will not debate her critics honestly - in short, a disgrace to her office. How dare she treat children and families in this way?

Have to follow Dave with this post because I know he hates the term Political Correctness bandied about. This little number is from Bel and she’s thinking, circumspectly:

Good to see ordinary folk striking a blow against political correctness. This interesting story from the Telegraph:

Parents have forced a comprehensive school to back down over plans to offer only halal chicken on its Christmas dinner menu. Pupils will now also have the option of traditional turkey with trimmings as a choice after the intervention of a former Government minister.

Nothing more to say, really. People are beginning to speak out against the takeover of their traditional customs and values. Let us hope that this continues.

I was getting ready to run this piece on the English Parliament:

With the Sunday Telegraph today telling of 68% of English people agreeing with the need for an English parliament and nearly half supporting independence (before which we need a parliament to negotiate a fair settlement) it is easy to forget the more menacing Union – the European Union.

… when this caught my eye:

Wii for Christmas. I'm getting a Wii for Christmas. No, there's no other reason for this post. Just that. Labels: Geek, Wii

Now surely only Gavin Ayling could have posted that and that’s one reason his blog is always high on my list. Lastly, this evening, Sam Brett agonizes over this question: Should you ever intervene in a friend's relationship? Some of Sam Brett’s posts are a little close to the edge at times but this dilemma, which we’ve probably all faced at some time or other, shows her at her best:

"What on earth were we thinking?" is a question we often ask ourselves after the end of a noxious relationship. Why was it that everyone could see how harmful, injurious and damaging the union was, besides us? William Shakespeare once said it all comes down to this: "Love sees not with the eyes, but with the mind, And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind." True, love may be blind. But let's put our own mistakes aside for just a moment. What if you witness a good friend making the same gaffe? Is it ever okay to intervene? Or will they resent you for not minding your own business?

The question is swirling around my head as I try to fathom why my beautiful, intelligent, classy, lifelong friend is dating a cad who thinks emotional abuse is okay. He often beats her to a pulp with his words, draining her self confidence, her self respect and her happiness. While my friends and I have endlessly tried to knock some sense into her, it's come to the point where perhaps a word to him might do the trick. But is this okay? Or should we simply butt out ...

Lastly, a mystery link - one final bit of fun before we go but whatever you do, don't click on it if you're easily offended. All right? See you, hopefully, on Saturday evening.