A Tale of Two Recipes

I usually avoid so-called wellness bloggers; but I must admit, the stereotype of joyless vegans obsessed with kale is not entirely accurate. Some of them make stews with venison and red wine. And kale. And a shocking degree of racism.

By way of background, my local butcher had venison in stock, so I picked some up to make into a stew and started Googling around for recipe ideas.

Something called "smoky venison stew" sounded good, so I clicked the link, and was confronted with 500 words of text before the actual recipe.

It starts off in a mildly amusing way. Chantelle, the author, explains how she dreams of hunting her own food, and never has because she is too squeamish; but expresses her gratitude for the animal giving its life to feed her. Okay, fine. I actually agree, we should treat our food animals with respect.

A magnificent and delicious creature.
Image source: Jeff Blincow / Wildlife Observer

Then the post takes a screeching left turn into crazytown, as Chantelle starts rambling about power and energy, bison, seals and the traditional Inuit diet:

Wild meat is so full of power and energy, there is nothing closer to organic, or free range. It’s hard to imagine what it must have been like when there were bison everywhere and the people had no shortage of wild food. Nowadays it’s more difficult to attain, I have heard that even the native Inuit cannot hunt their natural food. Environmentalists have banned them from hunting seals (a main food source) and there is only a certain section of the land where they are allowed.

What? Seals? I thought this was a recipe for deer. The village butcher doesn't stock seal.

Before A Fall

Labour is gaining ground in the polls. I'll admit it: I did not expect this.

Some perspective is in order. The Tories still enjoy a lead outside the margin of error, in every single poll taken so far. Let's look at the last five polls, released between 27 May and 1 June. The Conservative lead varies from +12 (ICM, 29 May) to +3 (YouGov, 31 May). Taking the mean of these five, we have Con 43.4, Lab 35.6, LibDem 8.2, UKIP 4, for a Tory lead of +8. Plugging this into the UK Polling Report swingometer results in a Conservative majority of 46.

Conservative Central Office. Displeased at recent developments, but still planning for victory.

Twenty-five months ago, David Cameron would have given his left testicle for these polling numbers. The boost in Labour support won't necessarily hold up; and it appears to be driven by younger voters, who may or may not turn out on election day.

That said, this election was widely expected to be a walkover for the Tories, with excitable talk of a landslide of 150 seats or more. Expectations were driven so high that Theresa May could win a majority of 40 or 50 seats, the best Conservative result in 30 years, and it would still feel like something of a defeat.

How has this happened?

Remarks on Trump by a Toddler

Another toddler disavows Trump.

Listen up, people, because I have some things to say about Donald Trump. I'd rather be playing with my building blocks, but the time has come for me to speak up on behalf of the toddler community.

Over and over again, news reports depict Trump as a toddler. This is a grievous slur upon me and everyone else in my age group.

It's really frustrating getting through life when you have a vocabulary of less than fifty words, and the world is run by grown-up people who do things for incomprehensible reasons. Sometimes the frustration gets the better of me and I throw a tantrum. I admit it, Trump and I have that much in common.

Give me a break, though. I have kindness and empathy. I'm learning to share. I like to help people.

I take joy in the simple things of life. Last week when Daddy was deciding what to get me for dinner, I yelled "potato" and got the bag of potatoes out of the cupboard, and he got the message and made me a baked potato. That was awesome, I'm telling you.

I love stories and animals and splashing in puddles. This Trump guy needs a good splash in a puddle, or a nice puppy he can play with, or someone to read him a story with funny pictures. Maybe then he wouldn't be so angry all the time.

Then again, maybe that wouldn't work. I've got a reason for emotional immaturity. I'm only two. My neurological development isn't up to delayed gratification or parsing complex subjects. Trump's seventy, and I can't count that high yet, but I know it's really old. So I don't know what his excuse is.

Be that as it may, you grown-ups should know better. Calling Trump a toddler is an insult to toddlers, so knock it off already.

Now if you'll excuse me, the cat just walked by and requires my urgent attention. Kitty!

Spray Paint in Aberdeen

Earlier this month, someone vandalised the Conservative and Labour party offices in Aberdeen. I assumed it was the work of a random bampot with nothing better to do on a Friday night, but Craig Murray has a more outré theory.

Graffiti on the Conservative Party office. Source: BBC News

Eavesdropping on the Springfield Republican Party

I've received an account of secret Republican Party discussions in Springfield, which I think sheds some light on the impact of Tuesday's election results in the USA. I feel it's worth breaking my self-imposed blog silence for Nanowrimo to share it.

######

EXT. SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN PARTY HEADQUARTERS. Lightning flashes. Bats flap around the turrets.

INT. CONFERENCE ROOM. RICH TEXAN, MR BURNS, DRACULA, KRUSTY THE KLOWN, and RAINIER WOLFCASTLE (aka MCBAIN) sit around a table.

RICH TEXAN: Yee-haw! We won Springfield's Senate seat.

MR BURNS: Oh, pish-pash. That seat was last contested in 2008, when Obama was full of hope and change. Now he's so unpopular, my cruel Republican grandmama could have won it, and she's been dead for eighty years.

DRACULA: I resent that remark.

MR BURNS: Resent it all you want. There's a reason why vampires don't stand for election.

WOLFCASTLE: Gentlemen, please. This is no time to bicker amongst ourselves. I think we need to look at the bigger picture.

MR BURNS: The moving pictures actor is right. What should the Republican party do, now that it has control of the Senate?

(Long, uncomfortable silence)

KRUSTY: We could stop Obama from appointing judges and federal bureaucrats?

MR BURNS: We were doing that before. Think bigger, everyone.

DRACULA: We could work constructively with Obama, and pass laws for the benefit of ordinary people?

(Uproarious laughter around the table, including from Dracula)

MR BURNS: That was a good one. But let's be serious for a moment. What can we do?

RICH TEXAN: We can repeal Obamacare. Yee-haw! (Fires guns at ceiling.)

MR BURNS: Stop shooting the ceiling, it's an antique. And no, we can't. There's no way we can get a big enough majority to overcome Obama's veto.

WOLFCASTLE: We control the Senate committees now. We can launch many investigations into Obama's dastardly wrongdoing.

KRUSTY: I haven't been paying attention. What wrongdoing is that?

WOLFCASTLE: It doesn't matter, everything he does is dastardly.

DRACULA: We can impeach him. He must have committed a high crime or misdemeanor somewhere.

MR BURNS: (Steeples fingers) Excellent. Let's get to it, gentlemen.

######

So, nothing much will change in Washington DC, except there will be even more partisan conflict and spurious attempts to find or manufacture a scandal for which Obama can be blamed. I can hardly wait. No, then again, maybe I can.

Oh yes, and content-free speculation on the 2016 Presidential race will now rise in volume. It's almost enough to make me wish Kang and Kodos would move in and take over.

Scotland's Vote 14: Career advice from Salmond

An old friend of Alex Salmond was unhappy in his job, and asked him for advice. This is how their conversation went:

SALMOND: I think you should quit your job, then have them hire you back as a consultant, on exactly the terms you want. You will participate in only the projects you want and no others.
FRIEND: Sounds great, but what if it doesn't work?
SALMOND: It will work.
FRIEND: Yes, but what if it doesn't?
SALMOND: Why wouldn't it? You're good at your job, right?
FRIEND: Yes.
SALMOND: Then it is clearly in their best interest to work with you. You've helped build up the company, so you're entitled to their cooperation after you leave.
FRIEND: Yeah, but my boss doesn't see it that way. He said if I leave, he's never working with me again.
SALMOND: He will do what I say is the sensible thing, because that's what people in positions of authority always do.
FRIEND: That isn't strictly true. I need a plan B. Should I look for another job, start my own business, or take early retirement?
SALMOND: Yes, you can do one of those.
FRIEND: But which one?
SALMOND: You don't need to choose one, because your original plan is best for you and it will work out just fine. As long as your boss understands it's what you really want, he will agree.
FRIEND: It's not totally under my control. I really do need to think about which of these three fallback options is best for me.
SALMOND (getting angry): What is the matter with you? You have three different alternative plans! That's better than having only one! Plans are like buses, it's great when three of them turn up at once. There's no need to discuss it any further than that.
FRIEND (backing away slowly): OK, Alex. Thanks for the help, but I have to be going now.

Scotland's Vote 4: Beware the Cataclysm

The Scottish independence referendum is a decision of the utmost importance. It deserves serious and sober discussion from both sides. Instead, more often than not, we are given complete and utter bilge.

The Yes side is far from blameless, but this particular offender is from the No campaign.

A Cataclysm to Delight the Forces of Darkness

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen was the UK's defence secretary from 1997-99, and Secretary-General of NATO from 1999-2004. As shadow Scottish secretary in the 1990s and a Scottish Labour MP from 1978-99, he is a veteran of Scottish politics. One might expect him to be a person of substance when it comes to defence policy in Scotland.

Then again, Robertson is the man who predicted devolution would "kill Scottish nationalism stone dead." His latest contribution is unlikely to restore his credibility.

On 8 April Robertson gave a gave a speech at the Brookings Institute in Washington DC, in which he declared Scotland leaving the UK would have "cataclysmic" strategic consequences:

The loudest cheers for the break-up of Britain would be from our adversaries and from our enemies. For the second military power in the west to shatter this year would be cataclysmic in geo-political terms ... the forces of darkness would simply love it. [Emphasis mine]

The Brookings Institute is a serious think tank. I expect there were a few raised eyebrows at this sort of language.

Gay Marriage 1: The Church of Obfuscation

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Gay marriage became legal in England and Wales on 29 March this year. Personally, I think this is great news. The Church of England disagrees, and their response was remarkable. It is not plain and simple ignorant bigotry, but the rarefied stupidity of highly trained theologians.

The law has been changed to permit civil weddings for gay couples:

The law prohibits the Church of England from performing same-sex weddings, and allows other religious organisations to refuse to perform them.

The most senior member of the C of E's clergy is Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury. Welby discussed the issue in a radio phone-in on 4 April.

Justin Welby.
Source: The Guardian

He started off as one might expect. He opposes homophobia, but doesn't think gay marriage has any place in the C of E. If he left it there, the rest of us would shrug our shoulders and move on.

Instead, Welby felt the need to share this:

"I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact," Welby said. If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world."

Welby is concerned that if the C of E endorses gay marriage, it will have a negative impact on Christians in other parts of the world.

The Most Reverend And Right Honourable The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (to give him his full official title), educated at Eton College and Trinity College, Cambridge, must imagine this sort of dialogue will take place:

###

EXT. WAR ZONE IN AFRICA

FIRST KILLER: Let's go and massacre those Christians! They want everyone to be gay!
SECOND KILLER: No, we shouldn't. Their big boss in England tolerates gay people, but won't have gay wedding ceremonies.
FIRST: Isn't tolerating gay people a reason for us to kill them?
SECOND: No, it has to be marriage.
FIRST: Can we kill them because we want their land?
SECOND: No, no. It's very simple. We can only commit mass murder if the Church of England supports gay marriage.
FIRST: We're not in England.
SECOND: That's not the point. Anything the white man says goes around the world, and the English aren't being gay enough to justify a massacre.
FIRST: Oh, all right. That village is lucky the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't hold with gay marriage.
SECOND: Yeah, it is. Let's go get a beer instead.

###


Welby's education has failed him. His statement is one of the most ridiculous and naive things I have ever heard from a public figure.

Not only that, it is more than a little racist. It is unclear which specific massacre Welby is talking about; it may be the 2009 Boko Haram killings in Nigeria. The Wikipedia page on massacres in Nigeria makes instructive if depressing reading. Christian-Muslim violence has been taking place there for years. The Miss World beauty contest was used as an excuse for riots which killed over 200 people in 2002.

Does Welby imagine he has a meaningful effect on this situation? Does he suppose Africans are simpletons who will be provoked into murderous rage by a gay wedding in England, when they would otherwise be calm and peaceful?

If criminals and fanatics want an excuse to kill people, they will find one.

Conversely, why is a mass murder relevant to the nuances of doctrine on gay marriage?

Imagine the Christian God decided to get tough. Anyone who tries to kill a Christian is instantly struck down by a bolt of lightning. Welby is free to say whatever he likes. He could express his real, genuine opinion on gay marriage, which must be one of the following:

1. He believes it is wrong. In that case, he could have simply said so, without mentioning any massacres. However, saying it so bluntly would anger his more liberal clergy, and he doesn't want that inconvenience, so he pretends the threat of massacres has forced him to reject gay marriage.
2. He believes it is right. He would like to say so, but is afraid to for the reasons I have discussed.
3. He doesn't know what he believes, but thinks talking about massacres will distract everyone.

In the second case, Welby is a pathetic fool. In the first and third cases, he is a cynical villain who does not care if he looks like a pathetic fool. This much is certain: Welby is a coward, and he is using the horrific murders of 330 men, women, and children in Nigeria to obfuscate his real beliefs on gay marriage.

By way of contrast, consider Archbishop Desmond Tutu's courageous stand against apartheid in South Africa. Many white racists responded with greater fear, hatred, and violence towards black people. Welby's words will have little or no impact on people's safety; this was not so for Tutu.

Tutu knew this, and he stood up for what was right. Something which is right does not become wrong because people hate you for it. Anyone who calls himself a Christian should be capable of understanding that.

Welby should be ashamed of himself. The Church of England is swiftly declining into irrelevance, and with leadership like this it deserves to.

---

Part 2: Some more personal thoughts on gay marriage.