tomdg

What punctuation mark are you?

2008-06-16T09:01:00.002+01:00

Thanks to Amy Storms for pointing this one out. What punctuation mark am I? Apparently, I'm a colon. Shame, I was hoping I'd be a semicolon, I like those. Anyone who knows me, does this sound like me at all? I like the "brilliant" bit :)

You Are a Colon

You are very orderly and fact driven.

You aren't concerned much with theories or dreams... only what's true or untrue.

You are brilliant and incredibly learned. Anything you know is well researched.

You like to make lists and sort through things step by step. You aren't subject to whim or emotions.

Your friends see you as a constant source of knowledge and advice.

(But they are a little sick of you being right all of the time!)

You excel in: Leadership positions

You get along best with: The Semi-Colon

What Punctuation Mark Are You?

Travelling

2007-09-01T19:07:00.000+01:00

Apparently I've visited 9% of the countries in the world. At my current rate, that means I'll have seen it all by the time I'm 400.

In defence of larks

2007-06-18T12:30:00.000+01:00

The columnist Johann Hari, who I enjoy reading and sometimes agree with, posted a great piece about how harsh the world is towards natural night-owls: people who naturally wake around noon, and go to sleep as dawn is breaking.

I had a taste of that as a student, when I would struggle to get out of bed at 9am for a 9:30 lecture, and then stay up chatting until 2am. It could have been worse: one of my room-mates went nocturnal and slept from about 7am to 5pm. Funnily enough, he failed.

But now I have quite the opposite problem. Bit by bit, I am waking earlier. My children wake up at 6am (on a good day), but I am usually up before them. Days starting at 4am have got more and more common; I no longer even consider that a problem. And of course the converse of this is obvious: I have done most of my productive work by lunchtime, and by 8pm or 9pm, when other people are just starting to go out and do things, I am falling asleep on my feet. If Johann is a natural owl, it seems I must be something of a lark.

Have you ever seen the world at 4am? It's a grim place: cold, dark, and lonely. You've just woken up, there's no hope of getting back to sleep, and you know you're going to have to wait hours before you can have any meaningful human contact.

But there are positive sides to getting up so early too. Here are some of mine:
- watch films. Not the stuff that's on at 4am; I have a digital video now so I record anything that looks interesting, so that if I wake up early, I have something to do. Old films, obscure films, the kinds of films shown by BBC4 or Film4 late at night are good.
- write. There are lots of things which are socially unacceptable at 4am in a shared house: playing the guitar, hammering, drilling, moving around. But sitting at the computer writing - novels, film scripts, computer games, whatever - is fairly quiet. It's amazing how a couple of hours in a morning several times a week adds up.
- go shopping. Even here in the sticks, our big Tesco store is now open 24-7 (except Saturday and Sunday nights). If you can cope with certain sections like the fish counter being closed, it's a great time to shop because, surprise surprise, the shop is fairly empty. It's also interesting to see what kind of person is out shopping (or working) at that time in the morning.
- make friends on the other side of the world. The internet at least never sleeps, and the sun never sets on it.
- work. No good for jobs with fixed hours of course, but some jobs are getting more flexible. I'm allowed to start work at 7am and finish at 3. Occasionally I can work from home, and then I'll start work when I wake up - 2am on one occasion. That means I've done most of a day's work (uninterrupted) by the time other people are up and I can spend the day with family and just fielding occasional phone calls or e-mails. With a bit more organization and access to wi-fi I could even go out shopping.

Of course it's still fairly lonely, and as a naturally gregarious person it's frustrating that when I am at my most awake and full of ideas, everyone else is asleep.

Please ... Thank You

2007-01-18T10:35:00.000Z

Had to share this from work.

One of the sinks in the gents is broken. I know this because some kind person put a piece of paper in the sink saying "Please do not use! thank you." Must be half a dozen times I've walked over to that sink, reached for the tap, and seen the piece of paper just in time. Very clever.

That was a week ago. The paper is still there (albeit somewhat water-damaged), but now someone's added the message "Please fix! thank you."

Well, it made me laugh.

Five things you didn't know about me

2007-01-15T09:17:00.000Z

I've been tagged by another meme - this time by Martin Eyles. Thank you - particularly for your description of me :)

So, five things you probably didn't know about me.

1. I used to play the french horn (until I left school). I guess I was fairly good at it; I passed my grade 8 exam, albeit only just. My favourite thing to play was Richard Strauss's first horn concerto. Wonderful music, particularly the slow movement. Whenever I listen to it, it takes me back to when I was 17.

2. I lived in St. Andrews, Scotland, from when I was two to when I was five-and-a-half. Not a long time, but a formative time - that's where I first went to school, learned to read, learned to talk lots, etc. My earliest memories are of St. Andrews - wading in the burn at the bottom of the garden, fishing with the little nets we got at the corner shop, walking on the beach, covered with jellyfish which looked like fried eggs. Surprisingly few memories, given my age when I left. The main thing I've taken from this time is a love of the food we ate there (and not afterwards): rollmops, kippers, and haggis. Mmmmm...

3. In the primary school nativity play, I was chosen to play Herod. Later the same year, my class did a play on tooth decay, and again I was the villain. Typecast? Maybe the teacher just didn't like me.

4. I wasn't always a pacifist. Earlier in secondary school, I was really into military history. My third year English project (age 13) was a biography of Field Marshall Montgomery. I won a prize for it. My dad then got Montgomery's son to sign it for me - he signed it with his hereditory title, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, which looks very impressive :)

5. I once wrote a computer version of the board game "diplomacy". I did it in a weekend (two 18-hour days). It was written in BASIC. It implemented all of the game rules, could be played single-player or multi-player, and even had basic Artificial Intelligence so you could have a computer player. My first programming job was working for a games company, although I'd written games as a hobby before then. Like everyone else in the industry, I'd started writing lots of games but usually never finished them. When I was 18 or so I came up with the idea for a computer game where you built and ran railways (this was before Railroad Tycoon). I've tried to start writing it several times but never got very far. It's still on my "to do" list - not least because although many other games on the theme now exist, I don't think any of them are quite as good as mine! Or at least, as mine would be, if I actually wrote it. I could claim that up until now it's been 17 years in development - something of a record, perhaps?

Ok, tradition dictates that I should nominate five other bloggers who read this who should do the meme themselves. Well, if you're reading this, then go ahead, but I'm going to break with tradition and nominate:

Derek di Giovanni
Karen Rackham
Hugo Chavez
Michael V. Hayden (director of the CIA)
Christina Ellis
Sarah Thomas
Richie Edwards
Dylan Harper
Polly Rose
Catherine Darwen
Stephen Binnie

And link to your page in a comment.

Book meme

2006-10-27T09:20:00.000+01:00

Check this out - I got tagged by name with a meme (there's a nice new word). Only I didn't notice until now. Still, it's a first, and it's nice that someone's thought of me :)

1. One book that changed your life - the hardest question first.
The most obvious example would be the Bible, but I'll go for something less obvious: Plato's Apology of Socrates. I read it, in the original Greek, in the lower sixth form. It was the first and only time I got sufficiently on top of the language to be able to engage with the actual content of what I was reading. It's the speech Socrates made when he was tried for heresy and "corrupting youth." The bit which struck me most was from his speech on sentencing. His opponents propose the death penalty, hoping he'll choose instead banishment. But he says that he believes his entire reason for living is to be in Athens doing philosophy, and that he would rather be put to death for doing this than run away from it and live out his life, "a dead weight on the face of the earth." That phrase stuck with me: I hope it is never true of me.

2. One book that you've read more than once
The first three Harry Potter books. They are totally immersive and totally addictive. In fact I stopped re-reading after the third one because I felt they were taking over my life and I was starting to lose my grip on reality!

3. One book that you'd want on a desert island
The NIV Bible. I might finally make time to read it all the way through.

4. One book that made you laugh
The Gaston Lagaffe albums I brought back from Bordeaux when I did a French exchange at school. He was my icon whenever I thought about what an office job was like. Absolutely hilarious. It's a shame they're not available in English, but on the other hand, it's a really good reason to learn French.

5. One book that made you cry
The Bible. Obvious answer, really - it still does frequently. But I remember particularly being read Jesus' trial and death from Matthew's gospel when I was 12 or so - before I was a Christian, before I knew who he was. I'd heard all these stories about him doing great things, and then suddenly here he was essentially being politically murdered. It seemed so unfair, senseless, horrible. Four or five years later I found out why, when I first understood "the world" mentioned in 3:16 actually refers to me.

6. One book that you wish you had written
Harry Potter. Not for the money, although I think she deserves all of that. Just for the fact that it got a whole generation of children to read. It wasn't like that in my day. When I was at primary school, I read voraciously, but it was really untrendy and I was made fun of and sometimes bullied for it. Most people were glad to go outside at break and play football; I hated it (que ça change) and just wanted to sit and read. I really resented being thrown out of the nice warm classroom into the cold.

7. One book you wish had never been written
I have a reverence for books which I got from my dad. To me, burning a book, any book, because of its contents, is the most barbaric thing imaginable. Even throwing old books away feels somehow wrong. So I can't really answer this. But that's a bit lame, so I'll go for: Quiet Desperation, by Tom di Giovanni. I wrote it for NaNoWriMo last year, and wish I could have written something more interesting (and / or better) instead.

8. One book that you are reading at the moment
A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain volume 8: South and West Yorkshire. To me, a fascinating history of political and corporate squabbling mixed with economic growth, development, history, and decline. To most people, no doubt, unbelievably dry and spoddy. But that's not my problem :)

9. One book that you've been meaning to read
Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins. My mum gave it to me. I believe it's a true story of how major corporations are raping the third world - the dark side of free market economics. I read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle many years ago and that's left me with a lasting reminder of where "free enterprise" will go if it's totally unfettered.

10. Five others that you'd like to do this
I'd be surprised if five people even read this! Go on, post a comment and prove me wrong :) But if they do: Andy Bastable, Martin Eyles, McSwain from Hildebrand Road, Eduardo from Grey Shadow, and Phil who used to write the Thoughts of Chairman Phil. If they haven't done it already.

This month ...

2006-06-23T11:46:00.000+01:00

This month, I will be mostly thinking about the World Cup.

(Apologies to readers who have not watched the Fast Show, who won't recognize that misquote).

I like football, so I'm not one of these people trying to block it out. And being a bit of a mongrel, I have plenty of choices for who to support, which keeps it interesting for longer. England, of course; Argentina, where I was born (and aren't they doing well!); Italy - where my dad's family come from if you go back far enough; I'm even one 32nd German on my maternal granfather's side. And not forgetting USA, not that I talk about that so much during the world cup! (But in fairness I think they're not a bad side and had the worst draw in the tournament - any excuse!)

As I've got older, I've somehow felt more English. I've moved from always wanting England to lose (just to be different) to actually starting to identify with and support them. But when it comes to football, the team I most want to win is always the same: Italy.

So over the next couple of weeks I will have to endure the same torture I go through every two years: although by far the best team in the competition, Italy go out early on due to their perennial tendency to try to sit back and defend a lead rather than play the game and score more goals.

Or will I? Twice, so far, Italy have twice managed to get that crucial second goal, and against very good teams (Ghana and the Czech Republic). Perhaps this time it will be different. Maybe we'll be able to walk all over Australia like the minnows they are. Maybe we'll be able to knock out a French team who are to be fair pretty poor. Maybe we'll rise to the occasion against the brilliant Argentines, stifling their attack and counterpunching in classic Italian style. And maybe in the final we'll brutally expose Brazil's defensive failings and thrash them 3-0. Maybe.

Well, it could happen. And if you can't believe that of your team, however bad they are, then you can never really know the pain, and occasional exhilaration, of watching sports.

Maybe it sounds like burying your head in the sand. But I don't know - I reckon people like Brunel, Edison, Churchill - and maybe Gianfranco Zola - all had a bit of that belief in their own lives as well. I think we need more of it.

Brought to you by the letter D

2006-05-24T07:26:00.000+01:00

Cheryl came across this game where you are assigned a letter and have to share 10 things that start with it and are important to you. Cool! So here goes: my letter is D.

1. di Giovanni. My surname - bane of filing systems everywhere. For reference: it has a space in, not a hyphen; it goes under 'd', not 'G'; and it goes before dia, not under dig. Certain people's inability to follow this has significantly changed my life! Notice also that it starts with a lower-case 'd': the "di" just means "of" and hence is not capitalised. This is important to me because I'm pedantic! I love my surname because it's unusual, just like me. It also reminds me that part of my roots lie in Italy, and specifically in the Abruzzo - a wild, mountainous area. I like to think that being a mountain person (at least partly) makes me stubborn :)

2. Dad. My dad. Interested in and knowledgeable about a huge range of subjects, has a huge library, works hard at whatever he does and is always in pursuit of excellence. My parents are divorced and I grew up with my mum, but particularly since I was about 15 I've really come to appreciate my dad and how lucky I am to have him.

3. Dup. The dup. Our nickname for Alex (our nearly-four-year-old boy). The reason for the name is very long and dull. He's so like me it's unbelievable, and that sums up the best and worst things about him - interested in lots of things, curious, talks a lot, obsessive, unbelievably stubborn, head full of facts and loves to share them. All of which are both good and bad depending on context! He's getting to the age now where we can have great fun doing things together, and I'm beginning to think that having children wasn't such a bad idea after all.

4. Derek. My brother. At home we'd alternate fighting and playing together nicely; but being together focused us on the differences between us. Since I left home we've come to realise just how similar we are - he's just like me only he has better social skills ;) It's also only since we left home that I've realised just what a phenomenally talented person he is. At school, he suffered from unfair comparison with me (partly by himself) - unfair, because I'm 3 years older. We did totally different things at school etc., but have ended up working for the same company and in broadly similar roles.

5. Difficult. This is harder than I thought! Still, I love a challenge. Easy is boring: difficult is fun. There's little better in life than achieving something you thought was impossible.

6. Divine. Jesus, that is: God become man. He's very important to me! I became a Christian when I was 16 and more than anything else that's shaped my life since. It's a learning process and a change process, something I do and believe not just something I belong to or a label I apply to myself.

7. Do. Doing stuff. Best way to learn, best way to experience life, best way to make a change. Make ripples. Interfere with play (soccer analogy for those who don't understand it). Try not to be, as Sokrates put it, "a dead weight on the face of the earth." I read that (Plato's "Apology of Sokrates") in Greek at school and it's stuck with me ever since.

8. Diplomacy. The board game - excellent game. I love playing board games, although to be honest I think Monopoly is my current favourite. Games of all sorts were a common part of family life when I was growing up, and are still a big part of family get-togethers on my mum's side (She was one of six, and although the others live across the Atlantic from us, we get on very well and are a very "close" family). The best thing about Monopoly is the negotiation aspect, something I enjoy in other contexts too - hence also "diplomacy". "Tact" on the other hand is not my strongest point, but I'm ok with that: there are times when a spade is a spade and it's better to call it for what it is.

9. Digression. A definite trait of mine, although not really a good one! But digression is just a sign of an active mind, too active to stick to one topic! Being full of ideas is definitely me - I'm a natural "plant" on the Belbin team roles and get on very well with similar types. "Discernment" on the other hand - filtering those myriad ideas until just the good ones are left - is something I prefer to trust to other people when I can. Benefits of teamwork!

10. Debugging. I'm a software developer, so this is a big part of my life (usually bugs made by other people, I should add). And I enjoy it - the thrill of the chase, the puzzle, the burst of satisfaction when you finally figure out how all the seemingly unrelated symptoms fit together and what's going on, or when you finally get the thing working. Geeky (and crude) footnote: most unix commands are verbs, so I find the choice of the name "debugger" amusing (and very appropriate).

Want to play? E-mail me or reply and I'll send you your own letter - or you can get one from Cheryl directly.

What makes you happy?

2006-05-10T15:17:00.000+01:00

There's a piece on the BBC website about happiness, asking the question: what makes you happy? Well, here are some of mine.

Sitting on top of Glyder Fach (a Welsh mountain) facing into the wind.
Getting a broken model railway engine working again.
Making part of an engine out of plastic, showing it to my son (nearly 4), and he says, "that's brilliant!"
Finally being able to open the back door without it sticking, after I've followed my wife's instructions and filed off the bumpy bit at the bottom.
Fixing a particularly knotty bug at work.
Being there, and being able to offer encouragement, when my two boys were born.
Chelsea winning the league by beating Manchester United 3-0.
Eating pickled chillis.
Listening to "Here comes the sun" while driving in the dark to my mum's, with my boy asleep in the car seat next to me.
My wedding day - having all the people who were important to me in the same place at the same time.
Watching election night 1997 with my dad. (So much has changed since then!)
Sitting on a beach in the sun, watching the waves go in and out.
The scent of lilac blossom.
Playing my guitar.
Playing my guitar at church, looking at the congregation, and seeing that they're all totally lost in worship, and I've helped them to get there.
Being allowed to go to sleep in the afternoon.
The story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), especially: "But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him". That's me, that is.

Go on, draw up your own list. Put it in a reply, or (better) post it on your own blog and link to it in a comment.

Links

2006-04-25T14:15:00.000+01:00

I was just doing another silly quiz and it prompted me to see if I could find my own blog on Google by looking for my name. I couldn't (maybe I could if it had my name on it), but did find a few references to me, mainly on other people's blogs. "Ego surfing", I've heard it called.

I did find one link that surprised me, though: this one. I'm going to have to be more careful what I say next time, but it's kind of nice that someone seems to think me worth quoting.

Another interesting thing I found recently: my dad has a page on Wikipedia. Maybe I should flesh it out a little ... I wonder who put it up there?

Meta-blogging

2006-04-12T05:24:00.000+01:00

When I set this blog up a year or two ago, my main motive was to take the name tomdg before someone else did! But I've posted intermittently and kind of enjoyed it. I even got some comments!

I thought at the time that I would probably blog lots of different things, and so it is. That's what I'm like, whether because of ADHD or not I have lots of interests and post on a range of topics.

But to make life a bit easier (for whom, I wonder?) I'm going to try separating them into different strands with a blog for each. This will be for personal stuff; my political / theological / other rants will go under tomdg says, and if I get around to it, any creative stuff will go under tomdg creates.

I'll start off by re-posting some of my old stuff in the appropriate place, but I won't delete it from here because I don't want to lose the few comments that I have!

Self-congratulation

2006-04-11T13:27:00.000+01:00

I found this test on Martin Eyles' blog. Being the kind of pedantic soul who enjoyed Lynn Truss's "Eats shoots and leaves", I thought I'd give it a go - see the results below.

Advanced
You scored 100% Beginner, 100% Intermediate, 93% Advanced, and 73% Expert!

You have an extremely good understanding of beginner, intermediate, and advanced level commonly confused English words, getting at least 75% of each of these three levels' questions correct. This is an exceptional score. Remember, these are commonly confused English words, which means most people don't use them properly. You got an extremely respectable score.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
You scored higher than 60% on Beginner

You scored higher than 36% on Intermediate

You scored higher than 37% on Advanced

You scored higher than 25% on Expert

I got you babe

2006-03-30T15:31:00.000+01:00

Not a lot going on here, except that the baby arrived safe and well.

For anyone who doesn't know already, midwives are wonderful. If I didn't have a job already, then I think the whole experience would have persuaded me that I wanted to become a midwife. Well, maybe - a male midwife isn't quite the thing is it, it would be a bit weird. Ah well, I do have a job, so it's back to computers. It has to be said that by comparison, giving birth to software feels a bit flat.

Post FAWM

2006-03-03T08:49:00.000Z

Well, February is over, and I amazed myself by writing no less than 16 songs for FAWM. If you're interested, have a look at the link in the previous post, but beware, the quality is ... variable, to say the least!

But the point is, I didn't think I'd get close to 14 songs written in 28 days, whereas in fact I exceeded that number. So I feel great right now! It's great to challenge yourself from time to time, and to take on something different and impossible-looking.

On that theme, over the last few months I've I've taken up the challenge of organizing a group to revamp the evening service at our church. For someone like me who is incapable of organizing inebriation in a brewery (I tried when I was at uni, only two other people turned up) this is an equally impossible task. Yet I figure if I can write two (dreadful) novels and write 16 (poor) songs in a month, what do I have to be afraid of?

So I've got a group together (miracle) and we've managed to agree on some quite radical changes (miracle). All this in my spare time while I'm waiting for baby number two to arrive. It was due on Feb 28th but there's no action yet.

FAWM

2006-02-16T10:39:00.000Z

I've signed up to FAWM, or February Album Writing Month to give it its full name. The idea is I have to write 14 songs in 28 days. I love music and have always enjoyed playing in a band, but writing songs is a bit of a departure for me: Back 10-15 years ago when I played in a band I had lots of ideas for songs, some of which I'd written odd bits of, but I don't think that in total there were 14 which I finished. Still, I like a challenge and after completing NaNoWriMo twice I thought I'd try something musical; it is after all more "me" than writing prose.

You can see my progress here, including lyrics for the songs I've finished and in some cases demos. Please send me comments if you listen to them. And before anyone says it, I'm definitely not planning on giving up the day job!

Education, education, education

2006-02-06T10:52:00.000Z

This is really a comment on this thread, which Bishop Hill noticed, and which is closed for further comments.

In my opinion the 11-plus, along with the elitist (i.e. selective) university system with grants, was the probably the best and most socially levelling thing the UK ever had. It meant that for the first time, children from poor backgrounds who were bright, could go to a good school, get a degree and work as teachers etc. in roles that were almost totally denied their ancestors. The changes that have happened since –comprehensive schooling where the quality of education depended on where you lived, lower standards from GCSE upwards, and wider access to higher education meaning that it is no longer free and therefore less available to the poor - have reduced opportunity and social mobility.

As for the issue of funding - given that funding for education will always be limited, would it not make sense to spend the money where it has the most effect rather than decreeing that it has to be spread evenly, or worse, thrown mostly at those who get the least out of it?

"In those days people will no longer say,
'The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.'
Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.” (Jeremiah 31:29-30).

Shouldn't that be the aspiration of a state-funded education system?

In Praise of Democracy (kind of)

2006-01-26T14:47:00.000Z

I don't believe that democracy is some kind of ideal to which we should all ascribe, but I can probably agree with Winston Churchill that it is "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". I personally reckon the test of a government is what it does, not what political system created it.

The recent Palestinian election demonstrates this point well. Some really positive points have come out of it. I think it's great that the people of Palestine have managed to hold what has been generally recognized as a free and fair election. It's also a credit to Israel that they chose to allow the elections to continue without interference, when many people urged them to intervene.

But the result has been troubling for pretty much anyone. It looks like the winners will be the political wing of Hamas, Palestine's equivalent of Sinn Fein - the political front of a bunch of terrorists.

I wonder how this will affect the US's attempts to bring democracy to the middle east? In Palestine, at least, they have succeeded; but is this a good thing? The US government have said that they will not recognize or cooperate with a Hamas-lead Palestinian authority. I can see why, but at the same time it seriously undermines their commitment to democracy. (A commitment which is already called into question by their treatment of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, also freely elected).

It raises another issue too. The US describe Hamas as terrorists. That was always true in the past. Is it now? They are a democratically elected government. Yes, they are killing people, mainly civilians, in another country. So are US forces in Iraq. And unlike Iraq, Israel has invaded Palestine and is still occupying parts of it. Can we still call it terrorism when a democratically elected government uses force to defend itself against invaders?

I have some views that many people would consider controversial. I believe anyone who thinks about morality in national terms is wrong and very dangerous (I'm thinking of the US, Israel and Hamas here, but also anyone who is prepared under any circumstances to say "my country, right or wrong"). I also believe it is wrong to go to war and kill people even when they are invading your country and killing your friends and family; I don't believe any war is ever just. But for now I'm in a small minority. For the rest of you - what other reason can there now be for failing to recognize Hamas as a legitimate authority and their fight as a just war?

It Came Upon the Midnight Clear

2005-12-19T12:53:00.000Z

We sang "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear" at church on Sunday. Not previously one of my favourites, but this time the words really spoke to me. And what they said was …

God really doesn't want us to kill each other. Rather, he wants us to tell people about Jesus.

Apologies if that sounds obvious. A particular application: that’s how he wants us to deal with Muslim terrorists (just as it is for peace-loving democratic Muslims). Tell them about Jesus, pray for them, try to reach them with the gospel and save them. He doesn’t want us to blow them up.

Yes, I know these people are dangerous. No-one is safe apparently, not even here in Leamington Spa. If we let them live and try to reason with them with the Gospel, some of us might get killed.

But is that really so bad? Did that deter St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. Stephen – knowing that if they carried on preaching the word so boldly they might forfeit their lives? Absolutely not!

As Jesus says: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” (Matthew 16:25)

It came upon the midnight clear,
That glorious song of old,
From angels bending near the earth,
To touch their harps of gold;
“Peace on the earth, good will to men,
From Heaven’s all gracious King.”
The world in solemn stillness lay,
To hear the angels sing.

Still through the cloven skies they come
With peaceful wings unfurled,
And still their heavenly music floats
O’er all the weary world;
Above its sad and lowly plains,
They bend on hovering wing,
And ever over its Babel sounds
The blessèd angels sing.

Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife
And hear the angels sing.

And ye, beneath life’s crushing load,
Whose forms are bending low,
Who toil along the climbing way
With painful steps and slow,
Look now! for glad and golden hours
Come swiftly on the wing.
O rest beside the weary road,
And hear the angels sing!

For lo! the days are hastening on,
By prophet-bards foretold,
When with the ever circling years
Comes round the age of gold;
When peace shall over all the earth
Its ancient splendors fling,
And the whole world send back the song
Which now the angels sing.

Trafalgar Day

2005-10-21T11:30:00.000+01:00

I don’t approve of war. It’s no way to solve problems, and it’s not what Jesus would do. However I do find military history interesting, and always have. As with anything, you can learn lessons from past battles which are of use in everyday life. Today is the 200th anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, so here are two lessons from history from that battle - one from each side.

Firstly, from the winning side. The British Admiral, Nelson, is the obvious hero of the battle. He came up with a winning plan; his ships were better organized and won the day. Nelson’s British fleet was outnumbered in terms of ships and guns, but had better technology: British naval guns could be fired five times as quickly, and also more accurately. Taking this into account, his force was vastly superior. His plan was one of brute force. He sailed his ships as quickly as possible, straight into the opposing force. He knew that at close range his better guns would blast the enemy ships to pieces, even in the face of superior numbers. His plan worked, and the British destroyed most of the opposing fleet without losing a single ship. From then on, Napoleon’s fleet were powerless to challenge British domination of the seas. Brute force works.

The lesson here? Nelson’s ships were superior, but his tactics made the most of their superiority. In any situation, know your strengths and play to them. My small group at church looked at 2 Kings 4:1-7 recently, the story of Elijah and the poor widow. Four words struck me from the story, which can be applied in any situation: Elijah asks the widow, “what do you have?” Nelson had better guns, and used them. When faced with difficulty, don’t fret about your weaknesses: ask yourself, “what do you have?”

For me, though, the greatest heroism of the battle was shown by a French ship, the Redoutable. It was a fourth-rate ship of the line, one of the weaker ships in the battle. It nonetheless sailed straight for Nelson’s flagship, the Victory. Although heavily outgunned, it managed to get alongside the Victory and was on the verge of boarding it when another British ship, the Temeraire, intervened and saved the day. Who knows what would have happened had they succeeded? Facing impossible odds, the Redoutable met the enemy head on and kept fighting until 85% of its crew were dead. Famously, a sniper from this brave ship fired the shot which killed Nelson.

The lesson? When the two fleets met, a British victory was all but assured. In the event the bravery of the Redoutable nearly turned the battle; and the death of Nelson took all the gloss off the victory. Sometimes you enter a situation which seems genuinely impossible. If you give up, defeat is certain. But the braver option is to give it your best, to go out fighting (metaphorically speaking). And if you do, it’s never too late to make a difference.

Thousands of people died at Trafalgar, 600 on the Redoutable alone. I hope one day we’ll learn enough to say that we will never go to war again. But in the meanwhile, those who fought and died that day can still be an example to us all.

Still waking up alive (all over the place)

2005-10-18T10:22:00.000+01:00

I've just spent the last few days in the US visiting my grandfather, who is recovering from heart surgery. This meant four flights and a total of seven or eight thousand miles in six days. Traveling that far for such a short time would normally feel a bit extravagant, but not under the circumstances.

It was great to see my extended family again. I should point out here that although my parents and brother live here in the UK (like me), my sister and all my grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc. all live in the US. I don't get to see them as often as I'd like but it's great when I do as they're an amazing bunch of people.

I flew back yesterday, and today I'm back at work. I'm feeling rather tired, but jet lag is a small price to pay for being able to see my family. Thank goodness for air travel!

Petrol (reprise)

2005-09-30T09:21:00.000+01:00

So, it actually happened. Driving back on the A14 after a weekend away, I passed a petrol station selling diesel at £1.01 a litre. Unlike a few years ago when petrol hit 84p and it felt like the world was about to end, this landmark was met with astonishing apathy. There were protests but only small ones, and no blockades. Yes, there were shortages of petrol, but only because everyone suddenly decided to fill up “just in case”.

I overheard a couple of people at work saying they’d filled their cars up with petrol ahead of the protests and were shocked how much it cost. This made me laugh. Firstly, it was clear that neither of them ever filled their cars up normally, something I just can’t understand. Secondly, they were amazed that it cost them over £60. You can’t physically fit £30 of petrol into my car let alone £60, so I’m guessing they drive gas-guzzling monster cars quite unlike my lovely 45mpg ultra-nippy Ford Fiesta. And finally, because I didn’t fill my car up but waited a week after which the price came down again. I have to say I felt rather smug.

But what’s really amazing is just how little difference £1 a litre has made. You still see 4x4s on the road making short trips into town to go shopping or take the kids to school. You still see 90% of cars on the way to work with just one person in them (including mine.)

If high prices are the economy’s way of sending us a message, it’s clear that we just don’t get it!

Footnote: for those of you in the US, £1.01 a litre is equivalent to $6.50 a gallon in US prices. However standard unleaded in the UK is 95 octane compared with 87 in the US so it's not really a fair comparison. £1.01 was the highest price I saw; at the place I go to, apart from a week or so at 94p, the price of unleaded hasn't ever gone over 90p.

Waking up alive

2005-09-29T08:11:00.000+01:00

The last few days have been somewhat stressful. I found out last week that my Grandfather, aged 88, was in hospital with pneumonia. It turned out it wasn't pneumonia, it was a problem with a valve in his heart which was blocking and meant he was getting fluid in his lungs. The only way to fix it was via open heart surgery, otherwise his life expectancy was 6 months to a year.

The surgery went ahead yesterday. I should point out here that my grandfather lives 3000 miles away in New Hampshire so I didn't get to see him before surgery. Well, after not being able to get to sleep, and waiting up late last night to see if there was any e-mail from the family in the US to say how the operation went, I awoke up at quarter to six to find out that the operation went very well and grandpa was awake and happy.

That lead to a few happy tears and a big thankyou to God. I'd been praying that I'd be able to see him again, and I'd got all my friends at church to pray for him too. Well, God is Good.

That wasn't the only thing that was going on either. I had to leave work with a terrible migraine on Tuesday, my body's way of saying it can't cope. (I drove home too, and thanks only to God I didn't get into any accidents and wasn't even sick in my car). And then on Tuesday evening a close friend was rushed to hospital. Thank God, it turned out it wasn't anything serious, but they didn't know that at first.

I gather that when some people have hard times, they ask, where is God in all this? But for me it's the opposite. When things are at their worst, when even the simple task of getting from one day to the next is too much to contemplate, that's when I most appreciate God. When everything else goes bad, God is all I have left to cling to, as he alone never lets me down. Thank you Jesus!

Changing Jobs

2005-09-21T13:52:00.000+01:00

Believe in yourself and others will believe in you.

I got a new job recently. Well, it wasn’t that recently, it was three months ago now – how time flies! But it feels recent. I’ve made a list below of 11 points which might be of use to anyone in a similar situation. But first, the story.

It came about through an amusing quirk of timing. I had decided after three-and-a-half years at the company that it was time to move on. I spoke to a few agencies and just had an interview lined up when my employer announced they wanted to make half of the staff redundant. This put me in a bit of a quandary: I wanted to go, but had nothing to go to. I’d always said, both to myself and others, that one should never leave a job without having another one lined up. But it was a lot of money, and I also knew that by going I’d be able to save the job of someone else who didn’t want to leave. So (after a bit of discussion with God, my wife, and a few friends) I took the plunge, took the money, and joined the number of the unemployed.

In the event, it took me three weeks to find a job, after which I went on holiday for a week and had a week doing not – very – much. And the three weeks I was searching were a really enjoyable time! My previous experience of unemployment came many years ago, when I’d just graduated. Back then I felt no-one would want to employ me because of my lack of experience, and fell into something of a slump. This time, after 10 years working as a programmer or similar jobs, I was confident that I would have no problem finding people who wanted me. And what a difference that made!

I guess I treated finding a job like a job. I decided quite quickly that it was a job I really enjoyed. I spent maybe two or three hours a day working, then the rest of the time I could do whatever I liked. Every morning I’d look at the job websites – www.cwjobs.co.uk and www.jobserve.com were the two I found useful. I looked for any new jobs which broadly matched my skills, rang up the agency, sent CVs, etc. I spent most of the time telling people how brilliant I was, and I think that was what I enjoyed most about it!

It took me just three weeks from my last day at the old job to the day I was rung back with an offer – on a job I really wanted, too. Two weeks later (after a nice holiday in Wales) I was in my new job. I know I was lucky and it’s not like that for everyone, but nonetheless I thought I’d share some of my observations for the benefit of anyone else who might be in the same situation.

(1) I was surprised to find that the jobs listed on the two websites I looked at changed every day. I had thought they would stay the same for weeks, but every day new jobs appeared. So I looked at the sites every day. I also got them to mail me jobs as they were posted, and rang up agencies about the jobs as soon as I saw them. More than one person said in a surprised voice, “we only just posted that one.” Being first in the line can only help.

(2) I took a very broad view of my skillset. Rather than deciding that I was mainly a C++ programmer, or wanted to work in Java, or whatever, I looked at any job which I felt I could do 80% of. My CV listed everything I could do (and all in two pages). It read like a long list of stories: in this job I did these amazing things, with a couple of sentences for each. The things were chosen for the impact they had, the different skills they showed off, and for how proud I was of the achievement.

(3) From writing the CV and otherwise, I somehow convinced myself that I was brilliant, albeit in particular ways and not every way, but brilliant in my niche. This I think is hugely important. It’s a lot easier when talking to someone to pick up what they think of themselves than what they’re actually like. If you think you’re brilliant, so will the prospective employer. I have a long list of people I’ve worked for who have told me I’m brilliant. There are also a few who have thought the reverse. I can learn from them, but fundamentally I don’t take the criticism to heart. I am what I’m good at; what I’m bad at is what other people are good at. 1 Corinthians 12: the ear is not useless simply because it cannot see, nor the eye because it cannot hear.

(4) I’m not the most organized person, so I kept a list on the computer of every job I’d rung up about, the agency name, contact, phone number, brief job details, and how far I’d got with it. When I rang up and was told to “ring back on …” or “I’ll get back to you”, I made a note to myself to ring back after a particular date – give them a couple of days if they said they’ll ring, or wait until the time they said, but don’t wait for ever. If nothing else, it shows you’re serious.

(5) I enquired about something like 18 jobs, and spoke to about 15 different agencies. On one or two occasions two agencies were advertising the same job, but it seemed that mostly each company used a different agency. Simply talking to one or two agencies is no longer the way the industry works, and I guess central sites like jobserve and cwjobs have encouraged a proliferation of agencies.

(6) Some of the agencies were brilliant, some were not. Little things like: do they understand the job description, do they get back to you, how much can they tell you about the company. I didn’t let the quality of the agency put me off applying for the job, after all if they got me a job I wouldn’t complain. Fortunately, the one which got me the job was one I was really impressed with throughout.

(7) Most agencies were very friendly and complementary about my CV. One or two suggested changes in emphasis of skills for particular jobs, which lead to one CV turning into two or three, but the changes were only minor. One was really rude about it. Luckily this was after I’d spoken to several others. I sent them a version with a few changes in it, but didn’t go much further with them. They may have had a valid point, at least concerning the job they were advertising. But everyone else had been very positive. Don’t panic, and don’t let bad comments crowd out good ones. State of mind is very important.

(8) Everyone will tell you differently how to write a CV. Mine worked; it got people talking to me, it got me a job which suits me. Listen to all the comments but write your own CV. My comments are in point 2 above. They got me a job – but then some people don’t like stories so it wouldn’t work for them.

(9) Of the group of us who left at the same time, three found jobs relatively quickly. I found an interesting trend here. We all found jobs which used quite different skills from our previous roles. I had many years C++ programming and a few years of Java (and 3 months VB); now I’m using 75% VB and 25% C++. One guy blagged a job which I know he doesn’t have the skills for, which I thought about going for but decided against because I didn’t have the skills, and which was a great job. I think while programmers may define themselves in terms of very narrow, deep, skills – 10 years C++, 5 years Java, whatever – it’s actually more important to be able to learn quickly, adapt to new environments, interact with people, and know enough about a wide range of things to be able to work with them and learn on the job. Transferable skills and soft skills are rarely listed on job adverts, but actually they’re most of what get you the job and what make you a success in the role. So the job says 10 years of C++. There will be many candidates with 10 years C++; what else can you do which makes you better than them?

(10) I plugged a telephone in to the socket in the study, next to the computer – don’t know why I’d never done that before. It meant I could surf for jobs on the internet, ring up agencies, and chat through details, all the while without leaving my PC – where I could make notes, keep a diary of whom I needed to chase up when, work on my CV, play games, etc. I was “live” all the time. My study became my office, my centre of operations. I could make a phone call and have all the information I wanted at my fingertips. Brilliant!

(11) Most of all: Believe in yourself and others will believe in you. If you only take point from this piece, this is the one.

Incitement 2

2005-09-16T17:00:00.000+01:00

Is it just me, or would that make a great name for a rap band?

Sorry, the blog was getting a bit heavy :)

Incitement to ...

2005-09-16T08:52:00.000+01:00

The law is an ass, as the saying goes. Laws try to ban people from doing things we consider bad, but before they can do so, they have to define what we want to ban. Sometimes this is easy, sometimes it’s very difficult; and lawyers grow fat on the ambiguity.

The recent hunting debate was a good example. Like most people, I consider making sport from the suffering of animals to be barbaric. I’d like to see foxhunting as sport banned. (Incidentally, I don’t have a problem with using packs of dogs for pest control against foxes or any other kind of pest; it feels like a good natural solution). The problem is, I don’t think it’s possible to make a law which defines exactly what I think should be banned and what shouldn’t. I deeply dislike the “Countryside Alliance” with their right-wing, “we know better” agenda. But when they say they feel the hunting ban law is stupid, unworkable, and the result of ignorance and prejudice, I would have to agree. (Ouch, that hurt!)

The same applies with the current proposals to ban incitement to religious hatred and acts glorifying terrorism. They arise from a desire to pass laws against things we find unacceptable. But how can we define these acts? I personally believe that Muslims will be condemned to eternity in hell (just like anyone else who doesn't accept Jesus as Lord, Saviour and God), but I don’t hate them as people and wouldn’t want anyone else to either. Would the law allow me that? If so, I’m sure the “evil clerics of hate” would find it just as easy to get around it by choosing their words carefully.

Glorifying terrorism is even harder to define. What is terrorism? Would those like me who admire the tradition of civil disobedience count as glorifying terrorism? What about those who celebrate the terrorist acts of Americans during their war of independence, or of the French Resistance during world war II? What about Michael Collins and the Irish uprisings of 1916? What about the SAS? They act outside the law almost by definition. And if we our definition of terrorism now includes state-sponsored terrorism, was not the invasion of Iraq a state-sponsored terrorist act?

I am a pacifist and don’t believe in killing people. Most people would disagree, and feel that at least under some circumstances, killing can be acceptable. Probably a majority would even support those like the Resistance who do so to fight against governments they feel are injust, corrupt and evil. But there’s the catch. In their eyes, the bombers in Madrid, London, New York and Palestine are all doing precisely that.

If a law is passed to allow prosecution of those who glorify terrorist acts, I cannot believe it will be used even-handedly, even if it is used at all. That cries against all my instincts of fairness. I believe the US constitution even explicitly prohibits it - equal treatment under the law.

Instead of trying to pass more stupid laws like this, they should just go the whole way and ban Islam. Now that would be REALLY stupid.

Is there anybody out there?

2005-09-15T13:42:00.000+01:00

Another first for me. I got a comment! That means someone actually read something I wrote. Scary! But cool. I haven’t exactly gone out of my way to advertise, but I’m sure I always hoped I wasn’t just talking into space. Maybe I’ll have to think before I write now. That said, it’s not as if I do that when talking to people face to face …

Anyway, if anyone else reads this, comments are very welcome.

Death and Taxes (2)

2005-09-14T15:49:00.000+01:00

The “flat tax” is a trendy topic these days. It seems most popular with right-wingers and wealthy people. No doubt they like the idea as it means them paying less.

These are the same people who talk about the benefits of “small government”. In all the discussion about the ideal size of government, people tend to forget what the point of government is in the first place. Why do we have law and order rather than chaos? Why have government rather than anarchy? The reason is simple. Government exists to protect the weak from the powerful.

Government works when it does this. If a nation’s farmers can grow crops without the fear of men with big sticks taking away the fruits of their labour, then the country will grow more food. If you can develop a brilliant piece of software without the risk of being outcompeted by an inferior product backed by a huge corporation with masses lawyers and marketing people, then everyone gets better software. Those with money and power can buy this kind of protection and have little need for government. The “little people” cannot. They have just as much to offer the world as anyone else, and it follows that the world is a richer place if they are allowed to contribute. But they can only do that if they are protected from those who would see them as consumers and workers rather than competition.

What is true at a national level is also true at an international level. This week sees discussions about the future role of the UN. I believe exactly the same principles apply. The world needs a government capable of protecting the weak against the abuses of the powerful. That can mean preventing citizens against genocide. It should equally mean protecting weaker nations against stronger. And in particular, against the most powerful nation of them all.

Death and Taxes

2005-09-14T09:50:00.000+01:00

I heard a fantastic comment on Thought for the Day a few months ago, reproduced here. The author was James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool. It followed on from his earlier newspaper article.

The idea is simple: don’t tax work; tax the use of non-renewable resources. There's no way I could put it as well as he did, so I won't try - have a read of the links above.

But hey - how’s that for an idea of a flat tax?

The Big Easy

2005-09-08T09:49:00.000+01:00

New Orleans. What a terrible tragedy. A city of a million people flooded, destroyed, evacuated. I can’t even begin to imagine what it must be like. It’s pointless trying to compare this with other natural disasters, but whichever way you look at it it’s terrible.

Of course the human suffering is the worst. Every one of the thousands of people who died will leave a big hole in the lives of everyone around them. Hundreds of thousands of people are homeless, and likely to remain so for months.

It seems petty by comparison, but I wonder what the long-term cultural effect of this tragedy will be? From what I understand, New Orleans has – had - its own unique culture quite distinct from the rest of the South. I’ve never been, but I’d have liked to. I would still like to. What will happen to that culture now? Will the city ever be rebuilt and re-inhabited? Will it ever feel like the same place again? I won’t attempt to compare the potential loss of a culture with the human suffering that’s been experienced, but it would still be a terrible loss.

I pray that the city will be rebuilt and will come back to life stronger than ever. I’m reminded of Nehemiah and Ezra rebuilding Jerusalem after a generation in exile in Babylon.

In the meanwhile, I'd like to try to do my bit for New Orleans culture by trying to do some Creole cookery and inflicting it on some of my friends. Alas, with my cookery skills it’ll probably be an insult to the place. I dare say to do it properly you have to be born into it and spend years learning. But it’ll be my way of remembering the city after it’s disappeared from the news. For anyone who fancies doing the same, I found a brilliant recipe site: http://www.gumbopages.com/recipe-page.html which is both highly intimidating but also inspiring.

Wish me luck! If I have any success I might post how I get on.

Update

2005-09-06T18:35:00.000+01:00

Clearly the shock of being an unpublished author was too much for me! That really was a long time ago, and what have I been up to in the meanwhile? Well, that'll be another post if I get around to it. On past evidence that's not terribly likely. Instead here is a poem I wrote a while ago which I still like.

I want to change the world
- but I don't know how
I want to change the world
- but I am just one person
I want to change the world
- but I don't want to get in trouble
I want to change the world
- but I have a job
- a wife
- a family
I want the world to change
- and I am waiting.

I did it!

2004-11-30T09:05:00.000Z

Believe it or not, I did it! At nine o'clock this morning, local time, I finished writing my NaNoWriMo creation, weighing in at 50457 words, and all written in less than two weeks. Woohoo!

Of course the story is dreadful, the writing is awful and the characterisation downright contradictory, but that's not the point. I did it, I achieved something!

Ok, although I finished the story, there are still a few remaining questions. Should I go back and try to tidy up the worst of the contradictions, the places where I've used completely the wrong word, the bits which make me cringe most? Can I even be bothered to read through it again myself? And, will I ever let anyone else read it?

But those questions are for tomorrow. For one day I aim to bask in my triumph. For once in my life, I am a winner; I set myself a goal and I achieved it.

NaNoWriMo

2004-11-25T11:48:00.000Z

I was inspired by this link to take part in this year's National Novel Writing Month. If the idea of writing a whole fifty-thousand word novel in a month sounds stupid, that's because it is. Given that I only started on the 17th, it's very stupid. Still, I love a challenge! Follow my progress here. Look, I'm nearly half way there! Will I make it by the end of the month? Doubtful, especially since I'm going away for the weekend with no PC. But that won't stop me trying.

What will the end product be like? Pure, unexpurgated rubbish, of course! But that's not the point. Will you be able to read it? No way! I wouldn't inflict that on anyone ;) So why do it? Because it's there. It's a challenge.

No other gods?

2004-11-11T10:55:00.000Z

This is going to start with a bit of a ramble, so if you want to the meat, skip the first couple of paragraphs.

One of the guys in the office here is a muslim. He's just finished Ramadan, and that got me thinking about things they're not supposed to eat and therefore what I'm not supposed to eat. I think meat sacrificed to idols is about the only thing in the New Testament.

As my former room-mate used to say: "'Canape, mister Bowie?' 'No thanks.' 'Canape, mister Barker?' 'No, sorry, I don't eat food offered to idols.'"

This line reminded me that God really does take idols and false gods very seriously. We are to have nothing to do with them, including not eating food sacrificed to them.

In the Old Testament in particular, the seriousness of dabbling with false religeons is made clear. In the book of Joshua, God orders genocide against the inhabitants of the promised land, illustrating the attitude we are to take towards other religeons. (Incidentally, I don't believe God demands or condones genocide in that area or elsewhere now).

Now I live in a reasonably multicultural society, so this does have ramifications. God is one, and all other gods are false. However close other religions' understandings of God might be to the real thing, if they don't recognize Jesus as God and Saviour then they are still no different from idol worshippers. While it's really important for Christians to be in contact with these people in order to show them the Real Thing - Jesus, that closeness will have limits which prevent us being involved in any of their forms of religeous devotion. Does that mean no to visiting mosques or attending Sikh weddings, for example? I don't know where to draw the line.

Most of my peers are atheistic or agnostic materialists. The gods they worship are money, family, sex, drink, self, celebrity, and posessions. These are not (all) bad things in themselves, in context. But the big question is: to what extent in my relationships with them am I guilty in "eating" the "meat" they sacrifice to their idols?

Four more years?!? My God, My God, have you forsaken us all?

2004-11-05T14:26:00.000Z

The way things are going, I don't know if the world will last for four more years.

Seriously though, the thing which upset me most about the US election result was that it seems that a lot of the people who voted for Bush were Christians. Not just liberal or nominal Christians either; devout people with living faith.

I am a devout Christian, and I voted for Kerry. I didn't think he was a great candidate (I like Howard Dean, actually), but at least he wasn't Bush. Am I starting to wonder now whether I should instead have voted with so many of my fellow Christians? Absolutely not!

I believe that in this election and any election, Jesus is looking for the candidate who will stand up for the weak, the poor, the infirm. When he quotes Isaiah in saying "The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor, ..." This isn't just a turn of phrase or metaphor. He means he has come particularly to bring hope to people with no money, people the world has forsaken. These are not the people who benefit from a Bush presidency, tax cuts for the wealthy; these are not the people who can be incentivised to stimulate the economy. These are the unemployed, the homeless, the underpaid, those scraping out a living on minimum wage.

I also believe that Jesus is appalled by the doctrine of preemption. Remember his words: "if your enemy hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." How could he support a government which believes that "if you think your enemy might try to hit you on one cheek, bomb his house and kill the ******". Personally I can't imagine him supporting any war - how can you love your enemy by shooting at him? But he certainly wouldn't support going to war over oil and money.

Of course, these aren't the issues which have prompted so many of my fellow Christians to vote for Bush. They're concerned about abortion, gay marriage, etc. I believe in the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of human life (including, incidentally, the sanctity of the lives of doctors who perform abortions - but that's another discussion). To what extent can I enforce my beliefs in these areas on others, in a country which guarantees freedom of religion in its constitution? I don't know. But I believe that the issues of the poor, of economics, of taxes, and particularly of war, are every bit as much ethical issues of these.

For years, right-wing politicians have cynically exploited Christian views on topics which don't cost the wealthy money, while pretending that poverty (for example) is not an ethical issue. Rubbish! Jesus was one of the most radical, dangerous, left-wing and anti-establishment figures in history. That's why Pilate put him to death.

No matter what my fellow believers do, I will never be ashamed to be a Christian or to count them as my brothers and sisters. But I do feel very sad for them, that their genuine faith has been twisted and abused to support such un-Christlike policies and politicians.

What would Jesus do? Well, whatever he'd have done, it wouldn't have involved tax cuts for the rich, colonial wars, and giving billions of tax dollars to his friends.

This is my truth, tell me yours

2004-08-24T15:35:00.000+01:00

I believe in things. I believe Jesus is the only way to God, I believe that war is ethically wrong, lots of things.

I live in an era where this kind of belief is unfashionable. It is wrong to force one's views on others, the argument goes. How dare I claim that my opinions are more valid than anyone else's? Everyone has the right to their own opinion, and what's right for one person need not be right for another.

Well, I think this is soft-minded rubbish. Although most people preach tolerance and relativism, I think when it comes down to it they don't believe it any more than I do.

It's easy to claim that religious faith is a personal thing, that no one faith can be right. It's easy too to claim that people with strong views on abortion, sex outside marriage or pornography are trying to enforce their views on others who have equal right to their own, more liberal views. But what about when it comes to pedophilia, rape, the holocaust? Are pedophiles and Nazis equally entitled to follow their own moral code? Very, very few people would accept this, and rightly so.

Moral relativism is a nice creed to follow liberally, as it frees you from the pangs of conscience and allows you to justify your own self-gratification. But taken seriously, it's a far harder faith to follow than absolutism. I had a friend who was a Taoist. Taoism eschews moral absolutes, and he recognized the difficulties of this. He commented that the true Taoist response to suffering gay rape (his choice of example, not mine!) might be to comment, "ah, this fellow appears to have taken a shine to my bottom," since moral judgments about the action were inappropriate. I have a lot of respect for him in trying to get to grips with the consequences of relativistic teaching, but it's not something most people could ever accept.

So, while relativism seems to be a common theme these days, most people who talk about it don't really believe it. Rather it serves as an excuse for a lack of concrete belief, a lazy alternative to having to think through and justify ones own, disjointed, prejudiced moral judgments. Why bother to question your own lifestyle and beliefs, when you can just say "that's fine for you, but it's not for me?"

Coming back to an earlier question, I think there are two reasons why I might sometimes dare to believe that, yes, my opinions might be more valid than someone else's. The first, and the big one for me, is that at times I am merely reiterating the doctrines espoused by Jesus. This will clearly not carry much weight with a non-Christian, and understandably so. To them I'd point to Jesus' teachings and persona, which hopefully they might find attractive enough to add weight to some of his harder sayings. But secondly, I would hope that my opinions might be more likely to be valid simply because (like my Taoist friend) I've actually bothered to think them through.

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus is God, and that all faiths which don't accept this are fatally flawed, however much of their teachings I might otherwise agree with. But I also feel closer to Muslims, Taoists, or even Atheists who take their faith seriously and dare to think through and live out its consequences, than with the vast majority who simply use moral relativism as a cover for their own laziness, ignorance and apathy.

Not posting

2004-07-22T10:01:00.000+01:00

I haven't posted anything for over a month, but only because I haven't really come up with anything to post. "You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. When I've got nothing to say, my lips are sealed." - David Byrne.

Of course one may argue that if I took that seriously, this blog wouldn't exist ...

Why blog?

2004-06-14T15:09:00.000+01:00

From an item on the BBC web site:

"Weblogs are sometimes criticised for being the self-obsessed ramblings of people who have little to say and too much time on their hands in which to do it."

Well, I can't comment about anyone else, but in my case that's certainly true. Hey, why not? What's wrong with that? Personally I find self-obsessed ramblings interesting, at least sometimes.

I wonder if anyone might find my self-obsessed ramblings interesting ...

Writing games at home

2004-06-14T12:27:00.000+01:00

The reason why I was installing Linux was because I recently felt inspired to have another go at writing a game at home. Like anyone interested in games, I have two or three ideas for computer games which I at least would love to play, and have never managed to find. One of them I had nearly 15 years ago. The idea now, as always, is to take one of these ideas and actually turn it into a playable game.

The problem is, writing a whole computer game (at least a strategy game like the games I like) is a big task. I know, I used to do it for a living. It took a team of a dozen or more of us working full time for over a year. Now in practice a lot of that effort went into flashy 3d graphics, FMV, and other things which don't make the game any better to play. But still, I don't know how long it would take me just to do a simple version of one of my games.

I don't get much time to write games. The odd hour or two each day can be squeezed in between work and home life, and usually I can't be bothered to do anything harder than just playing.

As if that's not enough of a problem, I'm not the kind of person who can stick at a project over a course of months. I've started working on each of these ideas many times, got some little bit working (or not), then gone away. When I come back I invariably want to start from somewhere else.

I guess maybe I just don't have the "drive" to complete a large project like this in my own time. Although I could say I have too much imagination to work on a single idea for too long. (Anyone reading this and thinking about offering me a job, bear in mind it's a lot easier working full time on a project for months on end at work where it's your job, as I've done in the past - home development is I think a uniquely difficult environment). I wonder if there are any software development methodologies designed for people in my situation, where work time is bitty and continual motivation is critical?

Linux

2004-06-14T12:15:00.000+01:00

I installed Linux on my PC at the weekend. It was "interesting". It took a long time and a lot of effort. At each step along the way I found things didn't work as I expected, and it took me a while (and sometimes some web trawling) to find out what I needed to do.

To be fair to the Linux installer, half my problems were to do with backing up and re-partitioning my hard disk before I even touched anything Linux.

Once I'd managed that, I had to work out how to create all the correct partitions on the hard disk for Linux. To do this I had to guess the names of the appropriate Linux commands.

At times the process was frustrating, but in the end I think I quite enjoyed the challenge and the sense of achievement. I certainly haven't been put off Linux. The positive thing I've found is that pretty much any Linux question can be answered using Google (just like anything else in life, but that's another story). And it seems easier to find appropriate help than with my current operating systems.

I was surprised, though, that the installation was harder than I expected. I guess that says something about my expectations about software. I found it challenging because I didn't know what I was doing; I'm used to software which is designed to be easy for people who don't know what they're doing. Still, I think Linux will suit me. Ultimately I prefer software which just does what you tell it to, right or wrong; that's how I expect computers to behave.

Voting

2004-06-11T12:00:00.000+01:00

I voted in the European elections yesterday. That puts me in a minority (nothing new there then) - only 40% of people bothered.

The EU parliament which I helped to elect is responsible for passing laws which affect all sorts of things across Europe. It's not as if they are things no-one cares about; a common theme of British life is people complaining about the latest EU directive. But it seems that here as in so many areas, British people would prefer to whinge about the situation than to actually do something about it.

I've voted in every election here since I've been eligible. I feel it is not just a privilege but also a duty. I owe it to myself and everyone else who lives in this country, since the election affects everyone.

Moreover, though, I feel I owe it to all of the people in the world who have spent so much effort trying to get what we take for granted: a vote.

At the last elections, my wife didn't really like any of the candidates. But nonetheless she felt she had to go cast a vote, even if only to spoil her ballot paper. She remembered the story of Emily Davison, a member of the suffragette movement. She threw herself under the King's racehorse and was killed. That's how important voting was to her.

And in South Africa, elections are still a matter for national celebration, because so many people there were not allowed to vote for so long.

So as I walked from the polling station, I closed my eyes and pretended I was in South Africa.

I wonder what Emily Davison would say now. She gave her life so that half the population here could vote, and now half the population aren't even willing to give up their seat on the sofa for ten minutes.

Petrol

2004-06-02T11:33:00.000+01:00

There is talk in the news here about the possibility of more petrol protests. A few years ago there was a huge scandal when petrol reached 84p a litre. Petrol depots were blockaded and no-one could buy petrol. Then everyone started going to shops and panic buying bread and milk.

Personally I totally opposed the fuel protests: I totally object to the idea of a bunch of truckers holding the country to ransom. Moreover, I don't have a problem with paying 84p a litre or £1 a litre or more for petrol, and I strongly support increases in fuel tax. My car gets 10 miles to the litre (45 miles per UK gallon) and I drive less than six thousand miles a year. I know it's hard on people who drive 50 miles a day in 4x4s or luxury saloons, but that's their choice.

The few days of the blockades were a very interesting time. People started sharing lifts to work. Mothers started walking their children to school instead of driving them. With fewer cars on the street as well, it made walking into town a much more enjoyable experience.

So here's hoping that fuel duty will continue to rise.

Thoughts on thoughts on thought

2004-05-27T12:15:00.000+01:00

That was a bit long and rambling wasn't it? Sorry about that. But then, we don't think in nice neat essays with introductions and conclusions, we think in long rambling digressions.

Thoughts on thought

2004-05-27T12:13:00.000+01:00

I did a short philosophy course at university. It covered the history of philosophical thought starting with ancient Greece up to the current century. What struck me about the course was that pretty much all of it came down to the argument between two Philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Their conflicting viewpoints were first expressed in classical Athens and the argument has raged ever since. The argument is about which is more important: reason or experience?

Plato's viewpoint was that the world of ideas and reason is "real", and that what we see is just a dim representation of those ideals.

Aristotle's opposing viewpoint was that the world you see and experience is "real", and that any expression of ideas is just an attempt to express reality in an inexact manner.

Before Plato (who predated Aristotle), the big debate in Philosophy was between Protagoras and Socrates. Protagoras suggested that right and wrong were not absolute but were subjective - that "man is the measure of all things". In other words, what's wrong for a Greek isn't necessarily wrong for a Persian. Protagoras had travelled extensively (for his day) and in particular commented on the Persian practice of eating dead relatives, which appalled the Greeks.

Sokrates in contrast felt that there were absolute standards of right and wrong, whether or not the Greeks or Persians understood them or chose to follow them. It occurred to me recently that this too is just the Plato versus Aristotle argument: Protagoras was arguing from experience, whereas Sokrates was arguing from logic.

I came across these two arguments on the philosophy course, but since then I've seen them more and more in everyday life. As an example, when I worked for the department of transport, I went to a conference on the "value of time". We discussed the question: what is the value of a small time saving? The argument split into two factions. One said that small time savings have no value, because if you ask people what it's worth to them getting home thirty seconds quicker, they say "nothing". The other said that obviously small time savings were proportionately less valuable than large time savings, so thirty seconds are 1/120th as valuable as an hour. During the debate it occurred to me that this was an example of Aristotelian versus Platonic argument.

Some more examples. Christianity is stronly Platonic. What's the point of "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" if really that just means "I am the truth for those who follow me, others have their own truth and that's ok?" Who'd die for that?

Democracy is inherently Aristotelian: it is based on the balance of individual perception, rather than searching for absolutes. That said, it's possible to argue for democracy from a platonic viewpoint, as given the nature of humanity it's a pretty good "least bad" political system in most situations. [Memo to self: Maybe I should write something about democracy?]

Modern postmodernist culture is similarly Aristotelian. Where once we had "any colour you like as long as it's black", we now have 57 varieties of everything, and everyone's viewpoint is equally valid - excepting of course paedophiles, islamic terrorists and illegal immigrants.

So it seems to me that pretty much the whole history of human thought hinges on these two Greek chaps from over two thousand years ago. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

Blog ideal

2004-05-26T12:25:00.000+01:00

Or idea, for those of you who don't speak Bristolian.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to put footnotes on these things, or hyperlinks? On the last post I was wondering whether "this blog" meant the whole column or just the one entry. If I could, I'd have put a footnote under "blog" asking the question.

Well just an idea. No doubt there is a way, I just don't know it.

Being

2004-05-26T12:06:00.000+01:00

This blog isn't about anything in particular. It has no theme, no concept. After all, people don't.

I thought for a while about giving it a theme. The most likely one would have been to limit it to my thoughts about the news - an (attempted) Christian viewpoint on things.

But while that might be more interesting and more useful, it wouldn't be me - it would only be a part of me. Like anyone, I'm lots of things - most notably a Christian, but also a man, a husband, a dad, someone who works with computers, someone who plays chess, someone with ADHD, etc. These things don't all fit together into a neat whole; no person does. That's what makes people so interesting and life so frustrating.

Prose style

2004-05-25T16:14:00.000+01:00

My prose style isn't very good. I tend to write long, convoluted sentences. I'm making an effort to improve this: shorter, simpler sentences, fewer adjectives and adverbs, fewer clauses. That's the idea anyway. I still haven't found the happy medium between writing like a four-year-old and writing prose so incomprehensible that even I can't read it.

I suppose this at least provides the opportunity to practice. Whether it will help remains to be seen.

First post

2004-05-25T14:41:00.000+01:00

Why have I created a blog? To grab my preferred name before anyone else does. What am I going to put here? I don't know. How often will I post? Only time will tell.

What prompted this was a discussion at work. We felt we needed some way of gossiping about what's happening in the company. Nothing major, nothing bad, just little things: who's leaving, whose jobs are likely to be moved abroad, that sort of thing. The kind of information that smokers get for free, if you count hardened arteries and lung cancer as "for free". It had to be public so everyone could see it, but it had to be anonymous too.

Before you get interested, this isn't that place. But it prompted the idea that I should find out about blogs and see if they might work for that purpose.

I guess I might use this as a space to rant about things, something I seem to do lots. I guess there's also a hope that through doing this I might somehow become someone who understands what blogs are about - a bit like the gosky patties in Edward Lear's nonsense recipe.

Don't watch this space ...