Sometimes an expression can make a picture. This is true for both humans and cats. For example:
“If I ignore him, maybe he’ll go away.”
For more cat shenanigans wander over to stuffonmycat.com.
Crazy kitty
Leave a Reply
Monthly Archives: June 2007
Crackin' the whip one last time
Eggs in exile
Has the world gone mad?
From AP:
An attempt to revive famous TV adverts from the 1950s that encouraged people to “Go To Work On An Egg” have been blocked by regulators on health grounds.
The British Egg Information Service (BEIS) had wanted to bring back the adverts featuring comedian Tony Hancock to mark the 50th anniversary of the British Lion mark.
But the Broadcasting Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said the famous commercials could not be repeated because eating eggs every day went against the policy of encouraging people to eat a varied diet.
“The concept of eating eggs every day for breakfast goes against what is now the generally accepted advice of a varied diet and we therefore could not approve the ads for broadcast,” a BACC spokesman told the BBC.
The BEIS had said it would put in an additional line saying eggs should be eaten as part of a balanced diet but this suggestion was rejected.
Author Fay Weldon, who headed the team of eggheads that came up with the slogan in 1957, criticised the decision.
“When you think of what can be run and what is run, like low cost airlines and cars … cars kill and eggs aren’t actually likely to do so, it is absurd,” she told BBC radio.
Anyone who wants to see the adverts can go to the BEIS Web site: http://www.gotoworkonanegg.co.uk/watch_the_egg_adverts.html
Officialdom will be the death of us, not eating eggs.
Land of the giants
ABC have an interesting piece up on how Americans are being eclipsed by the Dutch in the height stakes.
The average Dutch man is six-foot-one, while the average US male is five-foot-ten. The ABC report says America has the shortest population in the industrialised world, but then points out that the average height for a Japanese man is five-foot-seven.
What the story doesn’t make clear is that Americans are shrinking while the Japanese are getting taller.
The above link is worth following if only for the photo: Paul van Sprundel standing next to a life-size model of (five-foot-seven) Vincent van Gogh, who barely comes up to the man’s shoulders.
To illustrate the disparity between the nations, ABC sent a six-foot-three reporter, Jim Sciutto, to Amsterdam. There he was left looking up at the likes of van Sprundel, who is six-eleven (watch Sciutto’s story here).
However, I’m not convinced by some of the facts he cites. The study that Americans are coming up short is reputable: it was researched by teams at the University of Munich and Princeton University.
Sciutto says: “Historians have found height to be about the best single indicator of a nation’s success, reflecting not just wealth but overall health and well-being.”
That’s fine. It’s backed up by quotes from Professor George Maat of Holland’s Leiden University, who has been researching this kind of thing for years.
“Health, nutrition, living conditions, genetics — everything at the end goes down to one thing that represents all of that, and that is stature,” he said. “And I think that is the easiest parameter to use to follow the conditions people are living in.”
Fair enough. And the health link has been mentioned before; I have read of studies showing that the population of northern China is getting taller because of a higher meat content in the region’s diet.
But then Sciutto says: “And so, at the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans were the tallest in the world.”
Um, no. The Romans were smaller than members of various Celtic and Germanic tribes — one study claims they were as much as 4cm shorter. The same study points out that the average height did not increase while the Empire lasted but, paradoxically if going by Sciutto’s claim, did after the Empire’s demise in Western Europe.
Even the Egyptians in their heyday were only a whisper above five feet.
Have I sufficiently sucked the fun out of this story?
Heads in the sand
A group of 100 Japanese politicians have got together to say the Nanking Massacre never happened.
In 1937, the city (which is now more properly known as Nanjing) was subjected to a frenzy of violence by Japanese soldiers which has gone down in history as “the Rape of Nanking”. China says about 300,000 people were killed, although the most commonly-cited figure is between 150,000 and 200,000.
That’s not to say it happened all in one go. The city, which was capital of China at the time, fell to the Japanese army in December 1937 and the violence lasted about six weeks. Atrocities committed included rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners and civilians.
The members of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party say only 20,000 people were killed and there was “no violation of international law”.
Excuse me, but how do the extinguishing of 20,000 lives at the hands of an occupying army not count as a violation of international law? And how can this group seriously say the massacre was fabricated when they admit to 20,000 deaths?
And yet group member Toru Toida said: “We are absolutely positive that there was no massacre in Nanking.”
And I, my dear Toida, am absolutely positive you are talking complete bullshit.
The politicians base their claim on a study commissioned to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the incident.
While apparently referring to the Japanese government’s archives it seems to ignore years of historical research, the most successful of which is probably Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II.
There is also considerable graphic evidence of the various atrocities, some of which can be found on this Wikipedia entry (not for those of a sensitive nature).
Mob trial
Jury selection is under way in Chicago’s biggest organised crime trial in years.
Joseph “Joey the Clown” Lombardo and four other men face various charges arising from an FBI investigation into unsolved murders allegedly linked to the the city’s organised crime family, the Outfit.
Among the 18 killings is that of Tony “The Ant” Spilotro, who was killed as part of a feud within the mob. His case inspired the Scorsese film Casino, in which Joe Pesci played the Spilotro character.
But that’s not what interests me. I’m intrigued by the fact prosecutors think they can get a viable jury. To quote AP:
Prospective jurors were asked about family members, their previous knowledge of the case, whether they worked in law enforcement or had been arrested for crimes, and if they thought they could be fair.
They also were asked whether the fact that most of the defendants are of Italian descent and that they would have to listen to profanity on tape recordings would influence how they considered the case.
Do they think they can be fair? Is there ever a better chance to say no? “Uh, no I can’t be fair in this case.” “Why not?” “I don’t want to die.”
Jesus wept. I’m not sure if it’s a crime to lie during jury selection, but wouldn’t this be worth it?