Is it only me....

...or is there anyone else who does not see Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowdon as heroes? I have nothing against whistleblowers, in fact I consider them a necessary control to ensure that power is not corrupted.

The three above mentioned I don't believe fall into the whistleblower category. I say that because their revelations will worsen our personal status and not enhance it. Real whistleblowers, like those that have uncovered the corruption in the UK NHS for example, have made revelations that do enhance our personal status with a probable resultant improvement in the National Health Service to all citizens of the UK.

How will Edward Snowdon's revelations help us? Well lets look at it. He has revealed that the United States spies on its friends as well as its enemies. OMG! What a surprise. Who would have thunk it? Surely we did not need Edward Snowdon to tell us this did we?

The NSA is spying on every citizen via the internet and telephone system. Okay. Well Google have been doing this for years and no one have given up their GMail account or turned to Bing in disgust. We seem to have accepted that Facebook is not as safe as we thought it was.

Lets consider what the NSA is actually doing. They certainly not listening into the conversation you had with your mother yesterday discussing the meal you will be cooking for Saturday night's guest. They certainly are not interested in you discussing last night with your girlfriend. There isn't some perv with an earpiece connected to your landline or cell line. Think about it. How many of us are there and how many of them are there?

No. They are using sophisticated computers to pick up points of threat. These might result in a closer listen into the perpetrators, but I can assure you a couple of hours of what you are cooking on Saturday and they will quickly lose interest. If you are not plotting an attack of some kind you can be fairly certain that the NSA will show no interest in you whatsoever.

Quite frankly I am more concerned that terrorist cells will now, thanks to these whistleblowers, be able to plan and plot in quiet seclusion. I don't see that as improving my personal situation.

It is interesting that all three of these men are facing legal, and I stress "legal", action. Poor Bradley Manning is in custody and will have to account for his actions, but he is lucky he does not live in Palestine where spies have been hanged without the sort of due process that he will be afforded. The other two have taken extraordinary lengths to evade facing the letter of the law. What are they afraid of?

So that is my point of view. All of these men could have taken legal measures to deal with their concerns. The route they have taken will not make an iota of difference to spies. The very nature of their profession is that they are secretive and operate on the fringes of the law. They might be embarrassed, but I doubt if they are bowed. I certainly hope they are not. I sleep a lot better at night knowing that they are working to keep me safe.

The (Mostly) Sleeping Dogs of Athens

I was reading the business section of The National a few days ago and I was drawn to an article about the Greek economic situation. It was not so much the depressing depression which caught my eye, but the accompanying photo. The photo was of a journalist, with camera in hand, photographing a stray dog sleeping on a pavement in Athens. The inference was that with austerity had come an increase in the stray dog situation.

Those of you who have been to Athens will know that Athens and its pavements are no strangers to dogs. I was there six years ago and was taken with the numbers of dogs (and cats) wandering around the streets of the city. I took several photographs of these dogs and cats some of which I will share with you here.

The dogs that I thus captured looked in no way to be starving strays. In fact just the opposite seemed to be the truth. They looked decidedly well fed and cared for. Many of them had collars with tags displaying telephone numbers. I imagined their owners letting them out in the mornings to roam the streets and upon the owners return from work their faithful companions would be on the doorstep to welcome them home. In between the dogs are free to look for entertainment on the streets of the city.

The cats I assume are feral, but they too seemed well fed and I guess that they find sustenance from the concerned citizens. I am not sure whether the street dog numbers have increased due to the recession and whether they are now skinny and unkempt. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has been to Athens recently whether this is now the case. I would be very sad if it were so.

Here are a few of the pictures I snapped during my holiday in 2007.

This fellow seems to have chosen his spot very wisely.

This cat was spotted in the grounds of the Acropolis

Good ol' anywhere

Not all catnappers are of the canine persuasion

Probably the stall owner's dog

Yes, anywhere will do thank you

Hmmmmm. Where shall I lunch today?

Having a lookout makes for a peaceful sleep

Outside one of Athen's posh 5 star hotels can't be a bad choice

This fellow had decided to make his bed on an island on one of Athen's busiest streets. How he got there and whether he got back safely is a mystery. Check the worry in the pedestrian's eye.

Another owner's dog?

Shame. Poor skinny stray.

Life is a bore

This kitty was checking me out while I was enjoying a meal at a pavement cafe.

 Lazy companions

Ancient monuments are nice and shady.

Shade is where you find it.

Bikers dogs?

 This little guy had a bed.

They were everywhere

I had to check that this one was still alive

These guys were guarding the site of the original modern Olympics.

It seems that guarding is left to the cats. Dogs too sleepy to be of use.

Steps are good.

I am sure tourists are good for a snack.

Well I hope you enjoyed these photos. If you are able to cast any light on whether there are more dogs on the streets of Athens these days and what sort of condition they are in I would appreciate it if you could leave a comment. Thanks.

A Weird Thought

I am often prone to weird thoughts so having one is not so momentous and anyway most of them just need to stay weird and not wend their way to the written form. You might well say the same about this one. Anyway in order to provide context for this weird thought a little background is required.

I worked with a guy, Brian, whose partner, Jan was, for want of a better description, a clairvoyant. Now I do not normally embrace these sort of things, but she had impeccable references. She was used by the SA Police to find the bodies of missing murder victims. She was a faith healer and had a consultation and treatment room decorated with portraits of her many "guides".

The thing that did it for me though was one Sunday when my wife and I had discussed the possibility of moving from Durban North to Westville to be closer to my office in Pinetown and cut down on my commute. We had never discussed this before, but resolved to go and suss out show houses the following weekend.

That evening I got a call from Brian. He was very apologetic for disturbing us on a Sunday evening, but said that Jan was taking a bath and had called him to contact us urgently and tell us under no circumstances to contemplate moving to Westville.

To say that I was shocked is an understatement. How could she have known? Was our house bugged? Needless to say we shelved that idea immediately and I continued to make the long commute to Pinetown.

Now to set the scene that spawned the weird thought. Last night after supper I took a walk along the Corniche. The weather at the moment in Abu Dhabi as we edge into spring is superb. The days are pleasantly warm and the evenings as pleasantly cool.

I was walking along the boardwalk watching the locals in their traditional dress, the expats in their... er.... uh... um... clobber. Little kids were running around playing with balls. Bigger kids rollerblading. The evening was the epitome of balmy.

I was feeling really calm and at ease in this place so far from home and suddenly the memory of the first time I met Jan popped into my head. It was at a Barbecue over 20 years ago. I remember that we were still on our first drinks when I noticed Jan staring at me. Who could blame her. *insert smiley face here* Then she quietly asked me if the name Ahmed meant anything to me? I replied that it didn't and asked why. She replied that he was my guide. He was standing next to me and had been with me a very, very long time. She said that I was an "old soul".

I must confess that I thought she was a little weird and did not give much credence to what she had told me. I find the concept of a guide who stands beside me over many lifetimes a difficult concept to comprehend. I feel very sorry for someone who has to live through so many boring lifetimes.

It was while in my reverie last night that the thought of having a guide called Ahmed could mean that I may have started my journey here in this area many thousands of years ago and having done so could explain why I have so easily come to live here in the desert.

I am a tad confused

I am an atheist and must confess that I have not taken much interest in religious matters most of my life other than from a political point of view. For the last few days, and I expect in the days to come, it has been impossible to avoid the subject of religion and in particularly the Catholic brand.

What is confusing me is the questioning of the choice of the new Pope. He is too old they say. He is too conservative they say. He is anti gay marriage they say and so on and on. I am struggling to come to terms with all of this.

Although the Pope is elected by a conclave of Cardinals is not their vote led by the hand of God and thereby the choice of the Cardinals is the choice of God? If so how can their choice be questioned from any perspective. Surely any criticism of this choice is a denial of the Pope being God's choice and infallible etc, etc?

I also cannot understand the disappointment in the appointment of a conservative. How can a Pope go against God's will? Is not the concept of Gay marriage a secular one? The last time I looked there has been no revelation to the faithful to change the teaching of the bible. Could a pronouncement by the Pope that the teachings of the Church since time immemorial have been wrong and that change is now required be considered a revelation by God himself?

If God were to make such a revelation through the Pope what does that say about the other religions such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism et al. Would such a revelation be for Catholics only or for all Personkind?

One commentator on Sky News this morning said that the Church had not kept up with modern trends and it would be good if the new Pope could could, in a manner of speaking, get with the program. Again my question is why?

The president of Argentina wished the new Pope well and said that she hoped he would support more just causes. I am guessing her "just causes" are again secular concepts and a veiled dismissal of religious concepts.

The reason that there are so many religious factions is that the Word has been deciphered by men. It is quite easy to say that when God said .... he really meant ...., but surely it can't be right? And if such interpretations are led by the hand of God which ones are God given and which ones are political?

I am sure that by now you appreciate my dilemma. To just ask all the questions would take more space than the internet provides and you probably fell asleep two paragraphs ago, but to try and boil it down into one simple question it would be; Is the Pope chosen by the hand of God and if so is it right to question that choice?

I will be the first to applaud a Pope who was to adopt more modern, secularist concepts, but I am not holding my breath.

Ric Hangs Up His Cape

I love Facebook. I love the fact that I remain in contact with friends and family despite living so far away from them all. I love making new friends from all over the world that share my interests and open the door for me to new ideas.

I also love the access to information provided by Facebook by way of friends sharing stuff they come across or stuff directly from special interest pages. I also love the fun stuff that people share and yes, I admit it, I love the cats.

But it isn't all fun and cats on Facebook. Sometimes friends share stuff, in good faith, that isn't always the truth. A lot of this stuff is really interesting and it makes me want to share it forward. Being the cynic I am  though I try to check out the veracity of the stuff I share and am amazed by the amount of stuff being shared,  apparently from impeccable sources, that are actually blatant lies.

Now most of the time the lies being circulated are harmless like the list of sayings and their origins from ages past or heartwarming stories of old people or life affirming stories of lessons from nameless teachers. It might be a load of cods wallop, but they don't really affect anyone in a negative way.

Unfortunately there is the dark side of the open internet where information purportedly from respected medical institutions is passed off as real or photos of kids in hospital looking for "likes" in exchange for health. Medical misinformation can lead to dangerous outcomes and even death. Photos of sick kids used without permission for nefarious purposes is an insult to the families and can cause great discomfort to them.

Then there is the middle of the road stuff. Like and share this photo of a clover and you will receive good luck. Pretty harmless raising of people's hopes, but nasty nevertheless.

I saw an opportunity to be the Friendly Super Hero and let people know that the stuff they were sharing was lies. I would post a comment on their share to that effect and even politely put in a link to the source of my information in the hopes that they would realise the possible harm their information was doing and make use of the offered source in the future to check out stuff before they shared it in the future.

Well occasionally I get a thank you. Now and then I get a "mind your own bloody business". And always they continue to share the lies. I guess they think they are doing good and that I am just a painfull do gooder.

Yes I get it. I am not The Caped Crusader. I am the Major Pain In The Ass. Accordingly, and to the great relief of many I am sure, I am hanging up my cape. But remember this. Just because I don't point out the lies and you can't be bothered to verify the information, they are still lies.

It must be true - I read it on the internet

Yesterday's edition of The National had a very interesting editorial. They pointed out that life expectancy for males from the time of the hunter gatherer right up until the early 1900s was only 30. Over this many millennium life expectancy remained constant. Life expectancy for a male today is 72. Why the big change in such a comparatively short time? I think you know the answer.

On the same day one of my friends posted a picture of a rather old looking Chinese man. On the photo was the following message. "Li Ching-Yuen (1677-1933). 256 Years Old. The historical record shatters the myth that humans, with the aid of vaccines and modern medicine, are indeed living longer." 

Underneath the picture is the story that this man lived for 256 years, sired 200 descendants during his lifetime and survived 23 wives.  He lived on herbs, rice wine and a variety of berries and other healthy stuff such as ginseng. The veracity of this story is enhanced by a reference to Wikipedia.

My guess is that most people reading this won't bother to click on the Wikipedia link, but will just hit the share button rather as it is easier. Those that do bother to click on the link would see that the article is disputed by the editors of Wikipedia with good reason given for their scepticism.

Now I understand that there is a massive movement to a more healthy lifestyle to try and overcome the health risks of obesity and other diseases, but the willingness of people to circulate poorly researched information and sometimes downright lies in the name of healthy living is astounding.

This week someone posted on Facebook that John Hopkins Hospital had rethought their advice on Cancer and were now suggesting the dumping of chemotherapy for a healthy diet and fitness regime. A one minute check with Snopes.com would have revealed this to be a total lie.

John Hopkins have nothing to do with this scam, but their name is being used to give credence to the nonsense being suggested. Seeing the John Hopkins name also makes it easy for Facebookers to hit that share button. After all John Hopkins is a respected medical institution and if this is what they are saying it must be true.

I consider people who willy nilly pass on advice to eschew modern medicine, vaccination etc. for a healthy lifestyle without checking and establishing its veracity to be dangerous. I agree that a healthy lifestyle in concert with modern medicine will result in us having a better chance of longevity. A healthy lifestyle to the exclusion of modern medicine will result in the possibility of early death and a return to a life expectancy of our hunter gatherer ancestors.

Many diseases are not a result of poor eating or lack of exercise, but genetic predisposition. Just look at the number of healthy athletes who die young despite their optimum lifestyle. Look at the number of fatties who smoke and drink and live to their nineties despite their overindulgence.

Please help me here. Am I missing something?

Medical Marketing

I read a very interesting story in today's edition of The National highlighting the swing by the medical fraternity from fat as being the major culprit for heart disease to carbohydrates, especially sugar. So how come has the fat theory been king for so long.

Well, according to the article, fat was the victim of 'Medical Marketing'. What does this mean. Well they cite the example of Ancel Keys a researcher at the University of Minnesota in the 1950s. Prof. Keys punted the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol were responsible for heart disease. So strong were his beliefs that he used very powerful means to promote his ideas. A quote from the article;

For several decades Prof Keys used a potent mix of hand-picked data, denigration of critics and sheer force of personality to persuade official bodies in the US to promote carbs over fat in dietary advice

So strong was the spell woven by Prof Keys and his followers that repeated failure of large clinical studies to back their claims made little difference.

Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/technology/heart-disease-is-sugar-the-real-killer#ixzz2JBOVxTBA
Follow us: @TheNationalUAE on Twitter | thenational.ae on Facebook

Although it has been difficult for the Sugar lobby to make its point they are now being listened to and the medical fraternity is beginning to sway towards sugar and away from fat. Now I don't want to get onto the conspiracy theory bandwagon. I am sure that Prof. Keys was motivated by a sense of duty to promote a theory he believed in.

What I do want to discuss is whether this concept of Medical Marketing is occurring today. The internet is a source of much punting of alternative health options. Many of these theorists have little scientific backing, but use strong marketing tactics.

The Alternative Medicine industry love their conspiracy theories and crush any argument against their claims with unproven accusations of conspiracy between government, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession. The problem is that they can cite many successes for their treatments.

What worries me is that many dread diseases can spontaneously enter periods of remission. I worry that people who are ill will forgo life saving medical treatment for the promise of a 'natural' cure. I am not an expert in this sort of thing. I would like some of these alternates to be true. It would be wonderful to think that we could cure illnesses without having to dip into our medical aid, or need medical aid at all.

What I do believe in is using natural health products to support and improve the efficacy of prescribed medications. I am not yet ready to chuck out my prescribed medications or my natural supplements just yet. What do you think?

Just as an aside. I am so confused by reading that sugar is bad, sugar is good; reading that fat is bad, fat is good; reading that cranberries are bad, cranberries are good that I don't know what to give up so I have decided to give up reading.

Prince Harry - Not as stupid as he looks

Poor Prince Harry. It must be tough to be born under the spotlight, to have every event in one's life become a front page story. I am sure he understands and accepts his royal role, but oh how he must yearn to live as a commoner even for just a day, and fly under the radar.

The latest headline is Prince Harry Says He's Killed Taliban. Oh my goodness. The outrage. How dare he stir the Taliban so? Now we must brace ourselves for the Taliban revenge. How can he put us in harms way so?

Well I have just watched his latest interview on Sky and in my opinion he said one of the cleverest things I have heard from him. In among the many inane questions, which he answered very graciously, came one, almost throwaway line, which, in my humble opinion, just blew every sanctimonious headline about the Taliban incident out the water.

He said that on the last day he was there a seven year old Afghanistan girl was mown down by the Taliban. He was describing that it is not a normal situation out there. In one sentence he described just what sort of people he had been killing and why. And what kind of people are they? Certainly not the type of people that deserve our political correctness. Certainly not the type of people that deserve our respect.

I am appalled that a young man, putting his life on the line for Queen and Country, side by side with his subjects, can be treated so badly by the media. I am appalled that his actions can be put down in favour of appeasing a terrorist organisation.

Thank you Harry. I might not be a Brit, but I appreciate your efforts on my behalf. Yes my behalf. I believe that organisations like the Taliban threaten the entire free world.

Posted with Blogsy

Damn those doctors

If it weren't so tragic it would be funny to read how cold and mercenary the medical profession is. I recently read an article on how bad the flu vaccinations are for us. Apart from the fact that the article was, in my not so humble opinion, a load of nonsense  it was incredible to read some of the comments that accompanied it.

One commenter gleefully pointed out that Merk had caused the polio outbreaks by the use of DDT thus creating a need for their vaccine. I wonder what he made of the response of one commenter who pointed out that polio was caused by a virus and not as a result of DDT poisoning. The inference which was made, and not so subtly by a number of commentators, was that one only needed to follow the "money trail" to ascertain why doctors and governments were pushing for the general population to have their flu shots.

Doctors caused some of the commentators some concern for the fact that they took money from the pharmaceutical companies to promote their poisons with lies. It seems weird to me that doctors, who seem to be totally stressed out by the amount of business they have anyway, would go to such extraordinary, and possibly illegal, lengths to get more business.

I am sure that there are unscrupulous doctors, they are human beings after all, but I seriously doubt that there is some sort of conspiracy among the entire medical profession to slowly kill us all by vaccination.  It is interesting to note that in the USA influenza annually causes about 36,000 deaths and 114,000 hospitalisations. It seems that one of the commentators prediction of population control by stupidity might just come true.

As an aside I agree that most medicines have their drawbacks. They are, after all, chemicals designed to be a one size fits all. Reading the package inserts can be just as dangerous to one's health as the disease we might be suffering from. Apart from vitamins and other supplements I take 11 pills a day. Some of these are a second choice of an original one which I did not tolerate all that well. In essence the 'poisons' in these drugs will probably kill me.

But there is one thing I know for sure. Without these drugs I would have died many years ago. I am extremely grateful to my mercenary doctors and the money grubbing pharmaceutical industry that I am alive and well enough to write this drivel. Oh, and by the way, apparently one of the effects of the flu vaccination which I have taken every year for at least the last 10 years is that it brings on Alzheimer's. Well I am 64 years old. The chances of me galloping into dementia are very strong and I guess someone will use me as an example to tell everyone and anyone of how dangerous flu vaccinations are.
 

All is not what it seems

Having lived in the Middle East for some time now I have come to know that this part of the world is extremely complicated in so many ways. It is impossible to classify those that live here just as Arab and/or Muslim. Arab politics and the Muslim religion are as diverse as politics and religion anywhere else in the world. To explain this to a world that sees all in the Middle East only as Islamic Jihadists is sometimes quite difficult.

Perhaps a small example of the complexities of this area is the reaction of two influential regional players to a similar situation. In the first instance The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported on the recent Fatwa issued by controversial Saudi Sheikh Suleiman Al-'Alwan in response to a question by a Saudi youth. His response is as reported by MEMRI.

"Al-'Alwan said that soccer was a form of heresy: "Soccer is a Masonic game meant to distance Muslims from their religion and faith, and most of the public that follows [soccer games] is loyal to the infidels." Al-'Alwan called soccer players criminals and infidels: "[When] a man watches a [soccer] game, God forbid, he is watching deviant criminals and sinful infidels, even if they are Muslims." He added: "There is a serious problem with [soccer] games, which is the refereeing, which follows manmade laws, not Allah's laws."

Even in conservative Saudi Arabia this Fatwa was not without its critics and has had little influence on the population's love of the game or its participation in competitions such as the current Gulf Cup. The UAE beat Saudi Arabia on the way to the Gulf Cup semi final against Kuwait just a few days ago.

The response of Sheikh Khalifa, the President of the UAE, to his team making the semi finals is to decree that the national airline provide 1,400 free seats to fans wanting to attend the semi-final in Kuwait on Tuesday. The one day trip includes transport to and from the stadium and all meals. In addition the UAE embassy in Kuwait will be open 24 hours on match day to provide assistance to any UAE nationals that might need it.

The actions of both Sheikhs to a similar situation are extremely different and illustrate the complexities of reacting to individual actions in this part of the world as applying to all societies or even to all aspects of individual societies. Unfortunately we often have a knee jerk reaction to some of the actions of the jerks of this region.

Only in the Middle East

Two stories in yesterday's Gulf News seemed very typical of this part of the world. The first one was about a 90 year old man in Saudi Arabia who married a 15 year old girl. Unfortunately for him it did not go too smoothly.

He got the girls parents to agree to the marriage by providing a dowry of 45,000 Riyals and paying for the nuptial celebrations. After the ceremony he returned to the marital home with his bride, but his hopes for a cozy consummation of the marriage were dashed when the bride locked herself, sobbing, in the connubial bedroom.

The groom contacted her parents to talk some sense into her, but on their arrival at the scene, seeing how distressed their daughter was, took her straight home. The groom, understandably was a bit miffed. First prize for him was to get his bride back, but if this was not possible then he wanted the return of his dowry.

Oops sorry said the girls parents we have spent the dowry and not a cent is left. This prompted the groom, who, with the wisdom of his 90 years (yes the wheels of wisdom turn a little slower when you're 90), decided to sue the parents for the return of the dowry. The court declared the marriage null and void and ordered the parents to return the dowry.

The report did not detail whether the parents had coughed up or not. Obviously the parents had no intention of palming their daughter off to the old man, but saw an easy payday by playing with his lust. I feel a little sorry for the old man. In most countries he would be classed a paedophile, but not so in Saudi Arabia, but he was asking to be taken for a ride.

The second story was about the increase in pedestrian deaths on UAE roads. The problem is that pedestrians are too lazy to find a safe crossing on busy roads and risk their lives by trying to get across 4 lane highways. Drivers here are very arrogant and drive extremely fast so dodging stray pedestrians is quite difficult for them.

It was suggested that the system of Diya or blood money be done away with in the case of pedestrian accidents in order to try and deter them from gambling with their lives. Blood money can be as high as AED200,000 which for the families of the poorer in this society is a fortune. Workers have been known to commit suicide by running in front of cars so that their families can benefit from this windfall.

Diya can also get a murderer off death row. Families of the victim can forgive the murderer providing he can demonstrate his contrition by an offer of sufficient money to assuage their desire for revenge. It is interesting to note that a few years ago the owner of a thoroughbred Arabian Horse which was killed in a car accident was granted AED400,000 blood money, roughly double the amount normally paid in compensation for a human.

Ric's Les Mis Trivia

You might have guessed from my previous post that I am a Les Miserables groupie. I have been since my first visit to the UK in 1997. It was a business trip and was a few weeks after the death of Princess Diana. Buckingham Palace was still awash with wreaths and gifts left by a grieving nation. I even signed the condolence book set up on the pavement outside Harrods by Dodi Fayed's father.

As an aside I remember that a visit to Harrods public toilets cost me a pound. In those days it was only R8 to the pound, but that R8 could buy you a helluva lot more that it does today. I remember that there were name brand colognes on offer and I tried my best to use a pounds worth.

On our last night in London I and a couple of my colleagues decided to hit the West End and I had persuaded them that we should try and see Les Mis. It already had a reputation and I was very keen to see it. We went to the theatre at about 5 in the evening and without any expectations of success asked for three tickets. We were amazed that we were immediately offered tickets in the upper circle. We were warned that our view might be limited.

We did not mind the fact that viewing might be limited and were just excited to have tickets to the hottest show in town. Those limited tickets cost us 8 pounds each. We couldn't believe that we had paid so much and to perhaps even miss some of the action. We had a couple of hours to kill before the show and decided to kill some time in a nearby pub.

When we arrived back at the theatre there was quite a crowd and a small queue into the theatre. While standing in line we were happy to see a busy pub just inside the doors where we could continue our pre theatre refreshments. The doorman took our tickets and pointed us to the stairs telling us to go up to the fourth floor. "Oh no we want to go to the pub." I said. "Don't worry sir," he said, "there is a pub on every floor."

He was true to his word. At the fourth floor pub we asked for cold beers. As it was summer they had a plastic bowl filled with ice with a few lagers stuck in it so our request was fulfilled. Once in the theatre we were pleased to note that the view was not as restricted as feared. We were certainly not as badly off as those behind us who had obviously bought tickets later than us and had pillars obstructing their view.

To assist our view there were binoculars attached to the chairs in front of us and which could be released for use for a paltry 20p. We all loved the show. I remember being enthralled with the beautiful music and clever staging of the story. It was my first experience of the West End and I have tried to take in at least one show on every visit since and have had the privilege to see many memorable shows.

'Til next post...

How to watch Les Mis

I am sure some of you are looking forward to seeing the film version of the musical Les Miserables. Some of you might be undecided and some of you have no intention of seeing it at all. I have just seen it and offer this primer on how to watch it so that any of you, in any of the above categories, who make the effort to see it can get the best out of the experience.

For those of you who might have seen it on the stage do not go to see a film version of the stage musical. This is not a musical in the traditional sense. For those with a prejudice against musicals this is not  a fluffy story in which the characters burst into song from time to time. This is a highly dramatic story told with music.

It is very different to its stage presentation. It is more intimate, more close up and personal. The big screen is used, not to widen the experience, but to bring us closer into the action to better feel the drama. The signature "I dreamed a dream" focuses in so closely onto Fantine's face that you feel the anguish of every word and are part of every tear.

So watch it for the drama. This is a translation of a 19th Century drama told with over the top 19th Century dramatics. It is a long and harrowing journey to be enjoyed for the story as much as for the music.

Watch it to see actors sing rather than singers act. Having actors sing the score live has had its critics, but I found the concept on the mark. On the whole their singing voices are excellent, but the criticism has been that they do not have the power of trained singers, but this is perfectly in line with the intimacy that the screen brings to the story. On screen there is no need to project. These versions of the well known songs have a subtle nuance that, while faithful to the score, bring a whole new feel to the production.

Watch it for the spectacle. I realise that this seems to be contrary to my comments above, but there are moments in the story that are given a new breadth and depth on the screen. The spectacular opening sequence and the depiction of the battle of the barricades being two examples.

Watch it for outstanding acting performances. Using screen actors rather than singers takes away the artificiality one usually usually associates with drama mixed with music. The sung dialogue takes on a naturalness that is difficult to achieve in the theatre. Ann Hathaway as Fantine and Eddie Redmayne as Marius show what real actors can do with these roles.

Watch it for the story. Victor Hugo's story keeps one's interest throughout. It is a huge story and is expertly told. The brilliant lyrics tell the story without the need for any further embellishment. The characters seem to come instantly alive without any need for a back story.

Watch it without prejudice. Don't go in thinking that you will not like it because people singing a story does not feel right. Don't go in thinking you are going to enjoy a film adaption of a West End musical. Don't go in to be entertained by the classic songs. Don't go in to see whether Hugh Jackman can sing or not. Go in to see a damn good story told in a very different way.

Yes. Watch it for the songs. The brilliance of the score and lyrics is why Les Mis has become the world's longest running musical. Heard in this context they take on a new beauty. I think they would be hard to listen to without the visuals though, but together they are a perfect fit.

Watch it with an empty bladder it is flippen long with no interval, but whatever you do, go and watch it.

Ric's Believe it or Not!! The Third

The disclaimer from the second part of my treatise is still in place. So where were we? Oh yes the 1950s. What was so significant about the 1950s? Well it was about this time that the powerful forces were asking the same questions as I did, the only difference being that they quickly found the answer. Television.

Yes the advent of widespread televisions broadcasts started to cook human kind from the inside and triggered off all these dread diseases. Armed with this knowledge did the powerful forces put into place systems to lessen the effects of this radiation poison? Oh no they didn't. They saw it as an opportunity to tackle the burgeoning population that was eating up the earths resources and killing our climate.

There was only one problem. It was too slow so they looked for another source of radiation to supplement television and speed up the process of population control. In the meantime they spread the introduction of television as far and wide as they could. Have you ever asked yourself why every country has a national broadcaster providing cheap and easy access to television?

Beaming signals from the sky via satellites was an added bonus as it spread the footprint of the radiation across thousands of kilometers taking into account the poorest of poor citizens who could not afford television sets and who lived outside of urban areas, but it wasn't until a new technology emerged that put their plan into overdrive.

Cell phone technology concentrated the radiation and put a receiver into virtually every citizen's hands. By owning a cell phone we are saying "come on cook me" so all we have to do is wait for the 'ping' to tell us were done.

Phones are designed to do one thing really well and they aren't very sexy. Not everyone wanted one and kids could not have been bothered either way. So the powerful forces had to put the "rama lama" in the "rama lama ding dong". Along came Steve Jobs and phones became sexy. The only problem was that they were too expensive and so Android was born to place phone's into the hands of those with limited resources.

So that in essence is my hypothesis. The powerful forces are using the humble television and the smart phone to cull the human population. It solves the problem of having to use politically insensitive solutions such as one child policies or introducing mass sterilisation. There has been only one setback to which even the powerful forces themselves have not been immune. They have obviously limited their exposure to this radiation, but even the little that they are exposed to is having one side effect.

They, alongside the rest of humanity, are becoming more stupid by the day. If you do not believe me just read the front page of today's newspaper, or tomorrow's, or the next day's... So what do you think? Am I just a half baked conspiracy theorist who needs to be strung up by his Snopes or is there just the tiensi wiensiest sliver of truth? I will leave you to... Oh excuse me there is a rather loud banging at the doo