Joining other Blue Hour Publishing books on the wider market Nook
Kobo
Apple
Friday, 26 July 2013
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
What Makes Happiness?
There was a report on the news
yesterday saying that a survey showed a worrying percentage of teenagers were
unhappy. My first reaction was that the percentage was not worrying, turn the
stats around and lots of teenagers were happy. My second reaction, what’s new?
My third reaction, when did happiness become ‘a right.’?
There are certain things in this world that are considered to be ‘a right’. Food, housing, education, safety, health care, these are the sort of things everyone should be able to access in an ideal world. We know there are many places in the world where these things do not exist. But happiness?
Happiness is an emotion that comes from within a person’s psyche. The richest person in the world could be unhappy, the poorest, happy. It all depends on how that person views the world around them.
The thing that galled me most about this report was the teenager the interviewers chose to make a statement. She claimed she was, or had been, unhappy because she never received a Blackberry for a present even though all her friends had one and she really wanted one.
WHAT?!
News for this teenager. Having ‘things’ doesn’t guarantee happiness. Ask any number of adults who have raked up debt in the pursuit of ‘things.’
I know parents’ spend a fortune on trying to give their children things that will make them happy, but when it becomes a case of ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’ then it’s time to explain the facts of economic life.
But back to happiness. Happiness cannot be guaranteed, it cannot be bought, it will never be universal. Contrary to the song you can’t MAKE someone happy. Two people can share the same environment, have the same background and the same prospects. One can be happy, the other sad. There could be factors that make life difficult or distressing. It’s up to the individual to learn to deal with these and find out how to resolve them. That’s part of growing up. The world is not a happy place. Happiness comes from within. The sooner teenagers, and the rest of us, realise this the happier everyone will be.
There are certain things in this world that are considered to be ‘a right’. Food, housing, education, safety, health care, these are the sort of things everyone should be able to access in an ideal world. We know there are many places in the world where these things do not exist. But happiness?
Happiness is an emotion that comes from within a person’s psyche. The richest person in the world could be unhappy, the poorest, happy. It all depends on how that person views the world around them.
The thing that galled me most about this report was the teenager the interviewers chose to make a statement. She claimed she was, or had been, unhappy because she never received a Blackberry for a present even though all her friends had one and she really wanted one.
WHAT?!
News for this teenager. Having ‘things’ doesn’t guarantee happiness. Ask any number of adults who have raked up debt in the pursuit of ‘things.’
I know parents’ spend a fortune on trying to give their children things that will make them happy, but when it becomes a case of ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’ then it’s time to explain the facts of economic life.
But back to happiness. Happiness cannot be guaranteed, it cannot be bought, it will never be universal. Contrary to the song you can’t MAKE someone happy. Two people can share the same environment, have the same background and the same prospects. One can be happy, the other sad. There could be factors that make life difficult or distressing. It’s up to the individual to learn to deal with these and find out how to resolve them. That’s part of growing up. The world is not a happy place. Happiness comes from within. The sooner teenagers, and the rest of us, realise this the happier everyone will be.
Saturday, 6 July 2013
New Outlets
Tuesday, 4 June 2013
Change - Have We Got What We Asked For?
I was watching a television programme the other evening dedicated to the coronation of the Queen and what the country was like back then.
There have been many changes to our lives in the last sixty years. We like to think they have been good. We like to think we have progressed, and personally I think we have. But has that progress meant the sacrifice of other things? Are today's problems of debt, high prices and unemployment rooted in some of these changes?
The first major change has been the role of women in the family. Now I'm not against the idea of women having the opportunity to pursue a career, I definitely think they have the right to have their own bank account and take out their own loans if they can afford to do so. I'm not so sure every woman should be forced to work if she doesn't want to. Maybe that is because I come from the dying breed of women who have been supported by a partner and given the choice to work or not as I feel fit. I have worked, enough to get my pension in a few months time, but we have never depended on my income to pay the essential bills.
Back in the 1950s married women worked until they had children and then they stopped, at least until the children were old enough to look after themselves. How terrible I hear some people cry. But this actually meant job opportunities for young people coming into the job market. These days instead of twelve or more years being home with the kids, many mothers return within a year which leaves no vacancy for new staff. Just a thought, but maybe unemployment would fall if women were still in a position to stop working for a few years.
There is currently an outcry over the demise of High Streets around the country. This is not new, it has been happening for a long time because life-styles have changed. Back in the 1950s those mothers who stayed at home with their children went shopping every day because there was no way of keeping food fresh for long periods AND not so much to tempt you into buying more than you need. A shop bought cake was a luxury only for special occasions. I'm hazarding a guess here, but I bet in areas where it is still culturally expected for women to stay home the High Streets are still thriving.
So are we better off now? Yes, many people have bigger houses, more cars, foreign holidays, houses full of the latest gadgets. But they also have huge debts. We have only ever had a mortgage based on one salary. Once banks started taking two salaries into the equation it tied both partners to a lifelong job. All this has done is put the price of a house up, along with everything else, so no one is really any better off.
Most of us can live more comfortably than 'in the old days'. We are fitter, living longer, expecting more. But we can't have it both ways. We can't do our shopping in the 'buy it all' supermarkets AND expect the High Streets and village shops to continue to be there for when we feel inclined to pay a visit. Personally I prefer the supermarket where I only have to queue once rather than at half a dozen different shops. And to be totally honest, I prefer to look for things on line instead of searching for something in the High Street.
There have been many changes to our lives in the last sixty years. We like to think they have been good. We like to think we have progressed, and personally I think we have. But has that progress meant the sacrifice of other things? Are today's problems of debt, high prices and unemployment rooted in some of these changes?
The first major change has been the role of women in the family. Now I'm not against the idea of women having the opportunity to pursue a career, I definitely think they have the right to have their own bank account and take out their own loans if they can afford to do so. I'm not so sure every woman should be forced to work if she doesn't want to. Maybe that is because I come from the dying breed of women who have been supported by a partner and given the choice to work or not as I feel fit. I have worked, enough to get my pension in a few months time, but we have never depended on my income to pay the essential bills.
Back in the 1950s married women worked until they had children and then they stopped, at least until the children were old enough to look after themselves. How terrible I hear some people cry. But this actually meant job opportunities for young people coming into the job market. These days instead of twelve or more years being home with the kids, many mothers return within a year which leaves no vacancy for new staff. Just a thought, but maybe unemployment would fall if women were still in a position to stop working for a few years.
There is currently an outcry over the demise of High Streets around the country. This is not new, it has been happening for a long time because life-styles have changed. Back in the 1950s those mothers who stayed at home with their children went shopping every day because there was no way of keeping food fresh for long periods AND not so much to tempt you into buying more than you need. A shop bought cake was a luxury only for special occasions. I'm hazarding a guess here, but I bet in areas where it is still culturally expected for women to stay home the High Streets are still thriving.
So are we better off now? Yes, many people have bigger houses, more cars, foreign holidays, houses full of the latest gadgets. But they also have huge debts. We have only ever had a mortgage based on one salary. Once banks started taking two salaries into the equation it tied both partners to a lifelong job. All this has done is put the price of a house up, along with everything else, so no one is really any better off.
Most of us can live more comfortably than 'in the old days'. We are fitter, living longer, expecting more. But we can't have it both ways. We can't do our shopping in the 'buy it all' supermarkets AND expect the High Streets and village shops to continue to be there for when we feel inclined to pay a visit. Personally I prefer the supermarket where I only have to queue once rather than at half a dozen different shops. And to be totally honest, I prefer to look for things on line instead of searching for something in the High Street.
Thursday, 25 April 2013
We Are What We Eat
An old phrase I know but very true non the less.
A friend was bemoaning the fact that she had stomach ache the other day after being tempted to eat some fresh bread, thus confirming her gluten allergy. Someone else mentioned that gluten is nothing but a poison and that we shouldn’t be eating it. And yet bread has been the staple diet of mankind for centuries. So why this sudden development of gluten allergies?
I am not a scientist, biologist or nutritionist; I have no medical training whatsoever only a lifetime of feeding a family, so please feel free to move on and ignore what I am about to say.
Mild gluten allergy probably affects more people than anyone realises. Most people probably put the symptoms down to eating too much as it tends to make you feel bloated. I know certain foods are harder to digest than others so I avoid them. Do I have an allergy? I don’t know, I’ve never been tested. But my own common sense tells me if something gives me indigestion on a regular basis, don’t eat it. I don’t need to know why.
Are we noticing it more because more people are going to their doctor asking for diagnosis? Is it because people are living longer than they did when mankind first started growing wheat and using it? In theory humans are natural hunters therefore meat eaters, so it is not natural for us to eat wheat or vegetables. (Don’t show this article to any vegetarians or kids who won’t eat their five a day!)
So why do we fill our bellies with stuff we don’t need?
Lactose intolerance is another thing that is common especially amongst the young. When you stop to think about it this is not surprising. Although milk contains lots of good useful ingredients, humans are the only mammals who continue to drink milk after they have been weaned. So maybe we should think twice about that yoghurt for breakfast or pudding.
The trouble is when we go shopping we are presented with all these wonderful products which tell us how good they are for us. And we believe them. What we need to remember is that all the advertising and pretty packaging is there for one reason only, to make us buy things to make a profit for the food producing company.
My latest concern is the proliferation of drinks that are full of ‘good bacteria’. In these we are giving our bodies something that most of us do not need. Most people are perfectly healthy without the addition of whatever is in these drinks. If they ARE so important to our health they should be provided on prescription. Ok, that might be a bit drastic and costly, but what I’m trying to say is they should only be taken with medical advice.
I might be slightly biased here because I tried some once. The result was a belly-ache the like of which I had never known in my life. My own bacteria were raging a war against these invaders resulting in pain I hadn’t known since giving birth. You don’t see that in the adverts! And since then I have been unable to touch any sort of yoghurt on a regular basis without rekindling the war.
But there is enough of this stuff being sold to make it worthwhile for the company to continue producing it. Even if a customer only ever buys it once, there are enough first time buyers to make a profit. Hook a proportion of those first time buyers into making it a regular part of their diet even if only for one month and the profit increases. And that is what the whole thing is about. Profit. Not making or keeping people fit. If it wasn’t profitable it would quickly disappear from the supermarket shelves.
So back to the question of food allergies. Some things are truly dangerous. Going into anaphylactic shock after eating something you are really allergic to can be fatal.
Other things are merely a nuisance, they might make you ill but won’t kill you. How can we avoid such things? Not sure we can, but I would suggest being more cautious about what you buy and eat. Yes, we need food to survive. But we don’t necessarily need everything that is on offer. There is no doubt that many people in the developed world eat too much, so when filling your supermarket trolley next time you go shopping stop and think about what you are putting in it. Are you buying it because you need it to keep your body going or because it looks pretty and the TV ads make it sound like you can’t live without it. Or maybe ask yourself, ‘Did my grandparents eat this?’
Right! Now I’ve finished this I’m off for a cup of tea and a couple of gluten rich biscuits!
A friend was bemoaning the fact that she had stomach ache the other day after being tempted to eat some fresh bread, thus confirming her gluten allergy. Someone else mentioned that gluten is nothing but a poison and that we shouldn’t be eating it. And yet bread has been the staple diet of mankind for centuries. So why this sudden development of gluten allergies?
I am not a scientist, biologist or nutritionist; I have no medical training whatsoever only a lifetime of feeding a family, so please feel free to move on and ignore what I am about to say.
Mild gluten allergy probably affects more people than anyone realises. Most people probably put the symptoms down to eating too much as it tends to make you feel bloated. I know certain foods are harder to digest than others so I avoid them. Do I have an allergy? I don’t know, I’ve never been tested. But my own common sense tells me if something gives me indigestion on a regular basis, don’t eat it. I don’t need to know why.
Are we noticing it more because more people are going to their doctor asking for diagnosis? Is it because people are living longer than they did when mankind first started growing wheat and using it? In theory humans are natural hunters therefore meat eaters, so it is not natural for us to eat wheat or vegetables. (Don’t show this article to any vegetarians or kids who won’t eat their five a day!)
So why do we fill our bellies with stuff we don’t need?
Lactose intolerance is another thing that is common especially amongst the young. When you stop to think about it this is not surprising. Although milk contains lots of good useful ingredients, humans are the only mammals who continue to drink milk after they have been weaned. So maybe we should think twice about that yoghurt for breakfast or pudding.
The trouble is when we go shopping we are presented with all these wonderful products which tell us how good they are for us. And we believe them. What we need to remember is that all the advertising and pretty packaging is there for one reason only, to make us buy things to make a profit for the food producing company.
My latest concern is the proliferation of drinks that are full of ‘good bacteria’. In these we are giving our bodies something that most of us do not need. Most people are perfectly healthy without the addition of whatever is in these drinks. If they ARE so important to our health they should be provided on prescription. Ok, that might be a bit drastic and costly, but what I’m trying to say is they should only be taken with medical advice.
I might be slightly biased here because I tried some once. The result was a belly-ache the like of which I had never known in my life. My own bacteria were raging a war against these invaders resulting in pain I hadn’t known since giving birth. You don’t see that in the adverts! And since then I have been unable to touch any sort of yoghurt on a regular basis without rekindling the war.
But there is enough of this stuff being sold to make it worthwhile for the company to continue producing it. Even if a customer only ever buys it once, there are enough first time buyers to make a profit. Hook a proportion of those first time buyers into making it a regular part of their diet even if only for one month and the profit increases. And that is what the whole thing is about. Profit. Not making or keeping people fit. If it wasn’t profitable it would quickly disappear from the supermarket shelves.
So back to the question of food allergies. Some things are truly dangerous. Going into anaphylactic shock after eating something you are really allergic to can be fatal.
Other things are merely a nuisance, they might make you ill but won’t kill you. How can we avoid such things? Not sure we can, but I would suggest being more cautious about what you buy and eat. Yes, we need food to survive. But we don’t necessarily need everything that is on offer. There is no doubt that many people in the developed world eat too much, so when filling your supermarket trolley next time you go shopping stop and think about what you are putting in it. Are you buying it because you need it to keep your body going or because it looks pretty and the TV ads make it sound like you can’t live without it. Or maybe ask yourself, ‘Did my grandparents eat this?’
Right! Now I’ve finished this I’m off for a cup of tea and a couple of gluten rich biscuits!
Monday, 8 April 2013
New Music Genre
I confess I am a classic music fan. Or maybe that should be orchestral music fan because it's not only music from the past that I enjoy but film scores and any music that has a decent 'tune.' For quite a few years now I have been listening to ClassicFM and have discovered a great many 'new' favourite old composers and styles.
Last weekend (Easter, in case you are reading this in May) ClassicFM did a run down of the top favourite 300 pieces of classical music. All the normal composers were there, Beethoven had more entries than Mozart for the first time. There were quite a few 'one hit wonders'. And surprisingly up in the top ten were a couple of pieces of music composed for video games.
This has provoked much debate and some condemnation, but when I heard the music the only reason I knew it was from a video game was because I was told so. These pieces weren't the boom-boom-boom electronic drone that often accompanies video games but 'real' music.
It has taken a while for film music to be taken seriously, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of today's film composers were a little younger they might well be composing for video games. and who is to say that some of the more famous composers would not have done the same.
Many classical composers have had their melodies stolen for ring tones and hold music, and have also had pieces featured in films. And many more could be ideal background for a video game.
I was listening to Grieg's Hall of the Mountain King the other day and thought 'Now there is a piece of video game music.' It starts quietly and builds to a climax. It has a repetitive theme with little variation. The same goes for Ravel's Bolero.
The other way round, the first time I heard the piece of music called Romanza, a guitar piece by an anonymous composer, I was playing an arcade game (long, long time ago.)
So look out for video game music turning up in concerts. Who knows, maybe one day there will even by a Prom concert dedicated to such music.
Last weekend (Easter, in case you are reading this in May) ClassicFM did a run down of the top favourite 300 pieces of classical music. All the normal composers were there, Beethoven had more entries than Mozart for the first time. There were quite a few 'one hit wonders'. And surprisingly up in the top ten were a couple of pieces of music composed for video games.
This has provoked much debate and some condemnation, but when I heard the music the only reason I knew it was from a video game was because I was told so. These pieces weren't the boom-boom-boom electronic drone that often accompanies video games but 'real' music.
It has taken a while for film music to be taken seriously, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of today's film composers were a little younger they might well be composing for video games. and who is to say that some of the more famous composers would not have done the same.
Many classical composers have had their melodies stolen for ring tones and hold music, and have also had pieces featured in films. And many more could be ideal background for a video game.
I was listening to Grieg's Hall of the Mountain King the other day and thought 'Now there is a piece of video game music.' It starts quietly and builds to a climax. It has a repetitive theme with little variation. The same goes for Ravel's Bolero.
The other way round, the first time I heard the piece of music called Romanza, a guitar piece by an anonymous composer, I was playing an arcade game (long, long time ago.)
So look out for video game music turning up in concerts. Who knows, maybe one day there will even by a Prom concert dedicated to such music.
Monday, 1 April 2013
Welcome to Tory Fool's Day
1st April 2013. The day the government has
introduced several new policies which are supposed to improve life and
encourage people to get off benefits. Ha!
Now I’m all for stopping fraudulent claims and putting a
stop to people who do not deserve benefits claiming them. But this has always
happened. The temptation is too great for some people. The majority of
claimants, however, do have genuine need and should not be subjected to the
stress of having their benefits taken away. Many people fall on hard times
through no fault of their own. In the current economic climate many people who
thought they were set for life have found themselves struggling to maintain
mortgage payments and have lost their homes.So let’s have a look at some of these new reforms. First we have the Bedroom Tax. Not officially called that, of course, but that is what it is. For anyone living on benefits in ‘social housing’ (the latest name for council/housing association accommodation) who has a spare bedroom is having their benefit cut for each spare room PLUS they have to pay for the privilege of staying in their home if they don’t want to move. So if these people want to stay they are being penalised TWICE.
What is the theory behind this. Well, say the government, there are not enough larger places for the people who need them. Making people move to smaller accommodation will free up these properties.
Flaw in this argument – IF those tenants wish to move to smaller accommodation there is not very much available. The assumption that they will easily find something suitable is way out of line, especially if you are talking about one bedroom flats.
The second flaw, many of those affected will simply go without, scrimp and save, to pay the extra money to stay in the place that has been their home for possibly a lifetime. They will go without heat and food to pay the bill rather than give up their HOME. For we are not simply talking about bricks and mortar, we are talking about the place where people have raised their children. They fact that this is rented accommodation does not lessen their rights or attachments to it.
Who does this affect?
The couple who have raised their children who have now left home, who maybe want to sleep in separate rooms for whatever reason, but whom the authorities say should share a room. Once they might have been self-sufficient but due to ill health or loss of job they now have to live on benefits – through no fault of their own.
People who have split from their partners and have a spare room so that children can come to stay overnight.
The rules and criteria seem to be interpreted differently by different councils, so that in some places people who should be exempt are being told they will lose benefit and be charged for extra rooms, so people who have a spare room for a carer to help with a disabled member of the family, or where one of a couple is disabled and needs their own room are being told they will lose benefit or have to move.
Having witnessed the problems of a couple living in a one bedroom bungalow when one of the couple has developed medical problems that have left the other partner sleeping in the kitchen while a carer occupies the sitting room all night, I strongly feel that NO ONE should be made to live in a one bedroom place.
While I feel sorry for families living in one or two rooms when they need more, how will forcing other people out of their homes solve this problem? It will not. It is not a simple matter of swapping one place for another. All it will do is create more homelessness, especially for those borderline people who aren’t disabled, or have any other thing they can use to stay in their home and cannot afford the extra money it will cost to stay there.
And on top of this Bedroom Tax, people on benefits will have to start paying Council Tax, so their income is reduced even further.
If that is not enough to worry about, major changes to the NHS take place on the 1st April.
A new emergency service is to replace NHS Direct. 111 is supposed to be dealing with non-emergency calls giving help and advice. It is not entirely certain that this system is ready to become operational but despite calls for a delay it is due to go live. Try not to fall ill today!
And 1st April is the day doctors take charge of the administration of the NHS deciding what services should be prioritised. If that’s not a complete postcode lottery I don’t know what is. Suppose you live in an area where there is a large aging population (my village springs to mind here). Obviously there is a need for a large geriatric care pot, but what about the things that a middle-aged person might need? Will the funding be available? The idea that everyone will get the same treatment regardless of where they live has always been a dream rather than a reality, but under this new scheme it looks like it will be even less so.
And this is just the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)