medical

On the Sociobollocks of Wellbeing

OMG here comes another “deep thought” posting! GOK what they’re putting in my tea this year?!

David Colquhoun at DC’s Improbable Science has a reputation, along with Ben Goldacre, of exploding the myths of bad and pseudo science. In a post yesterday he’s got his knife into “Wellbeing“, that subject so beloved of the much reviled HR departments.

Sure we all like wellbeing. Who wouldn’t. But can we sensibly measure it? Can big (or small) organisations do anything meaningful to change it? I suggest the answers are no and no. It is a wimpy way for terminally ineffective and unnecessary droids to appear to do something useful. In fact I maintain it is divisive and destructive.

Divisive in that it ultimately sets one group of people at odds with another; eg. those who want extra time off for parents against those who have to pick up the extra work; us against HR. Destructive because it wastes time and money which could be better used.

Throughout my working life I have taken part in countless wellbeing type surveys: my former employer conducted just such a survey of employees every couple of years. There was a standard core of questions, and a set which varied according to mood of the year. It was supposedly used to measure employee morale and tell senior management what we thought of company policy, management, etc.

I must have completed well over a dozen, maybe as many as 20, such surveys in the course of my employ. Although optional I always took part on the basis that that however ineffective I thought they were, if you didn’t express an opinion then certainly nothing would change.

And that is exactly what happened: nothing changed. Not once in almost 35 years did I see any action result from survey feedback. Senior management were allegedly incented on increasing morale etc. (as measured by the survey). But this was never more than lip-service. Over the years morale steadily fell as HR policies became less sympathetic to the employee (pay freeze, less empowerment, emasculated pension schemes, downsizing, etc.). But neither senior management nor HR people ever suffered. Unlike the rest of us they always went on to bigger, better and more lucrative jobs.

Should this surprise us? Well no, not really. Because apart from a few headline figures (like the morale index, based on some fixed core questions) all the opinions expressed were aggregated and thus watered down into useless generalisations by the time they reached senior management. So the high-ups could then say things like “But that doesn’t tell us anything”, “That’s meaningless” or “They [employees] don’t understand”. And thus our views were universally ignored, despite platitudes to the contrary.

Result: a huge waste of time and money which could be better spent moving the business forward. At best all it did was to act as a brake on some of the more oppressive ideas which might have come out of the profit-hungry upper echelons. At worst it wasted 2-3 hours per employee. In a company of 250,000+ employees worldwide that’s an extra 400-500 people to develop the business.

Should it have been this way? Of course it shouldn’t. But such, I fear, is the way of the organisation — large or small. It is all too easy to cover a multitude of sins in smooth management platitudes; even I can do it!

But, you say, wellbeing is important. Yes, of course it is, at a personal level. It is at the peak of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and is surely the hallmark of a civilised society. And morale should certainly be important to any organisation.

But I would maintain that wellbeing and morale are best changed at a personal level. They’re my responsibility. We don’t need a “wellbeing industry” composed, as it so often is, of quackery and get-rich-quick scams. Wouldn’t it be better to empower (and teach) people to look after themselves? Empowerment is, after all, one of the quickest ways to improve perceived wellbeing and morale at all levels.

I can’t do justice to Colquhoun’s latest article; it just contains the exposure of too much corporate HR hokum and sociobollocks. You need to go read it for yourselves. It’s too good to miss!

current affairs, freedom of speech

Whither Obscenity?

In the general fallout from the Michael Peacock Obscenity Trial (if you missed the whole unedifying spectacle see, inter alia, the Guardian) the Hersey Corner highlights some important questions about obscenity and the law.

The questions raised by the trial are important, not so much in terms of jurisprudence, but in terms of developing society’s, as well as our personal, views of obscenity and indeed morality.

As usual I’m going to try to condense the arguments for you. Also as usual others express the ideas better, more succinctly and with greater knowledge than I can. So in this case here are some key extracts in the words of the Heresy Corner, with a minimum of comment.

The material in question depicted acts that are legal to perform, which did not fall within the definition of “extreme pornography” contained in the more recent Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2009 but which nevertheless came within the CPS prosecuting guidelines for obscene publication […]

[T]he majority […] has welcomed the verdict, seeing it as another nail in the coffin of a paternalistic, judgemental and outdated piece of legislation, as a victory for free sexual expression, as a sign that the law may be at last coming to grips with a more liberal society […] [T]he guidelines used by the police, the CPS and the British Board of Film Classification are based on the current “best guess” of what would be judged obscene by a British jury […]

The OPA’s [Obscene Publications Act 1959] true significance doesn’t lie in the small number of prosecutions that are brought under it, but rather in that it sets the standard by which the police and the BBFC judge the shifting boundary of what is or is not to be considered “obscene”. It is unusual […] legislation in that it bans nothing outright but instead employs a notoriously subjective test, that of “tending to deprave and corrupt” anyone likely to see the material in question. Therein lies the law’s uncertainty — and, for many, its inappropriate moralism. On the other hand, the very subjectivity of the test does make allowances for changes in society. It gives it flexibility.

[T]he CJIA […] makes no allowances for taste […] And unlike the OPA it targets the possessor — even an inadvertent downloader — rather than the producer or the distributor. Though apparently narrower in remit, in respect of those activities it proscribes […] it is harsher and more regressive.

What of the concept of “obscenity” itself? Many would consider it outdated and illiberal by definition […] [N]ow that the OPA has had the life almost squeezed out of it — between more liberal social attitudes on the one hand and the new extreme porn laws on the other — it’s worth asking […] whether something of value is being lost.

The crux of obscenity law is that it bans the depiction of acts which, in themselves, are not illegal; it declares to be depraved and corrupting activities which it nevertheless acknowledges that consulting adults might indulge in, and still remain decent members of society […] Yet is this not also a way of saying that the needs of society and the needs of individuals might not always coincide, and that there might be a space between what must be privately allowed and what may be publicly depicted? Not everything that is socially unacceptable ought to be illegal, after all: that way lies totalitarianism. But by the same token, the fact that something is legal does not [necessarily — K] render it socially acceptable [nor necessarily suitable for depiction — K].

[T]he Obscene Publications Act sought to strike a balance between private and public rights. It recognised that citizens might lawfully get up to things that the majority of their fellows might consider depraved and corrupted while asserting that the majority also had the right to have their sensibilities protected. Most importantly, by leaving the final decision to a randomly-selected jury of ordinary citizens, it granted custodianship of the standards of decency to the people […] rather than their being decided unilaterally by politicians and police. These are principles worth clinging on to […]

So in short, let’s not kill the idea of a test of obscenity by jury. Consenting persons have a right to indulge, in private, in pass-times which others may find distasteful or worse. The majority, while upholding that right to indulge privately, may feel that such acts shouldn’t be promulgated publicly. Surely only a jury can make such a decision, reflecting the prevailing morality of the time. Which in turn leaves each of us to make our own decisions as to where the various lines (public and private) should be drawn.

And it is only by each of us developing our own ideas, whether in accord with or contrary to society’s view, that society’s opinions and morality can change. After all society’s collective view is but the consensus (average) of our collected personal opinions.

Isn’t that what democracy and free speech is all about: leaving us, the people, in control of our destiny?

food+drink

Colcannon à la mode d'ici

This is the traditional Irish potato, cabbage and bacon dish and served with poached egg. My version isn’t authentic as all the recipes I see use creamed potato and much more potato than cabbage; I prefer roughly smashed potato and a high proportion of cabbage. But it’s still hearty, easy, very forgiving and cheap.

This is what I did for a single-course main meal for two, so adjust as necessary …

You will need:

  • 2 jacket potato-sized potatoes
  • a small green pointed cabbage; roughly chopped and cored
  • a large onion; roughly chopped
  • at least 4 decent rashers of bacon (I used two very thick rashers from a pack of offcuts); cut into 1-2cm lardons
  • as many eggs as you want
  • salt & fresh black pepper
  • butter and/or olive oil
  • half glass of white wine (or water)

This is how I did it:

  1. Wash and chop the potatoes (no I don’t peel them!) and boil until well done, as you would for mash.
  2. As the potatoes come up to being done put the cabbage in a large pot on the hob with the wine; put the lid on and allow it to steam gently for a few minutes.
  3. Meanwhile drain and roughly smash the potato with a fork (don’t purée or cream it; it should be chunky) with some butter, salt and pepper. Keep it warm.
  4. By now the cabbage is almost cooked and beginning to dry.
  5. Sauté the onion in a frying pan with a little butter/oil; when it is translucent add the bacon and continue to fry until the bacon is starting to crisp.
  6. While the onion/bacon cooks, take the lid off the cabbage and add a large knob of butter. Toss it well to coat the cabbage in butter and leave it on a low heat, without the lid, to dry off any remaining liquid.
  7. When the onion & bacon is done, add it to the cabbage along with the potato. Mix well together on the hob, put on the lid and keep warm. (You can probably turn out the heat, especially if using a good cast-iron pan.)
  8. Now poach your eggs by whatever method you favour. The white should be set but the yolk still runny.
  9. Serve the colcannon topped with poached egg(s) and a beverage of your choice.

Notes:

  1. My preference is for more cabbage and bacon and slightly less potato.
  2. Good smoked bacon works best. Bacon offcuts are fine.
  3. Use any type or mixture of cabbage you like, from white cabbage, through kale to sprouts; though I doubt red cabbage would work very well.
  4. You can under or over cook the cabbage to your personal taste.
  5. Add some chopped garlic to the onion, if you wish.
  6. Leftover potatoes and cabbage are fine as long as they are properly reheated.
  7. If you wish you can substitute fried eggs for poached. And of course you could use duck or goose eggs if available.
  8. Go easy on the salt as the bacon may be quite salt enough.
environment, science

Bugger! We've Overcooked It!

This week’s New Scientist (dated 7 January) has a rather worrying article reviewing the 1972 publication The Limits to Growth, 40 years on. (The article is behind a paywall, so I can’t link to it.)

The Limits to Growth was much reviled at the time for being far too pessimistic. But if the article is correct in it’s assertions then Limits was also pretty close to the truth and the chickens are now coming home to roost — probably before we have time to wake up and smell the coffee let alone finish building the chicken coop.

Very broadly Limits, and the article, support my contention that everything needs to be reorganised, reduced and managed — and unless we do so PDQ we’re doomed. But then it appears we may be doomed anyway.

Here are a few key extracts from the New Scientist article…

[S]imulations, far from showing growth continuing forever, or even levelling out, suggested that it was most likely that boom would be followed by bust: a sharp decline in industrial output, food production and population. In other words, the collapse of global civilisation.

[I]t is widely believed that Limits predicted collapse by 2000, yet in fact it made no such claim […] Now, with peak oil, climate change and the failure of conventional economics, there is a renewed interest.

World3 […] took what was known about the global population, industry and resources from 1900 to 1972 and used it to develop a set of equations describing how these parameters affected each other. Based on various adjustable assumptions, such as the amount of non-renewable resources, the model projected what would happen over the next century.

Assuming that business continued as usual, World3 projected that population and industry would grow exponentially at first. Eventually, however, growth would begin to slow and would soon stop altogether as resources grew scarce, pollution soared and food became limited […] [T]he human ecological footprint cannot continue to grow indefinitely.

If present growth trends in world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will he reached sometime within the next 100 years. The most probable result will be a sudden and rather uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity […]

More industrial output meant more money to spend on agriculture and healthcare, but also more pollution, which could damage health and food production […] [I]n the real world there are delays before limits are understood, institutions act or remedies take effect. These delayed responses were programmed […] The model crashed because its hypothetical people did not respond to the mounting problems before underlying support systems, such as farmland and ecosystems, had been damaged […] they carried on consuming and polluting past the point the model world could sustain.

[W]here growth of population and industry were constrained, growth did level out rather than collapse […]

In some runs, they gave World3 unlimited, non-polluting nuclear energy — which allowed extensive substitution and recycling of limited materials — and a doubling in the reserves of non-renewables that could be economically exploited. All the same, the population crashed when industrial pollution soared. Then fourfold pollution reductions were added as well: this time, the crash came when there was no more farmland. Adding in higher farm yields and better birth control helped in this case. But then soil erosion and pollution struck […] Whatever the researchers did to eke out resources or stave off pollution, exponential growth was simply prolonged, until it eventually swamped the remedies. Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise […]

[I]n 2008 […] a detailed statistical analysis of how real growth compares to the scenarios in Limits […] concluded that reality so far closely matches the standard run of World3.

Limits took account of the fact that birth rates fall as prosperity rises, in reality they have fallen much faster than was expected [but an] updated study using World3 in 2005 […] included faster-falling birth rates. Except in the stabilising scenario, World3 still collapsed.

Bit of a bummer really. But nothing that surprises me. Still it’s depressing if you believe it. And there seems to be little we can do about it at a personal level other than consume less, breed less, be much more eco-minded and keep shouting at those we invest with power. But that’s only any good if we all — or at least a large enough percentage of us — do it. And so far we seem to be emulating ostriches. Although maybe, just maybe, the current recession and international financial chaos might be the wake-up call and our saviour. I ain’t holding my breath though.

But then I likely won’t be around to see (the worst of) what’s to come. It’s the rest of you — our children’s and grand-children’s generations — I feel sorry for because it’s our and our parents’ generations who have buggered it up for you.

Bad karma all round. 🙁

personal

Reasons to be Grateful: 8

Experiment, week 8. This week’s five things which have made me happy or for which I’m grateful.

  1. Sparrowhawk. Earlier in the week we had a male sparrowhawk in the garden. This is something I see a few times a year. This one was fluttering about as if it was injured, although clearly it didn’t have a broken wing. It sat on the fence for a couple of minutes and looking at it I think it had just damaged a few flight feathers — maybe by being blown around in the high wind or by going headlong into a thick bush after something to eat. Anyway if flew off, albeit a bit unsteadily, across the gardens after a few minutes. Which was just as well because I didn’t much fancy trying to catch it; let alone find a vet to treat it! Like all the hawks they’re magnificent birds.
  2. CPAP Humidifier. Those of you that keep up with goings on will know that I have Obstructive Sleep Apnoea and have to use a CPAP machine overnight to prevent my airways collapsing. It’s a nuisance, but generally no more than that. One thing that does happen though is that because of my sinus trouble and general catarrhiness I do get very dried out and bunged up at nights, often because I end up breathing through my mouth. To counteract this the hospital have given me a heated humidifier to attach to the CPAP machine: basically a small water container with a tiny heating element. It’s early days, but it does seem to be make a difference. I’m getting less dried out and I’m probably sleeping better. This is good.
  3. Lamb Curry. Yes, I know I always post about curry. But I do like my hot curry. This week’s variety was Lamb and Chickpea. Made with an especially tender piece of lamb neck fillet and a big slug of Patak’s Vindaloo Paste (which I actually reckon is more like a gentle Madras; in fact I’m not sure their Madras paste isn’t hotter). Served with avocado, banana, mayonnaise (yes they really do work!) and Noreen’s special lemon rice. And a couple of beers.

  4. Sparrow Chirp. The House Sparrow is in decline, apparently. Not here it isn’t. The population of sparrows did crash about 10 years ago, but ours have steadily recovered. We regularly have at least a couple of dozen in the garden, both front and back. But then we do feed the birds. Quite often on opening the door we are assailed by the constant chirping of the sparrows — they’re social birds and they do need to keep in touch with each other; it’s the sparrow equivalent of texting! It’s lovely to hear them. But no wonder we see the sparrowhawk around!
  5. Duvet. As you’ll have noticed, I do like my sleep. And there’s nothing better than snuggling in a warm duvet, especially if one has gotten chilly going to the bathroom in the middle of the night!
quotes

English is a Pig of a Language! (Warning: Long Post)

1 Comment

I spotted this originally posted by a friend on Facebook (thanks, John!).

Called The Chaos, it is by Gerard Nolst Trenité (1870-1946) and was originally published by The English Spelling Society in 1992-3. What follows is this definitive published version.

As John says, if you can pronounce correctly every word in this poem, you will be speaking English better than 90% of the native English speakers in the world. After trying the verses, one Frenchman said he’d prefer six months of hard labour to reading six lines aloud.

See how you get on …

The Chaos
by Gerard Nolst Trenité

Dearest creature in creation
Studying English pronunciation,
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.
I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy;
Tear in eye, your dress you’ll tear;
Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer.
Pray, console your loving poet,
Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!
Just compare heart, hear and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word.
Sword and sward, retain and Britain
(Mind the latter how it’s written).
Made has not the sound of bade,
Say — said, pay — paid, laid but plaid.
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as vague and ague,
But be careful how you speak,
Say: gush, bush, steak, streak, break, bleak,
Previous, precious, fuchsia, via
Recipe, pipe, studding-sail, choir;
Woven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.
Say, expecting fraud and trickery:
Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,
Branch, ranch, measles, topsails, aisles,
Missiles, similes, reviles.
Wholly, holly, signal, signing,
Same, examining, but mining,
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far.
From “desire”: desirable — admirable from “admire”,
Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier,
Topsham, brougham, renown, but known,
Knowledge, done, lone, gone, none, tone,
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel.
Gertrude, German, wind and wind,
Beau, kind, kindred, queue, mankind,
Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather,
Reading, Reading, heathen, heather.
This phonetic labyrinth
Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth.
Have you ever yet endeavoured
To pronounce revered and severed,
Demon, lemon, ghoul, foul, soul,
Peter, petrol and patrol?
Billet does not end like ballet;
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Banquet is not nearly parquet,
Which exactly rhymes with khaki.
Discount, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward,
Ricocheted and crocheting, croquet?
Right! Your pronunciation’s OK.
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.
Is your R correct in higher?
Keats asserts it rhymes with Thalia.
Hugh, but hug, and hood, but hoot,
Buoyant, minute, but minute.
Say abscission with precision,
Now: position and transition;
Would it tally with my rhyme
If I mentioned paradigm?
Twopence, threepence, tease are easy,
But cease, crease, grease and greasy?
Cornice, nice, valise, revise,
Rabies, but lullabies.
Of such puzzling words as nauseous,
Rhyming well with cautious, tortious,
You’ll envelop lists, I hope,
In a linen envelope.
Would you like some more? You’ll have it!
Affidavit, David, davit.
To abjure, to perjure. Sheik
Does not sound like Czech but ache.
Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, loch, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed but vowed.
Mark the difference, moreover,
Between mover, plover, Dover.
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice,
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.
Petal, penal, and canal,
Wait, surmise, plait, promise, pal,
Suit, suite, ruin. Circuit, conduit
Rhyme with “shirk it” and “beyond it”,
But it is not hard to tell
Why it’s pall, mall, but Pall Mall.
Muscle, muscular, gaol, iron,
Timber, climber, bullion, lion,
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor,
Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
Has the A of drachm and hammer.
Pussy, hussy and possess,
Desert, but desert, address.
Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants
Hoist in lieu of flags left pennants.
Courier, courtier, tomb, bomb, comb,
Cow, but Cowper, some and home.
“Solder, soldier! Blood is thicker”,
Quoth he, “than liqueur or liquor”,
Making, it is sad but true,
In bravado, much ado.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Pilot, pivot, gaunt, but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand and grant.
Arsenic, specific, scenic,
Relic, rhetoric, hygienic.
Gooseberry, goose, and close, but close,
Paradise, rise, rose, and dose.
Say inveigh, neigh, but inveigle,
Make the latter rhyme with eagle.
Mind! Meandering but mean,
Valentine and magazine.
And I bet you, dear, a penny,
You say mani-(fold) like many,
Which is wrong. Say rapier, pier,
Tier (one who ties), but tier.
Arch, archangel; pray, does erring
Rhyme with herring or with stirring?
Prison, bison, treasure trove,
Treason, hover, cover, cove,
Perseverance, severance. Ribald
Rhymes (but piebald doesn’t) with nibbled.
Phaeton, paean, gnat, ghat, gnaw,
Lien, psychic, shone, bone, pshaw.
Don’t be down, my own, but rough it,
And distinguish buffet, buffet;
Brood, stood, roof, rook, school, wool, boon,
Worcester, Boleyn, to impugn.
Say in sounds correct and sterling
Hearse, hear, hearken, year and yearling.
Evil, devil, mezzotint,
Mind the z! (A gentle hint.)
Now you need not pay attention
To such sounds as I don’t mention,
Sounds like pores, pause, pours and paws,
Rhyming with the pronoun yours;
Nor are proper names included,
Though I often heard, as you did,
Funny rhymes to unicorn,
Yes, you know them, Vaughan and Strachan.
No, my maiden, coy and comely,
I don’t want to speak of Cholmondeley.
No. Yet Froude compared with proud
Is no better than McLeod.
But mind trivial and vial,
Tripod, menial, denial,
Troll and trolley, realm and ream,
Schedule, mischief, schism, and scheme.
Argil, gill, Argyll, gill. Surely
May be made to rhyme with Raleigh,
But you’re not supposed to say
Piquet rhymes with sobriquet.
Had this invalid invalid
Worthless documents? How pallid,
How uncouth he, couchant, looked,
When for Portsmouth I had booked!
Zeus, Thebes, Thales, Aphrodite,
Paramour, enamoured, flighty,
Episodes, antipodes,
Acquiesce, and obsequies.
Please don’t monkey with the geyser,
Don’t peel ‘taters with my razor,
Rather say in accents pure:
Nature, stature and mature.
Pious, impious, limb, climb, glumly,
Worsted, worsted, crumbly, dumbly,
Conquer, conquest, vase, phase, fan,
Wan, sedan and artisan.
The TH will surely trouble you
More than R, CH or W.
Say then these phonetic gems:
Thomas, thyme, Theresa, Thames.
Thompson, Chatham, Waltham, Streatham,
There are more
but I forget ’em —
Wait! I’ve got it: Anthony,
Lighten your anxiety.
The archaic word albeit
Does not rhyme with eight — you see it;
With and forthwith, one has voice,
One has not, you make your choice.
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say: finger;
Then say: singer, ginger, linger.
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, age,
Hero, heron, query, very,
Parry, tarry, fury, bury,
Dost, lost, post, and doth, cloth, loth,
Job, Job, blossom, bosom, oath.
Faugh, oppugnant, keen oppugners,
Bowing, bowing, banjo-tuners
Holm you know, but noes, canoes,
Puisne, truism, use, to use?
Though the difference seems little,
We say actual, but victual,
Seat, sweat, chaste, caste, Leigh, eight, height,
Put, nut, granite, and unite
Reefer does not rhyme with deafer,
Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late,
Hint, pint, senate, but sedate.
Gaelic, Arabic, pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific;
Tour, but our, dour, succour, four,
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Say manoeuvre, yacht and vomit,
Next omit, which differs from it
Bona fide, alibi
Gyrate, dowry and awry.
Sea, idea, guinea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion with battalion,
Rally with ally; yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay!
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, receiver.
Never guess — it is not safe,
We say calves, valves, half, but Ralf.
Starry, granary, canary,
Crevice, but device, and eyrie,
Face, but preface, then grimace,
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Bass, large, target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, oust, joust, and scour, but scourging;
Ear, but earn; and ere and tear
Do not rhyme with here but heir.
Mind the O of off and often
Which may be pronounced as orphan,
With the sound of saw and sauce;
Also soft, lost, cloth and cross.
Pudding, puddle, putting. Putting?
Yes: at golf it rhymes with shutting.
Respite, spite, consent, resent.
Liable, but Parliament.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, clerk and jerk,
Asp, grasp, wasp, demesne, cork, work.
A of valour, vapid, vapour,
S of news (compare newspaper),
G of gibbet, gibbon, gist,
I of antichrist and grist,
Differ like diverse and divers,
Rivers, strivers, shivers, fivers.
Once, but nonce, toll, doll, but roll,
Polish, Polish, poll and poll.
Pronunciation — think of Psyche! —
Is a paling, stout and spiky.
Won’t it make you lose your wits
Writing groats and saying ‘grits’?
It’s a dark abyss or tunnel
Strewn with stones like rowlock, gunwale,
Islington, and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.
Don’t you think so, reader, rather,
Saying lather, bather, father?
Finally, which rhymes with enough,
Though, through, bough, cough, hough, sough, tough??
Hiccough has the sound of sup …
My advice is: GIVE IT UP!

So how many of you even got to the end? 🙂

sexuality, thoughts

Sex and Robots

A week or so before Christmas Kyle Munkittrick wrote what I consider to be an important post over on Discover Magazine blogs under the title The Future: Where Sexual Orientations Get Kind of Confusing.

It is important because it looks to the future and asks what sexual orientations should be acceptable and when.

The situation at present if reasonably clear. Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are both accepted as sexual orientations and as being acceptable. So are polyamory, queer and transgender relationships. As long as all the parties are consenting.

But paedophilia and zoophilia, while arguable sexual orientations are not acceptable. The difference is that in the latter neither a minor nor an animal can give consent.

This seems to provide a simple rule: sexual orientations/relationships are acceptable as long as the parties all give informed consent. Where there is not consent, then they are verboten.

But, Munkittrick asks, what of the future? A future where it is conceivable that humans may wish to have sexual relations with cyborgs and robots? Should human-robot sexual orientations be acceptable, and under what circumstances? Can a robot or cyborg give informed consent? If so under what circumstances and how would we know?

Thinking about this is important, not just for the future but because it helps us understand our present moral position. [For instance, how and why does incest fit the model?]

It also begs the question of whether we should be worrying about our relationship with our dildo, vibrator or blow-up doll! 🙂

Go read the full article!