You should have seen the awe-struck expressions when people found out we lived on this road.  The respect is gone from these same people’s eyes.  We can no longer hold our heads up.

We miss the opportunity to say to the police, “No, officer, we are not drunk!” as we swerve from one side to the other in order to circumvent this obstacle course of potholes while avoiding a collision with oncoming traffic.

Those days are gone.  The city finally decided to repave the entire length of the street, not just a patch job.  Even the grooved pavement left after the initial tarmac scrape-up was a 95% improvement on what had been there.

Oh, what a loss.  Our neighbors must feel it deeply as well.  Three of them just put up  “For Sale” signs.

When we first opened a current account with our bank, we were given a cash account – that meant you could only access money at the ATM machines.  When we started having regular deposits into the account, the cash account was converted into the most basic current account.  Our debit cards were supposedly changed so that we could use our PINs everywhere.  However, initially, we had some problems and had to sign for everything.  Eventually, everything was sorted out and we were able to use our PINs.

Now that we are able to use our PINs, I don’t feel comfortable with using it everywhere.  Not that I wish we didn’t resolve the problems with the PINs – it was difficult to explain to everyone that we had to sign for every transaction.  Some vendors even refused to accept it.

But, considering how easily PINs can be stolen these days and how well thieves can duplicate cards, I don’t know why everyone still relies on PINs.  When we were unable to use our PINs, we were required to provide IDs to prove that we are the rightful owners of the cards.  To me, that seems a much safer option.  If someone were to steal my card and knew my PIN, they could get away with a lot.  However, if they had to sign my name (and they can forge it) and show ID, it would be a little more difficult.  Thieves can steal another person’s ID, but it would be very difficult for them to steal multiple IDs, especially with photos.  Imagine making different photo IDs for different identities.

I remember a colleague always wrote on the back of his card, “Check ID”.  He never signed it.  He never left space for anyone else to sign it.  It made sense to me.  Of course, it may not be very welcome by clerks.  Recently, I used my credit card and tried to get the vendor to swipe it, rather than use the PIN-chip machine.  He asked, why?  Why not?  At this time, many US credit cards do not have the chip technology, so it has to be swiped anyway, so why do these vendors give us such a hard time with it?  I had to lie and say that I didn’t have a PIN for it.  He then acted like I had stolen the card.  I had to patiently ask that he swipe it and I would sign and he could check my ID.  He was very reluctant and when the swiping didn’t work, was ready to refuse.  I had to get him to punch in the numbers (as they sometimes have to do when the swipe machine doesn’t work) and it went through without problems.

With this new chip technology, people have become so lax and lazy.  They trust the PIN system to be foolproof, but it isn’t.  Vendors assume that if you know the PIN, the card is yours; and if you don’t have a PIN, you must be a thief.  No one wants to take the trouble to check for ID.  Given that the Brits are so ID card-shy as well, if the PIN system fails, it would be a major catastrophe.

Experts have urged people to lose weight for their health.  Now, they are urging them to lose weight for the environment.  It sounds almost funny that the “green” campaign has extended to almost every facet in life.  We are advised not to waste as this is not “green”.  We should recycle and eat leftovers.  However, sometimes there is not enough for an actual “leftover” serving, so someone has to eat it up.  This, then, encourages overeating so as not to waste.  Yet, it will worsen that particular individual’s weight and health.

Obesity is an economic burden.  The cost of health care for obesity-related complications is enormous.  Now, the experts tell us that the overeating culture costs us in terms of food and fuel consumption.  The increase in food production and car emissions increases greenhouse gases.  We all know that transporting a fat person around uses more energy.  If it is in terms of motorised transport, we are talking fuel.  If it is in terms of personal transport, we are talking fat.

These “green” experts are telling us that one of the ways to reduce greenhouse emissions is to return to the slim and trim days of the 1970s.  Hah!  As if that was so easy.  Have we not been preaching weight loss for ages?  Are people finally going to listen just because we tell them that it is good for the environment if they lose weight?  It takes more than just a lot of rhetoric to change people’s attitudes and behaviours.

We need real ideas on how to tackle the obesity issue.  I don’t like the idea of taxation because I don’t feel it would work.  Like the chocolate tax that one doctor advocated.  However, taxation would certainly help to fund the health care for these people, not to mention funding the “green” campaign.  Obese people have to pay for two seats on airlines, how about buses?  What would happen if restaurants decided to serve a set portion size for obese people, like some bartenders turning away drinkers who’ve had one too many?  How about, instead of rewarding misbehaving kids at school with X-Box, the teachers make them run laps in the field?  Exercise helps reduce stress and anxiety and may calm those kids down, rather than shortening their already short attention span with X-Box and Playstations.  These ideas may be absurd and unfair to some, but at least they are concrete and not just words on a poster.

I am increasingly frustrated by people of various backgrounds who demand changes by well-established organizations to meet their own ethnic and religious requirements. Not that I don’t believe in equal rights. It’s just that sometimes we go too far, bending over backwards to accommodate all these groups that we start to lose our own original character. There is a difference between discrimination and selectivity.

The US is a melting pot. It stands to reason that all peoples could be considered American; therefore, organizations must strive to provide equal opportunities to all. However, when a private organization, whether school or church or other institution, has been established for years with their own religious or statutory ideals, they create their own criteria for selection. These organizations want to keep their character consistent by being selective. But in an age where civil rights groups are gaining enormous lobbying powers, these organizations have become targets of discriminatory legal battles. There is no discrimination here. Had these organizations formed and stated they want no women, no Blacks, no Jews, no Republicans, etc., I would be inclined to call them discriminating.

But things have changed to give all and sundry equal opportunities regardless of their abilities or background. How can Harvard maintain their elitist status if they were forced to accept inferior students simply because they were from disadvantaged backgrounds? It should not be Harvard who has to suffer. Those students should have been given opportunities much earlier on to give them an equal advantage when applying for the few available places in prestigious higher education institutions, if they are so inclined.

A similar case exists when religious schools are asked to accommodate students of other religions. Why? When these students choose to attend these church-affiliated schools, they have the option to either participate in their school’s religious activities or not. But to require these schools to provide additional support for these students’ religious education becomes ridiculous. How many religions do they have to provide when they were established with one in mind? There are numerous schools of various religious backgrounds. Why must one demand that a school, funded and supported by moneys from one religious organization, support all other religions?

Because of the fear of litigation on racial, religious, etc., grounds, many groups have bowed down under pressure from civil rights groups. They can no longer be selective because it would appear to some that they are being discriminating. I am quite surprised, therefore, that the boy who wanted to join Girl Scouts (to make a point in a retaliatory discrimination case when a girl fought to join Boy Scouts) did not win or even make it to court. Do people consider Girl Scouts/Guides and Boy Scouts as discriminatory organizations?

Outside of the New World, most other countries have developed their own sense of national character, but this essential character is under threat of being beaten to extinction. The beating comes at the hands of their own people, who are trying in desperation to be “fair” to all newcomers. Britain has been most affected, of all the European countries, with regards to immigration, and their new laws seem very accommodating of these immigrants, whether European, Middle Eastern or Asian; Christian, Muslim or Hindu. The British sense of fairness, however, does not take into account that their beneficiaries may not return the favor in the future. In fact, it seems these people have taken full advantage of all the benefits and are still demanding more.

When will enough be enough? Soon, Britain will be a melting pot as well and their national character will be nonexistent. If this lack of national identity is the goal for the British, then so be it. I would hate to see it go by the wayside, though. There is such a rich heritage in Britain that it would be a shame for its people to abandon it all for the sake of appeasing the newcomers. I can no longer tell who is a Briton and who is not. Many are now considered British by virtue of being born in the country. This is analogous to the joke that a pig born in a stable is a horse. Will Britain recover its heritage?

Batten down the hatches, they’re on their way!

Of course they are. Just as a few years earlier the killer bees, killer rats and swarms of killer locusts were scheduled to reach our shores. All we got was a luckless chilled Tarantula in a Sainsbury’s warehouse that had snuck in to a crate of imported bananas.

But this time it could be for real. Lasius neglectus, tagged the “super ant” by the ‘papers is chomping its way north since first coming to light in Budapest some 20 years ago. Although very similar to its common or garden cousin found in most British gardens, this micro-muncher has developed several behavioral differences that could signify troubling times ahead for green-fingered Brits. First, they are able to withstand colder temperatures (including frosts) that domestic ants find damaging. Second, unlike the domestic variety where queens desert colonies to mate, Lasius neglectus queens mate within the colony resulting in far greater numbers and “super colonies” holding 10 to 100 times more worker ants than a regular domestic ant colony.

The fear is that if these ants do reach British gardens, then there could be a major imbalance in certain ecosystems as far more insects compete for limited resources (hey, this is beginning to sound like a familiar story!) and since the invaders breed and colonize in greater numbers, they’ll soon overwhelm the native population.

I’m off to check the price of aardvarks on eBay.

Some days I am grateful for advances in technology that have improved our lives. Other days, I curse them. Not because they impose hindrances in my life particularly, but I see how it changes the world’s viewpoints and expectations and it frustrates me. Sometimes I’m very pessimistic, but for the most part, I think I’m optimistic. I tend to find the good things in life, look for the bright side. You can’t continue to live in this world and move on with your life if you don’t.

Unfortunately, it seems many people only look at the dark side. They can’t see how things can improve. They see life as being a half-empty glass. Perhaps, they suffer from clinical depression or perhaps, they have very little will-power. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion and can live their own lives the way they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. But, oh, sometimes, I wish I can shake some sense into these people.

The question of assisted suicides can be a very sensitive issue. I really am totally against assisted suicides, as I am against any suicide. I know some countries out there approve of it and it makes me think they have no sense of moral obligation. I hope that not every citizen of those countries believe in assisted suicides.

The most recently publicized assisted suicide was that of a young English rugby player who went to Switzerland for his suicide. He was a quadriplegic after an injury and required 24 hour care. He was described as a vibrant, determined guy, yet he chose to end his life because “he did not want to lead a second rate life”. I find that very sad. Yes, his life completely changed and he could not live it the way he had foreseen it. Neither was his family prepared for such an event. Who could have been?

After careful consideration, he probably felt it better to remove himself from this world. Was he depressed? I am unable to answer that, but surely, after such a devastating injury, there must have been some depression. If he was depressed, was he treated? Can we say that he was completely of sound mind? He was so young. It’s such a shame that he could not see a future. With the way medical technology is advancing, who knows what could have been done to get this young man to a little more independence.

I know that others will feel differently, especially his own family. But this young man could have been a role model for those who are battling disabilities. Look at Christopher Reeves after his riding injury. I know of others who refuse to give up just because they are disabled. Their families are fully supportive, sacrificing their own lives to care for these individuals. I know some who were injured as teenagers and still went on to finish school and get a job. I know some who were born with severe disabilities and still led useful lives. Their view of life is not for gratification but of a chance to make a difference. And even as they struggled, they kept a cheerful outlook.

Others will argue the other side. What about the cost of keeping this man alive? His family would have to sacrifice their time, the government would have to pick up the cost of his health care. It goes on and on. There is no satisfactory answer to all of this, but suicide should not be an answer. Sooner or later, we all have to face death, but it should not be at our own hands. Death will come – why can’t it be naturally?

A couple of doctors are urging other doctors in the UK to discuss family planning with their patients. Sounds reasonable. But when you get down into the arguments for this family planning, it becomes farcical, illogical and ultimately, unsustainable.

The reasons quoted for this “new” idea of birth control is the increased carbon gas emissions due to the rise in population. Strangely enough, they quote that a “birth in the UK produces 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions than one in Ethiopia”. They suggest that couples should consider having, at most, 2 children in order to slow down the population rate. They do not advocate a mandate (as they seem to do in China) but they do advise that couples should be educated on the impact that having larger families will have on the overall economy.

The arguments sound good and a reasonable person would sit back and think to themselves, “That makes a lot of sense.” That person may also think, “I’ve been saying the same thing for years.” Yeah, sure. That’s what I say.

Being inundated with “Be Green” signs and advice in all aspects of our lives, I find this piece of advice to be over the top. Actually, I found it quite funny, along with many others. Not that I disagree with birth control. In fact, I’m already living the advice of these two doctors. We only have two daughters and are unlikely to have more.

But let’s look at the arguments. I am not a scientist and have no clue about how they went about measuring greenhouse gas emissions, so I will just take their figures for granted. Yet, can they explain how and why a birth in the UK produces 160 times more gas than one in Ethiopia? Is it due to the fact that the UK is more industrialized? Is it due to what is involved in giving birth in the UK? Perhaps, couples should consider going to Ethiopia and giving birth, then bringing the child home. Or, maybe, couples should adopt a child from Ethiopia rather than having one of their own. Or does the gas emission from one birth refer to the child’s lifetime gas production? In which case, if a couple adopts a child in Ethiopia, they should leave the child there.

It is the world’s entire population that is contributing to the greenhouse effect, not just Britain. I realise that these doctors are only trying to make an impact in their own country. But the major population growth in the UK, currently, is not the White British population. That is because most White British couples already think about controlling the population growth in addition to other factors, such as economics. The major growth has been and is still amongst ethnic minorities, most from Third World countries. It is difficult to educate these people due to language, cultural and social barriers. At the rate things are going and if we advocate birth control and if the White Brits are the only ones listening, Great Britain will become the new America, with the native Brit being a minority in his own country.