It is done. Hooray! 53,625 words at final count. I think I know what the title will be. I’ll think about it this evening and finalise it later.

What time is it now? Time to dance.

I didn’t win anything in a recent writing competition, nor was I ‘highly commended’ or even ‘commended’, but I did at least make the ’shortlist’. I think they capped it at 100 entries, so making the top 25 isn’t too bad. I particularly like the third place entry.

Not much left in NaNoWriMo: the penultimate scene brought me to 49,650 words exactly. I was in Walsall this morning, but got back in time to write a fair chunk this afternoon, finishing off after the theatre this evening. Tomorrow is all about the ending, as well as a title! I wanted to call it Nutcrackers and Fireflies when I started, but that turned out to have nothing to do with anything, so perhaps not. Given that I have a fair idea what’s going to happen in the finale, the title might cause me the most problems tomorrow.

Incidentally, Song of the Day is ‘Whistle for the Choir‘ by The Fratellis. I like it a lot.

I saw the local operatic society’s performance of West Side Story this evening. I’d never seen it on stage or film, and was looking forward to it after booking tickets yesterday. A couple of friends came over despite it being late notice and midweek, and they seemed to enjoy it as much as I did. I knew very little about the plot other than it being based upon Romeo and Juliet, and I far preferred this version of the tale to the real thing a few months ago. The actors all seemed to be having a ball, and certainly made use of the Courtyard Theatre’s many entrances and exits. The dancing and choreography were great to watch, and the lead singer in particular was excellent. I knew about half of the songs already, although had somehow managed to miss that they were part of a musical, and liked all of them. Great fun. I’ll have to watch the film version and see how it compares.

You know what’d be useful? A bridge!

I had an odd experience yesterday. While driving from Stratford to Solihull I joined a long queue of traffic on a 50mph section between built-up areas. We edged forward, and it became apparent that there was something blocking one side of the road. It was rush hour, and traffic in my direction was having to wait for kind opposing souls to leave them a gap to swerve around. As I got closer I could see a bunch of stuff that looked like it had fallen off the back of a truck: bits of wood, crates, netting etc..

I thought this was a bit silly, so pulled over and started dragging it all onto the thankfully-wide pavement. I heard a couple of other car doors open as if people were coming to help, when a guy appeared and told me that the police were on their way and I should leave it for them to see. By this time the queue was stretching well into the distance. I tried to clear a little more and he again told me to stop, because he’d called the police, and waved other people away. At the time I assumed he must know something about the protocol, so got back into my car and drove off. But within a couple of minutes I’d decided that was dumb. It’s not like it was a crime scene - there was no accident - and surely the police would only have cleared it themselves? It’s bizarre that somebody actively stepped in to stop us clearing the road. Why would you do that?

Some guy has managed to get onto BBC News with the standard evangelical gambit of ‘teach the controversy‘:

He says the GCSE syllabus requires children to appreciate how science works and understand the nature of scientific controversy.

“The government wants children to be exposed to scientific debate at the age of 14 or 15.

“All the Truth in Science stuff does is put forward stuff that says here’s a controversy. This is exactly the kind of thing that young people should be exposed to,” Mr Cowan added.

You can’t just make up scientific controversy. If I flooded schools with leaflets saying the Earth was flat, and as evidence quoted misunderstandings of round-earth-theory, this wouldn’t constitute a scientific controversy. What would? Hard to say, but if scientific literature was full of discussion of the topic that’d be a start. But, it’s not. Global warming is a good example of scientific controversy, but Intelligent Design is as scientifically controversial as Bigfoot. The article sums it up with:

Advocates of intelligent design say there are things that cannot be explained by evolution and so argue for the existence of a supernatural intelligence behind the creation of the universe.

Which is accurate, but not very informative. Intelligent Design does do this, but doesn’t actually provide any reason to go from one to the other. The approach is “evolution is wrong, therefore god”, which doesn’t follow logically. And, of course, the arguments against evolution don’t hold water.

He told the BBC: “Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow.

“There’s a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case.

“We might has well have said Einstein shouldn’t have said what he did because it criticised Newton.”

Talk about missing the point. Einstein didn’t criticise Newton, he put forward a theory that refined Newton’s work and, crucially, made predictions that could be used to test the veracity of the claims. The predictions were tested, and found to be true. Intelligent Design makes no predictions and provides no evidence for an alternative to evolution. It’s completely useless.

Mr Cowan is identified in the article as an ex chemistry teacher. There’s no mention of his being a young-earth creationist who thinks the reason there’s no evidence of dinosaurs and humans living simultaneously is that “they didn’t live near each other”.

Happily, it looks like the government isn’t paying any attention to this kind of nonsense, at least for the general curriculum. It’s possible they’re turning a blind eye elsewhere, as evidenced by Tony Blair’s odd recent comments (via TLH).

I was out for a walk on Thursday afternoon, and as I approached the town centre I heard a choir. I love listening to street carol singers around Christmas, and headed towards the noise, only to find it was the town’s Christmas lights switching-on ceremony (there must be a better way to write that). A children’s choir and orchestra sat in front of the town hall, and a large crowd had gathered to watch.

I hurried home to grab my camera, and arrived back just as the songs ended and the speeches began.

It was not, you could say, the best ceremony ever. At least one street’s lights were on already, the vicar’s prayer was greeted by indifferent hubbub, and the town hall display, proudly switched on by its schoolchild designer, sadly failed to work. Most of the main lights flickered to life a minute before the switch was officially thrown, too. Still, they made an attempt, and the choir and orchestra were great. Santa arrived a few minutes later, in a unique sleigh:

He briefly said hello, then walked across town to his grotto in the pedestrianised area, followed by many families. There was an enormous queue when I walked past it later. I always like wandering around in the dark with the Christmas lights, so did so for a while. They seem to have put in a lot of effort this year, although sadly there’s nothing by the river as yet.

There are rumours of an outdoor ice rink, which would be great, but I can’t find any details yet. I don’t know what it is about outdoor ice rinks, but they appeal to me greatly.

I was quite pleased with the pictures. Even my f1.8 lens couldn’t cope without a flash, though, resulting in one turning out all Sean of the Dead:

That’s just scary.

I went to my dance teachers’ monthly ball last night, and left utterly exhausted. It was my own fault.

I’ve been trying to keep exercising since leaving home, but as the pace of dancing has increased it’s become apparent that I need to work harder. Daily ~2 mile walks are ok at keeping me at a passable level, but I’ve found myself struggling in the longer dance routines. I can keep going for a fair while, but I seem to start sweating much earlier than anybody else. I didn’t realise until somebody made a comment a few months ago, and promptly started feeling terribly self-conscious. I’d be literally dripping after a couple of the faster jives, and felt embarrassed, bad for Lynsey, and more than a little gross. Lighter clothes helped a little, but not enough.

I figured that getting fitter might help, so picked up a cheapo cross-trainer from eBay. I squeezed it into my bedroom (there wasn’t much room in there before) and tried to do twenty minutes before breakfast. I managed this for a fair while, and it helped, but not in the way I’d expected. I didn’t actually sweat less, but instead of sitting out a dance and getting hotter and hotter for ages, I’d cool off and recover within a couple of minutes. It wasn’t ideal, but a trawl around the Internet suggests little else - some people are just susceptible, apparently - and I felt like I was doing as much as I could.

And then the cross-trainer broke. The rotation became lurchy and it started making grinding noises. I took it as an excuse to take a couple of days off (it’s not like I enjoy exercise at the best of times), and then NaNoWriMo started and, to be honest, I put it at the bottom of my priorities. I eventually got around to taking it apart and there seems to be a problem with the belt sticking to the wheel, but I can’t tell much without somebody actually riding the bike while I watch the mechanism. November has meanwhile been very busy in entirely non-energetic ways. When out for the day, I’ve returned and spent a couple of hours writing rather than walking, and dancing itself has been relatively easy, too. I didn’t realise how little exercise I’d had.

At one point last night we went through two consecutive Viennese Waltzes (first time I’ve done the VW in public - was fun!), two cha-chas and two normal waltzes. I enjoyed doing it, but was exhausted by the end, and didn’t cool down for ages. I had an excellent evening, but cringe when I think how I must have looked. I honestly don’t know what I’m like to dance with when like that - Lynsey, to her credit, has never said anything - but I feel dreadful about it. Today my chest aches, which I guess is a sign that I pushed myself pretty hard. I wouldn’t want to do any less than that, though.

Thankfully NaNoWriMo’s nearly over, but I really must fix the bike. There’s a Christmas ball in three weeks, and I’m determined to have improved by then. Especially as I’ve set myself the challenge of completing a four-minute Viennese Waltz without stopping…If anybody happens to have any tips, they’d be gratefully received.

I was tagged with the 10 Things I Would Never Do meme this week. It’s a strange little thing, and the temptation is to extol what I see as my virtues. However, there are always hypothetical situations in which I could see myself doing anything (so speaks the secular humanist in me), and I couldn’t come up with much. Maybe that’s taking the whole thing too seriously, but there’s another sense that’s been picked up by some participants: one in which they list things they’re proud of not having done. And that quickly gets snide.

I’d guess the meme was originally inspired by the Daily Telegraph’s aren’t-we-clever impromptu feature in which letter-writers proclaim their pride at having never seen The Sound of Music, for example. A few people mentioned it to me this week. It’s vaguely amusing until you realise that most of the contributors are totally serious, then it’s just sad. Tom Hamilton puts it exactly right:

Again, there is nothing wrong with not doing any of these things. But there’s nothing wrong with doing them, either. And if you’re proud of not doing something, then there’s a strong implication that you think that that failure makes you superior to people who do do those things. It’s not just that you don’t much like the taste of Coca-Cola, or are diabetic, or on balance prefer Dr Pepper, or are an alcoholic: it’s that you have refused, on principle, ever to try Coca-Cola - that you are so closed-minded and so full of hatred for everything you think that Coca-Cola represents that you are not even prepared to give it a chance. Why would you do that?

Quite. Is it the laziest way to feel good about yourself? To see virtue in something which requires just the one negative thought? It’s really, really easy to do. I’ve never got around to reading The Great Gatsby, and everybody tells me how wonderful it is. Well, dammit, who are these people to tell me what to do? I hadn’t thought about it until just now, but my not-having-read-it makes a statement that I won’t be lectured to or told what to think, and I’m arbitrarily proud of that! Hurray - instant self-esteem in a big bottle of Ignorant Smug Juice. I shall tell people.

I’ve never watched I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here because it doesn’t appeal to me, and I sometimes catch myself wanting to tell people this when the show comes up in conversation. Why would I want to do that? To make people feel bad about themselves? So that I can feel superior? Probably the latter, but it’s just an appalling way to think, and I kick myself mentally whenever it happens.

This kind of thinking is easy to pick out, because it can’t be reversed. If you’re proud of never having had a Coca-Cola because of their business practices, what you’re actually proud of is a positive thing: you’ve looked at the situation and logically concluded that you don’t want to support the company. But if you’re proud of never having had a Coca-Cola because you just are, or because it’s (horror) popular, what are you actually saying? What are you adding to anything? Like Tom says, such pride only indicates you’re closed-minded and full of hate. Why define yourself by what you are not, rather than what you are?

Even in my most credulous days, I was never convinced by Bigfoot. Nothing’s changed since I started looking at these things rationally, especially when the son of a prankster produced the foot moulds his late father used to manufacture forty years of hoaxes, reportedly also involving photos, video and audio recordings. The lack of bodies, hair samples, feces, bones, fossil evidence or any kind of clear photograph suggested it was all just wishful thinking.

I am now forced to revise my opinion, on the basis of this new image from the High Sierras of California:

Bigfoot is on the left, the other person is presumably Mrs Henderson. You must see him - the big brown amorphous blob above the car. There’s a vaguely face-like thing, and if you accept that you can infer an arm and torso. The official page also suggests there’s a penis just above the car bonnet.

Aside from the obvious possibility of it just being a tree+pareidolia, the perspective doesn’t work, does it? The car’s sloping upwards, so Bigfoot’s legs must be very short indeed and completely out of proportion with the rest of the body, and accounting for the distance between Bigfoot and the car, the head can’t be much smaller than the rear tyre. He’s also oddly flat against the vertical plane, when you’d think he’d be at an angle. Unless he’s standing in a hole. Or praying. I hear Bigfeet do that. I’m pretty sure no ape/gorilla I’ve ever seen had such a visible penis, either.

We should bear in mind, of course, that:

Bigfoot does not stand and pose, like a cow or squirrel.

Damn attention-seeking squirrels.

Tonight’s Torchwood sent me back to evenings watching The X-Files in my early teens. In hindsight it seems like my parents always picked that night to go out, and every time I’d convince myself that I wouldn’t get scared this time, for I was a grown-up and The X-Files was just a tv show, and then the pre-credit sequence would have me checking over my shoulder and hyperattuned to every creak and groan. Tonight’s pre-credit sequence actually made me nervous, which no film or tv show has managed for a while¹.

I think Torchwood is quite similar to The X-Files. Aside from the obvious similarities in premise, both are/were well made, with interesting characters, decent actors² and a good sense of overriding story, but individual episodes succeed or fail on the strength of their plots. For me it’s been about 50/50 so far, which isn’t a bad ratio for a new show. The dodgy ones have come close, too - the fairy episode was almost quite beautiful at times, and did have a decent finale, but I’m pretty sure the story made no sense at all. I’m glad it’s a twelve-episode series, six wouldn’t have been nearly enough.

Huh, apparently hyperattuned isn’t a word. Don’t care.

1. The Descent probably would have, had I not been watching it while doing the ironing. [↩]
2. I know some people have complained about John Barrowman being a little wooden, but I think he has enough charm to pull it off [↩]

If you could stop ‘nodding’, ‘turning’, ’smiling’, ‘walking’ and ‘looking’, that’d be just great.

I can’t remember where I came across Scepticism Inc., but the Amazon synopsis sounds rather intriguing:

The narrator of this brilliantly original novel was made on November 3, 2022, in an industrial estate on the outskirts of Chelmsford. After three weeks of childhood he is sent to work in ShopAlot, St Pancras, next to the most famous little church in the world. He’s a supermarket trolley with a faith in God.

In the church he meets Edgar Malroy, founder of Scepticism Inc., owner of the Metaphysical Betting Shop, soon to be the richest man in the world. Edgar takes bets on metaphysical propositions and never loses; but Edgar’s Achilles’ heel is his love for Sophia, a ridiculously beautiful woman who thinks she is a messenger from God.

They had me at ’supermarket trolley’. It doesn’t seem to be in print, but there’s a marketplace used copy for a mere 40p…albeit plus £2.75 delivery. Tempting. However, if I go wilfully buying things from my Wishlist at this time of year I risk getting beaten up by my mother.

The BA woman who kicked up a fuss over not being allowed to wear a cross has lost her appeal. Neither side’s arguments are much cop. BA say:

The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy.

I’ve said before that this seems reasonable, not for reasons regarding public displays of faith but just in terms of doing your job properly. But then they say:

The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths.¹

Makes no sense. Why don’t the reasons against wearing jewellery apply to turbans and hijabs? What if she brought in a great hulking cross that wouldn’t fit under her uniform? What if I turned up with a parrot on my shoulder? She doesn’t help herself, though. She says:

It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them

If you’re going to argue, at least do it on the grounds that you can do your job just as efficiently with a visible cross as without. I suspect this wouldn’t actually work, but at least you’d have some sympathy. Her argument, coupled with a refusal to wear the cross under her uniform, is pretty much ‘I should be allowed to evangelise at work’, which is completely unreasonable. If it didn’t affect your job then perhaps politeness would let you get away with it, but since it would - and clearly already is - you can’t.

(Incidentally, how does you wearing a cross say that Jesus loves me²? Does my wearing a Star Trek communicator badge make you think Jean Luc Picard loves you? At best I might assume that you think Jesus loves me, but I’m unlikely to even get that far without some kind of explanation, by which time I’d have missed my flight.)

1. clearly there is discrimination between faiths, it’s just that it’s not with any hostile intent, but that’s me being pedantic over the definition of ‘discrimination’. [↩]
2. and if he loves me, what do I have to worry about anyway? Are you telling me that he’ll send somebody he loves to the pits of hell when it’s within his power not to? Isn’t the cross actually saying ‘Jesus threatens you with eternal torment unless you do what he says’? [↩]

Never mind. The lady was most apologetic and said this interview was far better than the first and I should keep trying. That’s three times I’ve been turned down at that library, though, so I don’t know…I was asked the same questions by the same people, and even if I can improve next time, doesn’t that just demonstrate I’m getting better at interviews? Or is that just how things work? Anyway, bit disappointed, but I wasn’t pinning all my hopes on it. Back to slightly odd web design work and then NaNoWriMo…