Whale Meet
By Garry Cook
It’s not the encounter with a whale that dreams are made of. And it will probably spark a frenzy of abuse in my direction. But I have a confession to make: I ate whale steak and it was bloody great.
Let’s get one thing straight. I have done nothing underhand or illegal. I simply sat in a delightful restaurant on a frosty night in Bergen, Norway, and was served quite frankly, the best thing I have ever eaten.
Whale killing. Never was there a subject designed to rile even the most inactive environmentalist.
There are 11 species of whales – seven of which are categorised as endangered. There is no doubt that whale hunting was responsible for this. But since the 1960s hunting has almost ceased.
Whale’s are an endangered species. Hunting them is frowned upon by almost every single nation on planet earth. Killing them for scientific research is nothing more than a smokescreen, an excuse. Eating whale is abominable, yer murdering bastards. Don’t do it
In my defence I merely state that in Great Britain the biggest complaint about the collapse of society is that the Asian/Muslim/Polish/immigrant communities (delete where appropriate) do not embrace the British/Christian way of life.
I feel that by eating whale meat in Norway, I am simply sampling their way of life. Embracing their culture. Sympathetically bowing to their ways.
Norway is a fabulous country in many ways. Aesthetically it is amazing. Its landscapes and arrowing fjord waterways are stunning. And its infrastructure leads most of the Western world, too. Hospitals, health care, standard of living – all better than we enjoy in Britain.
The only downside is the cost of a good time. Food is a costly but manageable expense for the visitor. Booze, however, is almost prohibitive in its price. A pint of lager will cost GBP6 – and that’s if you find a cheap bar.
However, the price of beer is not Norwegian culture – but fishing is. With mountainous terrain hemmed in by thousands of miles of ragged and jagged coastline, Norway could only ever have developed as a seafaring nation.
Many of its cities and towns were accessible only by sea until recent times. Obviously much of Norway’s food came from the sea – and it still does. That this food should include whale meat is not really surprising.
Norway has resisted persistent calls from the International Whaling Commission to cease its whale hunting. The IWC launched a moratorium in 1982 which Norway still refuses to adhere to. And as something which has been part of its history, can we really complain? Can we Brits, the inhumane foxhunters, criticise them?
I have little time for people who abhor whale hunting simply because they are amazing creatures. So are pigs and lambs in my opinion.
However, I accept the argument that whales are an endangered species. I worry about them, too. But there are a few facts to point out.
There are 180,000 whales (mostly minke) in central and North East Atlantic and 700,000 around Antarctica. The northern mine is ranked as lower risk/near threatened.
The Inuit in Canada, the Japanese, the Faeroese and Iceland – who recently began whale hunting again - are the other whale hunting nations. Japan is the only nation using big hale-catchers.
If every country hunted whales then, yes, we would have a Dodo situation on our hands. However, it is unlikely that Norway, which kills around 630 minke whales a year is going to threaten the species. Norway used to hunt 2,000 minke whales every 12 months. Norway is fishing for whale conscientiously.
In fact, if things stay as status quo, the whale population should steadily increase. And that, after all, is how mankind should fit into his environment, by harvesting what he needs without driving resources to exhaustion. That goes for trees, oil, cows – and whales.
Should conservative whale hunting really be banned? Or are we just victims of mass hysteria? Are the Save the Whale-style campaigns built on fashionable politics and ignorance of the facts?
And when I sit and eat my whale steak, should I really live in fear that someone will find out? And should any travel piece focusing on Norway not mention whale meat just in case they upset the environmentalists or fish-loving activists?
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in Norway, eat whale.
Travel is about experiences. As long as it’s legal and you’re not pushing the boundaries of basic human decency, you should have nothing to be afraid of.
I reiterate once again: eating whale steak in Norway is legal. By all means evaluate your conscience (I couldn’t eat dog in South Korea myself for purely British cultural reasons) but don’t be ashamed to taste the local delicacy. Enjoy
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Great Britain or the United Kingdom or the British Isles.
by Garry Cook
Not content with being the most history-stewed country on planet earth, the collective of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has made a name for itself as the country with too many names.
The Europeans on our doorstep have a tough enough time knowing what to call us. Is it Great Britain, United Kingdom, British Isles or England, Scotland and the other two?
But think of the visiting Americans also, a bit backward at these sort of things at the best of times. How many Yanks have come over to Britain, done the tourist tour and vowed to visit the UK next time? Or visited Scotland and England but insist they have never set foot on the British Isles yet.
It is rather confusing for everyone, even those of us who live on this fine island.
So, here is what we are:
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all governed by the British Government. No passports are needed to travel between these countries. The Republic of Ireland, part of the same land mass as Northern Ireland, is a separate nation.
Great Britain.
Refers to the single island containing England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland. First used in 1603 by King James I (who was also James VI of Scotland).
United Kingdom of Great Britain.
This is the official title of all four countries (including Northern Ireland), created in 1801. It is commonly abbreviated to the United Kingdom or UK.
The British Isles.
This is a general geographical term used to describe all countries and islands which has no real political reference - though some still insist it does not include the Republic of Ireland.
There are other things to note, such as the independence of the Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey) and the Isle of Man. Confusingly, these islands govern themselves but fall under the umbrella of the British Crown. But Jersey and Guernsey is part of the United Kingdom in the European Union, the Isle of Man is not.
The British Crown?
Well, that's a remnant of our Monarchy (The Queen) when they used to run the country and half of the rest of the world as well. It retains its status over a number of countries, though nowadays in a far more acceptable manner. The British Crown still appoints the governor of the Channel Islands and Isle of man (though in reality it is the British Government making this decision).
Hope that's cleared that up.
by Garry Cook
Not content with being the most history-stewed country on planet earth, the collective of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has made a name for itself as the country with too many names.
The Europeans on our doorstep have a tough enough time knowing what to call us. Is it Great Britain, United Kingdom, British Isles or England, Scotland and the other two?
But think of the visiting Americans also, a bit backward at these sort of things at the best of times. How many Yanks have come over to Britain, done the tourist tour and vowed to visit the UK next time? Or visited Scotland and England but insist they have never set foot on the British Isles yet.
It is rather confusing for everyone, even those of us who live on this fine island.
So, here is what we are:
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all governed by the British Government. No passports are needed to travel between these countries. The Republic of Ireland, part of the same land mass as Northern Ireland, is a separate nation.
Great Britain.
Refers to the single island containing England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland. First used in 1603 by King James I (who was also James VI of Scotland).
United Kingdom of Great Britain.
This is the official title of all four countries (including Northern Ireland), created in 1801. It is commonly abbreviated to the United Kingdom or UK.
The British Isles.
This is a general geographical term used to describe all countries and islands which has no real political reference - though some still insist it does not include the Republic of Ireland.
There are other things to note, such as the independence of the Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey) and the Isle of Man. Confusingly, these islands govern themselves but fall under the umbrella of the British Crown. But Jersey and Guernsey is part of the United Kingdom in the European Union, the Isle of Man is not.
The British Crown?
Well, that's a remnant of our Monarchy (The Queen) when they used to run the country and half of the rest of the world as well. It retains its status over a number of countries, though nowadays in a far more acceptable manner. The British Crown still appoints the governor of the Channel Islands and Isle of man (though in reality it is the British Government making this decision).
Hope that's cleared that up.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Web 2.0
by Garry Cook
Need an explanation of Web 2.0? And an examination on its impact? Here we go:
Heard the one about the technophobe who, when asked what he wanted for his birthday, said ‘Web 2.0’. If you don’t know what Web 2.0 is, the joke isn’t funny. It’s not even that funny if you do know what Web 2.0 is.
The point is, Web 2.0 is not something that exists, either in a box, on a disk or in cyberspace.
Web 2.0 is as baffling to those of us with a decent understanding of computers as a mobile phone is to a pensioner. I think it’s time for an explanation.
For what follows, I’m assuming that you know what the internet, the world-wide web and the information super highway is. The fact that you’re reading this says that you do.
Right, now that’s out of the way, the nitty-gritty.
Without knowing it, you are probably part of Web 2.0 now. If you use Wikipedia or have a Myspace account you’re already there. Perhaps you’re a blogger. All these things are the essence of Web 2.0.
Sites like Myspace, YouTube and photographic site flickr are the driving force behind Web 2.0 – where the internet has morphed from a surfing experience to an oven-ready publishable world for everyone.
Web 2.0 has enabled internet inadequates to have an online presence. Don’t know how to design a website - don’t worry, it’s all done for you.
These new web pages, each with a community of millions (if not billions), have been like a second wind for the internet which, up until now, has been primarily a tool to research information and occasionally to earn money (visit a porn site).
Now, powered by broadband’s speed, the internet has reinvented itself as a social network. It’s people joining the party on a massive scale.
Picture Web 2.0 like this: Everyone’ has moved into a brand new apartment block. Each apartments size is identical, but the user can dress it up however they like.
What I’ve noticed about the internet, however, is how it eventually costs us. Take Microsoft, the only real choice for consumer computers. They charge a fortune for their operating system, then keep updating it s you have to pay for it all over again.
Same goes for virus software. Also Microsoft’s email - Outlook Express and Hotmail - was once free but now requires a subscription. More money slipping out of our bank accounts.
With media mogul Rupert Murdoch buying Myspace for USD580million earlier this year, YouTube being bought by Google for USD1.6bn (and the Murdoch agreeing a USD900m deal for advertising with Google), and Yahoo buying flickr’s creator Ludicorp Research and Development in 2005 for an undisclosed fee, you have to worry about the independence of Web 2.0.
After all, the brilliance of Web 2.0 has been how independent revolutionary sites have caught on and spread like wildfire. Without advertising, it has been world of mouth – the consumers – which has made these sites a success.
But with these huge corporations now in charge – and Google now looking all too powerful and making some strange decisions (like publishing entire books online without, apparently, paying the authors) – you have to wonder how our freedom of choice is affected.
As consumers, if our search engines become increasingly exclusive to those sites or shops who pay to be on them, how do we know that the internet is still helping us get the best deal?
As seekers of the truth, can we trust these mega-corporations not to feed us their own biased take on events and politics. Or will these sites become as blatantly biased as the British newspapers and television stations which the same company owns?
Yahoo recently supplied the Chinese government information on the identity of one of its people who had dared to criticise their politics. They should not have done. It was grassing at a hideous level. This is both an abuse of power and a worrying indication of the things to come.
Then there were personal details of Google users published online by accident. If information is power, somebody somewhere is getting very strong.
And the danger is not just to our pockets. Socially we could suffer, too.
Sometimes we run out of milk in our house at night. On my walk to the local petrol station I walk past a house where the curtains are always open. Inside, no matter what time of night it is, there is always a women in her thirties sitting on her couch tapping away on a laptop. She’ll be on some chatroom, no doubt
The danger is, while online lives will never become as real as real live (no matter what soundbites your are fed by the media), they could easily take up as much time.
Sad b******s - and I use the term loosely to describe chatroom addicts, text message maniacs and online gamers – who spend every waking moment conducting relationships through brief broken English sentences are not the kind of people I’ve got any respect for whatsoever.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with meeting someone online, or using an internet dating agency, but there are people who are slowly retreating into sub-standard personalities in the real world while developing obsessive attachments to their return key.
Marvel at the internet, enjoy watching 24 hours after it’s been broadcast in America, have a hurrah for Web 2.0, but don’t become a mute human. And keep an eye out. You are being watched from inside your own home.
by Garry Cook
Need an explanation of Web 2.0? And an examination on its impact? Here we go:
Heard the one about the technophobe who, when asked what he wanted for his birthday, said ‘Web 2.0’. If you don’t know what Web 2.0 is, the joke isn’t funny. It’s not even that funny if you do know what Web 2.0 is.
The point is, Web 2.0 is not something that exists, either in a box, on a disk or in cyberspace.
Web 2.0 is as baffling to those of us with a decent understanding of computers as a mobile phone is to a pensioner. I think it’s time for an explanation.
For what follows, I’m assuming that you know what the internet, the world-wide web and the information super highway is. The fact that you’re reading this says that you do.
Right, now that’s out of the way, the nitty-gritty.
Without knowing it, you are probably part of Web 2.0 now. If you use Wikipedia or have a Myspace account you’re already there. Perhaps you’re a blogger. All these things are the essence of Web 2.0.
Sites like Myspace, YouTube and photographic site flickr are the driving force behind Web 2.0 – where the internet has morphed from a surfing experience to an oven-ready publishable world for everyone.
Web 2.0 has enabled internet inadequates to have an online presence. Don’t know how to design a website - don’t worry, it’s all done for you.
These new web pages, each with a community of millions (if not billions), have been like a second wind for the internet which, up until now, has been primarily a tool to research information and occasionally to earn money (visit a porn site).
Now, powered by broadband’s speed, the internet has reinvented itself as a social network. It’s people joining the party on a massive scale.
Picture Web 2.0 like this: Everyone’ has moved into a brand new apartment block. Each apartments size is identical, but the user can dress it up however they like.
What I’ve noticed about the internet, however, is how it eventually costs us. Take Microsoft, the only real choice for consumer computers. They charge a fortune for their operating system, then keep updating it s you have to pay for it all over again.
Same goes for virus software. Also Microsoft’s email - Outlook Express and Hotmail - was once free but now requires a subscription. More money slipping out of our bank accounts.
With media mogul Rupert Murdoch buying Myspace for USD580million earlier this year, YouTube being bought by Google for USD1.6bn (and the Murdoch agreeing a USD900m deal for advertising with Google), and Yahoo buying flickr’s creator Ludicorp Research and Development in 2005 for an undisclosed fee, you have to worry about the independence of Web 2.0.
After all, the brilliance of Web 2.0 has been how independent revolutionary sites have caught on and spread like wildfire. Without advertising, it has been world of mouth – the consumers – which has made these sites a success.
But with these huge corporations now in charge – and Google now looking all too powerful and making some strange decisions (like publishing entire books online without, apparently, paying the authors) – you have to wonder how our freedom of choice is affected.
As consumers, if our search engines become increasingly exclusive to those sites or shops who pay to be on them, how do we know that the internet is still helping us get the best deal?
As seekers of the truth, can we trust these mega-corporations not to feed us their own biased take on events and politics. Or will these sites become as blatantly biased as the British newspapers and television stations which the same company owns?
Yahoo recently supplied the Chinese government information on the identity of one of its people who had dared to criticise their politics. They should not have done. It was grassing at a hideous level. This is both an abuse of power and a worrying indication of the things to come.
Then there were personal details of Google users published online by accident. If information is power, somebody somewhere is getting very strong.
And the danger is not just to our pockets. Socially we could suffer, too.
Sometimes we run out of milk in our house at night. On my walk to the local petrol station I walk past a house where the curtains are always open. Inside, no matter what time of night it is, there is always a women in her thirties sitting on her couch tapping away on a laptop. She’ll be on some chatroom, no doubt
The danger is, while online lives will never become as real as real live (no matter what soundbites your are fed by the media), they could easily take up as much time.
Sad b******s - and I use the term loosely to describe chatroom addicts, text message maniacs and online gamers – who spend every waking moment conducting relationships through brief broken English sentences are not the kind of people I’ve got any respect for whatsoever.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with meeting someone online, or using an internet dating agency, but there are people who are slowly retreating into sub-standard personalities in the real world while developing obsessive attachments to their return key.
Marvel at the internet, enjoy watching 24 hours after it’s been broadcast in America, have a hurrah for Web 2.0, but don’t become a mute human. And keep an eye out. You are being watched from inside your own home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)