Jenny1

Definite swift sighting. Five wheeling low over Mr Liu Chinese Restaurant! I guess the cloud cover brings them down. They ARE back. Will set the official 'return of swifts to ED 2017' date as May 6th - unless anyone can report an earlier sighting.

Think I just heard a swift. Did I dream it, or are they back?

I've had this on and off for twenty years. My GP has too - ironically enough. In the first instance take rest and treat it like flu. There's almost certainly a viral cause for most people. Some people benefit from the retraining of the vestibular system - your GP can give you exercises. If you only experience dizziness when you turn in one direction there's a manoeuvre that some GPs can do on your neck that helps (but not all GPs are trained in this). Some people get benefit from cranio-sacral osteopathy (I've certainly been cured of individual outbreaks by this - though it doesn't stop it recurring). It's worth trying a good vitamin b complex tablet as sometimes this helps me.

???? Wrote: the insult/anti-illectual thing was/is to do with > the abstract intellectualism of philosophy I think > - we've always been fine with the more pragmatic > academic subjects I'd disagree with that actually ????. If you think back to the eighteenth, nineteenth and even early twentieth centuries most of the British innovators in the fields of engineering and medicine had to go to Germany, or sometimes France, to get an education. We were obsessed with the supremacy of 'The Classics' in higher education for a long time, to the detriment of science and technology. Scotland was ahead of England in that regard. As to Wales and the Tories. Shocking.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > As Frederic Raphael (I think) once said, England > is the only country where being called clever (as > in "too clever by half") is an insult. I wonder where this prejudice comes from? I bet it's a relatively 'modern' thing - nineteenth century maybe? Does it go with the birth of schools for the elite that focused on creating 'empire builders' on the sports field rather than scientists ?

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you hear > quite a lot of sneaking regard for what the French > see as Anglo-Saxon 'get up and go', in contrast to > French stasis. But so far Macron seems to have successfully combined the 'get up and go' with the intellectualism. A good combo, surely. And many French people think, > rightly or wrongly, that the paternalistic and > technocratic experts of the postwar French elite > have got them into the mess they're in. I'm sure that's right. But I think Macron's combination of the pragmatic and the intellectual might put him into a new bracket which will distance him from these concerns. Of course lots of French people will be resistant to his ideas - but I suspect more will support him.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > France respect intellectuals in general. Here it's > almost seen as a mark of shame now to know what > you're talking about. Cross posted. Absolutely. And I envy France this.

...aside from the obvious political difference of course.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree, it's another form of 'populism', just not > the far right-wing/nationalistic type that was > forecast. In some ways agreed. But I think the differences between Trump/Brexit and Macron are more striking than the similarities. Both have an 'expect the unexpected' quality for sure - but Trump/Brexit is almost defined by being 'anti-expert', whereas Macron is the archetypal intellectual.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > May has the opposite tack: profess religion but > don't evidence it in any appreciable political > sense. But you see I think she does 'evidence' it - in a very concerning (if not at all 'moral') way. As I said before I grew up attending a C of E church. I now see the Church (like most things) as having good and not so good aspects to it. Some of the most admirable people I know are active Christians (of various different denominations) who put their moral values into practise. They help out where they see need, make a positive difference to the communities they live in and are open to the views and experiences of others. Of course I also know practising Muslims and Hindus who achieve precisely that as well. But - as I said before - there's a reason why the Church of England has often been called 'The Tory Party at prayer'. As a child I also saw the much less attractive establishment, feudal side of it. Special pews were still reserved, even in the 1970s, for the grandees of the community. There was an understanding that you would be accepted if you followed the rules, didn't question anything and 'fitted in' - which usually meant 'knowing your place' socially. That's the side of the C of E I'm reminded of when Mrs May invokes it. The side that says 'it's not up to you to have any ideas of your own - simply to follow blindly the man (or in this case woman) who's in charge'. 'Pack your poor little brain away and relax in the knowledge that I'm 'all knowing' and can be left to make all the decisions'. That's what I mean when I say I believe Mrs May has delusions of being the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury - but with an added political edge of course. In one breath she invokes the Church of England - in the next she says anyone who opposes her must be weeded out - in fact that that very dissent is in itself a 'bad' thing ('heresy' in fact). She's using established religion as a powerful tool in her authoritarian political armoury. That's dangerous.

It's good to know there's support for people out there. On a personal note do try cutting out sugar completely Karen S. It reduced my pains greatly. One theory is that some people experience pain because the body has ceased to be able to properly process refined sugars. There is, of course, no 'one size fits all'.

I don't share your concerns Otta. I think his words and actions make it clear he's a proper social and cultural liberal - good enough for me. The inner workings of people's souls should remain their own business.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He is anti faith school, and has > called for disestablishment of the church. > > He is much more of a secularist than Theresa May, > who is actually giving faith schools MORE freedom > to discriminate based on faith. Agreed. Theresa May's use of 'religion' in politics concerns me much more than Tim Farron's private Christianity. She needs to follow his example and keep the two things separate. I don't think anyone's faith is anyone else's business - until the person professing religious belief chooses to make it so. So since Mrs M has brought her own Christianity up I feel free to comment on it. I was brought up in the C of E myself and it strikes me that she represents the unattractive side of the Church. Remember when it was called 'The Tory Party at prayer'? She's part of that inherently establishment, feudal part of the C of E tradition. She does not, I'm afraid, show the natural compassion and open mindedness that I admire in my sincere Christian friends. I'm very happy to vote for a Lib Dem party led by someone who tries to 'live' by ethical values rather than make speeches that suggests he has delusions of being the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I'd heard that 'Signor Pomodoro' is an Italian nickname for someone who inveigles their way into everything.

Helpfully my wartime edition of 'farmhouse fare' states that two tablespoons of vinegar and a teaspoon of bicarb should be used to replace every 2 eggs required in a cake recipe.

I don't think she's particularly interested in achieving anything, just consolidating her 'brand'.

That article seems to sum up a large part of the problem, IlonaM.

What a fine business card that would be! On Gorsuch. While he's clearly conservative he's got professional respect that means many Democrats wouldn't normally oppose him. The sticking point is that the Republican dominated Congress actively blocked Obama from filling the Supreme Court seat during his final year in office, even though it was vacant.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who else can save us > from this madness? Good point. Though I think Farron speaks well when he gets the chance, and Nicola Sturgeon is exceptionally sharp - though of course limited in her potential impact. > > For all his > faults over the Iraq war, he was actually a pretty > good PM up to that point. Couldn't agree more. That was part of the tragedy. He was very good in many ways.

Ha Ha. V good. Maybe a hybrid of the two?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > seems to muddle democracy with autocracy. Yep. That's the scary thing.

...I've just thought of someone else Trump reminds me of. Chairman Mao. It's that endless anger thing he's got going on. ...edited to add ....and that unshakeable belief in himself as the sole fount of all wisdom. That's very Mao.

I think Tony Blair is absolutely right on this. But the sad thing is that he's unlikely to advance the cause of those who, like me, agree with him on this matter. He's now so associated with the incredibly damaging idiocy of the Iraq War that that taints any opinion he offers on anything.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > after today's rant he allowed CNN and BBC > (and he abused them a bit). ...well done Jon Sopel* Edited to add....*That's the kind of thing that makes me proud to be British.

Hi intexas. On Gorsuch I think Trump just meant that Democrats may oppose his appointment, and Republicans may then change the rules of that appointment to get Gorsuch into the job anyway. Trump has encouraged them do this, the so-called 'nuclear option'. There's a NYT article about that here. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate-hearing.html?_r=0