A Cat Shaped Hole

Emma, my cat, died on Tuesday. This wasn't entirely unexpected as she was very old and had been ill for a while with renal failure. She was diagnosed with this 18 months ago and had responded well to treatment but it doesn't cure the condition, only relieves the symptoms for a while. She became noticeably more ill at the weekend and woke me up scrabbling at the door on Tuesday morning. At first I thought she was trying to get into the bedroom but I found her having some kind of fit on the floor. We took her to the vets in the morning and decided that the kindest thing to do was to put her to sleep.

In the last couple of weeks I had come across a website Tanya's guide to Chronic Renal Failure in Cats  (In fact Tanya is the cat - the lady that runs the site is called Helen). It was very helpful and contained lots of useful information regarding Emma's condition. At least, it gave me some sort of idea of what to expect and let me know that we were doing the right thing. I wish I had found this earlier. It's one of the great things with the internet that someone can put together a resource like this that covers one very specific subject in great detail. It also provides the information from the perspective of someone like myself, a cat owner, rather than the viewpoint a veterinarian or research student.

I'm not entirely sure how old Emma was. I'd had her since 1993 but she wasn't a kitten then, so I am guessing that she was at least 19 years old. It's one of the inevitable things with companion animals that they age more quickly than us. The comedian Julian Clary picked up on this when he was on the celebrity bugbear chat show, Room 101. He was very attached to his pet dog, Fanny the Wonder Dog, who featured in his original stand-up show and found it very hard to cope with her aging. I can sympathise with this and it is very distressing to see a pet going from being a lively young animal to an old age pensioner within a few years.

I now have no cats in the house - really for the first time in about 30 years. It's quite odd as I still think she is floating about somewhere. It's almost as if I am being haunted: not by a presence, but by an absence. The cat flap doesn't periodically click open, there are no mysterious thumpings in the middle of the night as she jumps onto furniture, I keep think she is sitting on top of the TV until I look properly - I suppose it's some sort of pareidolia. Most odd is that I can now sit and type at a computer without a feline presence jumping on my knee and pressing buttons. She used to do the same when I was at a piano keyboard. I never really found out what the attraction was but she would occasionally send out nonsensical emails to people.

I'm not planning on getting another cat any time soon. We are planning on moving house shortly and I don't think cats are particularly ideal pets to have with small children in the home. I never had a problem with our kids other than with them rubbing Emma's fur up the wrong way, but it is only a matter of time before a cat will end up dressed in doll's clothes or have an impromptu bath. However, the experience of not having a cat around will take some getting used to. At the moment, I just feel that I have a cat shaped hole in my life.

Blind Faith

I finally got round to finishing Ben Elton's Blind Faith this week. I've read a few of Ben Elton's books. Many of them are futuristic dystopian satires which appeal to me as a more accessible version of Anthony Burgess or Aldous Huxley. I actually asked him, at a book signing, whether these writers had been an influence on him but he said that he didn't care much for science fiction and that P G Wodehouse was his biggest literary influence. This actually makes some sense, although I think that Blind Faith has more in common with Huxley's Brave New World or Orwell's 1984 than the world of Bertie Wooster.

Blind Faith takes place in a society in which science has been rejected in place of all manner of mumbo-jumbo. There is the "Faith" - not a religion, as such, so much as a combination of New Age bollocks, internet pseudo-science and wanton consumerism. Add to this a society in which privacy is frowned upon and nosey parker neighbours are the new Big Brother. Ben Elton always seems to be on the spot reflecting the cultural Zeitgeist and picking up on social trends and this is evident here what with the rise of Facebook and overly personal blogs and Twitter feeds (I suppose this blog fits in there somewhere). This habit of being on the ball topically also rather dates some of his older material. However, in Blind Faith he really throws everything including the kitchen sink into the mix and actually dilutes one of the more interesting central themes from the story.

This futuristic society, which has rejected science, has also rejected one of it's greatest achievements: vaccination. This is the most interesting aspect of the book; imagining the effect on society that rampant preventable disease would have both on the death rate and birth rate; social expectations are altered and life becomes cheap. Would this be the inevitable conclusion if the rantings of the anti-vaccination movement were to become mainstream? I'm not sure and, ultimately, Ben Elton doesn't explore this in any great depth. It's a pity, because it could be the making of one of the great dystopian novels.

Overall, I enjoyed Blind Faith. It's more airport lounge fodder than high literature but he has an engaging and entertaining way of telling a story. However, I don't think it's Ben Elton's best story by a long shot and it lacks the biting wit of his usual work whilst missing the chance of exploring the one of the more important current topical subjects.

Not A Practising Jedi

I received the census forms this week (delivered by hand, no less). I know some people get hot under the collar about this and I think it is evident of the increasing mistrust that many people have for "they", the faceless ones that run the country, that some people are actively boycotting the whole process. I would sympathise with them to a point were it not for the wealth of data for future academics and amateur genealogists that the census generates. It is now possible to access census records from 1911 and see what my grandparents (and great-grandparents for that matter) were up to. It's mostly mundane stuff but the occasional question does give some insight into how people view themselves even if it does create consternation for some.

There are a couple of questions where even I can see that a "Prefer Not To Say" option would be perfectly acceptable. The first of these relates to ethnicity. The problem with this is that it is a case of self-identification rather than an objective categorisation. Of course it can't be objective, as ethnicity is by definition subjective - it is ultimately down to someone else's prejudice. However, they do not phrase the question as "What do others view your ethnic group as?" This is a little odd as the multiple choice answers clearly give the impression of the sort of answers they are looking for.

I'm assuming that I will be regarded as white, but am I regarded as "Scottish", "Other British", "Irish", "Gypsy", "Polish" or "Other". I think the Polish question is aimed at recent arrivals but they are unlikely to find their answers in the Falkirk area which has a long established Polish community (it even has a Polish Ex Servicemen's Club). I would imagine I would tick "Other British" as it encompasses my Welsh, English and Irish relatives as well as the Scottish but ultimately what I am identified as would come down to whether you ask someone from England or Scotland. That's not about ethnicity, it's about accent. Maybe that's why I get ethnically abused for using Scottish notes in England? There are also others for who the "Prefer not to say" option might be applicable. My mother-in-law is rather put out by this ethnicity question on the census. She is from Germany and it was during a census in the 1930s that it was clear that the questions had an ulterior motive. Her grandfather traced their family tree and it was evident that there were some directions that it was advisable not to probe too far. In fact many countries ban questions relating to race and ethnicity altogether. I suppose the best we could do is to tick the "Other" box and enter: Homo Sapiens.

The other question which people seem to get into a flap about is belief. In fact, this is a voluntary response but they seem to have messed up the question from the previous census. They simply ask "What religion, religious denomination or body do you belong to?" On the 2001 census this was phrased in terms of two questions as to whether one was brought up in a particular tradition and whether they practised a religion now. This formation gave some useful indication as to whether a faith was still followed or whether it was merely something that someone puts down on a hospital entry slip. For example, my brother-in-law describes himself as ATHEIST (Catholic); which just goes to prove Dara o'Briain's point about it being the stickiest religion in the world. He suggested marking on the census form: "Don't believe in God, but I do still hate Rangers."

The problem with the question as drafted is that many people will still tick "Church of Scotland" or "Roman Catholic" simply because they happened to be christened or married in that church, regardless of whether they have any sort of affiliation with that faith or even believe any of their central tenets. It also excludes those who may have a strong philosophical or spiritual belief which is not reflected in some sort of organised religion. During the 2001 census many people marked this question as "Jedi Knight", which is the made-up religion of the Star Wars universe (as opposed to any of the made-up religions of our universe). I don't know if many people are going put Jedi for this census. Essentially, practical jokes are only funny the first time.

A possible alternative for a joke answer could be Pastafarian: a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster deity. This was originally a spoof designed by an American academic who was a bit put out at religious people trying to teach some kind of Creationism in school biology lessons. I think he was making a serious point but I the whole Spaghetti Monster spoof has a certain amount of fun about it. I could imagine that Terry Gilliam, the animator for Monty Python, could make a great little sketch out of it. In fact, he often used spoofs of Judeo-Christian art in his animations so this would fit in nicely.

I think I will probably just tick the "none" box on the religion question. It doesn't really reflect my interest in religious or philosophical matters just as those who tick Church of Scotland or Catholic may have no interest at all in their "chosen" faith. For the ethnicity question, I'm going to stick everyone down differently. That should confuse them when they try to work out what on Earth went on in this family.

Organic Water

I came to the conclusion that all advertising is bollocks many years ago. However, I have to admit that some firms can really take things to extremes at times. A case in point was brought to my attention by my brother when he visited a couple of weeks ago. This is the mysterious case of the bottled "organic" water.

Now, I must point out that my brother is a polymer physicist which is one of those weird disciplines where one area of expertise meets another. In this case it is where organic chemistry meets materials science. A polymer physicist is, essentially, a metallurgist for plastics. This means that, in defending his corner, he is rather keen that his discipline is taken seriously and it also means he gets rather annoyed at the incorrect use of the words like "organic", "natural" and "chemicals" by advertisers. In chemical terms, "organic" means that the substance in question contains carbon, more specifically in the form of the carbon chains that are found in organic substances. Water, at least pure water, is not organic as it consists of two hydrogen atoms joined to one oxygen atom - see, no carbon. In fact, as my brother pointed out, the only "organic" element was the plastic bottle the water came in. Of course the marketing men would have it that this means it is "natural" and isn't "full of chemicals". So what do they think water is made of? Exotic sub-atomic particles?

In the world of advertising, "organic" means something else. As far as I can tell, it actually means "costs double". However, for advertising execs, it means "natural", "healthy", "environmental" and lots of other nice things which aren't really backed up by any real science. However, "organic water" is a real achievement in advertising bollocks. What really amused my brother is that the big selling point is that the water came from the pure, fresh water of the Ochil Hills, near to were I live. These are very picturesque as you can see:

In fact, the thing that looks like the set of Bladerunner is Grangemouth Refinery which is just upwind to the hills. Also around the same point is the Longannet Power Station, once named in Europe's top 30 most polluting power stations. Now, whilst the operators of these plants have done much to reduce their environmental impact it's a fair bet that some of the hydrocarbons they produce are washed out on the Ochils. So, maybe the water does contain organic chemicals after all?

I suppose what most people are concerned about is whether the water is safe to drink. Well, essentially, I get the same stuff out of the taps for free and knowing where it's come from has never bothered me. Any residue from organic chemicals, whether from farming or pollution washed out of the sky, is minuscule. At the end of the day it is just water. Any difference between this water and any other water in the whole universe is down to actual contaminants - such as those from a hard water area. However, I think that presenting common or garden fresh drinking water as being some sort of mystical elixir is pushing the marketing spin a tad too far.