Saturday, 28 March 2009

Saturday 28/11/09

Not having had any life insurance for over 5 years, the subject is not really something that has concerned me all that much. However, with building a house and the responsibility that confers, of late I’ve once more been pondering the consequences. Smokers understandably pay through the nose for life insurance – as I did when I last had some. However, I wonder what the situation is for people who vape or use nicotine inhalers. The test that is performed for life insurance is a blood test, which identifies nicotine, which before the introduction of e-cigarettes and replacement therapies was a key indicator of whether someone smoked and hence was at risk of smoking related disease. However inhaling nicotine through vaping or the use of inhalers is not in itself dangerous and is not carcinogenic, therefore one must assume that the life insurance companies will have to bring in new tests to identify smokers.

Scientists have by all accounts perfected a model whereby they can calculate whether a relationship will succeed. It’s based on tracking some 700 couples over 12 years and is touted as being 94% accurate.

Hay and I were discussing the findings and came to the conclusion that we’re perfectly matched. Our relationship is typified by lots and lots of humour, a deep mutual respect and unquestioning trust in each other. There is not a single no-go area for conversation – as anyone who has followed this blog for a while will probably have guessed. We both fully involve the other in every aspect of our lives.

I can truly say that in the 3 years we have been together we have not exchanged a single cross word (although I did go into a man-sulk once). Another indicator of compatibility is that we’re both passionate about the same things – except for desserts, and chocolate, and scotch, and shoes, and keeping clean, and keeping healthy, and …… All joking aside, neither of us feels superior or inferior to the other – we are true equals.

I suppose we complement each other such that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and we both support each other in all our endeavours. That said, we both remain complete individuals in ourselves and don’t feel at all incomplete without the other.

It’s a few days from April and 3 months since the Oldborough Retreat was meant to have been won. Still the Gambling Commission is sitting on its fat arse and not making a decision on the very issue it was set up to make decisions on. Bastards – I don’t know how they can draw a salary and sleep.

Here’s an amusing story I heard this week and mentioned in the comments section of another blog. A chap who was suffering from severe Déjà vu (and had done most of his life) was advised by his doctor to see a specialist, but he kept refusing as he was convinced he’d already seen one. It’s apparently a true story.

The Texas Board of Education (mentioned yesterday) eventually voted through loopholes for creationist teaching. An amendment calls for students to analyse and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell, phrasing that rings of the intelligent design irreducible complexity argument. Another amendment requires students to analyse and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data on sudden appearance and stasis and the sequential groups in the fossil record. These issues are commonly held up by creationists as arguments against evolution, even though the scientific community disagrees. An amendment to the Earth and space sciences curriculum requires the teaching of different theories of the origin, age and history of the universe. The board voted to remove from the standards the statement that the universe is roughly 14 billion years old. Anti-evolutionist Don McLeroy, a dentist and the chair of the Texas State Board of Education, said: "I disagree with these experts. Someone has got to stand up to experts." The man’s clearly certifiable and those words just prove it. I wouldn’t like to use him as my dentist – he’s probably self taught and read how to do dentistry in the bible.


  1. Ok, I am a Christian, but I believe in evolution. I just have a hard time believing God just put Adam and Eve in a garden to begin all human life. The Old Testament to me is more like a guide book of morality. A little bit of history and more "life lessons" type stories. Just my two pence.

  2. Kat - but hopefully you are at least a Protestant Christian and thus in with a chance of getting into the queue for our throne - albeit a very slim one.

  3. A biblical dentist - don't that beat all? Anti-evolutionists strike me as being away with the fairies, and the words ostrich, head, sand come to mind...

  4. Jinksy: We should perhaps stop using the expression creationists and call them evolution denialists. The word 'denialist' has recently become loaded with connotations.

  5. The Deja Vu story - from The New Scientist 28th March 2009 edition, and yes it is true - makes for fascinating reading if you can understand it, which I can a bit but it took me three goes.

    As regards that relationship model - I don't see why a mathematical formula shouldn't predict the success or not of a relationship, math is used to predict & explain everything else. Pity I don't do it - the math, that is.

    However, I wouldn't agree that never arguing is always a sign of a strong and healthy relationship. My partner never argued with his EX wife. We have some rip-roaring humdingers including on occasions throwing of whatever comes within grasp, but we always kiss & make up and haven't killed each other - yet.

  6. RE: your comment on my blog - I had my astrological chart done when I was younger - my moon was in Aries when I was born - sun in Cancer. So you have a point in that one of my major and influencing planets was in Aries. If you believe all that stuff, which I'm not sure - maybe they will one day find a scientific explanation for the influence of the planets on your physical body, or maybe they will prove it to be a load of bunkum:)

  7. Ah, humour. A relationship without humour is like an egg without salt. And you can't have humour if you don't have trust and respect. You stick with Hay !
    I like the term Evolution Denialists but just don't get me started on the subject - yesterday I had a row in the metro with someone who told me I was going to hell because I was reading a book by Dawkins ! Stupid French git !

  8. HtD'sM: Oh, don't get me wrong - we argue, but argument is the intellectial exchange of ideas and not the automatic gainsay of what the other person says. What counts in the manner in which you argue.

    Kapgaf: Dawkins can get a tad strident, don't you think?

  9. Can't say what I think this morning. Just wanted to let you know I'm still around and trying to catch up with the blogs.

  10. Lake: Do you mean in relation to the Texas Texas State Board of Education?

  11. So far I'm finding it easy reading and not at all strident but I've only read about 100 pages (The God Delusion). Not sure that there'll be matter for the bloody argument that you'd like me to want but I'll keep you posted.

  12. You just wouldn't let it lie, would you, TC?!

    Bytheway, my son has just made me switch off the lights and unplug my pc for an hour for World Earth Day - Was that in the New Scientist, Sir, is he having me on?

    Glad to hear you and Hay are more than compatible - Apart from the chocolate cravings! Have a fine weekend, both.

  13. As a Texan I'm proud that our state has stepped up to inform students not just of the Theories of Evolution but also to expose them of a Creationist Teaching. What is everyone so afraid of.
    I believe the Biblical account of creation.

    Thanks for your interest in our state.

    Just stopping by to say hello.
    God Bless Texas!

  14. Joy: Clearly people in Texas have not evolved.