An Ode to Custard

A good friend of mine had the excellent fortune to marry an extremely lovely woman.  Unfortunately for the rest of us, she’s from America, so they went out there to get married, and that’s where they’ve stayed, except from occasional visits.  While out in the US, he has occupied himself in raising three wonderful children and developing an accent.  He has however been pining for British foods, including proper British tea, black pudding, decent chocolate (now prohibited in the colonies, and available only in back-room speak-easies run by the mob), and Marmite (there’s no accounting for taste…).  He has also been craving proper custard, and asked me whether I’d ever written an ode to custard, and if not, why not? 

I had to admit, to my great shame, that I had never turned my keyboard to the task of composing a panegyric in praise of this peak of perfectly pleasant pudding peripherals, and promised that I would do so.  Here then is the fruit of my labour (best served in a crumble, with lots of custard), dedicated to Ian Barrs.

Credit must go to Mark Wilson for coming up with a word that rhymes with ‘fluid’.

An Ode to Custard

Why does Birds suddenly appear,

Whenever pudding hastens near?

Greatest garnish, finest sauce!

(Other brands exist of course.)

It tastes like heaven, looks like mustard,

Hail the joy that’s known as custard!

No silly fad, no passing phase,

Is our love of crème anglais.

Brewed up first by ancient druids,

Best of non-Newtonian fluids,

All of human skill was mustered,

To steal the god’s ambrosia, custard.

It’s stormed our minds and won our hearts,

As a filling for our tarts.

It eases stress and makes us mellow,

With its lurid shade of yellow.

Bringing joy when life is bumpy,

Just make sure it’s not too lumpy!

Enjoyed in palaces and yurts,

This, the best of just desserts.

Eat it breakfast, eve and noon,

Drink it down or use a spoon.

Have it cold or have it hot,

Just make sure you have a lot!

Good with pies and cake and crumble,

Unpretentious, ever humble.

Soul’s desire, and fondest wish,

This, our nation’s greatest dish.

So if you’re getting stressed or flustered,

Have a bowl of lovely custard!

The Right to be Wrong 3: The Right to be even Wronger

I confess to being slightly confused about the apparently schizophrenic attitude we seem to have towards the concepts of offense and free speech that we have as a society.  A month ago, we proclaimed Charlie Hebdo in Paris as a beacon of free speech and defiance for publishing cartoons of Mohammed, knowing before they did so that a great many people would find them deeply offensive.  This week, there has been widespread condemnation of a group of football supporters, also in Paris, for racist chanting, to the point where they have been banned from their football club, one has been suspended from work, and they all potentially face criminal prosecution.

Now, I have to be very careful here in case it seems that I am in any way supporting these racists morons, or condoning their behaviour on any level at all.  I am not.  I am also aware that there was an element of physical assault involved in the incident, when they blocked a black man from getting on a train, and then physically pushed him off when he did get on.  This is inexcusable, and I am perfectly happy to see them prosecuted for this.  However, I would like to address what to me seems like a strange double standard, in which we agree that people have the right to be offensive, just as long as it’s not us who’s being offended.

The question is whether the men involved have the right to chant racist things in a public place, or say racist things to someone in the full knowledge that they, and anyone else who might hear them will find it deeply offensive.  We can be shocked that they should do so, in this age of equality and given the comparatively high level of education people in the UK and France receive, but I wonder how, in the light of the reaction to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, we can say that these people deserve to be prosecuted, banned or suspended from their places of work?

It might be said that Charlie Hebdo was a work of satire, and so different from a group of yobs shouting at people in the street (or, in this case in a train station), but if so, it was (in my opinion) poor satire, and what’s to stop these men from claiming that they were being ‘satirical’ or ‘ironic’?  Artistic merit can’t be brought into play, and is in any case highly subjective.

Nor do I see how the fact that one of these twerps is a racist has any bearing on his ability to work in a financial company.  He wasn’t, to my knowledge, representing the business in any way; he wasn’t wearing their uniform or sporting their logo, and wasn’t present in any sort of official capacity, and so there is no implication that his views reflect those of the company.  I am more than happy for people with such erroneous views to be ‘named and shamed’, ostracised, and mocked in the same way they feel it’s acceptable to mock others, although I’d much rather see them educated as to why their views are so incorrect.  However, for a company to suspend an individual for (vile, offensive) opinions expressed as a private individual away from their place of work is one that I find uncomfortable.  For the football club to ban them makes a little more sense, since they were present as supporters of that club, and their racism can be seen to reflect badly on the club and its supporters as a whole.

I’ve mentioned that there was an element of physical assault to this incident, and this clearly must be punished.  Being offensive might be a right, but physically attacking, or even just shoving, someone is Not On.  But that brings me to the subject of hate crime.  This has been defined as a crime “with an added element of bias against a person's race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”  Now, should this make a difference?  If I punch a man in the face, I have commited the crime of assault.  If I punch a man in the face because he’s black and I hate black people, does this make it worse, as a crime?  It would make me worse as a person, and reflect my ignorance and unthinking prejudice, but should the motivation have any bearing on the severity of the crime?  My victim is no more or less punched in the face, his nose no more or less broken.

The FBI’s policy is that "Hate itself is not a crime - and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."  But surely by making a ’hate crime’ more serious than a plain crime of the same sort, you’re doing just that?

Now, hopefully it doesn’t need saying that this post isn’t intended as a defence of hatred, which should be rooted out as effectively as possible through education, dialogue and emphasising compassion and empathy.  Obviously we don’t want every public space to become a slanging match between different groups, all yelling their own, potentially offensive opinions, but if we accept that free speech is a right, then we have to accept that it is a right for all, not just the people we agree with.

I actually have a problem with the very concept of ‘rights’, which I will elaborate on in another post, but if one accepts the premise, then one must accept that it applies to all equally.  People should have the right to be offensive, ignorant and unpleasant, even when their offensiveness, ignorance and unpleasantness is aimed at us.  However, as I have quoted before, “to have the right to do something is not at all the same as to be right in doing it”.

It is in educating people, and explaining this, that the answer lies, not in making those opinions subjectively odious to ourselves illegal.  That is the top of a very slippery slope, and one that makes me very uneasy indeed.

The Ethics of Ethically Enforcing Ethics

“If you’re opposed to gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same gender.”  For gay marriage, you may substitute abortion, premarital sex, various medical and scientific procedures, or anything else that anyone gets upset about ever.

It’s a pithy and concise way of effectively saying “get your nose out of other people’s business”, and I’ve seen it being used numerous times in regard to various different things, and on first consideration, it seem reasonable enough.  After all, just because you’re opposed to x, doesn’t mean that everybody is, and why should they stop x-ing just because you think that the very concept of x-dom is wrong, you close-minded x-ist, you!

Except that we do, don’t we?  Of course we do.  We not only inflict our morals on others, we insist that it is right to do so, and we call this process the law (capitalise to taste).  We have decided that certain things are Not On, and that other things are Really Not On, and we insist that people do not do these things, and broadly speaking people accept this as a Good Thing.

But surely this leaves an enormous and ill-defined grey area?  After all, just because I think that violent assault is wrong, why should that stop the fun of those who think it’s fine?  I frown on murder, but who asked for my opinion on the subject anyway?  I would class theft as being Not On, maybe sometimes even Really Not On, but maybe I’m just a crusty old thiefist, enforcing my outdated and bigoted views on those of a larcenous persuasion.

Really, it comes down to the question of whether or not it is harmful, either to the perpetrator or their victim(s).

Laws are created and maintained by public consensus, and generally public consensus relies largely on whether or not a thing is seen to be harmful.  We can all agree that rape, murder, assault or theft are harmful to the victim, and should not be permitted.  Slightly less clear is whether or not acts that are harmful to oneself should be permitted.  The taking of recreational drugs is illegal in most countries, but these countries usually also permit consumption of alcohol and tobacco products, normally with various restrictions as to age, strength, quality, availability etc.

But what about abortion?  This is much murkier, and I have no intention of plumbing the depths here, but the question of its morality or otherwise usually comes down to whether or not you class it as harmful, either to the baby/foetus/embryo/collection of cells (delete as you see fit) and/or the mother/bigger collection of cells.  In this country, abortion is legal, up to a certain point.  In many it is much more restricted, or outlawed altogether.  Public consensus is heavily split on this question.

Homosexuality.  There are some who are opposed to this on the grounds that they personally find the idea unpleasant, but there are also those who oppose it on the grounds that they believe it harmful to the persons involved, physically, mentally and/or spiritually, and even to those connected to them.  I don’t happen to believe this, and so I have no problems with the concept, but can we tell such people to keep their noses out of other people’s business while insisting that the use of recreational drugs is wrong, and preventing those who wish to use them from doing so?  The majority of people would probably agree that homosexuality isn’t intrinsically harmful (assuming they care), and so would agree that there’s no reason to prevent it.  They would say that the onus is on those who oppose it to show that it’s harmful, and this generally leads on to completely different discussion entirely.

However, saying “If you don’t like x, simply don’t x” ignores the massive, misty grey regions that surround the idea of enforcing our ethical beliefs onto others, which we do every day on a massive scale.

Basically, I don’t like it as an argument, and you should all stop using it.  It’s just that I’m not going to force you.

My understanding of the existence of suffering

Last Saturday, the ubiquitous Stephen Fry was asked in an interview what he would say to God if he came before him when he died.  His answer was passionate and completely understandable.  The questions he asks are completely reasonable, and have been asked by many others before him.  It will not surprise you, however, to learn that I disagree with the answers he comes up with, and I would like to try and outline my own understanding of what Mr. Fry is asking about.

He asks why bad things happen, why God should have created a world in which harm can come to us through no fault of our own, why he allows evil, why he would permit parasitic creatures that cause blindness in children, why he would permit diseases like cancer.  His answer is that God is evil and/or insane.

He asks, “How dare you?  How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault.  It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil.  Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain.  We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that?  It’s perfectly apparent that he is monstrous. Utterly monstrous and deserves no respect whatsoever. The moment you banish him, life becomes simpler, purer, cleaner, more worth living in my opinion.”

I’ve written before on this subject, and many others have written far more effectively than myself but I think it’s worth revisiting, since it’s such a massive question, and so important to so many people.  The following may or may not be vaguely coherent or sensical, and is being written as much for my benefit as for yours, if there is any benefit to be had.

There are a number of different answers, all of which are true.

We talk about pain and suffering as being evil, but pain exists for a practical reason, and that is to tell us that something is wrong, that something needs to be done.  If I stick my hand into a fire, my body immediately begins sending me very unpleasant signals that tell me that my hand is suffering damage and that I need to remove it instantly.  It is a protective mechanism that forces us to take action to remove ourselves from harm, and that is as true for mental and emotional pain as it is for physical pain.  Misery tells us that something needs to be done, and the misery of others tells us this just as much as our own.  It tells us that the hungry need to be fed, the naked clothed, the cold sheltered.

Next, the very possibility of having anything that is necessary to us includes that possibility of its lack.  If there is such a thing as food, then it must be possible to have no food.  If I can be warm, it is only because I can be cold as well.  I can have happiness, but I must therefore also be able to lack it.  It’s also our way of experiencing the universe.  We define all things by their contrasts to all other things.  I know I am cold, because I have felt warm.  I know I am happy because I have been unhappy.  I know I am full because I have known hunger.  I know the joy of being loved, because I have been lonely.  Without the lacks, we cannot enjoy the presences.  We have evolved in a ludicrously complex macro- and micro-ecosystem that works, and works well.  Bacteria cause decay, stopping us from drowning in a sea of detritus.  They allow us to digest out food.  They can also cause diseases and poisoning.

Thirdly, there is the existence of virtue, made possible only as a reaction to wrong.  How can I help others if they don’t need help?  How can I be brave if there’s no such thing as fear?  How can I endure if there is no hardship?  How can I forgive if I am never wronged?  How can I hope if things have never seemed bleak?  Without evil, there cannot be the positive force of good.  There is the story (sorry, I’m not sure of the original source) of the man who died and found himself standing before the throne of God.  God looked down and said to the man, “Before you are judged, do you have anything you want to ask me?”  The man replied, “Yes.  The world is so full of pain, of hunger, of suffering, of grief, of disease.  Why did you not do something?”  God looked down at the man for a moment, and then said, “That’s funny.  I was just about to ask you the very same question.”

Now of course, you could point out that God could have created a world in which virtue is not necessary, a world in which we could experience pleasure and joy without ever having experienced pain or suffering.  He could; of course He could, but then this world would be very different indeed, and we would be very different beings.  That would be absolutely fine if we ever assume that this world has been placed here for our benefit and enjoyment, but I want to propose a radical theory.  What if it isn’t?  What if the purpose of the world isn’t our pleasure or enjoyment?  What (I know, bear with me) if we are not the point and pinnacle of the entire universe.  What if there are things even more important than whether or not we’re having fun?

Does God love us?  Yes, I believe so.  I believe that He loves us enough to suffer and die for us, but does that mean that we can never be allowed to suffer?  From the ages of 4 through until 16 I hated school.  At times it was because I was being bullied, at times it was because the lessons were hard and unpleasant, the teachers horrible.  A lot of the time it was my fundamental laziness and anti-sociability.  In reality, it was probably exactly as good and bad as everybody else’s school experience, and actually probably a lot better than many, but I hated it.  However, I accepted that it was necessary, and of course my parents were there to make sure I went (not that I ever played truant of course).  It never occurred to me that my parents were evil or insane for making me go to school, despite the fact that I loathed and dreaded it.  I never assumed that they didn’t love me, despite the fact that I was made to go, day in and day out.  I knew that I went to learn, to grow, to become more than I currently was.

This might sound horribly callous when applied to worldwide suffering.  “Starving and diseased?  Man up, it’s character building!”, but I believe that this world is the schoolyard from which it is possible to graduate to far better and more important things.  We are here to grow, to expand.  We are animals, and all that being animals comes with, but I do believe that we were created to become far more than we were ever born to be.  However, to do that, we must face and overcome challenges, and something isn’t a challenge unless it is hard.

I don’t claim to know the mind of God.  I don’t claim to know why the universe is here, or what purpose we exist for, but I do believe that there is a purpose, and that that purpose will be, possibly only as a very tiny part, for our ultimate good.  I offer no clever rationales for this; it is a point of faith, but we are being challenged so that we can grow, and we are being encouraged to grow because God wants the best for us.  It’s just that not everything that helps us become better than we are is enjoyable.  Sometimes it hurts, very much, but we will emerge stronger and better than we ever were before.