Contrast

Finally watched the episode of 'Q and A' featuring Peter Jenson, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.  I had been told previously that Jenson performed well particularly as he was under fire frequently from outspoken writer and comedian, Catherine Devany.

Peter Jenson was indeed classy.  He was very considered in his answering of questions on rather touchy topics such as 'marriage equality', meaning of submission, asylum seekers and health of homosexuals.  All he wanted was for people to be able to civilly discuss these issues without being shouted down.  It's a fair request.

But in typical 'Q and A' style there was one who was the antithesis to Jenson's class and respectfulness.  I'm referring to Catherine Devany.  She was classless, brash, disrespectful, discourteous and mannerless.  She has a harsh voice to which it is difficult to listen.  She interrupted frequently, which was just plane rude.

No mention yet about what she actually said.  But if someone is going to behave in such a manner then what she says essentially becomes irrelevant.   Her actions are saying enough.

Although Devany's view on marriage as "a mistake I think everyone should be allowed to make" leads one to wonder who it was who hurt Catherine so much earlier in her life.  She is just so angry, something must have happened.

Jenson stated his view very well.  He was calm and considered, especially when explaining the biblical meaning of submission in marriage.  Yet Devany interrupted rudely and labelled the notion misogynist, archaic and medieval.

On the health of homosexuals, Jenson requested a civil discussion of bringing out facts about the issue.  Facts are in dispute as to whether or not homosexuals have a lower life expectancy, and if so, why?  He was very open though clear on his doctrine.  He welcomed discussion. 

Devany on the other hand is closed minded.  She claimed the church was intolerant.  Yet based on her performance on this night one wonders where the intolerance truly lies.

Chef Dreams

Masterchef has been an enjoyable show to watch over many years.  Their culinary achievements as amateur chefs have been spectacular.  As the show continues season after season the boundaries of possibility just keep shifting.  Contestants keep getting better now they know the level of knowledge and skill that will be required to win.

Masterchef has become a platform for people to follow their dreams to have a career in cooking.  Yet it’s interesting to find that none of the contestants had started to pursue this dream outside of masterchef.  This is despite having obvious skill and aptitude to do just that.

Many contestants had been working in different fields of employment for many years.  They’ve had children.  Cooking became their hobby.  A few were just beginning tertiary education and training in alternate professions. 

I understand most situations.  Life takes over and our personal dreams take a back seat.  Hence applying for Masterchef.  But for many other contestants one is left wondering why they began pursuing another career direction when they had this dream for so long.  Surely applying to a hospitality school or an apprentice chef would have been wise.  I wonder whether through Masterchef they are trying to skip the training stage and go straight to celebrity chef or successful business.

Eat Meat

There’s a TV show from the BBC called ‘Kill It, Cook It, Eat It’. It feature members of the general public who have various levels of disdain for meat. They are shown where animals are bred, slaughtered and butchered. Then they are encouraged, but not forced, to eat the meat for dinner.

Some dig in their heals and refuse to eat the meat regardless of the affirmation from others at the table. One such member from the episode I witnessed was named James. His issue with meat was purely political. “There must be a better way,” he would say repeatedly. Meaning that there must be a better way than killing animals for meat to eat. He appreciated that animal welfare was a priority for farmers although his preconceived idea seemed to be that all meat producers are savages.

So if we didn’t kill animals for meat then what would be the “better way”? Well if not slaughtered in a sustainable fashion then the animals would presumably breed to plague proportions and run roughshod over the land eating all the vegetation in sight. Thus creating far greater ecological damage than James could ever imagine. So much for “better way”.

If done away with completely then we rid an important link in the food chain. Allowing other species to breed unchecked and lead to massive ecological damage. Again, so much for “better way”.

Can you think of a genuine “better way”?

So I encourage James to think through their ideology before making such sweeping outlandish statements. That way you might realise that the so call “better way” will often defeat the purpose for which it was originally intended.

The New Sherlock

Sherlock Holmes, the character made popular by the genius writing of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, has now been reinvigorated. Imagine the same eccentric character placed in modern day London and you have the clever crime thriller aptly titled “Sherlock”.

This show definitely does the character justice in how it portrays Sherlock’s obsession for detail. The finer details that no one with a normal mind is able to see.

Brilliant casting as well for not just Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) but his bland offsider, Dr John Watson (Martin Freeman). Even his landlord, Mrs Hudson (Una Stubbs) steals the odd scene.

Truly a brilliant show!!

It’s a shame though that they could only make three 2-hour episodes for the first season. Although even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle found it difficult to maintain the genius. The ending of the first season has me hanging out for season two.