Winning a free holiday

A free holiday must be one of the most attractive and valuable prizes you can win, after a large sum of money and a free car. Here is the story of our experience of winning a free holiday.

Last summer we were on holiday in Rhodes. We were walking down a street and a girl in a blue t-shirt stopped us. She was from a tourism company called Aegean Blue, and her job was to persuade tourists to find out more about their holiday plan. First she asked some questions, and we fit their required demographic: married (or cohabiting) couples aged over 30, with full time jobs, home owners, and perhaps she also asked about owning a car.

She gave us each an envelope with a prize in it. Ivor got a free ticket for a local tourist bus, and I got a card with a picture of a key on it. She got all excited, saying that the key meant I had won one of the big weekly prizes, which included an iPad, a music player, and a free one-week holiday in one of the group's hotels. To find out which prize I had won, we would have to go to the sales presentation at Aegean Blue's offices and visit their local hotel. She got us a taxi to Ialyssos, a village just down the road, and we attended the sales presentation.

The idea was that you can buy the right to a certain number of weeks in advance, and then use them over the next few years in any of the chain's hotels. This is like time-share but more flexible, since it's not limited to one particular hotel. The sales rep explained the principle and showed us the hotel. When we got down to how much it would cost, we had to tell him that we couldn't afford it. He took it quite well, saying that of course they wouldn't want people who couldn't afford it to get into debt for sake of their holiday package.

Finally, the card I had received with a key on it was compared to a list of prizes, and we were told we had won a free week's accommodation. This was not conditional on buying their package, though we were told we would have to attend another meeting with a sales rep during the holiday.

This was exciting news. The group has hotels in Rhodes and Crete, and we decided to go back to Crete, an island we have visited several times before.

You can't look a free holiday in the small print, as it were. There was a registration fee of 99 Euros, and it did not include the flights or any meals (the hotel suites had a kitchen, and restaurant meals were available at extra cost), so we knew it would not be entirely free. However, it gave us an opportunity to visit Crete again and stay in a higher class of hotel than we usually do.

We booked our stay at the Village Heights Golf Resort for this summer. We later found out that Aegean Blue had been acquired by Diamond Resorts, a larger group, just a couple of months after we won the holiday, but this did not alter the terms of the free holiday.

During our week in the hotel we had the required meeting with the sales rep, and once again explained that we couldn't afford the sort of package they were offering. She accepted it and didn't bother trying to persuade us. We were also invited to a free dinner and entertainment evening, and nobody put any pressure on us during that event either. We had an enjoyable holiday and were treated just like the paying guests. The stories we had heard about pressure being put on people to buy various time-share packages just did not apply to our experience at all.

I will write more about the hotel itself in a later blog post.

Ken MacLeod - Intrusion

Ken MacLeod, Intrusion, Orbit, 2012.

Ken MacLeod is the most political, or politically conscious, SF author I read. Politics is fundamentally about what is in the best interest of the individual, what is in the best interest of society (or sub-groups within society), and how to balance these interests.

Intrusion describes a near-future society where the state decides for individuals what is in their best interest. In a commentary on the theme of "health and safety gone mad", the state's concern for children's health has led to women having to wear a monitor ring that records their exposure to smoke and alcohol, both before and during pregnancy. Parents have to install cameras in the home. Everyone's behaviour and interactions are logged and monitored, and certain key words and contacts can get people into trouble.

At the same time, scientific advances known as Synthetic Biology have enabled the creation of a pill that fixes certain genetic problems in the fetus. This has not quite become compulsory, but it is considered the most responsible thing for mothers to do.

The story follows a young couple, Hope and Hugh, who are expecting their second baby. Hope refused to take the fix for her first child, and does not wish to take it for the second child, for reasons that are never quite clear, perhaps even to herself. This is where the balance of interests comes into play. Should an individual be allowed to choose for herself, when society in general has strong opinions about the interest of her children? Hope's MP makes this position explicit:

"The government isn't making choices for anyone. Like I said, it's enabling people to make the choices they would make for themselves if they knew all the consequences of their choices" (Intrusion, p. 149).

This statement can be applied to many situations in our current reality. We have to ask ourselves about the assumptions behind the decisions that are made for us. 

Since MacLeod is really a writer of SF, even when his work appears to be a near-future thriller, there is also an interesting speculative element to the story, which is not explored in as much detail as the dystopian society and remains tantalizing in the end.

As in MacLeod's other novels, I felt there was a certain lack of healthy cynicism in the characters, and in some cases they were, or became, overly honest and trusting. This seems to be a matter of principle for the author. His characters tend to be driven by their ideology or opinions and refuse to compromise or dissemble the way normal people do. This can be admirable, but it sometimes detracts from their realism.

This is an interesting and thought-provoking novel about the meaning of freedom, and I recommend it to a wide range of readers.

Foster Dad John as a Role Model

For over a year now I have been watching the Foster Kitten Cam, which shows live video of mother cats and kittens being fostered before adoption. Foster Dad John takes in the cat family, usually shortly after birth, and keeps the mother and kittens in a special room. He provides shelter, food, and toys, but most importantly human interaction, so the cats become socialized.

I find John's attitudes and behaviour to be an inspiration, and consider him a worthy role model, not only as a cat fosterer but as a person. I should stress that I only know John's public persona, as expressed when he appears on the cam, on the chat, or on his Facebook page, The Critter Room. However, I believe this is a genuine reflection of his personality, and that he is almost certainly the same person in his private life, as a father, a friend, and a professional.

First, he is always very calm and very patient. These are qualities that are important when interacting with cats, but also in almost any social situation.

John puts the cats' well being as his top priority. This means that he is not broadcasting the cam for his own needs, but in order to observe the cats. His other aims in setting up the cam are to inspire other people to foster cats in need, and to educate the public about cats and kittens in general. This sort of dedication to the object of his work is something we can all learn. When you are doing something, do it for the thing itself rather than for your own needs. If you end up with a feeling of achievement and satisfaction, and perhaps receiving appreciation from others, these are positive side effects, but should not be the rationale for our actions.

Finally, John acts altruistically. Not only does he put the cats' well being first, he also cares deeply about the people who eventually adopt the cats, and about the cam's viewers. He wants to provide as many people as possible with positive interactions with cats.

John's role as a fosterer is not easy. He has to love the cats completely, and then give them up after two or three months when they go to adoption. He has done this almost 40 times now. In a post on his Facebook page, The Critter Room, on 24 July 2013, he writes:

The Plight of the Foster Care Provider

The first thing that people typically think about when they hear that someone is fostering kittens, puppies, etc. is “cute fuzzy babies!” It’s hard not to feel like rainbows & flowers when you’re looking at a tiny creature that only recently came into this world, still unable to care for itself.

For the Foster Care Provider, we feel the same way, but we also face a world in which the skies occasionally darken. It’s not easy fostering animals - you dedicate many hours of your own time, pouring a little of your very soul into each tiny creature, only to say goodbye to them a couple months or so later as they are adopted into what we hope to be a good home. Then there are times that the foster is too sick or too weak and despite our best efforts pass from this world.

Sometimes, we’re told to distance ourselves to prevent from being hurt - but that’s not possible, and we couldn’t even if we tried. People foster because they want to make a difference for an animal, to give them a better chance at finding a home to live out their lives with love & contentment. To best prepare the fosters for such a future, we have to spend time with them, interacting with them, showing them that it’s okay to trust people, to love people - which wouldn’t be possible if we kept our distance.

Fostering is chock full of rewards though! Watching the animal open their eyes for the first time, taking their first steps, learning to run before learning how to stop - the milestones of their development met. Watching a semi-feral transition from being extremely fearful to curling up in your lap to sleep, watching the eyes of their adopters light up when they first hold their new family member.
They fill our lives with glee as we take care of them until the day comes when we say goodbye - a day that is always bittersweet. For the first time fosterer, they look into their heart & soul, to see if it is strong enough to endure it again. If they find it so, they start the process anew. For some, their heart couldn't bear to part and they adopt their fosters - we dub them "Failed Fosterers" but there's never any malice in it for we secretly wished we did as well.

This expresses very well the attitude that makes Foster Dad John a good person.

Marriage equality as a matter of principle

The discussion regarding the legality and social acceptability of same-sex marriages in the US and other countries touches upon some fundamental matters of principle.

As I see it, people's outlook on life is positioned on a spectrum between two poles. At one end there are universal values, derived from feeling empathy with other human beings and considering everyone equal. People with these values consider things like slavery, racism, and discrimination against individuals or groups to be evil. They believe everyone should be treated the same way.

At the other pole are group-specific (often religious) values held by people who consider their own group and way of life to be somehow superior to other individuals and groups, and who identify closely only with people similar to themselves. Their values tend to be derived from the group's traditions, and are sometimes based on the way society was understood in the past.

When someone makes a statement about what is or is not acceptable, we can always ask why. So when someone says "marriage is between one man and one woman", we can ask why they think that is the case. The answer will often come down to the idea that marriage involves having children. However, not all marriages result in children, not all children result from marriages, and same-sex couples can use medical advances to have children of their own, or adopt children, if they wish to do so. So this explanation makes no sense.

If people with this position are more honest, they might say that they are just uncomfortable with the idea of people who are so different from them. However, feeling uncomfortable does not justify discriminating against people. By wishing to be married, same-sex couples are demonstrating that they are actually similar to the majority and want to have a normative lifestyle.

Here in Israel we are very far from having marriage equality, even for heterosexual couples, let alone same-sex couples. Most people don't like to admit it, but in matters of marriage Israel is a theocracy. Couples can only get married in a religious ceremony, and this means that couples who do not want a religious ceremony or are of two different religious backgrounds cannot get married. Among Jews, only Orthodox marriages are legally recognized, and there are certain limitations on who can marry whom (for example, someone descended from the priest class cannot marry a divorcee or a convert).

Israel recognizes legal marriages, including civil marriages and same-sex marriages, from other countries. As a result, couples who are denied the right to marry in Israel often go abroad to get married. Other couples draw up a legal agreement that is almost, but not quite, equivalent to marriage.

Over the years there have been several attempts to introduce civil marriage in Israel, but there is a great deal of resistance and opposition from religious and traditional groups.

I believe that applying the universal value of equality for all requires countries to allow civil marriage for any adult couple regardless of gender or religious or ethnic background. Religious people are free to continue holding their religious ceremonies, but should not force their values on others who do not share them.

Don't kill Haifa's wild boars!

For the past few years I have enjoyed watching from my balcony the wild boars who visit our garden at night during the spring and summer. I consider it a privilege to be able to watch them from my home.

These animals have no natural predators, and have traditionally not been hunted for food in this area, since the local Jewish and Moslem population consider pork to be unclean for eating. The boars' natural habitat is the mixed woodland of Haifa's forests, hills, and valleys. As humans have encroached on their living areas, they have, in turn, ventured into residential areas where they can forage for food.

Here is a video Ivor filmed of a sounder (family group) of boars in our garden back in August 2011:

Now it is reported that the Haifa municipality is allowing the hunting of wild boars in residential areas in an attempt to cull them. Some residents dislike the boars because they dig up people's gardens. Others are just afraid of meeting large animals in the dark. There has also been an argument that boars could cause traffic accidents. So far I have only heard about accidents with boars on dark intercity roads, and I don't think there have been any within the city, where streets are better lit and cars drive more slowly.

I strongly object to shooting the wild boars in the city. The boars lived in this area before humans did, and we have to coexist with them. They don't cause enough damage or pose enough of a risk to humans to justify murder. At this time of year the young are still nursing and dependent on their mothers, so killing the mothers would sentence the young to starvation. I also believe hunting with guns should not take place within residential areas due to the risk of shooting humans or pets or damaging property.

Please sign this petition to oppose the shooting of boars in Haifa (in Hebrew):

http://www.atzuma.co.il/pigs

How to make DVD commentaries interesting

We don't have a television, but we do buy DVDs of films and television series to watch on the computer. One of the benefits of watching DVDs is the extra features they contain, including "making-of" documentaries and commentaries. I have learned a lot about film-making and story-telling from these features.

Originally, it was usually the director who recorded a commentary. Film directors are considered the auteurs of the film, and have overall artistic control. Later, other team members also started recording commentaries, including producers, writers, and actors. As commentaries have become a standard item on so many DVDs, I have found out what sort of things I find interesting, so here is my personal guide to what makes DVD commentaries interesting to me.

First of all, it would be good to know when the commentary was recorded. Sometimes it seems that the DVD commentary was recorded before the film was released, so the makers don't yet know how the film was received by the public. Since the DVD is usually released 6-12 months after the cinematic release, it seems to me worth waiting to see the public's reaction, and then perhaps some of the criticism can be addressed.

A commentary should be both educational and entertaining, telling the audience how the film was created and why certain choices were made. The speaker should remember that the commentary is aimed at the viewing public. In some cases, speakers like to give credit to various members of the cast and crew. This is fine, but it should not turn into a mutual admiration club. Actors in particular seem to love praising each other's performance, and telling viewers what lovely people the other cast members are in person. This is not relevant to the viewers and seems gossipy. Speakers should also have with them at the recording a complete list of the names and functions of everyone involved so they don't have to say they forgot someone's name.

Directors can give the viewer an overview of the entire film, and also discuss various aspects of the film-making process. They are usually capable of explaining the decisions they took in an interesting way, perhaps because throughout their work they have to explain everything to the other team members. Writers can focus on how the story was originally written and constructed, and how the various other elements available in film played into the story-telling. When the story is adapted from a novel or other previous work, it can be interesting to hear in what ways it differs from the original, and the reasons for these differences. Producers are very familiar with decisions regarding things like filming on location or on set, special effects, and how cast and crew were recruited. The role of the producer used to be less well-understood than that of the director, but perhaps these commentaries and documentaries are helping to change this.

Actors are often the least interesting of the speakers on commentaries, and I think they would do well to think in advance of how they wish to present their craft to the viewers. For example, I would be interested in knowing when the script was revised, when certain lines were improvised, and how the actors thought they were portraying their characters. Actors can have some interesting insights into the characters they play and their motivations. In some cases, actors speak in different voices or accents in the film, and then it would be fun to hear how they acquired the necessary accent, whether it involved dialect coaching for this particular film or was something they already knew how to do.

Actors like discussing the locations and sets, their costumes, the weather during filming, and when they were acting to a green screen. It could also be interesting to know what they were actually eating or drinking in scenes involving eating and drinking. Sometimes they have to learn particular specific skills for a film, such as playing an instrument, riding a horse, sword fighting, etc., and viewers might enjoy hearing about their training process and how much is the actor's own performance and how much is a stunt person or double.

To conclude, I would like the speakers to think of the DVD commentary as a chance to educate viewers about their particular crafts and skills, and to explain the roles of various team members, techniques, and other factors in making a complex collaborative piece of art.

I look forward to seeing how commentaries on DVDs evolve in the future.

How others see us

This week I had the opportunity to see how someone else saw me. Her impression of me was based on some memories of the time we spent together, and I was a bit surprised by how imprecise her description of me was.

One of the things we have to learn as we mature is that others don't see us the way we see ourselves. The way others see us often says more about them than about us. Their perception of us is greatly influenced by many factors, such as how similar or different we are to them, the circumstances of our acquaintance, and even trivial things like the associations they may have with our name from knowing other people with the same name.

There are also differences in how important others are to us and how important we are to them. The more sociable people have a larger number of acquaintances in their lives, and consequently, perhaps each of these acquaintances is of lower importance to them, while for people with fewer contacts, each one may play a larger role. We have to accept that apart from life partners and personal friends, there may not be mutual equivalence in the importance of our less close relationships to us and to the other party.

We all want to be understood, and most of us try to present ourselves in a largely honest and genuine manner, perhaps with some tendency to show the more positive sides of ourselves and sometimes conform to expectations. So it can be surprising to discover how easily we can be misunderstood and misrepresented.

Some of these misunderstandings result from people's different values. We all like to assume we are right, and that others think and behave, or should think and behave, the way we do. But we have to be aware that what seems to us like normal behaviour may seem to others very strange. They will interpret it in light of their own values.

In general, the more time people spend with each other the better they should get to know and understand each other, particularly if they want to be friends. This will involve some explaining and discussing of values and motivations. But there are people who are less empathic or less capable of seeing others as they really are, and so it can be difficult to get them to understand you.

We will not be understood by everyone we encounter, nor will we be liked by everyone. The great diversity of human personalities is a source of constant fascination, but it can also be frustrating, particularly when someone views you, for their own reasons, in a negative fashion you consider completely unwarranted.

The question is: how important is it to be seen as we really are? In some situations it can be very important, while in others it might be a waste of energy to try to get someone to understand. Mature people know when to accept that the way others see us is beyond our complete control.