I can't say I have nor do I think its possible with just hens. Unless there's some rouge rooster out there roaming the hills and getting in about folks hens.
In the UK, the UK shoppers are obsessed with how an item looks. Many supermarkets ensure that, for example, the tomatos on display are perfectly round/even in colour. However, these may not be the best tasting tomatos avilable - it's just consumer test show the British public won't buy bumpy/slightly green tomatoes as they believe they are inferior products. This leaves farmers with surplus goods! There was an advert on the other night for budget potatos - selling them as, although they maybe bumpier etc, they stil tatse the same mashed/chipped etc
Had to correct the spelling mistake of rouge in order to make the joke work..... Unless you meant red roosters?
Ive tried them.....was ok, but somehow just not in my genes...in the way that sometimes a square sausage - which is obviously in many ways inferior - is somehow more appealing than the finest venison, or indeed succulent lamb.
I was told that eggs are injected with summat that makes the yolks much yellower in appearance that they actually should be. Dunno if it's true or not, and don't much care.
Duck eggs are great - in moderation. I can stand no more than one at a time, for some weird reason. Gladly. Yes, Dawkins and Hitchens often cite The End of Faith. It’s a book that I would happily recommend to everyone, religious or non-religious alike. I also ultimately prefer Harris to the other two because, whilst he is peerless at expressing incredulity in the opening stages, he turns towards gentler conclusions – which seems to better suit my temperament, even as I part company with his reasoning. Christopher Hitchens wrote like an angel and I’d happily exempt him from any criticism, but Richard Dawkins frequently gets on my tits. I’m not a great fan of outright certainty, whether it comes from the religious or the eternally damned (me) or sure-footed scientists. His relentless arrogance sets my teeth on edge. Shame, because he’s often quite brilliant, as you seem to say, and I’m naturally somewhat more comfortable with the methods scientists use to try explain our world and feel happy enough seeing any organised religion taking a beating, if not those people who merely profess a faith. I’ve not read Hitchens’ memoirs yet, although I’ve got the book. (I’m lagging behind in my reading, having taken a rather abrupt holiday without bringing anything to read and am only just now starting a book about Bobby Sands that Rebelbhoy recommended ages ago – so far so good. It feels curiously lyrical in places. Nice.) Interesting that you should describe his journey as being from left to right, though. Maybe he described it this way himself? I don’t know, although I’m aware that lots of people have done so. To take the very obvious example, Iraq, I see his journey as being from mildly left of center to outright hard left, if such definitions serve any purpose at all anymore; a reaffirmation of everything it once meant to stand on the liberal fringes and an expression of a natural and unequivocal opposition to bloody dictatorships everywhere. I’ve always felt that those who can, should, and so I was a wee bit surprised to find myself suddenly isolated (deserted, more accurately) in what I imagined might be an impeccably left wing stance in favour of the removal of a most ruthless and murderous dictator; a man who might be fairly (if jointly) blamed for the million or so deaths in the Iran/Iraq war, never minding the deaths in Kuwait and those of his own long-suffering people. To allow such a man to operate unmolested ought to be an affront to our collective and shared humanity - and if the UN won’t act, who will? Ah, the glory days. We were so young and innocent. Unfortunately, and slightly to my own surprise, I’m still in favour of the Iraq war – or I’m still in favour of the germs of the original idea, if not the wretched (and oftentimes eternally unforgivable) actuality. I’m happy to go round the houses with anyone (sensible) and revisit the old arguments – although here’s maybe not the right place and the thought of the list of caveats I would have to provide to explain my support exhausts me – to see if I’ve changed my mind (which I frequently do, thank God), but the point I’m laboriously making is this: I stood still on this issue and didn’t move from left to right or anywhere much at all. I felt I was morally consistent - and Christopher Hitchens came as a relief. I can’t really see that he moved to the right or that favouring the removal of a dictator is the set-in-stone preserve of any particular political class at all, come to think of it. Does that make sense? Hope so. As for your general point about the weird correllation between getting older and swinging from left to right....yes. It seems to happen a lot. And once we’ve made our money, we can generally safely go back to being idealists again. (I’m a poisoned, overtly cynical and despairing idealist. If anyone wants to join my party.....) I’ll leave off on responding to the potential dangers of technology thing for the moment, as that’s already 700 words I’ve puked all over the page. Sorry about that.
Some people said they bought organic vegetables and said not only do they look better but they taste better. I completely agree that most people would say they taste better. However if they look better I would be very worried, as organic veg, just does not look as good as non organic. The most disgraceful thing about the agriculture business as a whole is that somewhere along the food chain, nasty people are only to willing to fraud the customer.
Actually I don't think Hitchens seen himself as having moved to the right even if he was aware of the accusations. As a reader you get the feeling that he looks back on his days of left looking agitation as being naive and not very productive in a multitude of ways - there there are various references to his respect for Margaret Thatcher and the stinging criticisms of the Unionised left. So yeah it appears that his position before he died certainly wasn't of the traditional left - and this is completely ignoring his steadfast defence of the Iraq war and other interventionist policies, which were policies of the American neo-conservative right. I take your point though that foreign interventionist policy could be considered of the far left rather than the right - which could lead me on to another subject and another book, on how the right get's unfairly burdened by default with such behaviour... but I'll leave that one for another day.
