This lovely fungal growth is apparently created when the mycelium of Entoloma abortivum attack honey fungus mushrooms, upon which they are parasitic. Who’d have guessed?
They are edible and apparently have a texture rather like shrimp but are bland unless caramelised. You have to clean them well or they are gritty.
It will be very sad to miss the fungi season as I will be in the desert. In fact, when this pops up on the blog, I will be in Qatar. I won’t think about that now.
Instead I will consider the two things that I would like to do if I have any time off during my spell in the Middle East.
One: visit an Arabian horse stud. There is one that is open to visitors – Al Shaqab. Looks like an incredible place – but I guess I’d like to see somewhere… smaller and more intimate. I could actually ride… go on a 50 minute hack… There is a riding school. I’d rather like to bring one of these horses home.
Two: see falcons. Turns out there’s a falcon hospital in Doha. It has a museum – so that’s quite cool. Even more cool is the Falcon Souq – where you can see falcons and falcon supplies.
OK, so I said ‘cool’ – but it’s not really. I mean, I know that Qataris love and treasure their birds, but I am not convinced it’s great for the birds. The hoods and the ties and the cages and the restrictions on their freedom. In the same way, I take issue with horse racing and even riding…
Though I am inclined to think that this life may be OK for some horses (not flat racing, with the health issues that raises, but general riding and perhaps even endurance racing) and some falcons. They might bond with their people. They might value their strength or speed or hunting ability. They might benefit from care.
I don’t think that being ‘owned’ is bad per se and here’s why. In the West, and now, I guess, globally, property is conceptualised according to Roman Law which states that one has absolute power over one’s property – basically, one has the power to destroy it. Property means the things (or animals or trees or slaves) that you can destroy but no one else can. Instead, how about this: property means the things (or animals or trees or other people) for which you have the serious responsibility to care. A Roman man could rape ‘his’ wife or beat ‘his’ children. In my conception, an owner is more of a ‘carer’. What would make this conception perfect is if the subject, the so-called property, also has three important freedoms – which are not granted under Roman Law: to leave, to disobey commands and to imagine a better way of living.
There is no reason why a companion animal should not have these freedoms and yet still be understood, while that animal remains with a given person, to be his or hers to care for.
Of course, I accept my complete hypocrisy with my indoor cats.
But then, think about actual things: would we change if we thought that when we bought something we didn't just have the right to throw it away, but had to care for it - even when we no longer wanted it? To ensure that it did not cause pollution or harm?
PS this is the 1000th post on Corona and the Crone!
Comments