Watching the games

***************************************************************


Not writing about myself has given me time to watch television. It appears the Olympic Games have started. Did you see the opening ceremony?
All those fireworks! Just think of the money that must have cost. But where was the bonfire? And the ‘Guy’? Talk about spoiling the ship for a ha’porth o’ tar.

Of course I understand why all the ‘world leaders’ had to be there: every last one of them a former athlete of international standard. And at the party afterwards, Vladimir Putin gave a spirited rendition of that old jazz classic Georgia on my mind.

I’m so glad the security people managed to prevent any unpleasantness from those malcontents who threatened to disrupt the games. Just because some people are starving, being oppressed, imprisoned, blown up, or whatever – that doesn’t mean you can’t have an athletics meeting, does it?

Oh, I have just heard Doris Day assert that they’ve “…got more life in Deadwood City than the whole of Illinois”. Can that really be true, Mr Adams?

above the yardarm

******************************************************

I said I wasn't going to write any more but have just seen RJ's comment.

I was of course, referring to the submarine service, where the tradition is reversed.

A brief glance at "When a Loose Cannon Flogs a Dead Horse There's the Devil to Pay" does confirm that the expression refers to the officers' custom aboard ORDINARY SHIPS sailing in the north Atlanticto have a sort of 'happy hour' when the sun rose above the upper yards, around 11 a.m. Since this coincided with the forenoon 'stand easy,' officers would take advantage of the break to go below for their first tot of spirits for the day.

But, as I say, I was talking about submarines.

Untitled

I suddenly thought, this morning, how self indulgent to be forever writing about yourself: what you are doing, what you think, what you feel.

So I'll shut up.

Seriously, though...

I don’t think I am taken seriously.

I said as much to Gwen. ‘I don’t think I am taken seriously.’ I said.
‘I’d just like to be taken – seriously, frivolously, casually…whatever’ she replied.
‘See what I mean?’ I cried, frustratedly.

I think that one of the reasons I don’t get many comments is that there is no political content on this blog. When I look at other people’s blogs (which I do, Mr Adams!), I find that they deal with serious issues. Issues that affect us all.

It is not that I do not ponder these issues myself. In fact I have, in the seventies and eighties, written several political pamphlets. (Sometimes being referred to as ‘the 20th century John Paine’.) Perhaps my best known is: What happened to Kier Hardie’s cap? In which I address the question: why, a century after the birth of the Labour Party, wealth and power in Great Britain is still in the hands of the same elite?

The psychology of politics was a brief synopsis of my thesis that political affiliation – just like religious ‘persuasion’ – comes down to what I call ‘psychological type’.

The American Republican Party, I would suggest, is made up of a different psychological type to the Democratic Party. Yes, of course there is some overlap, just as in our Conservative and Labour Parties. (Although, being British, and masters of the art of compromise, we have a third party: the Liberal Democrats, who are a bit of both – and yet, neither)

In religion, you have the Roman Catholics and the Protestants (each with their left and right wings), and in between, a whole spread of … well… ‘in betweens’.

It would be nice to think that we choose our religion, after a careful appraisal and analysis of what is on offer – but of course we don’t. It is a fact that most of us follow the religion of one or both parents, in the same way that the majority will vote for the same party of our father (or mother). There are exceptions – which only prove the rule.

Sociologists explain this as having to do with some sense of class or family solidarity; I think they are missing the point. Yes it does have something to do with family but it is genetic rather then any indoctrination (by family or community).

Sometimes a son or daughter will take a diametrically opposed view to parents in the matter of politics or religion. This is often seen as ‘rebellion’ against parental pressure, or having ‘seen the light’. In my view it is because they have inherited a slightly different mix of genes, leading to a different personality. Yes, I know that ‘nurture’ is important but not nearly as much as we would like to think.

Arguing religion or politics rarely converts anyone. You are not just challenging a set of beliefs, upon which a person may have built their life; you are threatening their sense of self. And that is why they may be prepared to kill: to preserve their self, rather than their beliefs.

The Buddhists say two things should be avoided at all costs: fear and hope.

Fear is at the base of all conflict, personal or global. Fear that your next- door neighbour might steal two inches of your garden when he erects that new fence. Fear that some country that you have barely heard of, let alone know where it is, intends to wipe you off the face of the earth.
Politicians understand fear, and they use it: ‘Weapons of mass destruction’ is only a rather crude, clumsy example; it is the subtler, insidious fears of which we need constantly to be aware.

Anyway, if you want to know more, read my pamphlet. It’s almost time for my tea (I know this is a B&B but I get special privileges). Gwen is making ‘toad in the hole’ – with real toads! Only joking; it’s one of our quaint English dishes, involving sausages.
Incidentally, in parts of the West Country you may find some folk who still follow this traditional meal with the medieval game of ‘Hide the Sausage’.
But that is the subject of another of my pamphlets.