%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |   Maybe meandering, possibly peripatetic and indisputably irregular. |
|
So here it is.. a blog. Repository of some of my present musings and interests. Sometimes things pop into my head that should probably stay there - it is possible I shall share at least some of them here. (Naturally I shall filter out the ones about my sordid obsession with the culinary dark arts, one has to protect the innocent!) Please feel free not to take this too seriously, much of it could wind up being snippets of things that amuse me. Yesterday I came up with this: Few politicians can be considered first class, but not a few are number twos. What can I do with it? Nothing springs to mind, except perhaps blog it. Perhaps in some other life I'm a failed stand-up comedian. I have the beginnings of an idea to introduce another player into the Mr Moonlight story, a nice visual has occurred to me, and a summoning gone wrong seems appropriate. When I finish up here I shall literally put pen to paper. I find writing at least initially longhand helps my ideas flow. When I type up what I've written, I give it a first revision at the same time, and as a bare minimum check my spellings and grammar . I do want to keep tabs on my current reading here. I usually have several books on the go at the same time. Currently I am working through 'Pyramids' by Terry Pratchett. I reread Pratchett's books over and over - usually at work where they provide much needed amusement whilst I eat breakfast. 'The Seven Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle', by Stuart Turton was loaned to me by a friend who shares a love of murder mysteries, (especially Agatha Christie's works). It is a new take on the genre and very very clever. The protagonist occupies different bodies - a selection of the guests at the house where Evelyn is murdered. Each day he spends in a different guest, and he has been tasked with discovering the murderer - or maybe saving Evelyn from actually being murdered, it is hard to tell. The book twists and turns and is quite intriguing. 'New Science - Principles of the new science concerning the common nature of nations' is an English translation by David Marsh of 'La Scienza Nuova' by Giambattista Vico, published in 1725. Not far into this yet, I had to find a copy of the frontispiece online, as it wasn't included in the Kindle edition. The first part of the book explains the idea - and uses a detailed description of the frontispiece to convey this. So being without it would have made things somewhat harder. 'The Complete Works of Michael De Montaigne' is again a translation, this time by Donald M. Frame. Montaigne's Essays are famous, I kept reading about them, so treated myself to a nice hardbound copy to dip into - usually just before bedtime. So there we have it - a blog entry - enjoy! (whispers almost inaudibly 'Bon Appétit). |
| CAUTION - Some of this may offend some readers. It deals in part with humanity at its worst. It's opinion, and may not agree with yours. I don't believe everyone is equal. I remember having a huge argument about this with some of my colleagues when I was in my first job. Eventually, when they realised that I wasn't actually arguing with their idea that everyone should enjoy certain basic necessities the argument ended with grudging acceptance that we are not all created equal. This is perhaps a common problem, people argue because our notions of what we mean when we use certain phrases don't actually match up. Everyone is equal. What does this mean? There are people who can run faster than I can, and those who can lift heavier weights than I can. There are those who can solve complex mathematical problems that I cannot. There are those who can fly complex aircraft, fix broken clocks, things I cannot do. You get the picture. There are also people who can't cook as well as I can, and those who's poetry is even worse than mine (not many admittedly, but there will be some), or who aren't as adept at false modesty as I am. Again, you get the picture. So do we mean 'Everyone has equal human rights?' I suspect so, but then - what are these rights? Who defines them? And, - does everyone agree upon the same definition? I suspect you know what my answer will be. I find it highly unlikely that everyone agrees with anything, but let us instead go with a broad agreement. We might agree that everyone has the right to food, water, shelter. Basic needs to keep us alive. Once we move past this though, it gets murkier. What about the right to an education? Basic human right? Certainly not everywhere, several ruling bodies around the world for example don't agree that girls should receive an education. The right to practice your religion? Very murky this one, and very easy to tread on toes. What for example happens when your religion has ideas that are at variance with the law? Female Genital mutilation is illegal in many countries, why specifically Female genital mutilation? Because male genital mutilation is seen as an acceptable practise. Though this may seem unfair (at least), to voice criticism of the practise will likely get you attacked as being against the religion that does see this as an important part of their faith. It has become impossible to criticise any aspect of a religion without being seen as threatening the whole. I believe that this is wrong. It is also, I believe, wrong to use past events - however terrible - to prevent criticism of present actions. To return to human rights. I have read of at least one instance where a rapist has claimed that it was his human right to see the child that he had engendered. Think on that for a while. This man has committed one of the worst crimes possible. (Yes I rate this sort of thing worse than crimes involving money), yet he believes his rights are more important than those of his victim. There never seems to be any 'flip side' to human rights - there is never any discussion of human responsibilities. There often seems to be no discernment that failure to respect other people's basic rights - for example the right not to be raped - or a fireman's right to carry out their job without being attacked should have consequences, and perhaps those consequences should be the forfeit of the perpetrator's 'human rights' beyond the basics required to stay alive. It's called having your cake and eating it - and it shouldn't be acceptable. |
| I am slowly but surely working my way through Herodotus' The Histories. Some of it is hard going, as the author fills paragraphs with references to Argustheopolis son of Herepingpongupsidasy son of the despot of Somewhere I may have mentioned in passing, but then again maybe not. who consulted the oracle at Delphi and was told something obscure, where was I oh yes I was telling you about someone I mentioned two pages and forty-eight names ago. You get the picture I'm sure. However - some of it is very interesting. Not least of which is the story of the King who threw a ring into the sea and was later served a fish with the ring in it. Yep - that story. Or maybe you'd like the one about the wicked stepmother and Queen who prevailed upon her husband to have someone take his daughter away and drop her in the sea. The man entrusted to do so did exactly as told. He also tied a rope around her and once he'd faithfully dropped her in the sea, lifted her out again. Leaving her there hadn't been mentioned. So basically - Snow White anyone? There's another strange one about a man who drops dead in a fuller's shop (a fuller is one who fulls cloth - amazing I know - I think it means pleating or gathering, but I'm not 100% on that). The man is well known in the town, so the fuller locks the shop and goes to relay to his family the bad news. Whilst he is there a man of Cyzicus joins the conversation to say that he'd not long ago see this man on the road - so he couldn't be dead. They all troop off to the shop. When it is unlocked - he's not there!!!!!!! (Herodotus missed the opportunity for an excess of exclamation marks - so I'm added a few for him). "But in the seventh year after that Aristeas appeared at Proconnesus and made that poem which the Greeks now call the Arimaspea, after which he vanished once again." This story intrigued me greatly - i wonder if it is the origin of another tale too. |
| Average basically means - 'in the middle'. It should therefore be no surprise that if one talks of 'average intelligence', then 50% of the population has below average intelligence. In a democracy, pretty much every one of them has a vote. So do 'intelligent' people vote somehow wiser than those who's intellect doesn't match their own? No - of course not. Intelligent people often suffer from self-righteousness, the belief that their opinions cannot be wrong. Which of course they can, and frequently are. The whole concept of democracy is somewhat ridiculous anyway. When the best that a country can offer is 'Current Leader of the Blue Party' versus, 'Current Leader of the Red Party' - note that this applies to the UK and to the USA as well as no doubt many other countries. (And yes I know that in some countries the choice is between Mr. Putin and dying in some godforsaken prison in Siberia.) These people then run our country for a period of time till the next 'election'. It generally makes no difference who wins, because the system exists for the rich, and definitely not for the likes of you and me, (assuming you aren't one of the very wealthy that is.) We vote, or not, based on opinions formed over many years. Many vote the same way their parents do or did. Many vote the same way every time. This is why you have swing states. It is pretty much a given that some states or in the UK constituencies will vote one way, and some the opposite - sometimes this is due to gerrymandering - but it essentially means that if you vote in such a place, your vote is pointless. The results then are decided by a minority, but then this is also the case because the percentage of the population that actually votes is seldom 100%. A government can command 55% of the vote, but if only 35% of the population voted, that isn't saying much. But once you have voted, then you have little influence over how your representative votes on any matter. Usually they will vote according the the party line, whatever that may be. In the UK we have 'whips' who make sure that MPs vote 'the right way.' If you have a huge chunk of cash hanging about in a suitcase of course, then you can make a 'donation', on the understanding that whilst in no way are you buying influence, you are in effect buying influence. One of the main problems is that the people we vote for never actually seem to see themselves as public servants at all. Given they are often very wealthy themselves, (hey campaigns cost money - you got to have money to be able to strand a chance of running, let alone of winning), this is not surprising. They don't base their decisions on the common benefit. They base their decisions on retaining and increasing their own power, both at a party level, and at a personal level. Oh I am sure that there are some decent upright and even honest politicians. But I don't see much sign of them. Is there an alternative? Here is what Sir Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons on 11th November 1947: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" My personal belief is that the only 'solution' to the problems of Democracy is better education. You don't have to be highly intelligent, but you do need to understand what issues a government faces, and how power (and thereby corruption) work, and most of all - how to spot a politician who is utterly selfish. Politicians lie. It would be nice to stand a better chance of being aware of when they are lying. Perhaps every state, every constituency could become a swing state in time. Politicians might have to work a little harder to convince educated people to vote for them. If you don't know what gerrymandering is, here's a Wiki link that explains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
). I mostly reject that. I'm eating rice with an egg this morning but Pannya just brought me chocolate milk from 7/11 (bless him; I really don't need it).
