The Poetry of The Donald

Donald J. Trump’s poems: trumpWorks of undoubted genius from Fox News “Pulitzerest poet 2015″
all words unchanged from published quotes, only punctuation has been corrected.

29th July 2015 “Perfect Polling”

Public Policy Polling,
known as PPP,
has just come out with a major poll,
putting me
number one with Hispanics,
leading all Republican candidates.

Told you so

________________________
29th. September 2014 “Loving haters”

Every time I speak,
of the haters and losers I do,
so
with great love and affection.
They cannot help the fact that they were born,

fucked up!
________________
June 2015 “Mexicans”

When Mexico sends its people,
they’re not sending their best.
They’re sending people,
that have lots of problems.
They’re bringing drugs.
They’re bringing crime.

They’re rapists.

I will build a great wall and,
nobody builds walls better than me,
believe me.
And I’ll build them very inexpensively.
I will build a great, great wall,
on our southern border,
and I will make Mexico pay
for that wall.

Mark my words.
_______________________
2014 “Obamacare”

You have to get hit,
by a tractor,
literally a tractor,
to use it.
Because the deductibles are so high,
it’s virtually useless.
It is

a disaster
______________________________
“Beauty is real”

It’s tangible,
it’s solid,
it’s beautiful.
It’s artistic, from my standpoint.
And I just love

real estate.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sometimes dogs are just wrong.

I have a mixed relationship with dogs – some are delightful, and so are many owners – but yesterday a dog put my wife in hospital, it may have caused long-term pain and injury, and it ruined a beautiful family time. What other owners assumed when I got angry about it is where my pen is aimed.

dog attack

Normally we divide dog owners into three camps:-
The good (responsible, poo picker, rule obeying, training oriented),
the bad (lazy, rule ignoring, arrogant)
and the ugly  (those who train dogs as weapons, leave them to maul babies etc.)

When you are having a lovely picnic in a tiny sculpted sheltered sunny spot on a common, famously grazed by cattle and horses, you might expect to have to avoid the cowpats, and keep a watchful eye out for cattle deciding they want to poo on your patch.
What you don’t expect is for a dog to come flying over the raised edge like a bullet and knock you unconscious.
But that is exactly what happened to my wife.

One can argue the details of right and wrong, and play on the rule that dogs should always be on a lead where cattle are roaming free. I can explain why I did the WRONG thing (I was angry) and confronted the owner, or that she had no understanding of what her dog had done and, if she had, she would have been more sympathetic.  (Sympathetic wouldn’t have cut it for me – I would have wanted to see her offering £1000 compensation and to have the dog put down at that point).

All that… I could rant on about, or rationalise, but what got my goat immediately after this was the interference of another (unleaded) dog owner. Her interjection was probably out of embarrassment – feeling I had no right to yell angrily at a woman and fellow dog owner – but if she had actually seen what had happened, would she have immediately put her dog on a lead?
– I sincerely doubt it, she was in the union.

The dog owners union is a comfortable and wonderful thing. Walking dogs makes you seem solid, and approachable (at least to other dog lovers) and there is a tree on the adjacent Rodborough common where dogs (owners) hang Christmas cards to each other each year, such is the strength of their “love”. But the fact remains that there is no “dangerous breed”, in the way the insanely stupid Dangerous Dogs Act has tried to create. And further still, just as human beings can go off the rails, even when well trained, so can the best-trained dogs.

This particular dog was a collie cross – and I made eye contact with it two paces before it launched itself past me at 30 mph. straight at my wife’s head. She lay on the ground unconscious for nearly a minute before stirring, the dog ran back to its owner to “play some more”.
Would you have got angry if you were me? – and yes, I know in retrospect I should have called an ambulance, possibly the police too, calmly taken the owners details and contacted a lawyer. The pervading atmosphere, the one the passing dog walker portrayed, is however, “How can you make such a fuss over a playing dog, when we all know that dogs are a man’s best friend and it’s never their fault if anything bad happens?”

If we had in this country, my compulsory dog insurance scheme – this incident could now be resolved, legally and with no lasting bad feelings.
Thatcher did away with the dog licence just when it should have been upped to match the cost of a TV licence, and introduced chipping twinned with compulsory third party insurance (but with massive no claims bonuses), that would then be the prime funding source for a nationwide dog warden/enforcement service.

We are where we are because the unacknowledged dog lobby is like the “let’s not talk about alcohol as a drug” lobby. Politicians run scared from introducing laws they may know to be right but know they do wrong.  Thus we have a free range of fake libertarian, self-satisfied, and small-minded arguments against doing anything that could properly control bad breeders, bad owners, increase responsible behaviour and punish the ugly.
It is a disgrace.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Europe has lifted a revolver and fired the first blank.

The battle to save Greece has some truths still to emerge, but what has already emerged is quite shocking
This is a clip from that linked interview with Yanis Varoufakis…

Economics

Other reports reveal that many, particularly on the German side, had decided long before they invited Tsipras to present new proposals, that they just wanted to kill (by default, the Greek people and) their economy no matter what form the torture took.

So where does the reality of the revealed absence of character in our European leaders leave me?

I recently made a strong case for staying in Europe and reaffirmed what I thought it was all about. I saw the need for reform and the overriding need for a Europe at peace. Now I see that eurothe only reform that would be truly acceptable would be the total removal of the soulless money men who are in complete, undemocratic control of the thing, plus some kind of humiliating reminder to Germany that they are the reason we got in this mess in the first place.

Some are saying that the deal is also a climb down by the Germans, who overtly wanted a “Grexit”, partly to set the frighteners on Italy, Spain, Ireland and Portugal etc… Yet I can remember when the 8 member states were so keen to expand, then the 12… all able to be fooled by clever accountants that these lesser economies were still able to be a net contributor to the strength of the EU rather than not suitable for the Eurogame. If Germany seeks to punish any state for being a fool then it needs a look in the mirror.

You have no one to blame but yourselves EU leaders, but I can see a whole bunch of my friends and fans of Greece saying, “Referendum? sod you Cameron, Merkel and Delors, I want out”. UKIP proved right? how on earth can we have come to this?

And when all the recriminations occur, way down the road – with a disunited Europe of separate member states, economically irrelevant and ruled over by our Chinese, Russian and American overlords, it won’t be, “All this, including the third world war, was Greece’s fault”, it will be correctly blamed on the soulless monetarists with their short term power crazed robot minds.

The thing about playing Russian roulette repeatedly is that you always see something die – in this case it will, odds on, be the EU.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“If it wasn’t a dick it wasn’t rape” – the law is a dick

rape lawI have put this idea out there before – and will continue to refine and draw together further arguments, evidence and support, until either success or my dying day.

The Law Commission exists for modifying bad laws.
It has recently recommended changes to the DOLS aspect of Mental Capacity legislation following a House of Lords ruling that the DOLS law was “not fit for purpose”, and the “Cheshire ruling” which effectively deemed that people not allowed to leave care settings were not as free as they should be.

My initial statement of fact is that the evidence tells us that Rape legislation is therefore extremely unfit for purpose, to the much more detrimental effect of the public’s freedom, and our societal standing based on how we protect the most vulnerable.
How does 60,000 – 95,000 rape victims every year (Ministry of Justice figures), compare to the few cases of restriction of freedom to leave a hospital or care home?

And to add to that, to get the serious (maximum life sentence) crime comparison accurately, just imagine if there were that many murders and yet we only convicted 2% of the perpetrators…

A fact that is not disputed is that rape is possibly the most under-reported serious crime against the person in this and many other countries. What has been disputed is that, despite the reforms that now include the possibility of male victims being deemed the victims of rape, the law is still flawed in its inception.

The problems that now exist, on top of flaws in the law itself, stem from over-emotional knee jerk responses to the word, and conception of, “rape”, by public and politicians alike.

The central flaw in the law itself is that it is still fundamentally based on “Spoiling of a man’s goods by the use of a penis”. Despite the changes that now allow the inclusion of non-consensual sodomy of a man, failure in reporting the crime is as low in that area as it is amongst women, and with good reason.

In seeking to repeal the law of rape, and proposing instead relying on a law that is entirely based on gradations of sexual assault, I am aware that the majority of people will immediately react emotionally as if what I was advocating was a downgrading of the seriousness of the offence.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

I ask you to picture yourself as a victim – someone who has been attacked, violated.
Abused and injured by someone who overpowered you, they have not just hit you with hands or weapons but fulfilled all the elements of the traditional definition of rape.

I now ask you to assume you have “done the right thing” and gone to the police, despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests this is likely to lead to further trauma and no likelihood of a conviction for your attacker. Let us further assume that you have done this soon enough for forensic evidence to be strong, so that the police decide they have a strong enough case to confidently pursue a prosecution for the most serious offence of rape, with its potential maximum sentence:
Life imprisonment. (As opposed to the 10 years for sexual assault).

Now jump forward through what will be a very traumatic and long period of time, until you finally find yourself in the witness box, frightened by the overpowering aspect of the courtroom, reliving the violent sexual assault you suffered, maybe a year previously.

Your attacker is acting as his own defence lawyer.

He is allowed to question you, and does so. He manages to ask questions allowed by the court that reduce you to an emotional wreck as you relive that experience as narrated by the very attacker. He questions your memory of events in ways that inevitably highlight inconsistencies and absences in your memory. (Research shows that no witness or victim ever remembers all details of even the most traumatic events accurately, a memory process that gets worse with the passage of time).

After your tears and trauma in the witness box you eventually get to hear the verdict of,
Not guilty.

This verdict is reached because you and your lawyer could not prove, or even be 100% sure that it was a penis and not a dildo with which this assailant, finally, “raped” you.
Because…
The law says: If it wasn’t a penis, it wasn’t rape.

Lawyers will know that the law of burglary is defined by two purposes in the mind of the offender. One is theft following significant entry into a property.
The other is for the purpose of rape.

This reflects the ancient property laws of this land: any woman in the house is traditionally seen as “goods”, albeit a very precious type of goods, and that these special goods may be despoiled by unlawful sexual intercourse with someone other than that woman’s husband. The implication is that if an intruder gets into a house just to beat a woman up, that is, not only not rape but also not burglary either.

Assault by penetration is defined, separately from the law of rape. The Sexual Offences Act outlines that, “Assault by penetration is illegal; this means that it is an offence for a male or female to penetrate the vagina or anus of another person without their consent. Penetration can be by a part of the body, e.g. fingers, or anything else that is not a body part, used for the purpose of penetration (with sexual intent)”. As with all sexual assault cases, this is deemed a lesser offence than rape and the maximum sentence is ten years imprisonment, not life.

Back to you, the victim of a rape – case dismissed, attacker now free to walk the streets, (potential conviction for a lesser offence notwithstanding). You are now feeling, like many thousands before you, that the law is ridiculous. Will others you know who have been raped now refuse to come forward after they hear your story? and would you have minded if the word rape did not feature in the charges knowing it was more likely your attacker was sent to prison?

There are many men as well as women who are not prepared to put themselves through this doubling of the stigma, the traumatic “second rape” of a trial, as it has been described by several victims.

In seeking to change the law I am seeking to enable victims to be placed at the centre of the legal process, in keeping with the modern trend away from supposedly dispassionate cases, solely a matter between perpetrators and the state. Due to the nature of victims mostly being the sole witness, rape cases have never been that.
I am not, here, in the business of disputing the accused’s right to defend themselves in court, (though there is an essential debate to be had on the fairness of process when his questioning constitutes potential intimidation of the victim and sole witness).
I am suggesting that the law of rape, based as it is on ancient chauvinistic property laws, was anachronistic when Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne, yet alone in the 21st century.

The net effect of this anachronism, and the emotional attachment that so badly skews politicians’ and lawyers’ decision making, is that many of the most serious and dangerous perpetrators of sexual assault are going unpunished; that an even greater number of victims are suffering long-term mental health problems, (that can often result in suicide); and that justice is being massively denied to all of them due to the failures of legal action that result from this.

By changing the law to, effectively, scale up the maximum sentence for serious sexual assault to life in prison, and repeal the law of rape altogether, we would be making a stand on behalf of the thousands of victims and increase the likelihood of successful prosecution of the perpetrators by a significant amount. We would also be making an important legal redefinition of women as equals, as opposed to chattels.

Nothing will eliminate the word rape from the public vocabulary, but the job of law is to evolve in such a way as to deal with failings caused by anachronistic attitudes and legislation that is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. The law of rape has been adapted and modified several times, every time with no reference to this issue, every time with little or no subsequent success in preventing perpetrators of extreme sexual assault from escaping rightful conviction.

The obsession with the weapon has to be done away with.

Put yourself back into the position of that trembling and traumatised rape victim – wondering…
“If it was a broken bottle would that have meant the swine was convicted and sent to prison?” Answer: No.

Under my proposed reformed laws – YES –
Life imprisonment would be at the discretion of the judge, based on the aggravated nature of the sexual assault, ensuring that rapists are not only liable to the same maximum penalty as under the current law, but more of them are likely to be prosecuted, and convicted, and more victims are enabled to feel empowered and not stigmatised by the mess of bad law and emotional trauma that is conjured up by that one word, Rape.

(remember Rape crisis centres are available nationwide should you need support following being a victim of any degree of serious sexual assault) 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Hatred & bigotry make you blind, not wanking.

rainbow monuments

Rainbow nation celebrates sanity at last

New theory?
which is: – that something in the brain ensures that the more bigoted and hateful your ideas become, the more your corresponding blindness and inability to understand evidence, history and law, head towards complete.

Youtube conspiracy evidence creators love to link to each other’s compilations, academically laden with music of a foreboding nature, presumably thinking that the overall number of stupid people agreeing on something stupid, makes it somehow more true. (Chemtrail nuts are my favourite – almost like pistachios)

The confirmation bias phenomenon is well known and we miss our own (yes, I know we all have it) as a matter of sadly common course, but the cement with which bigotry and hate build infantile (and, one would assume, easily destroyed by evidence) delusions, is a wonder to behold. The reinforcing of those delusions that includes shouting them on public media, however, suggests we have a whole new level of cognitive failure.

In the USA we have recently seen elected officials, Religious spokesmen, political commentators and many more, viciosly attacking the Supreme court for a ruling that says, “Love is for all under the law, everybody, rejoice”, with a series of statements that defy the notion that these people are allowed out after infant school, never mind exercising power over adult people.

ChristianCouple“If SCOTUS decides on gay marriage being legal we will divorce”, say “Christian couple”.
and here they are –
looking like normal human beings as far as we can tell… who would have known that they were really ignorance promoting robots from the planet Feckmibakwards

Other people are disgusted at their own country because people they don’t know can now get married there, like in most other civilised countries,
so they are going to emigrate to…

Canadayes, one of the countries where it has been legal for the past decade.

Then we have the arguments they make: “By allowing gay marriage the state is denigrating marriage”, comments have included the notion that those wanting gay marriage “hate marriage” ? (aside – this same “argument” was used about “inter-racial” marriage), and these views are held because they are “Christians”.
Constantly they refer to the nature of marriage as being “ordained by God” (still the wording of the Anglican marriage ceremony today in the UK) and described in the Christian Bible…

…except it isn’t.
The early Catholic church (the only church for one heck of a while) placed its heaviest emphasis on virginity and celibacy, decrying marriage as somehow sordid, while they waited for the second coming of the most holy celibate bachelor of them all.
Marriage was argued over, discussed by many, sure, and eventually 1200 years after the first pope, it was reluctantly included as a sacrament – but the weddings were not actually allowed in the church buildings for another 4 centuries since it smacked too much of celebrating sex (YUK!).

Christian Pastors can still be found pretending that their Church invented marriage (among other groups, an honourable Jewish tradition) and that the Bible decrees that it is between a man and a woman. The Jewish Bible may hint at this… Jesus on the other hand only spoke about marriage once – and that was to order the water to turn to wine so he and his guests could get drunk.

The same “fundamental” bigotry appears to have achieved this blindness to reality with regard to guns – the USA should be the safest place in the world if guns make you safer, since they have more than all of Europe…but blindness to reality is a vicious cycle of ignorance that puts up barriers to learning.

Is it a disease? – is it possible that the bigotry and hate will just die out like an over-enthusiastic virus?
Either way, it has been extremely funny to see the bigots running in convoluted directions.
Have some sex for Christ’s sake…

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Ireland is Gay, we’re all doomed” – to referendums

irelandyesOne sighting of the #HomeToVote crowd partying with rainbow flags and balloons on London to Holyhead trains, made me confident that this was going to be a positive day, a great day, for equality
…and I am delighted that every single part of Ireland voted for equal rights and against the dogma of fear…

But the wider debate on the rationale for referendums has hit English airwaves, and I feel a sense of foreboding.

The recent referendum that “settled” Scotland as a part of the UK is already seeming to be a temporary barrier to a rising tide of nationalism. The passions behind the “Yes” campaign make me wonder if a next referendum that was phrased, “Do you want Scotland to remain part of the UK?” actually produced a stronger majority for remaining governed from Westminster, because the YES vote would carry the day? (Many people having failed to study the issue and just believing “Yes” was a good thing to vote for).

Douglas Carswell is a fan of referendums, saying that, particularly, the veto type on governmental grand schemes are the way forward. I wonder if he realises that the party he has chosen to join would lead a massive vote “yes” to deliberately drowning asylum seekers and a return of capital punishment for those wrongly convicted of child abuse and murder?

Of course, that is not how a referendum would be worded but it illustrates the hazards of putting things to the national vote, (Polls suggest that 70% of the nation would support the reintroduction of capital punishment). My father’s generation, decimated by a war where Polish, Irish, West Indian, Australian and other comrades fell on the battlefields of Europe, believed strongly that a united Europe was a key, possibly THE key, to maintaining peace in a continent that had sent successive generations to be massacred, for a millennium…

The younger generation, including Carswell, that see Europe as a purely trading and political project gone wrong are likely to vote differently to how the public did in 1975, when most veterans were still alive. Scotland, apparently ironically, wants to be divorced from the UK but retain conjugal rights with the whole of Europe.  The Northern Irish Unionists want to remain part of the UK – but only a UK that will stick in the 1840s.

The Welsh apparently like their current level of devolution, polling quite strongly in favour of the union, but the political momentum is likely to move again after 5 years of Tory dominance from afar that makes more unemployed Welsh seek smaller digs due to a bedroom tax.
Maybe we should have another referendum in Wales soon? – I was able to vote in the last one, having been living there for 20 years. Now having moved back to England but with daughters and grandchildren born and raised there, I would like to be able to vote to retain the current border arrangements…but I guess I wouldn’t. The UK’s people resident in England don’t get a vote on keeping our member groups – or on getting rid of Northern Ireland (I’d vote for that). I would want a referendum to decide that the whole population of the UK should be allowed to vote on such massive changes to the UK constitution and makeup.

What other referendums might we hold that could unite the whole populace in helping strengthen Britain’s development?
Having referendums every 6 months (as has happened in France and Switzerland at times) might highlight one of the perils of constantly going to the people, namely, we are by and large an ignorant lazy bunch who would rather read tabloids and watch crap on telly than make intelligent difficult decisions affecting our culture and national identity.
I suspect that the coming EU referendum will turn out a bit like the Scottish one, – a small majority in favour of staying in, but an increased momentum to have another go at leaving, that could be swung on the basis of whether the question is phrased as a “Yes” or a “No”

In the meantime, it’s at least good to see the Catholic church sensing its own increasing irrelevance in a more secular Ireland than has ever existed, a country where it once ruled by fear and the kind of behind the scenes influence only trumped by modern day big business.
So while I strive to get people to think about the horrific implications of TTIP, the benefits of an EU that needs reform, the massive need to correct a failed electoral system, the bigoted nationalism of the masses and their gross manipulation by the non-dom media barons, I can still smile and say:
Viva Ireland! 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Illegal immigration explained (KIPPERS look away now)

illgality

In this groundbreaking ethnography, Ruben Andersson, a gifted anthropologist and journalist, travels along the clandestine migration trail from Senegal and Mali to the Spanish North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. Through the voices of his informants, Andersson explores, viscerally and emphatically, how Europe s increasingly powerful border regime meets and interacts with its target the clandestine migrant. This vivid, rich work examines the subterranean migration flow from Africa to Europe, and shifts the focus from the illegal immigrants themselves to the vast industry built around their movements. This fascinating and accessible book is a must-read for anyone interested in the politics of international migration and the changing texture of global culture.

The points discussed in this award winning book include how many more non EU migrants come into the UK via plane than by boat, and, how the business is aimed at making money our of Africa’s poorest populations and not in preventing white migrants who populate the Romanian and Polish “Job thieving” myths.

It effectively makes the point that leaving the EU, the thing Farage claims will solve all our “problems”, will have zero effect on the illegal migrant numbers – merely making it much harder for Europeans, (including Brits who live and work in Europe, making Europe such an international trading capital) to legally cross UK borders.

Farage’s arguments are fairly easy to demolish using logic, argument and common sense, but of course, when the opponent responses are simply a series of sidesteps in a projection of self-hatred based fears such as homophobia, racist bigotry and sexism, then using logic and argument is as pointless as explaining the offside law to a rabid red setter.

The notion that Farage is defending the same principles as all our armed forces personnel who fought the 2nd world war is worse than laughable and is destroyed here. Fear of Europe is as irrational as fear of homosexuals, and the sooner the major politicians start playing up the advantages and benefits to this country and stop pandering to their own rabid wings of semi-Kippers, the better

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gone and best forgotten?

unknown

This image is part of a standard campaign to support veterans in the USA. 

It touches a different nerve in me than the one intended…

 
I have helped support ex-servicemen’s PTSD groups, set one up even. I am anti-war, anti-anyone joining the armed services, but pro getting them the psychiatric help they need afterwards when that inevitable mind-messing thing has happened.

But this idea that we are “not prepared to be forgotten” is touching a different nerve. Of all the things to accept, and prepare for, the certainty that we will be forgotten is a good one. The polar opposite of this acceptance is part of the reach for immortality that is poisoning the well in this Post-Warhol world of fame sought for its own supposed merits.

A big step onto the degrading path of fame for nothing has been TV’s “Big brother” – where people were invited to be in a show that then created fame for simply existing as a voyeur’s object. Beyond the sad talent show entrants who cannot sing but feel they have a right to “Be on TV” there is a brief history of people going a disgusting step further. The man, who I won’t name, who shot John Lennon, had no insane grievance with the man – he just wanted to grab his fame by murderous association. I had an online argument with the film producer who made a film called, “The man who shot John Lennon” and he couldn’t see the argument at all – that he was as bad as that man and, like Yoko Ono, I wished him nothing but eternal failure in that mission.

Lubitzego

I have had this argument with some reasonably intelligent people, that seeking fame for fame’s sake is not only a sad mission, it is a sick one.
The pilot who “wanted to ensure everyone remembered his name” deserves the same fate as John Lennon’s killer – to be forgotten as a sad talentless schmuck. The same applies to the “gone postal” gun-nut killers that the USA appears to breed and nurture, with the help of their naïve revenge and gun culture.

 
These people do not emerge from a clear blue sky, they are gaining the idea of fame as more worthy than life itself from the sickest side of mainstream culture.
Sure we can find mental health problems in these cases when we dig into them – but while many people who suffer from depression do, sadly, commit suicide, 99.9% of people with mental health problems do not, and especially do not decide to take people with them in some desperate attempt to win Satan’s Reality show.

If you seek fame, at the very least you have an infantile delusion about what it might bring you, at worst you will waste years of your life developing shallowness instead of meaning. Those who have “achieved” fame through their talents as singers, actors, TV stars or whatever, tend to find out that widespread recognition is an unwelcome trap.
Every famous person has many stories of being confronted by fans on the street, full of praise for a film they starred in – except they didn’t. The fan has mistaken them for someone else “off of the Telly” and is disappointed that the signature isn’t what they expected…
Psychologists have long ago established the rationale behind seeking fame – the feeling of insufficient love received, the craving for attention that may somehow fill that yawning gap inside – but it cannot do that, especially when every fan so clearly fails to see and admire “You” but instead worships the shell of stardom in which you have successfully become trapped.

The realisation soon dawns on most famous folk, that not being able to eat in peace at a restaurant is a curse, and a curse that carries the real risk of the more dangerous fame seekers deciding that you are almost their property, and have a duty to bend to their desires of association. Hence the tendency to have only other famous faces as friends and hide behind locked gates and electric fences, success in the desire for fame leading directly to the desire to hide away.

If I were to be a “famous” writer, (perish the thought) I would want to avoid tours and pictures on book covers. I can think of nothing worse than having a famous face – unless it is being one of that large group of sad people who want to have a famous face, and be known after they die…
150 years from now that privilege should belong solely to my direct descendants – for they are my only real representation of immortality, that of the genes I have passed down from my ancestors. I am content with that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Love: an idiot’s guide

old-couples1Recently I received some thanks for something I’d said to a forum-friend, 4,000 miles away, and I had forgotten what it was, “It saved my life” she said… wow, thank you.

What it was about was this – “what is love?” – the most frequently asked question entered into Google. A billion answers other than “Baby don’t hurt me” are also out there, maybe 10,000 that are actually helpful. My own, now extra validated, and as a divorced, then happily remarried, grandfather, goes along these lines:-

Cathexis
This is the name for that feeling you get that some call “Love at first sight”.
Sorry to deromanticise this stuff guys but while this feeling is lovely when reciprocated, it is much more of an instinctive recognition of something similar in another person than it is anything to do with love – though of course it may well be the opening of a door that then becomes love through your own joint efforts.

Cathexis can be the most exhilarating and frustrating thing – when unreciprocated it results in pages of forlorn diary entries and, these days, Forum/website postings –
I refer to the “Styles-step” beyond teenage fan worship of a pretty boy, – where the ring of fame distorts perceptions so as to render even cathexis a meaningless pop-tart of a meal.
There is no age limit on cathexis.eyelove
When you have been suffering and alone for a period of time and someone appears whose eyes meet yours and you feel they know and understand how you feel, the excitement and sense of bursting potential can be as overwhelming to a senior citizen as it is to a young student.

If you are part of the cultural west, and past the teenage years, you are most likely to have experienced this at least once. The statistics suggest that someone my age is likely to have had this experience at least five times.

So what do we learn from this experience?
It seems, “not a lot”.
We tend to throw caution to the wind, and if reciprocated for more than a fortnight or so we start talking about “soulmates” and fate, while worshipping walked-on-ground and imagining long lives of happy coupledom.
Beware…
– when this is the case our bullshit sensors are always down.

Here’s a big question:
Do we have any control over this thing we call love?
Emphatically, YES.
I believe that cathexis is the thing that we do not control, but love is certainly something that we can, and must, if it is to be true and in any way lasting.
The question I usually get asked by the young at this unwelcome point in my lecture is,
“But how!?” 

It is a lesson my father tried to teach me called, “Burnt parsnips”, it took me until my second marriage to learn it.

Let us assume that you have managed to create a relationship of apparently loving contentment, the cathexis period is over, you are living together with someone, under no duress from a hostile culture or morality police.
honey Im homeIn my father’s day, it was told with him coming home from work to find his wife stressed out over baby care, housekeeping and chores, accompanied by the smell of laundry and burnt parsnips. To which his loving reaction was to ignore the (hated) smells, ignore his own stress from having also had a stressful day, ignore the more obvious solution-focused action that men choose by default… and say, “My darling, you are wonderful, I love you, despite and because of the burnt parsnips, and I always will”.

This may or may not have had an immediate calming effect on my mother’s stress levels, but what it did do was focus my father’s thoughts and feelings on what he knew deep inside was going to maintain his love for her.

When I see my wife in the mornings it would be perfectly possible to focus on her imperfections, to see a little roll of fat here or a slightly grumpy face there, to remember the unwelcome thing she did yesterday, how her make-up remains splashed in the sink that I then clean…but I can also choose to look past those things to the deeply loving person, the one who has chosen to love me, who I have seen so much of before. It is almost as though this is the best purpose of our memories – and yet we choose to ignore it in favour of justifying some inner pessimism. Worse, we believe we have no control over this.

There are of course occasions on which this practice will fail – in trying to repair a failing marriage you may find the other partner has gone too far down the road to rejection for any amount of loving intent to win her/him back. If the other party has a level of neurosis or set of beliefs that prevent them from hearing and seeing your love – and this is most often attached to their lack of ability to love themselves as whole people – then you may have to accept the inevitable and part – for your own protection or to follow their determined course.
I sincerely believe that in my own case I failed to learn the lesson long enough and practice it early enough to assist my ex-wife from her own path of denial and self-hate. Having found the truth about second loves being not only possible but often better honed than was previously possible, I do not intend to make that mistake again.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

US friends: Is the Republican party racist?

We Brit liberals always jokedBushHaiti
about Dubya… 

He could hardly string a sentence together, his post-alcoholic faith in Jeezus and his dodgy approach to vacationing as a presidential mainstream occupation were hard to take – but one thing about him that many never comment on, was that…
he was NOT racist.

The evidence is there if you care to look but the reason I raise this is not to comment on Bush, but to illustrate the contrast with the current group of senators/presidential wannabes and their masters, media cheerleaders and moneymen in the corporations of America. There is no debate.

In The first election, a give away of a small size, but a significant one, by John McCain, (otherwise not so stupid), when he said, “That one”.
Racist
The Birther arguments – pursued by many as well as Donald Strumpet
Racist
The naming and attacks on Obamacare
Racist
The comments on Michelle Obama
Racist
The commentary on his “Sullen children”
Racist
The opposition to enacted bills 3 times more successful than their Republican counterparts
Racist
Their insistence on his responsibility for wrongs done by predecessors
Racist
Their treatment of his gamble on taking out Bin Laden
Racist
Their constant media attacks on anything he says, does, thinks, writes or breathes…
Racism – that is at the core of what powerful Republican voices now appear to believe – and they are encouraging their thick, fat, red state supporters to become more like the KKK with every stupid racist move they make.
The saddest part of this is that Republicans have an honourable history of support from Black people, with good reason, and this support was deserved right up until the Tea Party infected the thinking of the right…
Martin-Luther-King-Jr-Republican-Party

noracisminamerica300

Just compare the 60s reality

To this present day one….

As long as black people didn’t start demanding power as well as a lack of leg shackles, the Average Joe White man could hide a racist core set of fears away (along with fears of their own sexuality emerging as rampant homophobia) but once “they” (democracy) put a black man in the most powerful position in the US, it all came out to play.

So if you are a non-racist Republican voter, someone at ease with equal rights for all, pining for the days when yours was the party that believed in financial responsibility and true emancipation – I suggest you change your voting habit, because the reality of what Republicans in power means has changed for the worse, and you have been rejected by your GOP.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment