Chiefs Prospects 23-4

 Chiefs Prospects 2023-4

The 53 man roster has just been revealed and it’s time to make sense of how the season will unfold.

The elephant in the room is Chris Jones – star defensive tackle.  He is holding out and time is running out before the situation becomes untenable. My guess is that there is more here than meets the eye.

Offence:

Getting back to the players who are on the team: the Chiefs are only keeping two quarterbacks; Mahomes and Gabbert. They will probably try to sneak one through waivers to provide cover.  ( My view: this is a mistake!)  At running back we have Pacheco, Edwards-Helaire and McKinnon ( too thin!)

Seven wide receivers will provide the bulk of the offence: Toney, MVS, Skyy, Jkustin Watson, Richie James, Rashee Rice and Justin Ross.  

No full back!

O-line: Donovan Smith, Tuney, Humphrey, Trey Smith, Jawaamn Taylor, Allegrettit, Prince Tega, Niang, Mike Caliendo, Wayna Morris ( solid if not spectacular)

Defence:
Ends: Katlaftis, Danna, Herring, Felix Anudike, BJ Thompson ( very thin without Jones!)

LB’s: Bolton, Gay, Tranquill Chenal, Jack Cochrane, Cam Jones (solid if unspectacular)

CB’s: McDuffie, Sneed, Watson, Williams, Nic Jones (should be the strength of the team – if we had a pass rush)

Safeties: Reid, Cook, Chamarri Conner, Mike Edwards ( could be good!)

Specialists: Butker, Townsend, Winchester ( solid)

This is supposed to be a run it back season.  Many pundits have the Chiefs as the number one NFL team before a ball is kicked.

Mal’s take: Chiefs were very lucky to beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl and the 49ers before that.  Some day the law of averages may catch up with them.  If Chris Jones remains absent we are in for a long season!  Another Super Bowl is always possible when you have the best coach and best quarterback in the league – but they are not my favourites at the moment: the AFC West teams are all going to be good to better and that may make the difference!

 

Chiefs Super Bowl

 

Watch out for Eagles to have their talons removed! 

To no-one's surprise, KC will play again in the Super Bowl.  Eagles v Chiefs should be a great game. Bookies have it as Philly are slight favourites.  They have it all wrong.  Chiefs will win and win big, say by 10 points.

Why?

Simple, the Eagles have not played a good team all season and certainly not in the play-offs.

Patrick Mahomes will run rings around the Eagles pass rush and find receivers all over the field. Pascheco will provide enough of a run game to not only slow down the rush, but also score on the ground.

On the flip side, Hurts will have to beat the tribe in the air. He just isn’t good enough. I expect Chris Jones and co. to have a big game. The Chief’s secondary is rapidly becoming one of their strengths.

Could the Eagles win?

Yes, of course they could, but I just can’t see it.

What are the dangers?  Injuries for starters.  Poor old Mecole Hardman looks like he will miss the game.  If the other receivers are good to go then this is just unfortunate for him, - if others are no good then it’s a real problem.  Travis Kelce has a bad back, now it was good enough for him to help defeat the Bengals - and hopefully two weeks rest will see it get as close to 100% as possible - if not that’s a real blow.  The defensive game plan will have to be spot on - stop the run and make Hurt throw the ball - often and under pressure.

Chiefs are certainly capable of doing both these things.

Could the Chiefs come out over-confident and rusty?  Not likely we have the best coach by far ( Andy Reid) and two weeks to prepare.  I suspect the birds won’t know what hit them.

A week away from the game there is, no doubt, still some twists and turns to negotiate.

Still - if confidence wins then I’m really excited!

Who are you calling Fascist?

 

Can you smell that stuff you shovelling?

Fascist is one of the modern buzz words, bandied about by folks who have no real arguments, but realise that simply pinning the fascist label on your political opponents is better than doing nothing at all. And often works.

It’s easy to see why.

Definition of fascism

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Needless to say, fascism has a bad track-record and an even worse reputation and press. If anyone cares to lump themselves in with Hitler and Benito Mussolini, go right ahead, it profits you not. Therefore calling someone or their ideas fascist has great appeal. Apart from being a cheap-shot: it ensures that everyone knows exactly where you stand on an issue. The imprecision we’ll leave for the moment.

A quick look at the ubiquitous Google will bring up a surprising list of countries with some fascist elements either now or historically, including the UK and the USA. The usual suspects are, of course, there: Italy, Nazi Germany and Spain. Add Romania, Greece Montenegro, France, Hungary and Norway to the list and the picture is more complete.

The current government of the UK with its central autocratic government bent of using immigrants to shoulder the blame for the mess that Brexit has mired the UK economy in easily fits the classic definition of fascist. The USA in WWII with it’s forced removal of its own citizens (of Japanese descent) and FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court so as to pass socialist New Deal measures sure smells like fascist to me!

As shorthand for evil, ill-begotten, brainless, smelly rats, Fascist had a lot of attraction as a label for your political opponent. It’s short, catchy and sufficiently obtuse and imprecise so that you don’t actually have to deal with the substance of an argument, just label it fascist and move on. Very attractive to real fascists who never actually want to engage in an argument based on facts. Why would they?

Just sling the fascist label on you opponents and be done with it! Sounds like Trumpism neatly described. If the policies of Donald Trump aren’t a classic definition of fascist ( blame the immigrants, be a dictator, usurp the political process, and suppress the opposition with lies, falsehoods and general BS) then I don’t know what else to call them?

Chiefs Prospects 2022-3

Tribe Rocks Again!

Football is right around the corner.  As usual, the prelude is the release of the 53 man roster for the tribe’s assault on yet another division title and Super Bowl.

Time to look at who is in and who is not.

Offence

QB’s   Patrick Mahomes, Chad Henne, Shane Buechele

Buechele is the sleeper here.  The Chiefs usually only keep two QB’s but they are keeping three this season: they really like Buechele!  Question is, is it not then time to let Henne go?  Maybe!

Running Backs:  CEH, Jerick McKinnon, Isiah Pacheco, Ronald Jones.

Pacheco is the real surprise here: is he really that good? Our fingers are crossed for a real steal!

Full Back:  Michael Burton

Big Red loves a full back and Burton is the man!  Why?  They like a lead blocker on some running plays and he catches the ball when asked to. Nuff said?

Wide Receivers:  Juju, MVS, Hardman, Skyy Moore, Justin Watson

Is five enough as both Juju and MVS have had real injury concerns in the past?  Look for Hardman and Moore to have real big seasons!

Tight Ends:  Kelce, Fortson, Gray, Blake Bell

I see the Chiefs playing a lot of three tight-end sets in an effort to get the running game going – especially early in the season.  Bell starts the season on IR.  Fortson may be the player of the season!

O-line:  Brown, Thuney, Humphrey, Smith, Wylie (that’s the starters left to right) Christian, Allegretti Prince Tega, Kinnard are the back-ups.

Is there enough depth? Is Wylie a good enough right tackle? If this bunch can generate a run game and protect Mahomes then Chiefs will again be a real force in the AFC.

Defence

Tackles:  Jones, Nnadi, Wharton, Saunders

Thin, but if they stay healthy they can be a real rock to build on.

Ends:  Clark, Karlaftis, Dunlap, Danna

Chiefs are putting the rookie in a tough spot!  How well will he hold up?

Line-backers:  Bolton, Gay, Elijah Lee, Chenal

Problems! Problems!  Is this group good enough?  I doubt it!

Cornerbacks:  Sneed, Fenton, McDuffie (rookie) Williams, Watson and Lammons

I think this will be the Chiefs Achilles heel on defence.

Safeties:  Thornhill, Reid, Bryan Cook,  Deon Bush

Three specialists: Buttkicker, Townsend, and Winchester.

In addition, 14 players have been signed to the practice squad.

Summing up: the Chiefs are in the Super Bowl window and despite trading Hill to the Dolphins are well-equipped to mount another challenge.  The AFC West competition will be better: Chargers look better, Raider may surprise a few folks, and the Broncos are the Broncos despite getting Russel Wilson to take the snaps.  I still expect the Chiefs to take care of business in the West.  But, I’m not as confident as I was last year!

Why? Simple. Defence!  You may remember we had the Bengals on the ropes last year and the defence could not finish the job!  Will this bunch be much better?  I’m just not convinced!

And the rest of the AFC West has loaded up.  The Chargers will be better the Raider will be better and the vibes coming from Denver are positive.  The Chief’s stroll through the West may not be as easy as it had been.  However, what doesn’t kill you often makes you stronger!
 

Skinny Bobby Harper

Amor omnia vincit 

I was searching for items to add to my series of reminisces about the Old Man when I had a flashback to the sixties and WDAF radio in Kansas City. They had a DJ called Skinny Bobby Harper who, as the Aussies say, was as mad as a cut snake. (Mad here means crazy in Aussie-speak)

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/atlanta/name/-skinny-bobby-harper-obituary?pid=1183696

He was famous for doing crazy things on the radio. I can vividly remember one day when he got Buckingham Palace on the phone and demanded to speak to the Queen as it was her birthday. He failed, but his witty attempts to get the English operator to put him through had the entire community of Kansas City in stitches.

Sometime in the mid to late 60’s he organised a 50 mile walk in aid of some charity. The plan was to walk from Higginsville, Mo. to the Radio station in KC., a distance of about 50 miles if you follow the old Route 40 which was the main drag before the Interstate highway system was built and Interstate 70 became the most travelled and direct route between the two.

For some unknown reason me and some buddies (including Larry Stoner at least) decided we would do this walk. We were young, fit and remarkably stupid. So, we thought this would be a doddle.

Skinny Bobby had arranged this fiasco so that the walk started at about 23:00, his thinking was, I believe, that the walkers would get to KC proper in the morning when he was on the radio. Good plan.

50 miles in 9 hours would be about achievable at about 5 m.p.h. - a good brisk walking pace; so, we were supremely confident that we could do it and achieve some, yeah even small, notoriety at least. Maybe get interviewed on the radio or make the Independence Examiner as a human interest story.

Firstly, we had to get to Higginsville for the start of the walk. There would be no point in driving there and leaving a car by the side of the road cause we’d just have to go back and collect it later (if it managed to survive without vandals having their evil way with it) Somehow, I managed to persuade my OM to drive us to the start and leave us there.

It was an easy drive; this I know as we had driven there many times in our illustrious Go-kart racing days. There was a good dirt track in Higginsville where I won many races. From Independence it is about 38 miles. Takes about 40 minutes the way the OM drove.

Off we went and were duly deposited at the intersection of US 40 and Missouri 13 full of youthful anticipation and verve. The OM returned home; I think he had to work the next day, but it may have been a Saturday and so he had the next day off. He’s not here to ask and I doubt anyone else will remember?

At the appointed hour we set off. Such was the organisation of this epic road trip we kinda assumed there would be “marshals” there to see us off and log our progress. We were fools. There were only a couple of people around and so without further adieu we just set off.

A word about the weather; I think it was late spring; but again I may be way out. My best recollection is that it was cool, especially at 11’oclock at night but it wasn’t cold. It was dark. We didn’t walk on the road. In those halcyon days of almost no traffic, there were large trucks that whizzed by every so often and a few cars. We walked on the left side of the road and 10 to 15 feet off it. (We were not entirely stupid; as we realised walking facing the on-coming traffic was preferable to having a 50 ton semi truck smack into the back of you - like all young folks we were invincible of course - or so we thought.)

After about an hour’s walking we had slowed considerably. We became aware that it was getting cold and we were thirsty. On reflection I would like to think that we came prepared with such things as food and water, but in truth I can’t remember. I suspect not.

We were smart enough to realise that we were falling seriously behind schedule. We plodded on. Cresting a hill (US 40 was unlike an Interstate as it was quite full of small rises) we saw the dim lights of Odessa Missouri in the distance.

Despondency at our foolishness had set in big time. The realisation that we had bit off much more than an Apatosaurus could chew dawned - even though the real dawn seemed a life-time away. Our pace slowed as our hearts sank with the realisation that we were not going to walk to KC and receive the cheers and glory. We might, just might, make Odessa Missouri with sore feet and in a sour mood with the bitter taste of defeat in our mouths instead of food or a drink. At that time of night, it was well past midnight by then; Odessa, still a few miles distant; was dead, no lights anywhere and not a sign of life. No welcoming crowds, no cheering compadres, no sign of liquid or solid sustenance: in short, no nothing. (Even that double negative fails to convey our mood which was lower than that of the 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn) i.e. lower than whale manure!

Nevertheless we trudged on towards a dim light in the distance. It was a gas station. It was closed but with some lights on.

As we reached the forecourt I saw what I thought was the Old Man’s car. I dismissed this as a mirage.

Don’t forget we are talking about a time when mobile phones, indeed almost every modern communication device had yet to be thought of - even less invented. After he had deposited us near Higginsville he just drove off. I got closer. Sitting in the driver’s seat was indeed the OM. He said nothing except “get in”. I firmly expected him to say “You Omadoms have really outdone yourselves this time”, but no, he was silent as he calmly drove us back to Independence.

Loving your parents is considered obligatory, but it is not.

There at that closed gas station in Odessa, Missouri I loved the OM more than I can say.

Liars and Other Animals

 

Abraham Lincoln promoted John Pope to be commanding General. Some warned Lincoln that Pope was a habitual liar.

Lincoln replied, "I knew the Popes back in Illinois. They were all liars and braggarts. But I see no reason why a liar and a braggart would not be a good general."

Some unquestionably great political gaffs – like Dan Quale:

On June 15, 1992, Quayle altered 12-year-old student William Figueroa's correct spelling of "potato" to "potatoe" at the Muñoz Rivera Elementary School spelling bee in Trenton, New Jersey. He was the subject of widespread ridicule for his error and spelling also Gerald Ford stumbling down the aircraft steps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jsu_qgVuhg). My view is that this is in the same ballpark. Politicians are prone to making themselves look stupid and/or foolish. So are we lesser mortals;but, usually and thankfully there is no-one about to film our peccadilloes.

That said, it is up to the individual to assess the policies of recent Presidents.

Policies of Joe Biden

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2022/01/20/an-overview-of-bidens-first-regulatory-year/

https://www.nytimes.com/article/joe-biden-policies.html

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/politics/biden-executive-orders/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-53575474

Policies of Donald Trump

https://theweek.com/articles/936534/trump-bigger-socialist-than-biden

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/30/politics/socialism-trump-democrats-election-2020/index.html

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/article248659305.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/the-things-trump-got-right/617424/

https://www.republicanleader.gov/top-five-accomplishments-of-trump-pence-administration/

https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/2021/01/trumps-top-10-accomplishments-of-2020-opinion.html

Trying to specify which policies are good for the people of the US is subjective. Even a specimen run at my view as to which policies are good and which are bad for each guy would be superfluous. End of discussion.

I conclude.

There was a profile of Walter Cronkite posted on Facebook praising his very objective style of reporting – common in the 60’s. Here’s the link (https://www.forbes.com/sites/andymeek/2022/04/21/fox-news-channels-sean-hannity-just-broke-a-primetime-cable-news-record/?sh=1140a9cf4f61) to an article explaining Hannity’s self-confessed right-wing bias in his reporting.

In general if you only look at sources which you perceive will agree with you you are missing most of the real world.

Reader, widen you interests and sources, please, you’ll live longer and be happier!

Pennies on the Railway Tracks

 

Pennies on the Railway Tracks 

 

Old copper pennies are easily squashed 

If you lay them on the track when the loco approaches

When they are as mashed as sweet potatoes 

They are almost the same colour as

Old stogies retrieved from the ballast 

Brown, grey and greasy with age and misuse

Can show their grief like discarded detritus 

Three roads congealed in an unctuous wood

Surrounded by discarded rubber tyres 

Slowly decaying and ever so slowly indeed

Becoming the commentary of our lives - our failures

Abortion Crisis

Dred Scott

The U.S Supreme Court is often accused of ducking the issue and/or becoming too political in its judgements. Throughout history when the court decides or is forced to decide on contentious issues there are usually extreme consequences. Many people believe that the Dred Scott case was the single most obvious cause of the Civil War. People opposed to slavery views, quite rightly, the decision as the death knell for a peaceful resolution to this most controversial of issues.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case

It would seem from reports that the Court is again treading into deep water, this time on the issue of abortion.

https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade

This issue has often confused and puzzled me. On a personal level there are two issues. Firstly, is an unborn foetus which without intervention from an outside force would be born a citizen of the U.S. and, if so, are they entitled to the protection the Constitution provides to all citizens? Secondly, does the government, either Federal or State or Local, have the power to enforce any decision based in law on all citizens?

On the first issue: I have always supported the protection of the unborn. My opinion is that at conception a new human life comes into existence and should therefore be protected. On the second issue, I do not believe that any branch of the government has the right to dictate to any citizen what is essentially a private matter. Hopefully, dear reader, you can see the dichotomy here at work.

I elaborate; before you start throwing petrol bombs at my house.

Most of our laws have at their heart the protection the state is due to provide to its citizens. So, legally we are back to Dred Scott.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,”

If the unborn is a citizen then abortion is clearly illegal and the Supreme Court is within its juristiction to rule that way under the equal rights provisions of the 14th amendment.

But, if the unborn is not a citizen then the Supreme Court is not entitled to extend any protection to it, same as Dred Scott.

What is supremely interesting here is the line-up on both sides of the debate.

On the one hand we have very conservative Republicans who seem to support the rights of the unborn in calling for abortion reform.and the repeal of Roe v Wade. On the other hand we have Democrats who view this as an infringement of the rights of the individual enshrined in the Constitution and demand that Roe v Wade is upheld in its present form, or something very close to it.

It would be nice to think that there is some room for compromise here. I confess I can see none.

The Republican Platform (from their website)

“Republicans believe in liberty, economic prosperity, preserving American values and traditions, and restoring the American dream for every citizen of this great nation. As a party, we support policies that seek to achieve those goals.

Our platform is centered on stimulating economic growth for all Americans, protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and maintaining our national security. We are working to preserve America's greatness for our children and grandchildren.

The Republican Party's legacy -- we were originally founded in 1854 for the purpose of ending slavery -- compels us to patriotically defend America's values. As the left attempts to destroy what makes America great, the Republican Party is standing in the breach to defend our nation and way of life.”

So, you may wonder, why would Republicans be so against abortion as it seems to be guaranteed by the Constitution as a matter for the states or the people? A very good question.

Could it be that they see this policy as a vote-winner?

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a political party cut its cloth to fit the stripes it is currently wearing. Is this policy a vote-winner for Republicans?

Personally, I can’t see how.

If the Supreme Court rules that Row v Wade goes, the power to ban or allow abortion then reverts to the states. Some have already said they will enact legislation to enable abortion. Others won't. Some women will be supportive, especially in states that don’t like abortion, say like Texas. But, in those states there will be some women who don’t support a ban. Who will they vote for - surely the Democrats.

Ok, so what about the reverse? States that enact enabling abortion legislation may suffer in so far as women who support the ban stop voting Democrat. Hang on - surely not many women who support an abortion ban currently vote Democrat. Now seldom is there a one issue election, but I fear the Republican party are in danger of making the next one simply about abortion. For the party of Lincoln this could be an absolute disaster!

It was in no small part the Dred Scott decision that pushed the North towards a conflict with the South. Lincoln in particular wanted to ban slavery from the expanding Union and Dred Scott put a nail right through that plan. The Missouri Compromise was dead, and declared dead by the Supreme Court. Now there was no real way to prevent slavery from expanding throughout the Union. With that realisation the Republican Party was formed and the rest, as they say, is history.

History can repeat itself. If the Court rules against Roe v Wade there will be a split not only in Congress but also in the nation.

Is there any way this tragedy can be avoided? The prospects are not good.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm

The toxic debate and hysteria from both parties is not likely to be quelled easily.

Notwithstanding that there are people with strong views on both sides; there is evidence that the country, whilst divided, has no appetite for a repeal. Perhaps this can be parlayed into some sort of compromise consensus?

On a personal level, I believe that following the traditions of the Republican Party the government has no business interfering in the lives of citizens for some partisan advantage, real or imagined. I do not believe that a government of whatever persuasion should dictate to women what they should do regarding abortion. They can and should provide good health care for all women, good advice about contraception to all women, and good, safe abortion care to all women who wish it.

The Supreme Court might do better in remembering how the Dred Scott decision led in an almost straight line to the most bloody conflict in American History.

Couple that with the lessons of the 18th Amendment ( governments who try to legislate on what is essentially a private moral decision run the risk of mass civil disobedience ). I’m assuming that no one wants that? I fear that is where we may be heading.

Clever Porkers

 Killing Pigs

When Gorge Orwell (Eric Blair) sat down to write his masterpiece Animal Farm he brought to the project a lifetime of practical experience of farms and farming.

“Animal Farm might have been consigned to the dusty attics of history long ago had Orwell’s rendering of his animal protagonists not been so on point and credible — the sheep lemming-like, the pigs intelligent and top of the pecking order and the aged donkey, Benjamin, stubborn and knowing.

They are rooted in Orwell’s real farming experiences and they demonstrate his profound and deep-seated understanding of animal character traits, behaviour and husbandry requirements. ‘Major was already ensconced on his bed of straw… He was twelve years old and had lately grown rather stout, but he was still a majestic-looking pig, with a wise and benevolent appearance in spite of the fact that his tushes had never been cut,’ Orwell writes with a farmer’s knowledge at the beginning of the book.

‘My father was very observant of everything, and would quite quickly absorb the various characteristics of farm animals and subsequently pigeonhole them in his mind as to how clever or not they appeared to be,’ reflects Richard Blair, the son Orwell (real name Eric Arthur Blair) adopted aged three weeks in 1944, with his wife, Eileen.

‘I guess in Animal Farm, he started with the pigs and placed the animals in descending order as he saw them.’

Therefore it is not surprising that he gave to the pigs the top of the pecking order; as it firmly followed what he already knew – pigs are by far and away the cleverest animals on the farm.

Back in the day I used to sometimes help out on the farm belonging to the Hall family.  You gain an impressive understanding of animals, particularly farm animals by what used to be called O.J.T. – on the job training.

I sat on a tractor one day when I noticed a sow pig sauntering across the back forty toward a field of excellent corn, almost ready to be harvested.  Now I know this was not allowed and so did the pig.  In fact Pa Hall had strategically placed some barbed wire around the corn field so that no animals would get in there and ruin the crop.

He forgot to tell the pigs.

And, what’s worse, he forgot that pigs are smart – very smart. 

I kept thinking as I watched the sow head towards the corn, “She’ll never get past the barbed wire!”

There was a tree which formed part of the field boundary and it was misshapen.  It rose about three feet upwards and then split to form two branches before it continued skyward.  There was no barbed wire between the  two branches at the three foot level, the space was up off the ground and not very large so no wire has been strung there.  A very false economy as it happens!

I watched the old sow as she approached the gap and stood there looking at it.  Knowing that pigs are smart, I expected that she would see that she could not gain access to the corn, turn around and head back.

What happened next amazed me.  

She calmly walked back about 50 feet towards the farm yard, turned and charged the barbed wire.  And I mean charged.  Pigs can run surprisingly fast when they want to.  I was convinced that I was witnessing the very first kamikaze pig.  When she was about three feet from the tree that had no barbed wire in the very small gap, she launched herself right at it.  She was, of course, too fat to squeeze through the gap, but she did manage to wedge herself between the two branches.  I watched in amazement as she began to wriggle from left to right.  With increasing vigour she wriggled away for at least 15 minutes and with each wriggle she advanced ever so slightly through the gap; until at last she managed, after one almighty wriggle, to plop gently on the other side and began to feast on the corn.

Clearly she had done this before.  She was in no hurry.

I would have liked to stick around to see her get back to the farm, but I was honour bound to tell Pa Hall the story and let him make of it what he will.  I duly reported the events and although I’m not entirely sure he believed me eventually he just shrugged his shoulders and muttered damn pig!

Before I leave he old sow perplexing the humans, I must mention a story I often told to school children – as long as they were over the age of 13.  

Now, conventional wisdom has it that whilst pigs are quite clever; they are not intuitively so.  I disagree.

One of the least pleasant jobs on the farm, aside from slaughtering the cows, was castrating the male piglets.  They are often called shoats after they have been weaned.

First you have to round up all the young male pigs and corner them in the barn.  At this stage they are usually quite calm and curious about their new surroundings.  You manage to grab one of the little critters and whilst sitting on a stool you place the piglet between your knees with his bottom side up.  By this stage the piglet is screaming blue murder, but it clearly doesn’t know why – nor do the others. Next you take your single-edged razor blade and swiftly and deftly remove the pig’s ball bag and spray some disinfectant on the wound. Now he let’s out an unheard of scream, unlike anything heard before.

Immediately, all the other piglets scream and start running around looking for a way out. 

This special scream obviously means in Porcinesque “Help, they have just cut my balls off!”  How else would the others know exactly what’s coming?

The moral: pigs are smart and can communicate with each other.  Perhaps when we kill ourselves and despoil the planet through war or disease Orwell’s vision may come true – pigs rule!

Biden v Trump

 

Sleep Joe v Pussy Grabber

We flatter ourselves that we know and/or understand the folks who have been elected to represent us. In the end; they become caricatures based, usually, on our prejudices and expectations. Still the idea that we know them persists. This is a very human frailty. We are at heart a tribal species and research shows us that, at most, we “connect” with about 150 people. On the very personal level this number is much smaller with family, close relatives and friends and work-related members dominating.

The Rule of 150 was coined by British Anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, and is defined as the “suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships and thus numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms …

This is fine until we get to, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. '' In the USA and the UK to give two examples with many millions of voters required to give consent to be governed this inevitably leads to a disconnect between the governed and the governors.

We therefore fall back on our prejudices, our shared values, our history, our ethnicity, our religious beliefs and many other fallible sources of context to make our choices about who is to be elected. This in itself is not a problem. The problem comes when we revert to our tribal past to make judgements about how well, or no, the elected leaders are doing. We revert to the tribal past so that we can use what is familiar to us from our own experience to judge the leader’s performance by direct evidence. He did this. He said this. He usurped my property, my mate, or my gods. He is so bad that we need to leave the group and start over. Not only is he a bad guy, but he is a bad guy because I know him. He’s in my circle. I have first hand experience of his bad behaviour or bad judgements; so I vote with my feet and leave and that’s how, in a very large part, we came to populate the entire planet.

Problem here is easy to define. We don’t know Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or, even say, Vlad Putin, so we have to judge them by what we see or perceive to see what they do and say.

What tools do we have to overcome the inherent disconnect between the voters and the elected? In the past we relied on the media - chiefly the print media - to provide us with details of the policies a government might follow. Nowadays the media has proliferated into realms our political leaders could have once only dreamed of. The media is the message has now become the media is the only message. And the message is almost always about character.

In the 1980’s I was fond of what I called the next-door neighbour test. Imagine the house next door was sold to (in those days) Margaret Thatcher. Can you imagine living next to Maggie? You’re in your garden and there she is looking over at your undies on the washing line and tut-tut ing! Nightmare! (incidentally, in those days despite the fact that she won a slew of elections you could never find anyone who would admit to voting for her) So who passes the Maggie Test today? Joe Biden? Not likely. Vlad the Putin – never. Bonking Boris? He wins in and landslide. He’s inviting you round for drinks or he’s in the local pub buying everybody a drink! Boris wins hands down.

The transition of news from print, television and radio to digital spaces has caused huge disruptions in the traditional news industry, especially the print news industry. It is also reflected in the ways individual Americans say they are getting their news. A large majority of Americans get news at least sometimes from digital devices, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 7, 2020.

The days of FDR’s fireside chats and the Presidential news conference are largely gone.

Even the “great communicator” Ronald Reagan would find it difficult today. Poor old Tricky Dick lost the 1960 election, chiefly because the voters judged him hot, sweaty and flustered at the debate with Kennedy.

This transition is not in itself a bad thing. A multiplicity of news from a variety of sources could be a good thing, but only if John Q Public is diligent enough to evaluate not just the news but also the source. There is little evidence that this is happening. The result is folks see something on their news feed and just accept it, particularly if it reinforces their prejudices.

Personally, if I see that a “story” is from Fox News, or the New York Times I tend to gloss over it, admittedly for completely different reasons, but gloss nevertheless. I regret that most folks are not so discerning. Even more worrying is the tendency for folks to stick to the media outlet that most agrees with their already-formed prejudices. This is bad for democracy.

A fairly simple example:

The claim: Thomas Jefferson said giving to those who are not willing to work endangers democracy

A Dec. 16 post to the Facebook page for Save Southern Heritage and History includes a statement about democracy allegedly written by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not," says the quote, which is credited to the nation's third president in a meme.

Save Southern Heritage and History is a society and cultural website that also posts conservative news and patriotic memes, according to its Facebook profile page.

USA TODAY reached out to the group for comment.

The statement has recent origins and has not been found in Jefferson's catalog of writings.

I’m sure that “quotations” from liberal sources which purport to “prove” that GW Bush was/is a racist or that Trump supported Vlad the Putin through thick and thin could also be easily found.

We have, as a society, lost the art of critical thinking. We are not questioning either our leaders or our news sources. We are allowing falsehoods to profligate with impunity.

More recently from CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/16/politics/fact-check-dale-top-15-donald-trump-lies/index.html

Lest we think that only one party/individual can play fast and loose with the truth:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/25/joe-biden/joe-biden-gets-history-wrong-second-amendment-limi/

So, what are we to take from the lack of trustworthiness in our political leaders?

Some folks may conclude that voting is just a waste of time. Some may conclude that all politicians are alike and completely untrustworthy. Some may be moved to grab a banner and march for their chosen person/cause. Some may conclude that only violence is able to effect real change and grab a gun!

I found this from Neil Fleming, whoever he is?

Do British people view the USA as a legendary country?

Absolutely. There’s lots of things you excel at and are world leaders among developed nations.

Your lack of healthcare, dreadful employment laws, endemic racism, lack of gun control, lack of social care, regular mass shootings, lunatic creationists, conspiracy nuts, lack of paid vacation time, expecting people to work for tips rather than a decent wage. Out of control trigger- happy police. Ludicrously jingoistic warmongering attitudes. A fear of anything mildly liberal. Terrible food standards. The death penalty. An utterly corrupt political system.

And all the gun toting, right wing, bible thumping republicans who think all of the above is acceptable.

This theme is not just historical: It was reported on 5 April that Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s League Party (formerly the Northern League) and the country’s controversial deputy prime minister, has invited leaders of other European radical right parties to a conference in Milan, scheduled for 8 April. Salvini’s aim, according to the Guardian, is to create a bloc of right-wing populists which extends beyond the Europe of Nations and Freedom group in the European Parliament. With 36 seats, ENF is the smallest grouping in the parliament and Salvini is clearly aiming to create something grander.

What are his chances of success? Perhaps his biggest prize would be to attract Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s far-right prime minister, who has (still) not been ejected from the centre-right European People’s Party grouping in the European Parliament, despite having been censored for his attempts to push Hungary in an authoritarian direction (or as he styles it, ‘illiberal democracy’).

Although Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has confirmed it is sending a representative, Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front has said she will not be attending. Le Pen herself hosted a similar meeting in Nice in 2018, at which Geert Wilders from the Dutch Party for Freedom and several other influential radical right speakers were present, an event which indicated how hard it has been to create a pan-European radical right bloc.

Glorifying the nation

This should not surprise us. At the root of radical right ideology is a glorification of the nation, a narrative of exceptionalism and superiority that inevitably puts like-minded nationalists from different countries at odds with one another. It is one thing to drive across a European border to a secret location to attend a blood and honour gig; creating a fully collaborative pan-European radical right quite another challenge.

As David Barnes recently wrote, narratives of European civilization have been both common and hard to sustain; Oswald Mosley’s post-World War II argument in favour of ‘Europe – A Nation’, which shares many similarities with today’s anti-immigrant discourses promoted by the likes of Salvini, found few takers, despite the fact that a notion of Europe having a homogeneous racial and cultural background was widely held across the continent’s radical right movements.

Besides, in today’s Europe, when some radical right leaders such as Salvini praise the Russians and share the Kremlin’s desire to destabilise the European Union, others, such as Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński and the Law and Justice Party – despite sharing Salvini’s aim to break the ‘Germany-France axis’ in Europe – come from a very different perspective, that of Poland’s traditional suspicion of Russia.

And where some, such as Geert Wilders and, to some extent, his new rival Thierry Baudet of the Forum for Democracy – whose penchant for highfalutin verbiage has already become notorious – talk of defending European freedom in the face of a supposed Islamist advance, others, such as Orbán and Le Pen, are more socially conservative.

Even if Europe’s radical right leaders share certain fundamental ideas, however, such as a belief in the need to defend the ‘white race’, a hatred of Islam, a desire to stop immigration, and a basic ultra-nationalist position, it is hard to see how the clash of nationalisms that conferences such as Salvini’s will expose can survive the experience.

Indeed, we have been here before. During the interwar period, attempts to create a ‘fascist international’ were set in motion on several occasions. Historians who have recently conducted research into ‘transnational fascism’ – such as Federico Finchelstein, Aristotle Kallis or Arnd Bauerkämper – have shown the extent to which fascist ideas and personnel criss-crossed the continent of Europe and beyond (to the Americas, for example), so that fascist ideology and practice were often shared.

Examples might be fascist aesthetics, racial ideology, or training camps. Fascist leaders such as Mosley or Coreneliu Codreanu were inspired by and devoted to Mussolini. And Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany established an uneasy alliance. But the analysis can only take us so far, before it becomes clear that such collaborations might have been set in motion but could not be sustained, as the different groups with their rival nationalisms ran aground on the rocks of mutual suspicion.

Finding alternative idea-mongers in Europe is less easy. Traditional left wing parties in the UK and on the continent are, despite the fear generated by conservatives, are definitely in retreat. More right-wing parties are on the up.

Take, for example, Bonking Boris and the British Conservative Party. Despite the left-wing rant from Neil Fleming, the UK public like Boris and his policies. The voted for him in droves at the last election and in spite of his recent problems with Party-gate they still generally support his government. This may change with the resolution of the Ukraine conflict, but there are no guarantees.

It is interesting to note that many political leaders have managed to survive scandals. Ronnie Reagan springs to mind. When push comes to shove it seems the voters will forgive peccadilloes and poor judgement calls far easier than the commentariat.

Perhaps the most glaring obfuscation here is the old adage: I hate to be an I Told You So. Actually, we all love to be an I told you so. We are never happier than when we are sure that we have the inside track on our fellow man, have the winning combination at the gambling tables, have all the answers whilst others are scrabbling around in the dark, have cracked the code whilst others are just dim-witted morons.

I conclusion: the incessant labelling as either right or left wing ideas and policies has very little effect on the average voter. It does tend to consolidate the support for leaders who need a secure base from which to launch a bid for political power. It encourages a volume of poor thinking from both sides. It adds nothing to political debate. It encourages the kind of mental agility that Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels  would have been very proud of indeed.