Brexit (again)

 

BOJO Bulldust

The illiterati remain obsessed with chanting “Brexit is done, get over it and move on!”  Unfortunately this is a classic case of, “can you smell that stuff you shovelling”!

Brexit is not done and is unlikely to ever be done. Current rows about the status of Northern Ireland serve only to underline the point. The choice of the majority who voted for Brexit must be respected, yet in the country in particular politicians are placed in  an almost insurmountable position. Everybody knows that Boris is a chancer, after all it's part of his charm. But when cornered, his true colours often glimmer through the mist. Don't forget :he left David Cameron thinking that he might support the Brexit deal and campaign accordingly only to overnight become a committed leaver. Bottom line, Boris is a shuttlecock floating towards the end line and hoping to land in and not out. Or, should it be the other way around? Who knows with Boris?

The current spat with the French is as unedifying as it was predictable. Moron Macron sees votes in a bit of roastbeeefs bashing and Boris would love to wear the Henry V mantle and give the froggies six of the best - trousers down. . "Monge too" as Del boy would say. All good clean fun you may say. On the day a delay to unlocking is now delayed for four weeks, and Boris has so annoyed the speaker that he might have to take six of the best in the Commons :it's not surprising that the Boris balls up of Ireland has slipped down the list of things to deal with. Let's just kick it down the road again. 

As attractive as this might seem it's, in reality, a fantasy. 

For, the Irish question has been kicked down the road so often, surely the ball is flatter than a witch's chest. But, is there any chance Boris actually has a plan and knows more than we do? Not likely. 

If he does it's probably a dose of electoral reality. Successive Unionist led governments at Stormont have known that the day is coming when their electoral majority will disappear. Boris knows this as well. He knows as leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, he could never openly betray the Unionists. But, the present Northern Ireland deal provides for a plebiscite of the people of Northern Ireland if they wish to have a United Ireland. Maybe the arch chancer is happy to just waffle and bluster and wait for demographics to come to his rescue. 

Or, he has found that the EU, for all its blustering, can do little practically to annoy him.

Dealing with Dominic Cummings may actually cause him more problems than Brexit and NI combined, but that’s a story for another day.

News today is that the NI executive will be reconstituted as Sinn Fein agree to power sharing with the new ultra-right-wing Ulster Unionists.  As unrest grows on the street prior to the onset of the traditional marching season, Boris just ignores it.  After all, that’s what he did with NI to get a deal with the EU, so why not try it again? Then, next day Mr Poots , newly installed dup leader, resigns over a deal he did with sinn feinn to promote the Irish language. (a day is a long time in Irish politics) 

Boris reaction : spout more platitudes.

I watched a very interesting documentary about the founding of the Irish Free State. I suspect that few people know that the partition of Ireland was agreed by the British government to be a temporary situation. At that time even the NI unionists were on board with guarantees from the UK that they would be protected within a united Ireland. As we know, this did not happen and in the end the Irish were unwilling to be part of the commonwealth with the British monarch as Head of state. 

Now we see again that the unionists will not supinely countenance any kind of a united Ireland. And, as we approach the marching season, things are likely to get worse before they get better. 

Whose responsibility? 

Surely, it’s got to be Bonking Boris. 

Hakf asleep dreaming

 

I'm half asleep or maybe half dreaming

A fragment, sometimes a little more

Of a remarkable poem hoves into view 

But, before I can rouse myself 

It disappears into a misty reverie 

And the moment is lost

Only the poignant memory remains. 

In that moment all things 

Become possible or perhaps not quite so ridiculous 

We swirl towards the black hole at the center of our universe 

Enmeshed in ancient memories of 

Bandy legs and coarser whiskers 

About the fire, eyes moist and gleaming 

While the little ones drool expectantly 

And the rat fat sizzles in the fire 

Wreaths of smoke spiral to the zenith 

Low growls from a wolf-like companion 

Help to congeal the clan and all things become possible

As another day dawns

I remember - Poem

 

I remember you so very clearly now

Even I see you through a diaphanous haze

I remember you, ever smiling thou

Forever love that time cannot faze

Reach for the book and open up the page

Mark it: a rose that can not ever fade

Time lines appear, coloured a creamy beige

Yet, love remains when all debts have been paid

Age shall not weary nor the years distort

The love – shining now as a beacon

The chronicles will make just one report

We kept the faith and gave each like for like

Keep you safe, happy and content with a silly rhyme

As I produce, again, the glorious descent towards the sublime

Naked Apes

 

Sexy Apes

I’ve decided to go on the record before I begin my analysis. This may seem cowardly, and it is. Lest I be accused of all sorts, I’d like to say that I fully support a woman’s right to be safe and feel safe in every environment: I abhor violence against women (or indeed against anyone for that matter): I believe we should all treat women as if they are our Mother, sister, niece, auntie, daughter or best friend. I support a woman’s right to be heard if they think they are not being given proper treatment under the law and I support laws to help women to achieve equal treatment.

Now, having said that the world we live in has changed beyond all recognition. There is no doubt that things are changing. Most notably our view of the relationship between men and women. Add in the Me Too movement and the emasculation of normal relationships and you have created a real toxic environment for our children to negotiate.

Megan Markle complains of racism in the Royal family. Many people think racism is the scourge of our society. Black Lives matters gleans not just headlines, but also action. In the UK, the Sarah Everhard case has galvanized women to take to the streets in protest at what they see has institutionalized sexism and misogyny.

Vocal women assault the senses with strident denunciations of sexism blighting not just the work environment, but also our most intimate personal relationships.

The world turns, but we question whether we are turning with it.

Before I launched into the debate proper, I decided to go back and do a little research. Firstly, I renewed my acquaintance with The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris. This 60's masterpiece should be required reading for all those whose normal modus operandi consists of half clocked and half baked platitudes about the human condition without any real understanding. If you are in that tribe, you may, profitably stop reading now.

Secondly, I had another look at the modern equivalent: Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. Separated by quite some time nevertheless these books both have a lot to say about the subject at hand and contain some very cogent insights.

The key feature of both books is to remind us that at our core we are creatures that can't escape our genes: our heritage will find us out every time.

Part of that heritage concerns the relationship between the sexes. It is easy to forget that for 99.99 % of the history of the “carbon units” currently infesting this planet we were only moderately successful hunter gatherers. Each sex had relatively stable and well defined roles in society. Men were hunters and tool makers, women were caregivers, child care operatives and food gatherers. We did this for thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of years.

Now we are expected to adjust to a completely different expectation about our roles in society without time (biological time) to adjust. It’s asking a lot. And, the evidence is that it is not working very well either.

Some personal experience. When I used to teach PHSE (Personal Health and Social Education) as an adjunct to my primary duties as Head of English. I typically had a mixed group (gender-wise) of 25 15 year olds to explain not just human relationships but also the thorny topic of sex. You think this might be easy? Go on, I dare you, give it a try!

My technique was simple, if somewhat unusual. Before class, I would write “SEX” in very large letters in the middle of the white board. In the bottom left hand corner, in very small letters I would write “reproduction”. As the pupils arrived, they would look at the board and the boys would all snigger and some, not all, of the girls might look uncomfortable or amused. To start the lesson I would point to the large letters and say SEX, then I would point out the small letters and say reproduction. I would explain that SEX is what you think you are doing, but mother nature has a different plan, for reproduction is actually what you are doing. My example was a crocodile infested river which I would draw (very crudely) on the board (under the SEX ) and I would ask a simple question of all the boys. “If on the other side of the river was your favourite Page 3 Pin Up (picture a scantily clad lady with no breast covering at all) calling for you to come over - would you jump in the river?

Almost to a man they would shout “Yea, man everyday and twice on Tuesday!” Or, something very similar. The testosterone levels were so close to hitting the roof: they would not mind that their female classmates were in the room. They were showing off! That’s generally what 15 year old boys do. After calming them down a bit, I could usually get them to agree that maybe they would be better off trying to build a boat or raft and then try to cross. Useful lesson number one. First rule of being a Homo Sapiens: self-preservation. Second rule: procreate the species. How about removing the crocs? Would you then make a bee-line for the other shore? Agreed? All male hands were immediately in the air. Many girls genuinely found this shocking. My claim to fame? At that point I would go for the jugular. "Now, boys imagine she was not a supermodel but one of your classmates?" Much consternation from the boys. To say they would only paddle across for a super model would be to crush their chances of sex with any of their erstwhile and much more Ilocal, and therefore more available, girl friends. Looks like a Harry met Sally moment. Testosterone levels plummeted and a more conciliatory and responsible look sheepishly came over the collective visage. Repeat Rule One and Two. Jobs a good-un!

Another classroom example: I always assessed the demeanour of the young ladies in my class as they trooped towards the door. If more than one was crying, I knew I was in for a long lesson. One day, to my surprise a tall, gangly girl ( I will not name names) came to the door more upset that crying and said, “Sir, Joe (not his real name) just hit me!” Quick as a flash I retorted, “you know what that means? He fancies you!” Worked like a charm!

Were it that simple, but this does illustrate some of the pitfalls of trying to pile modern society on top of our ancestry. This is not to say, of course that we are prisoners of our genes and must continue to countenance men’s assaults on women or make light of them. But, modern culture actively encourages a more male-centric view of not just society, but also a woman’s place in it.

Some modern examples you may be familiar with:

When Harry Met Sally (Rom-Com which in the end proves exactly what the characters have been trying to avoid - men and women cannot be friends without sex butting in)

Spartacus (whoa! What's he doing here? Remember how the gladiators were introduced to the various slave sex partners they were alloted?)

Tom and Mrs Tom Brady (You think it’s odd to see a Brazilian supermodel as an example of how the sexes operate now? I think not. How many successful, handsome men partner up with what are generally accepted to be beautiful women? How many grains of sand are there on a beach?)

The Donald and Melania Trump (ditto for the Bradys, just substitute the handsome for lots and lots of money!)

Watership Down (Rabbits, are you kidding me! Yep, the story is all about how the boy rabbits, after many adventures find that they have no does and risk life and limb to get some) The list is almost endless.

An American Werewolf in London (this was on TV recently and I didn't watch it, but I did see a scene where the girl, played by Jenny Agutter, invites the werewolf guy home and after explaining that she doesn't really do this sort of thing, she shows him that there is only one bed and he is going to be in it with her. I suspect you can see where this is going.

Just flicking through the TV channels I see an episode of King of Queens advertised where one of the characters has a chance to sleep with a beautiful woman but his mate tries to sabotage the sex.

The point is almost 100 %of popular culture involves some aspect of boy /girl sexual encounters and the subsequent consequences. The real problem is that males have a erroneous idea of how the relationship between the sexes actually works. Males think they choose women – therefore they engage in inappropriate behaviour in the mistaken belief that this is how you get a mate. Wrong! Women do the choosing and always have done.

Meanwhile let's get back to my chosen sources : The Naked Ape and Sapiens. Both agree that for most of our evolutionary history we were a rather unimportant, somewhat fragile species living in Africa. We shared our habitat with a number of species of Homo. Only in the last 40 000 years have we been the lone hominid species on earth. The key feature of Sapiens: the feature which separates us from our closest relatives among the apes is our family relationships. We don't rely on a dominant male to protect the group. Uniquely among primates, we share the females among the group of hunters. Lacking the physical tools to dominate other hunters, say lions, we evolved to work together to get food which would otherwise be unavailable. To do this we work together and sharing females is not just desirable - it is imperative.

Swapping the roles and perspectives to the female side, the need to have a hunter to provide for her and her offspring means that she will readily trade sex for security. The most attractive and successful hunter may be desirable to females, but her first choice is mitigated by the fact that while he will certainly welcome the chance to father her child, he most likely will not be around to provide for her and the child during the ten years it takes to bring it to maturity. And, most importantly, he will not be able to get the other hunters to co-operate if he simply steals all the girls. For that you need a father who may not be the most attractive, but who will be around to provide for you and the children.

Therefore it is clear: women have been trading sex for security for at least 70 000 years, and we ignore this basic fact at our peril.

From The Naked Ape:

“There are one hundred and ninety-three living species of

monkeys and apes. One hundred and ninety-two of them are

covered with hair. The exception is a naked ape self-named

Homo sapiens. This unusual and highly successful species spends

a great deal of time examining his higher motives and an equal

amount of time studiously ignoring his fundamental ones. He

is proud that he has the biggest brain of all the primates, but

attempts to conceal the fact that he also has the biggest penis,

preferring to accord this honour falsely to the mighty gorilla.

Essentially this was a hunting-group of males. The females

were too busy rearing the young to be able to play a major

role in chasing and catching prey. As the complexity of the

hunt increased and the forays became more prolonged, it

became essential for the hunting ape to abandon the meander-

ing, nomadic ways of its ancestors. A home base was necessary,

a place to come back to with the spoils, where the females and

the young would be waiting and could share the food. This step,

as we shall see in later chapters, has had profound effects on

many aspects of the behaviour of even the most sophisticated

naked apes of today. So the hunting ape became a territorial ape.

His wholesexual, parental and social patterns began to be affected.

His old wandering, fruit-plucking way of life was fading rapidly.

He had now really left his forest of Eden. He was an ape with

responsibilities. He began to worry about the prehistoric

equivalent of washing machines and refrigerators. He began

to develop the home comforts—fire, food storage, artificial

shelters. But this is where we must stop for the moment, for

we are moving out of the realms of biology and into the

realms of culture. The biological basis of these advanced steps

lies in the development of a brain large and complex enough

to enable the hunting ape to take them, but the exact form

they assume is no longer a matter of specific genetic control.

The forest ape that became a ground ape that became a hunt-

ing ape that became a territorial ape has become a cultural ape

And we must call a temporary halt.

His whole body, his way of life, was geared

to a forest existence, and then suddenly (suddenly in evolu-

tionary terms) he was jettisoned into a world where he could

survive only if he began to live like a brainy, weapon-toting

wolf. We must examine now exactly how this affected not

only his body, but especially his behaviour, and in what form

we experience the influence of this legacy at the present day.

The co-operative spirit that is present in such pack-hunters

as wolves are largely absent from the world of the primate.

Competitiveness and dominance is the order of his day. Com-

petition in the social hierarchy is, of course, present in both

groups, but it is less tempered by co-operative action in the

case of monkeys and apes. Complicated, co-ordinated

manoeuvres are also unnecessary: sequences of feeding action

do not need to be strung together in such a complex way. The

primate can live much more from minute to minute, from

hand to mouth. Because the primate's food supply is all around it for the

taking, there is little need to cover great distances. Groups of

wild gorillas, the largest of the living primates, have been

carefully studied and their movements traced, so that we now

know that they travel on the average about a third of a mile

a day. Sometimes they move only a few hundred feet

The answer was the development of a pair-bond. Male and

female hunting apes had to fall in love and remain faithful to

one another. This is a common tendency in many other

groups of animals, but is rare amongst primates. It solved three

problems in one stroke. It meant that the females remained

bonded to their individual males and faithful to them while

they were away on the hunt. It meant that serious sexual

rivalries between the males were reduced. This aided their

developing co-operativeness. If they were to hunt together

successfully, the weaker males as well as the stronger ones had

to play their part. They had to play a central role and could

not be thrust to the periphery of society, as happens in so many

primate species. What is more, with his newly developed and

deadly artificial weapons, the hunting ape male was under

strong pressure to reduce any source of disharmony within

the tribe. Thirdly, the development of a one-male-one-female

breeding units meant that the offspring also benefited. The

heavy task of rearing and training the slowly developing

young demanded a cohesive family unit. In other groups of

animals, whether they are fishes, birds or mammals, when

there is too big a burden for one parent to bear alone, we see

the development of a powerful pair-bond, tying the male and

female parents together throughout the breeding season. This,

too, is what occurred in the case of the hunting ape.

In this way, the females were sure of their males' support

and were able to devote themselves to their maternal duties.

The males were sure of their females' loyalty, were prepared

to leave them for hunting, and avoided fighting over them.

And the offspring were provided with the maximum of care

and attention. This certainly sounds like an ideal solution, but

it involved a major change in primate socio-sexual behaviour

and, as we shall see later, the process was never really perfected.

Sexually, the naked ape finds himself today in a somewhat

confusing situation. As a primate he is pulled one way, as a

carnivore by adoption he is pulled another, and as a member

of an elaborate civilized community he is pulled yet another.

To start with, he owes all his basic sexual qualities to his

fruit-picking, forest-ape ancestors. These characteristics were

then drastically modified to fit in with his open-country,

hunting way of life. This was difficult enough, but then they,

in turn, had to be adapted to match the rapid development of

an increasingly complex and culturally determined social

structure.

Sexually the naked ape finds himself today in a somewhat

confusing situation. As a primate he is pulled one way, as a

carnivore by adoption he is pulled another, and as a member

of an elaborate civilized community he is pulled yet another.

The first of these changes, from a sexual fruit-picker to a

sexual hunter, was achieved over a comparatively long period

of time and with reasonable success. The second change has

been less successful. It has happened too quickly and has been

forced to depend upon intelligence and the application of

learned restraint rather than on biological modifications based

on natural selection. It could be said that the advance of

civilization has not so much moulded modern sexual be-

haviour, as that sexual behaviour has moulded the shape of Civilization.”

We find that we are extremely unprepared for modern life. Our Naked Ape behaviours are too often at odds with our biological needs. In essence, we should be called The Sexy Ape instead of the naked one. Sex is at the core of what we do and how we do it. We are not “programmed” to ignore our sexual preferences and become some sort of modern version of a celibate saint. We are much more likely to be a version of Donald Trump or Bill Clinton.

From Sapiens:

“Genus Homo’s position in the food chain was, until quite recently, solidly in the middle. For millions of years, humans hunted smaller creatures and gathered what they could, all the while being hunted by larger predators. It was only 400 000 years ago that several species of man began to hunt large game on a regular basis, and only in the last 100 000 years - with the rise of Homo sapiens - that man jumped to the top of the food chain. Other animals at the top of the pyramid like lions and sharks evolved very gradually over millions of years. In contrast, humankind ascended to the top so quickly that the ecosystem was not given time to adjust. Moreover, humans themselves failed to adjust. Most of the top predators of the planet are majestic creatures. Millions of years of domination have filled them with self-confidence. Sapiens, by contrast, is more like a banana-republic dictator. Having so recently been one of the underdogs of the savannah, we are full of fears and anxieties over our position - which makes us doubly cruel and dangerous. Many historical calamities, from deadly wars to ecological catastrophes have resulted from this over-hasty jump.

Our eating habits, our conflicts and our sexuality are all the result of the way our hunter-gatherer minds interact with our current post-industrial environment, with its mega-cities, aeroplanes, telephones and computers.”

Returning to the present debate, I put forward some well-known historical incidents of rape.

Analysis of the human genome reveals that some 2-6% of modern human DNA is either Neanderthal or other closely related Homo species. Now, some of this could well be the result of consensual sex, but most scientists agree that it is more likely that our ancient ancestors (on both sides of the divide) were the result of conquest or rape.

In literature: The Rape of the Sabine Women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women is among the earliest references. Other references in literature are myriad and well-known.

“Historically, in war the instances of rape are innumerable and it is not hard to imagine why. Take as an example, the Soviet occupation of Berlin at the end of WWII:

As Allied troops entered and occupied German territory during the later stages of World War II, mass rapes of women took place both in connection with combat operations and during the subsequent occupation of Germany. Scholars agree that the majority of the rapes were committed by Soviet occupation troops. The wartime rapes had been surrounded by decades of silence. According to historian Antony Beevor, whose books were banned in 2015 from some Russian schools and colleges, NKVD (Soviet secret police) files have revealed that the leadership knew what was happening, but did little to stop it. It was often rear echelon units who committed the rape According to professor Oleg Rzheshevsky, "4,148 Red Army officers and many privates were punished for committing atrocities". The exact number of German women and girls raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million.”

It is not difficult to see how or why this happened. The atrocities of the German Army in Russia are well-known and well-documented, so when the Red Army conquered Germany it was “pay-back” time. But, on a biological level it is even more easily understood. Imagine you have fought your way from the Elbe to Berlin and suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties in reaching Berlin and your prospects of living are poor. Remember Rule One and Rule Two? You may be dead tomorrow so it’s Rule Two today, and if that includes rape, then so be it.

The fact is that in most wars rape is a constant feature.

How does this shed light on today? Firstly, we no longer live in small groups of hunter-gatherers, so we have lost that vital link to our fellow men. Too often we see women as objects and not as members of our tribes.

Example: I recently learned of a group of militant misogynists and their impact on modern culture - especially young men. I choose not to share either their beliefs or their contact details, for whatever we think it’s all too easy to find them on the internet. What did strike me was the assertion at the end of the report that the majority of the men were simply frustrated by their inability to attract or keep a mate. They could not access sex, so they hated all women.

We have lost our biological, social ability to co-operate in both society and in sex.

For that we have already and will pay an increasingly high price.

Where do we go from her? I wish I knew. Unless men can begin to see a woman as someone’s mother, sister, etc. and somehow this triggers the appropriate response; it is likely that there is no real answer. We will continue to battle the downsides of modern culture with only a few small successes along the way, and considerable pain for the majority of the population – women who outnumber men.

ID Cards v Social Security

Solving two problems with one plan?

ID cards for Britain are in the news as Boris contemplates getting out of the Covid emergency and hitting the sunny uplands of freedom.  So, what’s all the fuss about?  On the surface it seems a no-brainer.  You get your Covid vaccine, you apply for a card (with photo ID - maybe just like a driving license), you go to the pub or cinema and show your card, you get in.  Painless? Were it only so simple? 

The British aversion to anything that even smells like, let alone looks like a government required ID card has a long history. Oddly up until 2011 there were cards, first introduced during World War II. The legislation requiring them was allowed to lapse. However, if you ask John Q Public they will persuade you that ID cards are a EU invention and, as we know, anything that smacks of Europe is simply toxic. So, when Boris semi-suggested that ID cards might be useful in the post Covid world you might have thought that he suggested incest as a recreational activity or a penchant for sodomy as a prerequisite to register to vote. 

What has always struck me as odd is the public’s lack of understanding of how ID cards affect illegal immigration.  The British, chiefly the English, are obsessed with the idea that illegal immigrants are flooding the country and stretching an already over-stretched public service, milking the tax payer in the process. This single issue was the most telling in the Brexit debate, particularly for the over 50’s who did most of the voting.  The English have always had an ambivalent relationship with “Johnny Foreigner” or Wogs as they used to be known.  Most “oldies” still subscribe to the theory that Wogs begin at Dover, the French are dirty and duplicitous, the Germans bombed our chippy, the Spanish and Italians are just lazy Dagos and the Greeks are - well they are subject to all the ills known to mankind.  Best just get rid of them and keep England for the English.  Lest you think I’m joking, I’m not.  Most polls will show that my summation is just about right.  So, you might well think, the first folks who would be all in for ID cards would be the Brexit supporting numpties who voted to get out of the EU in the first place.

Error.

This is the amazing bit.  ID cards would go a long way towards eliminating fraud for benefits.  No ID card, no benefits and also no access to the NHS.  Solves a lot of problems without much pain.  Why not just do it?

Boris succinctly puts the view forward that it’s just not the done thing.  It’s too much like the state interfering in the rights of the people to be assh****. (That’s Tory policy in case you were in any doubt.)  Despite the fact that it makes a lot of sense and is relatively easy to do, Boris is very sceptical and for all the wrong reasons.

Contrast this with the Social Security system in the US. It is almost impossible to work legally in the US without a social security number. (That is not to say, of course, that the black economy of cash in hand payments to low paid, low skilled (perhaps illegal) immigrants is not known or not a problem.)  But, The Social Security system goes a long way towards bringing everyone into the known economy.

Latest news has Boris and the Tories warming to the idea of some kind of ID system once we exit from the Covid nightmare.  Let’s hope the reports are close to the mark: I for one would welcome a system which not only help people access their local pub, but also helps to mitigate the worst excess of an illegal immigration.

Chiefs Sumble at the last hurdle

 

Chiefs run, stumble, fall flat on their asses, limp back to K C, not just beaten but embarrassed.

Personally I got it wrong, very wrong. I thought that the complete lack of an offensive line, whilst not ideal, would be easy to overcome. How wrong could you get! I have seen a stat showing that Mahomes ran 458 yards in the game. Only a few of them were past the line of scrimmage, mostly he ran for his life. The idea that they could play quite so poorly was just not realistic. How wrong can you get? What degree of wrongness would you prefer?

Florio and Sims on Pro Football Talk agree that the officials were very poor and the Bucs had a great plan to wind up Chris Jones and Tyrann Mathieu. And it worked. But, the better team won. And they did it with great defense and just enough offense to keep the Chiefs off balance all night.

Make no mistake no team with a non - existent offensive line and receivers who dropped more balls in one game than they have in 16 weeks was ever likely to win the Super Bowl. Then there are the penalties.

This is a tough one. If you complain about the officials it just sounds like sour grapes. And, so the accepted wisdom goes, poor calls happen and in a blow out they make hardly any difference. I disagree. No-one can predict what might happen in an alternative universe, but to contend that bad calls have hardly any effect is as simplistic as it is erroneous. Just imagine if the Mathieu interception had been allowed to stand. The game is changed dramatically. Who knows what might happen next? The refs have a lot to ponder and I believe that the Chiefs will be asking the league to look at some of the calls to try to improve the situation for other teams. My guess. Chiefs still lose by at least 10 points.

We move on.

But before we do some explanation of how things went so horribly wrong is required.

Firstly Mahomes was injured far more than we thought. The turf toe that seemed only an inconvenience turned out to be a debilitating, game changing problem. With that said, he played quite well all things considered. It was not enough, for he got precious little support from his offensive buddies. Even the usually reliable receiving corps had the dropsies.

The twitteratti are smoking with condemnation of Bret Veitch, the Chiefs GM.

They confirm what many have suspected for many years. The Chief’s O-line is really not up to scratch and Veitch has done little in either the draft or free agency to fix it. It seems that both Reid and Veitch have been so enamoured with Mahomes that they really believed that he could overcome any problems with his brilliance. Perhaps on two good legs this may have been so, but the days of poor draft choices and free agents must be over. In 2018 the Chiefs had six picks. Only Derrick Nnadi has significantly contributed to the team’s success. Three are gone and two are just hanging on (Dorian O’Daniel and Armani Watts). 2019 was not much better. Veach traded round one pick for Frank Clark. Clark has been good, but not spectacularly good, especially in this year’s Super Bowl where he had one sack of Brady and then not much else. Mecole Hardman was drafted to be the possible replacement for Tyreek Hill and has contributed on special teams and occasionally as a wide-out. Safety Juan Thjornhill has been very good until he was injured and missed last year’s Super Bowl. He’s working his way back, but slowly.

Defensive tackle Khalen Saunders has had limited action. Cornerback Rashaud Fenton is only occasionally seen. Nick Allegriti has seen plenty of action - despite being a seventh round pick. Moving to 2020, the choice of Clyde Edwards-Hellaire as pick 32 was met with some skepticism by many, including me. He has been good. But, has he been first round good? - Willie Gay Junior was a top pick and has played - some. Next year will see if he is a boom or bust. The jury is still out on lineman Lucas Niang (opted out of the Covid-year), L’Jarius Sneed was a find from the fourth round and Mike Dana looked not bad until injured. The other pick - in the seventh round - Bo’Pete Keyes was inactive most of the season.

All in all, The GM just has not invested in keeping Mahomes either upright or healthy. This must stop.

Taken as a whole, the season was a litany of errors and missed opportunities. Even in games they won, the tribe were often relying on the big play offense to overcome a poor defense and - for the first time in a long time - special teams that did not really deliver. Tommy Townsend for one has a lot to make up for. Forgetting that he has had quite a good rookie year, in the big one he muffed big-time. Expect a real fight next year to see if he is the punter going forward.

Andy Reid has a plan. He expects some time off and then to evaluate the roster. He stressed that the team must not just be defined by one game. Unfortunately, this is the NFL and they will be evaluated by the Super Bowl loss. Super Bowl Winners: Kelce, Mahomes (qualified as he was more injured than we expected), CEH (who had a good game), Clark. Losers: the o-line, Reid, Townsend, Hardman, a plethora of penalties, and some very uncharacteristic dropped passes.

 The off season should be interesting

Run It Back

 

Chiefs Super Bowl Chances 2020-21

I have spent some time this week watching last year’s Super Bowl. Some things are real pointers as to how this Run it Back season may pan out.

Firstly, I was struck by how fortunate the Chiefs were to win last season. Behind for most of the game until 8 minutes left in the fourth, they somehow managed to find something great at just the right time.

The 49ers were unlucky, as well as out-played. Why did they lose? It’s an offensive league. Before the game the focus was on the San Francisco defensive front four and how they would dominate the Chiefs offensive line and make Patrick Mahomes run around scared all day – forcing bad throws and getting sacks. In fact, Mahomes was intercepted twice and missed a few receivers (at least in the first 32 minutes) and was sacked a few times. But critically, he had time to make the throw of the season to Hill for 40 yards – on a third and fifteen – and the rest, as they say, is history.

Fast-forward. How will the Bucs fare against the Tribe’s offensive fire-power? Is the Tampa pass rush as good as San Frans? Can Tampa sack Mahomes more than a few times? Can they pressure him into interceptions? Not likely. Not by a long shot. The Chiefs handled the Tampa rush quite well in the regular season game and I expect they will again. (Yes, I know they have injuries on the line, but somehow they always manage to find a way to protect Mahomes enough for him to make plays!)  Tampa will not be able to stop the Chiefs. I trust Reid and Spagnolo to scheme on both sides of the ball.

Again this season, just in time, the defence is coming good. They look as strong as last year on the defensive line with both Chris Jones and Frank Clark rounding into form at just the right time. This season’s secondary looks even stronger than the Super Bowl winning squad. Will Tom Brady be able to complete some passes? Yes, of course he will. Will he be able to hit the home-run ball? Not very likely, the Chiefs will pressure him and force a lot of short throws. They will sack him multiple times and hit him a few more and constantly force him out of his comfort zone. I can’t see the Bucs scoring more than 21 points. That will not be enough for the Chiefs as they will be good for 35+.

The coaching match-up is both interesting and crucial. Andy Reid does not lose with two weeks to prepare. Bruce Arians is in his first Super Bowl. The Buccaneers will be out-coached as well as out-played.

Am I being too optimistic?  Only time will tell, but there is a swagger about this team that refuses to go away.  I’m a believer.

What might derail the Run it Back tour? 

Injuries, particularly on both lines. The game is usually won or lost in the trenches. Super Bowl LV will be no exception. And, the Chiefs are quite short of replacements. In a two horse race the underdog always has a chance. For the Bucs to prevail they need everything to go their way, including the bounce of the odd - shaped ball. Whereas the Chiefs can win at 80 to 90 %of all factors. 

My prediction Chiefs by 10.

Reminds me of their first triumph. I took the Chiefs and gave 10 points. We all remember how that turned out. At the end I felt sorry for the Vikings. 65 TPT will shine again. 

 

Shylock



A recent article in the Sunday Times concerning Michael Morpugo’s retelling of Shakespeare stories where he explains why he has decided to leave out the Merchant of Venice from the series raises many very uncomfortable questions. Not least of all since the article is written by Howard Jacobson (and here is a good example of inherent antisemitism, for I presume Howard is a Jew simply because of his last name, and that could be a useful definition of antisemitism).



Some personal background. Born on the south side of Chicago in the late forties meant that from an early age I was aware, though vaguely, of the word Jew and its slightly negative connotations. I also knew nigger and other now practically defunct terms for folks who were not white Anglo-Saxon protestants. I started school at St Joseph's because every white kid attended the local Catholic school - blacks were barred. But the Jewish kids were somehow classed as white by the church and were enrolled and then predictably did not attend on Yom Kippur - which annoyed the Catholic sisters intensely. Recounting such blatant racism now simply dates me as being old - some might say very old indeed. But, I assure you that was the norm in 50's Chicago.



When I was about 6 or 7, again on Chicago's south side, I remember being told that the Jewish kids down the street were taking a bath, naked, in their basement with only a window between the spectators and the bathers. Even at that tender age somehow I knew this was odd - but too good to miss. So, we stood outside and looked at a naked 6 year old Jewish girl. Not my proudest moment I admit. But it did serve to reinforce the fact that Jews were somehow different. Whether or not I noticed if her brother was circumcised I can't say as I noticed.



We moved to independence, Missouri when I was 10. In the fourth, fifth and sixth grades there were no black kids at all. Same for 7 and eight. Were there any Jews? I suppose so, but I never heard it mentioned. By the time I got to high school we had three or four black kids in our year group. I sat next to Donald Robinson, a black boy, in biology class. I’d like to think we were friends, but it never occurred to me to (for example) eat lunch with him or invite him to my house. I think my mom and dad would have taken a dim view of such an invitation. The unseen racism prevalent at the time made it almost impossible to do.



Moving into the world of work, the closest I came to a racial or ethnic minority were the Mexicans I ran into. Then At Western Electric there were a few blacks and everyone seemed to get along well. In the Army the covert racism was obvious. Strangely this was my real first experience of living and working with black people. My basic training company at Fort Polk, Louisiana was predominantly composed of black and bilingual Mexican Americans. Oddly, the training cadre was almost exclusively black and bilingual Spanish-speaking NCOs . I saw no evidence that this caused any problems. Any Jewish soldiers? No idea.



Religion was not a topic of conversation that ever came up.



Moving on to my time in Norway, there were very few blacks in our compliment. I do remember two. One was a very large,very jovial, AF enlisted man who could drink more sherry than anyone I have ever loopseen. One was a quiet, well spoken Army SP4 who had a Norgeweian girlfriend. Very pretty and very blonde, she was not him. Neither was in my social circle. In the 70s Norway was a very white very conservative country. Nowadays there are black and Asian Norwegian people and their lack of language skills is a point of contention in Norway today with at least one political party trying to institute a language test for citizenship.



I presume that there are Jewish Norwegians? (actually looking on Google I find that almost the entire Jewish community of Norway was removed to the Naxi concedntration camps where they perished. If the Norwegian people protested in the same way as the Danes, is not mentioned). There is a synagogue in Oslo today and a small, but active Jewish community.



To sum up : my exposure to both blacks and Jews in early life was small and patchy. In early adulthood, my concerns about black civil rights overshadowed my concerns about Jews in America.



Back to Michael Morpugo. His explanation as to why he decided to leave The Merchant of Venice out of his forthcoming series designed to introduce children to Shakespeare goes like this: “I avoided hylock because it worries me too much… There are assumptions right the way through about what it is to be a Jew and how Jews are thought of . . . for me it was best not to go there. It is too raw to write about for children.



The Times correspondent replies, “ I can’t pretend that I haven’t shared Morpugo’s reluctance to engage with this play. The Shylock sections are largely cruel and barbarous and the overriding tone is impatient and cynical. Shakespeare is too great a writer to be flatly racist, but I’ve seen many performances of the play that was. Shylock was too individually alive in the language of the play to be a figure of loathing the other characters see. It isn’t the Jew what's hateful, it’s the Christian Venetians. Yes there is antisemitism in the play, but it’s theirs, not Shakespeares.”



I'm an English teacher, therefore I am familiar with The Merchant of Venice. When I was 14, we read it in English lessons. So, I must try to look back through the process and make some recollection of how I reacted, (as for example upon first looking into Chapman Homer).



I knew that Shylock was the villain in the play. I knew that the christians were the heroes. I know that Shakespeare was a product of his time and antisemitism was common in England in the late 1500’s. Was I aware of the coarse racism? There I'm not so sure. I certainly don't remember the teacher talking about it. Were there any Jewish kids in the class? Again no real idea.



What is clear is that no thought went into picking the Shakespear play to study in terms of racism.anti-semitism.



But, wait a minute, what about other equally problematical Shakespeare plays? How about Othello? Full of racism (When Iago tells Brabanzio that “an old black ram / Is tupping your white ewe,” he demeans a passionate and loving relationship between two intelligent adults by characterizing Othello as a mindless rutting animal who has soiled the pure Desdemona with his lust.” What a great example courtesy of Othello: A+ Student Essay | SparkNotes The racism is even condoned, even praised by the critics!



What about misogyny in Richard III? I'll have her, but I will not keep her long. But the plain devil and dissembling looks? And yet to win her, all the world to nothing!



How about some good old fashioned common sense here?



It seems that by leaving out Merchant of Venice and ignoring other perhaps more blatant examples of Shakespear’s racism, etc, Morpugo is really saying that despite the fact that the plays and the characters in them are prisoners of their time he is simply going to single out Merchant of Venice as too difficult to deal with. The really telling feature is that Lambs Tales includes Merchant of Venice and Othello.



So, Morpugo’s reasoning is just a cop-out (or perhaps a good example of inverse racism.



A real Tragedy.

Amend the Constitution

A Pipe Dream?

 

When I was a kid, we played cowboys and Indians. We played kick the can, we played baseball and football in the backyard. Our problems and aspirations were those of kids. 

Now we deal with viruses and insurrection. Our problems are adult and manifold. Our aspirations are tempered by age, experience and, hopefully wisdom. 

Watching events unfold in Washington this week could almost make you cry and give up on the American dream. 

We are now testing whether any nation so dedicated and so conceived can long endure. We are called upon to be witnesses to the ongoing crisis. We are called upon to choose sides and decide where we go from here. 

How in the world did we get here? 

There is a school of thought that says this is all new and inevitable. This is wrong. The present crisis was easy to foresee. It may be easy to fix if we have the courage to use not only the Constitution we have, but also the one we need and deserve.

The short answer is that the Founding Fathers did not envision the advent of the modern world with its blurring of the difference between truth, fiction, lies and opinion. How could they? As a document the Constitution is a prisoner of its time. Fact is the only surprise is that it has lasted this and only been updated 16 times! I disregard the bill of rights which was added right away. An example : the bill leaves so much power in the hands of the citizen or the states, there is no way to successfully organise a coherent response to a public health emergency. Thus new records for deaths are being set daily. Whilst Rome burns a handcuffed government fiddles. Two amendments are self-cancelling ( 18 and 21) some are the result of the War (13, 14, 15) So, the amazing thing is the Constitution has only been meaningfully updated about ten times in over 200 years.  It is time for a fundamental re-think!

Would it be possible to update the Constitution for the modern age?

Regrettably it’s possible, but extremely unlikely.

The truth is that the party or faction in power is always less enamoured with such monumental change as when they are out of office.

I expect Joe Biden and the Democrats to remain true to form.  There are manifold problems already and no real impetus for Constitutional change.

This needs to change.

My prescription:  constitutional reform of the First Amendment to account for the radical change in the press; reform the second amendment to focus on the militia aspect as opposed to the individual's right to keep and bear arms; a new amendment to refocus the power of the state to regulate more aspects of individual rights - for example, making states responsible for ensuring equal opportunities and treatment under the law - but only for individuals or groups who subscribe to the principle of ensuring domestic tranquility.  A new amendment to guarantee the rights of the majority are protected against the subversion of the state to minority groups who claim to support the constitution, but only when it serves their self-identified purposes.

Another Super Bowl?

 

Chiefs Play-off Chances

What a season. The Tribe sit at 14-1 with only the home game against the Chargers before the play-offs. Likely we will end up 14-2 as the Chargers will want to put one over on the reigning Champs and the Chiefs will rest almost everyone.

Last September, even accounting for the Covid-19 crisis, most fans would have settled for that and bitten your hand off to get it.

However, in the record books it will only say Super Bowl Champions 2020-21 and the virus will not get a mention.

So, how’s it looking? Most days I wake up and thank my lucky stars we won the last Super Bowl. I distinctly remember that during that improbable run I was continually consoling myself with the thought that even if we lost, and we came mighty close in most of the play-off games and the Super Bowl, there was always next season when we will be better. Now next season is now.

Then the Virus put paid to that comforting theory. We did win the big one, but can we do it again?

It’s beginning to look like the odds are against it. Fact is: the Chief’s record flatters to deceive. Sure, they keep winning, but not very convincingly, culminating in the embarrassing win at home versus the Falcons. Me and two of my buddies could have given Atlanta a game and the Chiefs struggled, needing a missed field goal to win.

Injuries are piling up. Big Red has decided to give the starters a week off (in addition to the one they get as the number one seed), St Patrick has begun to look almost human (throwing interceptions, missing open receivers, fumbling the ball), the O-line looks a shadow of its former self, the defense is just about adequate and not really rounding into Super Bowl shape at this late stage.

The verdict is definitely out. It may be that Reid will use the time and the rest provided wisely and when the play-offs roll into KC, courtesy of our number one ranking and the home field advantage really kicks in we will see a rejuvenated Arrowhead with a few thousand screaming fans rock the team to another AFL championship game and another appearance in the big one.

Maybe.

We are thin at RB. Edwards-Helllaire had a bad ankle and may not play at all going forward. Le’veon Bell has an injury, the back ups are probably not good enough to generate any rushing attack to speak of. Mahomes dropping back 50+ times and being chased all the time is not a recipe for success.

An outsider looking in would give the Bills a good chance to beat KC. So too, maybe the Titans who will still be smarting from last season’s debacle.

The irony is that nobody in the NFC has a chance against us. I would love to see the Packers in Super Bowl LV. Revenge for Super Bowl 1 would be very sweet indeed.

There is a lot of football to be played before then, that’s for sure. Wish us luck, we may well need it!

Trump Hits Occam's Razor

 

Occam's Razor

First: an account mt sister gave about watching Fox News when the counting stopped: I assume you are right. I didn’t personally see this but if you say so, then it must be true. you’re my sister, so you wouldn’t lie to me! So, we should ask ourselves, why would the vote counting be stopped on election night? Your efforts to pin this on Google are not credible (see my conclusion to this piece to fine out why). People refer to crooked Dems in swing states. Pejorative – alleging don’t make it so. Where is the evidence? Vast amounts of Biden votes dumped. Ditto the above. Maybe the folks who were counting got tired and needed a break? Most sensible commentaries I have seen or read do allow for some voter irregularities. In an election with that many millions of votes cast it would be more than remarkable if some were not quite kosher. But, crucially, not in a sufficient numbers to invalidate a state’s overall allocation of electoral college votes. Hyperbole does not do you or any Trumpie supporter any credit. As I have said, if there are credible allegations of fraud or irregularities, they must be investigated.

Second: may I point you to https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2018/11/22/almost-60-percent-of-americans-believe-in-conspiracy-theories-about-jfk-heres-why-that-might-be-a-problem/

The idea that it’s all a giant conspiracy is not new nor is not remotely credible. Why? This article admits that to believe in a voter conspiracy you have to believe in a long line of Democrat conspiracies. And why not sayeth the author? One of the real strengths of our Constitution is that freedom of expression is sacrosanct (except for yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre). Therefore commentators are free to pedal the most outlandish conspiracy theories and present them as facts, because the FF believed that the individual will always be of sufficient intellect, experience, common sense and ability to separate shit from Shineola (as my Old Man used to say). In the modern age of Facebook, Twitter and some crazy thing my brother Mark just joined, the FF would have to reassess their plan.

Third: The article’s assertion that should the Supreme Court overturn the election result and in consequence the Left goes berserk (actually everyone should go berserk!) - well to hell with them! Trump will still be President, and he won’t feel constrained in his response to any of them.

You can read this as a call for civil unrest, insurrection and chaos to replace democracy and decency. I resist. So should everyone who (including my nephew, my brother, all who served in the military and the President) swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In the end I believe Trump will do so, despite the loonies egging him on.

Finally: I interject into all of the above the philosophical concept of Occam’s Razor.

In order to believe in a Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy and a fraud perpetrated on the public by the Democratic Party to get rid of Trump you have to believe in what must have been the most wide-spread, multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multi-anti-democratic, multi-Party fraud whose conspirators must number not in the tens, or hundreds, or thousands, but in the hundred-thousands (if not more) all of whom blithely go along with a conspiracy so alien to all that America stands for that Biden becoming President overcomes all their good sense, scruples, principles and common sense.

This is just silly.  Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy.  The moon landings were not faked.  Joe Biden won the election.

Occam’s Razor Rules.

Trump v Biden

 An article from Deroy Murdoch        Fox News

(incidentally, we used to be able to get Fox News in the UK on Sky TV.  You may well wonder, as I have, why they decided to discontinue it?)

Para four points out some attractive features to the voter of a Biden President, but asks us to examine the issues.  Spot on.

Next para asserts that a Biden government would be a disaster for schools.  I confess to not being sufficiently acquainted with the American educational system to be able to comment very sensibly.  From what I gather the argument is very similar to the British Academy schools system – championed by and implemented by the Conservative government.  Schools are encouraged to leave the control of the local authorities and become academies under the direct control, through funding, of the central government.  In Britain this is essentially an ideological argument. Successive Tory governments have been convinced that the teaching profession is overwhelmingly left-wing.  (they may be correct) so, the Academy system provides a counter-point to the local left-wing school boards.  It seems the Trump “school choice for every parent” seems to be similar.

(aside) How does this square with Brown v the Board?  Separate but equal is not constitutional.

Next para he contends that Biden would grant citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens, most of whom would vote Democrat.  Supposition.  Free healthcare for illegal aliens?  I’d like to see the proposals.  Seems no more daft that no healthcare for poor citizens who cannot afford insurance.  

(aside) Trump’s attempts to abolish or defuse Obamacare seems to have stopped.  Or am I misinformed?  I’ve no heard him commenting on this issue at rallies.  Have I missed it?)

Fracking.  Not an issue.  Reliance on fossil fuels will inevitably fall.  Fracking merely provides Americans with obscenely low energy prices and to that extent it’s good election policy for Trump to highlight the issue.

The Sandia Laboratories story is beyond the pale -  “According to Breitbart News and as reported on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the men were forced to attend a training course titled, “White Men’s Caucus on Eliminating Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia in Organizations,” according to Christopher F. Rufo, an author, writer, and researcher.” - not exactly a balanced viewpoint, from a variety of sources.  

This sort of media sensationalism just reinforces prejudice.  The key word here is “forced”  on what compunction?  Discussing eliminating racism, sexism and homophobia in organisations is surely a good thing.  Or, are we free to be as racist, sexist and homophobic as we like in our private lives?  I suggest we are and the attendees were just trying to save their jobs.  Daft policy by the employer.  

The conclusion concentrates on the far-left agenda of Biden.  My suspicion is that this is overblown.  In the UK the policies discussed here would be seen as fairly mainstream.  The American obsession with labeling (particularly as socialist) shines through. I well remember when I used to teach Animal Farm to 15 year olds.  At the end of the first week the whole class were ready to man the barricades and march on Parliament.  When I asked them why we need Coke and Pepsi, why not just have State Cola Number One and use the millions, maybe billions of dollars, those corporations use to try to generate a 000.1 percent advantage in the buying habits of millions of Cola drinkers they were appalled by the wasted resources.  After reading Orwell’s critique of socialism (or more specifically Soviet Communism) they had all returned to the fold and were able to examine the issues with a critical focus.  That’s education.  He idea that teachers inculcate left-wing ideas in unknowing and unthinking children is a fantasy.  Tell kids how they must think and they will cheerfully tell you to get lost.  Fact.