When a family the size of ours gets together to celebrate, we need a lot of space. So tonight, to celebrate James's 21st birthday, we are taking over a Sushi restaurant. And yes, I'm up very early. Lots to do before I go out. I cram a lot into a day. Apparently it baffles some people how. Well, while you were sleeping, I was already up and at it. I like being busy. Some people prefer more leisurely things. I'm no good at leisurely things, I get bored. We're all different.
So, anyway, at 5am, I found this:
There's only one real problem with this. The people who need the wake-up call here won't watch it. In that bizarre situation I've spoken about before, many of the people who are getting short-changed in this scenario LIKE IT. They think it's good that such a small percentage of people have so much of the wealth. They believe in trickle down. Yes, many of the poor think the poor are at fault for this. I think they're crazy, but there it is.
Increasingly there are also people who are so in love with the woollier aspects of positive thinking, that they believe complaining about inequality is tantamount to preserving it. I think they've been brainwashed - I wouldn't mind betting that one of the 1% has been pumping out the books they read. Now that's clever. It's no different to an evangelist asking you to send him all your money, but it's more subtle.
What are our choices, REALLY, when we dislike the situation?
Well, voting can only do so much, when your most left-wing party is a right-wing party. This applies throughout the west and is not limited to the U.S. It's a phenomenon well-known by experts in party politics and largely ignored by the voters.
The situation has been going on so long now, you see, that all major parties have been bought and paid for by the 1%. This is not exclusively a right-wing matter anymore.
The fact is, unless you convince enough of your fellow countrymen, wherever you live, to vote in a real left-wing party, which is not likely to happen, the best thing you can do at the polls is vote for non-economic reasons, and I am perfectly serious about that. Financially you are going to get screwed, as things are, no matter who you vote for.
So what else can you do? Well, you can make sure everyone knows. This is my approach. Even though I know many ignore me, many don't care, and many have some crazy idea that it's OK like this anyway, I just keep on saying it. I've been saying it a long time. I shall say it forever. I suggest, if you do care, you make a nuisance of yourself ensuring that even the most thickheaded people you know are aware of the situation. I further suggest, if they are content with it, you get their heads examined.
I have a standing policy that I don't talk about religion on this blog, I have other places I do that, but every so often I break my own rules because it's not anything deeply intellectual or controversial, and I'm still refusing to get into debates. This is just in response to a question that came up elsewhere where there wasn't room for it. I'm not expecting responses, but feel free to dive in if you want to.
So, we all know I am not a believer, but I'm not completely ignorant of the western church, and there's a cultural element anyway, or at least there was back then. As a kid I often visited one or other of the relevant parish churches, because of school, Brownies/Girl Guides, and so on. These were obviously Church of England churches, which are now part of the international Anglican system. Anglican = of England. This is the breakaway church begun by Henry VIII when he couldn't get his own way with Rome regarding his marital shenanigans. You know all about that.
Now, at that time there was a whole movement of "Protestant" schisms, in many European countries, and had been for a while, and we have to look at what "Protestant" means. It simply meant at that time "not governed by Rome". At the time (16th century) it would have been major headline news if there had been such a thing. It was a massive, massive change in the way things were done.
In theory, what it meant was that followers took all their authority from the Bible, rather than a human (the Pope). In practice there were some really influential humans interpreting said book, so that instead of there being one Protestant church, there were soon rather a lot, and now there are hundreds. But they can be grouped, more or less, into about half a dozen or so types, of which Anglican is one.
So, the question was, other than "NO POPE" in what way is Anglican different to Roman Catholic? In some ways, very different. In others, quite similar. Depends how you look at it. Depends what you're used to.
From my perspective as a child growing up familiar with the Church of England, it was poles apart. It was foreign. From the perspective of somebody used to "Low Church" they probably looked really similar. All the pomp, ritual, organs, choirs, etc was there.
This is an Anglican bishop:
If you are used to a pastor in a suit, "High Church" looks much closer to Catholicism than anything familiar.
There are various level of pomp in all sorts of churches, there's a scale, from the most humble, those who don't even have clerics, to the Pope, but on that scale, the simple fact is, the Anglican church is up there.
I wasn't aware of that, as a child. Not exactly. I knew there were churches that were far less formal, but as a child I simply swallowed what I was told, that they weren't "real" churches. The idea of orthodoxy is very powerful on the young. And I'll tell you this....I LIKED all the dressing up, processions, etc. I absolutely squeed when we went to services in Canterbury Cathedral. It made it a special occasion. The religion missed me completely, but then it did the vast majority of people, which is probably half the problem.
Now, the times, they are-a-changing.
I am actually rather sad that the parish church I knew as a kid, ornate in all its religious frills:
Has been converted into a music venue:
Of course it's inevitable. Pews were empty. As the old church-going generations died off, there was nobody to replace them. You soon can't pay the heating bills on a big building like that when there's nobody using it, so this was probably an economic decision. And a sign of the times. That's just how it is. People's modern spiritual needs are different.
Quite often when I'm writing blogs I throw in the line "my life is not like other people's..." which is a very silly thing to say, because everybody's life is different, and at least mine is good. I really have nothing to complain about (and yet I still do, which just goes to show how daft people are). It's just that mine always feels like it it is being created by an out-of-work sit-com writer, whose every submission is rejected because it's too far-fetched.
Everyone in my family is funny. All of them. All ages, the in-laws, everyone. A happy bunch, it's all laughter and jokes. This is good. I look around and see how serious some other families are and I wonder how they cope with it. They probably think we're all mad. It's all a matter of what you are used to.
But it's not that we make any effort to be funny. It just happens. We think we're talking normally, but we're not. We can't. We're all on auto-funny. We tend to attract others who are like this, so any social stuff is a blast. We have all completely lost the ability to interact effectively with serious people.
Michael texted me from school.
"Can I have a parrot?"
No lead-up to this. No explanation. What would the normal parent say?
I'm going to give you five minutes to ponder this. If you were writing a story, in which a teenager asks this, by text message, there could be a deliberately humorous response, or a very stuffy parenty sort of response ("don't be silly dear, we don't have anywhere to put a parrot").
What I actually said was "Is it green?"
So, assuming a third party was reading this, they might wonder what sort of relevance that had to it. But as I said, we aren't normal people.
"Yes it's green it's a baby it's tame it's a rescue please can I have it Mom I'll do all the work" . Now THAT is a fairly typical sort of begging scenario when a kid wants a pet.
"How much?"
Oh yes. Nobody just gives away parrots. Not even rescues. There's always a price.
"I'll find out."
So after an hour or so he told me:
"It's a Hahn's Macaw, they want $50 for it."
I said I'd have to check with Dad. This was my way of stalling him. I have never heard of a Hahn's Macaw and I needed to look it up. When I did, I discovered it's a sort of miniature parrot, which seemed perfect, and I was ready to say yes, when I got another text.
"She says in fact they aren't selling the Hahn's but they have a green parakeet for the same price."
This changes everything, but Michael can't see it. He's in bird la-la land.
"A parakeet is a bloody budgie."
"Not always."
"Well is it or isn't it?"
"It's green."
"How well do you know this person?"
"It's a friend of a friend."
"This reminds me of the really dodgy salesmen who used to put classified ads in newspapers, got you all excited on the phone, then when you got there, oh dear, the thing you were interested in had JUST gone, but they have this really similar piece of shit for the same price. Mikey, it's the oldest game in the book. No, I do not want a parakeet for $50, thank you."
".....OK" Clearly disappointed. But on reflection, he acknowledged I had a bit more life experience.
And myself, on reflection, said "What just happened there? I was minding my own business and I almost bought a parrot."
And I wouldn't mind, but something that random happens to me every day of my life. Sometimes several times. The dice-players that run everything have a really surreal sense of humour. But I'll keep it this way. It's all good, and I am just expecting it now.
If there's anyone reading my blog who still doesn't know, I have given birth to 6 children. This is neither a boast nor an apology, it's just what is.
Of those babies, one was a projectile vomiter, and all of them managed to spit up on me many times.
As most of you also know, when I was 6 months pregnant with #5 (Tom) I moved to Canada. Then #6 (Michael) was born here 3 years later.
You need this background information to follow this blog, so I apologize to those who know it already, but I get into trouble for assuming people know things before I launch in.
When you are preparing for your 5th child it should all be fall-off-a-log easy, but there I was as a new immigrant, buying stuff ready for Tom, and I was a fish out of water. I didn't know I was having a boy because I missed a bit of pre-natal stuff due to the emigration, but that was the least of my shopping issues. They just sold different STUFF. I pined for Mothercare.
I was quite tickled with my bassinette, which seemed such a good idea. The endless choices were on the whole quite bewildering though. And I was very, very confused by these things called "receiving blankets". To receive what? They weren't big enough as a blanket, not even for the tiny bassinette, and they weren't blankets at all, to my mind, made of thin flannel fabric. More like undersized sheets. I just ignored them, not knowing what they were intended for, and not really knowing who to ask.
Anyway, along came Tom, who puked all over me, as babies do, and I just changed my shirt and cleaned up as I went along. You're ahead of me, aren't you?
So, as I said, a few years later, I had Michael and by now I had friends I didn't mind sounding stupid to, so I asked what the receiving blankets were for? I was told, all sorts of uses, but mostly, for throwing over your shoulder to catch the puke when you burp the little bugger.
So you receive puke in it? How delightful.
I caused much mirth and merriment with my n00bishness here. I was asked, obviously, what had I used before?
Well, y'see, I'm so old that my first babies wore square diapers (nappies) that had to be expertly folded. It's not easy to take a 2 foot square of white towelling and make it fit on an 8lb child. But I was always good at origami, and I never had one fall off. They were awful things though. Made your child a funny shape, thus making clothing a bit awkward, and the plastic pants that went over them made horrible noises, and the rash they got was vile...........but disposables were new, and right out of my budget.
Thing was, I had an endless supply of 2 foot squares of white towelling. Which was vital because Alex could puke a whole bottle of milk and hit a wall at ten feet. So if I didn't protect myself carefully, I quickly ran out of clothes.
It all seems a long time ago now.
What's far more recent is my daughters who both used great piles of these thin "blankets" to cover shoulders when carrying their babies around after feeding, and man were they useful. My life would have been so much easier......nobody told me.
So, I tell this story quite often, in a sort of quaint "these brilliant new-fangled ideas!" sort of way. I think people think I'm quite mad.
Sometimes they ask, well, what did mothers in England use instead, if they didn't have old square diapers lying around?
I don't know. Maybe there were really intelligent women making the equivalent of a receiving blanket and just not telling me. I honestly can't tell you. I do tend to be a bit "out" when it comes to trends and popular culture. I probably totally missed something.
But AHA!!! NOW...you see...NOW the English are way ahead!!!
Beautiful, shaped burp cloths, that fit nicely round your neck. For babies like Alex you'd need them four feet long, but most babies aren't like that. For normal babies, these elegant little creations slip easily into a bag or pocket, and don't make you look like you're wearing a cape.
With my boys, we got into a discussion this morning about math, the way it's taught, and learning in general. I thought it was worth talking about in more depth because it's a subject dear (!) to my own heart, and I know it is with some of you too. I know we've talked about it here before.
I was good at math when very young, but I reached a level at around the age of 13 or so where it got very difficult, and I pretty much gave up. I actually remember at the time thinking "I used to be good at maths*, what happened?" I scraped through. I passed, but only just.
I have spent my life ever since hating and avoiding it. There are two reasons. One, it only really crops up or has any relevance these day in accounting, i.e. taxes etc, which I hate with a passion. I can do it. It's just basic arithmetic, it's easy, just tedious.
Now and again I have to add a few fractions (recipes, woodwork, etc) or work out an angle when I'm constructing something, but let's just say math doesn't play a big role in my life.
I have been heard many a time complaining about the time spent on math in High Schools, but more so in colleges. About kids who fail only on the math - but therefore FAIL, and kids in college who can't get past the math, despite the fact it's not relevant to what they went to college for. I'm angry about it. You pay a lot of money for further education, and these compulsory general courses.............don't get me started. Just don't.
Because I've been studying things recently where advanced math would have been useful, I've been forced to change my attitude.
You see, I used to believe that the way advanced math is taught in High School is a waste of time, unless you needed it for more study in future, where the advanced math would come in useful.
So, now I believe that the way advanced math is taught in High School is a waste of time, even if you do need it later on for further study. Because you won't remember it.
The only kids who benefit from advanced math the way it is currently taught, are those who enjoy it, and intend to immediately go on to further education, and continue it.
The only kids who get anything out of it are those who really really understand it.
Most do not. They scrape by. They struggle, cram, and get just enough of it right to pass the exam.
Even Tom, who has a very special brain, and picks up math concepts as easily as most people pick up earworms, admits that the last math course he did in High School didn't make much sense, and he only passed because he has a good memory. He never really understood it. He gave me an example too. 3D parabolas. He learned how to use the formulas, but he didn't really understand it, because they weren't taught to do that. They were taught how to use formulas. And by this time he was just trying to graduate, and GET OUT. His interests lay elsewhere. He scraped by.
If, in a few years time, he wanted to study something that required understanding 3D parabolas, he'd need to start over.
So what was it all for? A taste? Busy work? I've heard all sorts of explanations. But all over the world, kids are not understanding this stuff, scraping by, barely passing, and then forgetting it. Subsequently they either never use it again, or have to repeat the entire bloody course later on.
It is quite clear to me that if I wish to continue studying certain things, I will need to do a math course or two, or I'll be floundering again.
That time, hours and hours of time, spent in secondary education, struggling though a subject I never really understood, didn't enjoy, and took so long to use I'd forgotten it all anyway, could have been put to so much better use. I think literacy, the state of which generally I am DISGUSTED with, is far more important. But that's dumbed down in schools. And as some of us have discussed elsewhere this morning, in many places nutrition is not taught at all. You know, basic maintenance of your own bloody body. OK, before I get all riled up, I'll move on to what the boys were saying.
Michael said that he has done better in his most recent math course because his teacher was smart. Michael had been getting all the answers right, but not showing his working out. Yeah, that old chestnut. The teacher must see how you arrived at your answer. Michael does it in his head. I remember going through this with Alex, who, if he's reading this, which he probably is, is nodding furiously. Alex is officially a genius. He went to a school for gifted students and all. Then he flunked math. Makes no sense until you know all the details. Gifted kids are encouraged to figure things out for themselves, it's a totally different process really. But standard High School math requires that you follow the steps, show your working out, follow the herd.......dum de dum de dum. And Alex did it in his head. Even as a very small child, he told me he could see the numbers in his head, and he really really understood what was going on.
Michael's teacher did a test. He gave Michael a completely different set of questions to all the other students. He still got them all right. This teacher, this wise wise teacher, has decided that the boy understands the work, and can do it in his head. He's not copying other people! That's the first reason they want to see the working out. But the other reason is that they think that if you follow the steps you are taught, you are understanding. No, you are memorizing steps. If you really really understand, you can skip steps, or do it another way altogether.
The way we are taught math is not the only way. Watch this, as a simple example:
I had a hell of a time learning long division. When I met Martin he showed me a new way to do it. It made sense, and I've used it ever since. Now, I see they teach it yet another way, which looks bloody stupid to me. I have taught my kids the way I know, they prefer it, but they would lose marks at school if they showed my method.
With far more advanced things, there is still more than one way to arrive at your answer. That really is the heart of mathematics, after all. Devising ways to get from problem to solution. Perhaps if more emphasis was placed on working things out for yourself, instead of following steps, you'd actually understand it? Or am I being radical?
OK, that's math. But I think this may apply to other things too. Soup, for example. No, I'm quite serious. I have lost count of the times I've had the soup discussion with people. Making soup appears at first to be an arcane art. People who make good soup are greatly revered. Many people, who patiently and carefully follow a recipe, can come up with an enjoyable soup. But they don't really really understand soup. If they did, they wouldn't need a recipe. OK, it's not the best analogy, but I think you see what I mean.
I think when a thing is being taught, it should be taught from the inside out. It might take a bit longer, a bit more effort, but it's better. It sticks. Of course, if you are interested, you can take it upon yourself to study deeper, find it yourself. IF you are interested.
As somebody once said "Education is wasted on the young". When you want to do it, you try harder. But when you need to do it, you rely on teachers.
*Because that's the English short form, with an s, so I used to think that. Now I think it without an s. One adapts.
Let's be honest here, right at the start, I'm not a very private person. It comes naturally to me to answer personal questions honestly, and to offer information that wasn't even asked for.
Once upon a time they used to talk about people as being extrovert or introvert, and it was unanimously agreed that I was an extrovert. It's a personality type, born in. I remember entertaining my mother's friends by dressing up, singing, whatever it took. Two of my kids more so than the others, inherited this trait. Give James or Michael the spotlight and they shine. Michael is currently rehearsing for a lead role in a school musical. And now the grandchildren are "performing" for adults. Here's the "Big Shoe Show" I swiped off my daughter's friend's Facebook page.....
I just wanted to emphasize the point that it's in our DNA - we can't help it. We can't be quiet and behave ourselves, any more than shy people can force themselves to enjoy public speaking. It's just the way you are made.
I can get quite rowdy given the least encouragement. Or sometimes none. Get me on a favourite topic and I go into "stand-up" mode. Not specifically funny, although not strictly serious, unless that's required, I will launch into an animated monologue, I will "perform" spontaneously. I blog as I talk, so you'd get this sort of thing, but live, and with full body motion. Some of you, of course, have seen this.
Some people may call this showing off, but I don't. I think of showing off as a much more specific thing. That's not important.
I decided some time ago that I'm not an extrovert. I discovered the definition "ambivert" which is a person who is comfortable being that outgoing, but who doesn't need it all the time, who is also comfortable alone, doing things usually associated with introverts, and who in fact needs some quiet reflective time. The ambivert is really quite common, when you think about it. Any decent lecturer, for example, is both a showman and a studious person, by definition.
The ambivert could be seen as a compromise position, a blend, a balanced person. Oh, I like the sound of that.
But there's also an element of conflict there, isn't there.
Because sometimes you want to be loud, when you know you should be quiet, and sometimes you vant to be alone, when "they" want you to perform.
For me, the hardest thing of all is knowing when to shut up. I do know, really, when I've said enough (either in speech or in writing). The reason I blog is that there are no limits. There's nobody timing me, nobody telling me to keep it to 250 words (WHAT?!?) and because it's written, there's nobody looking eager to butt in.
One of the reasons I justify waffling on so much, especially in blogs etc, is that people tell me they like hearing/reading that they aren't the only ones experiencing something. We do like that don't we? When we share ideas, it feels so good to know it's a common idea/experience, be it good or bad. In a way, sharing THIS, and the fact that I feel conflict over it is that sort of thing.
There is great value in honesty then, on many levels.
So, in this brave new world where anyone can talk about themselves as much as they like, fully publicly, and some are more boring than others, some give TMI, and some are just grumpy people off-loading an endless stream of whine, there bloody well should be a conflict. There needs to be an inner awareness of "enough".
That, for me, is the issue of privacy. For other people, who are naturally very private, it is a different issue. MY issue with internet privacy, for example, is that I want to keep my passwords to myself, thank you very much, especially the ones to bank accounts! Other stuff, well, yes, I like having control over my privacy, who doesn't, but I don't exactly hold back, so I obviously don't care too much. Most of my efforts to be discreet online are for the sake of the people I talk about, in fact. When I refer to family members or friends, by name, I have to think carefully about how they would feel about that.
People say they don't want everyone knowing their business, and I get that, but I also don't really have any business nobody should know, so I've been pretty cavalier about what I write about myself. Now they tell me it's all being stored on databases and will be used by third parties. For what? Google, who probably know more about me than the government, are still getting it spectacularly wrong. The last time I took off my adblockers out of curiosity, I found they still think I'm a young American man despite the fact they have my home phone number, because they call me constantly. Various departments within their octopus corporation obviously cannot get it all together. Perhaps we should be grateful for that inefficiency.
Amateur performance because I couldn't find the original up on You Tube. Never mind. Bless him.
Today's topic is gossip, and I am here to tell you this bothers me.
I dislike gossip, I try to avoid it, and I can. I live in the middle of nowhere, I work from home, and my social circles are decent people who also tend to avoid it. It's not really an issue in my life right now.
BUT...I have lived in a village, and I know how it works. I didn't like it, but I found it unavoidable, and that was only a mild version.
In many places, in many parts of the world, in rural situations especially, but not only, there is an aspect of culture where gossip is normal and expected. It is only considered bad when it becomes really harmful, and sometimes not even then.
I'm not sure I'm even explaining the importance of it here.
Some years ago a friend bequeathed his book collection to my family, and he had studied sociology in college, so there were a number of books on culture, in various parts of the world. Because I enjoyed these I've frequently bought more. These are deeper than travel guides, you understand, they are serious studies of culture. One of the aspects you just can't miss is how so often they are literally driven by gossip. In some cases there really isn't much else to do, there's no other entertainment. There is work, and there is gossip. Life revolves around this combination. It seems to be enjoyed.
So, while I find it distasteful, I am obliged to acknowledge that I can't pass judgement on those for whom it's a natural, normal, and pleasurable part of life.
And this is where the modern world and the old world crash head-on, isn't it? I am in a situation where I don't need that entertainment, I don't need the support network of the traditional village. I am not part of a vital local and/or ancient culture, which doesn't see gossip as bad, but as.......life.
I am very uncomfortable about this. All sorts of conflicts between personal taste and trying to be open-minded, and not judgemental, and, oh............it's a real mess, actually.
Look, what if I wanted to move to a Southern European village. Which is in the back of my mind. I can remain aloof, keep myself to myself, never assimilate. It's easy enough. Just be a snob. But to get any real benefit from such a move, you're better off mixing, meeting the people whose families have been there hundreds of years, and not being the full-time tourist than so many ex-pats become.
However, the moment you dive in and try to actually be a resident (even if you will never be fully accepted, another simple fact) you are expected to take part in all aspects of local culture, and that includes gossip. There's no escape, because if you don't "play along" I can absolutely guarantee 100% that you will be a pariah, and the next victim of the gossips. So you have three choices:
1. Not mix.
2. Mix, but never be accepted because you don't take part in the gossip.
3. Take part in the gossip.
What choice is that?
The choice I have made where I live is to not mix. I have managed to make friends from other non-mixers, but it took a long time. But despite living here almost 15 years, I am still not part of the community, because of that choice. Yes, it was my choice. But I couldn't see any other way. The first year or so here taught me that. And in this area, the gossip isn't so bad, because the local culture exists within a broader modern western culture that has decided gossip is bad. Not everyone agrees, obviously, but the idea exists.
Whereas in these more traditional places, that idea is hardly known. It's a wacky new idea, a city idea. It's that awful political correctness, you know.
.jpg)
