Category Archives: thoughts

current affairs, history, thoughts

I Blame Harold Wilson

Leave a comment

This is an opinion piece (an op-ed if you will) which I’ve been thinking about for a long, long time.

Back in 2014 Roy Hattersley wrote in the Guardian …

[In 1964] Harold Wilson was elected prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Labour won because its leader caught the mood of the time. Wilson was the politician as technocrat, the man in the Gannex overcoat who complained that, in a world in which “even the MCC has abolished the distinction between amateurs and professionals, in science and industry we are content to remain a nation of Gentlemen in a world of Players”.

Maintaining the technocratic image helped him to keep a fractious party more or less intact. But nobody doubted that the pragmatism about which he boasted was, in truth, guided by a principle which he set out in the language of the time. “The Labour party is a moral crusade or it is nothing.”

Two or three weeks into the new parliament, he invited the dozen or so youngest Labour MPs to Downing Street. The most self-confident […] told him that the government had made a crucial mistake in not devaluing the pound. They were right …

Harold Wilson brought a paradigm shift to government in the UK, and to the functioning of society as it finally surfaced from the deprivations of WW2. Wilson took advantage of the changing mood of the times. As a consequence many attitudes in the UK, and thinking within government – not to say many of the current problems which afflict the country – have their roots in the actions of the Wilson administrations of 1960s and 1970s.

Think about the following …

Comprehensive Schools
Wilson said he wanted everyone to have his grammar school education and in an attempt to achieve this effectively all schools became comprehensive. But the law of unintended consequences meant what happened was that by mixing the bright with the dim, the brightest got dumbed down, given no incentive to work hard and be stretched, while the less bright gained nothing. Actually the less bright also lost out because the previous secondary modern schools had never been properly constituted (with good curricula) and consequently the change of focus meant there was no foundation to fall back on.

Expansion of the Universities
To be fair this was started under Harold Macmillan, but the expansion of the mid-60s was the first step on the slippery slope to the destruction of Technical Colleges, Polytechnics and apprenticeships. This has, in turn, led to a shortage of technical training for plumbers, bricklayers etc. – we didn’t need them: Wilson’s “white heat of technology” would do it all. But we do need them and so we have ended up importing them from places like Eastern Europe.

Another consequence is that we now have too many, low quality, universities running courses of little worth and awarding over-inflated degrees. Why? Because over time everyone has become entitled to a university education – and government wanted to keep the unemployment figures down. Not a direct result of Wilson, but built upon the foundations he laid.

Soundbite Government
Wilson was the first to blatantly use the media as a tool of government and to provide snappy soundbites. Remember “the pound in your pocket”, “the white heat of technology”, and “beer and sandwiches at No.10” to win over stroppy union leaders?

Media Freedom
It isn’t clear which is chicken and which is egg, but with soundbite government the media started to feel they had much more freedom and fewer constraints, and they became more available with the advent of regular TV news bulletins. News became more immediate; and the public started to see, and recognise, politicians when previously they had little inkling of the machinations of government, who those people were, and what they did. This inevitably (over time) led to the broadcasting of Parliament, with politicians being interviewed at every turn – and spinning every story for their benefit.

Government and Industry
The beginning of politicians and government obviously, openly and blatantly in cahoots with industry for their own benefit. Remember Wilson’s Gannex mac? This was doubtless nothing new, but it was now out in the open or at least much more easily probed.

Destruction of British Industry
Wilson’s watch saw the rise of unprecedented union power, which was allowed to cripple manufacturing (think cars, steel, shipbuilding) and which continued until Thatcher broke the miners in the 1980s. That’s not to say unions haven’t been a force for good in improving working conditions etc., but under Wilson they very much had the upper hand (which is now really evident only in the rail unions as most of the rest have been emasculated). This ultimately led to substantial wage rises, high inflation, wage restraint, and high unemployment.

British Rail & Utilities
The actions of Dr Beeching in massacring Britain’s rail network were, admittedly, started under Harold Macmillan, however the pressure was continued under Wilson with BR, and indeed many other public utilities, being subjected to unprecedented attention from government accountants – something which continues to this day – and threats of nationalisation. This was in large part undone by the privatisation policies of Margaret Thatcher’s administration which has left many of our utilities in a position where it would be almost impossible to fully renationalise them.

Financial Crisis
All of this led, inexorably, to a financial and economic crisis, a series of failed economic measures, and the consequent devaluation of the pound by 14% in November 1967. Arguably the economy and the country’s financial situation has never recovered from this.

Social Agenda
Under Wilson’s administration we saw the first Race Relations Act (1965), the Sexual Offences Act (1967) and the abolition of (almost all) capital punishment (1965); followed later by an expansion of the welfare state. Our current social policies (including welfare payments) are very much built upon these foundations and are, in my estimation, a large factor in the current entitlement of much of the population.

Corrupt Patronage
Patronage, and corrupt patronage, has always happened. But because of the greater freedom of the media and its availability to all, Wilson’s patronage of people like Marcia Falkender (his political secretary and alleged mistress) and Lord Kagan (of Gannex macs) became open knowledge, if not actually more blatant.

I’m not saying that all our current ills are directly attributable to Harold Wilson. Nor am I saying that Wilson didn’t do some good things (eg. the welfare state). But much of where the UK is now, at least internally, is built upon the foundations set by his administrations.

That, at least, is my assessment. YMMV.

There’s much, much more about Harold Wilson on Wikipedia.

current affairs, thoughts

#MeFirst

4 Comments

I’ve been thinking recently about personal attitudes and the state of society. There has been a marked shift in the willingness of people to be active in the community, for the greater good of the community.

It’s been happening for quite a while, but has got worse since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. We now live in a world which has shifted away from community spirit to an almost ubiquitous focus on personal gain: “what’s in it for me?”.

People get angry about being inconvenienced. Their plans matter more than public safety, or the community. It’s selfish and ultimately destructive.

We’ve lost the civilising philosophy of “Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you”.

As I say, this was happening before COVID; however the isolation of lockdown, the fear, and in many countries the indifference (or worse) of government have multiplied this “me first” attitude. Everything has become focussed on “how does this affect me?” rather than the broader picture of “how does this protect us?”, “how does this benefit the community?” or even “do I really need this?”.

Freedom has shifted from living peacefully with others in society, within the law, to “I can (and will) be allowed do whatever I want, regardless of anyone else”. That’s not to say that we should all be mindless, conforming drones. There is still, and always must be, a place for free speech, a variety of opinion, demonstration, and challenging the status quo. Nor am I saying that self-care doesn’t matter. But we’ve been brainwashed into a view that everything is a service we pay for (especially when it’s free!) and is therefore a right which must be provided here and now, or else.

This has not been helped by the political modus operandi which has become so polarised that there is no thought of compromise and common ground. Worse, what are people supposed to think when they see the politicians avoid any consequences for their lies, malfeasance and broken promises. The USA is demonstrating this in spades; and they aren’t the only ones. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

We’ve gone from “we, we, me” to “ME, ME, maybe we”.

We’re seeing this in so many areas. One place I see it is as Chairman of my doctor’s patient group: patients are demanding to always have a face-to-face appointment with their GP – today! – rather than trusting the GP to make a decision based on the clinical need. Because if a phone call is sufficient (as it is in a majority of cases) it benefits everyone: it is less disruptive, quicker, and thus better for everyone as the GP can get to treat more patients (who may be at greater need). But no, I must come first; my desires are paramount.

How many these days voluntarily put themselves forward for community roles? For example: as school governors; as charity workers; as interest group newsletter editors. Judging by the number of organisations advertising (internally or externally) for people, the answer is “very few”. I don’t recall this being an issue when I was younger; there was almost always a volunteer willing to step up. And it is all levels of society, top to bottom, regardless of which method you use to slice the “society cake”.

The idea of contributing, even sacrificing, something for the community has pretty much disappeared. When enough people are putting themselves above the group’s wellbeing, things shift, trust turns to suspicion, every obstruction engenders anger; and the community starts to fracture. When “we” becomes “me” the community dies. Just as we’re currently seeing in society – worldwide.

It’s not so much #metoo as #MeFirst.

There’s a fuller exposition of this in the article When “What’s In It for Me?” Kills Community … . Ignore the naturist foundations to the article; it’s just as appropriate for any community, of any size.

personal, thoughts

I’m a Hypocrite

Yes, you read that headline correctly. I’m a hypocrite. Most of us are over something.

Recently, unable to sleep, I started thinking about what it is that makes me a hypocrite. And I found two instances.

Meat. I eat meat – although I also enjoy veggie food. But mostly I eat meat, and fish. I’d struggle to be entirely veggie despite seeing it as more ethical and environmental choice. So yes, I eat flesh … but I let someone else do the dirty work of rearing and killing it for me. Because I couldn’t do that. I couldn’t emotionally bring myself to kill some other sentient creature. And physically I couldn’t manage to handle a large animal. Keeping fish, I have on a few occasions had to euthanise one of them to save it from a lingering death – and I hated it; I had to do it but with a heavy heart and feeling squeamish; and the larger the fish, the more horrible it was. So I couldn’t do it to a mammal.

I can butcher meat that’s already dead without any problems. I have no problem jointing or spatchcocking a whole turkey or chicken; or filleting fish. And when younger (about 17, in the late 1960s) when I worked in a supermarket, I was taught to bone a side of bacon. We had the bacon delivered as half a pig, ready cured and without head, trotters, entrails etc. I had no problem with this. It’s a disembodied entity.

So I wouldn’t be able to despatch a warm-blooded creature – but I’m happy to let someone else do the deed for me, and eat the results. Which is inconsistent and hypocritical.

Shaving & Hair. This case is not so horrid; just somewhat stupid. I shave the hair off my face. When I was working I used to do this every day with an electric shaver. Now I’m retired I shave maybe twice a week with a wet razor. Why do I do this? Well, really for two reasons.

First, I find more than a handful of days beard uncomfortably itchy and scratchy. I’ve never managed to grow my beard for more than about 10 days before it becomes intolerable. Except that for some years in my late-20s/early-30s I had a moustache.

Secondly, in general I don’t like beards. Too many look scruffy, or affected. I don’t think they’re a good look. But I would never deny anyone’s right to have a beard if they wish.

But here’s the hypocrisy. What’s with the Barbie look? I can’t get the fashion for females to shave/wax their pubes. Why would you want your 20/30/40/50/++ year-old self to look pre-pubescent; who are you trying to kid? It’s not a good look, even before one thinks about the shaving rash, the ingrown hairs and the stubble. Pubic hair likely has a purpose, so why remove it? By all means tidy it up or trim it a bit, but there is no imperative to remove it. (Incidentally all this applies just as much to, for example, armpits. And yes, guys it applies to you too!) But then it’s your body, your choice.

So, no, I don’t like denuded pubes, but I prefer denuded faces. If that isn’t hypocritical, it’s at least inconsistent. But if either is what you want to do, then you have every right to. Just do it because that’s what you like or are comfortable with, not because it’s the fashion or you think society, or a partner, expects it.

Whatever you do, do it for you! And remember: those that mind don’t matter; and those that matter don’t mind.

I’m sure there are other places where I’m inconsistent or hypocritical. What about you?

freedom of speech, nudism, personal, thoughts

Some Thoughts on Social Nudity (Again!)

A while back, over on Medium and on Quora James Grigg posited the question:

Why do men seem more comfortable with nudity?

As well he might; there is historically a greater preponderance of “single men” in the nudist movement. But why?

Grigg is an artist and photographer who does a lot of nude positive work, photographing ordinary people, including himself, in the nude in ordinary poses. So in some ways he is in a good position to judge. In other ways, because he’s male, he isn’t (and neither am I!).

His basic thesis is that women tend to avoid social nudity because

Slut shaming and rape culture are not conducive to women being able to be naked … comfortably.

This is based on the misplaced but widespread belief that nudity and sex are interchangeable, and that

Women … are expected to gatekeep sex from men who apparently … have no control over their … desires or actions.

There’s also the question of objectifying the female body, such that perfectly ordinary bodies are not seen as adequate. All of which basically says to me: lads you need to grow up.

While I wouldn’t disagree this is a significant element of the problem, I think there are other factors at play although perhaps not as predominant. Let’s turn the arguments somewhat on their head and look at the male side of the question. I see a further three possible reasons why men are more comfortable with social nudity, but they’re big generalisations.

First there is the macho need to show off, to be top lad, and attract a mate – the biological need to be the alpha male. This is not necessarily about shagging any eligible nubile (attractive though that might be!); it’s more about male pecking order. This makes nudity below the waist acceptable, even essential, for bragging and showing off; and above the waist neutral or irrelevant as there’s nothing much to show off. Females are the opposite: it is (mostly) OK to be bare above the waist (bragging rights or showing off, again, maybe?) but there’s no imperative for nudity below the waist – again because there is nothing very visible to show off (although the fashion for removing pubic hair does change that).

The second factor – which goes along with this – is all about physical comfort, and not having all your appendages constrained within clothing. Hence, simplistically, females are more likely to be physically comfortable bare chested, and not having their tits clad in armour. Conversely males are more comfortable with their dangly bits free to air – especially as ventilation also mitigates against the annoyances of jock itch etc.; something of which many blokes appear unaware.

I also suspect there is another, subconscious, factor at play. As a very big generalisation, guys tend to experience spontaneous desire: they’re always up for it even from a cold start. Contrarywise females mostly have responsive desire: they need warming up, enticing, encouraging, before they become actively aroused and eager. Yes, that is a generalisation, and there are many who don’t conform to this model, but it could be another factor playing into the “alpha male culture”.

I’ll accept that most guys and girls probably don’t actively think very much about any of this – it’s mostly subconscious. Basically therefore, while I don’t disagree with James Grigg’s thesis, I think the situation may well be more complex than he makes out – although, given our social conditioning, much of the time the reasoning will be entirely subconscious.

Getting this levelled out – as we should if we’re going to have a really well balanced society – will take time, and a willingness on everyone’s part to adjust and to grow up. Much as we’d like it to, it won’t happen overnight. Which just amplifies my oft repeated belief in respecting one another and treating everyone the same. We’re all people. No-one is better (or worse) than anyone else. And, give or take, we all know what’s under each other’s t-shirt and jeans. So, really, there shouldn’t be a problem with nudity, should there!

nudism, thoughts

Mixed Nudity

[LONG POST]

I’ve been thinking, again, about naturism & nudity, and our attitudes towards it.

As many here will know, I had a somewhat bohemian upbringing in the 1950/60s.

  • Nudity was considered normal.
  • Little (rooms, books etc.) at home was off limits.
  • Internal doors, including the bathroom door, were never shut unless we had visitors. Even in my mid-20s when N was visiting and we were sleeping together, my bedroom door was always at least ajar.
  • Many times I would stand in the bathroom talking with my mother in the bath; and I was regularly conscripted to scrub my father’s back.
  • At around age 8/9/10 we had two, 2-week, holidays at a nudist club. While this was doubtless for my education, my parents must both have been up for it themselves. Subsequently things within the family conspired to restrict holidays, and nudist club visits, rather than my parents becoming disinterested.

OK so like all teenagers I went through the phase of not wanting to be parading around the school changing rooms in the nude. But I don’t think I was worse than average about this, and indeed probably less so. And from the time I was a student it has bothered me not one iota. As soon as I had a student room to myself I slept in the nude, and have continued to do so ever since (barring the odd occasion in hospital) – I don’t even possess a pair of pyjamas, and haven’t done for 30 years or more!

Now I spend as much time as possible in the nude when at home. At this time of year, when it’s warm, I will don a pair of shorts if I have to go further than 6 feet from the back door, if I have to answer the door, or there is anyone other than N in the house. I wear clothes to cover other people’s embarrassment. I’m naturally warm (the blubber helps) so even in winter I’ll mostly wear a t-shirt and lounging bottoms – you know it’s really cold if I put on a sweater and socks. Sure it helps that we have a naturally warm house; and no, we don’t run the heating 24/7 or on a high temperature – the thermostat is set at about 20&deg.C and the timer is still set as it was when we were working: on for a few hours morning and evening.

Why do I do this? Well firstly because I find it comfortable; not that I find clothes particularly uncomfortable. Secondly, it is more ecologically sound: fewer clothes to buy (I have a wardrobe full and need few now I’m not working), and less washing (less water, detergent, energy used). And thirdly because it is healthier: the more fresh air one gets to body parts, especially sticky/icky ones, the better they are; less itchy etc. Overall it just feels right and natural. If it was good enough for Benjamin Franklin, who took a daily “air bath” it’s good enough for me.

Given all that, I struggle to understand why most people have issues with nudity. It seems to be no more than conditioning, originally imposed by patriarchal religion. Religions in general imposed clothing as the norm because they perceived it as reducing sexuality (wrong!) and wanting to keep the populous under control. So of course political entities from Lords of the Manor to national governments were going to jump on the bandwagon. This in turn has engendered a self-perpetuating prudishness. As author Mokokoma Mokhonoana has said “It’s the invention of clothes, not nature, that made ‘private parts’ private”.

No, don’t come at me with “But it’ll corrupt the children”, because it won’t. As I’ve written here before British Naturism have looked at this in some depth and concluded it will do the opposite of “corrupting” children. They’re even backed by child psychologist Lee Salk (1926-1992) who observed [McCall’s magazine, June 1976]:

Being natural and matter-of-fact about nudity prevents your children from developing an attitude of shame or disgust about the human body. If parents are very secretive about their bodies and go to great lengths to prevent their children from ever seeing a buttock or breast, children will wonder what is so unusual, and even alarming, about human nudity.

And research by academic Keon West has also found that nudity generally improves body image.

Naturally, people from ancient times onwards have wanted some form of clothing – anything from an animal skin to a fleecy nylon onesie – for warmth, when needed. But that doesn’t account for the need to wear a bikini or speedos on a boiling hot Caribbean beach (or in the swimming pool, or gym).

mixed pool

So where, and why, is there a problem? Why in these more liberal times can we not throw off the shackles of prudishness and patriarchal religion? What can we do to shift our thinking and quell our hang-ups?

I recall in the mid-1970s, when I was a Resident Tutor at university and sitting on a university accommodation committee, there was a move not just for mixed student residences but mixed corridors in the residences. A couple of the older Accommodation Office staff had apoplexy; while the students and I all said “Where’s the problem?”. Students can lock their doors; there are doors on the toilet cubicles, the bath and at least a curtain on the shower (which could easily be made to fasten at both sides, or be replaced by a door). I don’t know if his was implemented as I left at the end of that academic year, but it was a big step to even be discussing it in 1975/6.

So while it is not the full answer, and not something which could be instituted overnight, I’ve long been in favour of not just mixed sports but mixed changing rooms. When I was a student I regularly played squash against girls of my acquaintance (boys too). I remember thinking then how daft it was that at the courts there were two changing rooms (male & female), each comfortably sized for maybe six or eight people but each invariably being used by only one or two at a time. How much more efficient to combine the changing rooms to make one space for eight, with just one loo and one shower cubicle. Moreover I feel morally certain that the girls would have a civilizing influence on the less savoury habits of the male (think smelly socks and sports bags).

Why could this not be extended to all changing rooms? And make swimming pools & gyms “costumes optional”? Really, where is the problem. What do you mean “It’s not nice!”; “It would be a rampant orgy” or “There’ll be two rapes an hour”? That’s just rubbish. Think about it …

  • Give or take the odd scar (and scars tell interesting stories), we all know what’s under your t-shirt and jeans, my t-shirt and jeans. So we can hardly claim to be surprised.
  • We all know that people have hairy bits, and some people shave them – just like some men shave their faces and others have beards.
  • We all know that women have periods, get pregnant, go through the menopause; and we all know men have erections (sometimes involuntary). Again, we can hardly claim to be surprised.
  • At some point in our lives (and for many of us, most of our lives) we’re going to live with, or at least flat share, with someone of the opposite sex – even the homosexuals (of both genders) and asexuals are likely to do so somewhere along the way. So we have “domestic exposure” to the opposite sex in a non-partnered, non-family, situation, and it isn’t a sexual free-for-all.
  • We have to live and work in a mixed community. And, if we think about it at all, we all recognise that clothing is actually much more sexual than nudity. Men are not rampant sex maniacs; neither are women. Nudity is much more boring than clothing; and a great social leveller – no fashion etc.

Yes, of course we would have toilet cubicles with doors, and maybe even a few cubicles for those who feel an overwhelming need for modesty when changing (transgender people in transition, perhaps). Beyond that where is the need? Really?

OK I’ll buy that it would be strange at first and take time for people to become accustomed; but over time, as younger generations are increasingly brought up this way, and the rest of us adjust, it would be a natural part of life. Think how the Scandinavians find mixed saunas perfectly normal.

And from there it would be only a short step to the acceptance of public nudity as a lifestyle choice.

current affairs, thoughts

Does the UK need a Monarchy?

The recent death of Queen Elizabeth II and the Coronation of King Charles III has opened debate on whether the UK should have a monarch or an elected president.

This is essentially two questions: do we need a monarchy, and do we want a monarchy? And they are two very different questions. I can’t account for what people think they want – but I can point out some of the arguments.

First of all … Do we need a monarchy? Put simply, no, a monarch as head of state isn’t necessary. Many countries operate quite effectively as republics with an elected President – see France, Germany, Ireland – as head of state. What a country does need is a head of state, who is empowered (within whatever the constitution is) to make final decisions on ministers etc. and to represent the country at the highest level. The buck has to stop somewhere and, for the avoidance of factionalism, that has to reside in a single person be they a president or a monarch.

So should the UK have a monarchy? Well, just because there are more presidential republics in the world than there are monarchies, doesn’t mean they are necessarily better. Let’s look at some of the arguments.

  1. Cost. Monarchs are generally well off; presidents maybe not be so much. But in both cases the state will be paying much of the cost of maintaining the head of state. This will encompass their personal maintenance, the cost of state apartments/palaces, and duties performed as head of state (including transport and security). There are also, of course, state occasions like banquets (usually for other heads of sate) and ceremonial (like regular inaugurations, irregular coronations, opening parliament, state funerals). Whether you have a monarch or a president these costs are going to be much the same. A president will not de facto be cheaper.
    Given sufficient wealth a monarch or president may maintain their own private residence(s), staff, etc.; and this may help constrain the cost to the public purse. Monarchs, likely being wealthier, are perhaps more likely to do this.
    Result: a draw
  2. Appointment. Monarchs are in most cases hereditary, so the succession from one to the next is fairly assured, relatively smooth, relatively infrequent, and relatively low cost. The major cost is just that once in a while state funeral and coronation.
    By contrast presidents have to be elected every few years. Hence there is the cost of the regular elections and regular inaugurations. And the inaugurations may require just as much pomp and pageantry as a coronation. Additionally, past presidents are often paid huge “pensions” for life, and a country could be paying several of these concurrently – as the US currently is.
    Let’s look at this another way. Those regular presidential elections are a recipe for farce, charade, deceit and a completely overwhelming media and political circus. Just think about the US Presidential elections: do we want an unedifying circus, US-style, every four or five years? Because that’s what we would get; we have a track record of picking up bad habits from the US. We already have general elections, local elections, and in many places mayoral elections; aren’t they sufficient circuses?
    Result: win for monarchy
  3. Malfeasance. In general, these days, with constitutional monarchies the monarch doesn’t have their hands on the country’s finances. This is not the case with (a lot of) presidents. In consequence it is much easier for a president to have their hand in the till and to syphon off money etc. into their own pockets. Presidents are much more likely to become newly wealthy at the expense of the country. Another weakness of a republic is that it can afford too easy an inlet for foreign corruption.
    Of course this was not always the case and in times past many monarchs lined their own pockets via all varieties of taxation – but then in those days there was little differentiation between the state’s money and the monarch’s; something which disappeared with the separation of state and monarchy (during the 18th-century in the UK).
    In the UK, the royal family are super-wealthy, and much of that wealth has arisen via their ancestors, and not all acquired honestly. We may decry that, but whether right or wrong by our moral code, such were the “rules” of the day – and good legislation is not retrospective. But not all the royals’ money comes from their ancestors; much comes from business activity – whether that’s things like the Duchy of Cornwall or the late Queen dealing in racehorses.
    So yes, perhaps the royal family should not be so wealthy, but at least these days they have relatively little opportunity to have their hands in the till.
    Result: win for monarchy
  4. Property. Do not run away with the notion that everywhere the UK royals live is theirs. Many (most?) of the properties belong to the state (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyrood House, Kensington Palace), and some belong to the royal dukedoms (eg. Highgrove is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, and hence is now under Prince William’s control but not ownership). Only a few properties are actually owned by the royal family per se: eg. Sandringham, Balmoral.
    Result: a draw
  5. Popularity. This is where having a president may be preferable. With an unpopular, inept or corrupt monarch it is almost impossible to get rid of them; although most monarchies are constitutional (or parliamentary) and the head of state can do relatively little damage. On the other hand an unpopular president can be removed at the next election; but in the meantime will often have more power to do untold damage – see events of recent years in the US.
    Result: a draw
  6. Tourism. The British Monarchy is well respected abroad, a profitable brand, and our pageantry is second to none. Which all brings in tourists – and hence money – from around the globe. This is much less likely to happen with a president: for instance, boring motorcades are much more likely than horse-drawn gilded coaches.
    Result: win for monarchy
  7. Partisanship. Most monarchs, and the late Queen was an exemplar of this, are above partisanship. Whereas presidents, almost by definition, will always be partisan. Monarchs are not involved in the day-to-day activity of government; by contrast a president is so often the head of government and has day-to-day control – so there is no-one outside government to try to see the bigger picture and provide impartial advice.
    Monarchs generally offer steady, self-effacing leadership, whereas grubby politicians come and go, they cut deals, and win elections by dividing their country.
    Result: win for monarchy

So in my estimation, a monarchy wins 4-0. But as always YMMV.

Sources

beliefs, thoughts

Transgenderism

A few days ago Brad Warner, one of our favourite Zen Masters, wrote an interesting blog post titled Transgenderism: A Buddhist Perspective.

It is indeed just as the title says. Brad gives a reasoned view of his interpretation of Buddhist philosophy as applied to transgenderism. It may not accord with everyone’s view – indeed it may not be the view of all Buddhists – but he ends up saying pretty much what I have thought for a long time:

[W]hen I see people trying to solve their deep suffering by altering their bodies with chemicals and surgery, I wonder if they are making a mistake. And I wonder if we should be so quick to allow children to make permanent changes to their physical bodies that they may come to regret. It may be better to reserve that for adults who have had adequate time to consider the ramifications of such drastic alterations … I think that, rather than trying to alter one’s body to align it with one’s ideas about one’s “true self”, it would be better to learn to live as comfortably as possible with the mind and body that one’s past karma has manifested in this life.

I would go a little further … Many boys will wonder, and ask about, what it’s like to be a girl – and vice versa. That’s a natural part of childhood curiosity. But it seems to me likely that many well-meaning but misguided adults who are in a position of care and influence pick up on this and, knowingly or not, end up over-influencing the child to “act out” their inquisitiveness without any checks and balances. As Brad says, this should be left to mature consideration in adulthood, or perhaps better to learn to live with what you were given. But then none of that is easy.

arts, books, thoughts

On Poetry

Until now I had never read TS Eliot’s The Waste Land. So when Simon Barnes (yes, that Simon Barnes: environmentalist, journalist, author, former Chief Sports Writer of The Times) had a piece recently in The New European I took notice.

I know Barnes slightly; he’s a great fan of Anthony Powell’s A Dance to the Music of Time and gave the 2022 Anthony Powell Society Annual Lecture just a few weeks ago. So of course I took notice – especially as he read English at the University of Bristol, and I know him to be a thinker.

Why had I not read The Waste Land before? Well, I’m not a great reader of poetry; I never have been, partly because, like so much of English Literature, I was put off it by school. It’s not that I dislike poetry but all the

I wondered lonely as a cloud of golden daffodils

[sic] stuff turns me off, as does most modern so-called poetry that doesn’t scan and doesn’t rhyme – and I’m not even sure how Shakespeare brings off blank verse. So spare me, inter alia, Wordsworth, Tennyson, Longfellow (of the first type) and Allen Ginsberg, Simon Armitage, Carol Ann Duffy (of the second).

But there is poetry I like. Coleridge, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43997/the-rime-of-the-ancient-mariner-text-of-1834. Lewis Carroll, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43909/the-hunting-of-the-snark. TS Eliot’s Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats (see Eliot can write “proper” verse) – I knew the entire 66 lines of Skimbleshanks off by heart when I was about seven or eight. Roger McGough, Summer with Monika. C Day Lewis, Requiem for the Living. John Updike. Christopher Smart, Jubilate Agno.

But I’m sorry, The Waste Land is pretentious garbage – and the Four Quartets are not that far behind. It neither rhymes (OK, there’s the odd couplet) nor scans. For me it is in the same rubbish bin as Ulysses, Finnegan’s Wake, Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, Edith Sitwell’s Façade. None of them make sense, and they’re pretty unreadable. Pseudo-profound bullshit, one suspects written to make money from a clutch of gullible critics. And were they gulled.

No, sorry, you enjoy it if you want to, but it says nothing to me. Just leave me alone to be a Philistine.

beliefs, environment, science, thoughts

Mars & the Moon

Stop building a spaceship to Mars
(and the Moon too)
and just plant some damn trees.

Stop building a spaceship to Mars and just plants some damn trees
Isn’t it more important that we protect this planet against global worming etc.?
Just think how much good all that money could do, and how much
environmental refurbishment could be done by just 10% of the money.