IF

1865-1936. A man who served the Empire. Good man, that Kipling.

Back in 1995 Rudyard Kipling was voted Britain's favourite poet and the favourite poem was Kipling's, 'IF'. No doubt voted for by people who have not read his work, apart from 'IF'. Fast forward to 2015 and the nation's favourite poet morphs into TS Elliot. Quite a change in subjective taste- go figure. 

Kipling, in my opinion, was a poor poet prone to pomposity and moralising and yet all the same had the knack of juxtaposing platitudes in a pleasing manner. Perhaps I'm being unfair, some of his prose ascends to the sublime although much of his work is simply silly, especially to the modern mind. Read the following and tell me if I'm wrong: "I heard the knives behind me, but I durns't face my man, Nor I don't know where I went to, cause I didn't stop to see, Till I heard a beggar squealing out for quarter as he ran, And I thought I knew the voice and- it was me." Kipling had the annoying habit of dropping haitches and the ending, 'g' when portraying the working class soldiery. Tis a condescending and distracting trait which adds nothing to the composition, so in the quoted version I have erred on the side of correct English usage.

It is interesting to note that Kipling has remained 'popular' with non-literary folk and despised by those with literary pretension- quite a legacy. Those on the 'left' hate him for his jingoist imperialism irrespective of any intrinsic poetic merit. The views of Kipling are well portrayed in his verse and reflect a 'Kipling' who was very much a man of his time: A Victorian. Not only a Victorian, but also a member of the ascendant race which ruled the world; heady stuff. This was too good to last and the man's poetry changed as the world changed. But like the true Victorian he was, he failed to comprehend that change and was left adrift in a Modern World where certainty had perished on Flanders field.  Indeed, his poetry undergoes a modification after the Great War. Before that time, it is bold, sure-footed and on the side of god, king and country. Kipling's god is a good god and punishes hubris and his king never strays from his queen's bed chamber. The war changed him. Idealism was lost and he was smart enough to realise that 'right' was no longer enough to prevail, the only thing that really mattered was 'might'. This has always been the case and yet is not always appreciated, especially in times of prolonged peace. After the war, a strain of cynicism and bitterness enters his work. Gone is the certainty of the privileged middle-class man living in an Anglo-centric world. What enters is bewilderment and incomprehension. Although the British Empire had prevailed in the greatest war ever known, it had inexplicably become weakened and superseded by 'lesser breeds'. Kipling acknowledged the reality but failed to understand it. Anyway, here is the poem, 'IF', in its entirety. In my opinion, it is cloying and 'preachy' although some of the couplets are very seductive at the emotional level. Please judge and let me know what you think.

IF

If you can keep your head when all about you   

    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

    But make allowance for their doubting too;   

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   

    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

    And treat those two impostors just the same;   

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

    And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

    To serve your turn long after they are gone,   

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,   

    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

    If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,   

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,   

    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Religion, statistics and damn lies

Anyone reading my mixture will no doubt be aware of my stance when it comes to religion. I detest all religions with a passion and consider human kind would be better served without the unctuous, simpering cleric, the mad frothing Imam and the sanctimonious bejewelled, Pope. Even peaceful Buddhism does not escape censure. The doctrine of reincarnation is ludicrous and based on nothing more than wishful thinking and esoteric Eastern mysticism. And yet Buddhism attracts respect and kind comment from folk who understand its doctrines, not at all- also, that Dalai Lama is a bit of a cunt and not just because he looks a bit like my uncle Reggie.

Atheism is arguably the most misunderstood of all the philosophies and is mistakenly associated with a host of negative connotations including immorality, pessimism, nihilism and downright wickedness. Although to be fair, none of these characteristics are incompatible with atheism, but neither do they necessarily follow from religious non-belief. Reactions to atheism/atheists vary, even amongst the enlightened, Western nations (read: enlightened, sub-population). North Western Europe is generally kind to atheists and the atheistic principle, as is Australia and New Zealand. The United States, especially the midwest and the southern states, is the least tolerant of the Western nations. However, even in the States, atheism is on the rise, although only about 5% of the population openly state they are atheistic (?an underestimate). To place this statistic in perspective, it should be compared to the 25% of the population professing atheism/agnosticism in my adopted country of New Zealand. If you include those of 'no religion' this percentage rises to nearly half of the population, at least according to the 2013 census. Admittedly, the 'no religion' group is a very mixed bag indeed, ranging from frank atheists, to believers in a deity but not allied to a formal religious group, all through to 'new age' types (fucking hippies) who believe in some form of guiding spirit which may, or may not, be equated with the conventional conception of god. Sweden comes out as the most atheistic nation on earth with 46% to 85% of the population declaring atheism/agnosticism. It will come as no surprise that levels of atheism are higher in the young and the well educated; the greater the level of academic achievement, the greater the level of atheism. There are claims that over 90% of US scientists are atheists. I am not uncritical of the figures presented here, although all are garnered from respectable studies. Getting the right answer is difficult and reliant upon asking the right question. We also need to  take into account the 'unreliability factor' when trying to extract data from fickle humans. Nonetheless, I think the trend, over time and overall, show an expanding percentage of atheists and agnostics in the West, even amongst the relatively 'religious and conservative’, Americans.

It has just occurred to me that I have been blithely wittering on about atheism and agnosticism without defining what these terms actually mean. Foolish Flaxen, may the gods send a thousand furies to torment your heretical soul! For if we have no formal definition and appreciation of a concept how can we even consider starting a discussion? Intelligibility is the handmaiden of epistemological rationality (Flaxen waxing lyrical and teetering on the exposition of bollocks, once again).

Theism is a belief in god or gods. Adding the prefix ‘a’ denotes a non-belief in gods. This is the most basic definition and in logic represents the proposition: ‘God exists’ as being false. Strictly speaking, atheism is not a belief, rather it is the absence of belief; a term of negation. Agnosticism, as I understand it, prevents us from asking the question: 'Does god exist?', within the framework of achievable knowledge (epistemology). Therefore, the only ‘logical’ approach is to suspend judgement and confine the concept not just to the unknown, but to the unknowable. Thus, agnosticism is often considered a valid alternative to atheism and theism, ‘a third way’. I would argue that agnosticism is not a third way but a representation of either theism or atheism, but I don’t have the space to consider my reasoning here- perhaps, another article? Before leaving ‘agnosticism’, for now, I would like to state that, in my opinion, the concept has acquired an intellectual patina which it does not deserve; nuff said.

Theists often assert that the burden of proof should lie with the atheist. That is, atheists are honour bound to provide arguments for the disproof of deitie(s). However, this is not the case. The burden of proof always lies with the believer. They should supply valid propositions and arguments for their belief. If there are no valid propositions or if the reasoning is false, then the belief, should on rational grounds, be discarded. Atheism is not a positive belief and consequently there is no obligation to provide proof. The onus of proof weighs upon the head of the believer no matter what that belief actually is. In the same way, a believer in unicorns should be able to support their contention that 'unicorns exist' with cogent, rational arguments. As a non-believer of unicorns, I am under no obligation to provide evidence for their non-existence.

As mentioned earlier, atheism is often attached to a whole raft of assumptions and atheists are automatically shoe-horned into other belief systems, by religious believers. For instance, communism is famously atheistic and therefore, to be an atheist is also to be a communist. Whilst it is true many card carrying communists are atheists, it does not follow that atheists are necessary communists. I, for instance, bestraddle the 'right wing' of the political spectrum. Atheism is compatible with all political beliefs or non-beliefs for that matter, such as anarchy. The same can be said for morality, happiness and mental health. Atheists are not necessarily, mad, bad and dangerous to know, although it helps.

The point of the above discussion is to illustrate a simple and often neglected truth: When someone tells you they are an atheist, that statement alone tells you nothing about that person's core beliefs apart from their lack of religious beliefs. Atheism is not a way of life and does not entail a set of common core values and beliefs necessarily shared by other atheists. Nor does it tell you why a person is an atheist. People become atheists for a variety of reasons. I'm a critical atheist who considers the concept of the deity irrational, philosophically unsubstantiated and absurd. Others may become atheists as a reaction against their strict fundamental religious upbringing or because a belief in god is incompatible with an insouciant, futile and insentient universe.

My stance as a critical atheist does not mean I have to be intellectually passive when confronted with arguments for the existence of god. When a theist tells me that ‘god exists’, I don't ask him or her for evidence, instead I ask them to define their god; what are its attributes? How will I know this supernatural being if I have the misfortune of bumping into one? Some theists think that this is a subsidiary issue that can be worked out at some later date or at leisure. I would argue that this 'definition' needs to be tackled even before the preliminary debate can commence. If we don't have a fundamental intellectual grasp of the topic in hand how can we talk about it in any rational sense? When someone suggests we talk about dining tables, I already have a sound grasp of the subject. I know what dining tables look like and I'm sure, if pushed, could come up with a very acceptable definition for a generic dining table. But when someone mentions an invisible supernatural god which can interact with the visible natural world I am at a loss to conceive such an entity. This is why the believer in god, or gods, need to take  time and intellectual energy to define the subject matter in a rational coherent sense, otherwise we are not actually talking about anything, are we? Many believers have a problem with this approach and consider the concept of god as self-evident. Few things are self-evident in this life except axioms of mathematics and fundamental laws of logic and the concept of god is no exception.

To be continued..........  

Normal service will be resumed tomorrow, perhaps......

I had hoped to post something sensible today, but 'real life' and events intervened and made me relinquish my steady, fixed grip, on my laptop/lap dancer. Therefore, you will have to do with the pseudo-clever crap placed below. Not profound, but mildly amusing. However, it does have a modicum of truth about it.

I don't get number 7.

At age 4, success is not peeing in your pants.

At age 12, success is having friends.

At age 16, success is having a drivers licence.

At age 20, success is having sex.

At age 35, success is having money.

At age 50, success is having money.

At age 60, success is having sex.

At age 70, success is having a drivers licence.

At age 75, success is having friends.

At age 80, success is not peeing in your pants.

Weird Science

The world of acadaemia and research can be a funny old place and is not part of real life. I once spent three idyllic years researching dandelions. Endless summer afternoons spent on the Sussex Downs looking for and collecting various sub-species of Taraxicum Officinale. Dandelions are fascinating plants and incredibly diverse. As a distraction I used to take specimens to my Professor for classification. He was the acknowledged expert in the field of Dandelion research and a very wise old fella. Anyway, I would hand over my specimen and he would promptly state the sub-species to which it belonged. I was mightily impressed and decided to test my mentor's powers and sanity level. Later that day I handed over the same specimen and without a moments delay he pontificated anew, but this time assigned my specimen to a completely different sub-species- mad as a bucket of frogs in vinegar, but very smart. Once, as an undergrad, I turned up to his office for a tutorial and was told that he couldn't take the tutorial today as he was very drunk; only in the hallowed halls of acadaemia!

Actually my research wasn't as daft as you might think. I was trying to isolate a gene in Dandelions that imparts the trait of asexuality. If transferred into crop species it could prove useful in fixing desirable traits and enabling the crop to be sex free. Like us, all plants desire to be unchained from the sexual prerogative. Not all research projects have an obvious application. In fact much of research advances the lot of humanity not a jot. You could argue that research should not only be about making the everlasting light bulb or finding the elixir of immortality. Knowledge is something we should revel in for its own sake. Much of mathematics is like this and confers no discernable benefit to humankind. Once in a while though, we come across a research topic so bizarre and weird that it provokes derision and negative comment even amongst acadaemics. Here is a short selection for you Sunday afternoon distraction.

Flatulence- A self defence mechanism

In 1996, Mara Sidoli explored the role of excessive flatulence as a defence strategy. In “Farting as a defence against unspeakable dread,” Sidoli outlined the sad case of an orphan who used farting to envelope himself in a protective miasma of smell, in what Sidoli described as a 'defensive olfactive container'. The technique proved very effective and the poor boy was unable to forge relationships and remained friendless.

This would work as well

Sore Winky

Actually this paper has a very practical application as it concerns the best way to untangle the foreskin trapped in a zipper. Most men, at least those in a possession of a prepuce, have trapped their tender parts in a zipper at some time. The experience can be best described as being transported to another world- a world of pain. It probably comes as no surprise, that Dr Chandra Mishra et al, in their ground breaking research paper: 'Safe and painless manipulation of penile zipper entrapment ', concluded that the best technique involves the judicious application of a wire cutter. The flamethrower method was completely ruled out. This should provide comfort for the poor unfortunates who end up at their local A&E.  

Ouch!

I Love My Robot

'Intimate Relationships With Artificial Partners'. Dr Levy gained his PhD researching the vexed relationship between humans and robots. He reckons, that by 2050, we will all be having casual sex with robots. At least you wont have to worry about contraception and the robot should have plenty of lube.

This may chafe a little

Suicide and Country Music

Country music is a very popular music genre in the Southern states of America. In, 'The Effect of Country Music on Suicide' the authors explore the link between suicide and country music. They found a positive correlation between country music and suicide rates. Be careful when it comes to correlation. Correlation does not necessary relate to causation- go tell it to the Great British Empiricist, David Hume. Although in this case I'm inclined to concur with the author's conclusion.  

Unicorns

'The Possibility of Unicorns: Kripke v Dummett'. This research extends previous research in this very important area. The conclusion? Unicorns do not exist in reality, although the author admits that they may exist in an alternative reality. This alternative reality is not explained and will forever remained veiled in mystery and irrational bollocks.......

No unicorns- just Kelly LeBrock

Ain't the world a funny place. 

Honourable mentions goes to:

Fruit bat fellatio

The effects of cocaine on bees

The nature of navel lint

The rectal route to curing hiccups

Mosquitoes like cheese

Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Arse.             

Crap tele for da masses

My good mate and fellow blogger, Dioclese,  ran a piece about the dire state of the televisual fare on offer these days. Frankly, I rarely watch tele, although I pay for Sky at the behest of other family members. My daughter and granddaughter are resident at the moment and I'm an indulgent father and grandfather. The Disney channel is transcendent during the day and the 'Cooking Channel' rules at night. There is at least a 100 channels and generally you would be hard pressed to find anything worth watching. Also, New Zealand programming has the endearing habit of introducing adverts every six minutes. Therefore we have dross being perpetually interrupted with shite. If there is something I particularly want to see I record it and watch when no one else is around. The occasions are becoming rare. I had the misfortune of being forced to watch a programme of unimaginable banality and inanity that it goaded me to burn Buddhist monks. My karma had become almost non-existent that only propelling a religious, shaven headed, saffron be-cloaked man into the next reincarnation would suffice to resurrect my soul and humanity. You may well ask why didn't I simply leave the room and ensconce myself in a place of contemplation and quietude. This is why I stayed: it was evening meal time and probably the only time the whole family congregates together in one place to ignore each other. So I spent an agonising and self soul hammering twenty minutes watching an abomination called: 'RuPaul's All Stars Drag Race'. RuPaul is a famous American drag queen and definitely looks better as a woman than a man. I don't care how people express themselves, it is of no interest to me and I'm not one to cast moral censure. Believe me when I say I have lived a very full life and have lived by the maxim: 'Try everything once, except incest and country dancing'. To be honest, there are quite a few things I haven't done but I didn't want to break the flow of a pithy and witty utterance. The thrust of the concept is about RuPaul mentoring and judging a collection of 'Drag Queens' as they undertake a series of tasks and challenges. They compete amongst themselves and every week one is eliminated to a chorus of histrionics. We have seen this crap in a thousand guises and it is standard reality show fare. It is the natural culmination of the 'Reality Tele Trend' and it is difficult to imagine how the genre will be able to continue, as surely all reality options have been used. Mayhap we will be exposed to single mother midgets, pole dancing. Don't forget you heard it hear first. To be honest, I wouldn't mind if they were fit...... I quickly finished my meal and abruptly retreated to my inner sanctum where I could commune with the only friends I have, books and the internet. The Western world has entered its last cycle of societal decay. Reality television is the hand maiden of decadence. My fervent hope is that I'll be dead before the full culmination of Western crapulence comes to pass.  Anyway, I've decided to take up arson as a hobby, although those in the fraternity like to call adherents, 'Thermally Enabled'. Go tell it to 'The Grauniad'. So to soothe a troubled brow and mind, watch this. I'm married to the one in the middle, honestly.

Of Rats and Ferrets

Bad Ferret!

I'm sure it has not gone unnoticed by my regular readers that the mention of ferrets and things ferrety have come to a standstill. I blame my new medication. So before the mere mention of the word, 'ferret', causes toe curling derision from the author, here is my last ferrety gasp. Of course, I could stop taking my meds: things could become very ferrety after a short interval- Isn't that right, Mr Mugumbo? Please note, I have posed answers to common ferrety conundrums, followed by commentary.

 Let's get started........

Ferrets make excellent pets for people who have the time for them, and who bond well with animals. Ferrets are naturally quiet, inquisitive, intelligent, and companionable. At certain points in the day, they are also exceedingly active and capable of getting themselves into trouble unless they are supervised. Their intelligence makes them interesting companions, and they are able to amuse themselves when you are not around. But they do require attention and interaction with their owners; their mental and physical health depends on it.

Yep, what that doesn't tell you is that ferrets can be extremely mischievous. I once fell dead drunk over my snooker table to awake next day with the little toe of my left foot completely gnawed off. Bad ferret! Luckily the passage of the resultant bones took no more than 6 hours. I now have a newsworthy memento of my folly. The upside is I got a free anatomy lesson- 'Go Shagger'. The little toe is vastly overrated especially when it comes to gait. I think I compensate rather well and only an expert in bio-mechanics, would ever notice.

Legalities
City, county, state, or military regulations can all dictate whether or not it is legal for you to own, breed, or sell a ferret where you live. The regulations can be quite involved. California, for example, allows only neutered males to be kept; and in Carson City, Nevada, it is illegal to own a ferret if you have a small child in your household. To determine the regulations in your area, check with your local Wildlife or Fish and Game department, with the Humane Society, or with your local veterinarian. These organizations should also be able to advise you on license and permit requirements. Depending on where you live, you may need a license or permit for your ferret.

Or you could tell the nosy state to fuck off. Probably a good idea not to tell them at all. As for nosy neighbours: Tell em that its your pet rat that got caught in the washing mangle. This works especially well where ferrets are verboten, as they have no idea what a ferret looks like or what a 'mangle' actually is. Also folk, are generally, very stupid. Any intrepid official types turning up at your door should be killed forthwith and slowly fed to your ferret(s). They are unlikely to be missed. In my experience, 'Officials' are sad lonely creatures who get off on the minutiae of regulations and sniffing their neighbour's underwear placed salaciously and enticingly on the washing line.  Admittedly, disposing of a whole carcass can be wearisome unless you own a coterie of ferrets. If you don't, get acquainted with your local pig farmer.
     


Compatibility
Many prospective ferret owners are naturally concerned about how well a ferret would get along with their children or other pets. A ferret is a demanding pet for a child, requiring careful adult supervision and the maturity of the child. The child must be able to recognize that a ferret behaves differently from a dog, cat, or other pet. The child must also be old enough to handle the responsibility of caring for the ferret. Ferrets are not recommended for a household with children younger than 6 or 7 years, and especially close supervision would be required around infants or babies.

Because they are natural hunters, ferrets usually can't be trained to get along with birds, fish, rabbits, rodents, or lizards. If you have these animals in your home, you will need to provide vigilant supervision at all times. But ferrets can generally be trained to get along with cats and dogs. Note, however, that terriers and similar dogs were originally bred to hunt.



Here is the news: Don't mix small children with ferrets. If you do, you will have a perpetually howling brat covered in sticking plasters. As for the presence of other animals: Tis true that terriers will kill a ferret with a flick and toss of the head. Other dogs are usually dominated by ferrets. If in doubt, dig a pit and toss in ferret and dog and let them work it out. Don't forget to video the 'social kinetics' with your latest i phone. If you own unconventional pets such as lizards and snakes and frogs you should be fucking ashamed. Put aforementioned thingys in a blender and feed resultant mush to your adorable ferret. Ferrets are particularly fond of hamsters.


Aggressiveness
Ferrets must be taught not to nip or bite, much the same way that kittens and puppies are taught what behaviour is appropriate. A domestically bred ferret will usually not be vicious or aggressive, but it is in its nature to enjoy games that simulate hunting, tug-of-war, chasing, or mock combat. A young ferret will not understand what hurts you and what doesn't hurt you until you communicate the boundaries. It will be up to you to establish those boundaries appropriately, without hurting your ferret or teaching it to fear or mistrust you.

Some ferrets do respond to fear, pain, or to certain noises or actions by biting. The key to altering that behaviour is to understand and eliminate the underlying reason.



Ferrets are nasty little buggers and unpredictable; that's why I love em. Generally ferrets respond to any stimuli by attacking and biting. Play with your ferret but always count your digits after every encounter. My hands are bedecked with a tracery of scars which become particularly apparent after a tan. Always discipline your ferret if you think their behaviour becomes too extreme. Hold them firmly by the scruff of the neck and flick vigorously with the fingers of the other hand at the base of the nostril. Once you see a fleck of blood you have made your point and your ferret will respect you, until they forget. Repeat as often as is required.  

Here endeth the ferret lesson.

Normal posting will resume once the new meds kick in.

Go one, treat the nasty little bastard

Toilet Brush

 

I usually put toothpaste on mine

Apparently, some researchers at a mere slip of a university have discovered that most tooth brushes in communal bathrooms are contaminated with faeces. Now some time ago I remember reading an 'Urban Myth' about a biker gang/burglars who shoved the toothbrushes of a family, who had transgressed the 'unwritten law', up their arses. Those of a sensitive disposition can read it here.

Due to the 'aerosol effect' a cloud of fine water particles are propelled throughout the bathroom each time we flush. Each particle is a tiny receptacle for a minute piece of poo. Eventually the droplets, with hitchhikers, are distributed over the entire area. Thus your bathroom is a seething mass of shit. And where there's shit there's bacteria, especially faecal coliform bacteria. Ingesting these bacteria will do you no harm as they are present as commensals in the normal gut flora. This doesn't exclude the possibility that nasty pathogenic bacteria are also hitching a ride......

Frankly I'm not convinced. If you look hard enough you will find all manner of supposedly nasty things lurking in the shared environment. Perhaps it is better not to look. We seem to live in an increasingly sanitised world- or so we think. Unfortunately not challenging our immune system to all manner of organisms can result in an immature immune system unable to cope with serious assaults. May the watchword be: 'A strong immune system is a tested immune system'. The First World's obsession and susceptibility to allergies and asthma is due to their mewlings not being allowed to play in dirt and eat crap. Apparently, I have a scar on the back of my eye (choroid) which is due to an ingestion of cat faeces whilst a toddler. Now look at me: a fine physical specimen, taut, vibrant and tall as a tree etc. 

I distinctly recall as a child playing in the coal shed and being covered in grime and coal dust from head to toe. I was well known for it the neighbourhood and affectionately known thereabouts as, 'Blond Nigger.'

If you are really bothered by shit in your bathroom you would be well advised to put down the toilet seat after flushing. Maybe my wife has a point after all......