I have to have a rant.
Years ago, when you had a naughty kid, he was known as a naughty kid. He was naughty at school and the teachers told him off, he was naughty playing out in the streets and a policeman would cuff him on the ear and send him home, he was naughty at home and the parents would probably do nothing which is why he was naughty in the first place. It was simple. Some kids would stay naughty and end up in prison. Some would grow out of it naturally and grow up all right. And some, by becoming known as naughty kids, would shame their parents into taking an interest and the family would develop together.
Nowadays nobody has to bother. If you have a naughty kid, you don't have to discipline them. If you're a school, you do a quick referral to a specialist who then sends them to a doctor who diagnoses ADHD in 5 seconds flat following a series of tests that 95% of the population would find makes them an ADHD "sufferer" (More of this later). If you're a policeman and Little Johnny is attempting arson at the age of 8 you don't cuff him because you'll get sued, or take him to the parents because if they had any sense he wouldn't be out firestarting at 8, so you take him to the station, get a referral to Social Services who pass him onto a doctor to diagnose ADHD. And if you're a parent of a naughty child, rather than admit they're naughty and that might reflect poorly on your parenting skills, you take the quick fix option. "Doctor, as soon as I've finished pouring a gallon of Sunny Delight down Johnny's throat when he gets home from school he goes a bit mental and runs around bouncing off the walls". 5 seconds later there's a prescription for Ritalin in Mummy's hand. A doctors endorsement that you're not a crap, lazy parent. It couldn't possibly be your fault that whilst you're watching back-to-back Jeremy Kyle, Little Johnny is busy feeding the hamster a months supply of Cillit Bang.
The worst thing is that some people genuinely have ADHD. They have my deepest sympathy. Because whilst they struggle with concentration issues and the frustration of completing tasks that most of us simply find a dull chore, they must know that virtually everyone they tell that they have ADHD is thinking, "bollocks, you're just a naughty kid making excuses".
I'd love to see some statistics on the socio-economic status of those diagnosed with ADHD. If ADHD were correctly diagnosed every time you would expect it to be as prevalent in every social grouping. How many people on a higher income have children with ADHD? In a social class where there is still a stigma surrounding these things, I suspect that there are far fewer occurrences of ADHD. That's not to say their kids are any better behaved than those raised by families on low incomes, just that the stigma of the class is likely to mean that they are less likely to want to label their child with "the naughty disease". The further down the economic ladder you go, the more likely you are to find families with ADHD children. The stigma of having an ADHD child is less if you already know other families who have ADHD children. And thus it becomes the norm rather than the exception. If nobody at the school has a go at Little Billy's Mum when he scribbles on the classroom walls because he's got ADHD, then why can't Johnny have ADHD too? Then they'll stop moaning at me when he repeats what he saw on the hardcore dvd's that I can never be arsed to put away at night. I might even get him diagnosed with Tourette's as well! Wonder if the Social will give me disability money for that?
Read through some court reports. We now have a generation of people in their late teens starting to emerge as petty criminals. Usually minor incidents involving drink, drugs, violence, criminal damage. And look at how many of those claim to have ADHD. Instant excuse. Get out of Jail Free Card. "I can't possibly be held responsible for my actions, M'Lud. It's this disease I'm cursed with that makes me an arsehole". And all the while genuine ADHD sufferers struggle with their condition trying NOT to use it as an excuse and make the best of their lives.
More work needs to be put into the diagnosis of ADHD. The doctors who diagnose it so quickly and easily aren't doing so because they want the current situation to be perpetuated, but because they're under pressure to get through all the appointments that are thrown at them, and the current ADHD tests are so broad and non-specific that virtually anyone can come out with a positive ADHD result. I've done an online test, as have friends of mine and we all came out with scores in excess of 75% positive for ADHD. Mine was 87%. I have an honours degree, have had several jobs where I've managed people and held considerable responsibility, have never had any run-ins with the law, or had any issues concentrating. I am however, a lazy bastard, and at times I can be a feckless twat, particularly when under the influence, and be driven to acts of minor mischief. I'm perfectly aware of this, and although I might not act like such a berk when I'm sober, it's not alcohols fault for whatever I get up to. It's mine for being a greedy bastard and drinking too much of something that I know has the capacity for sending me loopy. But according to the online test, I could easily blame it on ADHD. I'm not saying the online test is an exact match for that administered by a doctor, but from what I've been told by a friend whose child was tested and diagnosed and has taken the online test themselves, it's actually more in-depth than the doctors. We now have a generation of people who think they have an easily acquired licence to break the rules.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Blog 16 - Dad Stuff - Swearing
Anybody who knows me knows that I love a good swear. Is it because I'm an emotionally stunted man-child that uses adult language to cover up his developmental failings in an attempt to seem more mature than he is? Fucked if I know.
However, nowadays I'm a Dad, and so I have to take a view on swearing. Is it something I want my kids doing? How do you police it? Do you allow some words and not others? How much do I allow myself to swear around the kids?
I know the accepted view of society is that swearing is bad and kids should neither do it or be exposed to it. The problem is that I don't subscribe to the theory. Never have, never will. Swearing, for me, is wonderful. I love language, particularly the English language which is so rich in it's breadth and variety, and anything that can add to that is increasing something that's already brilliant. How many variations are there on the word "pissed"? "He pissed in the toilet", "I got so pissed last night", "I am so pissed off with my friend" "I didn't bring my umbrella and wouldn't you know, it pissed down". Marvellous.
The important thing with swear words is that they have power. Far greater power than the millions of mundane words that make up the bulk of normal language. Stand in the middle of a W.I. whist drive and say "profiterole" and nobody bats an eyelid. Even "bomb" or "fire" wouldn't make much of an impression unless you screamed it. But say "Piss-stained cuntflaps" and you'd better believe you have an audience. Instant power.
Which is not to say that I support using random swearwords for attention (although god knows, that's fun on occasion). In fact, I'm actually opposed to swearing too much because the more powerful words are used, the less effect they have. If I say "fuck" people are less surprised than if my Mum, who very rarely swears, does, and so when she swears it has far greater impact. My problem is that I can't help myself - I'm a swear glutton. I'm the Vanessa Feltz of cursing. I can't help myself.
Which begs the question then, how do I deal with this around the kids? The one thing I don't believe in is the hands-over-the-ears "la la la if I just say those words are bad then they won't swear" method which a lot of parents seem to subscribe to. It's naive and it's a parenting cop-out. The fact is that swearing is a part of the world around us. As soon as they get to school the kids all begin passing round new words they've learned and the coolest kids are the ones who know the most swear words. The fact is that my kids are going to swear. To them it's cool and grown up. I was the same at their age. Plus I still swear now, so it's hypocritical to say there are words I can say but you can't.
Recently we had the situation where during a car ride we played "I-Spy" and I saw a parcel. Nobody guessed it and when I announced "It's a parcel", Kerry (half-asleep) misheard and said "did you just say 'arsehole'?" in hushed tones. Bailey (3) overheard that and shouted "IS IT AN ARSEHOLED?" which she thought was hilarious because everyone else in the car fell about laughing when she said it. I've since answered questions from the eldest two as to what an arsehole is, but to be honest I was actually only confirming what they pretty much knew. Any child who has grown up with 2 parents who haven't had a break from changing nappies at all hours of the day and night for the past 7 years will have heard the phrase "stinky arsehole" on at least a few occasions I guarantee.
Rightly or wrongly, the view I'm following is that I'm going to allow them to swear in front of me. My reasoning is that I don't find swearing offensive, and they're going to do it anyway, so why have the pretence that I had with my parents? The only rules I'm going to apply to the situation are that a) they need to understand what the words mean and b) they need to know when and where they can use these words. At the age my kids are (6,5,3 and nearly 1) they don't know many swear words anyway, but they're picking them up all the time. Take "Shit" for example (and anyone who's worked for the government knows that you have to do that on a regular basis anyway #littlebitofpolitics). My kids know what shit means. If I was to ask Lauryn (6) whether her baby brother had done a shit, she's sniff his bum and tell me the answer. The fact is that I don't use that terminology and neither does she on a general basis because we usually refer to it as "poo" or "poo-poo". Because we have Bailey (3) who has not long been potty-trained, we've spent a considerable amount of time talking about "poo" in the past few months and as a result it's... well it's kind of stuck. I wouldn't have a problem if the kids were to say "Shit" in front of me because they know what it is, they know the right context to use it in, and they are aware that it's a swear word and that they shouldn't say it in front of certain people. I just don't think they need to make an effort not to say it around me.
The sexualised swear words are somewhat different. My kids (hopefully) don't have a clue what a Wanker is, and it's not something they'll understand for a few years, so I'd question them if they said that in front of me, and likewise I try not to use that in front of them myself. Cunt is one that I'll allow (although hopefully that won't come up for a few years), because at the end of the day, it's only a reference to a part of the body. The codicil with this is that they have to understand that society regards this as the "Nuclear" swearword (for reasons I've never quite understood) and that they have to be exceptionally careful when using it. Fuck however, is a tricky one. It's regarded as one of the worst swear words (The F-Bomb), and it is a sexual swear word, but it's also one of the most prevalent. People are always saying "I hate my fucking job" but unless they work in the pornography industry, they're not using the word in a sexualised way. "Fuck You" is an insult, not an invitation.
Cee Lo Greens new song "Fuck You" is about to explode when it's released. It's all over the internet already and it's one of the catchiest tunes I've heard in years and it's sweetened all the further by liberal sprinklings of swear words. If you haven't heard it already, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU&ob=av3e
Fantastic song, right? And although a tame version has been released for radio play ("Forget you" substitutes for the title, and "Ain't that some shit" is replaced by "ain't that some shhhh"), you know that EVERYONE will sing the rude version regardless of which one they're listening to. My kids will become exposed to this and will sing it because that's the media age we live in. The song is going to be huge and will be everywhere. So do we pretend it doesn't exist for children, like a BFG that only adults can see or hear? Or do we be honest with our children, let them know that some words are swear words which will upset some people, but let them join in the fun of a catchy song that they'll hear about regardless of whether we like it or not? I'm letting them hear it, dance to it anhd even sing along to it if they want. They know they mustn't sing it at school or to anyone outside the house, but pretending it doesn't exist is a far bigger crime to me than saying a few words that other people don't like around people who don't mind them.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me on this, and to be fair I don't think my view totally reflects the Mrs' but it's my view all the same. I think most parents seem to make a lot of fuss about swearing when kids are young but as they gradually comprehend that they can't stop their kids awareness of swear words or the fact that they use them every day at school or around friends, they simply stop making the effort to correct them and allow it to happen in a gradual malaise of their own standards. I prefer to take the long-term view now and be open about it, but a lot of people will probably think this makes me the worst parent since Joseph Fritzl. However, a lot of people are fuckwits so I'm not that fussed.
However, nowadays I'm a Dad, and so I have to take a view on swearing. Is it something I want my kids doing? How do you police it? Do you allow some words and not others? How much do I allow myself to swear around the kids?
I know the accepted view of society is that swearing is bad and kids should neither do it or be exposed to it. The problem is that I don't subscribe to the theory. Never have, never will. Swearing, for me, is wonderful. I love language, particularly the English language which is so rich in it's breadth and variety, and anything that can add to that is increasing something that's already brilliant. How many variations are there on the word "pissed"? "He pissed in the toilet", "I got so pissed last night", "I am so pissed off with my friend" "I didn't bring my umbrella and wouldn't you know, it pissed down". Marvellous.
The important thing with swear words is that they have power. Far greater power than the millions of mundane words that make up the bulk of normal language. Stand in the middle of a W.I. whist drive and say "profiterole" and nobody bats an eyelid. Even "bomb" or "fire" wouldn't make much of an impression unless you screamed it. But say "Piss-stained cuntflaps" and you'd better believe you have an audience. Instant power.
Which is not to say that I support using random swearwords for attention (although god knows, that's fun on occasion). In fact, I'm actually opposed to swearing too much because the more powerful words are used, the less effect they have. If I say "fuck" people are less surprised than if my Mum, who very rarely swears, does, and so when she swears it has far greater impact. My problem is that I can't help myself - I'm a swear glutton. I'm the Vanessa Feltz of cursing. I can't help myself.
Which begs the question then, how do I deal with this around the kids? The one thing I don't believe in is the hands-over-the-ears "la la la if I just say those words are bad then they won't swear" method which a lot of parents seem to subscribe to. It's naive and it's a parenting cop-out. The fact is that swearing is a part of the world around us. As soon as they get to school the kids all begin passing round new words they've learned and the coolest kids are the ones who know the most swear words. The fact is that my kids are going to swear. To them it's cool and grown up. I was the same at their age. Plus I still swear now, so it's hypocritical to say there are words I can say but you can't.
Recently we had the situation where during a car ride we played "I-Spy" and I saw a parcel. Nobody guessed it and when I announced "It's a parcel", Kerry (half-asleep) misheard and said "did you just say 'arsehole'?" in hushed tones. Bailey (3) overheard that and shouted "IS IT AN ARSEHOLED?" which she thought was hilarious because everyone else in the car fell about laughing when she said it. I've since answered questions from the eldest two as to what an arsehole is, but to be honest I was actually only confirming what they pretty much knew. Any child who has grown up with 2 parents who haven't had a break from changing nappies at all hours of the day and night for the past 7 years will have heard the phrase "stinky arsehole" on at least a few occasions I guarantee.
Rightly or wrongly, the view I'm following is that I'm going to allow them to swear in front of me. My reasoning is that I don't find swearing offensive, and they're going to do it anyway, so why have the pretence that I had with my parents? The only rules I'm going to apply to the situation are that a) they need to understand what the words mean and b) they need to know when and where they can use these words. At the age my kids are (6,5,3 and nearly 1) they don't know many swear words anyway, but they're picking them up all the time. Take "Shit" for example (and anyone who's worked for the government knows that you have to do that on a regular basis anyway #littlebitofpolitics). My kids know what shit means. If I was to ask Lauryn (6) whether her baby brother had done a shit, she's sniff his bum and tell me the answer. The fact is that I don't use that terminology and neither does she on a general basis because we usually refer to it as "poo" or "poo-poo". Because we have Bailey (3) who has not long been potty-trained, we've spent a considerable amount of time talking about "poo" in the past few months and as a result it's... well it's kind of stuck. I wouldn't have a problem if the kids were to say "Shit" in front of me because they know what it is, they know the right context to use it in, and they are aware that it's a swear word and that they shouldn't say it in front of certain people. I just don't think they need to make an effort not to say it around me.
The sexualised swear words are somewhat different. My kids (hopefully) don't have a clue what a Wanker is, and it's not something they'll understand for a few years, so I'd question them if they said that in front of me, and likewise I try not to use that in front of them myself. Cunt is one that I'll allow (although hopefully that won't come up for a few years), because at the end of the day, it's only a reference to a part of the body. The codicil with this is that they have to understand that society regards this as the "Nuclear" swearword (for reasons I've never quite understood) and that they have to be exceptionally careful when using it. Fuck however, is a tricky one. It's regarded as one of the worst swear words (The F-Bomb), and it is a sexual swear word, but it's also one of the most prevalent. People are always saying "I hate my fucking job" but unless they work in the pornography industry, they're not using the word in a sexualised way. "Fuck You" is an insult, not an invitation.
Cee Lo Greens new song "Fuck You" is about to explode when it's released. It's all over the internet already and it's one of the catchiest tunes I've heard in years and it's sweetened all the further by liberal sprinklings of swear words. If you haven't heard it already, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU&ob=av3e
Fantastic song, right? And although a tame version has been released for radio play ("Forget you" substitutes for the title, and "Ain't that some shit" is replaced by "ain't that some shhhh"), you know that EVERYONE will sing the rude version regardless of which one they're listening to. My kids will become exposed to this and will sing it because that's the media age we live in. The song is going to be huge and will be everywhere. So do we pretend it doesn't exist for children, like a BFG that only adults can see or hear? Or do we be honest with our children, let them know that some words are swear words which will upset some people, but let them join in the fun of a catchy song that they'll hear about regardless of whether we like it or not? I'm letting them hear it, dance to it anhd even sing along to it if they want. They know they mustn't sing it at school or to anyone outside the house, but pretending it doesn't exist is a far bigger crime to me than saying a few words that other people don't like around people who don't mind them.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me on this, and to be fair I don't think my view totally reflects the Mrs' but it's my view all the same. I think most parents seem to make a lot of fuss about swearing when kids are young but as they gradually comprehend that they can't stop their kids awareness of swear words or the fact that they use them every day at school or around friends, they simply stop making the effort to correct them and allow it to happen in a gradual malaise of their own standards. I prefer to take the long-term view now and be open about it, but a lot of people will probably think this makes me the worst parent since Joseph Fritzl. However, a lot of people are fuckwits so I'm not that fussed.
Monday, 6 September 2010
Blog 15 - NFL 2010-2011 Season Preview
As you may or may not know, American Football has become a recent passion of mine and with the new NFL season starting this week, I thought I'd do a quick season preview for anybody else with similar interest.
I got into it a couple of years ago, but this is the first year that, since the Superbowl, I've stayed in touch with what's happening with the teams offseason, and with the draft, and so I'm fascinated to see how the Rookies perform as it's my first real draft class I'm watching.
So without further ado, here are my season predictions:
AFC East
1. New York Jets - The favourites for the division should win out. They've added some strong firepower in the offseason and moved some older names out. I can't see them going far in the postseason though and they'll be lucky to get a repeat of last years Conference Final.
2. New England Patriots - Have lost ground in the last year or two and a lot will depend on whether Brady can revitalise his passing game and if Wes Welker can get fit enough to make an impact. They're too good not to be a threat however and they've got a shot at a Wild Card.
3. Miami Dolphine - A lot of experts have them as dark horses within the division but I don't think they're quite there yet. Won't roll over for anyone but breaking teams down will remain a problem.
4. Buffalo Bills - If they're not selecting first in next years draft I'll be very surprised. Their team has more holes than a pikeys cardigan. Unbelievably when given a prime opportunity to sign a franchise quarterback in Clausen or Tebow in the draft they instead went for RB C.J. Spiller providing cover in what was not one of their biggest areas of weakness and ignoring the fact that they have the weakest selection of any team in the NFL in the most important position on the team.
AFC NORTH
1. Baltimore Ravens - Always strong, I can't see past them in the division and could be a good outside bet to win the whole shebang. They've managed to keep hold of good players and have probably the strongest backroom set-up of any team in the NFL.
2. Cincinnati Bengals - I fancy them to make it to the postseason as a surprise package. The Batman and Robin antics of Ochocinco and T.O. will take the headlines but it will be the consistency of Cedric Benson and Carson Palmer that will make or break the season.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers - The Big Ben kerfuffle has overshadowed the whole club and I'm surprised they haven't attempted a trade to give both parties a fresh start. The first four games without Rothlisberger will be tremendously difficult as they don't have quality back-up. I think it's going to be a messy season for the Steelers and I can't see them getting past the normal season this time.
4. Cleveland Browns - Mangini already looks like a sitting duck and I'd be surprised if he was still in a job at Christmas. The Browns are not untalented but they struggle with consistency over the course of a game let alone a season.
AFC SOUTH
1. Indianapolis Colts - Efficient, professional, rarely over elaborate, and always in the mix at the end of the season, the Colts are to the NFL what Germany are to the World Cup. Probably one of the reasons I find no affinity with them at all! Led by the Iceman, Peyton Manning, with metronomically regulated passing, they will undoubtedly be playing long into the postseason.
2. Tennessee Titans - They have the best running back in the league and if Vince Young can produce the kind of season he is capable of at QB, then I can see them being a surprise package. My Wild Card for a Wild Card.
3. Houston Texans - Another team that experts are expecting big things of and I can't see it myself. Any team that signs Leinart has to be at a lower ebb than was first thought!
4. Jacksonville Jaguars - The line appears to have been drawn in the sand now and the Jaguars are not going to make too much of an effort until they're in a new city with a fitting fanbase. Del Rio is a good coach and they have some decent players but they drafted on conservative wages rather than on talent and they can't expect to be a competitve force as a result.
AFC WEST
1. San Diego Chargers - A no-brainer in this division. Drafted well and Ryan Matthews looks set to have a huge rookie year. Could feature at Conference Final level but not sure they have enough to go all the way.
2. Denver Broncos - Tebow. You can't look past him when it comes to the Bronco's even if most observers believe his role will only be peripheral this season. A marmite character, I think he'll be the biggest thing in the sport within 4 years. Equally I agree that his contribution will be limited this year, but he has a galvanising presence and the club is on the up, and they have an underrated team which should do well.
3. Kansas City Chiefs - Quietly improving as a franchise, the signing of Eric Berry will be a long term aquisition of high value. They won't trouble the playoffs but should hold-off the Raiders in the Division.
4. Oakland Raiders - Had one of the best drafts of any team in the NFL and finally put Al Davis' wacky ideas on the back-burner. It will take a while for it all to gel however and next year will be one of slight but noticeable imporovement.
NFC EAST
1. Dallas Cowboys - Could go all the way if they keep key men fit and if Romo can pull out a big season. He has the tools and Dez Bryant could be a major player if given a chance.
2. Philadelphia Eagles - Second best in an uncharcteristically weak division for me this year. I think the once-formidable Eagles are slipping and I can see them struggling to make the post-season.
3. New York Giants - Started last season well only to collapse down the track, I can't see things getting better before they get worse for NY. Not enough tools to mount a serious challenge.
4. Washington Redskins - Big changes at work and they look a million times better than they were a year ago. However, the changes will take a while to settle and it's a season of consolidation rather than dramatic advances in DC.
NFC NORTH
1. Minnesota Vikings - Favre's back for last season number 63, but equally the Vikings remain a force to be reckoned with. A really tight division between the top 2 teams, I fancy them to win out by a short head, although it'll be equal opportunities in post-season.
2. Green Bay Packers - Should comfortably make the play-offs and if things go their way a Conference Final or a Superbowl are not impossible. Consistency the key.
3. Detroit Lions - Traditionally amongst the worst they have been clever in recent seasons with the quality of player they have brought in. Franchise QB Matt Stafford has a decent rookie year under his belt and Ndamukong Suh has shown the kind of form in pre-season that could earn him a Pro Bowl call-up in his rookie year. They're still light years away from a play-off shot but one year at a time they're getting better.
4. Chicago Bears - With no 1st Round Draft pick they went all out in free agency and made some high profile signings, not least Julius Peppers. However there are so many issues that need addressing that even Peppers will be a band aid over a gaping wound.
NFC SOUTH
1. New Orleans Saints - The team to beat now they're reigning Superbowl Champs, they'll find it an awful lot more difficult defending the trophy than winning it in the first place. I can't see them repeating and I think they'll do well to win a playoff game, but they're good enough to win in a weak division nonetheless.
2. Atlanta Falcons - Another fancied darkhorse, they'll have a shot at a Wild Card but they're very much a work in progress and don't have the personnel or determination as yet.
3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Fancy them for a better run this season but still a long way from challenging within the division. McCoy is an excellent addition but they have too many holes and not enough matchwinners.
4. Carolina Panthers - An average team of average players who should perform average at best. If ever a team needed a marquee player to come in and act as a catlyst, this is it.
NFC WEST
1. Arizona Cardinals - My team. They've lost some big names since last season and mostly replaced them with adequate if unspectacular alternatives. The draft was a success and the addition of Dan Williams is a cause for excitement. However the cloud over the club is the retirement of legendary QB and leader Kurt Warner, the implosion of the ever-disappointing Leinart as his aire-apparant, and the aquisition of the boom or bust Derek Anderson as the new leader of the offence. Personally I have enormous doubts about Anderson but I would love to be proved wrong. We still have the best defensive lineman in the league in Darnell Dockett and the best receiver in Larry Fitzgerald, but the QB hole is simply too big for us to get any further than the first round of playoffs. Only the lack of strength in the division will see us progress.
2. San Francisco 49'ers - Most people have them as the probable winners after a few years of Cards dominance, and they have worked the pre-season well in terms of personnel changes. However, as always, changes take time to implement and they will still have work to do to catch the Cards this season.
3. St Louis Rams - Another team with a world of improvement neccesary but if Bradford can perform they could have an unexpectedly average season.
4. Seattle Seahawks - A difficult fixture list will see them struggle and I think the Rams may even squeeze them out into 4th. Lots of work to do.
I think the winners overall will come from the Ravens or the Colts in the AFC and the Cowboys, Vikings and Packers in the NFC. At a push I'll plump for the Ravens to beat the Cowboys in the Superbowl. Although if the Cards want to surprise me, that's fine!
I got into it a couple of years ago, but this is the first year that, since the Superbowl, I've stayed in touch with what's happening with the teams offseason, and with the draft, and so I'm fascinated to see how the Rookies perform as it's my first real draft class I'm watching.
So without further ado, here are my season predictions:
AFC East
1. New York Jets - The favourites for the division should win out. They've added some strong firepower in the offseason and moved some older names out. I can't see them going far in the postseason though and they'll be lucky to get a repeat of last years Conference Final.
2. New England Patriots - Have lost ground in the last year or two and a lot will depend on whether Brady can revitalise his passing game and if Wes Welker can get fit enough to make an impact. They're too good not to be a threat however and they've got a shot at a Wild Card.
3. Miami Dolphine - A lot of experts have them as dark horses within the division but I don't think they're quite there yet. Won't roll over for anyone but breaking teams down will remain a problem.
4. Buffalo Bills - If they're not selecting first in next years draft I'll be very surprised. Their team has more holes than a pikeys cardigan. Unbelievably when given a prime opportunity to sign a franchise quarterback in Clausen or Tebow in the draft they instead went for RB C.J. Spiller providing cover in what was not one of their biggest areas of weakness and ignoring the fact that they have the weakest selection of any team in the NFL in the most important position on the team.
AFC NORTH
1. Baltimore Ravens - Always strong, I can't see past them in the division and could be a good outside bet to win the whole shebang. They've managed to keep hold of good players and have probably the strongest backroom set-up of any team in the NFL.
2. Cincinnati Bengals - I fancy them to make it to the postseason as a surprise package. The Batman and Robin antics of Ochocinco and T.O. will take the headlines but it will be the consistency of Cedric Benson and Carson Palmer that will make or break the season.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers - The Big Ben kerfuffle has overshadowed the whole club and I'm surprised they haven't attempted a trade to give both parties a fresh start. The first four games without Rothlisberger will be tremendously difficult as they don't have quality back-up. I think it's going to be a messy season for the Steelers and I can't see them getting past the normal season this time.
4. Cleveland Browns - Mangini already looks like a sitting duck and I'd be surprised if he was still in a job at Christmas. The Browns are not untalented but they struggle with consistency over the course of a game let alone a season.
AFC SOUTH
1. Indianapolis Colts - Efficient, professional, rarely over elaborate, and always in the mix at the end of the season, the Colts are to the NFL what Germany are to the World Cup. Probably one of the reasons I find no affinity with them at all! Led by the Iceman, Peyton Manning, with metronomically regulated passing, they will undoubtedly be playing long into the postseason.
2. Tennessee Titans - They have the best running back in the league and if Vince Young can produce the kind of season he is capable of at QB, then I can see them being a surprise package. My Wild Card for a Wild Card.
3. Houston Texans - Another team that experts are expecting big things of and I can't see it myself. Any team that signs Leinart has to be at a lower ebb than was first thought!
4. Jacksonville Jaguars - The line appears to have been drawn in the sand now and the Jaguars are not going to make too much of an effort until they're in a new city with a fitting fanbase. Del Rio is a good coach and they have some decent players but they drafted on conservative wages rather than on talent and they can't expect to be a competitve force as a result.
AFC WEST
1. San Diego Chargers - A no-brainer in this division. Drafted well and Ryan Matthews looks set to have a huge rookie year. Could feature at Conference Final level but not sure they have enough to go all the way.
2. Denver Broncos - Tebow. You can't look past him when it comes to the Bronco's even if most observers believe his role will only be peripheral this season. A marmite character, I think he'll be the biggest thing in the sport within 4 years. Equally I agree that his contribution will be limited this year, but he has a galvanising presence and the club is on the up, and they have an underrated team which should do well.
3. Kansas City Chiefs - Quietly improving as a franchise, the signing of Eric Berry will be a long term aquisition of high value. They won't trouble the playoffs but should hold-off the Raiders in the Division.
4. Oakland Raiders - Had one of the best drafts of any team in the NFL and finally put Al Davis' wacky ideas on the back-burner. It will take a while for it all to gel however and next year will be one of slight but noticeable imporovement.
NFC EAST
1. Dallas Cowboys - Could go all the way if they keep key men fit and if Romo can pull out a big season. He has the tools and Dez Bryant could be a major player if given a chance.
2. Philadelphia Eagles - Second best in an uncharcteristically weak division for me this year. I think the once-formidable Eagles are slipping and I can see them struggling to make the post-season.
3. New York Giants - Started last season well only to collapse down the track, I can't see things getting better before they get worse for NY. Not enough tools to mount a serious challenge.
4. Washington Redskins - Big changes at work and they look a million times better than they were a year ago. However, the changes will take a while to settle and it's a season of consolidation rather than dramatic advances in DC.
NFC NORTH
1. Minnesota Vikings - Favre's back for last season number 63, but equally the Vikings remain a force to be reckoned with. A really tight division between the top 2 teams, I fancy them to win out by a short head, although it'll be equal opportunities in post-season.
2. Green Bay Packers - Should comfortably make the play-offs and if things go their way a Conference Final or a Superbowl are not impossible. Consistency the key.
3. Detroit Lions - Traditionally amongst the worst they have been clever in recent seasons with the quality of player they have brought in. Franchise QB Matt Stafford has a decent rookie year under his belt and Ndamukong Suh has shown the kind of form in pre-season that could earn him a Pro Bowl call-up in his rookie year. They're still light years away from a play-off shot but one year at a time they're getting better.
4. Chicago Bears - With no 1st Round Draft pick they went all out in free agency and made some high profile signings, not least Julius Peppers. However there are so many issues that need addressing that even Peppers will be a band aid over a gaping wound.
NFC SOUTH
1. New Orleans Saints - The team to beat now they're reigning Superbowl Champs, they'll find it an awful lot more difficult defending the trophy than winning it in the first place. I can't see them repeating and I think they'll do well to win a playoff game, but they're good enough to win in a weak division nonetheless.
2. Atlanta Falcons - Another fancied darkhorse, they'll have a shot at a Wild Card but they're very much a work in progress and don't have the personnel or determination as yet.
3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Fancy them for a better run this season but still a long way from challenging within the division. McCoy is an excellent addition but they have too many holes and not enough matchwinners.
4. Carolina Panthers - An average team of average players who should perform average at best. If ever a team needed a marquee player to come in and act as a catlyst, this is it.
NFC WEST
1. Arizona Cardinals - My team. They've lost some big names since last season and mostly replaced them with adequate if unspectacular alternatives. The draft was a success and the addition of Dan Williams is a cause for excitement. However the cloud over the club is the retirement of legendary QB and leader Kurt Warner, the implosion of the ever-disappointing Leinart as his aire-apparant, and the aquisition of the boom or bust Derek Anderson as the new leader of the offence. Personally I have enormous doubts about Anderson but I would love to be proved wrong. We still have the best defensive lineman in the league in Darnell Dockett and the best receiver in Larry Fitzgerald, but the QB hole is simply too big for us to get any further than the first round of playoffs. Only the lack of strength in the division will see us progress.
2. San Francisco 49'ers - Most people have them as the probable winners after a few years of Cards dominance, and they have worked the pre-season well in terms of personnel changes. However, as always, changes take time to implement and they will still have work to do to catch the Cards this season.
3. St Louis Rams - Another team with a world of improvement neccesary but if Bradford can perform they could have an unexpectedly average season.
4. Seattle Seahawks - A difficult fixture list will see them struggle and I think the Rams may even squeeze them out into 4th. Lots of work to do.
I think the winners overall will come from the Ravens or the Colts in the AFC and the Cowboys, Vikings and Packers in the NFC. At a push I'll plump for the Ravens to beat the Cowboys in the Superbowl. Although if the Cards want to surprise me, that's fine!
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Blog 14 - The X Factor 2010
The X Factor has once more bounded back onto our screens, no longer the adorable sparkly-eyed puppy it once was, but an older fully-developed mongrel, smugly expecting to be a family favourite as always. Trouble is that the family have tired somewhat of their preening pedigree pet. We know where the farty smell has been coming from on a saturday night and it's not Grandad.
It's been 4 days now since the first episode of the new series and already the show has had 2 scandals of which you sense, neither was a pre-planned publicity stunt. We're far quicker to look for the flaws these days and the press are spearheading the push. But more of these later.
We start with the same tired format. Dermot O'Leary comes on and makes us forget that he was ever a promisingly entertaining presenter in the days of Big Brothers Little Brother and instead flogs himself to the highest bidder and in return has nothing to say except the hackneyed offerings from a bucket of cliches more well worn than the square foot of carpet in front of Simon Cowell's mirror. Dermot perfunctorily showers us with news that "more people than ever before have shown up to audition for a life-changing blah-de-blah" over the ubiquitous crowd shots of cheering, arm-waving psychopaths, that has a more soporific effect on the synapses than a lakeful of Ketamin.
Cowell's back with whiter teeth, higher hair, and an increasing grumpiness bordering on melancholy as he realises his cash cow has peaked and he's just riding the last few gallons of milk out of it's pendulously sagging udders.
Louis the Laprechaun has popped back up as well, looking as happy as a dog with two dicks. (Well he did sign Jedward after all). I'm actually gaining some respect for Walsh, based solely on the fact that he's so obviously gleeful about the fact that he is in all self-awareness, getting paid shitloads to mumble crap, and he keeps getting work! Nobody has a good word to say about Walsh's incomprehensible musings, yet he's there every week, playing the role of Benny-The-Ball to Cowell's Top Cat and coining it in. Good luck to him.
Cheryl Cole/Tweedy/Geordie Princess Di is there at the moment although her imminent televised malarial collapse keeps being dangled before us at every "coming up" segment with an alarming relish. I dread to think what the producers would do with Tommy Cooper's on-screen death. "And as Tommy goes off to the morgue, what will this mean for the groups?" chimes Dermot in monotone.
Danni Minogue is missing this series as she's been pushing out a baby, presumably to the bemusement of the midwives who have never seen a woman grimace with pain whilst looking like a startled trout. This has given Cowell the excuse to replace her on a "temporary" basis with various other uglier understudies to Cheryl. This week it was the turn of octagenarian basket-case Geri Halliwell to flap her gums with the her trademark pretension of intellect that would fit in perfectly in the common room of an upper-middle-class 6th-form. With goggly eyes and a skeletal frame, Halliwell looks like a "Before" picture for thyroid medicine. Every contestant was treated to her nonsensical ponderings on how to make it as a pop star, although tragically she never embued the contestants with the secrets of her own personal route to musical success, having big tits.
And so on came the lunatics, like hopeful cattle playing "What's the Time Mr Wolf" by the abattoir wall, they clomped on stage, mooed, pawed and grazed at the floor whilst Cowell and co plundered their magic 8-ball of stock phrases to heckle at the disappointing bags of flesh that were littering their eyeline. 4 days on I can only remember 2 of them, both of which were skinny girls with big eyes who sung strangely. One of these has since been found to have serious mental health issues which has led Cowell to sling her off the programme quicker than you can say "She- wouldn't-have-made-as-much-as-Subo-so-she's-not-worth-the-hassle".
This is small beans however compared to the furore caused by Scandal number 2 which came out yesterday that, shock horror, X-Factor uses vocal techology to improve contestants voices. "Thank fuck for that" is my only response. We all know that if/when they release their solitary cover song post X-Factor their voices will be more heavily doctored than Typhoid Cheryl on her deathbed. With that being the case, why make us suffer their inept flailings every week when there's an option to make a poor man's Michael Buble from a rich man's Shane McGowan? I want vaguely entertaining, not a preposterous illusion that any of them are talented enough to have a career.
I shall of course, watch as always. It's like low quality weed. You know it's not good for you and will give you a headache, but when it's right in front of you it somehow seems like a harmlessly compelling way to spend an evening.
It's been 4 days now since the first episode of the new series and already the show has had 2 scandals of which you sense, neither was a pre-planned publicity stunt. We're far quicker to look for the flaws these days and the press are spearheading the push. But more of these later.
We start with the same tired format. Dermot O'Leary comes on and makes us forget that he was ever a promisingly entertaining presenter in the days of Big Brothers Little Brother and instead flogs himself to the highest bidder and in return has nothing to say except the hackneyed offerings from a bucket of cliches more well worn than the square foot of carpet in front of Simon Cowell's mirror. Dermot perfunctorily showers us with news that "more people than ever before have shown up to audition for a life-changing blah-de-blah" over the ubiquitous crowd shots of cheering, arm-waving psychopaths, that has a more soporific effect on the synapses than a lakeful of Ketamin.
Cowell's back with whiter teeth, higher hair, and an increasing grumpiness bordering on melancholy as he realises his cash cow has peaked and he's just riding the last few gallons of milk out of it's pendulously sagging udders.
Louis the Laprechaun has popped back up as well, looking as happy as a dog with two dicks. (Well he did sign Jedward after all). I'm actually gaining some respect for Walsh, based solely on the fact that he's so obviously gleeful about the fact that he is in all self-awareness, getting paid shitloads to mumble crap, and he keeps getting work! Nobody has a good word to say about Walsh's incomprehensible musings, yet he's there every week, playing the role of Benny-The-Ball to Cowell's Top Cat and coining it in. Good luck to him.
Cheryl Cole/Tweedy/Geordie Princess Di is there at the moment although her imminent televised malarial collapse keeps being dangled before us at every "coming up" segment with an alarming relish. I dread to think what the producers would do with Tommy Cooper's on-screen death. "And as Tommy goes off to the morgue, what will this mean for the groups?" chimes Dermot in monotone.
Danni Minogue is missing this series as she's been pushing out a baby, presumably to the bemusement of the midwives who have never seen a woman grimace with pain whilst looking like a startled trout. This has given Cowell the excuse to replace her on a "temporary" basis with various other uglier understudies to Cheryl. This week it was the turn of octagenarian basket-case Geri Halliwell to flap her gums with the her trademark pretension of intellect that would fit in perfectly in the common room of an upper-middle-class 6th-form. With goggly eyes and a skeletal frame, Halliwell looks like a "Before" picture for thyroid medicine. Every contestant was treated to her nonsensical ponderings on how to make it as a pop star, although tragically she never embued the contestants with the secrets of her own personal route to musical success, having big tits.
And so on came the lunatics, like hopeful cattle playing "What's the Time Mr Wolf" by the abattoir wall, they clomped on stage, mooed, pawed and grazed at the floor whilst Cowell and co plundered their magic 8-ball of stock phrases to heckle at the disappointing bags of flesh that were littering their eyeline. 4 days on I can only remember 2 of them, both of which were skinny girls with big eyes who sung strangely. One of these has since been found to have serious mental health issues which has led Cowell to sling her off the programme quicker than you can say "She- wouldn't-have-made-as-much-as-Subo-so-she's-not-worth-the-hassle".
This is small beans however compared to the furore caused by Scandal number 2 which came out yesterday that, shock horror, X-Factor uses vocal techology to improve contestants voices. "Thank fuck for that" is my only response. We all know that if/when they release their solitary cover song post X-Factor their voices will be more heavily doctored than Typhoid Cheryl on her deathbed. With that being the case, why make us suffer their inept flailings every week when there's an option to make a poor man's Michael Buble from a rich man's Shane McGowan? I want vaguely entertaining, not a preposterous illusion that any of them are talented enough to have a career.
I shall of course, watch as always. It's like low quality weed. You know it's not good for you and will give you a headache, but when it's right in front of you it somehow seems like a harmlessly compelling way to spend an evening.
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Blog 13 - Norwich 2 Swansea 0
Quick review - Good game. 2 teams playing football, at times beautifully. Lambert obviously studied the tape of Swansea's previous performances and realised that they like to play from the back because every time they went to take a goal kick we picked up every member of their back four and any deep-dropping midfielders and made their keeper kick it which he didn't want to do. Likewise we did our best to press them all over the pitch. For the first half hour this worked well and we were in the ascendency. Then we started looking a little tired both physically, and more important mentally, which is a sign of how well Swansea pass and move, and we're not used to having to work so hard, particularly at home. For Swansea's part as well as they passed and moved, they had little penetration. Second half, both teams slowed the pace a little and it was again, fairly even. Then they got themselves a penalty which was worked for rather than conceded, but to be fair the ref had little choice and showed good common sense in only producing a yellow for Ruddy. The game then spun on a moment with a great penalty save from Ruddy, and City, fortified by a not wholly appropriate sense of injustice powered on to yet another great finish. Could have gone either way, but we took it and we won't say no to that.
Marks out of 10:
Ruddy - 8
Relatively quiet game but for that one fantastic pen save. Great for his confidence though when couple with another clean sheet. Really looking the part now.
R Martin - 6
Hugely difficult task in keeping Sinclair quiet and just about managed it. He'll face a lot easier afternoons than this.
Drury - 7
As with R Martin, had a tricky winger to keep tabs on and it was a mark of how well he did that Dyer was subbed. Typical Drury 7/10.
Ward - 9
Immense. Best performance for City so far, and like Ruddy he's settling into the team and system. Lost count of the number of important blocks he made and covered for those around him with great responsibility.
Nelson - 6
Typical Nelson. Wonderful in the air, awful on the deck, and was nutmegged several times. Fortunately for us Ward had his back and got us out of tricky situations.
Crofts - 7
Solid, composed, and quality. Protected the defence and not afraid to push forward when appropriate.
K Smith - 7
All energy, the heartbeat of the team. His passing on the move is improving as well.
Surman - 8
Great left foot and better dribbling than I expected. Finally someone else who can pick a through-ball as well as Wes.
Hoolahan - 6
Some people were unimpressed but I thought he had a decent game. Didn't have a lot of luck but kept plugging away and was always a threat.
Holt - 6
Quiet by his normal standards, but like Hoolahan, did enough to make them have to be constantly aware of his presence.
C Martin - 6
Not a vintage performance but his direct running almost created two goals in the first half.
Subs:
McNamee - 7
Big contribution to allow us to get at them late on.
Askou - 6
Barely had a kick to judge on.
Jackson - 7
Fantastic finish for the goal and delighted for him to get off the mark. Pressure back on Holt and Martin to keep him out.
Marks out of 10:
Ruddy - 8
Relatively quiet game but for that one fantastic pen save. Great for his confidence though when couple with another clean sheet. Really looking the part now.
R Martin - 6
Hugely difficult task in keeping Sinclair quiet and just about managed it. He'll face a lot easier afternoons than this.
Drury - 7
As with R Martin, had a tricky winger to keep tabs on and it was a mark of how well he did that Dyer was subbed. Typical Drury 7/10.
Ward - 9
Immense. Best performance for City so far, and like Ruddy he's settling into the team and system. Lost count of the number of important blocks he made and covered for those around him with great responsibility.
Nelson - 6
Typical Nelson. Wonderful in the air, awful on the deck, and was nutmegged several times. Fortunately for us Ward had his back and got us out of tricky situations.
Crofts - 7
Solid, composed, and quality. Protected the defence and not afraid to push forward when appropriate.
K Smith - 7
All energy, the heartbeat of the team. His passing on the move is improving as well.
Surman - 8
Great left foot and better dribbling than I expected. Finally someone else who can pick a through-ball as well as Wes.
Hoolahan - 6
Some people were unimpressed but I thought he had a decent game. Didn't have a lot of luck but kept plugging away and was always a threat.
Holt - 6
Quiet by his normal standards, but like Hoolahan, did enough to make them have to be constantly aware of his presence.
C Martin - 6
Not a vintage performance but his direct running almost created two goals in the first half.
Subs:
McNamee - 7
Big contribution to allow us to get at them late on.
Askou - 6
Barely had a kick to judge on.
Jackson - 7
Fantastic finish for the goal and delighted for him to get off the mark. Pressure back on Holt and Martin to keep him out.
Blog 12 - Religion - Respect my views...
They say you should never discuss religion for fear of offending someone or causing an argument. Fortunately when you have no fear of either outcome it doesn't preclude the discussion in the first place.
I'm an agnostic. I don't think any of the organized religions are remotely close to providing suitable life guidance or answers to lifes great conundrums. Equally I find atheism too cynical (yes, it is possible for me to find something TOO cynical) and the purely scientific theory of evolution doesn't ring totally true. I accept general evolution as a fact of life, but I find intelligent design a far more likely explanation for life in all its forms than a slowly mutating gene pool. Anyway that's an argument for another day. As far as where I put my religious cross, I'm Agnostic. I think there is a higher power we're not aware of but I freely accept I have no concept of what form that could take.
What I struggle with, is how so many people genuinely believe in one religion or another. All of the major religions are based around stories and texts from so long ago, and there have been no occurrences of miracles or additions to the religions history or central tenants in centuries. If Christianity is right, why hasn't there been a good old miracle we can all observe for so long? Why no Saints with healing powers? Nobody walking on water? And the same for all the other religions. No elephant gods have turned up. Most people would settle for a talking squirrel just as a sign that there was something still happening in these dusty old belief systems. But there's nothing. Instead we have books written thousands of years ago, and every few days followers of each religion get together, someone reads a bit from the books whilst everyone listens, and possibly has a sing song and a collection, and that's religion in the 21st century. To me it seems ridiculous. You may as well base your belief system on the works of Shakespeare. In fact, had he ever stated that God spoke to him and told him to knock out Romeo and Juliet and call it Testament 3 - The Revenge, the population of Belfast could now be arguing about the Capulets opposition to the Orange Day Marches by the Montagues. It's that tenuous. Yet people genuinely believe. And not just nutters, sensible people. Intelligent people. People who have actually thought about religion and come to the conclusion that they believe in life as set out by The Torah, The Koran or The Bible. It's a leap of faith that's utterly beyond me, and indeed, my comprehension. I don't see how they accept it. Why is slightly easier. It must be nice to have the structure and rules provided by religion. If you do this, you're doing right. If you do something else, you're doing wrong. Obviously the devil is in the interpretation of that but maybe that's the cynic in me. There's also the comfort of being part of a community that is rapidly becoming less and less prevalent in todays globalised society. I can see why elements are attractive, but it takes a leap to go from wanting to believe in something to actually believing in it. But I accept that many people genuinely do.
Now with the vast majority of religions, if you don't want to be part of them, they keep their distance from you. Whilst they make themselves accessible if you have a genuine interest, they let you come to them. Fine. I have no issue with that. I may think what you believe is total bilge, but at the same time I have no more idea of the mysteries of the universe than any of them do, so you believe what you like. As long as you don't want to blow me up for not believing too, it's all good. My problem however, comes with the religions that actively try to recruit. And recently with the most famous of those, the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now it's easy to pick on Jehovah's Witnesses. Most of us did it at school so we've got previous in that area. And some of their beliefs are so at odds with modern thinking that most people not of the religion will struggle to accept the relevance and plausibility of them as a serious religion. The obvious example is their refusal to allow members to receive blood transfusions following accidents, and some followers have even died rather than break this central tenant of their religion. Similarly a while ago someone at work refused to sign a colleagues birthday card because she doesn't celebrate birthdays. I hadn't known until then she was a Jehovah's Witness. It seems an odd thing for someone to be not allowed to do, but there you go. I like the person concerned and that doesn't change because they're a Jehovah's Witness, but equally I can't understand how they get to the position where they accept a religion which tells them that saying Happy Birthday to someone is a bad thing which they mustn't do. As far as I'm concerned from a secular position, wishing someone a Happy Birthday is not a religious statement. It's a meaningless milestone whose only relevance is charting our individual time on the planet. We mark it for no other reason than that it's a pleasant thing to do. The person involved isn't what I would consider a deep-thinker, and I think their belief is based around being raised by parents of that faith rather than by independant choice, but it still seems bizarre to me. However, she's a nice person, she keeps her religious beliefs to herself, and therefore I don't have any issue with what she thinks, regardless of whether it contradicts my own thinking.
However, there was an incident which happened last week which was hugely inappropriate and which led to my current musings. Kerry was at home with the girls when she got a knock on the door, and it was a woman with a child in a buggy and an older girl of about 5 or 6. The woman was a Jehovah's Witness with a stack of Watchtowers or whatever they pass round now. Now in hindsight this seems odd because they usually turn up in pairs (presumably for safety as much as anything), but this one was a lone ranger. She went through the usual "How are you today? I'm here to see if I can leave this pamphlet" schtick, and Kerry did the polite English, "No thanks I'm not really interested" but this woman was not easily dissuaded and turned it up a notch with "Why not?" and "You should be interested...". In terms of middle-class sensibilities this is a breach of protocol and not how the dialogue should go, so on these terms a (gentle) closing of the door with a disappointed yet stern frown would be the order of the day. However, this avenue was closed when the woman gave her child a nudge in the back. Our children, as per usual when somebody is at the door, sloped up behind for a nosy. (Bailey delights in greeting the supermarket delivery person with "'ello Tesco" regardless of their particular store). As soon as the woman spotted this she did the nudge, and the child as if on autopilot said "I want to play with the children" and attempted to run into the house clutching her own sampling of Junior Watchtowers. It would have been understandable if it was genuine but according to Kerry it felt so rehearsed and disingenuous that she knew the mother was using it as a pre-planned tactic to gain entry. Fortunately Kerry's child-obstruction reflexes are finely tuned and she was able to block like an NFL linebacker with a quick shimmy of the hips before closing the door on the grumbling woman who was in the early throws of attempting to make Kerry feel guilty for stopping this "spontaneous" joyful union of playful tots. Now I'm not saying this behaviour is typical, and all the Jehovah's Witnesses I've ever had on the doorstep have always been polite enough to take their leave as soon as I say I'm not interested, but the incident underlines why I personally am so unimpressed by religion as a whole and organized religion in particular. This woman has not only indoctrinated her own child before she was able to make her own conscious decisions on belief, but she has also trained her to play a part in attempted conversions of others. What gets me is not the cynicism of someone using a child in such a way as I'm perfectly happy to believe that whilst this incident is an exception rather than the rule, people in all walks of life are happy and comfortable to use children, animals, loved ones, and anything else to get what they want. What gets me is "Why?". Why did this woman think this was neccesary? Is she so certain that her beliefs should be universally duplicated that she has to train her child in an elaborate set-up to try and get to conversational first base with a stranger? What makes her so certain? And this is the problem for me.
We live in a society which desperately proports liberal values and the current favourite is Respect. With a capital R. Anybody can say anything and if you disagree it's almost expected that you have to disagree under the codicil "You have the right to your opinions and I respect your opinion, but....". In this case, I don't respect that womans opinion. I accept people being whichever religion they want to be, Hindu, Jew or Jedi, it's all rubbish in my book, but everyone can do what they want. But this woman has obviously decided that not only should she follow the teachings of her religion in that she will actively make efforts to bring others into the religion, she has gone a step further by introducing cynical tactics to do so. And she obviously believes that her beliefs give her the right to do this. Any sane person would surely have realised that no system of beliefs for everyday life is worth pushing your child to that extent. And again, I acknowledge that this woman was obviously a nut-job and not a typical Jehovah's Witness. But the fact is that very few things can make people behave so self-righteously or with such disregard for common morality as religion. As long as you say you have a belief in what you're doing, it seems to be that it's justified these days. Virtual Carte Blanche.
But at what point can you say "No, this is just bollocks"? If someone turns up purporting to believe in the Tooth Fairy and asking for a donation to support research into Tooth Fairy Studies, can you report them for fraud? Or do you have to "respect" them and leave them to pop round your gullible elderly neighbours house?
So under the terms of Headism, my new religion (no followers required, we have a very strict admittance policy), it's a basic principle that anybody who turns up at my door and behaves in a manner I deem inappropriate by my own morality is subject to a smack in the face. It's what my God would want. It may be inappropriate for most people, but I can't go against it. Please respect my views...
I'm an agnostic. I don't think any of the organized religions are remotely close to providing suitable life guidance or answers to lifes great conundrums. Equally I find atheism too cynical (yes, it is possible for me to find something TOO cynical) and the purely scientific theory of evolution doesn't ring totally true. I accept general evolution as a fact of life, but I find intelligent design a far more likely explanation for life in all its forms than a slowly mutating gene pool. Anyway that's an argument for another day. As far as where I put my religious cross, I'm Agnostic. I think there is a higher power we're not aware of but I freely accept I have no concept of what form that could take.
What I struggle with, is how so many people genuinely believe in one religion or another. All of the major religions are based around stories and texts from so long ago, and there have been no occurrences of miracles or additions to the religions history or central tenants in centuries. If Christianity is right, why hasn't there been a good old miracle we can all observe for so long? Why no Saints with healing powers? Nobody walking on water? And the same for all the other religions. No elephant gods have turned up. Most people would settle for a talking squirrel just as a sign that there was something still happening in these dusty old belief systems. But there's nothing. Instead we have books written thousands of years ago, and every few days followers of each religion get together, someone reads a bit from the books whilst everyone listens, and possibly has a sing song and a collection, and that's religion in the 21st century. To me it seems ridiculous. You may as well base your belief system on the works of Shakespeare. In fact, had he ever stated that God spoke to him and told him to knock out Romeo and Juliet and call it Testament 3 - The Revenge, the population of Belfast could now be arguing about the Capulets opposition to the Orange Day Marches by the Montagues. It's that tenuous. Yet people genuinely believe. And not just nutters, sensible people. Intelligent people. People who have actually thought about religion and come to the conclusion that they believe in life as set out by The Torah, The Koran or The Bible. It's a leap of faith that's utterly beyond me, and indeed, my comprehension. I don't see how they accept it. Why is slightly easier. It must be nice to have the structure and rules provided by religion. If you do this, you're doing right. If you do something else, you're doing wrong. Obviously the devil is in the interpretation of that but maybe that's the cynic in me. There's also the comfort of being part of a community that is rapidly becoming less and less prevalent in todays globalised society. I can see why elements are attractive, but it takes a leap to go from wanting to believe in something to actually believing in it. But I accept that many people genuinely do.
Now with the vast majority of religions, if you don't want to be part of them, they keep their distance from you. Whilst they make themselves accessible if you have a genuine interest, they let you come to them. Fine. I have no issue with that. I may think what you believe is total bilge, but at the same time I have no more idea of the mysteries of the universe than any of them do, so you believe what you like. As long as you don't want to blow me up for not believing too, it's all good. My problem however, comes with the religions that actively try to recruit. And recently with the most famous of those, the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now it's easy to pick on Jehovah's Witnesses. Most of us did it at school so we've got previous in that area. And some of their beliefs are so at odds with modern thinking that most people not of the religion will struggle to accept the relevance and plausibility of them as a serious religion. The obvious example is their refusal to allow members to receive blood transfusions following accidents, and some followers have even died rather than break this central tenant of their religion. Similarly a while ago someone at work refused to sign a colleagues birthday card because she doesn't celebrate birthdays. I hadn't known until then she was a Jehovah's Witness. It seems an odd thing for someone to be not allowed to do, but there you go. I like the person concerned and that doesn't change because they're a Jehovah's Witness, but equally I can't understand how they get to the position where they accept a religion which tells them that saying Happy Birthday to someone is a bad thing which they mustn't do. As far as I'm concerned from a secular position, wishing someone a Happy Birthday is not a religious statement. It's a meaningless milestone whose only relevance is charting our individual time on the planet. We mark it for no other reason than that it's a pleasant thing to do. The person involved isn't what I would consider a deep-thinker, and I think their belief is based around being raised by parents of that faith rather than by independant choice, but it still seems bizarre to me. However, she's a nice person, she keeps her religious beliefs to herself, and therefore I don't have any issue with what she thinks, regardless of whether it contradicts my own thinking.
However, there was an incident which happened last week which was hugely inappropriate and which led to my current musings. Kerry was at home with the girls when she got a knock on the door, and it was a woman with a child in a buggy and an older girl of about 5 or 6. The woman was a Jehovah's Witness with a stack of Watchtowers or whatever they pass round now. Now in hindsight this seems odd because they usually turn up in pairs (presumably for safety as much as anything), but this one was a lone ranger. She went through the usual "How are you today? I'm here to see if I can leave this pamphlet" schtick, and Kerry did the polite English, "No thanks I'm not really interested" but this woman was not easily dissuaded and turned it up a notch with "Why not?" and "You should be interested...". In terms of middle-class sensibilities this is a breach of protocol and not how the dialogue should go, so on these terms a (gentle) closing of the door with a disappointed yet stern frown would be the order of the day. However, this avenue was closed when the woman gave her child a nudge in the back. Our children, as per usual when somebody is at the door, sloped up behind for a nosy. (Bailey delights in greeting the supermarket delivery person with "'ello Tesco" regardless of their particular store). As soon as the woman spotted this she did the nudge, and the child as if on autopilot said "I want to play with the children" and attempted to run into the house clutching her own sampling of Junior Watchtowers. It would have been understandable if it was genuine but according to Kerry it felt so rehearsed and disingenuous that she knew the mother was using it as a pre-planned tactic to gain entry. Fortunately Kerry's child-obstruction reflexes are finely tuned and she was able to block like an NFL linebacker with a quick shimmy of the hips before closing the door on the grumbling woman who was in the early throws of attempting to make Kerry feel guilty for stopping this "spontaneous" joyful union of playful tots. Now I'm not saying this behaviour is typical, and all the Jehovah's Witnesses I've ever had on the doorstep have always been polite enough to take their leave as soon as I say I'm not interested, but the incident underlines why I personally am so unimpressed by religion as a whole and organized religion in particular. This woman has not only indoctrinated her own child before she was able to make her own conscious decisions on belief, but she has also trained her to play a part in attempted conversions of others. What gets me is not the cynicism of someone using a child in such a way as I'm perfectly happy to believe that whilst this incident is an exception rather than the rule, people in all walks of life are happy and comfortable to use children, animals, loved ones, and anything else to get what they want. What gets me is "Why?". Why did this woman think this was neccesary? Is she so certain that her beliefs should be universally duplicated that she has to train her child in an elaborate set-up to try and get to conversational first base with a stranger? What makes her so certain? And this is the problem for me.
We live in a society which desperately proports liberal values and the current favourite is Respect. With a capital R. Anybody can say anything and if you disagree it's almost expected that you have to disagree under the codicil "You have the right to your opinions and I respect your opinion, but....". In this case, I don't respect that womans opinion. I accept people being whichever religion they want to be, Hindu, Jew or Jedi, it's all rubbish in my book, but everyone can do what they want. But this woman has obviously decided that not only should she follow the teachings of her religion in that she will actively make efforts to bring others into the religion, she has gone a step further by introducing cynical tactics to do so. And she obviously believes that her beliefs give her the right to do this. Any sane person would surely have realised that no system of beliefs for everyday life is worth pushing your child to that extent. And again, I acknowledge that this woman was obviously a nut-job and not a typical Jehovah's Witness. But the fact is that very few things can make people behave so self-righteously or with such disregard for common morality as religion. As long as you say you have a belief in what you're doing, it seems to be that it's justified these days. Virtual Carte Blanche.
But at what point can you say "No, this is just bollocks"? If someone turns up purporting to believe in the Tooth Fairy and asking for a donation to support research into Tooth Fairy Studies, can you report them for fraud? Or do you have to "respect" them and leave them to pop round your gullible elderly neighbours house?
So under the terms of Headism, my new religion (no followers required, we have a very strict admittance policy), it's a basic principle that anybody who turns up at my door and behaves in a manner I deem inappropriate by my own morality is subject to a smack in the face. It's what my God would want. It may be inappropriate for most people, but I can't go against it. Please respect my views...
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Blog 11 - Norwich 2 Watford 3 Quick thoughts
Yes, I know I'm becoming a one trick pony with this and it's actually tragic how much thought a grown man puts into one topic, but screw it, it's my blog and it's cathartic. Am going to do one of these after every game to get it out of my system and then I can focus on something more interesting to blog about. Something more all-encompassing and challenging. Something intellectual and worthy. Like telly or sumfing.
Anyway thoughts from last night.
Watford played better than anyone was expecting, and their finishing and movement from the front two was exceptional. City looked good going forward and should be more than capable of opening most teams up. Defensively we were less impressive, and as predicted, Fox may be a capable passer but he provides scant cover in front of a central defence that has obviously not learned to play together. Special mention should go to Russell Martin who despite being a boo-boy target for no apparant reason worked furiously up and down the right hand side and consistently provided good width for us whilst also getting back to fulfil his defensive responsibilities.
Marks out of 10:
Ruddy 5 - Could have done better with 2 of the goals but equally can't be blamed for them either. Bryan Gunn looked wobbly when he started his career with us, so Ruddy can be given time to ease his way in. Some good stops.
R Martin 8 - As above, great buccaneering full back play.
Drury 7 - 7 out of 10 as he almost always is. More than comfortable at Championship level.
Nelson 5 - Caught out positionally a few times but also made some good blocks and scored a quality goal. Will need to do better to maintain his place with Askou and Whitbread breathing down his neck.
Ward 6 - Not a great game, but did enough to suggest that there's better to come. Positional issues will hopefully clear up the more he gets used to playing with his nw teammates.
Fox 6 - Good passing but also gave some balls away. Can see him dominating some games but will also cause us some issues with his lack of size and grit in what is a key defensive position. Not sure Lambert has this one right tactically.
Surman 6 - Exceptionally comfortable on the ball, he lost patience once or twice and tried to force some balls that weren't on. Worked hard though and not a bad debut.
Crofts 7 - Best of the debutants. Great engine and aggression. I think he's going to be a Drury-like 7/10 every week.
Hoolahan 8 - Great feet, sometimes overdid things but overall he was our best attacking option and looked the most gifted player on the park by a long chalk.
Jackson 7 - Good first game. Intelligent runs and good on the ball. Also showed a creative touch to set up Crofts goal.
Martin 7 - Worked hard and was unlucky that the service didn't quite give him the chances that he needed
Subs - Holt 7, McNamee 6.
Anyway thoughts from last night.
Watford played better than anyone was expecting, and their finishing and movement from the front two was exceptional. City looked good going forward and should be more than capable of opening most teams up. Defensively we were less impressive, and as predicted, Fox may be a capable passer but he provides scant cover in front of a central defence that has obviously not learned to play together. Special mention should go to Russell Martin who despite being a boo-boy target for no apparant reason worked furiously up and down the right hand side and consistently provided good width for us whilst also getting back to fulfil his defensive responsibilities.
Marks out of 10:
Ruddy 5 - Could have done better with 2 of the goals but equally can't be blamed for them either. Bryan Gunn looked wobbly when he started his career with us, so Ruddy can be given time to ease his way in. Some good stops.
R Martin 8 - As above, great buccaneering full back play.
Drury 7 - 7 out of 10 as he almost always is. More than comfortable at Championship level.
Nelson 5 - Caught out positionally a few times but also made some good blocks and scored a quality goal. Will need to do better to maintain his place with Askou and Whitbread breathing down his neck.
Ward 6 - Not a great game, but did enough to suggest that there's better to come. Positional issues will hopefully clear up the more he gets used to playing with his nw teammates.
Fox 6 - Good passing but also gave some balls away. Can see him dominating some games but will also cause us some issues with his lack of size and grit in what is a key defensive position. Not sure Lambert has this one right tactically.
Surman 6 - Exceptionally comfortable on the ball, he lost patience once or twice and tried to force some balls that weren't on. Worked hard though and not a bad debut.
Crofts 7 - Best of the debutants. Great engine and aggression. I think he's going to be a Drury-like 7/10 every week.
Hoolahan 8 - Great feet, sometimes overdid things but overall he was our best attacking option and looked the most gifted player on the park by a long chalk.
Jackson 7 - Good first game. Intelligent runs and good on the ball. Also showed a creative touch to set up Crofts goal.
Martin 7 - Worked hard and was unlucky that the service didn't quite give him the chances that he needed
Subs - Holt 7, McNamee 6.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)