The Artefacts That are Part of Us

It occurred to me recently that each of us has a small number of items that never really leave us, are always within range and without which we would feel as if we had lost maybe not always a limb, but certainly a digit.



With me the deepest level, is certain items of jewellery. I never remove either my crucifix or my Claddagh ring, and I only take my watch off to avoid contact with water, so the naked Crushed, is never as naked as nature intended.

Beyond that, if I'm even half dressed, my keys and wallet are almost certainly in my right hand trouser pocket. The only other place they'd ever be, would be on the bedside table. Or on the desk I'm sitting at now.
If I'm ever wondering round the flat looking for my keys, it's a sure sign we had a party at the weekend.
And they're in the sofa.
By and large I never lose track of them.

My mobile phone is another object that is unlikely to leave my sight, except when I'm in the bathroom.



I hate tiny little phones, they're useless when I'm trashed, so I have the largest still on the market, as you can see.

In the flat, it either sits beside the bed, on the left arm of the sofa, or to the left of the PC. Odd, because I'm right handed, but I tend to sit on the left of the sofa (it's more central to the room), and the housephone is to the right of the PC.

Few people ring on the housephone. It's strange how people always diall the mobile even when they know your home number.

Otherwise, my phone is generally in the right hand pocket of my jacket, though at work and the pub, it sits in front of me.
Where it has company.

These are two items which I always make sure I have immediate access to.
Twenty Embassy and a lighter.
At home, this isn't a problem, they are dispensable items, and if lost, can be bought from the shop nextdoor.
So I frequently lose packets and lighters, can't be bothered to look for them and just go and buy more.
And then the missing ones turn up.



But if I'm out, the cigarettes are generally in the left jacket pocket, the lighter in the right.
I think this is probably because I take the cigarette out of the packet with my right hand, holding the packet in my left, so I put the packet back in the left hand pocket. Since I light the cigarette with my right hand, I put the lighter in that pocket.

The last item I always have on me outside of the flat, apart from personal documentation, is my sunglasses. I'm quite sensitive to light and need them most of the year. It really annoys me when I hear people deriding people for wearing sunglasses in the Winter.
I point out that they protect you from too much sunLIGHT, not too much sunHEAT.
The time of year is irrelevant.

Anyway, I pretty much can't be outdoors in the daytime for much of the year without them. I'd get knocked down by traffic.

So my shades are always in my left inside pocket, with my passport, driving license and pretty much everything that is me, and yes, I'm always getting told off for it, and yes, my best mate always insists I empty my pockets before we go out on a Friday night.
He's right of course.

Maybe it's just me, but don't we all have objects we just can't do without?

The Tories- Stuck Between Stools

Well, David Cameron's honeymoon period is over.
It has to be said, he's frittered away a fair amount of favourable public opinion.
How he has acheived this, is a mystery.

Or is it?

I don't think it's so much the fact that Gordon is popular, as that less people feel inclined to answer these polls. When Cameron got in as leader, people felt that here maybe was the chance for the sort of opposition they wanted.

It wasn't.
They didn't want Old Tories.
They didn't want Blue Labour.

Up until the last election, the Tories had shown themselves experts at selling their message.
To Tory voters.
But not to many other people. This was a bad habit they picked up during the Thatcher years, when Labour hadn't much sensible to say, but became disastrous during the Major years.
None of us who voted for the first time in 1997 actually remembered rubbish in the streets or 'Labour isn't working' any more than we remembered Dunkirk.

But Cameron forgets what Gordon hasn't.
Most 'One nation' Tories are dieing off. They form the bulk of party membership, and are seen within the party as its moderate wing.
It's moderate in that it doesn't want to privatise everything.
It doesn't realise that what it sees as the extremists, have already won that argument.
Even Labour buys that argument now.



There is a large group of people, in their twenties and thirties, that favour radical, minimalist, economic policy.
Thatcher's Children.
But many of them are uncomfortable supporting the Tories.

To this electorate, who is sick of state interference, but doesn't want to vote for the Hang em and Flog em lobby, won't vote for policies that seem to have a xenophobic tinge to them, Cameron offers nothing.

In fact he doesn't even offer the key points that are attractive about the old Tory way.
He hasn't stood up to the government over its plans to turn this country into a police state, he has defended the burgeoning public sector, he refused to stand up to the bullying of Catholic adoption agencies and he has refused to oppose the smoking ban.
Some defence of liberty.

All this in the name of 'moving to the centre.'

But on everything else they remain very conservative with a small 'c'.

So basically, the only reason to vote for him, is if you think he's more competent to run the country than Gordon.
And he doesn't really carry that clout, does he?
We hate Blair now, but didn't he so much look the leader in 1994?



It's the old patrician Tories that put Thatcher's Children off from voting for the party.
What Cameron has done is make the wrong moves, change the wrong policies.
He has given ground that few wanted to see given, but not moved to sieze the fertile ground unrepresented by the current narrow spectrum of opinion.

Until the Tory party can stand firm as a truly liberal party (the Liberal Democrats are sometimes neither), in the original sense of the word, they will get nowhere.
Maybe they can't. Maybe Thatcher's children will get fed up first.

As it is, a whole generation finds neither side gives it what it wants.

Minimalist state, liberal social policies.

For that is what the country is crying out for.
Policies that are truly liberal.

Self Delusion or Dark Side?

Well, the result of last week's poll was inconclusive.
Eleven votes for the corporations.
Eleven votes against.
There were no 'don't know's.

The corporations need to do some marketing, methinks.
OK, this week's issue is very different.



In real life, I'm a bit like the last issue.
Ask someone who knew of me, there would be few don't knows.
There would be strong opinions either way.

One of my main faults is that I seem to hurt people without wanting to.
Obviously nobody wants to hurt people.
The problem is when you can't work out how not to.

The only thing I've ever done in my life is sell. I don't do it because it pays huge amounts of money, it doesn't, but because it's a pleasant way to earn enough to live.
Someone is paying you to chat to people.
But there's also that huge adenalin rush of bringing someone in, that sense of hitting the arrow home. That's why you do it.

And you don't trouble yourself about whether the customer ends up satisfied. That's not your job. You aren't responsible for delivery.
As long as you never made any guarantees the company never said it couldn't deliver, you did your job.
It's about representation.

I do it, because I'm not much use at much else.

The problem is, I never quite move outside that mode. For example, I have absolutely no qualms telling someone what I think they want to hear, to get them to sign on the dotted line. I'll flirt with them shamelessly, if need be.
What's worse, I don't even weigh up the decision. I do it without thinking. It's almost an unconscious action.
It becomes a motivator in itself. You enjoy knowing you are making someone feel good.



And I seem to do this instinctively in my personal life.

The problem in my personal life is not so much I can't find love, as just as have no idea what to do with it when I do.
I'm actually quite a prude in some ways. I don't do one night stands as a rule. I do prefer to have some connection to people I am intimate with.
It is what that connection means that can be confusing.

I enjoy the wining and dining aspect, I enjoy the early phase of pillow talk where you offload your fears and fantasies, the look of love in a woman's eye, the period when you have long in depth conversations about the world.
And in a real sense, I mean everything I say at this point. The sweet nothings I whisper are heartfelt nothings.

And yet I say the same sorts of things everytime.

When the initial fire starts to get more 'steady', I find myself lost. The sale bit is over, and I don't know what to do.
The problem is, what I am really in love with is a stage in the process. I love someone who is falling in love, I find it hard to love someone in love.

With a sale, you can comfort yourself you are not responsible for delivering what you represent, yet in real life relationships you are.
I fail badly here.

It is possible that I know that the product I am marketing in this instance is appallingly shoddy and cannot give customer satisfaction.

It is as if, come a certain point, I feel a peak has been reached and it's time to back out.
Even if it does develop further, my feelings fast change to brother-sister feelings, and I am looking elsewhere for that fire again.

And would I even know if I had fallen in love for real?

This is the problem. Sometimes I think I am in love at the time, then it wears off.
But one day I might think it had worn off once that initial stage was over.
And maybe it would be real.

But we also have the moral issue. Knowing this cycle, isn't entering into it at all, morally reprehensible?
I cannot know for sure that I delude myself this time, but looking at past history, it's the most likely interpretation.
Which makes me negligent.

Which I am most guilty of, self delusion or wilful deception, I'll let you decide.

This weeks poll is on Friday night's issue.
Is Monogamy our natural condition?

Have your say.

Todays Word is..... Schmooze

I'll admit, I wasn't strictly speaking sure what this word meant either, but I had an idea and I think that idea is correct.
So here is a meme for you, but a meme with a little present attached.
This Schmooze Award originates with these two bloggers, and was kindly sent in this direction, by Beatles devotee, Harleyblues

It pupose is to be an 'award to recognize those people that were exceptionally adept at creating relationships with other bloggers by making an effort to be part of a conversation, as opposed to a monologue.'

My interpretation of this meme, is that the five I nominate should exemplify best a positive spirit of blogging.
Not only should they be the sort of bloggers who keep us interested in what they write, but they are bloggers through whom we discover other blogs, good hosts, as well as good guests within the bloggosphere.

Good talkers, but good listeners too.
Interactive bloggers.

So here's my five.

1. Mutley. Mutley's blog is a great place for bloggers to meet. I think a lot of people discover other blogs through Mutley. A certain type of surreal, anarchic humour prevails at Mutley the Dogs Day Out, and Mutley himself is never lax in his social calls.

2. Lord Sraf-Belfast. The ever changing aristocrat of doubtful nationality always seems to have his finger on the pulse in the bloggosphere. I am sure he must have some facility that allows him to beat the laws of time somehow, but there doesn't seem to be a post anywhere that misses him.
He is also a blogger who goes out of his way to promote other blogs and debate rather than state.
Nourishing Obscurity just celebrated its first birthday- and a virgin blogger could do a lot worse than pick up some tips from its author.

3. Colin Campbell is another blogger who seems to have his finger on the pulse, but more importantly is exemplorary at the interpersonal aspects of blogging. Colin is a keen promoter of the little blogger, and again, not much that happens in the bloggosphere escapes him. A master of networking in the most positive of senses, Adelaide Green Porridge Cafe is also a mine of wit and wisdom.

4. Crashdummie puts a lot of effort into her posts and has not to my knowledge ever failed to reply to a comment. She is also a very good visitor- frequently to be found in many diverse comments sections.
More importantly, and it's an interesting point- she blogs in a language which isn't her native language, something I couldn't do. This deserves credit. I know there are other bloggers to whom this applies, but I suspect Crashie will return the favour to the one that most immediately springs to mind.

5. Lastly, but not least, we have the alluring Jenny. With Jenny, what you see is what you get. A genuine person, with a genuine blog. She never takes herself seriously, but is a great host on her own blog and a busy visitor of other peoples.
Without bloggers like Jenny, the Bloggosphere would be a poorer place.



So that's my five.
It was quite hard, because there are people such as Pommygranate, Helen and many others who are just as deserving.
Someone please nominate them!

Rules are simple, if you're one of the five, you are a recipient of the badge below, but obviously, you now to have to find five of your own to nominate.
Remember you should nominate people with a good blogging spirit, not just people who write good blogs.



As for anyone else, if you've not yet introduced yourself to any of the bloggers mentioned above, you are missing out.
Good bloggers to know, all of them.

So I suppose I should say, let's all get schmoozing!

There's a lot of good going round here at the moment.

In Defence of Sexual Freedom

It is strange, in a society that thinks it has acheived sexual freedom, that the voices of the Moral Minority (Because they are in fact a minority), are heard the loudest whilst the rest of us never answer back.

We hear politicians banging on about Family values, religous extremists telling us it's dirty and few of us care to stand up and say; 'Er, no. You're talking crap.'

I have yet to hear, in my mind a convincing reason why we force this outdated monogamy ideal as something we should all aspire to, when few of us really want to.

And I'm sure some of you want to say how much you love your partner, and you've never looked at anyone else.
First bit great, Love is beautiful, second part I don't believe for a second.

And most of us have done more than that in at least one relationship where fidelity was expected.
And none of us married our first lover.

So let's be honest, more of you would happy to live a more open sex life, as long at was socially acceptable, no one thought ill of you for it, and your partner was happy with it, and loved you to bits anyway. They did the same.

So why the hell are we all still so hung up on this?

We only hurt ourselves and limit ourselves.

Of course, some will now say, you're a guy, you would say that.
But how many males really want a sexually free society?
They want to be sexually free, but have a partner who isn't.
The current arrangements suit male dignity best.
It is male dignity maintains the myth that a sexually promiscuous male is a man to be looked up to and envied, a sexually promiscuous woman, a woman to be looked down on and pitied.
Women don't really object to Men going elsewhere, but at the hypocrisy concerning their doing the same.
Feminism has meant that men agree to join women in the sexual repression men invented.

There is another way round, of course.
An easier way, and a nicer way.



The reason we had monogamy in the first place was simple; To make sure you know who fathered which children and to stop males fighting over mates.

It's fairly recent. Our real natures are probably a bit like the Bonobo, the so-called 'Make Love, Not war' chimp.

Now we know how to deal with the spread of VD, prevent unwanted pregnancy and know who fathered which child by DNA test, have an advanced social system, why keep forcing something alien to our nature on us?

It is in all of us to love many people at one time, on different levels, Spiritually, Intellectually, Physically.

But just as a mother who has two children doesn't love either any less than if she only had one, we don't need proprietorial rights over someone's body to love them.

Love isn't selfish.

Maybe its time for the third wave of Feminism?
Women reclaimed their bodies, now they can set them free.

Altruism- The Ultimate Self Interest

Whatever, we might think, there is nothing random about the choices we make.
They may be wrong, but we make them for a reason.

The apparently higher sentiments, those which distinguish from the animals, our artistic sense, our love of poetry all serve a survival purpose.
To keep our intelligence and our communication abilities at maximimum fitness.
They are the survival tools of the species.
They just happen to be unique to our species.

But there are those who say that altruism, the putting first of others, the helping of the weak, the dieing to save a friend, can not be explained by the laws of natural selection.
Not in accord with the idea of the 'selfish gene.'

False.

We are a co-operative species. Like many predators, we evolved to adopt the strength in numbers rule. The genes survive and get passed on best, which made this mode of existence work best.
Put simply, the more people survive, the better chance you have of being one of them.
The more people that breed in the future, the better chance your own genes have of being passed on.
Evolution works very simply, but leads to complexity.
The simple bit, is what works best, lasts longest.
The complex bits are the amazingly efficient models of survival that have resulted.

In a non- co-operative species, a gene truly is selfish. It is in competition with all life, barring itself.
But in a species like man, the conflict with his own kind is a secondary one.
Ultimately, the genes in man are there to serve themselves first, but the whole human gene pool best.
Your selfish genes want a nice big future gene pool to cascade through, in the coming millenia.



Your genes don't just choose the partners with the genes you want to procreate with, they look out for other genes that they might want to procreate with down the line, when you yourself are dead and gone.

And so they choose your friends for you.
You make friends who you connect with.
Who think like you.
And your genes think that these might be good parents for the partners of your children.

Why the attraction of arranged marriage?
The genetic attraction of the parents...

And we die for those we emote to, to preserve the genes that one day may preserve our own.

We help the weak to give them another day, to give their genes another chance, to throw more numbers at nature, because survival is a numbers game.
As is evolution itself.

So to be truly self-serving, you need to stop focussing just on number one.
When you feel compassion, pity, the urge to put your arms round a mate, you're meant to.
You evolved those urges for a reason- by the most ruthless of mechanisms.
You were given those feelings by 'nature red in tooth and claw.'

We evolved to Love, because it really IS the best way.

The Power of Words- Image and Reality

A certain blogger once said, 'I blog because I can, I can therefore I do.'
And yes, it's that simple in principle.
It's our own thoughts we thrust out, without asking permission.

But isn't it a little more complex?
Isn't this an evolving medium?

Two excellent posts I read on blogging recently, here and here.
Both tackle angles of blogging which are on the one hand, pretty obvious, but also a bit more complex.

What exactly IS our relationship to other bloggers? What kind of interaction is this?

In one sense, it's a bit like a Newspaper. Guido for example, sees himself as a citizen journalist. I don't think any of us would aspire to that particularly, but it's worth considering this.

Consider a typical paper for a small provincial town. Twice weekly.
How many readers would read that paper just for one correspondant? Probably as many as read the average blog.
We read blogs for News, Gossip, Social reasons, Opinion.
Especially of the type we don't get elsewhere.

We also find many plus points newspaper columns do not have. They're often just as well written, but we can ask questions of the writer, or just tell him he's plain wrong. And he or she ISN'T up on some pedestal, free from your individual criticism.
Hell, you can even run a post of your own refuting him or her.

All much more satisfying.

But there's another angle. One which is often overlooked. Look at the names in your mobile phone, or wherever you keep important numbers. How many sentences do you exchange per week with all these people? And how many sentences per week do you exchange with the authors of blogs?

Over time we do build up mental images of bloggers. This is inevitable.
Possibly these images are just as real in their own way as the other sides of themselves that they show in the flesh.
And in a sense they are at another level. Many of our real life connections are on a shallower footing than we often realise. Our deepest opinions on most subjects are reserved for those closest to us.
We see the mind in operation, without the form that carries it. The most profound, compassionate blogs we read could be written by someone who has a reputation in the flesh for being superficial and shallow.
Which version is true?

For example, I visualise many male bloggers in a pub setting. I guess thats the sort of place you'd imagine chatting to them. I see James Higham as fast pace, delivering his opinions as he played pool, statement- shot- retort-shot.
Ian Appleby (still being held hostage, I'm afraid) watches and takes everything in, before his considered response.



Electro-Kevin wants to get drunk, whilst Ed needs time to get into his subject, but then he's the life and soul. There is something a little pythonesque about Colin Campbell, you wouldn't know quite what to expect, but if a stripogram showed up, you'd suspect his hand...
At which point you'd have lost Theo Spark...

It's hard to imagine Raffi being anything other than a Stars Wars Stormtrooper. He might look a bit out of place in the pub.

Mutley is an enigma. At first I took him at face value- a dog with quick, barked responses. Now I see him as more than just an irruption of anarchy in a blogging calmness. I am more put in mind of the wise fool in King Lear, who's comments often penetrate deeper than a cursory glance reveals.



And what of the ladies?
I can imagine Welshcakes telling me I smoked too much, drank too much and partied too much, but never really meaning it and laughing as she said it.

I could see myself sitting a cafe with Ruthie discussing the Bush Administration. She'd be very earnest and thoughtful- and she'd probably run rings round any of my arguments.



Phishez would be the sort of female friend who I'd tell my problems to when drunk.



Jenny?- well, we'd have a good time, I'm sure!
And I'll admit, I imagine lying on a beach by moonlight as Calliope reads me her posts.

It stands to reason we create these images. We are used to seeing the people we are talking to. We picture people on the phone. We certainly picture the blogger.

Is it real?
Maybe.
Do we know the blogger at all?
Or do we know them better than the world which sees them in the flesh?

It's a very young phenomenon.
We are in uncharted territory.