Windows Of Opportunity

I caught a glimpse of a window of opportunity, from the corner of my eye.
My community, with arrogant impunity, dismissed it as a lie.
"Beware!" they said, all knowingly, "all that glisters is not gold."
Yes, they quoted Willie Shakespeare's words, to keep me in the fold.

Surely they misunderstood the nature of my objective, that which I was looking for?
But their invective, although increasingly defective, well it hurt me to my core.
How could they try to hold me back, to block my exploration
Of a world so nearly visible. It filled me with frustration!

I'll bide my time, and wait for the perfect moment to make my bid for freedom.
For they'll foment, use arguments oh so cogent, to maintain the fragile fiefdom.
I know it will be difficult to break away these chains and ties.
They have been so like a family, notwithstanding all the lies.

So here I am carefully constructing my defences. I'll need them, and then some,
But no pretences, no matter how intense is the attack that's sure to come.
This time it will be different, I'll show courage and stand firm,
Then take my first unfettered step, you'll no longer see me squirm.

But I'm not ready yet, to embark upon this journey. I feel so very much alone.
No defence attorney, to shield me from those who'd burn me. Must I do it on my own?
Was it truth I glimpsed through that fleeting window? How can I be sure of that?
"You can't! But discover it you will, when it comes your turn to bat!"

Is it evil, this constant internal conversation that flows inside my head?
Such consternation, and fearful trepidation, what is it that I dread?
But now I see, I should've realised before, the answer's very neat.
Without that flow I'm merely half a man, but with it I'm complete.

Please listen up, my future partners in discovery. I'm truly on my way.
I'm in recovery. At last I've found the whole of me, and the balance to defray
The curse of indecision, which stymied me in doubt.
I thought that I was looking in, now I know I'm looking out.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Default Position: Missionary?

Sorry to disappoint, but this post is not about sex. However, to allay any hard feelings (oooh, er, missus!), here's an illustration from the Wikipedia article about the so-called 'missionary position'.

Still with me? Good. You can always read that Wikipedia article later.

So, if this post is not about sex, what is it about? Well, I've been thinking about how people present their ideas and opinions, what you might call their 'foot in the door' approaches. In particular, because the subject of how religion operates has always intrigued me, I've been thinking about the various tactics people use to promote their particular brand.

It's well known that in the secular world, sex sells everything,

from

to

There's probably a lot of debate about the details, but sex sells because it appeals to a powerful basic instinct. But that's just not an option for the vast majority of religions. Indeed, many of them treat sex as an unfortunate necessity for the production of more members, and something which must be strictly controlled. Er... no, no, no! I meant 'for passing on the gift of life', of course.

However, sex has not been completely ignored as a recruitment strategy, at least not by fringe organisations. The classic example is the 'Flirty Fishing' employed by female members of the Children of God in the 70s and 80s (at the behest of the cult's leader, David Berg). It is no surprise that it was an effective strategy, until AIDS came along and forced cessation. But I seem to have forgetten that this post is not about sex!

There are several different 'normal' religious pitches, the first of which I'll call the tangential. It's employed by people who approach you directly, but in an indirect way. It goes something like this:

"Do you think there is enough love in the world?"

It's designed so that it doesn't matter what you answer, the point of it being to open a dialogue. Or rather, provide an opening for a dose of proselytizing. I don't know if they still use it, but it was a favourite ploy of Jehovah's Witnesses at one time.

Then there's the feel-good angle. Its supporters talk a lot about love and seem particularly fond of the word 'joy'. Their cousins, the happy-clappies, like to make it into a musical production.

The Da-doo-do-goods are up next, who tacitly assert that the good deeds of their particular type of non-atheist proves their beliefs - in an action-speaks-louder-than-words sort of way, although they are not short on words to assert it.

Fire and Brimstone preachers don't bother with any of that subterfuge. They smack you right between the eyes with what it all comes down to: Be afraid! Be very afraid!

And that is actually the default position, the fall-back position, of all the other approaches too. It's all they've got when the 'nice' approaches don't work. They might hide behind those weasel words, "I'll pray for you," but that's just shorthand for something like, "if you don't join my team, after you die, you're going to burn over and over again, in perpetual agony, forever (but I'll be okay because I'm doing my best to recruit you, because I believe!)"

I have a weird sort of respect for the fire and brimstone guys (it seems like it's usually guys rather than women), but only because they are upfront and honest about their message. I'm not talking about the one's whose ulterior motive is to extort money, they deserve no respect whatsoever (and more besides). I'm thinking of the guy who gets up on his soap-box in the High Street and lets passers-by have it with both barrels, metaphorically speaking.

So, here's the bottom line. If you can't use the powerful basic instinct of sex to manipulate people into doing what you want, and other approaches fail, then there's always good ol' fear to fall back on. It's been tried and tested, over several millenia, and has been shown to be consistantly effective. Up until now, at any rate.

In conclusion, it seems that sex has the edge on fear, when it comes to manipulating adults. But what about children? I wonder whether sex or fear would work most effectively on small children? Right, no contest. As if children don't have enough real things to be frightened of.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Noggin (On Heaven's Door?)

I wrote about false dichotomies the other day, and their close associates, false dilemmas. There are some circumstances, however, when reducing a vast array of choices down to just two, has definite benefits. A case in point: music genres.

There was a time when I would struggle with such questions as "Is this UK Garage or Funky House?" but a couple of years ago, I stood back and thought about my reasons for tagging music. I realised that to use genres in practice, rather than as an academic exercise in precision, meant that I needed only two: Vocal and Instrumental.

When I'm writing, I tend to listen to instrumental music, because lyrics can be distracting. At other times, vocals can be a source of inspiration, or just good to sing along with, or simply enjoyable. So that's what I did. I tagged everything in my music collection using just those two genres. Simple!

Here's an instrumental piece by a band called k u: l i:, whose music can be found on SoundCloud. The band tags this track as Jazzy, Guitar, Groove, Funky, Cool, and Instrumental. I wouldn't argue with that, but of course Instrumental is the important one for me - it's just right to accompany a bit of keyboard bashing.

Noggin by K U: L I: Listen on Posterous

If you go to the SoundCloud page for this track, you'll see that the track title is a reference to Noggin The Nog. Ah yes, I remember it... well, not so well, actually. But a quick Google gave me various results including, you guessed it, a Wikipedia article, and it all came back to me.

There are two other equally good tracks by k u: l i: on SoundCloud;

Pad Pod and Murphy's Jazz.

They seem to be fond of cats, according to the notes under those tracks!

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

The Extraordinary Dr Kerfuffle!

After reading the first three chapters (you can download them as a sample in PDF format from www.theworldofdrk.com, for free), I wasn't sure what to make of The Extraordinary Dr Kerfuffle! by Aeddan Howells. It seemed a rather old-fashioned tale. Not in a bad way, but I was left wondering if Dr Kerfuffle would have anything new to offer.

I'm glad I decided to buy and download the whole book (also in PDF - the only downloadable format available at the time of writing) because it turned out that Dr Kerfuffle does indeed have a trick or two up his sleeve. I don't want say too much because a spoiler really would spoil the enjoyment of the story. However, I can safely say that it is mainly about the relationship which develops between Dr Kerfuffle and Josh, an "almost eleven year old boy" (who lives across the street with his sister Ellie and their parents, Sam and Laura), and the adventures that ensue.

The website declares the book is recommended for 10 - 100 year olds, which I think is a reasonable recommendation. It's also a book I can imagine reading to someone, a child perhaps, although not too young because there are some scary bits in it. Adopting a German accent when reading Dr Kerfuffle's words would be great fun - he hails from Bavaria and uses, for example, 'viz' for 'with' and 'vot' for 'what'.

If you like a good story which takes you to places you didn't expect to go, and from which you might even learn a thing or two, then I have no hesitation in recommending The Extraordinary Dr Kerfuffle!

The paperback version is available either from the publisher's webpage or from Amazon UK (and other sources), although you may prefer to download the PDF - there is, at the time of writing, a significant price premium for the paperback.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

SocraticMama

Anne Crumpacker, whose daughter Mason recently met the author Christopher HItchens, an encounter which caused much delight, has created a website which she describes as a "fun-loving, open forum for secular parents and their children". The tag line of the site is a quote from Socrates:Wisdom begins with wonder.

Participation is welcomed, so go check it out and get involved (if you're that way inclined), or just enjoy (if you're not). Read the About me page for more info on Anne and her reasons for starting the site (which is dedicated in honor of Mr. Christopher Hitchens), and, if you plan on participating, then read the Rules for play page too.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Strange Days

Some days the words don't flow. Bummer, eh?

Music sometimes helps.

3 Strange Days by School Of Fish Listen on Posterous

School of Fish at Amazon

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

On The Importance Of Having A Trustworthy Confidente

I don't believe there is any 'afterlife' - when I die, that's it; I cease to exist. So why should I care about what sort of funeral I'm given? I won't know anything about it, right? So what does it matter?

Well, it matters because although I won't be aware of it, it will have an influence on others who are still living. Regardless of whether there is an 'afterlife', there sure as hell (forgive my lame humour) will be an 'afterMYlife', or at least I have reason to think there'll still be some people about after I die. It's also very likely that those of you who survive me (rather an odd expression - I hope it isn't as painful as it sounds), some of whom I know, but most of whom I don't, will continue to talk amongst yourselves. And that's why it is important to me that my funeral not be hijacked by those who do not share my views, as a means to promote and perpetuate theirs.

Sadly, in my experience, that's all too often what happens. Proponents of an 'afterlife' seem to view a funeral, no matter what the stated beliefs of the dead person, as a window of opportunity through which they can crash, launching their missals willy-nilly as they go. Like a smash and grab raid in reverse, they seek to implant a 'soul', only to claim it's gone off somewhere in the very next moment. The odd part is that a lot people seem to think it's pretty much okay for them to do that, even though they don't really share their beliefs or, if they do, only in a half-hearted, token way. They just go along with it because, perhaps, they don't want to create a scene. They simply close their ears to the sound of breaking glass.

I wrote a few days ago about the genital mutilation of babies who, due to their physical state, are unable to voice objections, which is conveniently construed, by the advocates of ritual mutilation, as there having been no objections. It bears an uncanny similarity to the situation where a dead person, due to their physical state, is unable to voice objections to the hijacking of their funeral by proponents of an 'afterlife'. Fortunately, for a dead person there is no direct personal consequence from this lack of respect, a lack of respect which is so often proudly displayed by the perpetrators, as if it is a virtue. It's that lack of respect, the complete disregard for others, which royally pisses me off. If you happen to be at my funeral, and some knobhead decides to start on about an 'afterlife' (or any of that stuff), please ask them to stop immediately, because I specifically asked you to do that very thing. Thanks.

And then there's the deathbed conversion. I don't doubt that it happens, particularly if the unfortunate soon-to-be-dead person has some arsehole stimulating their fear receptors in their final days and hours, but I also suspect that, on occasion, the alleged conversion never actually happened. Of course, I have no direct evidence of that. How could I? But why should I think that the type of thinking which allows people to abuse babies and hijack funerals is limited to those events only?

So here's the conundrum - how to prevent a false claim of your own deathbed conversion?

Achieving this requires some setting up in advance. Yes, you have to do it now to be sure it will work. I mean, you could be dead tomorrow, right? So here's what you have to do.

Firstly, you will need someone who you trust with your life, and who is also likely to outlive you. It could well be that a daughter or son would fit that profile.

Then, in secret, you and that person must agree upon a phrase that nobody else is likely to be able to guess. Something random and made up, like, "I didn't kick your kneecap when you were fourteen and three quarters", but whatever, it must be something that you will be able to remember word for word. So make it fun!

Next you put the agreed phrase in writing to your confidente, together with a statement that if you should happen to decide at, or near, the time of your death to alter your view (that there is no 'afterlife', or whatever best describes your view), the very first thing you will do, before you confide to them that you have converted, is ask the person who will witness your conversion to learn the agreed phrase (as proof of your conversion). Your confidente must keep the document, either paper or digital, in a safe place away from prying eyes, and not even reveal its existence, unless circumstances, such as an alleged deathbed conversion, make it necessary to do so.

In the event of a claim of deathbed conversion, your confidente only has to ask the claimant if you asked him, or her, to learn a phrase and, if so, to repeat that phrase. Bingo! It's revelation time.

It's not foolproof - for example, you might lose your marbles and inadvertently reveal the scheme - but if you think there is any chance of someone falsely claiming you underwent a deathbed conversion, then it might just catch them out (assuming your confidente has the courage to call them on it, which is a very good reason to choose your confidente wisely).

An additional benefit of this scheme is this: If you do decide to convert in your last moments, you have a means of confirming it beyond reasonable doubt.

Think I'm paranoid? I like to think it's the 'boy scout' in me - being prepared for all eventualities - even though I never was a boy scout!

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Pretty Pictures

I was digging around on Wikimedia Commons, looking for a picture to illustrate another post, when I saw a link to Picture of the Year 2010. The winner is certainly worthy, but looking through the finalists entries, these two caught my eye. I love the colours.

By Dmitry A. Mottl (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

 

By Dan Molter [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Potentially The Best Crap Filter Ever

This seems like a great idea to me. Watch the video to find out more...

...and then, if you like what you've seen, head on over to http://hypothes.is/ and claim your username. There is a lot more detail on the site too.

I won't re-hash here what you can read there. Suffice to say that it gets my thumbs up.

Yes, joswun@hypothes.is already taken. By me.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Just Another Surgical Procedure

Circumcision. It sounds so much more acceptable to call it that rather than genital mutilation. Actually, I don't have a major problem with it. If a bloke wants to cut off part of his penis, well that's up to him. I might think he's as bat shit crazy to do that as the guy who drilled a hole in his own head, but hey, people do weird stuff to their bodies. You could say that it's part of what makes us human.

What I'm not at all ambivalent about is people doing it to other people without their consent - just strap 'em down and slice it off. Try doing that to an adult and you risk serious punishment through the legal system, but how about if the victim was not yet an adult - say 14? Nope. Not okay. Some would probably consider it worse. You'll be off to jail for sure. So at what age is it acceptable to just strap 'em down and slice it off? Seven? Nope. Two? Nope. You can see where this is going, can't you.

I don't think it's really an age thing. The main criteria for acceptability seems to be that the victim must not have verbally expressed dissent. The fact that babies can't talk is probably just a coincidence, right?

Here's a documentary about it in all its 'glory'. I'll warn you in advance that there are scenes which I had to turn away from, but that's part of the reason it should be watched.

Among the comments on the YouTube page is this one from SuperMare54: "So get the baby drunk..... then cut off part of his penis..... and then laugh and celebrate. What is wrong with this picture???"

I noticed another part where the guy in the suit, sitting in the swivel chair, was wriggling and squirming as he talked, and had that 'almost laughing' expression crawling all over his face for a large part of the time. I think that's what people do when they know that they are wrong, but don't want to admit it.

To my mind, if circumcision is a 'just another surgical procedure' then rape is merely 'unwanted attention'.

The unabridged version of Cut can be bought on DVD at: www.CutTheFilm.com

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Latin Lover?

If you are familiar with layout and design, either in print or the digital variety, then the following paragraph will need no introduction. Others may have come across similar paragraphs on websites which are 'under construction', or on those rather sad sites which were never completed and have been left as forlorn relics of good intentions.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

It looks like Latin, although in fact it's gibberish. It's used by designers as a place-holder, an indicator of what a block of text will look like big-picture-wise. If you want the infra inferius infimus (that's Latin for 'low down', according to InterTran) then where else would you expect me to point you than the Wikipedia article. 

Recognise this moth... er ... geezer?

Yes, it's that rather nice chap, Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), famous for several unforgettable scenes in Pulp Fiction, including the one below in which my favourite part is when he says to Brett, just after he shoots the guy on the couch: "I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? I didn't mean to do that. Please, continue, you were saying something about best intentions. What's the matter? Oh, you were finished! Well, allow me to retort. What does Marsellus Wallace look like?"

It always cracks me up every time I hear him say, "Well, allow me to retort."

(NSFW)

No place-holders in that. Which raises the question why Paul Maloney, who says of himself, "I'm a Freelance Web Designer & Front End Developer and I make AWESOME Websites", was prompted to create the Samuel L. Ipsum alternative Lorem Ipsum generator. Perhaps he just has a similar sense of humour to mine. But before you click the link below, be warned, it's no more safe for work than the video clip...

http://slipsum.com/

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Twit Or Tweet?

Talking of 'Trick or Treat', which I know I wasn't (but nonetheless realising that it will soon be upon us was part of the chain of thought that resulted in the title of this post, which is probably evidence of my lowbrow mentality, and also evidence of a tendency to get distracted by trivial linguistic things which I find amusing - like the fact that I have to tweezer the hairs from between my eyebrows to avoid the Neanderthal 'onebrow' look and whether tweezer is a legitimate verb - a consequence of which is that I tend to forget what my objectives were, and, oh, errrm...where was I? Oh yes...'Trick or Treat'), I wanted to say something about false dichotomies.

At this point, you've got two options. You can either continue reading this awesome article, or stop right now and miss out on the experience of a lifetime.

Okay..daft example and rather easy to spot. Obviously you have more than just those two options. You could, for example, read it later, then put up link to it as a Facebook status update because you think it is either interesting or amusing (which is, of course, another false dichotomy, right? Well, technically no, although it uses a similar method to achieve a desired outcome).

False dichotomies are used to manipulate people's thinking processes by presenting only two exclusive choices when in fact there are other possibilities. Heaven, or Hell? A fine example if ever there was one. But wait! You're forgetting about purgatory (I hear the Catholics say). That's a third possibility. Well, disregarding the fact that I've never heard of anyone choosing purgatory (or even having it offered as a choice), the addition of other choices, over and above the two of a true false dichotomy, does not mean that the manipulative technique of a false dichotomy is not being used.

Think of those multiple choice surveys commissioned by companies supposedly to elicit feedback. You know, the kind that goes something like this:

Please select one answer.

a) I have used XYZ and it is the only company I will consider using.

b) I have used XYZ and it is my first choice, although I might consider others.

c) I have used XYZ and it is one of several companies I would consider.

d) I have not used XYZ but would consider doing so.

e) I have not used XYZ.

I doubt they really fool anyone. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks there should be at least one more option:

f) I won't use XYZ because they've got their head up their corporate arse.

Unfortunately, false dichotomies (or false dilemmas, as the multi-choice versions are sometimes called) are often used perniciously, for more serious objectives than XYZ's self-aggrandisement. "You're either with us, or against us!" can have terrible consequences when the one, or ones, uttering those words don't hesitate to use violence to achieve their aims. In such situations it would probably not be wise to challenge the use of a false dichotomy!

In other, more normal situations, that's exactly what we should do. Me, I discard that survey. I don't submit it. Those few loyalty points, or whatever the bribe may be, is not something I'll compromise my integrity for. When we hear someone using the technique, we should call them out on it:

"Hey! That's a false dichotomy!"

Not feeling that assertive? At the very least, ask questions:

"Are you saying there are no other options?" 

"Can you think of no other options other than those you've presented?"

Fight back. That's what us or'nary folk can do. It doesn't hurt to be a little ornery, in the right circumstances.

In the words of someone who I will allegedly spend time with after my death (according to at least one of the Heaven Or Hell False Dichotomy Brigade):

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

It'll be too late after you're dead.

Charlie Sheen image based on one at 9xb, who describe themselves as a Full Service Digital Agency. The original image can be found in this blog article.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Who Goes There!!?

I remember watching old black and white feature films on TV, about life in France during the second world war. There was often a scene where one of the characters had to get past a check point, using forged documents. The tension would build as I sat on the edge of my seat, hoping the guards would be fooled by their false papers, and would let them pass. In most cases, the deception worked and I could inwardly cheer. The notion that the deception was unacceptable, that they were morally wrong to attempt to conceal their true identity never entered my head. After all, they were the good guys, so none of that mattered.

There's been a lot of discussion on the net of late about the issue of anonymity and real names. Google+, in particular, has been at the centre of debate because of their policy of requiring real names from users. Some supporters claim that it helps to keep people civilised in their interactions if they are identifiable, while detractors claim that it can prevent people from speaking their minds in an open and honest way.

I find myself agreeing with both sides, but that's because I think the two sides are talking about different things. Anonymity comes in different flavours, one of which is typified by the anonymous 'drive by' commenter who leaves a racist, sexist, or other obnoxious comment (on a blog, for example). Another is characterised by someone who uses a pseudonym, such as an author who uses a pen-name or an internet gamer who uses a 'handle'.

The unwelcome input from anonymous 'drive by' commenters is an unfortunate by-product of making commenting as easy as possible for legitimate commenters (ie. no registration, login or what have you). It's like snipers taking pot shots and disappearing. However, people who use a pseudonym to identify themselves fall into a completely different category.

And that's the point. For the most part*, they are using their pseudonym to identify themselves. It means they have a history. What they say has a connection to what they have previously said. They have a reputation based on what they have said. They are accessible through their pseudonym and accept responsibility for what they say. In my book, that's a legitimate mode of operation.

By way of example, let's suppose that my name is not really Jo, that Jo S Wun is not the name on my birth certificate. Would that be the same thing as Jo S Wun not existing? Of course not. I undoubtedly do exist - I am writing these words. And the "I" that is writing these words is known as Jo S Wun. If I secretly changed my name by deed poll to John Doe, but continued to write as Jo S Wun, would it make a difference to the value of what I write? Could you tell just by reading what I write?

There are numerous legitimate reasons for using a pseudonym, not least of which is protecting a person from physical harm. It is a sad fact, but some people resort to violence to silence those who do not share their opinions, rather than engage in debate.

Anonymity in itself is just a tool which can be used for both good and bad objectives. Not much different from a scalpel, which in the hands of a murderer is one thing, but in the hands of a surgeon, another. Anonymity can be used as a cloak for nefarious purposes, or as an invitation to open discourse. It's a matter of perspective.

* I say 'for the most part' because there are those that do use pseudonyms to hide behind. Internet 'trolls', the bane of forums and blogs, adopt pseudonyms to hide their real identity while they cause trouble. However, they view a pseudonym as a temporary means to achieve their ends, frequently adopting a new one when their current one is banned, and sometimes using several at the same time, including some which are operated as sockpuppets.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

The Female Form

I was looking at an example of,
A beautiful female form.
You could say it ticked all the right boxes,
It was so gracefully adorned.

I'd seen no other like it,
Exquisite in every way.
'Full bodied' best described it,
So far from workaday.

No mention of 'vital statistics',
Nor the colour of the eyes.
No height in feet and inches,
And all that that implies.

The part that really caught my eye,
Was entitled 'About Me'.
She wrote of dreams (not fantasies),
And finding liberty.

The deed was done right there and then,
There was no other choice.
I knew I'd offer her the job,
Even 'fore I'd heard her voice.

The others, for the most part, said,
How wonderful they were,
How astonishingly full of cred,
How much they would deliver.

One hundred plus percent they claimed
They'd bring it to my table.
Team players, extra miles they'd go,
(Hmmm...sheep clothed in shiny sable?)

Oh leave it out, you pudden-heads!
Who d'ya think you're trying to kid?
It's not about your super-ego,
The truth lies in your id.

[Disclaimer: Please note that I use Freud's concepts of super-ego and id as convenient shorthand for the human characteristics loosely described by those concepts (and because id rhymes with kid!). Freud has been fairly comprehensively debunked by Frederick Crews in his book "Follies of the Wise" in which he concludes that Freud was indeed making it up as he went along.]

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Unique Style - Volkswagen Polo With Finns

Here's a little light relief: Finnish award winning street band Porkka Playboys performing Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. Is Freddie turning in his grave? Nah..not a chance.

Hat-tip: Coverville

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Goin' Home

I've spent time chasing dreams,
Been part of great teams,
Fished alone in the ocean,
Taken many a potion.
Now I'm goin' home.

I've known wild libertines,
Driven stretch limousines,
Ridden miles on a bike,
Held my thumb in the dike.
Now I'm on my way home.

Been to the brink, and back,
Got lost on the track.
Been on protest marches,
Tried mental catharsis.
Now I'm heading for home.

I've had dinner with arties,
Stolen all the blue Smarties,
Found silver, and gold,
Been both bought and sold.
Now it's time to go home.

I've played to the gallery
And flirted with anarchy,
I've loved and I've lost,
Fought to win at all costs,
Now I'm on the road home.

Played many roles on this stage,
To find my place on the page.
Now I know what my part is,
Goin' home where the heart is.
Yeah, I'm goin' home.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Tender Sympathy With Care

I know she cannot hear me now,
I know it makes no sense,
But it's so very hard to change,
From present, to past tense.

Her neurons cannot tell to mine,
That they have ceased to be,
That there'll be no further input,
No added memory.

But let me just pretend a while,
That she really can still hear,
That I can touch her smiling face,
Can feel her body near.

You may catch me talking to her,
You may hear me cry out loud,
You may see the tear stains on my cheek,
See me running from the crowd.

Yes, it is an open wound,
That's plain for all to see,
But don't try to disinfect it,
That swab won't set me free,

This pain is all I have now,
Don't take it from me yet,
Don't tell me time's a healer,
This pain I will forget.

I don't want your pure white bandage,
Don't make me beg, or plead.
Don't prescribe that 'magic potion'!
I don't want that quackery.

I'm sorry, have I offended?
Have I been insensitive?
Have I gone and hurt your feelings,
When all you did was 'give'?

But when a gift is thoughtless,
To what does it amount?
You may think it just a cliché,
But it IS the thought that counts.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Grief Beyond Belief

There's an excellent Facebook page which has been set up to support people who are grieving the loss of a loved one, but who hold no religious or supernatural beliefs. You won't find anyone peddling clichés like "they've gone to a better place" here. The guidelines on the "Info" page make it clear that any such comments are not welcome and anyone making comments of that nature will be asked to remove them or, if they refuse, have them removed by the administrator. The idea is to provide a safe space for atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, skeptics, humanists and other non-believers to grieve the loss of loved ones. Non-atheists are welcome to participate, providing they follow the guidelines in the same way that everyone else does.

I hope that none of my readers are in circumstances where Grief Beyond Belief would be an appropriate place to visit, but if you are, then I highly recommend it. Come to think of it, I recommend a visit whatever your circumstances. If you like what you see then make it known by 'Liking' the page - even if you don't feel able to make comments to support those who have suffered a loss, just knowing that there are a lot of people who support the page is a comfort.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Free From Apple's iBookstore

The Jeremy - Snaps Of The Dragon is in the Apple iBookstore, available for download to your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch, and to your computer with iTunes. And it's free.

United Kingdom: http://itunes.apple.com/gb/book/isbn9781452325811

           USA: http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/isbn9781452325811

     Australia: http://itunes.apple.com/au/book/isbn9781452325811

        Canada: http://itunes.apple.com/ca/book/isbn9781452325811

        France: http://itunes.apple.com/fr/book/isbn9781452325811

       Germany: http://itunes.apple.com/de/book/isbn9781452325811

Please note that although it is available from non-English sites, it is only available in English.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

EZ PZ Takedown

If you've read my post entitled From Siddhartha To Deepak Chopra then will know my opinion of Mr. Chopra. He's reviewed Richard Dawkins' (some professor sort of chap, I hear) latest book, The Magic Of Reality, and apparently dissed it in his usual style. I haven't read either the book, or Deepak's review, but I have read PZ Myers' post about Deepak's review, on his Pharyngula blog. PZ characterizes the review thus:

Shorter Deepak: “Richard Dawkins didn’t endorse my quantum bullshit, therefore The Magic of Reality sucks!”

He goes on to take it apart in his own inimitable style, but this classic bit of PZishness caused me to (dare I say it?) laugh out loud:

I could go on and on about the stupidity of Deepak’s review — every paragraph is like the evacuations of an elephant with diarrhea — massively feculent and slimy, of a quality that will not even appeal to the neighborhood dung beetles.

Go read it, for the full PZ experience.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Insomnia Blues

Well, I woke up this morning,

(It was the middle of the night),

I'd dreamt of some dire warning,

(I could do without that shite).

Brain lit up, 'round the hippocampus,

Like a hungry pack of dogs,

Just bitchin', snappin', 'n' creatin' a rumpus,

Slaverin' on my mental cogs.

So it's hello ceiling, old friend,

Your empty canvas beckons.

And the creeping shadows, they all portend,

The deeds of fiends and felons.

Maybe it was the Dalai Lama?

Crashed in while astral planing,

He is the one sings Hari Rama?

Material things disdaining?

But hey, he's divinely light,

(Does he have a darker side?)

Could he fill me full of fear and fright?

PR image override?

Nah. It must be something else,

Historical? Hmmmm... maybe.

Something deep within my self?

From when I was a baby?

Feral loathing in Los Angeles,

They're trouble, them thar angels;

You can't be sure if it will please,

Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels.

Ah, my thoughts are muddied water,

I'll be sleeping very soon,

Then a pulse in my aorta,

Reminds me of a tune.

Well, I woke up this morning,

(It was the middle of the night),

I'd dreamt of some dire warning,

(I could do without that shite).

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Averse To Quotes?

Quoth loosely, or spoken verbatim,
Either way we can love 'em or hate 'em.
But one thing, for sure, is a given,
Love 'em, or not, we're stuck with 'em.

A quote or a saying for every occasion,
Some, full on, some filled with evasion.
Too many cooks with many hands (ahem...cough)
Making light work of spoiling the broth.

Some quotes are meant to inspire you,
Conjuring visions; a beautiful bayou?
And then there are plenty of humorous ones,
Full of clever words, and pithy puns.

On Kerouac, the words of Truman Capote,
Cannot be thought kind, not even remotely;
“That's not writing, it's typing,” he said.
(I imagine dismissively shaking his head)

“I had nothing to offer ... 'cept my own confusion.”
Jack was clear on that, he had no delusion.
(Would you find it amusing if he donned a capote,
While typing the words he so cleverly wrote?)

“Art is anything you can get away with.” Er,
that's sure to make the conservatives shiver.
We've Marshall McLuhan to thank for that,
Well cheers, me ol' mate, here's a tip o' the hat.

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous

Whole Grain Thinker

After I'm gone,

the world won't mourn me.

But I'm not forlorn, be-

cause the few who knew the man,

who I tried to be,

forgave me (for my 'also ran').

Nobody's perfect,

I've heard many propose.

In their comatose

pursuance of 'who gives a fuck',

they foul the paths and roads.

Sole destroyers (man, does that suck!)

Grumpy old git.

Is that what I've become?

Just a meddlesome

old man with nothing more to do

than spoil all the fun?

Lawks-a-mercy! (tell me it ain't true)

A whole grain thinker,

a tinker of words,

kicking over magic turds.

Looking for what? Lies - beneath

which stagnation girds

the imagination (like a sterile sheath)

[A quick aside,

Before you read the last,

"My sweet 'backside'",

Pronounce it ass not arse]

That's my nutshell,

Job done, I'm self-assessed.

"Well, he did his best"

Not the utmost peak of epitaphs?

So write this on my chest:

"His goal was to split the wits from the chavs"

Posted via email from Jo S Wun on Posterous