Religion

Now before you click away expecting a clichéd rant against the big religions, or to be preached by the writing this is not about your traditional religion that has been kicking around for centuries and millennia. This is a new religion, one that has yet to be recognised. It is the most influential and damaging of all religions. In it's name great weapons of war have been built. In it's name people have been vilified. So pretty average sounding religion then? No. This is the Religion of Science.

I used to get angry at Scientology for sounding like a branch of scientific research. It was however harmless really. The new Religion of Science however is deadly and deceptive. On a general scale it is, like most major religions, benign. However it is the fanatics that should be of great concern. These fanatics are not fanatical about science, they are fanatical about the power of their new Church. The integrity of the Religion of Science is not, as every Jack the Lad might think, built on its purity, nor on its impartiality, but on its power.

This power has the ability to destroy cities. Nuclear power is theirs, it has destroyed cities. That is not the power that they built the Church on. They have built it on knowledge. They label themselves Scientists, what a Christian would probably call a priest, and decree that by the power invested in them by Science 'This is so!" and by the power of Science it is so. If you disagree in part you are a Sceptic, what Christians would call a heretic. If you disagree then you are a Denier. This is Blasphemy. It is worse than merely being a Sceptic you are denying the Science.

I seem to remember science being a wonderful thing. If you wanted know know how and why that cat the estate children kicked off the roof falls to the ground then physics would explain. If you wanted to know why, at the age of 13, you suddenly had hair where no hair had originally been, biology had the answer. If you wanted to know why eggs turned white when cooked, chemistry had the answer. It had answers, simple facts, points that just were. Unless someone came along and showed that it was otherwise. You didn't Believe in these facts, they just were. If you decided that you disagreed with one idea, you would get the necessary equipment and try to prove your idea. If you were right, then it would work repeatedly and all you needed to do to stop someone arguing was to show them the experiment tell them to do it and watch them obtain the same results.

That, however, is science and scientists worked long and hard to think of ideas and prove them. Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton and Boltzmann are but a few of these scientists. Nowadays we have the Scientist. It, the Scientist (can't be gender specific as that would offend The Science), controls the right to The Science. If It decides to listen to someone who is not Scientist then they will do so as a patronising parent or teacher indulging a small errant child. This attitude continues unless they come across somebody who actually knows his science and has studied It's Science and has found the holes and flaws. At this stage It will go in one of two directions.
Option A, It will ignore this interloper completely only willing to acknowledge this minor inconvenience if they go through the hoops that Scientists put in front of them. This is far more successful as the interloper looks like a crazed loon barking at the moon and frothing at the mouth because the dirty creature just wants to cause controversy. Most people will agree with It at this point, even if they do think It is a snob.
Option B, It will start using implications of dire consequences if this... this... "Thing" is not ignored or, preferably, put down and all evidence of his existence erased. At this point the man with the science just needs to keep on plugging away with his Denialist theory and he will probably win the day. It will become more irate as "Thing" is not being shoved firmly out of the limelight It will dire the hints to threats and demand that It's Science cannot be discussed because it would be too dangerous not to act upon it now. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will, at this point spot the petulant child kicking and screaming and demanding that he gets his own way.

Now the question I believe most of you will have been thinking (guessing thoughts isn't science), or at least hope you have, is 'Why does this matter, now that we know what they're about why should we care or act?'

We should care because it brings scientific research and study into disrepute. If those people who set out to discover the processes of life and the universe... hold on a second I was just about to start changing the 's' capital. Scientific study is and always will be important. What is more important is that these researchers and developers are questioned, thoroughly possibly indecently so to make sure that their results stand up by themselves, not with a pack of baying hounds supporting and protecting it. We should care because Scientists are using The Science to bring about a tyranny of intellect. They know best so it must be best. Any deviation from Their Average will not be tolerated. It will be cajoled and coerced into The Average and anomalies will not be tolerated.

This is the new religion. A faith of fact. A fact of faith. A great big sham.

Rugby

Rugby.
A sport.
A lifestyle.
A stereotype.

Technically 2 major stereotypes of players, thus of most fans.
1. The Forward

• Level-headed
• Unimaginative
• Simple
• Implacable
• Big

2. The Back

• Flighty
• Inventive
• Clever
• Light-footed
• Small

Obviously there are exceptions to this, 2 most notable to myself are Matt Banahan and Lee Mears. Matt Banahan is the Bath left wing, who is basically a forward, and Lee Mears is the Bath Hooker, though could comfortably play scrum half.

Then there are those who define the moulds. I shall take two players from playing history Jeremy Guscott, an iconic inside centre and ever the back, and Martin Johnson, the man mountain, captain of England's 2003 greats.

The more astute of you may have now caught onto where this may well be going.

As I said earlier the players are generally fans, and Martin Johnson is now the England Manager and responsible for the worst series of results since the world cup. He was brought in because English rugby was in dire straights and the then chairman of the RFU refused to bring back Woodward. So step into the ring our immovable talisman. Martin Johnson. With no managerial experience we all thought that he would still bring us out of the doldrums, myself included.

Since then he has led us from mediocrity to ignominy with little to bring us hope... Until now?

NO!

Martin Johnson is almost what the forward stereotype was based on. He has a plan and will stop at nothing to achieve it. He wants to repeat the 2003 World Cup. The evidence? Well Simon Shaw and Mike Tindall are in the team. True they are in good form, wrong they are the best in England. Mike Tindall is part of the English style of rugby that only Leicester can maintain. Leicester still play the pack dominant and tactical kicking game. That is how Martin Johnson has played all his professional life, England and Leicester. It is how he still wants to play, even when the premiership has moved along. It is why Ryan Lamb of London Irish, and Nick Evans of Harlequins will never get a look in under his management. They do not build their game on the tactical kicking like Jonny Wilkinson, Toby Flood, Charlie Hodgson and Andy Goode.

Last Saturday we got a taste of what Johnson thinks is the way forward, where the inside centre is second string at club level to his team mate Olly Barkley, who was on the tour and was not even picked for the "Third Test". Olly Barkley is the form inside centre of the Premiership, guiding Bath to a near miraculous comeback, only failing to beat Leicester twice (probably only encouraging Johnson). The semi-final bath lost at the line-out, where Bath just could not win their own ball. A fact that Johnson probably glazed over.

The England pack are far from the dominance that the Leicester pack commands.

This has the knock-on effect of harming a tactical kicking game. The solid platform that is essential for a kicking based game plan. This however is not the biggest problem, as we saw a fortnight ago when England were shamed by a vastly understrength Australian team. The tactical kicking game, with the most solid of foundations can be broken by poor kicking.

The main reason we should not start believing in an English renaissance IS the kicking game. Though it is the chase where we lose every time. A fundamental rule I had hammered into my head when I was old enough for kicking to be allowed was this:

"A good kick and a bad chase is infinitely worse than a bad kick and a good chase."

 

England, or perhaps Martin Johnson and his coaching staff, must never have learnt this, thought it was a myth or simply have forgotten it. We will never challenge a full strength Australia, let alone the better teams of New Zealand and South Africa, if we cannot do this. The Southern Hemisphere sides thrive in broken play. If a kick is not inch perfect we will be punished and we cannot hope that a 3rd string front row, and second string backline are sent out against us all the time.

Until Johnson addresses this issue, or leaves. England will not be 1st or 2nd in any competition.

The Average of the Armchair

Not for the man from the armchair is the century at Lord's.

Not for the man from the armchair is the 5 minute mile.

Not for the man from the armchair is sprightly spring to steal the lineout.

Not for the man from the armchair is the taking part.

The man from the armchair is the encyclopaedia.

The man from the armchair is the fountain of knowledge.

But what of those who join the man in support of the nation's team? He who has only a passing interest in the sport or a fierce national pride kept quiet out of respect of those who might not feel quite so. What is he to do in the face of this fountain of knowledge? What of the many? What is the average of the armchair?

I ask this as, like many of my friends, I have only a passing interest in football (in rugby I have some knowledge but not really past the borders of England) and with the pre-world cup fever gripping the newspapers and media outlets, why should I feel upset that I don't know anything about it?

I have one friend who refuses to acknowledge it, but that is not for me. I have an Englishman's pride. It is not showy and it is not vocal, until challenged, and to this end I support my national teams in all their exploits. I never feel comfortable watching the football at home with my father, because he has frown extremely tired of my comments on the ability for moths to knock professionals over with a look. In the pub I feel rather overwhelmed by the complete lack of conversation outside of the topic of the sport or the match. No political, musical or philosophical discussions there.

So how am I going to watch the football I hear a voice ask... In all probability... It will only be by accident, not intent that I shall see this competition of physical, tactical and psychological mastery. I find this a shame. Football is supposed to be the game of the people, a game for everyone, from youngest speaker, to oldest man of the armchair. Yet I find myself isolated.

So what of us average men of the armchair? Those of us who would rather play the sport than watch it? Those of us who don't have an interest in any other part of the sport than the national side? Where can we watch this extravaganza with like minded fellows?

The pub? Certainly not. Any that are showing it will be frequented by the 'Real Men'.

The trendy bar? Nope. This will have the 'Modern Men' in. 'Modern Man' is not the pure passion of the 'Real Man' but will love to hold his superior knowledge over your head.

The friend's house? The best option of the 3 so far. If he is letting people over for the game, he will obviously care about it and he will have friends that do too, you will most likely still be a minority but at least you'll be in the company of friends.

Your house? Again getting better. Here you can choose who to invite, but if you don't invite any of your friends who are passionate fans, you will either see it gate-crashed or a poor turnout as those who aren't passionate drag them along to the pub.

By yourself? The worst option of the lot. If you care enough to want to watch the game, you make pretty poor company for yourself, and what is so wrong about your mates gathering at  a house or the pub.

So, as always, the average man is decided by the vocal minority.

The man from the armchair is better than the player.

The man from the armchair is right.

Not for the average of the armchair is the discordant choir.

Not for the average of the armchair is the trivia topping.

Not for the average of the armchair is the contest the day

Not for the average of the armchair is the armchair.

A New Beginning?

When I first started this blog, I had no idea where it was going to go. My main idea for it was to invite discussion, comment and possibly exert influence. In the times of regular postings I was starting a discovery of my political beliefs. I have reached a conclusion upon where those lie.

The main tenet of my political philosophy is in personal responsibility. It is not for the politician, scientist, 'expert', lobbyist, teacher, philosopher, parent or friend to tell you how to live your life. It is up to the individual to listen to what these people have to say and, from it, determine the best method for living. No one gets "their money for nothing, and their kicks for free." This is also why I disagree with what David Cameron's 'Big Society' appears to me. There should be no 'big' entity that dictates the appropriate method for conducting ones life. I do think that a big society is better than a big government, but it is the 'Big' aspect that I disagree with.

The next comes in the form of a, probably very incorrectly worded, quote:

"One should be free to do what isn't illegal, not what is legal."

If it isn't a quote then I want to claim it, but I'd rather know what the correct wording is (I know that was the gist of the statement) and who said it. I don't want to claim credit for what wasn't mine. I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere. No one should be persecuted for part-taking in something that is not illegal. If you find it immoral, then that is to do with your morals, they are not necessarily the other persons.

These are probably the two most important aspects of my political philosophy. I also feel that these are two that will not change because I age or anything else. They do not hold to one specific item and they are not mutually exclusive.

A return to the title of the post requires me to answer that question. I have stated what has been achieved through what I first started. I found this a useful method of thinking through ideas, as the words I write will mark down, on a more permanent basis, my thoughts and beliefs. Though I stopped posting on here, I do not think it would be in my interests to stop completely. I do realise I pretty much did.

So to answer the title of this post I shall mark today as a new start. Not really Volume II or Book II, more Chapter II. I feel that anyone who has read this blog may well have an small understanding of my character, and introduction. You have met me once or twice but do not yet know me.

Henceforth I shall write far more on the whimsical side than the irate side, flaming politics. There may be book reviews possibly music reviews as happens on my good friend Kyle's blog, Opinionated and Vocal. There may be short musings on a previous 'Food For Thought', that shall restart. I fear though that the poll shall die a death for a time, maybe to be resurrected like a magician's assistant, only time will tell. So, until I have time tomorrow (which reminds me, I need to clean my room the cleaner is coming around and he hasn't been in here for a couple of weeks and he needs to now), to quote a very favourite person of mine...

TTFN

Ta Ta For Now

Apathetic

I am currently in a bout of apathy. This post may well end up being one of the most reasonable post that I do. I have recently been relieved of my duty as a barman. This is not due to any fault of mine, apart from being the last person they hired (last in first out). It is due to the owners of the pub where I was working purchasing a new venue which had lots more staff that they had to take on than than they had been led to believe. For me this comes with some rather poor timing. It is now the Easter break for all the universities, so all those potential jobs in pubs that I had before going to work for the one that let me go have now pretty much disappeared.

It is this, in combination with the dearth of astute political leadership and situations at home, that has led to my current levels of apathy. That or a crash after a sugar rush, though I cannot establish when I had that if I did.

...

Apparently I need the ire to actually write a post. So I shall leave here some poetry that I have written.

I've been without a woman for cold long years.
I've felt familiar passions turning red my ears.
I've had the Icy Claw grasping at my fears.
I've need for love is what I tell my peers.

Time the healer, I thought had closed these scars.
Time believer, my faith was drowned in bars.
Time the dealer, would spare me this impasse.
Time the carer, don't leave me in this farce.

You were a Lightning bolt, a sudden strike of form.
You were the sight of land, safety from this storm.
You were a flight of geese, flying somewhere warm.
You were the rainbow, new hope in me was born.

Now it's here I stand, breaking in this rain.
Now it's here I stop, shouting in this pain.
Now it's there I run, demons in this flame.
Now it's there I roar, "By the Gods not this again!"

I quite like it, even if it was myself being a bit soppy after being dumped. To tell the truth, these are actually the verses in the song. Below is the chorus.

I've been alone,
For far too long,
I thought I'd found:
Someone to care with me,
Someone to share with me.

But now you've gone,
Left me all alone,
Just a passing note:
Thanks for the memories,
Thanks but it's time to leave.

If I manage to record the song in a fashion that allows me to put it up here I may well do so...

Well, the apathy continues, and as I have no other whims at this moment I shall leave things there.