TIME TO DRAW

attention to

panacea

POLITICS

again. Everything is politics

MY BLOGS

have a couple of ‘Pages’ attached.

One of them, (in a form anyone can read) is written more or less as child-lit. Kid-lit, call it what you will. I first drafted it before the great J K Rowling hit the shelves so although you may find similarities there’s no plagiarism involved. She made a bundle, I flubbed, but that’s the way of it and I won’t (can’t~!) complain. Dammit …

IN MY ‘TABITHA

tale I encapsulated a lifetime’s observations with a few bits of cynical thought. But the premises are valid and I challenge anyone to dispute them:

Tabby.png

—and for anyone not au fait with the British way of English, Swindleham isn’t pronounced “Swindle Ham”.  It’s actually “Swindle ’em” …

falls off a pale horse

 

Advertisements

ME~

ME, ME, MEEEEE …pc

I’ve posted in the past about how once at a meeting a young lady (school teacher type) asked “How can I boost the self esteem of a child?”.  (A bothersome boy, if I remember correctly.)

My own response differed from the majority of the others, which surprisingly in that company were too much like the quote below; but more of my view after you’ve had a wee beak at this driv   lot—

finger-pointing-down

… The US-based National Association of School Psychologists published a much-cited paper on how parents and schools can boost self-esteem in children: ‘Adults must listen carefully to the child without interrupting, and should not tell the child how to feel.’ Meanwhile, the charity Family Lives tells parents ‘not to label, criticise or blame your child, as this would give them negative messages which… can have a detrimental impact on their emotional wellbeing later on in life’ …”

source:  CLICK HERE 

I said then and I say it again now, that the best way to artificially boost anyone’s self-esteem is to set them a really challenging task … and let them overcome the challenge themselves.

TrolletteYour problem is tuning the task to the victi  person. Too easy and you blow it, too tough and you shoot everyone in the foot. Stretch the little bugger and once he, she, or it achieves the solution … oh, wow! Boom boom!

SO, THEN, 

how should we treat our poor little Snowflakes, hmmm? Are we allowed to stretch them? Can they be stretched—or do they drown you in tears?

Don’t ask me, I’m just a dum’ dog … go ask an educator (but I warn you now: you’d better have good control of your gagging reflex).

 

cerberus-2

 

HEY YOU—

SNOWFLAKE! pc

And your ‘educators’ …

WHILST RABBITING

through some old newspaper cuttings this afternoon I happened across an article from the ‘New Zealand Herald’ dated March 1988.

I quote—    finger-pointing-down-animation-gif

“Personal self-esteem is the starting point for a healthy community,” the race relations conciliator, Mr Walter Hirsh, said … 

“The most important thing our schools can give our children is not an A bursary or five A grades in School Certificate, but an A in self-esteem …”

I DISAGREE

and posit that the most important thing schools can give children is an education. The last thing schools should give a child is a qualification. Qualifications should be earned, not given (such freebies are worth only the price paid).

AND

nobody can ‘give’ self-esteem. Genuine self-esteem is a byproduct of accomplishment, and such self-esteem comes from the overcoming of challenge on an individual level.

FOR MYSELF

I would hate to see (say) mathematics classes lose place to ‘self-esteem’ classes wherein the students sit in circles patting each other, for certificates.

But I suspect that this is what has given birth to the

snowflake

generation. I could be wrong and await rebuttal.

Snowflake~?


The term has undergone a curious journey to become the most combustible insult of 2016. It emerged a few years ago on American campuses as a means of criticising the hypersensitivity of a younger generation, where it was tangled up in the debate over safe spaces and no platforming. A much-memed line from Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club expresses a very early version of the sentiment in 1996: “You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same organic and decaying matter as everyone else.”

to read more:  CLICK HERE (and beware of naughty words)


 

Post Script:

Before posting, I happened across this erudite definition—

 

snowy.png

—make of it what you may.

cerberus-2

SATORI~!

that moment of enlightenment, the breakthrough. It comes suddenly, and often when least expected.

buitre162I JUST HAD

a mini-satori.

Almost ashamed to admit in mixed company that I am a (SFX: insert a ‘Hoooooickkkkk … SPIT~!’ here please) damned Conspiracy Theorist (CT) because of their use of the term ‘reptilian’ … but first, here’s a wee image for you—

eeek!.png

—one that denigrates my cause rather than enhances. Fanciful? Read on …

It illustrates one of the reasons I detest being typecast. I am an individual and dislike being lumped in with the other nutters (one of the symptoms of other nuttery being their usage of the word ‘reptilian’) (see image, above).

I find it hard to believe that citizens of the planet Zork (why are they always given names like Zork?) are here with snakey visages concealed behind peel-off faces.

THEN IN A MOMENT

of Dog-given rapture I had a Satori—the entire universe went ‘CLICK!’ (or was it clunk? Squelch?) and high-school botany sprang to mind.

I WAS TAUGHT

that our human brain comprises of all sorts of lobes, synapses, sub brains and various wriggly bits. All good clean fun … and we have primarily the mammalian brain that makes us what we are (civilised? Oops) and (you’ll love this!) a more ancient ‘reptilian’ brain.

Well now.

And the reptilian brain is a lot more primitive, being unconcerned with such niceties as sharing and compassion. Apparently the reptile thinks only of self—and is totally focussed on that.

Now we know ....png

Anyone we know?

So I can say with a clear conscience that effectively all politicians and religious leaders are Reptilians. No need for peel-off faces with snakey good looks beneath—and it all comes together nicely. Took me a long time, I must be getting old …

cerberus-2Now go look up the derivation and meaning of the word ‘persona’ … I shan’t wait. (I have a skin to shed …)

A QUOTE

buitre162.gif

THIS TIME

and make of it what you will. 

And yes, extrapolation is allowed (encouraged, actually).

Before most of the audience had arrived, I was checking the focus on the slides in my PowerPoint presentation prior to giving my talk and I put up on the screen an image which shows the Orion/Pyramids correlation and the Sphinx/Leo correlation at Giza in the epoch of 10,500 BC. Rightly and properly since the Orion correlation is Robert Bauval’s discovery I included a portrait of Robert Bauval in the slide. As soon as Zahi saw Robert’s image he became furiously angry, shouted at me, made insulting and demeaning comments about Robert, and told me that if I dared to mention a single word about Robert in my talk he would walk out and refuse to debate me.

This is a modern ‘scientist’ in frank and open debate? (No, I’m not referring to the gentle Mr Hancock —I mean the nice Mr Hawass.)

I explained that the alternative view of history that I was on stage to represent could not exclude the Orion correlation and therefore could not exclude Robert Bauval. At that, again shouting, Zahi marched out of the debating room. Frantic negotiations then took place off stage between the conference organisers and Zahi. Finally Zahi agreed to return and give his talk and answer questions from the audience, but he refused absolutely to hear or see my talk, or to engage in any debate with me. I therefore gave my talk to the audience without Zahi present (he sat in a room outside the conference hall while I spoke). When I had finished I answered questions from the audience. Then Zahi entered, gave his talk, answered questions from the audience and left.

well now ....png

One of the few members of the audience who had arrived early did manage to record part of the scene of Zahi storming out of the conference room — see here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ziu2ygE_Wc

The whole illustrates the arrogant pignorance of the gentleman who had/has (?) his grip tightly around the neck of power at the actual site itself. Not good—but he would doubtlessly disagree; and I imagine that if I tried to debate the point would flounce petulantly out of the room with petticoats aflurry and spitting spiders in all directions.

 

For Source:  CLICK HERE

 

IT’S A ‘cultural’ thing?

So I (why always me?) must bend over backwards to accommodate such open-minded, well mannered, couth and cultured, scientifically inquisitive little oiks as  this nice man? (Unless I do I shan’t earn my Snowflake badge) (Bugger~!)

No, my apologies to any deserving sensitivities I may ruffle—this guy is often both desperate to be liked and desperate to appear unbiassed. But the mask drops easily to reveal the thug within (desperate thug, I must add). (Is he Islamic, by any chance—and thus entirely open to unchallenged debate?)

IF THE NICE MR HAWASS

represents the ‘scientific’ establishment of Egyptian studies and antiquities I think our world is a sorry place.

Perhaps he learned his objectivity—if not his manners—at the Adolf Hitler School of Fine Arts in Berlin (and is older than he claims).

But he has style—those ‘Indiana Jones’ hats  … ’nuff sed.

Snowflake

For ol’ Zahi, the very antithesis of The Snowflake

* Yes, Little Ollivia … that was indeed sarcasm. Pure, unsubtle, unadulterated, and the quintessentially genuine article.

CAST ASPARAGUS

Trolleras much as you like

 

“Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;

Mock on, Mock on, ’tis all in vain.

You throw the sand against the wind,

And the wind blows it back again.”

 

—you can never blacken the name of a living saint (now sadly deceased a bit).

REFERRING TO THE

founder of the Foursquare Church/cult/tax dodge of the USA where almost anything goes (and often does)*.

SOME CONTEMPORARY QUOTES

garnered I gather from news outlets of the time and put into this webbie:

CLICK HERE

—which some may find edifying while others grounds for murder (depends on how good a Christian you are, I guess—most rationalists won’t kill for the sake of a few fairy tales).

HERE YOU GO:

After the good lady Prophet ‘disappeared’ on a beach—

Exhaustive searches were conducted by divers who worked themselves to exhaustion with one dying from exposure. A teenage girl drowned when she dove into the water thinking that she saw Sister Aimee in the water.

But wait, read on—

While investigating the alleged kidnapping, several witnesses came forward saying they recognized a couple matching Aimee and Ormiston’s description. It seems the couple was seen visiting hotels and resorts up and down the West Coast.

Naaah … it’s easy to mix people up—

Before a grand jury could be convened, the District Attorney charged Aimee with obstruction of justice and suborning perjury. When the grand jury was convened they heard more testimony from witnesses who saw the couple in Carmel, California and they reviewed testimony from handwriting experts who testified that the handwriting on registration cards from several hotels was Aimee’s.

Blatant lies and blatant forgeries~! No saint would do such a thing, and (sanctified or not) ‘Sister’ Aimee was a saint. So there~!

In the 1930’s Aimee fell in love and eloped with David Hutton, a singer and actor who played a part in one of Aimee’s illustrated sermons. The marriage was considered scandalous because it broke one of the rules that Aimee herself helped set up. A divorced person was not supposed to marry as long as the former spouse was still alive. Harold McPherson was still alive. Many people saw this marriage as a case of do as I say, not as I do on Aimee’s part

buitre16What more can anyone say? Golden Rule invocation:

HE HOO

HAS THE GOLD…

…MAKES THE RULES

SO THERE!

.

“Mr Argus, Sir?” (Bugger … it’s little Virginia.)

“Yes, beloved child?”

“Sir … aren’t you being a wee bit disrespectful?”

“What’s to respect, Kid?”

“Other people’s beliefs, Sir?”

“Some grown-ups believe in Santa too, Kiddo—”

“The people themselves then?”

“I should respect someone who believes in chopping folks heads off in the street for disrespecting their beliefs?”

“Wot? I mean, wot Sir?”

“Same God, different franchises, Kid. What’s to respect?”

Indeed.

It’s hee hoo time again—

.

Hee hoo has the most guns

sets the local beliefs.  QED

.

Bovine-excrement-meter-animation

Foursquare:  take one in with you next time …

ouch* Freedom means never having to make sense.

MORE ON

SCIENCE-BASED   dragons17

FADS.

(And yes, you were intended to read ‘more on’ as moron. Well spotted, you~!)

FIRST, YOUR GIVENS—

  • today’s hard ‘fact’ is often tomorrow’s giggle
  • a fact is a perception
  • science may bury folks prematurely
  • but it never admits that it is wrong

buitre16

NOW, PLEASE

refute me?

No?

Okay then …

we’ll move on and here’s your ‘quote of the day’—

“All our perceived wisdom on healthy diets largely comes from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when the main focus was on heart disease and diabetes.

But the world has moved on now and, as we know, the population is ageing rapidly.

“What we discovered in our research is that the diet guidelines formed in those past decades do not cover the whole field. The world is shifting gear and an ageing population is transitioning into old age – but the diet guidelines we hold dear do not apply to older people,” he says.

Another “Oh dear” and from:  CLICK HERE

BUT in the meantime—which means for the duration of the ‘fact’—lots of lovely money is milked made from the gullible by the unsavoury. A form of win/win, actually … now (and totally unrelated, I assure you): have you had your flu shots yet?

bunny

KISMET