Worried? Me? Sure, Why Not

It takes a worried man to sing a worried song,

It takes a worried man to sing a worried song,

I’m worried now, but I won’t be worried long!

Woody Guthrie

Anxiety is a killer, literally. When one is anxious, the stress causes great harm to the body. However, everyone is anxious about something, indeed, if you were not then you might very well be a sociopath (which if you are, good for you).

Stress and anxiety are generally considered as negatives. Alan Watts treats anxiety as a cycle that needs to be broken. Indeed, his most famous quote for his half-baked (if I’m being generous) philosophy is, ‘No amount of anxiety makes any difference to anything that is going to happen’, which is patently untrue.

Why is it untrue? Well, let’s engage in a little thought experiment. Say you have to go on a long journey with which you are unfamiliar. Before the journey you are worried because you are dealing with the unknown. So, what do you do? You do research- you check train times, you check maps, you set up the sat-nav, in other words, you create a roadmap (pun intended) for your journey. And so, we can see that the worry you had about the journey has been helpful because through it you have taken decisive actions which can reduce the anxiety. This, Mr Watts, will change what is going to happen.

Anxiety before a big event can also be known to sharpen the senses. The question here must be, why are you worried? You are worried because the event matters to you and/or your own wellbeing matters to you. So, by feeling the anxiety, it can help you to focus better on what is required and block out any irrelevant noise.

Now, you might be thinking, what of the Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, what of the Buddha, who said that you should not have concerns about the future, and should only focus on the now? Indeed, Epicurus said that the greatest destroyer of happiness is fear of the future.

Here, it seems that the above have been misunderstood. By saying that one should only focus on what one can control, i.e. the present, what they are saying is that if one uses the present to think and plan ahead then one can have more control over the future. There is a difference between worrying about an unknown future and making plans and provisions to counter possible future problems. Saving money, brushing your teeth, taking an umbrella when the forecast is rain are all actions in the present designed to prevent, or lessen, problems in the future. Indeed, the anxiety that ‘I may get wet’, can changes future events by preventing the wetness by use of an umbrella.

Here, I think, we can determine two forms of anxiety. One form is when one is proactive and takes steps to reduce or lessen possible future problems and the other is when one is inactive and does not take the steps. As with most things, it all comes down to subjectivity. Some people see, to use the cliché, obstacles as challenges, others see them as unscalable walls. To be fair, some problems cannot be solved, some anxieties are justified, and this is where the action that can be taken is psychological and not physical (in the most part- one can engage in physical activity combined with the thought process). For example, we all grow old- if we are lucky. The aging process is natural. However, by accepting it, this obstacle can become an opportunity to develop as a person. A misunderstanding of Buddhism is that ‘to live is to suffer’ which people take to mean it is all hopeless and life is suffering. What it actually means is that, yes, when we live, at times we suffer, but by finding the cause of our suffering we can cease or lessen it.

To live is to suffer from anxiety, this is true, however, anxiety is not life, it is a part of us that once we accept, can be used to aid personal growth and let us become the truest versions of ourselves

‘till next time            

Sexual Harassment and Internet Culture

The other day, a friend of mine, who is a fashion designer, posted two pictures of her on social media. In one she was wearing a short dress of her design, and the other was a long dress. In the caption underneath, to generate comments, she asked which looked better. Most of the comments I saw were congratulating her on her beauty, nothing a woman likes more than being reduced to her aesthetics, however, one comment I saw noted that it didn’t matter, because he would take them off of her. In reply to his comment, others commented to slap him on his back and tell him how clever and funny he was. However, no one responded to reprimand him for sexual harassment (I reported the comment to Instagram on the basis of harassment because there wasn’t an option to report sexual harassment and Instagram replied that he hadn’t violated any of their behaviours).

This example is just one, comparatively minor, example of the pathological sickness that is on the internet in relation to women. The internet is a reflection of society, but it also is its own society. Behaviours one would not publicly do in real life (offline) are common practice online. In this instance, we have a designer who also happens to be a beautiful lady. When posting a picture to generate media traffic to promote her work, she asks an innocuous question. Some people see the picture and realise that if they met in real life, she would probably not even notice them, so hiding behind their anonymity online, they post their sexual fantasies to try to pretend to them, and others, but mostly them, that their impotence in a real-life situation would not exist.

What does this tell us? It tells us that society is pathologically unwell. These behaviours are to be expected and aren’t surprising, however, these behaviours are not inherent behaviours but must be learnt. Where are they learnt from? Family and peers. In a culture such as China where women are deemed less, then such behaviours are considered normal (my friend is Chinese). However, it is not only in Asia where such behaviours exist, it happens on every continent in the world, and always has. The #MeToo movement was supposed to try to put an end to such behaviour but society is so sick that when reports of the behaviours came out, the responses were, ‘yeah, we know…’ (eye roll), or ‘you are WOKE to care about such things!’ WOKE, apparently, is what one calls someone who has grown up and realised that behaviours, such as racism, sexual harassment, bullying etc., are bad and so try to help end the practices. At this point it is important to note that is it is not only men who make such comments about women. Women also make them about men and women make them about women although the latter’s motivation is probably less about sexual desire and more from jealousy.  

Another trend on social media stems from the Asian media form of Anime. In the comic books and films, graphic scenes are portrayed, mostly harmful to women with rape and death common. One trend which is common in online culture from Anime is the notion that any woman to whom one is sexually attracted is called ‘Mummy’. Incest has a big role in Anime. Other than being objectively disgusting, such behaviours desensitises people to what it actually means. Incest is something which destroys lives, however, due to the influence of Anime, it is seen as being a normal part of culture. This is not to say that media is objectively bad- there was rape, murder and incest before mass media, however, that people are isolating themselves away from actual social contact to live in fantasies with their online friends and ‘simp’

(WHAT DOES SIMP MEAN? : Simp is a slang insult for men who are seen as too attentive and submissive to women, especially out of a failed hope of winning some entitled sexual attention or activity from them. dictionary.com),

which is weird but for some that’s what they like. However, the danger of this is that they never learn the most important aspect of actions: consequences.   

‘till next time    

How Economics Distorts Value in Sport

In the 1990s, in Europe, there was a footballing competition, originally, called the European Cup. The top teams from the previous year across the leagues of Europe, would play knock-out football against each other to see who was the best team in European football. However, in the 90s, this changed. An American business man called Craig Thompson went to the governing body, UEFA, which was then based on two floors of an office building in Switzerland, and proposed what became known as the Champions League. Instead of straight out knock-out football it was now leagues of 4, who would play each other twice, home and away (6 games in all). The top two teams from each league would then qualify for the knock-out stages with two teams reaching the final. This, on the surface, seemed like a good idea, however, the most obvious stumbling block had to be overcome- economics. Each and every club was interested in the economics of one entity- their self, and the Champions League was interested in one thing- itself. After much negotiation and compromise (the anecdotal definition of a compromise is that after everyone has agreed, no one is ‘happy’) it was decided.

The question then became, who would complete? Historically teams from Eastern Europe had dominated European football, but now with the wealth of the Spanish, Italian and German leagues, along with the new English Premier League, the historic clubs were deemed less likely to generate the funds desired and so the competition was created to protect the interests of the ‘big’ (rich) leagues. England, Italy and Spain, to name but three, were given 4 places each- 3 automatic and 1 going through qualifiers. It was also arranged so that teams would be seeded so that the bigger teams wouldn’t be able to play each other in the group stage, nor could teams from the same country. In other words, the odds were stacked to protect the teams who could generate the most wealth. Historically great teams such as Ajax of Amsterdam, the team which reshaped world football tactics with their notion of total football (think of how Manchester City and Barcelona play) could now win their leagues and still not qualify for the group stages of the Champions League as they had to play two qualifying rounds. The impact of Ajax on world football cannot be argued, however, due to being in a relatively small league with not much wealth compared to the likes of the Premier League, they were deemed to be of less value than the team finishing third in Germany.  

With the added wealth of qualifying for the group stages, the bigger clubs became richer and moved further away from the likes of Ajax. Ajax still could qualify and do well, but then their best few players would be signed by the richer clubs and, although their youth system being second to none in producing talent, they could not compete regularly with the types of clubs who deem the Champions League a birth right, even if historically they had struggled to qualify for European football at the highest level (Barcelona).

This distortion of value led some clubs thinking that they are bigger than the game so in 2021, 12 clubs (AC Milan, Arsenal, Atletico Madrid, Chelsea FC, FC Barcelona, Inter Milan, Juventus, Liverpool FC, Manchester City, Manchester United, Real Madrid and Tottenham Hotspur- seriously, Tottenham, a team never to win the Premier League) released a press statement saying that they were founding a Super League which they would control and other teams to qualify for if they hit their criteria, criteria that would benefit historic teams over new emerging talents.

European outcry led to 9 of the teams backing out, however, 4 stayed in saying that without it they could not exist as a team any more (one example is Barcelona who despite being over 1 billion euros in debt, spent 70 million euros in the last transfer window). UEFA threatened sanctions against the teams but did not carry them through leading to reports in 2022 that ten of the teams had signed up again (no Tottenham though).

There is more to this story which we will cover another time, but what we have above is a clear example of how the true value of sport- competition- can be distorted and lost by economics.

‘till next time       

The Context of History

Over the last few weeks, the world has stood and watched events unfurling in Ukraine. Ukraine applied for membership to NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and Russia responded by invading Russia. NATO, and other countries responded by imposing sanctions on Russia, seizing the assets of Russian businesspeople, and providing economic and military hardware support.

If this sounds familiar that is because it should. Let’s look at Russia first. Russia, since the fall of the Soviet Union, has been trying to reclaim its former glory. Since then, it has made incursions (a polite way of saying invading) into countries which it thinks has either threatened its position or that it has just wanted ‘back’ for natural resources, location etc. If you look at this, one might think that Russia fears a Domino Effect. The Domino Effect is when one country changes its allegiance and then so do others. This can be through choice or lack of (e.g., invasion). Fear of the Domino Effect is one of the primary reasons given for the United States of America’s war in Vietnam. Scared that the country would become a Communist Paradise (a what?), America decided to invade it lest other countries around would see this paradise and wish to be as happy as them. This, of course, had little basis in reality and was primarily paranoia caused by the Cold War. And so, we can see, from recent history, that such behaviours rarely end the way the invader plans and instead of a being a clean sweep, the locals of the country have different ideas and home advantage. The ‘blitzkrieg’ becomes drawn out jungle warfare- the same type which foiled Rome’s dreams of expansion into what is now known as Germany.   

Sanctions are rules that are brought in to punish a country economically. It prevents the sale of certain items, or the buying of other. The premise is to weaken the government of the country by hitting its economics. Yet, as the current situation in Russia shows, echoing history, it is not the governments which are impacted, rather it is the people who have no interest in war, the general populous, most notably the poorest members. As former US President Donald Trump’s sanctions on China impacted negatively the lives of soy farmers in the US, so it is the poorer members of, not only Russia, but also NATO members who feel the brunt. With a pandemic, Brexit etc. decimating economies across the world, the sanctions, especially the price of fuel, is having a negative impact. Reports from supermarkets in the UK say that more people are using food banks and some are turning down the donations as they cannot afford to cook it. Seizing the assets of war criminals is one thing, and, I believe, that money should be put into the local economies and returned to where it came from (note: many Russian Oligarchs, such as Roman Abramovich, achieved their wealth through stealing from the public), however, sanctions primarily hurt those who are innocent, after all, former US President Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economics only impacts when what is to trickle down is negative.

Neville Chamberlain wanted to save Britain from having to fight a war. And so, when Adolf Hitler ‘expanded’ Germany territory through invasion, signed an appeasement treaty with Hitler which said that, yes you can invade these countries, but leave us out of this (I’m paraphrasing, a little). Later after, predictably, Germany’s expansion threatened Britain, US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who knew about the Holocaust, the fall of France, Poland etc., wanted to stick to his ‘non-intervention’ policy, essentially the same as the appeasement, and so offered military aid to Britain. However, instead of directly giving the aid, the fighter planes were flown to Canada and had their fuel drained. British pilots then refilled the planes and flew them back to Britain.

What we are currently seeing in Ukraine is nothing more than history repeating itself. The same policies that were implemented previously are the same ineffective policies that were used before by countries desperate not to have to be more involved than necessary. Russia’s invasion to prevent Ukraine joining NATO has led to other countries on its borders (many historically neutral) to desperately fast-track membership to NATO applications, fearing that what is happening to Ukraine will happen to them. Sanctions are impacting the poorest people and are not ceasing the war. The policy of ‘we cannot offer boots on the ground as it may upset Russia’ is the same appeasement which means that countries think they can carry out war crimes, free from the fear of retribution.

Remember one important thing here- Russia is 100% in the wrong in its actions.

‘till next time (uh huh)                

How to Teach Shakespeare to 13 Years Old Me

Recently I attended a talk about how to teach to teenagers. The premise of the talk was that the most important thing to do was to teach the students how to understand the structure and the elements which make a play- blank verse, stage directions etc. In the Question-and-Answer portion of the talk, I raised my concerns with this approach. Yes, in a simplistic view it may prepare people best for exams, however, the question is, is this the best way to help people understand literature, and so be able to demonstrate, in their exams, a full understanding of the text? Based on my own experiences of studying Shakespeare in school, I would say not. I found the way that Shakespeare was taught so unbearable that I dropped English Literature and studied the formal, Language, side only.  This, one might think given my copious references to literature in these pages, seems almost impossible. However, it is true. The way that I was taught Shakespeare was so repulsive to me that I ran as far away from it as possible.

Now, you might be wondering, what changed? In these pages we have had references to Shakespeare: Hamlet; Richard II, etc., so how did you go from running away from it to embracing it? The answer is very simple.

When you are in school you are told: this is Shakespeare, he is great, you will love him, isn’t he clever? And then you will be introduced to the form, counting syllables etc., all perfect things to teach one to be an accountant, not a lover of literature. Yet, what you are not taught is the most fundamental question, the one which makes all of the other parts matter. Why is Shakespeare considered so great?

The way that Shakespeare is taught stems from the premise that- I was told, when I was in school, that he is great, and so I am passing this wisdom on to you. As you can see, this is counter-educational. Education is about teaching people to think for their selves but, instead, it is as dogmatic as any religion that the government and schools refuse to teach. People may not leave school with a GCSE in English, but they will leave knowing that Shakespeare is great, even if they don’t think so themselves. 

Given my obvious trauma (tee hee) from the way Shakespeare was taught, why do I admire him now, to a certain extent? Do I think that he is the ‘greatest of all time’? No, firstly such question is impossible to answer as you cannot compare people in different time and places, nor intangible aspects of existence (note: by ‘you cannot compare people in different time and places’, I am saying that things only make any sense in their context, however, it is possible to judge the future based on the past, i.e. Civil Rights, Human Rights now compared to then). If I was asked who is the greatest, I would say that one of the ones I enjoy most is Arthur Miller, and I could explain why. However, that may be true for me, but it may not be true for another. After all, all literature is subjective.

When, at this event, I was explained how I got into Shakespeare, I was told that I missed the point of education. This may be true, but if we go back to my pre-education of Shakespeare, I liked Macbeth and Hamlet. But, you must be wondering, how is this possible if I did not know his genius of using blank verse etc.? Simply, I read Shakespeare adaptations for children. What was great about the books, say Macbeth, was that here was some guy who met witches and then started killing people. It was a great story, and the preteen me enjoyed the bloodshed and mystical elements of it. Did I understand it? No idea, I just knew a great story took place and a bunch of people were killed because some witches told them they would do so, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Later, after leaving fulltime education, I encountered Shakespeare again, but this time it was on my own terms, again. As regular readers will know I am interested in history, especially ancient history, and also admire the acting of Marlon Brando. And so, watching the story of Caesar with Brando playing Marc Anthony (Brutus is an honourable man) I understood the brilliance of Shakespeare’s use of language (although I think the King James Bible uses it better) and how it wove together the themes presented in a great story- one of betrayal, revenge and murder. In other words, my approach to Shakespeare both pre and post education was from a literary standpoint, is this a good story? And, although the people who ran the talk strongly disagreed with me, I believe that the best way to teach Shakespeare to children of all abilities is to first approach it as a story, and then consider how he manages to convey the different elements of the story through structure and language. And this, ‘non-academic’ approach to literature will increase academic performance for how can you explain a story if you don’t first understand the fundamental aspect of literature: narrative?

‘till next time