AN ENGLISH PROSE
Autumn – another season of pettifogging and shallow fruitlessness.
Another political season of liars and ne’er-do-wells talking glibly and unashamedly about honesty and moral high-ground, as if they know what they say. Clean-shaven disingenuousness and brazen contradictions still aiming to fox us with their feudal mafia behaviours.
Reneging on agreements and making Nazi-like statements that sadly, desperately, go unnoticed and unchallenged by poppy-wearers everywhere, making the short journey from bluebirds over the whitewashed clips of Dover to callous, using British and UK channels to freestyle the existential divide.
Car horns sound, car lights glance angrily at one another in the mists of time; in this darkened age where right is might is right, and the urban jungle floor is ironically alive with unlorded vermin, while the leafy suburb jungle roof is cynically alive with lorded vermin.
Strains of a paid piper seducing the infantilised away from reality infuses the sophisticatedly standardised airwaves, producing that catch all tune by which we party-line dance in absurd efficiency.
Vulgar fractions, above and below the social dividing principle, cheat and market-stall an enlightenment, putting truth and integrity in algebraic parentheses, never to be worked out, defying even narrow economic rules and logic to produce a valueless deus ex machina.
PULLING OUT OUR PUDSEYS
A Tory MP, part-time journalist, guru, cyclist, entrepreneur, Nigel Ardley, is apoplectic over the smirk on Pudsey’s face.
This symbol of our continued, annual celebration of needy children is accused of being somewhat indifferent, or even, amused by the desperate cause that the entertainment-fest represents.
A leading tabloid joined in the condemnation of the ‘stuffed’ icon of our annual performance of compassion, citing the smirk as a bona fide laugh in the face of overseeing the vulnerability of children in society, in this country and globally.
Defenders of the little, cuddly, yellow fellow are saying that the expression is one of hope and joy at our increasing generous contributions to children in need, year on year on year on year. They also say the little huggable bear symbolises our determination to oppose such counter-intuitive ideological impulses like those being mooted by the current government. These impulses are to privatise and introduce the profit motive into a previously public sector agency that currently cares for vulnerable children. Maybe the smirk would be wiped off Pudsey’s face if he could know what the government plans for vulnerable children in need of compassion, sympathy and support. How could anyone, even a stuffed symbol, condone seeing children’s vulnerability as an opportunity for some agency, benefitting from cronyism, as in the security and welfare arenas, to personally profit and see vulnerable children as a mere economic commodity for opportunistic exploitation?
To help children, and Pudsey from overwork in the future, it would be more constructive to make known the government’s plans to exploit children’s vulnerability which will result in more children in need. The perverse urge to entertain ourselves through the hosting and watching of TV programmes prompting, by emotional blackmail, the extraneous provision of monies for needy children, only perpetuate the myth that we are living in an age of charitableness. Such self-promoting displays effectively hide the conditions of political and economic callous indifference to children’s actual needs.
FIGHTING FOR PEACE OR WAR?
Does the poppy symbolise remembrance of sacrifice of those who have fought, or indeed are fighting for freedom to fight again for political and economic expediency, or for freedom to eradicate such conflict?
What of the contexts in which this sacrifice takes place; the designated war arenas or the socio-political battlefields that see wholly avoidable deaths, results of strategic, legislative attacks on what war calls collateral damage but what (who) we might, in our claims to humanity, call fellow (vulnerable) citizens of society.