The First Baloo

Hi again guys, you must feel truly blessed to be inundated with so many updates... My pondering this week looks at how great it is to be compared to a beloved childhood character.

One of the perks of being a Cub Leader has been choosing my own name, although it's not been made as public as it eventually will be. For those of you who don't know, the tradition for Cub leaders is for them to take the name of a character from the Jungle Book. There is a long history behind this, but basically it stems from the friendship between Rudyard Kipling (the author of the Jungle Book) and Lord Baden Powell (founder of Scouts.) The idea behind leaders having names is, I think, to create the distance between the leaders and the children which would be suitable in such a situation. This is a similar way of doing things to how teachers are only known by "Mr" or "Mrs" at school, except less formal.

As I think I said on this blog about two years ago, I decided upon Baloo. This is almost entirely because he's good at singing, and is loveable in the Disney film of The Jungle Book. However, when I started my Assistant Leader training about this time last year, I decided that I should read the Jungle Book (as in, the actual book), in order to properly educate myself as to what it was really all about. I'm assuming that most of you haven't actually read the Jungle Book; it's really weird. It's split into shorter stories - some are about Mowgli and his adventures in the jungle, there's one about a mongoose called Rikki Tikki Tavi, and one about a seal called Sea Catch (I think - there's lots of seals.) For a children's book, I wouldn't really recommend it for children, to be honest.

I'm just glad they don't call me Rikki Tikki Tavi.

Having read the book now, I do agree that I made the right choice with Baloo. He's not as fun-loving and easygoing as he is in the Disney film, and I like that. I like that there's two sides of the character which work together or separately. It makes it seem more real, more... Like me. Maybe.

The first time one of my Cubs called me Baloo was at camp the other weekend. It was one of the best feelings I've ever had. Like, for once, I was more than just another person; I had a specific role in this child's life and it made me feel important. It made me feel grown up.

I guess that must be what being a parent feels like.

Why Is There So Much Good Music?

Hey folks, here's another procrastinatory ponderance for you!

Why is it that there's so much excellent music out there? I'm currently listening to Roger Daltrey singing "Giving It All Away" - listen to it if you get the chance, it's beautiful - and I've started pondering how there can be so much powerful and moving music in existence. Whilst revising today I've had the four and five star music on my iTunes playing and there's such a variety of music here that it makes me wonder how such amazing music can cover so many genres and styles.

I know my music isn't all going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I've got all sorts of stuff playing today; heavy rock, soft rock, glam rock, Alice Cooper (whatever he counts as - mildly sadistic hard rock?), ballads, soul, reggae, pop and electric, acapella, ska... and something my Dad has listed as "Woody's Chinese Takeaway" (I don't want to know - although it refers to Hong Kong Swing by Cruella DeVille, which is a great song). The list is (at least, it might as well be) endless. And the Wurzels hasn't even played yet! The point is, Wurzels aside, there is such great music out there in every genre that people can enjoy. That's what I love about music, it's just so remarkable, regardless of where its inspiration lies, or anything like that.

Which is why I can never have a show on URN.
Annoyingly, this is true. Because the music I love comes from all sorts of genres, era, backgrounds etc.  I can't therefore have an After Dark (specialist music) show; I don't have a specialism, my music is just stuff I like. I couldn't have a Daytime show because of the reliance upon and the requirement of the Playlist. For those of you who don't know, a certain number of songs in each show on URN are required to be from a preset playlist of recent song I've almost never heard of. If I were to do a radio show, I'd want to play endless awesome music which I could really enthuse about, rather than a combination which included some songs I had no idea about. That's not to say I don't want to include modern music in what I listen to, but if I don't know what it is, I can't be excited to play it.

Anyway, mildly pessimistic rant over; I'll leave you all now.

Emmatt Update: I realise there's not been one of these for a while, and for some reason people still care, so here we are. Matt and I were working together at Phatpocket again over Easter, if only for a week. We didn't see as much of each other as we'd have liked during the rest of my holiday back home (what an odd concept) because Matt had exams and I was still working for quite a lot of it. However, we're still going strong, having seen each other last Sunday when I was back home on a Cub Camp - the things I do, eh? - and there is a plan for him to come and visit me here after my exams finish on 4th June, although the exact date is uncertain at the moment.

If It's Twenty Four Hour Silence...

So Ancaster Hall is meant to have a twenty four hour silence policy, to allow students to study for their impending exams. However, although I am aware that I would be in serious trouble if I did so much as turn my music up louder than absolutely necessary, or watched TV online without headphones, I am also aware that there are several things stopping the silence. So my ponderance today is:
If Ancaster Hall is meant to be silent twenty four hours a day, then why...:

• ... Do large, very loud lorries drive past my room periodically between the times of 06:00 and at least 15:30?
• ... Is the idiot in the room below me allowed to play his ridiculously loud dubstep/club music so that I can hear it through my floor, when I can't even have my radio loud enough to be able to hear it in my own bathroom?
• ... Have the girls upstairs been throwing things out of their window for no apparent reason and then spending half an hour yelling at each other from the ground to the second floor trying to get it out of the spiky bushes that they know are incredibly spiky (designed to prevent intruders)?
• ... Have the aforementioned girls got very cross with me when I shouted out the window telling them to be quiet as it's meant to be silent?
• ... Are the boys outside allowed to stand almost directly outside my room and play (very loud) football? 
• ..., if all the above are true, am I not allowed to watch a film with my friends?

The Small Horse Identity Crisis Question

Hello there folks! Many of you will be aware that I have recently been pondering the following question:

Does a small horse ever have an identity crisis and wonder if it's actually a pony?

Or, on the other hand:

Do large ponies ever have identity crises and think they're really just very short horses? (In which case, do they get angry?)

However, the darling Amanda informs me that the only difference between a pony and a horse is the size*, apparently above the size 13 3 (I think this is in hands, but I'm not sure, she wasn't very explanatory) makes the animal a horse. So now my question has changed slightly:

Would a horse which was borderline pony-size consider itself a very tall pony? And if so, would it then bully smaller ponies and try and reign over them like some sort of King Pony? After that, would it eventually move on to try and take control of groups of larger horses in a sort-of Napoleonic way? And can we really survive another Napoleon-esque emperor? Especially one that's actually a horse and might not be sympathetic to human customs, or might even take out revenge for all its ancestors and their mistreatment by humankind? 

Oh the humanity!

Can you imagine how horrible it would be for that small horse/tall pony though? He'd never feel like he belonged anywhere; he'd be too tall to be friends with the real ponies, but he would be laughed at by the taller horses for him diminutive stature. How cruel would that be?

To be honest, there's a bit of a philosophical query here: should you want to be the best in your social group, or should you want to be the least educated and qualified in the hope of bettering yourself by being surrounded by those greater than you? I prefer the latter; a quote I try to live by is "If you're the cleverest person in the room, you're in the wrong room" - this is sometimes too difficult to judge, as lots of people are clever in different ways, but if you know more than everyone else in the room, you should probably try to move in greater circles. Unless you're a teacher, in which case you should be the cleverest person in that room. But even then, that's not every room.

*(This makes me wonder if you could actually have a Shetland horse. Because I really want one now.)

A "Short" Feminist Rant

*This post doesn't contain explicit content, as such, but it is probably not suitable for younger readers (let's rate it 12A)

. It covers some sensitive topics, so if you're easily offended then you may prefer not to read. 

I have said nothing offensive, but just in case...*

OK, So Helen put up this link to a BBC programme about sexism. (Check it out here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0436qlw/blurred-lines-the-new-battle-of-the-sexes - I'm not sure for how long it'll be on the website, but have a look if you can. As a result, I haven't got as angry as Helen has, but I am pondering the limits of feminism and sexism.

One man on the show (a comedian whose name I've forgotten) claimed that if one group in society is closed off from comedy, they are closed off from society. That is, in my opinion, entirely true, however, I have never heard anybody make jokes about raping or sexually abusing men in the same way that many comedians have started to do with regards to women. There has to be one standard for both parties; for me, it has to stop before rape jokes are even considered. I don't have a problem with light-hearted sexism (obviously I would appreciate it much more if it wasn't apparent at all, but for now I will tolerate it), but there has to be a line.

Talking of which, I return to my favourite subject: Robin Thicke and his hideously degrading song "Blurred Lines", which I wrote a little about on this blog six months ago. I think that level of abuse aimed at anybody, male, female, black, white, ginger, old, young, big, small, kitten, polar bear etc., is entirely unacceptable. If a woman, for example Jessie J, had written and performed a song about physically and sexually abusing men and date raping attractive guys on nights out, set to a background of almost entirely naked men dancing suggestively and succumbing to her every will, whilst she walks domineeringly between them wearing a "power suit" (that's a power suit, not a Power Ranger suit), then the entire music industry would be in uproar, closely followed by the internet. However, because Robin Thicke is a man singing about abusing and committing crimes against women it's acceptable, and anyone who makes a fuss on the internet or elsewhere is immediately a "feminazi" (I hate that word.)

It's not only the treatment of women that annoys me, as you can see, but also the double standard. If I were to walk down to dinner now and say something along the lines of "I just got off with a guy in the car park. He didn't really want to at first, but after a while he was too preoccupied to complain much" I would be met with absolute bedlam. Obviously, I would be lying; I've been sitting here writing this, and talking to friends online, but the point still stands. People would be angry, and rightly so, there would be all sorts of reports about me and I'd probably be facing a disciplinary action based on my behaviour.*
I have a feeling that if a lot of men/boys my age were to say that (and their language would more than likely be much more explicit) they would be met by rowdy cheers from their friends and heart congratulations. I also have a horrible feeling that it wouldn't matter to many of them whether the boy/man/guy/dude saying that was telling the truth or not, he would just seem like a bit of a Jack-The-Lad for a few hours, and nobody would report anything to anyone, even if they suspected it to be true.*

Finally, for now, there has been a discussion on this show based around the abuse that women on the TV get over social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. A lot of which is entirely irrelevant to their work in/on television and is purely speculation about their sexual prowess or attractiveness. Several of these were threats of rape and/or violence on many levels up to, and including, murder. Regardless of which gender you are, that is illegal and should be treated as such. This belief that people can get away with it if it's on the internet is not true; you're still threatening somebody's life. That's a violation of their Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1 - Acts 2, 3 and 12, if you don't believe me) and should be treated as such. That's not feminism, that's common sense and the protection of the law.

And that's all I have to say at the moment. It's not a case of women getting special treatment; feminism is entirely about equality in the good stuff and the bad stuff. It doesn't mean chivalry, or women being better than men. It means everyone should be held to the same standards and offered the same respect by every member of society. Perhaps if we renamed it "equalism" then people would get the message.




* I feel for my own sake I should say that I am not condoning rape, or abuse of other people, in any way. Nobody should be allowed to physically assault anyone else and that is one of the key points for a peaceful society. The above scenarios are merely an (only slightly) exaggerated example to prove a point.

So, Books And That...

Well, I know it's been a while, but... Alright, alright calm down. I know it's been a long time. Just, just leave it OK?

ANYWAY... I don't really have a lot to say about anything today. I'm back at Phatpocket for a few weeks over Easter (hence the title). Man, I thought I liked books. After today I never want to see another book again, especially it it says "All England Law Report" on the spine. Or anywhere else for that matter.
But I have realised that I definitely want several plastic cratey-pallatey-things, NOT full of books, to use as various shelters and hidey holes and maybe a treehouse.

I'd love to have a treehouse.

So, whilst the rest of the world has been busy revising. I've been lifting and carrying books to and fro. Hardly educational or what-have-you, but certainly entertaining at times; and it;'s earning me some money, so I can't complain too much!

And the company isn't too bad; it's mostly the same people that were here last time, except Ollie - he's new. And Paul - he joined when I was there; he's basically been hired to do the job that Scott should do, but passes onto Chloe and Anya.

SO yeah, work is the same as ever; just with fustier books. But at least I'm blog writing again :)