Title Fight: Rock vs Smith

 I haven't done a blog in A G E S cos I prefer to vent my spleen at humanity over on Twitter (@HeggieFVK again - my boys are back!!! ;; ) but this one is a gnarly situation...

The Cast
Chris Rock (b. 1965), a 'comedian' of dubious humour
Will Smith (b. 1968), an actor
Jada Pinkett Smith (b. 1971), Will's wife / an actress

The Plot
Rock is presenting the Oscar for best documentary (going to Questlove for 'Summer Of Soul') at the 2022 Academy Awards. Smith is up for (and eventually wins) best actor (King Richard - which it turns out is about tennis and not Shakespeare). But before that can happen Rock goes off script and makes a 'joke' about Pinkett Smith and G.I. Jane 2.

The Event
Smith strides up to the stage and slaps Rock across the face (a lot of reports and comments say it was a punch, depending on exactly what you think you see in the footage, personally I'm not interested in trying to analyse it although I will say that I thought it looked FAKE) before returning to his seat.

The Fall Out
Naturally enough the morning after the night before it's practically the only thing the interwebs are talking about. There are a whole bunch of takes that I'll tackle in no particular order.

1) Violence Is Always Wrong
I don't think there's any disagreement that Smith was at fault. It was an unacceptable reaction. However the calls from certain people (mostly, from what I've seen, outraged white men) for Smith to be stripped of his well-deserved Oscar is also an unacceptable reaction. Sure, Smith may have lowered the tone but Rock used a joke that was not pre-vetted and consequences were had. I feel it is worth noting that Smith apologised to the Academy for his actions... but not to Rock.

2) It was a G.I. Jane joke
This was Rock's response although TBH I'm not clear what he could have meant by that. My INITIAL response was that he was making a rude comment about Pinkett Smith's career. G.I. Jane (1997 movie starring Demi Moore in the title role) was a rubbish film - Moore got a Worst Actress Razzie and it made a loss at the box office Meanwhile Pinkett Smith's movies include a number of sequels, remakes, cameos, voice roles, etc. It's not an exaggeration to say she's most famous for being Mrs Will Smith.

3) Ableism
The G.I. Jane character is most famous for being BALD. Pinkett Smith suffers from alopecia areata, an autoimmune disease. Smith, and a large proportion of the internet denizens putting in their tuppenceworth (myself included) that 'making fun' of people's illnesses, disabilities, visible differences and so forth is entirely unacceptable.
If a 'joke' of that sort was made in a classroom or playground it would be classed as bullying; if it was in a work environment it'd be 'creating a toxic working environment'. The context of an awards ceremony does not make it okay.

4) Political Correctness Will Kill Comedy
First off, Chris Rock isn't remotely funny. Secondly this was not a skit in which fun was made of bald people or bald women, it was a specific comment directed at a specific woman. That's not 'political correctness gone mad', it's being 'anti-bullying'. I dislike the whole 'roasting' thing anyway but certain topics SHOULD be off limits, especially when aimed at individuals.
Since my mum's incapacitation my tolerance for stroke jokes has become non-existent but try to be funny at her expense and I'll show you an alternative meaning of the word 'punchline'.

5) The "maybe Chris Rock didn't know about the alopecia, I didn't" argument
This one is REALLY hard to swallow. Unless Rock had been living under a rock it's really damned unlikely. I don't follow celebrity shit beyond what pootles past my nose when scrolling Twitter but I've known about her alopecia for ages (she was diagnosed in 2018). It's had a lot of publicity.

6) It was just a joke
Okay, so this isn't REALLY a point here but following on from the maybe-he-didn't-know idea... In 2009 Chris Rock PRODUCED AND NARRATED a documentary called Good Hair, on the subject of the importance, social acceptance, and desirability of black American women's hair.
There is literally NO WAY IN HELL he didn't understand that a woman like Jada would hold their hair as an integral part of their identity and grieve its loss. Even if a woman has chosen to shave her head joking about people's appearances is never a good move.

7) Smith is henpecked / cuckolded / at his wife's mercy yada yada yada
Obviously, I don't know these people but I've seen bits and pieces over the twenty four years of their marriage. Whether she has cheated on him or whether they have an open marriage is entirely their business. Personally I dislike the dynamic they have as a couple but if it works for them it has nothing to do with anybody else.
The idea that Will hit Chris because 'Jada made him do it' is not outside the realms of possibility but I dislike the inherent sexism. When a woman is seen to be 'controlled by her husband she is an object of pity; when the reverse seems to be the case he is seen as pathetic, an object of ridicule.
IMHO it looked like Will was laughing uncomfortably at Rock's joke (knowing full well he was on camera, being seen by the world) and then caught the expression of hurt on Jada's face. Knowing that she'd just been insulted before an audience of over fifteen million at the most prestigious awards ceremony in the cinematic world must simply have been too much.
I also want to note here that in a long and prestigious career this is the VERY FIRST TIME I have seen Will Smith's name linked to any kind of questionable behaviour, let alone violence.
Rock however had insulted Jada at the 2016 Oscars too, making fun of her non-appearance as she hadn't been invited to attend. He's been in hot water for other controversial jokes and has not exactly led a squeaky-clean life. People in glass houses and all that...

My Review: Three Stars (wink-wink, get it???)
Violence is a pretty poor response but I can understand it. I have been bullied and I abhor trying to pass off hurtful behaviour as comedy or banter. Everyone sucks here, but Rock somewhat more than Smith.

Unpopular Opinion is Borderline Eugenicist

Original post (numbers are provided for points I'll be elaborating on):

[An Unpopular Opinion post transplanted from Reddit to Instagram]

Older children should not expect children to become unpaid babysitters (1a) for their younger siblings.

Entitled parents should not expect (2) pre teens / teens to share parental duties (1b). Don't have additional kids if you do not have the resources to hire childcare (3). Older children can learn responsibility in other ways that enriches their life (4). They should not be saddled with the burden of parenthood (5).

My response: 

Jeez, not everyone has resources and even if they do circumstances can change (6). Single parents don't have the luxury of paying for childcare so they can go out to earn a minimum wage (7). By the same logic don't get old if you can't afford care... (8)

Annoying bloody human response:

Don't have children if you do not have the resources to care for them (3, 6, 7). YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CHILDREN (9). On top of that, children do not owe their parents anything (10).

My further reply:

I have so many questions... So what are you supposed to do if once having had kids you lose those resources (6)? Lose your job, your partner, your savings, suffer illness, become disabled (6 & 7)? Will you magic your kids out of existence cos you can no longer afford childcare?! And sure children don't OWE their parents anything but when your mum is incapacitated by a severe stroke will you be able to turn your back on her (10)? Is it nice being such a horrible excuse for a human being?

(1) There is a massive difference between babysitting (1a) and parentification (1b). Asking ANY family member to watch a child (or children) on occasion is a normal and acceptable thing to do; asking that person to be a parent to your child is not. That's a given whether it's a grandparent, aunt / uncle, older offspring... The post would have had some validity if it had been taken as the latter but most people seemed unable to differentiate, seemingly saying an older sibling (of any age - 12, 14, 33) should never have to shoulder any responsibilities within their families whatsoever.
If this were purely about parents pumping out sprogs for their older kids to actually parent I would be in absolute agreement. That is most emphatically a form of child abuse (see the 'buddy system' implemented by families such as the Duggar clan - in their case with added sexism cos it's only the GIRLS who are forced to parent their siblings).
I've seen a lot on social media about dads 'babysitting' and pointing out that as a parent it's his DUTY to PARENT and he is emphatically not babysitting. Let's work on that point for a sec... Parenting duties usually fall predominantly on one person regardless of how many adults are involved and people refer to a non-parental duties adult (dad, step parent, poly partner etc) as 'babysitting' when they do it. If the non-parental duties adult(s) are supposed to raise the children - regardless of biological relationship (the number of times I've seen 'don't date someone with kids if you won't be a parent to them' (which is also BS, *IF* you take on parenting duties as a step parent it should *ONLY* be with the express consent of the custodial parent(s)) - is it really any different or extreme to expect older siblings to help out?!
Ever heard of the expression "it takes a village to raise a child"? Yet somehow we expect, nay DEMAND, that a couple (or single parent) do the job 100% alone unless they can AFFORD help.

(2) There is a massive difference between expecting / demanding childcare and needing / asking for it. Again, whether the potential provider is an older sibling or a grandparent or whoever. Taking advantage is wrong.
There is a world of difference between getting your 14 year old to watch their siblings so mum & dad can have a date night or somesuch bollocks and getting the same kid to do the same thing so mum can go to work to earn enough to feed them (see #7).
I'd say this was a thread of entitled lazy brats rather than a legitimate complaint against entitled parents who're actually being shitty.

(3) OP is literally a hair's breadth from eugenics here, essentially arguing that only the wealthy (and presumably those immune to mental and physical weakness) should have breeding rights.
Yikes.
This point also assumes that even if you have one child you will never acquire a step sibling or cousin or whatever for whom they may have childcare responsibilities foisted upon them. It also seems to presume that an only child cannot be neglected to the extent that they have to SELF-PARENT.
Furthermore I be people who spout this shit are the same people who endlessly complain that the people in power on this planet are all part of a super-elite of inherited wealth and status.

(4) Looking out for younger siblings is a principal way in which childcare skills are learned. But yeah, lets just focus on generalised 'responsibility'. 

(5) Assumes all parents chose to be parents. Newsflash sunshine, some of us never wanted kids but they happened anyway. TBH if I'd done babysitting at some point in my youth I'd have been far more careful and far more afraid of what I was getting myself into.
Also having parents is a burden and I never asked to be born (see point #10). Life comes with responsibilities - get over yourselves.

(6) The 'don't have additional kids if' bit REALLY gets me. You can be gainfully employed, a homeowner, have savings, be married when you conceive and lose the whole damn lot before the child is born. You never know what shit life is going to throw at you and only the ultra wealthy are likely to have any immunity against that kind of catastrophic life change. And if that can happen between conception and birth imagine what can happen before a kid reaches adulthood?!
Your partner can leave / refuse to pay child support / die.
You can lose your job / your home / your savings.
You, your partner, or one of your kids could suffer an illness, injury or disability that swallows up everything you have (medical bills, care bills, living aids, being unable to work due to incapacity or hospital visits etc etc) and / or require you to need physical help in looking after the kids you already have.
I find it incredibly elitist and ableist to assume that circumstances will not change. Imagine you are stable, working, have some kids... then a family member gets diagnosed with MS or cancer or something. Most families can't absorb the financial burden of an even like that. And that's assuming only ONE such catastrophic event hits your family.

(7) Personal story here: I was obliged to come off welfare and work instead. Fair enough in principle but I also had to take whatever job I was offered or suffer financial penalties. What I was offered was a split shift cleaning job 0545-0745 and 1700-1900. As I have no car / bike and buses weren't running (not that I could afford them anyway) at that time of the morning I was out of the house a minimum of 6 hours a day (I often did errands and grocery shopping en route cos all that walking destroyed my feet) when my kids were home alone... to earn £7/ hr (minimum wage at the time) for 4 hrs.
Assuming there are any babysitters who would come out at 5am and still only charge minimum wage (which, lets face it, for those antisocial hours isn't going to be a thing) I'd be paying £42 to earn £28 - a £14 loss with NOTHING left to pay the rent, fuel, food etc.
So yeah my then 14 yr old was responsible for her younger sister because there was literally no alternative. And yes, my younger child nearly died and was hospitalised as a direct result of this arrangement. I'm emphatically not recommending this lifestyle BUT I DIDN'T MAKE THE GODDAMNED RULES.
When I had my kids it's not even remotely the circumstances I thought I'd be in - for one thing at that time parents weren't obliged to work until their youngest was 16! Now it's something insane like 3 and I should consider myself 'lucky' it was 'only' 11 in my day.
How is a single parent supposed to feed their kids if they can't work?! Again, back to point #6 that just cos you have a partner at conception doesn't mean they'll stick around and not die. Anyone can end up a single parent and trust me, it's HARD.

(8) If you need to be able to 'afford childcare' (to an unknowable extent, at an unknown future rate of pay) to have kids what about getting older? Sure, paying into a pension and having a savings pot against incapacity would be good for those of us on a low or no income basis what do you suggest? Should I guzzle a case of quince gin and go for a swim when the time comes so as to reduce the burden on my kids? I certainly can't 'afford' to get old, especially if I end up like my mum...
I think we should have a Hurling Day like that episode of Jim Henson's Dinosaurs where elderly & infirm members of the herd are hurled (often by a son-in-law) off a cliff and into a tar pit. Okay, if it were actually a thing it'd probably be a rather kinder form of euthanasia but I hope I've made my point: we all face expenses we can't meet. The 'fortunate' among us won't encounter them or will die before we reach such a state of vulnerability. The rest of that need is largely met by a veritable army of unpaid carers without whom society would grind to an abrupt halt (see also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0yPZYBCuQU). And in that, lets not forget that an awful lot of those unpaid carers are themselves CHILDREN who society as a whole does little to nothing to assist. Yes, it's a bloody disgrace but blaming the parents for their own hardships is NASTY.

(9) Agreed. Children are NOT an entitlement or a fashion accessory. But coming back to point #3 berating poor or disadvantaged people for choosing to have a family is elitist, eugenicist bullshit. And if poor / disadvantaged people aren't 'entitled' to have a family what are you gonna do? Penalise them into greater poverty? Bring back workhouses or forced sterilisations? GENOCIDE???

(10) While I agree in principle many countries require children to pay for their parents' old age care and China has a law forcing adult kids to visit their elderly parents. In parallel we maybe should argue that kids aren't owed a particular type of childhood.
There's been at least a proposition of a law that parents have to love their kids... Sorry but that's not a thing that can be forced. Just because you have crotch goblins doesn't mean you automatically love or even like them.
Again, my personal story: my mum was a cold fish; I could never have described our relationship as close. But when she had a severe incapacitating stroke not only could I not in a gazillion years afford her care I also couldn't face dumping her in one of those awful places. The 'care' she got in an NHS hospital was appalling so heaven knows how bad it gets in those death waiting rooms.
Maybe I don't 'owe' her care in her decline but I am not such a terrible person as to ditch her. I don't even know if I could do that to my dad and he's a right toxic asshole.
I wonder if OP / asshat commenter would really be so agreeable if their beloved and pampered only child (as I would presume their crotch goblin to be if they stick to their principles) leaves home at 18 and never contacts them again cos "I don't owe you anything!"?

I may have asked the questions but I don't care to return to see if they answer any of them.
It is against my beliefs to ill-wish them but I kinda hope karma gives them a wake up call such as they end up a single parent of a half dozen kids with no familial support and minimal income and see how they fare. Their complete lack of empathy or understanding of hardships is staggering.
I privately judge other people's life choices as much as anyone; I'm particularly harsh on myself for ending up in this mess. But telling people they shouldn't have had their kids is VILE.
Mind you, I almost wish I was a callous, heartless individual who'd managed to dump my kids and my parents and have a life of my own but it wasn't to be.

Conquering 2021

Following on from 'My name is Heggie and I am an Addict' I decided to kick off 2021 with a The Conqueror / My Virtual Mission themed resolution. This is what was available at the start of the year:

In 2020 I completed NINE virtual challenges:

• Inca Trail, Peru (walking) 42 km
• Grand Canyon, USA (rowing) 451 km
• Ring Of Kerry, Ireland (cycling) 200 km
• Camino de Santiago, France-Spain (walking) 772 km
• Great Ocean Road, Australia (rowing) 240 km
• Alps to Ocean, New Zealand (cycling) 290 km
• Mount Fuji, Japan (climbing* + walking) 74 km
• Cabot Trail, Canada (cycling) 297 km
• Conquer 2020 (all of the above but with some extras - total 2020 miles)

I started in May and completed everything in advance of the New Year with the intent of having all 2021's challenges similarly completed within the calendar year.

I try to do each challenge in an apt way for the route (so I won't be doing the English Channel until I can swim it). I have an old rowing machine, in mid 2020 I acquired a recumbent exercise bike and climbing machine and, at the end of the year, I finally got an elliptical cross trainer.

I started 2021 with SIX challenges live and a SEVENTH code in the pipeline:

• Pyramids of Giza, Egypt (climbing* + walking) 75 km
• Mount Everest, Nepal (climbing* + elliptical) 64 km
• Ring Road, Iceland (cycling) 1332 km
• Land's End To John O'Groats (AKA LE JOG), UK (walking) 1743 km
• Appalachian Trail (AKA AT), USA (climbing* + elliptical + walking + rowing) 3167 km 
• Conquer 2021 (all of the above) set at 4040 miles being double 2020's target

* Climbing elements are the minimum amount required to cover the height of the whatever using a climbing machine and the conversion chart (1 min = 0.22 km); so the height of Mt Fuji, the sum heights of the principal pyramids, the height of Mt Everest, and the heights of TWELVE specially selected mountains of the Appalachians (namely: Mt Mitchell - the highest point, Currahee, Bear's Paw, Owl's Head, Goose Eye, Camel's Hump, Peaks Of Otter, Dick's Knob, Kitty Ann, Seven Sisters, Pixie, and Misery)

So here we are, in mid September (I meant to revisit this mid year but it's been a bit hectic, as always)... how's it going?!

Well, I got Giza and Everest completed pretty quickly although I have since decided to re-do the distance for Everest as ALL climbing and add that to AT. AT has been extended into 2022 to the max number of weeks as I am MONTHS behind. Not least as the goddamn cross trainer BROKE after a couple of months! I consequently changed my Conquer 2021 to a more attainable 4444km.

In the end I gifted that seventh code (for Hadrian's Wall) to my daughter (who I introduced to The Conqueror gifting her codes for Flower Route and Conquer 2021).. and bought several more for myself:

A Kruger Park challenge was introduced and then withdrawn due to complaints the route was too long & boring (they'll be relaunching it soon) so I signed up to the original before it was discontinued - I am cycling that in tandem (separate distances) with Ring Road. I am close on target with both - catching up and slipping behind again - but basically on track.

I bought the Marathon To Athens one and did the full thing overnight* August 27-28 styled as my Stupidly Long Walk™. I set out before 8pm, walked to Reading, caught a train to Slough and then walked back again via Eton, Windsor, Ascot, Bracknell... Bumped into my dad and daughter at Woosehill and didn't have the willpower to refuse a lift home at which point I discovered I was 1.3 miles short... which I did around the block! It was quite the adventure. The route through Windsor Great Park was impossible as gates were locked overnight so I ended up on country roads with no footpaths or lighting. I took a wrong turn outside Bracknell and ended up having two rest breaks on the same bench!

*I LOVE walking overnight. Less people, less traffic, less heat in summer (so less fluids to carry) and infinitely easier to take comfort breaks whenever needed!

As I set out - 7:50pm

My trainers after a good trashing, just north of Martin's Heron - 4:30am

Fortunately I took spare (if equally pre-battered) spare trainers. Unfortunately I neglected to take spare socks.

I have bought codes for a number of challenges I want to do when I've finished my current lot: Mount Kilimanjaro, Cote d'Azur, Trek to Petra, North Coast 500 and Pacific Crest Trail (PCT).

I will be doing PCT post mum. It's 2485 miles / 4000km but I have a cunning plan:

"They say you don't know someone else's struggles until you have walked a mile in their shoes? Well, I'm adding a mile for every day I've been looking after my mum. She suffered a severe stroke, unusually affecting both hemispheres of her brain, on 16th April 2018. While she was in hospital I visited her and ran errands and prepped the house to become her carer. None of my other challenges has included any distance from physically caring for her... from doing up to six loads of laundry in a day or dealing with the second major stroke which hit during lockdown and we honestly believed was the end... so I have no qualms about having covered an actual mile for each of those days - right up to her passing on [TBC]"

Will I finish LEJOG by New Year's Eve?! Who the hell knows... but I'm still trying.

I bit off more than I could chew this year but I am set to carry on indefinitely!

Rant-19

The advert ends on the note: "look them in the eyes and tell them you're doing all you can to stop the spread of Covid-19"

WHY??? The vast majority of people who contract Covid-19 do not get seriously ill. Indeed, at least a third never develop any symptoms at all. Yet all are obliged - by law and by force and by threat and by fine - to suffer for a proportionally small minority. And now they add emotional blackmail.

Let's have them, those who are seriously ill, those who have lost loved ones, LOOK THE REST OF THE POPULATION IN THE EYES and say I don't give a fuck for your life, your death, your mental health, your education, your future. Because that's what it boils down to. Sure, if you get covid or lose someone to it that SUCKS but so does cancer or stroke or heart disease or cot death or suicide or any disease under the sun.

Babies are suffering abnormal development and non-existent socialisation. This is the largest involuntary social experiment of all time and may well have lifelong negative consequences. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-babies-toddlers-education-development-school-playgrounds-b1042852.html

Children are losing out on their educations. Disruption in the early years we have known for decades is immensely harmful but we also have kids getting 'results' for exams not sat! IF my daughter graduates this summer it will be from having HALF her time at university stripped away. £9000 per year student debt for NO support, NO services, NO library, NO facilities and precious little by way of education. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1390586/coronavirus-news-university-students-fees-online-learning Will her degree even be respected by employers who'll know she didn't attend lectures?!

We are facing a mental health crisis of unparalleled proportions. From the obvious stresses of those on the 'frontlines' https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/31/covid-stress-driving-hundreds-of-childcare-workers-to-quit-profession to the parents who're trying to work full-time from home while trying to teach their kids full time; or people like me who are caring for a loved one with no support and no respite. We're told to 'Protect the NHS' but the NHS has an appalling track record for mental health support. I told my GP I was suicidal; he replied "I don't care", it was SIX YEARS between my kid's suicide and the eventual referral to CAHMS. There'll be multi-generational depression, PTSD, social anxiety, eating disorders and substance abuse. TBH my family already had all of this BEFORE so you can only imagine what a mess we'll be afterwards. Then there's postnatal depression https://www.itv.com/news/2020-12-18/how-covid-restrictions-are-fuelling-a-postnatal-depression-crisis putting mother & baby's lives at risk. This is not a society but a sham; we are not supporting each other, we're cowering in fear and leaving the most vulnerable exposed.

Businesses are going belly-up at an alarming rate https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/0/job-losses-uk-coronavirus-covid/ the future is a terrifying prospect of unemployment, crushing national debt, devastating poverty, and empty high-streets. Y'all can argue that you can't put a price on people's lives but POVERTY KILLS.

People are suffering and dying of covid alone which is horrific and inhumane https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-55725812 but what of the (so far) hundreds of thousands of people who're suffering and dying alone of other causes or the (so far) tens of thousands of people whose cancer diagnoses have been delayed or missed entirely https://www.ajmc.com/view/diagnostic-delays-from-covid19-may-increase-cancerrelated-deaths-uk-studies-say.

Death rites are vitally important for the grieving process but we're severely limiting this crucial rite of passage from denying people contact with their loved ones to preventing funeral attendance. When my cousin Allister was dying of brain cancer his parents did a mercy dash to his bedside; his funeral was attended by hundreds. It was still devastating, especially for his parents, burying a second son in a year and a half, but seeing him one last time, seeing the church at standing-room only must've been some small comfort. To think of people like them being denied that is agonising.

"During the national lockdown, no more than 6 people can attend commemorative events such as stone setting ceremonies, the scattering of ashes or a wake." - www.gov.uk

Six people isn't even the immediate family in many instances!

Telling parents they can't even support each other at the side of their premature and critically ill baby is one of the most horrific, inexcusable things I can imagine https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-55840222 unless it's not being able to register and grieve a baby's loss https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-52663205. Or perhaps this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-heartbreak-teenagers-funeral-limited-21741773 to lose a child after a life-long illness; having anticipated a celebration of her life as a means for the parents to cope with her loss only to have to settle for near enough nothing. It's beyond cruel.

Look a child in the eyes and tell them their education and future doesn't matter.

Look a stressed out and desperate single mother in the eyes and tell her that her isolation and trauma don't matter. Say it again over the grave of the baby she smothered when it all got too much.

Look a man who's gone bankrupt in the eyes and tell him that losing his business, his home, his relationship and his self-respect to the lockdowns isn't as important as a stranger's health. Look his widow in the eyes after he dies of suicide and say it again.

Look an old woman in the eyes and tell her she can't say goodbye to her husband at the end of her life. Tell her she can't see the children and grandchildren she now hasn't seen in a YEAR. Tell those children that they can't offer their father comfort at her funeral.

If you can do any one of those things you're a truly horrible person. But we're all sitting in our homes, protecting our own miserable little lives and allowing this to happen. History is not going to judge us kindly. The moment I knew we were beyond salvation was when the churches locked their doors. The faithful ministering to the sick and dying during times of plague is inspiring; this is the opposite. We have withdrawn kindness under the false guise of protecting others.

One person's life or death is not more important than another's; the many should not be sacrificed for the few.

Humans are mortal; we're all going to die. Diseases are normal and natural, especially one like this that kills the elderly and the chronically ill - the reason the 1918 flu pandemic was so horrifying was that it killed the young and otherwise healthy. Yet in 2009 when the Swine Flu pandemic killed children and pregnant women NOTHING closed, nothing changed. My kid had it - she wasn't tested or seen by a doctor; her school didn't close or even do a deep clean. She survived, 392 others didn't... but at the time of the first lockdown only 400 or so people had died in the UK. How come nothing was done on the back of nearly 400 YOUNG deaths when the entire country was shut for just over 400 primarily OLD people?! Sure, a lot more have died now but thousands die in every seasonal flu outbreak but we go on as usual. Our population is aged and unhealthy, people have been dying at proportionally slower rates for decades. The population crisis has been under discussion for years - we NEED a pandemic to redress the balance and, for the survival of the species, this isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

In 1900 the world population was approx. 1.6 billion; now it's nearly 7.8 billion and that's with two World Wars (WWI 15-22,000,000 dead; WWII 20-85,000,000 dead), the 1918 pandemic 17-100,000,000 dead), HIV/AIDS (32,700,000 dead), and the advent of birth control! More than quadrupled in 120 years with HUGE losses. Covid's currently at 2,230,000. The death toll, taken alone or in proportion to population, just doesn't warrant the devastation the INTERVENTIONS are wreaking.

I'm not afraid of covid; of dying myself or losing loved ones to it. I'm afraid of surviving this hell and trying to rebuild. People dying is sad but IMHO people who wrap themselves in cotton wool and leave the rest of 'society' to rot aren't worth saving.

In Defence of Peter Quint (The Haunting of Bly Manor)

I dunno, maybe this defence / rant isn't necessary on any level but having just finished watching 'The Haunting of Bly Manor' (the non-sequel to 'The Haunting of Hill House') on Netflix with my elder beastie I feel like viewers will probably see the character Peter Quint as a villain... and imho that's a tad unfair. 

WARNING: THIS WILL NOT BE A SPOILER FREE ZONE 

First up is the inevitable context argument. In 1980s Britain domestic violence was barely acknowledged. A man could LEGALLY rape his wife (that was true until Regina v. R (1991)) and date rape wasn't taken seriously either. Workplace sexism and sexual harassment was normalised. Sure, Peter Quint is a bit of a problematic git by modern standards but he's hardly even a blip for his era.
I'm still not even 100% sure if he'd stolen all the money he was accused of - Henry Wingrave was so far out of his gourd who's to say he didn't lose the funds or give Quint the necessary permissions?!

See also: https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a34348004/haunting-of-bly-manor-oliver-jackson-cohen-interview/

Instead I would argue that Viola Willoughby is the absolute villain of the piece. Not to deny she had a rough go of it but she was a damned nasty piece of work well before she morphed into the monster of the piece:

• Viola sweeps Arthur, the man her sister Perdita is interested in, off his feet; Perdita is then dependent on her brother-in-law and has no other marriage prospects.
• Viola has a child, Isabel, who supplants Perdita in her affections.
• Viola gets sick with (presumably) tuberculosis. She does not respect the enforced separation from her daughter - she's so selfish that she literally doesn't care if Isabel catches her disease.
• Perdita nurses her faithfully but Viola lashes out viciously - fuelled by anger, jealousy, and resentment. Perdita begs Viola to accept her fate, even if only so Isabel may have better memories of her mother. Viola doesn't care.
• Perdita, having borne all these things with good grace, eventually suffocates Viola - she tries to think of it as a mercy but (according to the narrator) she has 'had enough'. Like that isn't valid. Enough of Viola's suffering (having now far outlived all expectations) and enough of her cruelty. Everyone has a limit and that was Perdita's.

By the time Viola finally dies and Arthur marries Perdita it is seemingly too late for Perdita to have children of her own. Isabel resents her for usurping her mother, Arthur has lost the family wealth and treats his wife as something of a consolation prize, so Perdita still has nothing.

This article posits that Viola isn't a real villain but just as trapped as the other spirits:
https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a34225149/haunting-of-bly-manor-lady-in-the-lake/
I disagree. She may not have trapped herself intentionally and she couldn't have foreseen the consequences her refusal to accept her fate would have but there's no denying she caused the whole damn mess through sheer bloody-mindedness! If she had been a kinder person, if she had put her daughter's needs first, if she had considered her sister AT ALL, none of it would have happened.

But this is supposed to be a rant in defence of Peter Quint, right? So let's bring it back to him.

The really unconscionable thing Quint does is kill his lover, Rebecca 'Bex' Jessel. But being me I have a counterpoint to that too.

Okay, I lied about being back to Quint. ANOTHER tangent: when Hannah Grose is coming to terms with the fact she's dead she's working through her emotions by projecting the object of her affections - Owen Sharma - so when he asks her to warn him of the danger it's her own mind telling her to save the man she loves.
So we judge Peter Quint for taking the life of his lover instead of saving her. But Hannah and Peter being very different people doesn't make Quint an  inherently bad guy, just not as good as Hannah. People are varied, not just good and bad. As it is, when the danger is pressing upon them Hannah tells Owen only "they need you at the lake" sending him straight into harm's way with no warning of what lay ahead!

The fact Peter reveals himself as a ghost to Bex should warn her - but somehow it doesn't. Her own reaction is, in my humble opinion, 'off': she should surely want to discover Quint's body and have his name cleared when everyone believes him an absconding thief? Instead she falls in with his plans to find a way for them to stay together forever... for a wannabe barrister she's exceptionally slow on the uptake of what that must inevitably entail. Nor does she seem to be over-burdened with guilt for the 'help' they demand of Miles and Flora, the children she was responsible for.
Yeah, Peter's not a 'good' guy but then Bex wasn't so sweet and innocent... she was totally using the kids as a way to get to Henry Wingrave, using the kids to see Peter - even AFTER he killed her. And lets not forget that she STILL didn't tell him 'no' when she pretended to go along with possessing Flora permanently: Bex was complicit in Peter's attempt to eradicate Miles even as she tried to 'save' Flora.

So let's address THAT. Peter loves Bex. Hannah loves Owen. Hannah wants Owen SAVED. Peter wants Bex dead? Is it really so simple or cruel? I'm not so sure. Peter wanted to be WITH Bex and the only way he could see that happening was if she died too. It's almost the exact same thing as Viola trying to fetch Isabel every night in her madness... and I wonder if that's where he got it from? He's not so far gone as Viola but her loss, her madness infects all the spirits she traps at Bly. The other ghosts aren't hell-bent on dragging their loved ones off to a watery grave because (so it seems) none of them was possessed by that destructive, possessive kind of love in life. Or at least not with the object of that 'affection' within the boundaries.
Perhaps if Perdita's ghost had risen at her death (rather than waiting for Viola's chest to rot down in the lake) she'd have harmed Arthur or Isabel... but I think not. Life had not been kind to Perdita but she was fundamentally an unselfish person: she had stood back to allow Arthur to be happy with Viola; even before her post-death insanity Viola wouldn't step back even for the sake of Isabel's life.
As Viola kept selfishly trying to bring Isabel to her so too did Peter try to keep Bex with him. Perhaps Viola is excused because she was too far gone to realise what she was doing? But I'm still of the mind that he thought Bex realised what the goal was - he didn't tell her the plan and tucked her away in a memory to cause her less fear and suffering, not as a deliberate deception.
But my theory is that, given time, Hannah might have tried to induce Owen - by whatever means she could - to stay at Bly with her. Whether that would be from a normal human fear of loneliness or the warped influence of Viola who could tell? Maybe Hannah loved Owen enough to let him go... but as it turned out he didn't let her go - he took her memory with him. If he'd had the chance I fear he'd have jumped at the chance to stay with her at Bly forever.

As you may know I have been alone just this side of forever. I refer to finding my fictional future spouse as finding a willing victim. Y'all think I'd let a little thing like death get in my way if I finally met the right someone?! "Till death us do part" is kinda short term... So yeah, I'm not gonna condemn Peter Quint for 'keeping' Bex, especially if he thought she was willing.
He was afraid. Lonely, afraid, and desperate. The memory he kept slipping back to, unlike Bex and Hannah's happy moments, was being manipulated by his abusive mother. A damaged man, human enough to make some terrible mistakes, and yet still capable of love.

Did Peter Quint redeem himself? It's a tough one. I believed his apology to Miles was heartfelt but it is it enough to say "I'm sorry I tried to kill you kid"? I'm not sure. But hey, Miles lived and completely forgot his childhood trauma. What kind of 'peace' Quint went to when Viola's spell was broken is, like everything about the hereafter, unknowable.
Did Rebecca Jessel redeem herself? Also kind of tough. She was willing to sacrifice Miles to save Flora. She was willing to suffer Flora's drowning so the child didn't have to. It's not because she's a woman that I find her more problematic than Quint - Quint made a decision to permanently possess the children, a terrible thing to do indeed... but an open and 'honest' decision. Bex, for a grown and supposedly highly educated woman, shows herself to be horribly suggestible at best. It's like she's supposed to be the victim of a manipulative boyfriend and sure, even smart women do stupid shit for men but I'm not buying it.
If she'd CHOSEN to hurt those kids for her own ends I'd understand it more than this... stupidity. I've often said that if I kill someone I want it to be because I MEANT TO. Killing someone by accident or ignorance or neglect or stupidity is, to me somehow worse than deliberate murder because you just didn't care if someone got hurt. If someone kills me I want it to be because they wanted me dead, not because I was convenient, or there.

Viola definitely didn't redeem herself and I'm still baffled by the conclusion... why did she bide her time within Dani? Why did she re-assert herself after such a long time? Is it supposed to be a metaphor for things like HIV that once contracted will get you in the end???
Although Perdita killed Viola she's the one I feel for. She bore her misfortunes with grace and suffered a great deal, getting a raw deal from Arthur, Isabel and Viola. I also felt her ghost was of little significance in the haunting. Rather a sad afterlife.

Two And A Half Years On

Obligatory recap:
When my mum first came here - at the end of June 2018 - after a nine and a half week stay in hospital I very much thought she was coming here to die. In all honesty we hadn't been at all convinced she would even get out of hospital.

Before her stroke my mum, then 73, was getting visibly frailer. She was greyer, more wrinkled, shrinking. The day before I had actually sobbed on my daughter's shoulder that I didn't think we'd have her for much longer. 

That said, she was still living independently, driving considerable distances although she spent more of her time at her partner's house than her own flat for sheer convenience.

Her stroke was described as 'severe'. There's no classification system like stages of cancer that allow you to understand where your loved one is on a broad spectrum that ranges from quick recovery at one end to things such as permanent paralysis, coma and death at the other.

My mum went from moderately healthy and active (type 2 diabetes and advancing age) to completely dependent. And it was a massive shock to us.

Her father had suffered a large stroke when I was a kid. We all agreed his quality of life had been crap yet somehow he lived another 16 or so years. Mum's situation was so much worse it was no wonder we expected her to go imminently.

Anyway, that first year she was home I felt like I was on tenterhooks. Every time she nodded off in front of the TV I'd check she was still breathing. If I woke up before her I'd be terrified she'd died in the night. NOT, I might add, because I am *scared* of her dying so much as it's a new experience I know will be very unpleasant.

I know I've blogged about all this before so I've tried to be concise.

We've recently passed the 2.5 years mark since her stroke and we're also just past the 2 years 4 months since she came to live out her days in the care of her only child - muggins here. And the pressing thing is... how wrong I was back then.

Not only did was she clearly NOT on her last legs, as evidenced by her continued survival, but - and this is the bit I'm especially struggling with - SHE WASN'T ACTUALLY THAT BAD.

Badness is a thing you can only appreciate by contrast. Mid 2018 was BAD. I did not make a bad call in declaring it bad. It was absolutely the most horrific experience... until you experience WORSE.

Worse is decidedly where we are now and I have an uncomfortable awareness that further degrees of badness are both possible and probable.

When my mum first came here she was so catastrophically not the person she had been that it was difficult to see the blessings. With hindsight, and loss, they're clearer. That's where I'm at now - realising how much more of her we've lost, especially since what was probably another big stroke right at the start of lockdown.

Memory - she remembered lots of past things although she had an unfortunate mental block on her partner's name.
Her memory is far worse now. She blanks lots of things, and far more names. She rarely reminisces.

Personality - back then she was still pretty much herself.
Now her principal remaining characteristic is a stubborn streak a mile wide.

Intelligence - my mum's never had an IQ test and her parents made her leave school at 16 but she's a seriously smart lady. There's something kind of hilarious about a stroke survivor who can't remember the name of her partner but can spell obscure words, correct grammar and yell abuse at someone misusing French on TV.
Some of it's still in there but we see less and less of it. She still uses some rather impressive words at times.

Speech - we adjusted to the new sound of her voice quite slowly.
She just passed her 76th birthday (whodathunkit?!) and she had three phone calls - each person said how good her speech was... yeah, it's not like that real world. Her speech is very difficult to understand now, even though I'm with her full-time I struggle. I've started her on drink thickener too which is indicative of deterioration. Gotta try to persuade our not-so-with-it GP to put it on her prescription next.

Mobility - it didn't bother me seeing my mum using a walking frame. I was all in favour for the stability, as was she. The hospital physios had wanted her to try for sticks but my mum has ALWAYS been pro-frame. She first used one in her 50s when she suffered a broken ankle & DVT. Safety was always a higher priority to her than appearances. She would walk to the loo on her own... from the living room. She would get up to the loo on her own in the night.
She can't get up from a chair without assistance now, let alone out of bed. It must be a good year and a half since she went to the loo on her own and forget walking the length of the house! These days she never moves anywhere without at least one person HANDS ON.

She used to come and sit in the living room to watch TV although it drove me nuts that I was expected to watch endless Midsummer Murders repeats when I don't even enjoy watching TV; now she hardly leaves her room... which at least means I can get stuff done from time to time. She sleeps a LOT more.

Old age is not beautiful. It is grim.

My name is Heggie and I am an addict

First up, this is not a paid ad. I am just really enthused for this. Other similar schemes exist.

Secondly, I need to say that as I am bulimic there is a chance that this addiction is not as healthy as it may appear.

I have become addicted to The Conqueror / My Virtual Missions:

https://www.theconqueror.events/

Starting in 2013 I lost a LOT of weight - I was on the Vi Challenge shakes (which as I am now full vegan I cannot go back to) and very active. I got into the best shape of my life by quite a large margin (roughly 7 stone).

2012 vs 2014

Since my mum's stroke (April 2018) EVERYTHING has gone to hell. Being trapped at home has done unspeakable damage to my weight, fitness, mental health, physical health... my bulimia is an ever-present issue as is insipient alcoholism. The only thing I have to look forward to, other than death, is a long overdue mental breakdown.

Covid-19 had not helped.

Back in May I gave in to months of Facebook ads...

It started here with the Inca Trail (Peru) - beautiful medal, super achievable walking distance (done in a fortnight c/o PokemonGO)

I bought a 2nd entry code which I used for The Grand Canyon (USA):

As I happened to have a rowing machine about my person this seemed like a super apt challenge to do. Ye gods I feel like I earned that medal!

Then they released Camino de Santiago (France & Spain). How beautiful is this medal?!

I have 50+ km left to complete this one (walking via PokemonGO again) but I should complete it within a couple of weeks and I am super excited to add this medal to my collection.

Although I was by now halfway through the year I decided to add on the 2020 challenge. I need a medal for getting through this fucking shitstorm of a year!

I started of with a target of 1000 miles... then I upped it to 2020 km... this morning I changed it to 2020 miles. This is mostly the kilometres of the other challenges (I'm treating this as the sum of the year, the challenge is to do MORE this year) but does include some separate distances.

THEN they released Ring of Kerry (Ireland):

I have to admit this medal doesn't float my boat but I am a small % Irish (my mother was a Keating; my kids are named Erin & Kathleen) and I appreciate the Ogham. I did this one on a newly acquired recumbent exercise bike (1st equipment purchase from this addiction).

With Camino I purchased an extra code which I used to register for Alps To Ocean (New Zealand):

This was also done on the recumbent exercise bike.
With 2020 I ALSO purchased an extra code which I used to register for Great Ocean Road (Australia):

I have 6.3 km left to row to complete this challenge.

They just announced TWO new challenges! I am gonna register for The Cabot Trail (Canada) and do that on the recumbent exercise bike this year. How cute is this medal?! Love the puffins!

So that will be EIGHT Medals for the year: 2020, Inca, Canyon, RoK, GOR, A2O, CdeS & Cabot.

I am also gonna purchase a code for Ring Road (Iceland) but to start next year:

My maternal grandfather was eating ice cream with the yanks in Iceland during WWII and I believe it is the origin of the family rock. I will be doing this one on the recumbent exercise bike.

2021 is going to be ALL about the long challenges as I want to complete certain things within a calendar year. Such as LEJOG (UK) which I will be walking:

I honestly thought LEJOG was between Le Walk and Le Run for AGES but of course it's Land's End to John O'Groats (AKA the length of Britain).

Then there's The Appalachian Trail (USA):

This medal also doth not improve the buoyancy of my dinghy but I already bought the Grandma Gatewood book to accompany the challenge so I really had better do it. As local walks are not nearly challenging enough I plan to do this mixed walking with rowing and my climbing machine (2nd equipment purchase) in order to emulate the difficulty level.

The currently available remaining challenges are - English Channel (UK / France) which I DEFINITELY want to do, but only when I can swim it:

Hadrian's Wall (UK) which is arguably the most popular medal / challenge but does nothing for me:

And Route 66 (USA) but I am feeling pretty lousy about America since Drump, the anti BLM violence, promoting fascism and white supremacy issues...

During 2021 they're supposed to be launching new challenges bi-monthly and I am definitely hoping for Africa / Asia challenges so as to get a world tour going ;) 

I have to admit that so far I haven't lost ANY weight despite also using Huel for that purpose, but I must be fitter and healthier than I was. Also, I'm not sure it's helping my mental health beyond motivating me to get outside and to feel as if I am achieving something. I miss Open University and the dream that I was working toward a better future.

I miss hope.