Step 1 - embrace the truth

While I've never been one to seek the truth and the truth alone, I'd like to think of myself as an honest, upstanding young guy. And so, in that vein, I'm running in an upcoming election.

I've let a lot of people know about it before, and I'm not declaring which one it is formally due to a number of severe punishments that might blight my campaign, and potentially cause me to pull out. Which I don't want. And neither will a certain body of people.

I have dedicated a lot of my time to such activities before even thinking about going on a march to win this particular election, and although I appear to be policy-lite I can assure everyone that I will be true to what I set out to do. They're not unachievable tasks by any means, but that said they are the sort of things that most people would find time in their schedules to avoid. Subsequently I hope to evolutionise the organisation into which I hope to be elected by simple structures and an improvement of infrastructure and coherence of policy within afformentioned organisation.

It's difficult to do this without winning an election. And it's difficult to win an election without being quite outspoken about ridiculous policies that might attract a voter but also a cynic. I feel that my only weaknesses are that I refuse to overstretch myself, but my counter argument would be that I will be able to change the small things to make the big things easier to manage in the future. It's not a legacy, it's a sustainable approach to the future of an organisation I genuinely feel I belong to. And it's a long time since one of those has come along.

It is increasingly tricky to preach what I practise in a world where only the extraordinary get credit. I accept that in many ways I will be relying not on policies or people skills but rather the enticement of voters via pretty young people, which traditionally fares well against those with more rigorous beliefs or upstanding issues. While it is a sad state of affairs, at least it is an honest approach to a population who increasingly choose abstaining because they can't be bothered to go out of their way to actually declare themselves as abstaining instead of dirty tricks employed by far too many of my colleagues here on this planet.

If I lose, then so be it. As long as I lose in the right way, to someone who has also earned the right to stand, let alone reside in the office of this position, and to someone who has gone about the election in the right way. I refuse to accept a defeat at the hands of a mercenary who only wants something to put on their CV because they have nothing else to say for themselves.

If they'd embraced what the role stood for in the years leading up to this moment then they wouldn't be so narcissistic in their approach.

'McGuinness

There is a light

My dissertation is finished (although not officially submitted), the worst of the weather is probably over (touch wood) and it won't be long before I can start planning the future of the Students' Union here at Queen Mary. But what about the rest of the world?

I will confess that this will be somewhat more contemporary an entry compared to some of the others, but bear with me:

Terrorism is still happening. Take Yemen, Angola, Detroit, Somalia, Afghanistan... for all our efforts to apparently rid the world of terror (start with the moooooooovies and work backwards, it's probably easier to nanny the planet if you begin with the media) there have been precious few inroads. That said, perhaps we're seeing more evidence because there are more reporters or it's more likely to make the headlines. As I said, out of sight, out of mind - change the broadcasters' output if you want to win this one.

The economy hasn't made many advances from where it was last time I checked. Perhaps fewer people are being made unemployed, fewer banks are failing and the like, but for the most part it seems to be just as 'bad' as it ever was. I haven't yet experienced any of the fallout from before, but I'm sure it's coming. No change.

Society is still a little too angry for my liking. We continue to blame everyone else for everything, we come up with solutions with practicable methods of applications, we have an excuse for every moment of adversity and we refuse to admit responsibility. This is where I come in. Take it on the chin, accept that no one will ever give you credit, even if you shout it out, and season your life well. A pinch of salt gives flavour to what would otherwise be bland. Where is society angry? People like me getting frustrated with people using the increasingly lenient flow-charts or scripts of dealing with problems that we're faced with. 'I can't come in, I've got a cold'. Rubbish. I went to school in crutches for a month, so why can't people with the sniffles go to somewhere they get paid?

I have begun to lose my way I fear, but then I am just as part of the problem as I am a commentator on it: if it weren't for the royal family there wouldn't be a constant in our lives. Think about it, it makes sense, even if you don't agree with their position.

'McGuinness

A call to arms

Are there winners and losers in life? Probably. It's all about interpretation, and provided you realise where you stand then you're likely to know something more about yourself than others will suggest they know about themselves.

It's a little cryptic, that, so I suppose I should explain.

It's more than just an outlook. Anyone can be positive, anyone can be negative. Anyone can be neutral. It is about what you make of your outlook, whether you know to some extent there are flaws in your brilliance or brilliance in your flaws, or neither nor of nothing neither. As my friend said this afternoon, we have as a people decided that the only way to make things better is to tell ourselves they're better and disregard the truth or the reality of the situation. There's positivity, and then there's reckless optimism without any basis.

So this call to arms is more to allow ourselves to assess the truth. Do you know what you want? If so, do you know how you're supposed to get there? More over, do you know where you are now? Perhaps all this is a little irrelevant for those of us who don't concern our lives with the thinking part of acting, but rather the acting part of living. Care and consideration are tomorrow's problems, today can only continue if you bother to make something happen.

Personally I'm very cautious. Not so much that I don't do anything, but enough that I know most of the consequences before embarking on a journey. Or at least I think I do, anyway, and to some extent I guess that's what I always tell myself, perhaps falsely, and therefore perhaps crushing or suppressing any notion of the truth in order to appear happier or more content.

That aside, when we get the constitution voted on and put things in place for baseball this season then we'll be fine. It's a little off-topic now, but we can afford to lose some people to the other team as I'm sure we'll gain more who want in from the ground-floor. There have been discussions before, and there will be some again, about who we will allow to join us and who might go elsewhere, but for the most part I'm hoping that the good ones stay and get some game-time and some fun-time with us, while those who apparently already know what they want go do what they want. We won't judge them for it, but we know that they've made a decision. A consequence will follow. It's how they act with those consequences that makes a difference.

From the meeting the other week it seems clear that we're not the only Club that has issues in this sense, nor are we among a minority. Not enough structure in place means that there's little assistance for helping those who have dreams of greatness aspire towards them. We hope only that as many people get as much enjoyment out of it all as is possible, and whether we're measuring 'enjoyment' with the same, or even the correct, statistic remains to be seen. But seeing is believing, and by this method we'll know whether it is being outwardly happy, inwardly content or having no opinion either way that will determine how we develop as a community.

I'm hoping that enough people say the right thing and jump on board with us. I'm hoping there is enough precedent from another local Club, and one just folded, that inspires people to step back and go for what they really want.

And perhaps it is that moment of stepping back to embrace reality that changes everything.

'McGuinness

What inspires debate?

There are many talking points in life, breaking news stories and controversies amongst friends, families, pets and peers. But what sparks conversations into full-blown heated and passionate speeches and heart-felt pleas for agreement or acknowledgement?

1) The most topical issues of the day.

Examples: racism, climate change, social (im)mobility, economics (these are perhaps more contemporary than immortal/eternal, but will likely rage on in debate for many years to come).

Reasons: everyone will have a different view on how to change what is the norm, or at least what is taken as a given in the current political or social climate. However, much of these will have come from influence by the media or influential/talkative people outside the group within which the 'debate' is occurring.

2) Social/societal influences

Examples: sport, art, politics, television, music.

Reasons: Personal interpretation is more influential here - everyone is different, people will find different things more exciting or more entertaining than others, but because these are far more emotive in terms of understanding or reasoning, there does not need to be justification. The wonderful thing about this part of the model is that everyone can have a say and need not be told otherwise by someone who is apparently better informed - opinions are just that, and you cannot tell someone that they're wrong because they don't like something you do, even if you're adamant that you're right.

3) Age-old dilemmas.

Examples: Religion, philosophy, science.

Reasons: People can be richly or poorly informed either way, and while it benefits to have read widely about these sorts of topics, just because you're not completely clued-up on a subject does not mean that your views aren't important. Some might be loathed to accept personal opinions in this area, but again the fact that you've got an opinion does not exclude you from having them or contributing to the debate. However, if you haven't heard the whole story, and let's face it, NO ONE HAS, it might be best to see what other people are saying and picking holes in their argument rather than having one of your own. None of these subjects will ever produce fruitful responses to the point where everything is explained, so debate is the only way to make any social or emotional progress, given that there is very little in terms of pragmatic answers that can be described, explained and justified.

If debate is only about winning, then you are not debating, you are arguing deafly.

If debate is only about chatting, then you are not debating, you're conversing.

If debate is only about making a difference, then you are not debating, you are deciding.

Debate is only there for us to pass the time, but at the same time it is only there so we can try to change whilst preserving our way of life, it is there so we can see a new side to every story without losing focus, it's there so we know less about ourselves but in more ways than we ever knew we could. Debate is rubbish. Debate is brilliant. Debate is nothing and everything.

*

There are weaknesses to this model - notably a lot of people will only spend time with people who they have known for a long time, have been forced into working/living with for a set amount of time or are of the same beliefs as them, so debates can tend to be one-sided and reserved, thus limiting the progress that can be made - no one really wants to annoy those who they either choose to be close to or cannot escape nonetheless. Are these really debates? Perhaps it is that fear of losing standing in our own friendship groups that means we cannot really say what we're thinking. Perhaps that is why many people are easy-come easy-go in MY life. Perhaps that is why social change or views are age-old, passed on from generation to generation (albeit subtly) as the fear of change can never be truly ignored.

'McGuinness

Politically conservative

Notice the small 'c'.

I am not adverse to change, but rather I do not support it as a policy. Development of current strategies might be needed, and indeed alterations to institutional beliefs are likely, but on a whole I think change undermines where we have managed to come from.

Posed with this question less than a week ago, my response was to politicise the origin of mankind; we were not evolved from democracy, nor were we brought about by a CHANGE in policy, but rather a physiological adaptation to our environment hundreds of thousands, potentially millions (if you believe the descention from certain proxies) of years previous to our own.

Essentially, and this is only opinion based on my personal studies, albeit limited, into the evolution of hominids, we acclimatised to our environment the same as animals and plants do now, and the same as physical elements adapt to alterations in the 'mean' inputs. I believe that where we've come from coincides with where we're going to, and in the long run human occupation is just an intellectual means to justify where we are now and where we're going in the future.

I believe that we can do little to alter what we've already done, and what we've already done has little impact on what would naturally have occured. As a Geographer, it is my right to define what might happen in the short-medium term based on what has happened previously, hence my OPINION that there will be little significant change determining the future of the planet.

As long as life exists, I will not scoff. We were coincidence as much as fortune; dumb luck of Darwinism. To demand more than what we've been granted is another example of the selfishness of humanity in the face of biological adversity. We may not have been directly responsible for the extinction of many flora or fauna, but living without guilt is a dangerous road to follow. You become Budhist without really anticipating the alterations in one's outlook on existence.

So here I am, plodding along as another entity of what we've come to accept as 'real life'. While merely a blip in the history of this wondrous and exciting planet, we have carved our paths out of faith and acceptance, determining the fate of mankind by the actions we have now, in the past and in the future. But while we are concerned about ourselves, we should be more determined to encourage life outside of our megafaunal habitation; few will agree, but the key to life is held with the algae and plankton rather than the elephants and whales.

We will never be able to protect everything that's required, but referring back to the original title of this entry, we must at least attempt to preserve things as they are and fight 'change'; it only seeks to undermine what we've managed in this heartbeat of humanity compared to the history of our space-rock.

'McGuinness

Flat out and sprawled

I'm not working hard. I'm not playing hard. I'm getting lucky, but I've earned the right to in some respects, and I'm getting berated still, but then karma is a wonderful thing.

Having offered to step up and fill the goalkeeper's boots at University, I produced a display worthy of my self-appointed man-of-the-match award. It wasn't as busy an evening I've had in net before, nor was it as flambouyant, but I didn't concede despite a number of attempts from the opposition, some more impressive than others, and regardless of the fact we only scored one, we still won the game this afternoon.

But the argument has long been beyond mere mortal factors such as the performances we have turned in or the results we have gotten out of it; rather, it's why we bother in the first place.

For me, competition has never been 'competition'. I can thank my parents for bringing me up to believe in the taking part rather than the winning, and although I do like to win, it's still a philosophy I attempt to conform to even now. For example, I have stood in campaigns and campaigned for candidates, I have wanted for something to happen and, regardless of whether it won or lost, took place or was overlooked, it is the fact I cared enough to be a part of it that holds dear to me.

I have tried and failed so many times that counting successes to failures makes no difference. Instead, despite the best efforts of influences from within my upbrining and Society around me, I care little for the relatively minor outcomes that affect my life. People will always think in collective terms, and regardless of whether they feel they're bettered by some factors, the guilt, or relative guilt in terms of a social conscience, will always force them to think the same as the people in their lives they value the most. Usually this means family or friends, but every so often it involves people beyond their social circles.

Every so often, however, they think 'controversially'; OPINION outweighs facts, or at least OPINION outweighs 'greater judgement'.

This entry, and indeed this blog, is not exempt from political, or Political, influences, but for best interests it tries to remain as unbiased as possible. Indeed, much of the 'politics' discussed tends to resolve around the one institution I care the most about, in Queen Mary University's Students' Union administration.

I have made comments in the past, unjustified, to suggest certain elements aren't pulling their weight, and it is perhaps me that needs to question the amount of effort I'm putting in compared to the amount I expect to take out. If the ratio ever exceeds 1:1 (with me being the second entity), then of course I am right to complain, but at best what I am seeing is 1:7, so subsequently my thoughts hold no validity.

Again, this is an attempt to enlighten the population by quantifying suggestions.

So here I am, pouring my thoughts and OPINIONS out to those who'll listen. I cannot sometimes justify my beliefs in any more than a simple sound, a gargled, 'bleugh' or a forced, 'meh'. But I have at least realised that is not my place to question, nor is it my place to blindly follow. As with most things in life, there is a happy medium from which we can begin to understand the forcings happening beyond our control, and from there we can either seek to justify, question for betterment of the masses or accept in order to avoid confrontation.

With my dissertation due in soon, plus other coursework and numerous personal objectives reaching their climax, I am in no position to formulate a strategy to do anything other than the last of those options, so I hope that, despite the limited readership of this particular blog, others in and around my current walks of life will accept something similar.

That is not to say that anytime soon I won't throw in the towel in a heat of passion and rise up against the authorities I voted in, rather for the meantime a peaceful transition towards the next stage of SU evolution, and indeed fiscal, social and perhaps even biological enhancements, would be the best chance to change what is 'wrong' with our lives.

'McGuinness.

Big words: why the mystery?

Once again, I can only apologise for leaving it so long between posts, but out of nowhere this year I've actually decided to do some work.

Anyway, without meaning to return back to the issue of 'truth' constantly, I think a lot of people really need to get with the programme. Yes, sometimes it isn't what you want to hear, and sometimes the truth hurts, but unfortunately the truth is the one thing that's indisputable in this world. Ironically, of course, the real truth is the only thing that has been completely manufactured by mankind; 'scientific truths' are subject to investigation and cannot be controlled, while the varying levels of truth offered through documentation, archives and evidence, the very things that we ourselves have created in order to control our own lives, is crystal clear.

Even if sometimes there's a lot of jargon associated with it in order to disrupt our ability to find the facts and instead allow for degrees of uncertainty, or what I like to call 'interpretation'. Interpretation relies on a personal, ontological perspective on how something should work, be it a policy designed to enforce a law or rule or be it a philosophical basis for belief in, or against, a religion or popular thought.

While these are, of course, the truth, it is often unclear how the rules should be enforced, what level of enforcement is required and, at times, what is breaking the rules. Take the many translations of religious texts, for example. Because it is impossible to truly understand the intentions without having a) been there when they were being written, and b) knowing fully the language they were originally written in and the various likely mistranslations that could occur, it is no wonder that there is so much confusion, even within those groups that essentially worship the same idols.

If my idols (or ideology) is to enforce the rules of a certain organisation then my interpretation has to be as limited as possible; I want the facts and the figures rather than knowing the wrangling room within which I can operate. I would like a strict set of guidelines to follow and procedures to put in place. This is why I think I would probably operate well in administration - I've been too quick to use big, unnecessary words that sometimes lose the weight of the meaning in their useage in an attempt to avoid appearing either dumb or patronising.

However, it has quickly come to my attention that while people are clever, the population is stupid (to paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones in 'Men In Black'). It is easier to keep everything clear and open by using the small, concise words that allow for no, or limited, interpretation. This is not a scathing attack on the misplaced romanticism of this language I love so much, but rather a call to those who abuse its vaguities in order to remain enigmatic or ambiguous, so as not to have to enforce a policy. I am not calling for Newspeak, but I reckon there's a place for something similar to avoid catastrophes of varying magnitudes in the short-term.

Words such as 'significant' or 'substantial' need to be put in context. We have mathematicians capable of producing insanely complex formulae to work out taxes or inflation, so why can't we put some of their genius to define, numerically and quantitatively, these phrases? For example, 'significant' could be, 'less than 50% but more than 25% of a budget, plus 25% of its previous year's budget', while 'substantial' could be, 'anything higher than 40% of its previous year's budget plus 40% of its current expenditure' or something. While these are only suggestions, which themselves are limited, it immediately begins to reduce the risk of interpretation, or misinterpretation, depending on how you choose to view this particular topic.

I hope this has cleared up my position on big words and their over-use and unnecessary appearances in many documents that define how we live our lives.

(Yes, many of you will probably think that THIS entry is either packed with a few misleading or unnecessary words, or indeed that it was a waste of resources to write it, but no great things were ever done by sitting around thinking. Policies need action, and action defines the man.)

'McGuinness