It was a rainy day and Eeeyore had taken a walk through the gloomy gloom of the gloomiest glade in the Hundred Acre Wood that he could find when all at once Gloom fell all over him.
How do you do?, he said.
How would you do, Eeyore replied, if when you were walking in the pleasant places with the rain gently falling on your back and running down your tail suddenly there was an interruption from above by someone all at once falling out of the dark grey misty sky onto your back where the rain should have been?
Gloom became gloomier. It was no use, try as he may he could not raise any cheer in anyone who came across his path, not even Eeyore, whom he thought had the gloomiest disposition that he had ever seen. And Gloom had seen many a gloomy disposition in his time.
So Gloom considered that there might be another way to improve the situation. He thought to draw a smiley face, but knew that a smiley face would be quite, indeed considerably beyond his abilities, but he would try. As he did so Eeyore gently pointed out that under the Equal Status Act Gloom should not have drawn a smile that clearly depicted that he, Eeyore, was a donkey.
Gloom understood the predicament, indeed the dilemma of being between a rock and a hard place: Had he drawn a smile with human eyes then it would have been the most outrageous of insults; Had he drawn an anatomically correct smile it would have been regarded as an ethnic slur. In the circumstances, there was nothing for it. The only thing he could do was to draw what may be considered a caricature of the character of Eeyore as of course that was the only way that Gloom had any hope of ever drawing anything.
Apologies, Coco forgot to remove the TM. Coco has not registered the logo. If you wish to do so, please bear in mind that a challenge may be forthcoming from the owners of the original which Coco has plagiarised and from which Coco has produced an entirely new work of art, whose copyright I now claim.
It was an article on the BBC which reminded me, but Coco forgets which among the many thousands it was.
The building work had at the last reached its completion and Lakshmi, the very capable and ferocious forewoman, had left her three workers, Erdogan, Mahmud and Stephen, whom she trusted without reservation, to clear up. Stephen, who was able to read and assimilate plans and instructions quickly and accurately, was a bright and sparkling electrician but willing to turn his hand to most aspects of building work. Mahmud was as strong as an ox, ready, willing and able to carry out any instruction given to him with a swiftness and certainty unparalleled among men. He was not given to reading but could mix plaster and cement in huge quantities and lay bricks in straight rows and even lines. Erdogan was every bit a plumber by nature, a plumber by trade and a plumber by size, but knew his rafters from his joists without even thinking about it. He was also exceptional with plaster. If anything could be plastered, he could skim it.
The time had come to remove the wooden scaffold which had been erected several months earlier by a company of sailors whom Lakshmi had picked up in the nearby fishing leje. The old tars had efficiently used just about every sailors’ knot, and a few more, that were known to man as they secured the scaffold around a building that had not then been built. Stephen and Erdogan surveyed the knots on the scaffold scratching their heads wondering what to do and where to begin. Mahmud waited impatiently, for he had not been instructed to do anything, for something to happen. Erdogan came down first with his face very pale. ‘Problem there is’, he muttered, ‘very serious’.
Stephen suddenly let out a great cry of delight such as had not been heard in the region for many a day. Looking over the edge of the scaffold and tossing a knife down to Mahmud, he shouted: ‘Eureka! It is straightforward, we must cut off the Turk’s head.’
Mahmud looked around. So did Erdogan. He knew full well the propensity of Mahmud to literally follow instructions and without any further delay took to his heels becoming the first man ever to run a three minute mile.
We know what literalism means. It is the stuff of The Merchant of Venice. The judgement handed down in favour of Shylock demonstrates this. Shylock could have his pound of flesh. Literalism finds a way into justice. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But if justice goes one step, however small, beyond literalism, then it is not justice. The Lord said ‘You have heard it said an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ because the law had been corrupted by the additions of men and so he added ‘but I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you’. He reminds us that the law also says ‘it shall not be so among you’ for he is the one who gave us that law.
We often hear of cries for justice, and Coco does not say that we should not listen, but let us be careful that a cry for justice does not become a cry for revenge. The judgement for Shylock would not serve justice if in the taking of the pound of flesh one drop of blood was shed.
But there is a time for the shedding of blood for justice, and the one who said: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?…but I say to you love your enemies and do good to those who hate you’, became himself the shedder of blood. His enemies took him and nailed him to a tree. Justice was being served, but not in the way that his enemies thought. They intended to dispose of him, but they were doing what God had planned and had spoken about to us beforehand. He was despised and rejected by men. He was taken as a lamb to the slaughter. The Lord placed upon him our iniquity.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ultimately become a life for a life (as the Law had predicted), and Jesus, the righteous one, gave his life for our life. Justice was served, the exact price that we should pay because of our sin was paid by Jesus. And the wrath of God was sated. Not only that, his own qualification of an eye for an eye with ‘but I say to you: love your enemies’ was demonstrated by him in his death in that it was for his enemies that he laid down his life and shed his own blood.
So God, in the death of Jesus, shows his justice. God looked for a way at the same time to satisfy justice and to save sinners. He found it. He gave himself to die to satisfy the law’s righteous demands in order that he might save us from our sin. Jesus paid the price and now calls: Come to me, for life without a price. Your own labour and works will not turn the scales, but Jesus has turned the scales with his own blood. The way to peace with God and eternal life has been opened.
You may want to know what happened next in the story of the builders. Well, it is recorded that Mahmud did indeed cut the Turk’s head off after which the removal of the scaffold was as some would say apple pie.
Further information:
1
Ask any six year old female what a Turk’s head is and she will be able not only to tell you but show you how to make one there and then providing as examples several more in a variety of colours that she had already made. Be aware that not, possibly only yet, being a sailor she may know the thing by a different name. Don’t ask a boy. He will say that he knows, give you six different versions, none of which work and then tell you that it is so easy you can work it out for yourself before he walks off for the apple pie that he hopes is still in the fridge.
Scriptures referenced above are to be found, inter alia, in
2
Matthew 5
3
Deuteronomy 19
4
Isaiah 53
5
Romans 5
6
Isaiah 55
7
If we say that Mahmud became the second person to run a three minute mile we need to add: He also missed the finishing line by about 300m for Erdogan ran in a SW direction, and Mahmud mistakenly followed West by SSW.
8
If you skipped to the end you may have missed the important bits. Perhaps Coco should copy the BBC and only produce short and less wordy posts.
There are, as you, dear reader, well know, four types of sieve. This conclusion is founded upon the well-established theory of sieves, which states that a sieve is an object with two properties each of which may be in one of two states. The two states are of permission and denial. The properties relate to the passage of fluids (liquids and gases) and solids. Thus a sieve is an object which will either permit or deny the passage of liquids or solids. Where both states are set to denial (Permissio Aut Nunquam), we have a pan sieve, which as a result of the dropping of the noun and retention of the adjective as an adjectival noun – a common occurrence in the English language – is commonly known as a pan. We must be careful however in any discussion of the theory of sieves to use the correct terminology. Where both states are set to permit (Permissio In Propter aEternum) we have a pipe sieve, which becomes known to us, for the same reasons, as a pipe or where the pipe has zero thickness a ring or hoop. The second order of sieve is where the fluid property is set to permit and the solid to deny. This is the, somewhat perhaps confusingly but it has become the standard convention, the solid sieve (Solidum Obstructus; Licet fluidum Ius Detur). In everyday use in the kitchen or garden we would simply refer to it as a sieve. The fourth order of sieve, which is a fluid* sieve has a state of deny to fluids and permit to solids. It is under standard convention known as the exotic sieve. It is thought to have significant technological advantages over much that is presently used in engineering, for the storage of fluids and the building of engines which rely upon clean fluid fuels. It would be possible to clean fluids in a static environment, the fuel tank of your car for example, rather than using a filter in the pathways to the combustion chamber. Exhaust gases similarly and waste liquids could be cleaned and solids collected safely. The possibilities for use in a waste treatment plant are considered to be inestimable.
As yet the exotic sieve has not been observed in the real world, but early work in the late Soviet Union under Lysenko, who was primarily an agricultural scientist but saw the potential benefits of this sieve made some progress, but sadly the work ceased to be funded in 1989. It is thought that the work may be continuing in Xin-Jiang or perhaps Wuhan, but no official confirmation of this has been possible to obtain.
So what has this to do with standees, well we shall now see. Coco was astonished to see the use of the word so Coco thought: Coco should consider other words which use this construction. You may care to correct the following:
It is an anchorage. The anchors anchor the anchee, which then becomes the anchored. Hmm, I think that is wrong. It is the boat, carrying the anchor, which is anchored.
It is an appointment. The appointors appoint the appointee who then becomes the appointed.
It is a beavering. The beavers beave the beavees which then become the beaved.
It is a colouring. The colours colour the colees which then become the coloured. It is better in US English.
It is a donation. The donors done [to] the donees, who then become the done[d]. Well, a three year old might say I have doed it, but I have doned it, perhaps not.
It is an execution. The executors and executrices execute the executees, who then become the executed.
It is an escape. The escapers escape the escapees, who then become the escaped. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was the escapees who escaped, but the -ees and -ors cannot be the same surely?
It is a firing. The firer fires the firee, who then becomes the fired. Well, you probably would not say it quite like that, but it makes sense at least.
It is a footballing. The footballers football the footballee, which then becomes the footballed.
It is a going. The goers go to the goee, which become the gone.
It is a howing. The howers how the howee, which becomes the howed.
It is an idling. The idlers idle the idlee, which becomes the idled.
It is a jambing. The jamborors jambor the jamboree, which becomes the jamboreed.
It is a joke. The jokers joke the jokee, who then becomes the joked.
It is a killing. The killers kill the killee, who then becomes the killed.
It is a laughing. The laughers laugh [at] the laughee, who then becomes the laughed.
It is a mortgage. The mortgagor mortgages the mortgagee, which then becomes the mortgaged.
It is a mourning. The mourners mourn the mournee, who then becomes the mourned.
It is a numbering. The numbers number the numberee which then becomes the numbered. After this my days probably are too.
It is a ornamentation. The ornamentor ornaments the ornamentee, who/which then becomes the ornamented. That should rather probably be: The ornamentrix ornaments the ornamentee, who then becomes the ornamented.
It is a payment. The payers pay the payee, who then becomes the paid.
It is a quelling. The quellors quell the quellee, which then becomes the quelled.
It is a ramble (like this). The ramblers ramble the ramblee which then becomes the rambled.
It is a registration. The registrars register the [interest of the] registrant which then becomes the registered.
It is a sizeuppance. The sizeuppers size the sizeuppees up, who then become the sizedup.
It is a spectacle. The spectators spectate the spectatees, who then become the spectated.
It is a standing. The standers stand (on/in front of/behind/below/above/next to etc?) the standees, who then become the standed.
It is a tidying up. The tidy-uppers tidy up the tidy-uppee, which then becomes the tidied-up.
It is a usurpation. The usurpers usurped the usurpee, who became the usurped.
It is a vivisection. The vivisectors vivisected the vivisectee which became the vivisected.
It is a waiting. The waiters and waitresses wait [on/for] the waitees, who then become the weighted.
It is a wedding. The wedders wed the weddees, who then become the wedded.
It is a weighing. The weigher weigh the weighees who then become the weighed.
It is a xysteration. The xysterators xysterate the xysteree, which becomes the xysterated.
It is a yanking. The yankers yank the Yankee, which becomes the yanked.
It is a zincing. The zincers zinc the zincee, which then becomes the zinced. Coco knows Coco should have said galvanising, but z-verbs are fewer and further between then x-verbs. Zoom does not cut the mustard.
Has it become obvious to you that the -ee-or endings, like the famous donkey, are rather morose. They speak of an empty head which has seen the -ee-or elsewhere and thought ‘that can be used in place of ‘standing’’. On a bus, there is likely to be a notice indicating that it is licensed to carry 30 seated and 20 standing. What has clearly been forgotten is that this is a common English way of saying 30 seated passengers and 20 standing passengers. Standing is an adjective without its noun, just as pan in the initial discussion is an adjective without its noun. Coco suspects that perhaps they were told that standing is an adjective and thought ‘O, we cannot use that then’. Did they forget, there is already a noun implied in the notice which does not need to be said, but sometimes is, or at least used to be, and therefore standing is the correct word to use. Better than standee then would have been to use orthostatis, at least the correct form of that word is definitively defined, if Coco may use a tautologous repetition of a conceptual idea.
By the way, the second purpose of the discussion of the sieve was also to show that just because a theory suggests the existence of a particular state of matter, the real world does not have to provide it. There may be an apparently empty slot (*as above for the Fluidum obstructus; licet solidum ius detur seive) in our design for the world, but it is perhaps just as likely that the design is wrong as that the thing for the slot exists.
For in saying: where is the promise of his coming, they wilfully forget that God made the worlds of old out of water and destroyed them with water (ie the cataclysm). Just so he shall destroy the present world (at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ) with fire (2 Peter 3 and elsewhere). Do you have a conception of this world which excludes that? Does your paradigm omit judgement and retribution? We must not forget that God has shown his wrath, and mercy towards sinners, in the death of Jesus Christ who for sinners received the just judgement and retribution that our sins deserved in order that God may justly show mercy and provide forgiveness to sinners.
A tautologous repetition of conceptual ideas will not produce the making of a taxonomic classification of factual data items however well clothed with an investment in a garb of reasonable logic, but it may provide a cane with which to rod those with whom your tolerance will have nothing to do.
There were four schools on the remote populous Atlantic Island of South Withering, we call them A, B, C and D. The Island had overall a poor reputation for the education of its people and wished to improve its standards. A report was commissioned and after much deliberation it was agreed by the educational sociologists that the recommendations would be implemented subject to some minor modifications which they assured all would not invalidate the new measures. It was a stick and carrot approach but as with most social sociology the emphasis was upon the carrot. There would be rewards for increasing standards of achievement amongst pupils as this was felt to be the most appropriate way to encourage both schools and pupils.
The targets were ambitious, but given the abysmal starting point generally recognised as not unattainable. Over three years there was a hope, it was not expressed as an expectation, of a ten percent improvement in educational achievements. The teachers at school C were quite concerned about the targets, but nevertheless threw their weight behind the initiative and after learning that their colleagues at school D were struggling offered them help in the form of additional coaching and tutoring. The teachers at schools D and C worked together over the following years. Schools A and B continued to make steady but not remarkable progress.
At the day of assessment all four schools were astonished at the outcome. School D received prestigious rewards for its achievements. Schools A and B were commended, but school C would be placed in special measures for its failure to draw anywhere close to the targets that had been set.
The results table was as follows:
Grades
α
β
γ
Overall
υ
A
10%
13%
20%
15%
-50%
B
12%
10%
10%
11%
-69%
C
0%
3%
-5%
0%
0%
D
50%
25%
30%
31%
-68%
Increase in numbers passing exams at grades and decrease in unclassified results
What was not disclosed however were the actual numbers of pupils before and after (the before numbers have been scaled to match the current numbers):
Before
After
Grades
α
β
γ
υ
α
β
γ
υ
Total
A
150
230
200
170
165
260
240
85
750
B
130
180
210
80
146
198
231
25
600
C
450
30
20
0
450
31
19
0
500
D
90
250
350
310
135
312
455
98
1000
Total
820
690
780
360
896
801
945
208
2850
All of the teaching staff knew that without the dedicated support of the staff at school C, in guiding her teachers but primarily in motivating her students, school D would have made little or no progress. But in their hearts, they knew, it was useless to say anything. For school C even the best possible result would have been regarded as a failure: +11% at α -100% at β -100% at γ -0% at υ.
What has that to do with Welsh farmers one may ask? I too do wonder why they are in December 2020 to be given new reduced greenhouse gas emission targets when they already have one of the lowest rates of emission in the world?
Jones, the farmer, who had been very active in the farmers’ union throughout his working life, on his retirement had been asked to present to his colleagues on the techniques that he had used and tried over his many years’ of active life. Some months later in the course of his closing remarks he mentioned that he had farmed 1000 hectares for over forty years, and through the implementation of systems of active land management and rotation in his last twenty or so years had increased his average five year yield from 6 tonnes an hectare to 8, but in this latest year he had achieved over 10 tonnes per acre.
His peers were impressed by his long term achievement, but what had he done recently? ‘Remarkable’, they spoke to one another in the reception afterwards. ‘Indeed’ would be the reply, ‘what had he done, what is the secret?’ And all and sundry wanted to ask him the burning question, but he seemed to take control of every conversation and steer the discussion away from the question of yield to techniques and environmental impact. Eventually the younger farmers gave up, until another retired gentleman farmer spoke out, and asked Jones to explain to the company what he had meant and how he had done it, giving Jones, as only an older man could do, no escape. Jones replied quite simply, ‘if you are willing to put in the effort then ten tons per acre is not in anyway unachievable, but, he added, I knew that if I planted more than one square yard I would not be able to devote sufficient care to the crop to produce such a yield.’
‘By the grace of God given to me, Paul, do not think more highly of yourself than you ought, but let each by careful judgement measure yourselves according to the faith that God has given you. ‘ Of course, if we have no faith then we have no standard by which to measure, but nevertheless our standard is Jesus Christ, who loving his enemies, gave his life for us that we may receive from him faith and so be able to serve and love him in his eternal kingdom (Romans 12:3 and elsewhere).
If Coco said that the opinion that ‘A is safe’ is supported by 100 years of medical experience, and the opinion that ‘A is not safe’ is only supported by sixty such years, which opinion are you more likely to trust?
If Coco further told you that one hundred second year medical students had formed the first opinion, but only two consultants in their late fifties had formed the second, would you remain of the same view?
What bearing then does the fact that there are 100 years of medical experience between the UK regulator and the committee advising which groups of people should be vaccinated first have upon the opinion that the CMO promulgates?
Furthermore, we all know that it was a committee that designed the first camel to win the Grand National.
On Thursday, the UK’s deputy chief medical officer Prof Jonathan Van-Tam told the BBC he was “very confident” in the MHRA. He said there was more than “100 years of medical experience” between the UK regulator and the committee advising which groups of people are vaccinated first.
Coco has a friendly Corsa who is ever the optimist In fact she is in his view overly optimistic even in the face of the facts.
When topped up with a mere 41.32l of petrol she will announce that she has a range of 499 miles. Coco is pretty sure that she announces only 499 miles because that is the upper limit on the metre she uses. But the facts so obviously fly in the face of this optimism. The other day and three miles before being topped up she announced that she had less than 19 miles left, sulked bitterly and refused to do any more calculations. She also knows that she has a range of 39.1 miles for every gallon she holds. Now to his mind that mean that after the top up she would have a range of about 41.32*39.1/4.546 + 16 say 370 miles. Well Coco can only attribute the additional 129 miles to optimism or perhaps merely to hubris. Such optimism is entirely misplaced, would you not agree?
We can all be like that, and have an optimism which is misplaced. We live in a harsh world, in which the difficulties which are common to us all will not be effaced, and in which there are hardships which are of our own making and others made by other people for us. There is no excuse of course for the making of those hardships, and those who mistreat others, as we are reminded by the recent references to the Nuremberg trials, shall be brought to account.
But lest we sink into pessimism, there is an optimism which we may have which is even greater than my Corsa’s, which if she had anything like it she would use to claim a range, if her metre allowed it, of ∞: Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him.
Do we love the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Do we love him?
Optimism based upon the work of Christ on the cross, unlike that of the friendly Corsa, is never misplaced.
It has been said if a lie is to believed it must be a big one
Now certain reports have suggested to Coco that not many of you are likely to read this post through as it is too long, nevertheless it shall be long. Sometimes a short rebuke is both necessary and effective, but in reasoning and critique a longer reply may be required. Another reason for you not wanting to read it through might be that it is far too convoluted, perhaps, some would say, dense or even turgid, but whatever your reason might be Coco hopes that you will be able to overcome any such propensity and continue to plough a furrow through it such as shall not be erased at least not before the late rains have come.
Paul was not afraid to use words spoken by those with whom he would not be in full agreement when they spoke the truth: so in Athens ‘in him we live and move and have our being’, as well as possibly a more famous extract from a Cretan poet there and elsewhere, are used by him to great effect. In our day however when you quote someone who happens to belong to a proscribed group you risk the most severe of opprobria, not to mention discipline, that our society can, if it believes in discipline, find. Coco says this because Coco intends to quote from one who comes in for even greater censure than the one who said something like: When a great opportunity arises, do not play with trifles.
It was this man, whom Coco shall not name but who will be well known to you, and to whom Coco is very happy to attribute the words Coco shall use should you wish to ask, but will not do so here in order to avoid the risk that this post shall be heard in Moscow or Peking having so been reported by the automated trawlers to those who think they have authority over us and what we post here and yet to the real authorities are unwilling to accept any responsibility for what we post; but that subject is really outside the scope of what Coco wishes to say here, and consequent to their audit result in a potential redaction of this post.
So to move on, it makes good business sense, some would say, that you go where the big money is. So on the eve of battle you might expect to hear: when there is an opportunity to make money out of [repeatedly] providing a vaccine to everyone on the planet, why go after (play) with something that will only benefit one in 1,000, unless the profit out of that trifle is at least 1,000 times greater than the profit to be made out of each dose of the vaccine?
Or perhaps the authorities might say: when there is an otherwise greater and more significant opportunity to exercise control over our people (they do not like to remember that at least in the West it is the other way round, they are our governors) why go after anything less? They see that there are some social benefits, although also significant costs, in social order. They forget though that a former Dutch prime minister who having done the historical analysis over a hundred years ago, concluded that the best solution to social deprivation and vice would be for the government to promote the preaching of the evangelical Christian gospel such was the evidence from the previous two hundred years of the turn around and improvement that there had been where that gospel had touched the hearts and lives of men and women. Coco is again in danger of drifting, rambling some might say, outside the scope of what Coco came here to say.
Now, if you have read Coco carefully you will note that Coco has not actually said or accused anybody of doing something or saying something which they have not said, but let Coco ask a question, based upon a remark of one who was probably knew and was known by the one who said: in the face of a great opportunity do not play with trifles, unlike Drake who when faced with the Armada continued his game of bowls, or Belshazzar who partied into the night when the Medes and Persians were at his gates.
Before Coco does so, just a brief reminder of our mortality. Before the beginning of the 20th Century our mortality rates were around 20 per mille. Coco shall not argue over whether they were as low as 17 or as high as 25. Using a five year average by 1970 they had fallen to around 12 per mille and continued to fall until about six years ago hitting a low just above 8.5 per mille. It is currently at something just under 9.5 per mille. The rates for other countries may differ, and the rates Coco has provided may differ from other sources, but the differences are not so significant as require an explanation here. Coco understands there is some kind of correlation between mortality rates and life expectancy, but it is a complex relationship, in physical terms a three body problem, so Coco must leave that to the experts in that field. Whilst reading into this matter (researching would be too strong a term) Coco was astonished to find that some work had been done on the correlation of wealth production and life expectancy. If they are right perhaps the owners of this forum might be expected to outlive Methuselah. However, causation cannot be proven, for the numbers do not determine the date of Coco’s death, rather it is the deaths of all who have gone before us which determine these numbers. Ours will only affect numbers which we shall never know.
Now in the light of what was truthfully said: if you are going to tell a lie make sure it is a big one, what conclusion might you reach over whether, if they are lies, what Coco has suggested might have been said or whether, if they are lies, what was actually said by the authorities, whether they are governing authorities or scientific authorities, which Coco has not reported here, about the current infection is the bigger lie?
In accordance with good examination practice (should we ever see them again), you are required, please, to set out your reasons in no more than the number of words that Coco has taken to reach the next following full stop.
Finally, one of the sources of the data requires Coco to state: Office for National Statistics various years, Data obtained through the Human Mortality Database, www.mortality.org on 17 November 2020
☺ With apologies in advance for errors of syntax, orthography and grammar which may be found embedded in this document whether arising from oversight, incorrect application of language packs or generally any other misadventure; and in general for any offence given inadvertently or inappropriately or both taken or not taken by those whose sensibilities, whether grammatical, orthographical, moral or simply personable, have been offended whether, not or if you have not incorrectly misunderstood the content, intent, meaning and purpose of this article, and to those whose copyrights may have been inadvertently or wantonly infringed, but never as to cause damage the copy holder’s rights, and, if you have managed to read this far, for any errors or omissions whether wilful, unintended, innocent or deliberate in the content of this polemic, and with thanks to you who have made it thus far for your patience.
A man is ‘called out’ for posting a workout referencing a film ’12 years a slave’ . What are we supposed to do? What is wrong with using such simile? ‘I’m working like a slave’ is not an uncommon phrase. Are we to be banned from using it anymore? Surely it both celebrates the capacity of a slave to work hard and at the same time recognises that a man should not have either to work as a slave or be a slave. What are we to say instead? I’m running like a winger? I’m spinning like a jet engine? Or ballet dancer? They don’t have quite the same impact, do they? And the impact that I’m working like a slave has is derived from the very thing that slavery is.
Slavery is a fact, not just of history, but of our present world. Slave traders were often rich men, and were not just white skinned. Where are the slave routes today? They may not be crossing the Atlantic but they still cross other seas. Who are the traders? Where do they live? What colour, as if it mattered, are their skins?
Our trainer came up with a bright, witty and memorable tag line for his routine. Why condemn it and him? Surely we should celebrate those who in this way expose the hardships of slavery. Perhaps he should have used the proverb slightly amended: I’m working-out like a slave.
But yet still remember: I love, I love my master, I will not go out free, for he is my redeemer, he paid the price for me. In his kingdom there is no distinction between native born and the stranger, there is one law for all: Greek, barbarian and Scythian…which I think includes even the English Irish Scots and Welsh not to mention the rest of the world, slave and free, and one day people from every tribe, tongue and nation shall eat at the table of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Come to him and live. Become his slave and discover that only in his service is their* true freedom.
* I have just noticed it that some grammaticasters may be annoyed by the spelling of ‘their’, but surely it is correct. I leave the reader to discover why that is so.
Whilst Coco does not agree entirely with our well-intentioned trainer’s conclusion: ‘Unfortunately I can’t rewind time and take it back – it’s my mistake and it’s a big one. I made a poor judgement in a post and I’ve apologised. I don’t know what else I can do‘, Coco also understands that there really is nothing else he can do. When a person wants to find a reason to be offended, they will not accept your apology, neither will they be persuaded by any argument that they have no cause to be offended. It behoves however those who have been offended not to themselves cause offence by insults. Let not the pot call the kettle black.
The only mistake he made was to forget that there are those in this world who enjoy taking offence at someone else’s expense and are constantly on the lookout for the opportunity to do so.
It is spring in Paris. Ooops, Coco’s mistake, of course it is not, unless there has been a strong deflection of the geocentric axis of which we have been unaware until now. Still, it was a mistake and as much a mistake as Coco’s attempt to draw a snow scene. Pooh had also come to understand this, that pencils were rarely inclined to go where you would prefer to go, but would find their own way to where you would not.
It was towards the beginning of the covidavian pandemic around Easter 2020 that the penguins of the isolated Prince Edward territory had implemented for the protection of their fragile avian society a new social distancing policy.
In recent days as spring approached the rising of the sun shed a new light upon the devastating impact of the influence of the pandemic….
Earlier this year… [Boko Haram] released a video of a masked Muslim child holding a pistol behind a bound and kneeling…
Coco does not necessarily endorse or agree with any views or theological statements, except insofar as they are in accordance with the Word of God, which belong solely to the authors thereof, expressed in any of the content of the embedded web page, nor is Coco responsible for the content of external Internet sites. The content of such sites may be changed by the owners or maliciously by hackers, and may no longer display the material for which the link was original provided. Secondly, the iframe below has limited functionality and you may prefer to read the page on a new tab as it was intended to be read by the authors thereof. If so, please use the link adjacent to the image above.
