Should I get a cat?

I've been secretly (I haven't admitted this to anyone) thinking about getting a cat. I have no idea why; I don't really like cats. I thought I'd consider the Pros and Cons of this.

Pro:

1. Cats are temperamentally much like me; a cat and I could live together in a spirit of mutual separatism, a bit like the British and the French - wary of each other but too lazy to do anything about it
2. Cats need minimum looking after
3. Cats do not generally generate mountains of hairs, as do dogs
4. Company

Con:

1. I don't want cat poo in my house - would need to be a self-cleaning cat
2. Reluctant to spend my pension on cat food - would need to be a self-feeding cat; rodents, neighbours' cat food, etc.
3. Problems with kennels or whatever when I'm away
4. However (see Pro #3) cats do make me feel itchy; this could be psychosomatic
5. I worry that, given my low boredom threshold, I might lose interest

Doesn't sound as though this is going to work. Shame. Could I just rent a cat? Is that even a thing? If not, someone needs to see the business opportunity. Maybe a holographic cat.

I will seek advice on the matter and get back to you.

Current thinking; Con #5 is the clincher.

If I did get a cat, what brand should I go for? Karen Wu Ph.D. in Psychology Today reports on a 2019 research project (actually a survey of cat owners so not sure that's 'research'), from which I quote selectively:

Most aggressive toward (human) family members: Angora

Least aggressive toward family members: British Shorthair

Most aggressive toward strangers: Angora

Least aggressive toward strangers: British Shorthair

Most aggressive toward other cats: Angora

Least aggressive toward other cats: Persian and Norwegian Forest Cat

Most shy toward strangers: Russian Blue

Least shy toward strangers: Burmese

Most shy towards novel objects: Russian Blue

Least shy towards novel objects: Cornish Rex

Most likely to seek human contact: Devon Rex

Least likely to seek human contact: British Shorthair

Most active: Cornish Rex

Least active: British Shorthair

Most likely to suck wool: Turkish Van, Maine Coon

Least likely to suck wool: Russian Blue

Most likely to groom excessively: Burmese

Least likely to groom excessively: Neva Masquerade

Most likely to have a behavioural problem: Oriental breeds, Persian

Least likely to have a behavioural problem: British Shorthair, European Shorthair

This is harder than I thought.

Cashing In

When I play (or played, as it hasn't happened for over a year obviously) poker in one of my local pubs, the monthly £10 freezeout is a big occasion. With ten players, the £60 first prize sets you up for ... well maybe not life but at least for a few pints (I don't drink zero alcohol on those occasions for fear of being mocked for unmanliness). Second gets £30, which is six Asda breakfasts and third gets his (always men dunno why) £10 back. Fourth place gets the same as tenth - nothing. However, tenth gets the benefit of going out earlier and thus having perhaps a couple of hours of value-added economic activity which gets one over on the  guy who struggles for that time and ends up losing £10.

My poker mentor - Son #2 Daniel - taught me that second place means nothing: if you come second you are a loser. Therefore the obvious strategy is to go hard and early with your poker aggression. If it doesn't work, you'll be able to indulge in the afore-mentioned value-added economic activity (and probably saves you £4.50 for the second pint you would have bought); if it does, you'll be able to cruise to victory.

In contrast, the Premier League is a no-lose league. With just tomorrow's final matches to go, Sheffield United will come last and pocket ... £125 million. I'm obviously playing the wrong sport; I should cash in my poker winnings and buy a Premier League club. Manchester United, a small provincial club of which even the most soccer-averse of you [yes that's you, MiceElf] may have heard, earned £161 million for coming second. You can see why the 'top six' clubs (a term invented by the richest six) want to have a bigger share of the pot and have on a number of occasions, most recently with the European Super League fiasco of an idea, presented propositions to enable that. Why would you spend £100 million on a top player and still, even if you come first in the league, earn only £38 million more than the club which finishes last?

Of course, Sheffield United will be relegated, so next year they will not get to share the Premier League's millions. But here's the thing - they get another prize: 'parachute payments'. Next season that will amount to around £40 million for them. This iniquitous system almost guarantees that they have a really good chance to get promoted straight away. The two clubs so far promoted from the second tier league - the ridiculously styled 'Championship' - Norwich and Watford - were the bottom two in the Premier League last year. Norwich, in fact, invented the ultimate cash cow: get promoted, spend no money on different players, get relegated, pocket your £125 million and £40 million [are you keeping up?], get promoted ... rinse and repeat.

Time to make the club go up
Time to shut the club down
....
Then we rinse and repeat
And it just goes on

.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

I'm unsure what I think about attempts to re-engineer the past. Statues, such as those of Cecil Rhodes. I wonder whether Rhodes would have been a fan of The Clash.

... if you want me off your back
Well, come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?

I generally approach these apparently binary issues with a touch of cynicism. I doubt they are simple matters. In the case of Rhodes, it may boil down to what a statue is for. Things change; the culture of a nation changes, as do the values of humankind. Statues don't; they are either there or not (ask Saddam Hussein). Perhaps statues should be temporary, with a limited lifespan. He's no longer interesting; let's put her up instead for the next year or so. Made of some cheap material to facilitate that. Or holograms, with a coded time limit; you wake up one morning and discover that David Lloyd George is no longer in Parliament Square Garden. "Oh, we switched him off; his time was up; Madonna will be there next week."

I know virtually nothing about Cecil Rhodes so am unwilling to venture an opinion of his suitability for deification in concrete. I can consider the arguments on both sides: leaving the statue standing is a necessary reminder of how we, the British, condoned genocide vs removing the statue means we no longer share those imperial values and should not appear to celebrate them. Both arguments seem to me flimsy, sounding a bit Orwellian. I suppose I think statues coagulate the past and I am much more interested in the future.

I rather think Rhodes would have echoed The Clash:

If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
So ya gotta let me know
Should I stay or should I go?

A dog called 'arry

Sitting in the pub garden. A bottle of Heineken Zero. People watching. As you do. There's a large man nearby, in cargo shorts, with a dog. A small, white perky dog with a short, erect tail. The dog is clambering all over another dog (I believe there's a technical term for that but this is a family-friendly blog). "Stop it, 'arry!" says the man. Which makes me wonder after whom is the dog named. And on what kind of whims do people name their pets?

I think I've mentioned before (Pets and Kids) that I 'ad a budgerigar which I named Little Jim, after a character in The Goon Show, which was a wireless (that's what we used to call the radio in those days) show at the time. The 50s. Here are the actors: Peter Sellers (the smooth one with wicked mimicry skills), 'arry Secombe (the Wynne Evans [see the GoCompare ads] of his day) and Spike Milligan (the completely bonkers one):

I asked my friend Tony one day why 'is pug was named Lily. "She 'ad that name when I got 'er as a rescue dog and I thought she might suffer a self-esteem crisis if I changed it" 'e replied. I may 'ave slightly embroidered that but that's the gist of it. So no 'elp in answering my question.

My first instinct with pub dog was 'arry Kane, about whom I 'ave blogged recently (As a Spurs fan...). Or Prince 'arry, about whom I 'ave never blogged. But it's just as likely that 'arry's owner was called 'arry, although that could be confusing for all concerned. Maybe a 'arry Potter fan? Large man was too young to 'ave any empathy for 'arry Truman; on a football theme, it could 'ave been 'arry Redknapp (a true 'arry if ever I saw one) or Cliff Richard.

Wait! Cliff Richard, Nigel - where does 'e fit into the 'arry pantheon? 'cos 'is real name is 'arry Rodger Webb, silly; everyone knows that.

I was mulling this over, making notes ready for the blog. "Why don't I just ask 'im?" I thought ('im being the owner not the dog). I looked up and ... they 'ad gone. Bummer, I'll never know.

The Dawn of a Golden Age

I felt that a new Golden Age arrived today, as I ate a cooked breakfast - egg, bacon, mushrooms, fresh tomato, hash brown and beans, since you ask - in Asda this morning, resuming a twice a week routine - Wednesdays and Saturdays - from a previous era, aka a Dark Age. Accompanied by a real paper version of the Times, rather than that on iPad. A true feeling of liberation from the dark, satanic (should that be capitalised, I wonder? Satan as a quasi deity?) days of lockdowns, tiers and tears. A week from now, all being well, I shall be on my way to London and thence to Kent to visit friends and family; I shall breathe a sigh of relief.

Fellow video game players will be familiar with the concept of a Golden Age, during which you can earn more gold, produce more killing machines and build more wonders. In real life, historians look back on particular times and nominate them as Golden Ages.

The ancient Greek philosopher Hesiod introduced the term in his Works and Days, when referring to the period when the "Golden Race" of man lived.

That is from Wikipedia and it occurred to me that I use a lot of their material, so I decided to make a small monthly donation in recognition of that. As Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, writes: "We're a non-profit that depends on donations to stay online and thriving, but 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way. If everyone who reads Wikipedia gave just a little, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come."

I'm happy to be in the 2%.

I guess the designation of a Golden Age is often nationalistic: the Greeks pre-Prometheus, the Romans of Virgil and Ovid, Japan's Helan Period, the English first Elizabethan age, the French Belle Époque. Even pirates (1650-1726) and Hollywood (1920s?) have their 'Golden Ages': a bit budget, perhaps, but no more so than an Asda breakfast.

For some extremists, Brexit was posited as heralding a new Golden Age for Britain. Although I voted for Brexit, mine was a vote against the increasing, anti-democratic centralisation of the European Union, a realisation that the UK could never have enough influence to counter that in a union trying to grow its membership and behave on the international stage as an economic closed shop with tariff barriers when the rest of the world is trying to achieve a free trade Golden Age. I don't believe there will be a post-Brexit Golden Age for us, just as I don't believe there would have been a new Golden Age as part of the EU. For us, it's a slow, inexorable post-imperial, post-colonial decline and we can make the best of it in whatever guise we choose.

In my research for this post, I discovered a Golden Ages board game which seems to be just completely me. Problem is I have never been able to interest any family or friends in gaming; I'm hoping that, in a few years' time, my grandsons will be compliant. Anyone for a game? 2-4 players, 90 minutes, ages 12+, complexity rating 2.89/5.

We should all beware: in Civilization VI a Golden Age is often succeeded by a Dark Age, as a result of over-producing, increasing debt and just general hubris. From Wiki again:

In Hesiod's Works and Days, the Golden Age ended when the Titan Prometheus conferred on mankind the gift of fire and all the other arts. For this, Zeus punished Prometheus by chaining him to a rock in the Caucasus, where an eagle eternally ate at his liver.

Just not in the next two weeks, please.

Someone else of a restless nature

I read about Juanma Lillo, assistant manager at Manchester City, who has apparently managed 17 football clubs in his career. Googling "which manager has managed the most clubs?" gives you Roy Hodgson, who has managed 16. I if were Juanma I'd be a bit cheesed off about that.

In 1981 Lillo, a Spaniard, took his first managerial position at Amaroz KE, a small club in a small town called Tolosa in northern Spain. I could find no mention of this club in any of my usual reference material so it's possible it doesn't exist any more. Probably not Lillo's fault. His most recent managerial dalliance was in China at Qingdao Huanghai, who play in the Chinese Super League.

Hodgson's managerial career began in 1976 in Norway and subsequently encompassed clubs in England, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and Italy as well as coaching the national teams of Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and Finland.

In comparison with these two giants of peripatetic football, Alex Ferguson was manager of Manchester United for 26 consecutive years. Not quite a one club manager - he managed three Scottish clubs before United. Arsene Wenger managed Arsenal for 22 consecutive years and these two stand side by side as the longest successful managerial reigns in modern football.

But they pale in comparison with the records of Fred Everiss, who managed West Bromwich Albion from 1902 to 1948, and Guy Roux, who managed Auxerre in three separate reigns totalling more than 40 years.

What is it about these two distinct types - Lillo and Hodgson restlessly seeking new challenges and Ferguson and Wenger (in the same era) challenging themselves to drive their clubs to new heights? If you Google career restlessness, you get items characterising it as a negative, requiring remedial coaching:

"Agitation and restlessness: what causes it?"

"Feeling unhappy and restless at work?"

According to that, Lillo and Hodgson are suffering from some kind of illness, or least a syndrome that needs remedies but it seems to me more likely that's a misunderstanding of lifestyle choices: I've taken this team as far as I can, now I (and they) need a new challenge. A search for improvement rather than a Ferguson/Wenger search for perfection. Indeed a recognition that there is no perfection and that the pursuit of it is doomed to failure.

Of course, it could be that Lillo and Hodgson were not very good at their jobs and kept getting sacked; you'd have to be prepared to do more research to establish that. You might also have to be of an uncharitable nature.

I'm glad there are different kinds of people in the world and we should appreciate difference as a positive. Hooray for them all.