Have you ever played that rather quaint children's game, 'Pin the Tail on the Donkey?' Perhaps it's no longer one of the current party games of choice; perhaps the little mites just plug themselves in to the nearest computer terminus and, 'Hey Presto!' festivities sorted... until feeding time. What do I know? The question, however, so far as this blog is concerned, still stands; have you?
If you haven't, please allow me to elucidate. It's a game whereby blindfolded children take turns at attempting to pin a mocked-up tail upon a large picture of a donkey. The idea, quite obviously, is to get the tail as close as possible to its correct location. It's a simple and almost self-explanatory game that would serve well at any party where several of the children might communicate primarily in different first-languages. The game really is that simple!
Presumably one could easily adapt the game, should a party theme dictate; maybe 'Pin the Tail on the Elephant,' or 'Pin the Tail on the Aardvark,' or 'The Alien,' anyway, you get the drift. As long as the creature in question possesses the requisite tail the rules are entirely the same, always remembering, please, that the original form of the game was very much a donkey based affair.
Much thanks to The Prime Minister's Office
So, why the poor donkey? Clearly, there's the possible 'link' to the writings of the great AA Milne. There's even a chapter, in Milne's first book about Pooh, where Eeyore loses his tail. The chapter in question is the fourth in the volume, 'Winnie the Pooh,' and is helpfully subtitled, 'In which Eeyore loses a tail and Pooh finds one.' My respect for the talent of AA Milne prevents me from further elaboration. If you have not already done so I suggest that you take the time to read the section. It's only about ten pages long and the dilemma is beautifully resolved, in words that most us can only ever dream of committing to paper. Whilst you're at it make time for the whole book and then find the time for 'The House at Pooh Corner.' What better way to spend a few hours? Incidentally, there is evidence out there to suggest that the game actually predates the writings of AA Milne.
I'm not the only person to have wondered as to the origins of the aforementioned game; I've mustered a cursory search and have unearthed a few interesting sites that you might care to peruse, should curiosity endure. What I was unable to unearth however, yet had half expected so to do, was some sort of reference to the donkey's implied- but clearly undeserved- lack of intellect, some sort of reference to a requisite level of stupidity that might be required in order for the creature to have lost its tail in the first place.
But, alas not! Which is a tad unhelpful with regards to the somewhat tenuous link that I'm about to make.
Maybe the children's game is every bit as popular as ever it was. Introduce any basic sort of challenge- especially one whereby all of the children feel that they might have a half-reasonable chance at success- and I'm confident that they'd be more than happy to give it a go. The 'donkey' doesn't even need to be unduly realistic, just large enough for the watching-waiting children to see how well their friends and competitors are fairing. And what's really great is that the winning is almost an irrelevance.
But then there's, 'Pin the Tale on the Donkey'. At first glance it's somewhat similar and indeed the rules, once recognised, are not much more difficult to comprehend. But, otherwise, short of the one obvious similarity in the title, all other comparisons may not be immediately obvious.
I was witness to just such a 'game' the other night, during a news item on 'BBC Look East' (10th January 2013) and, whilst there wasn't actually a donkey involved there was a particularly stupid or, perhaps more accurately, sinister creature serving in its stead; one upon which 'the tale' had already duly been very precisely pinned. Once one recognises the nature of this particular variant of 'Pin the Tale on the Donkey,' one is, I have found, inclined to notice similar 'games' cropping up almost everywhere.
Allow me, once again, to elaborate. For this 'game' the donkey will definitely no longer suffice; the substituted creature needs to be able to talk, to 'communicate' (or mis-communicate), thus limiting the choices immediately to something human(ish). For example, on the BBC's 'Look East Dr Tim Wreghitt very 'sportingly' stepped up to the mark; he played the role of the donkey, or intellectually challenged pinnee. The pinner in this variant needs to remain, superficially at least, anonymous. Although, all too often, and with very little practice, I have found that one is invariably able to take a reasonable stab at exactly who might have done the 'pinning.' In case you haven't already worked it out the tale, in this instance, is not actually pinned onto the pinnee, rather it is handed to him or her, in the form of a statement, to be delivered to the wider public. The 'game', if game it can be considered, involves us, the wider public, attempting to decipher the statement. Our role is in teasing out the subterfuge from the reality. Ever the case, isn't it, with anything even remotely political?
Thanks again to The Prime Minister's Office
In brief, Dr Tim Wreghitt was the donkey charged by JC, The Health secretary, with the task of 'justifying' a further depletion of the teetering shell of the NHS, by yet further undermining the care provided by Southend Hospital. In this instance he was required to 'defend' a decision to close the hospital's phlebotomy department, 'explaining' that a far more 'efficient service' could be provided by Bedford Hospital, almost on the doorstep, at just two hours- traffic permitting- drive away. Incidentally this is a blood testing system that neither JC nor Dr Tim will be required to rely upon. Dr Tim went on to waffle around the issue of lost jobs, one of which will not, of course, be his. So quite a tale indeed.
Honestly, this 'game's' nowhere near as much fun as its predecessor. But then, in this unfortunate 21st Century version of the 'game', the winning has entirely overridden all those other considerations.
Understanding the 'game's' basic premise, saunter back a while with me, to the recent NRA response to having just witnessed twenty-seven of its Connecticut citizens slaughtered at the barrel of a Bushmaster AR-15 automatic. The NRA very quickly managed to find an absolute donkey, upon which to pin their jaw-dropping tale. CEO Wayne LaPierre 'sportingly' played the part of the ass, sorry donkey, whilst the tale swished and flicked and spat poisonously at all onlookers in the form of the claim that, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Wayne, seemingly unaware of the ass's ears sprouting ever more prominently from the sides of his vacuous skull, went on to advocate the arming of all schools. Thanks for that Wayne. What could possibly go wrong?
Me, I was slightly unclear as to exactly where the 'fine line' between "good guy" and "bad guy" should be drawn. I was sort of assuming that there might have been a time when young Adam Lanza was roundly thought of as a "good guy."
Obviously the "good guy" label had most definitely been applied to Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri, the elite body guard of Pakistan's Punjab Province's Salman Taseer. And this label was still thought relevant, right up to the moment that he wavered and shot Salman Taseer twenty-six times.
Was this man not selected entirely for his "good guy" credentials, before he suddenly became a "bad guy" and turned the gun on his charge? I thought NRA Wayne was more than a tad unclear on this point. Exactly how does one detect the precise moment when the "good guy" reverts? And will there always be an un-reverted "good guy" at hand to swiftly dispatch the now "bad guy", before any harm is done? And who will be watching him, the just-having-saved-the-hour "good guy", just in case he should begin to waver?
My God, Wayne LePierre is right! We're going to have to start arming the kids as well, just in case you understand... In the face of this sort of 'logic' we might even find ourselves, albeit temporarily, in the same camp as Piers Morgan- heaven forbid!
To clarify, via the previous YouTube link- and you really should watch it- Piers (criminal phone hacker, insider trader, friendless vacuum and noxious specialist) miraculously and confusingly finds himself cast upon the higher ground. In the referenced (shall we call it) interview, the moral low ground is angrily, almost to the point of violence, dominated by one Alex Jones, another 'proud' NRA supporter. Watch him 'rationally debate' the issue, with a real sense of 'decorum' and a great deal of 'gravitas,' and consider; a "good guy" with a gun or a "bad guy' with an undoubted stockpile of deadly weapons? What do we think?
Alex Jones, pushing the US gun debate very much into the red zone!
And then, far more sedately British yet curiously with equally destructive intent, there's the Coalition Mid-term Report. Can you separate the donkey from the pinner of the tale? Of course you can. Now let's get down to the more serious business of analysing the tale, separating all of that subterfuge, the disingenuous and the outright lies, from the facts?
Happy New Year, everyone! Coffee?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment