OB’s in an Outhouse
I have sent OB on a mission to count copies of The Dictionary. Her base of operation is a sumptuous residence in Bedford Square (though she only gets to use the outhouse). Unfortunately, it has no internet access (not the kind of thing which is required for the servant quarters). This means that there will be a blogging hiatus. Unless I can think of something to say in the meantime. Which I can’t. Hang on, let me think – what have I been irritated about over the last few days? Hmmm. Oh yes. The soccer player Adrian Mutu got caught with traces of cocaine in his body; so he has to undergo a course of psychological counselling. There are so many levels of stupidity with this idea that I’ve exhausted myself thinking about them, so I’m shutting up.
I was going to attempt to enumerate them, but I see what you mean.
It’s even worse than that. He appears to by undertaking the counselling in the hope of avoiding a serious penalty from the FA. Just like those players who writhe around on the ground after committing an appalling tackle in the hope that the ref will sympathise and not give them a yellow card. Let’s hope it’s just as successful…
Bedford Square, eh? If the intrepid auditor wants to break into a danish with a reader, then I’m just up on Bedford Way, but a few minutes yonder. I’m emailable (but alas, OB is beyond the net… oh, the bitter appropriateness…)
“He appears to by undertaking the counselling in the hope of avoiding a serious penalty from the FA. Just like those players who writhe around on the ground after committing an appalling tackle in the hope that the ref will sympathise and not give them a yellow card. Let’s hope it’s just as successful…”
Does this mean you hope he is succesful, or you hope he is not? (I can’t stand soccer, so I don’t know how often the yellow card ploy is sucessful). Because it strikes me that taking recreational drugs and fouling someone are two very different things. The former should be no-ones business but the taker, whereas a foul is effectively an assault and so does deserve sanction. Surely you are not suggesting people ought to be punished for drug taking are you? (That they are is another issue, but most drug laws are stupid and immoral. The only drug laws that there should be is that they should contain what they claim to contain and nothing else IMHO).
Remember the Winter-Olympic snowboarder who was banned in the mid-nineties after testing positive for cannabis. ‘Dude’ he said to the cameras, ‘since when was smoking pot performance ENHANCING ?!’
ChrisM – seriously though, it also depends how serious one regards the offence these days, considering a good proportion of the London Square Mile and a large part of many other city professions, including legal, are chock full of coke-heads. I think the FA has to prove it’s a serious organisation every now and then – not by penalising certain overpaid under-evolved players for inexcusably stupid, deceitful or violent actions on the park (by no means all players fit this category of course), but by penalising otherwise ok people in the profession for daring to display human ‘weaknesses’. They have to be punished, because they are among other things, ‘role models’ and ‘ambassadors for the profession’. FA seems to be at the beck and call of the tabloids in this respect, and an amount of p.c. nonsense now seems to be creeping in with the ‘counselling’ get out of jail card. Therefore commonplace, relatively harmless social misbehaviour such as recreational drug use and having hectic sexual calendars (even when single) become reprehensible, intolerable. Inflicting potentially career-threatening injuries on the pitch are somehow more tolerable, it would appear.
“ChrisM – seriously though, it also depends how serious one regards the offence these days,”
“inflicting potentially career-threatening injuries on the pitch are somehow more tolerable, it would appear. “
I can’t quite work out whether you are agreeing with me or not ;-). I think you are but the first line implies you are about to disagree with what I had said, then everything else that follows seems to imply otherwise. (The last line in particular looks like you think – as do I – that fouls are far worse than snorting a bit of bolivian marching powder).
I agree ! Apologies, I think I caught myself up in a dastardly web of socio-psychotropic relitavism… I promise to clean up my act.
Since there is no known chemical treatment or gene therapy for cocaine addiction, how do you propose that it be treated other than by psychological counselling? The only other therapy that anyone has invented is shutting the sufferer up in a police cell, and a) this doesn’t work; b) in the absence of evidence thaat would stand up in a court of law, it’s illegal.
Or are you trying to make the point that people who take cocaine shouldn’t be allowed to play football?
Sufferer?!
I am sorely tempted to do it.
No, I won’t! It is too demeaning.
“Since there is no known chemical treatment or gene therapy for cocaine addiction, how do you propose that it be treated other than by psychological counselling?”.
For most users of cocaine, like most users of alchohol, there is no “problem” to be “treated”. You have clearly bought into the whole phoney drug-war propaganda. The notion that all drug use is abuse, and is something that needs treating is a lie, as most recreational users of drugs will attest.
And in any event, you have provided me with a false enumeration. Even if there is no chemical or gene treatment, that does not mean that counselling is the only alternative.
My propsed treatment for users of cocaine is to mind my own bloody business about what people put into their own bodies, and for the state to damn well do the same. Seems a lot better than counselling to me. It would certainly do more to aleviate the suffering of the vast majority of drug users.
For those few that DO have problems, like those few who have problems with alcohol, or gambling, or any other of life’s pleasures, then if they wish to seek help with counselling then fine. But to force people to do it, just to avoid a punishment that they should not be facing in the first place is blackmail and obscene.
I said:
“Because it strikes me that taking recreational drugs and fouling someone are two very different things. The former should be no-ones business but the taker, whereas a foul is effectively an assault and so does deserve sanction.”
You said:
“Or are you trying to make the point that people who take cocaine shouldn’t be allowed to play football?”.
Is this an example of a text having meanings that even the writer was not aware of. Only a postmodenernist could possibly have seen that point in anything I said.
“just to avoid a punishment that they should not be facing in the first place is blackmail and obscene.”
Add to that that said treatment will almost always entail 12-step groups and signing up for a belief in a “Higher Power” and you have a case of mind rape and coercion if the person has a problem with believing that a “Higher Power” will help them.
Dsquared: I heartily agree with Chris M on the personal freedom business. However, there is another theoretical assertion that having a harmless little line or two at a party is nevertheless socio-economically contributing to the global crack epidemic, affecting poorer regions worst, by creating a hole in the market and hence driving up demand for the raw material – coca – and its derivatives. Therefore, one could argue, shouldn’t people in positions of responsibility and high influence toward younger citizens take the lead, rather than the line ? Your views ?
ChrisM: I have a strong feeling that the multi-million pound stakeholders (i.e. large shareholders, underwriters, Russian oil moguls etc) in most Premiership clubs would insist on the clubs’ lawyers making provision via personal contracts for thorough ‘private’ medical reports on players covering any deleterious conditions (including addictions) to help protect their investments – remember, football clubs are entitled to view their players as assets as well as employees. Hence very few top-level players these days can actually get enough into their systems to get hooked, let alone run around week in week out full off space dust, unlike ten or more years ago. On that assumption, one might surmise the whole episode was a load of media-led bollocks ?
And anyone heard from OB ?
James. Another good point.
“However, there is another theoretical assertion that having a harmless little line or two at a party is nevertheless socio-economically contributing to the global crack epidemic, affecting poorer regions worst, by creating a hole in the market and hence driving up demand for the raw material – coca – and its derivatives. “
Similar accusations have been made against tobacco, McDonald’s burgers, coco (as in chocolate), and all manner of other commodoties. This seems a global trade issue more than a reason to criminalise drug users. If that WERE the reason (which I accept you are not saying it is), for illegality, then the sactions are hitting the wrong people. And it doesn’t really exaplina why designer drugs are also illegal. (I accept you were probably playin devil’s advocate).
“I have a strong feeling that the multi-million pound stakeholders (i.e. large shareholders, underwriters, Russian oil moguls etc) in most Premiership clubs would insist on the clubs’ lawyers making provision via personal contracts for thorough ‘private’ medical reports on players covering any deleterious conditions (including addictions) to help protect their investments – remember, football clubs are entitled to view their players as assets as well as employees. “
Now you’re talking ;-). I definitely buy that as a reason for the employer to have something to say as it is directly relevant to their investment. There is still no reason for the state to be sticking its nose in (if you’ll pardon the apt expression). But that of course is a contract between two parties, not a law of the land.
Agreed on both ‘hits'(Sorry)
Another example of that personal/political thang: I am not responsible for Elf/Fina/Total’s savage exploitation and denegration of the Burmese people just because I fill my car up each Monday. (Sorry, fed up with hearing about US/Haliburton – the French Big Oils can do it too!)
On the second point, I imagine the clubs know full well what their boys are up to in private. It’s only when an FA / Fifa random test throws up positive results that it gets out to the press, who naturally then have lots to say on the issue, being the abstemious, nay, vituous paragons of clean living that they clearly are…
Chris: I was responding to the original post, not to your comment. I should have been clearer, sorry.
“Chris: I was responding to the original post, not to your comment. I should have been clearer, sorry.”
No worries. But in answer to the question, I think it would be better (in that people would have a more accurate picture of reality) if not all drug use was labelled as something that needs correcting.
Clearly some people DO have problems with drugs, but is is misleading to think that the use of drugs itself is always and by definition a problem. That leads to bad laws, and bad public policy, both unfair in and ineffective in dealing with the minority that do have problems. (I read once that the drug trade is the third largest global industry, and if it were to disappear overnight, the world would be plunged into recession).
decent statistical efforts have the trade in illegal drugs at about 1-2% of GDP, which is not by any means insignificant, but not quite in that sort of league.
GDP of where? Is that global GDP?, or of one country? And, 1-2% of GDP ON ONE INDUSTRY makes that industry pretty sizeable. So long as only two other industries make up more that 1=2% og GDP, that would still make drugs the third largest industry.
I can’t defend the factoid I gave, but it is certainly not refuted with what you say above. i.e. it could be the third largest industry and still 1-2% of GDP.
Wonder if Mutu will pursue the councelling now Chelsea have sacked him…
By the way message for JS and Outhouse Ophelia – Waterstones in Northampton had 1 copy of the DoFN on Saturday lunchtime, but they couldn’t find it, and weren’t sure whether should be in Popular Culture, Comedy, Reference or Goods In… they were very busy so I went to the pub instead, after suggesting they sorted their lives out. Sorry.
Oh, and the Waterstones in the Southe Bank centre (near Queen Elizabeth Hall) had three copies (now two – I couldn’t resist) in amongst political cartoons and comics – a very respectable section, in my view..
Thanks guys. OB is in the outhouse for just one more day. Then she’s flying back to the US. Blogging will then be resumed.
In the meantime, I’ve got to think of something to say so that we have an entry for November 1st.
The trouble is that my empty-headedness knows little bounds, so it isn’t going to be easy…
Hey, Alex, sorry I missed you, that would have been fun. Well it would have been fun for me anyway – it would have been sheer misery for you.
“Waterstones in Northampton had 1 copy of the DoFN on Saturday lunchtime, but they couldn’t find it, and weren’t sure whether should be in Popular Culture, Comedy, Reference or Goods In… they were very busy so I went to the pub instead, after suggesting they sorted their lives out. Sorry.”
God, I know! I was telling JerryS the same thing the other day. They are so pathetic! I got variations on that in so many Waterstone’s (yes I did go into every single one I encountered, why do you ask?). “Yes we have it but the question is where.” Well how do you ever find anything then you fools is this any way to run a bookshop are you insane? The worst was the one in Hampstead. It’s in humour. No it’s not, so it’s upstairs, maybe in popular culture, maybe in dictionaries. No, it’s not upstairs in those sections or any other – so it is downstairs in humour after all. On this shelf. No. On this table, no, on this other table, no, over here, no. Gosh, golly, gee, we do have it, I saw it, we have several copies, I put it here and then I decided it belonged in humour – so now, what do you know, I can’t find it at all at all.
Well thanks a lot!
The Notting Hill one put it with real dictionaries. Oh brilliant. The Richmond did the same, and dictionaries are on the top floor, two flights up with no escalator, so they might as well be lost. Top floor indeed [mutters wrathfully]…
It’s true about JerryS and empty-headedness. He thinks about squash and muscles and pretty much nothing else. Sad, really.