Jackie Evancho!!

The Cap is totally blowed down!! Like totally! Amma speechless.. just listen and watch.

This one was last night – on Britain’s Got Talent.

Of Justice and hunger

Research evidence has revealed that how lenient a judge might be is related to how close s/he is to a meal break! A hungry judge is an angry judge – you might think, and you’d be on the right track.

Recidivism amongst offenders also predicted outcomes. However, even after controlling for that factor, the effect of meal times remained strong.

As I’ve said before – and some have been blind to or missed entirely – it is what is below our level of conscious awareness that we need pay most attention to. I don’t think that any of the judges who were subject in the study would admit that because they were hungry and tired, they were more likely to rule in a certain direction.

The reason I can think that, is that they would be admitting to a bias of some kind, due to a very human reason. However, I think there is something else. I don’t think they were aware of how their cognitive skills were being eroded by imperceptible effects of tiredness and hunger. Read all about it (or not): The Economist: 2011-08-14 

All - ok 'most' or 'some' (for pedants) - of us like to think quite proudly that we are immune to matters that spring from the demands of flesh and blood. I call that an arrogant position. 

I occasionally work amongst some who take control and occasionally push us through the lunch time ‘barrier’. I’ve always compensated in my decision-making, in those times, by slowing everything down, and taking time to refresh myself.  I’d nip to the toilet, to kitchen to munch on something, for a drink of water, or skip off for even 30 seconds of fresh air (well a bit more). I nearly always carry snacks of some kind.

I refuse to accept that I’m mad.

This might bring a chuckle to a few, however there is a recurrent theme in my life that I wanted to document. The situation has come up a few times in the last week – where I’m made to feel ‘I mad’. This is how it goes:

1. Person A will say ‘X is the case’.
2. I will record very carefully - write down verbatim what they say - because I have audiographic memory for long enough to so (only takes a few seconds really)
3. I’ll show Person A that ‘X is not the case’ either because there is no tangible evidence, or because they reasoning is entirely wrong against any basic standard. When I say basic, I mean a thing cannot be the same and it’s opposite at the same time e.g. one cannot be dead and alive at the same time (in the normal course of everyday events).
4. Person A will then assert that:
   1. They never said ‘X was the case’.
   2. They didn’t mean it like ‘that’ i.e. the way I took it.
5. Person A will then introduce new conditions that weren’t present or declared in the original proposition – so as to bolster their own position that ‘X was the case’.
6. I would point out what they did – in excruciating detail.
7. Person A may take offence of some kind, and in least-case scenario will not show it or try to cover it. In worse case scenario they would use foul language so as to attempt to bully me out of what they actually said. It never works.

In another set of scenarios I’m dealing with in the background the following is happening:

1. They ask for “X”
2. I say the extent of “X” is unreasonable – and list why with evidence and reasoning – the main issue is potential loss of earnings.
3. They respond by indicating that it’s something to do with me not booking holidays.
4. Clearly it isn’t, because the issue is potential loss of earnings if I make myself available  to them, over a certain period and therefore lose opportunity of work. How on earth holidays could have anything to do with the matter me escapes me – and of course this means I’m ‘mad’ – if I don’t understand stupid logic!?
5. So I respond with detailed questions and set the context very clear – so that an average 10 year old can understand.
6. They respond after several weeks delay with the same references to holiday – totally oblivious to my detailed questions – I mean as if I didn’t even ask, even though the questions are quite clearly visible in the email thread.

You might think that the above is the result of a bunch of fools down on a god-forsaken Rock. Actually the responses come from lawyers in very high powered organisation in this country – people who are paid shitloads of money to be of a certain exceptional calibre (one might expect).

Some may be thinking, “Why does he persist?”. The answer is that I am not certain. Sometimes I think that I’m on a journey – one of discovery, perhaps. I don’t know exactly why I’m on it or where it leads, but there is something in my soul that will not allow me to rest. At times I tend to loathe being part of this race – the human race. They are so monumentally stupid – and I seem to bear physical and other resemblance to them. However, I’m so different. I’ve often said that I’m from another world – and at times I wishfully wonder if my journey is meant to get me back ‘home’. How did I become lost here – will probably unfold at some point in the future. When others try to insult me that "You’re from another planet!!” – I actually agree with them. Mad I am not!

Inefficient thinking

People (in general – and yes there are numerous exceptions) know how to use household appliances, iron their clothes, make a sandwich etc – nothing surprising there. Some might know how to use a computer, fix a car, or a bicycle. Others may know how to build computers, programme computers, design circuit boards etc etc.. you get the drift – basically people have various levels of skill.

But here’s the thing – and I see it on and off this blog repeatedly and nauseatingly – people seem unable to use their brains to maximal capacity. First I must ask, “Do people know how to use their own brains (minds if you wish)?”. No – I'm not talking about lower level of skill in using the ‘head’ as in adding up some figures, remembering a few facts, or being merely creative. I’m talking about the integrity of processes behind all that. I’m talking about the core processes. For those in IT – I’m talking ‘kernel’ as against OS (by analogy of course).

At some point on this blog you may see Jumbie or I taking issue with a certain thing. It’s usually the conclusions formed that cause much debate or dissection. How do people come to conclusions? What reasoning processes exist ‘in the head’? How good are those processes? ‘Good’, of course, meaning how well the mind can sift through competing issues, separate non-issues and battle with unconscious biases that would sway the proper application of logical rules.

Each person holds himself to be ‘good’. You hardly hear anyone saying genuinely “I’m so stupid, that it’s not worth listening to what I say”. But the reality is that each of those people, holding themselves to be good at thinking, actually isn’t as good as they may think. And who am I to stand in judgement you may wonder cynically. It’s not about me – it’s about each person looking at the way the other person’s mind comes to ‘their truth’ and how those ‘truths’ are pressed or passed to others.

What are the rules of logic? What is poor logical reasoning? How many people know about these things. Does Captain Walker know more than others about it? Sure – thing. And I say so not because I wish to boast about it – but because it is a matter of fact that when I refer people to the fallacies of logic – there are usually two kinds of responses:

1. Self-defence – or rather psychological defence i.e. a response that protects the perceived integrity of ‘self’.
2. Silence.

By now, if you got this far – you’d be expected to think “What the F* is he on about?” Yep – at least one thing is clear to me – I know myself. And knowing myself – I know that I don’t just teach. I think and I stimulate others to think.

And what about inefficient thinking? Is the above inefficient? I knew you’d get there. It isn’t. The above was only to ensure that some exceptional person would appreciate that on occasion I deal with obstacles first. And the biggest obstacles to efficient thinking are the mind itself and it’s emotions. The mind driven by emotions often does two main things:

1. Bends the rules of logic (whether known or not).
2. At the speed of light, turn inferences formed as a result of bent logic into fact.

And what about logic? The mathematical aspects of logical representation are not easy for most people. The easier route to learning about logic is to learn about logical fallacies. No you don’t have to do this. But for those who really want to extract some real truth out of the world and who wish to make their thinking more efficient the following resources may be of some assistance:

• Logical Fallacies – an encyclopaedia of errors of reasoning
• The Nizkor Project – 42 logical fallacies dissected – very readable and with good examples

Too often in my work (which is always ‘classified’), I see people accepting premises based on fragile evidence and reasoning. A group of premises may stack up to form conclusions. Now, if we accept premises that are not well based in evidence or reasoning, then the conclusions we form are like a ‘house of cards’ – it may look good but would fall if only slightly shaken. [Note the ‘if’ word]. In fact it takes only one bad premise to be shaken and the whole thing could come crashing down. So my policy is sound reasoning, sound logic and sound evidence. It might sound ‘simple’ but really when you get to decision-making, there are so many competing factors that come into the fold. It’s amazing how people start introducing criteria that are of no relevance. They then usually say things like ‘I’m just saying…”. And I often respond seemingly rudely to them – but very politely: “If it isn’t of relevance to the decision-making criteria then it ought not to be said” – and that’s a fact. But it’s amazing to see how people feel slighted by facts.

For those wondering why I’ve written the above – I’ve written it for me primarily, with a small degree of hope (because I don’t live on hope) that it may help at least one other person out there. Why primarily for me? Because I need to ensure that I can easily find these thoughts and references in the future.

What it is to be ‘alone’?

This is not about being lonely. I’ve been reflecting on certain life-situations, where I’ve felt ‘alone’. You can be ‘alone’ in a whole crowd of people. And you can certainly feel ‘lonely’ in a crowd. However the two concepts do not equate in my mind (regardless of any dictionary definitions).

The following are the characteristics that I’ve sifted out that constitute feeling ‘alone’:

1. Where I alone knew the intricate details, the multitude of interconnecting issues, and the various ramifications.
2. No one else would give the time of day or a candle by night to take the slightest interest in the details. It’s simply not their business.
3. Because of the course and intricacy of the situations, few would understand them in their entirety or sufficiently, to really grasp their significance.
4. A feeling that if another was to share in some of the detail they would certainly lose interest or feel they ‘shouldn’t go there’, on grounds of some political or moral correctness – conjured purely for avoidance.
5. Interest if shown would be short-lived and superficial, leading to under- or mis-appreciation of the salience of the issues.
6. Knowing a thing in detail and being so close to it, runs the risk of being accused of being pedantic – and seeing more into situations than exist.
7. Attempts to share the unique set of experiences leads to others taking a safe and middle road – after all they, not being able to grasp the depths of the issues are overly cautious, lest they be accused by some ‘watchful eye’ of misleading or misdirecting.

There is at times a pressure to share thoughts, with a hope that at least a single other person will appreciate, and provide rescue from a sense of potential insanity. But at the same there is an inhibitory risk that any sharing could lead to accusations of insanity. The tension between the two – hope of rescue from ;and risk of accusation of insanity – is an uncomfortable place.

Captain Walker's Seven Pillars of Apology:

1. The apology must be objectively perceived (i.e. to the majority of observers or the intended recipient) as genuine and sincere, taking into account all verbal and non-verbal cues of the person offering the apology


2. There must be unqualified admission of wrongdoing.


3. Clarity and specificity about what the wrongdoing was.


4. Unqualified acceptance of personal responsibility for the wrongdoing or acceptance of wrongdoing on behalf of an entity which the individual represents.


5. Declaration and acknowledgement of the 'principles' that were offended.


6. Specific acknowledgement of any individuals or entities who are known to be offended, or likely to be offended.


7. An indelible committment not to err in the same way in the future.

The above foundations I suggest are acceptable to most 'right-thinking' people. Anything less than the sum total of the above is mere lip-service.

An apology obviously has to be appropriate to the precise wrongdoing. In other words if one apologises on a matter that was not centrally at issue, then the apology is worthless.

The Pope escapes arrest in the UK

I wrote about this matter in November 2009 (see: Child Sex Abuse Scandal Rocks Ireland) but some will be wondering what this is about. Prof Richard Dawkins had made calls for The Pope to be arrested and charged with ‘crimes against humanity’ in April 2010 (Times 2010-04-11). However, as the months rolled on the eminent Geoffrey Robertson QC was reported to concede that the Pope would not be arrested in the upcoming UK visit. Arrested for what? Under The Rome Statute individuals can be charged with ‘crimes against humanity’ (in specific circumstances if they are one of the State Parties.)

Huge protests are expected here in the UK. Geoffrey Robertson QC is one of five select jurists in the UN’s internal justice system responsible for holding UN officials accountable for corruption and mismanagement (C-FAM 2010-04-08). Robertson is an Oxford Rhodes Scholar. He is no fool!

In his book published last Friday - The Case of the Pope: Vatican accountability for human rights abuse – Robertson QC is reported to refer to the Vatican as a “rogue State”. The Captain has purchased this book and will be studying it intensely. “Mr Robertson has laid out a powerful and cogently explained case in which he urges the international community to press the Catholic Church into abandoning canon law, the ancient set of ecclesiastical rules that also define disciplinary provisions for offences ranging from sex crimes to ordaining women” says The Age – 2010-09-08.

The Guardian 2010-09-11 reports that under Canon Law, “…"penalties" for raping children include such draconian measures as warnings, rebukes, extra prayers, counselling and a few months on retreat. It is even possible to interpret canon law as claiming that a valid defence for paedophile offences is paedophilia. Since child abusers are supposedly incapable of controlling their sexual urges, this can be used in their defence.” Just read that again – so, a defence to GBH or robbery could be the fact that the perpetrator is afflicted by criminality!!!

All this is the spatter from The Murphy Report 2004 (in Ireland) on Child Sex Abuse (CSA) spanning some 60 years. Hundreds of Catholic Priests were to be implicated (Interfaith 2009-05-19). In 2003 the Irish Government offered compensation to victims of the sex-abuse to the sum of £725 Million, based on a lower estimate of 10,000 victims! However, if all 150,000 suspected victims were to successfully claim, the sum could rise to £10.8 Billion (Telegraph 2009-05-20).

The Papal visit is expected to cost at least cool £12 Million – but that cost may go up depending on the scale of any unrest. The Pope is to honour and beatify the Victorian churchman and writer Cardinal John Henry Newman – making him a saint. A congregation of some 70,000 is expected at a park close to Birmingham. (FT 2010-09-10).

The Financial Times 2010-09-10 states that the Pope is likely to meet with protests when he visits the UK on 16th September 2010. They say that he “…stands naked before the blast of secular charges that now assails him with mounting force… has used both his quasi-divine authority and the Vatican’s statehood to push his church into more active hostility towards homosexuality, and above all homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexual couples; abortion, under any circumstances whatsoever; in vitro fertilisation; divorce; condoms, even where these are shown to reduce Aids; the ordination of women and the marriage of priests.”

The Examiner 2010-04-10 has been more scathing: “There is no doubt the behavior of the Pope has been criminal. Indeed most of the Catholic hierarchy participated on some level in the cover-up of the sexual abuse of children. For decades they denied, obfuscated, and covered-up the sexual abuse of countless children throughout the world.”

Dawkins’ welcome to the Pope was “Mr Ratzinger, as head of the world’s second most evil religion you are not welcome. True, your church recently “pardoned” Galileo (four centuries late), and eventually revoked its historic anti-Semitism. But the equally long-established misogyny remains. On almost all issues concerned with sex, contraception, population and reproduction your stance is illiberal, inhumane and immoral, and your propaganda claim that condoms don’t protect against AIDS is scientifically inaccurate and murderously cynical. In criminally shielding child-raping priests from justice you have placed the welfare of your church ahead of your victims. Go home to your tinpot Mussolini-concocted principality, and don’t come back.” See Dawkins – Audience with the Pope. 

More sex abuse

It gets worse. An inquiry in Belgium heard 475 complaints of sex-abuse committed in the 1950s through to the late 1980s by Catholic clergy. “Because all sex is banned to priests, abuse of minors is lumped in with – and is apparently seen as less serious than – “living in concubinage”. The stress on salvation means that “punishment” is a matter of prayers, fasting, a retreat or community service: typically, offending priests are moved to other parishes – but rarely to posts where contact with children is unlikely. The result, very often, is more molesting.” (FT 2010-09-10).

The Vatican was allegedly angered when the Belgium police raided and broke up a meeting of Catholic bishops engaged in discussing paedophile priests. (BBC News 2010-06-28).

History

“The first child sex scandal in the Catholic church took place in AD153, long before there was a "gay culture" or Jewish journalists for bishops to blame it on. By the 1960s, the problem had become so dire that a cleric responsible for the care of "erring" priests wrote to the Vatican suggesting that it acquire a Caribbean island to put them on. (The Guardian 2010-09-11)

The Pope has been tangled up in legal proceedings about sex-abuse in the USA before. But the US authorities have always found a way to bail him out on technicalities. Robertson and others will have been sharpening their axes from all that. (This is a good read: Fox News 2005-05-09).

…. to be continued (This is a long one and the story does not just stop there. I will need to update this page so stay tuned).

What is real stubbornness?

I guess some will immediately start asking why I am so interested in that. I’m thinking that I often meet people who refuse to move, change their mindsets, or take appropriate action when circumstances or evidence would expectedly dictate ‘change’.

There are reasons why people don’t change or move. These can be numerous e.g. fear of change, fear of the unexpected, difficulty in changing habits, effect of tradition or culture, inability to see benefits of change, inflexible attitudes, forgetfulness.

But I’m not talking about that kind of stuff so much. I’m talking ‘real stubbornness’. That is something I’ve been observing over the last 3 years. I’ve come to some ideas about what real-stubbornness is:

1. Foremost, it is a sense of pride in being all things that constitute being stubborn. People who are real-stubborn never try to hide the fact. They joke about it, laugh and boast about it. They boast that they are boasting about their stubbornness.
2. There are no inhibitory factors related to fear, anxiety, culture, tradition, failure of memory, cognition or habit.
3. Logic, reason, evidence, adverse personal life consequences, adverse consequences for others – nothing moves them in attitude or in action.
4. Even pain or repeated severe pain does not cause them to shift in mind or body.
5. Promise or realistic prospect of the utmost pleasure or wealth does not motivate them to move.
6. Even their awareness of others who are equally stubborn does not bring insight or change. They simply malign others who are ‘real-stubborn’ as if the condition couldn’t possibly affect them.
7. The few who gain partial insight refuse to change. Instead they wear the badge of being ‘real-stubborn’ with some sense of achievement.

I’ve come to a sad and possibly misanthropic conclusion that the condition is not as uncommon as we might think. My personal observation is that it is quite common.

Trying to help these people is like wasting your time and effort to say the least. Do I feel sorry for them? Like no!! They deserve all that life gives to them. They enjoy spinning top in mud flood! As they say on a Rock close to your heart - ‘Eeef dee cyap fit, wear it!’ [which upon code-switching becomes ‘If the cap fits wear it’].

A reflective time… tiny chemicals

I’ve been quite busy since September 2009, with new work and new experiences. There have been so many experiences to blog about but not in this space. I therefore spent much more time blogging at Jumbie’s Watch, My proper English on this blog has me rather restrained, which is no bad thing. At Jumbie I tend to free my thoughts in a different way. This blog is therefore more reflective, more measured – in a strange sort of way.

I’ve recently been looking back at 2009 and looking forward into 2010. My mind is flooded. So much has happened and the future brings so much to me. I wish I could conquer the need for sleep. It has been a very challenging year – two ‘assignments’ took me a lot away from home. Nov 2008 – early April 2009, I was travelling up and down the country with work. I discovered Cornwall and the Cornish way of life. It’s a beautiful part of the world. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

In December 2008 some idiot crashed into the side of my car. That led to headaches that went on into the first part of 2009, and it was only resolved about a month ago. The crash brought me closer to valuing life. It happened so fast. Luckily I was not injured physically; just shaken a bit psychologically.

I was delighted to be back at home in April 2009. [I’m afraid to use the word ‘home’ lest some idiots assume that I mean some godforsaken Rock in the sun.] Time to think, write, do other kinds of work. Time.. time.. an amazing thing.. how it flows. How I flow through time. And I’ve been thinking about when I cease to flow in time. As one gets older these kinds of thoughts come to mind. It’s difficult to avoid when you see more and more people around you who you knew suffering illnesses or dying. You are confronted by the mortality that limits your own existence. It presses upon the mind to achieve and to be free!

Then from Sept to Nov 2009 I was also also into a 9 to 5 situation again – among workers – nation-builders; whatever you call um. It’s a sad situation generally ‘at work’. People there do what they do. They somehow or the other became caught on a treadmill, acquired possessions and status and then fight hard to remain on the treadmill. Their collective reality is that they’d be much more contented doing what they want to do – but they never admit it openly, or they hypnotise themselves into believing that they ‘lurve the job’. Many of them don’t think they’re sad – but I know they are.

And I look out at the world. I discover the complexity of the ‘worlds’ we create. I like studying law for example, but there is a time when its complexity becomes painful. Painful as I read past a few words separated by commas, then a few more words, then more commas. Then new paragraphs and sub-paragraphs leading me down into a tangle of Boolean operators – all this designed to limit something in certain circumstances. And I wonder what are all these limits? Why must they exist? And the answer is pretty simple: limited resources endangered by human greed, selfishness and solipsistic attitudes.

Yet among English politicians we saw greed and human callousness protected by a system of rules that allowed MPs to claim from sexy DVDs to moat cleaning.

The wars in Afghanistan continued. More crap came out about atrocities committed in the wars by British and American forces.

Diego Garcia remained off the radar, while Guantanamo Bay took the spotlight. Can you hear a silent scream?

I spent most of my time in the last 6 months, thinking about a land where I grew up for the first 30 years. Well ‘grew up’ physically, I mean. The reality is that I grew mentally twice what I did in 20 years of life in England, compared to the 30 in that place. Yeah.. ‘that place’. That’s a place I am deeply ashamed to be associated with. Why? Because I think if people know I’m from ‘there’ they would secretly be thinking “..he must be like them.. but he’s putting on a good act.” Well the reality is that people are like that.. I am like that. When I meet somebody from ‘that place’, I naturally have a presumption that their attitudes and thinking processes are likely to be ‘like them’. Come on – let’s not kid around.. people to get judged by their ‘cultures’. So when I meet people from ‘there’ I’m naturally sensitised to thought patterns, values and quirks that are part of that culture.

The other night (27/12/2009) we had some ‘visitors’ over for dinner. An interesting discussion happened. I became quite animated. They were shocked by my hopelessness for a people that live in the Nation of Trinidad & Tobago (i.e. that place).  At Jumbie’s Watch I frequently refer to ‘that place’ as Donkey Rock. The visitors some of Trinidadian origins - lived in some degree of hope for that Nation. I held much less hope. They hooked into how much I read the online newspapers about that place – and suggested that I do that because I have a slight hope that things there will become better. Well slight, like very slight, and approaching zero rapidly – I would admit to. But that is not the reason I read those newspapers. I said so – that my reading those newspapers were simply and truly about my fascination with the human capacity for stupidity. The reality is that I am not at all interested in returning to that Nation. I think that people who are separated from their homelands - especially where life in those homelands has deteriorated seriously - often long for the opportunity to return. In opposition to such longing is the reality of what life might be like in those homelands at the present time. In the case of Trinidad and Tobago, the extreme rise in violent crime presents a serious and difficult to ignore risk. The trajectory of the rise of those risks, over the last 10 years - with little indication that law enforcement agencies have been effective - suggests that there is unlikely to be rapid change in the trajectory in the foreseeable future. It is therefore baseless wishful thinking to say that there is hope of improvement. But life is a strange game – if you make your case to powerfully you risk being marginalised, labelled, seen as different.. not one of the herd.

So always there are these games I have to play – for example: I ought to say that there is very slight hope, when in reality I truly believe there is no hope. That is only to appear not ‘absolutist’. Funny thing though, few people hold any absolutist views about the chances of recovery from end stage dementia or any other terminal illness. But hey – when in comes to a country – a Nation – you can’t appear to be devoid of hope for recovery. Why? Because  we all ought to be all soooh patriotic to our respective Nations. And to say that you have lost hope in your Nation, means you’re and ungrateful unpatriotic bastard, or somik. No one really cares to say that a Nation is convulsing to death.. and there’s nothing you can do to save it. So – many times I hear people re-affirming their faith in an ability in human beings to change. Like oh puhleese – don’t I know that they can change? But I’m not talking about small groups of people. I’m talking very large groups. Well ‘that nation’ had 50 years to change and mature.. and what do we see today? Gross immaturity and myopia – and it’s getting worsening.

2010 brings more of the same. The number of the year changes – obviously – but people in their numbers hardly ever change. And if they do change it is because they have been subject to some extreme force that causes major discomfort or major emotional enlightenment.

Some may think that I’m unhappy from reading the above snapshot. I was never one for happiness OR  unhappiness. My modus operandi does not depend on happiness OR unhappiness – I’ll do what I do regardless. My adopted philosophy is built on eudaimonia – difficult for most people to grasp – simply because most people are driven by states of pleasure or pain attached to states of happiness or unhappiness. In contrast I’ll take the seemingly difficult and tough road if it brings me contentment and greater benefits for others.

I harden my outlook on the future of that Nation. I also harden my perceptions of human nature. I feel we are a dying species and we’re bent on self-destruction. Have a Prozac or two, or more – I face reality cold as it is. Those who cannot face reality – well, they can play with their happiness chemicals whilst the universe and its forces continue to orchestrate their mere purpose; to increase entropy. The universe is happy..and they are happy on their tiny chemicals.

Who is Captain Walker?

This is no ‘reveal’. I’m going to explain why the screen name ‘Captain Walker’. The ‘avatar’ or screen icon in my profile and comments, gives something away – its a small photo of Mel Gibson from a scene in Mad Max – Beyond Thunderdome.

Well my nickname used to be ‘Mad Max’ back in Uni many years ago. Why? You must wonder. It was recognised and said by one of my esteemed tutors, that I marched to the beat of a different drum (and still do). Others picked up on his comments. At first I was a bit embarrassed but soon I was to learn it was my nature, and I should go with it. I go my own way.

Mel Gibson played the role of Mad Max in Mad Max – Beyond Thunderdome. The scene is set in the aftermath of nuclear war on earth. Law and order had broken down and Bartertown was about the worst place to find yourself, situated near a desert. Well into the film, Max finds himself exiled from Bartertown among some children (some are teenagers), living in and around an oasis. They are the survivors of a plane crash, which was meant to bring them escape from a city that was to be bombed and the nuclear winter that was to follow. Captain Walker was at the helm. Walker apparently took some of the adults surviving the crash with him to find help. He promised to return. Max bears some resemblance to the Captain Walker in their legend.

They take Mad Max to be Captain Walker and in the end of the scene above, one says, “We is ready now..take us home”.

‘Walker’ then has a very hard time explaining to them the reality of their situation. He struggles to cope with their misguided expectations. He cannot deliver that which is based on a distorted myth which became a ‘faith’. At one point in the film he resorts to using force, but that does not bring them to reality.

I feel like ‘Walker’ sometimes. No – I ain’t no hero – and I ain’t here to save any bunch of people. But the feeling that many are living a false existence gets to me. In the film, the children’s Walker – by their expectations – is meant to take them ‘home’. But though Max knows who he is – he is still another identity to the children which he cannot escape – and he as ‘Captain Walker’ is unable to help them in their quest for the promised land.

Possible ‘links’:

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome	Caribbean situation
Nuclear holocaust	Slave trade
Oasis and/or Bartertown	Monkey/Donkey Region
Survivors in the Oasis	Survivors of slave trade
Captain Walker	Me

Well yes surely nobody dong on dee rock looking to me to take dem home. I know dat fuh sure. My ID is not just about events on the Rock. It’s about other areas of work and life – the Rock just happens to be a small part of the whole thing.