Game of Shells
We need a Ref.
What’s for dinner tonight?
Coconuts.
The Shells, actually.
They used to be sort of a delicacy, an acquired taste with a slightly acrid notes, but now seem to be going mainstream. There are so many more shells on the market these days. Why? well it seems that the Old Shell Game, that simple gambling diversion that magsmen and grifters have been playing since the fifteenth century. Often seen in public spaces with lots of tourists or nowadays in social media with lots of politicians.
How can we not talk about the Signal app and the war-not-war-plans for dinner this week?
or the role of The Atlantic.
‘never did a journalist have to work less hard for the scoop of a lifetime…’ John Sopel’s words from the News Agents podcast this week.
What’s constitutes war and attack plans?
What’s Classified anyway?
Does it matter if leaders lie?
Use of Signal.
How and where ‘should’ government officials have discussions in 2025?
For my own part, the coupla times I’ve been invited to use Signal have been (1) when the man I was dating-app-chatting-with seemingly wanted to sext and delete (conversation for a girls night rather than a dinner party me thinks) and (2) when the group was discussing psilocybin and currently illegal plant-based medicine. Both ‘shady’ circumstances I think we can agree. And I’m happy to admit that I’m a grown-up and was involved in secret circumstances on Signal. But, I wasn’t wielding any power at the time. My conversations were innocuous, I was at home, not traveling in ‘enemy’ territory and not maligning any of my ‘allies’.
Under ‘normal’ circumstances, I’m typically found on WhatsApp with my European friends and iMessage with my American ones.
Signal lovers claim it’s great because it’s end-to-end encrypted AND you can set messages to delete after a certain time. Sometimes ‘once read’…
Fox News writers claim (ofc) that Signal use is Biden’s fault;
“Biden-era guidance encouraged use of Signal app by highly-targeted govt officials: 'Best practice'“
The debacle says more about where we are than it does about security.
The role of emojis.
The blatant lies without consequence.
Hypocrisy.
“Waltz learned a lesson.” Is it about learning lessons? How will we know?
Military crisis was averted but will we feel the diplomatic damage?
All this really make me think (again), what are the rules?
Why standards matter?
When chainsaws are acceptable metaphors for destroying people’s livelihoods…
What are The Rules?
Who is The Ref?
What is The Game we are currently playing?
Its like when you sit down with new friends at camp, or friends of friends or cousins of friends and you decide to play Rummy, which at last count, had over 50 recognized variants…
“But wait, that’s not how we play Rummy!”
If only we all knew the game, we’d know which rules to follow. Remember when we were kids and we met up in the street to decide what to do? Usually the biggest kid told us and usually the smartest kid reminded everyone the rules. We knew where Home Base was and we agreed what was Out-of-Bounds. When cards were involved, we knew Jokers were Wild and the only remaining decision was Aces High or Low.
Today’s games involve shifting sands. Even if the Rule Book is The Bible or The Constitution or sometimes Mother Nature, the space for interpretation is wider than any of the kids on the block can comprehend nor count on.
So, in the absence of a framework, I go looking for acceptable models. Once a people-pleaser, always an instinct, so I’m thinking
How can I get men to listen to women’s logic? Gambling rules? Sports? Porn? All of the above in some fashion?
I came across the notion of creating a sort of ‘Queensberry rules of basic decency’ and just loved it. For the non-boxers in the ‘stack, the Queensbury Rules were written in 1865, by Welsh sportsman, John Graham Chambers who was critical of the London Prize Rules. He felt that boxing was more lower class brute brawl than legitemate sport. Ultimately, The Duke of Queensbury gave his name to the rules, which still hold today around the world. The Rules seem universally agreed upon and are largely still in force as a guide to the discipline of the gloves as well as the ring.
So, why not a Queensbury approach? They are universally admired as the first approach to introduce gloves to the fight.
Of course, I had to ask ChatGPT, “what are the Queensberry rules of basic decency?”
yes, Chat. I like them. However, given the current state, it feels like reading the Monopoly rules but the friend of your cousin is still hiding money under his pillow and stealing houses when the banker is giving out money for passing Go. How do we stop him? That ole chestnut.
So, I looked to ice hockey. Again, a new arena for me. In fact, the first game I ever saw in my life (despite growing up in Wisconsin), was USA v Canada in the recent 4 Nations Face-Off. There were three fights in the first nine seconds. To think, this game happened before Canada changed coaches from Trudeau to Carney. Back to the game, I couldn’t get over the way the Refs stood and watched.
I was apoplectic with concern… why weren’t they breaking up the fight? Why not carded, why not in the infamous penalty box???
“Oh, the refs let ‘em fight it out first.”
“Wait, What? Really?”
“Yep. It helps them let off steam, deters other rough play, yada yada creates solidarity…”
Where have you been all your life, Abby?
Fighting is tolerated as part of the game’s culture and ‘The Code” is more important. The unwritten rules of conduct about respect, about self-policing, honor, toughness and mutual respect.
Ok. But the fighting while Refs are watching?
Back to that Ref Thing…
What if ‘how you play the game’ is what matters but there are no refs? I can’t go there. We gotta have a Ref. What about when we can’t agree?
I don’t know where to go with this. Well, I do but I’d need a few weeks to put it into some sort of order, structure or proposal. Maybe while we wait for me to get my Game Book written, I can throw out a few ideas for the judges of this new world order? Let’s throw away the idea of partisan, of red or blue of conservative or liberal. I think a new approach is needed, and I’ll always recommend a mix of opinions.
No visit to The Loo this week. Sorry.
Most of us are so stopped up that no toilet nor cute room will help. However, we do need some inspiration, I feel. Some vision or measure of hope for the future. So, I propose that we start looking for a new panel of judges to help us wade through the reams of hearings of all shapes and sizes that we face as the revolving door of conflict continues.
My nominations for Judges
Easy.
Mary Berry & Paul Hollywood from The Great British Bake-Off, because everyone deserves a handshake from blue eyes when they get it right.
Glassette’s Laura Jackson shows promise adjudicating the longstanding North vs South debate in England this month.
NY Yankees’ Aaron Judge. Superstar all-around hitter who just loves his team and wants to do whatever he can to help them.
Without question, we need Dennis Leary. He’ll just need to show up in character, as Gus from The Ref. Considering his ability to get bickering Caroline and Lloyd Chasseur under control, he’s exactly what’s required on Capitol Hill.
Let’s not forget Simon Cowell from ‘America’s Got Talent’, ‘X Factor’ and more and more. Known for his success in the entertainment industry but even more for his pointed criticism, the guy can clearly judge winners and losers.
We also need some grit.
I recognize the world is changing and Pollyanna never got far, so I propose we also include Boss Hogg and Roscoe P Coltrane from the Dukes of Hazard. Nobody call recall the name of the presiding judge (Buford Potts) but we all remember the corruption and abuse of power. Let’s get these guys on our committee so we can get under the skin of prioritizing one’s own interests above the (evolving) law.
We’ll keep our eyes on Roscoe,
“Cuff Em & Stuff em!” and call it Law and Order.
No thanks.
Let’s have fun while we accept the ce in Games, Rules and Judges.
Popcorn is poppin’.
ABBY
How can I get men to listen to women’s logic? Prolly just my personal experience, but I think I can get men to listen to women for a minute or two, which is about how long their "logic" would last! HaHa!