House of cards

When the inevitable strikes,
when the house falls down,
do you patch up the walls,
fix the holes in the roof,
shore it all up,
splash it with paint?

No.

You learn from the mistakes.
You start from scratch.
You call in the architects.
You rebuild the foundations.
You use new materials;
replace wattle and daub
with a sounder design.

Unless:

Because you’re lost outside the box,
and your mates demand
to regain their riches (and, now!):
You set up the same as before,
perhaps with a few bells and whistles
(spun to persuade that they’ll work).

And… in the end, we’ll believe
that your clothing is not invisible.

“Who is more foolish?
The fool, or the fool who follows him?”

Advertisements

About pendantry

Phlyarologist (part-time) and pendant. Campaigner for action against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and injustice in all its forms. Humanist, atheist, notoftenpist. Wannabe poet, writer and astronaut.
This entry was posted in News and politics, Poetry and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to House of cards

  1. Pingback: The hot hand fallacy and a wunch of bankers | Wibble

  2. Pingback: The Story of Broke | Wibble

  3. Pingback: House of cards. « Learning from Dogs

  4. Patrice Ayme says:

    The plutocrats are not foolish. Not foolish in their crocodilian mindset. They want more, and more and more. And they are getting it. This scenario has happened many times in history, even to Republics such as Rome, which had extremely explicit anti-plutocratic laws.

    To call them fools is pleasant, because it’s an insult, and they sure have a reduced vision of humanity. But it truth they are the most clever, most venomous snakes ever evolved.

    Calling them fools underestimates them gravely, it’s not smart strategically. We can call them for the idiots they are, once we have destroyed their power. But power is all they are after, and this madness, this foolishness, is their strength.

    • pendantry says:

      I agree with every word you say here, Patrice.

      But I am saddened because I had believed that my feeble attempt at poetry above said much the same thing. I fear you misunderstood my intent, which was to question who the fools are (and, I would suggest, conclude that it is not they at all, but we).

      • Patrice Ayme says:

        Sorry to have made you sad, Pedantry. I agree that “we” are the fools… Except “we”, in the sense of you and me, are not fooled. Those who are fooled, out there, the immense majority, you can, indeed, reach better with poetry, no doubt (there are lots of “likes” to your essays, nearly none to mine, ;-)!) And I agree 100% with your message!

        • pendantry says:

          I very much appreciate comments such as yours, as they encourage me to improve my use of language to attempt to communicate more effectively.

          As I have said in the past, I agree with much of what you say. The few misunderstandings we have had stem, I believe, from the imprecision of the English language confounded by its application in an environment which its evolution could never have anticipated: to wit, “the internets”.

          As for ‘likes’… that’s an example of another nugget of nonsense with which I continually struggle. But that oddly vast subject deserves a discourse all its own.

  5. Patrice Ayme says:

    Dear Pedantry: I replied to your reply, without saving… And of course, when I do this, my comments disappear…
    Anyway I agree with all you say. Language is discrete, reality continuous (say the Quantum!). So we have to keep on talking! 😉

I'd love to hear what your views are!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s