WelcometotheMachine.

http://www.art-for-a-change.com/blog/archive/2006_02_01_archive.html

"This way of life that's so devised/To snuff out the mind that moves"-Jeff Buckley.

The Modern human being, when not engaged in the mass-production of the species/crowded around communal troughs or watering holes, is otherwise located at their current place of gainful employment. The set-up varies depending upon the individual and their circumstance but for many people it's the classic 9-5 grind, for others, a weirder time-frame 6am-2pm, or nights. What troubles me about these alternative ways of life is that they're not good for anyone. As a worker the individual's health is bound to suffer.

Working strange hours affects regulated sleep patterns, which can eventually lead to mental health as a significant lack of good quality sleep, perchance to dream, can cause a person to see the real world in a distorted fashion; through a glass darkly. Whilst these visions are perfectly acceptable in the dream world and to a certain extent in the real world (you often see people holding court shocked and small audiences regaling them with wild tales of their latest cheese-dream trip) when they spill over, uncontrolled, they cause a person general detachment from the actual state of things making people come across as very strange without their fully realising it.

Much research has also been carried out of people @work. For example, working as a refuse technician (a Binman, who they kidding) exposes you to lots of infection and all weathers, scratching on the dusty floors of a warehouse or factory floor keep people in poorly ventilated areas, breathing in said dust, and out of sunlight, which, in controlled exposures, is good for the regeneration of skin cells and also improves mental health and tiredness levels (the back of the knees go first.)

But by far the most significant issue regarding this way of working is the mechanised routine of it all. I dropped this in earlier on; treating people in uniformly and with a colder reserved manner, less as human beings more as tools that can be forced to crank out greater profit, is bad, both for business and for the workers themselves.

If you treat a worker badly, especially by giving them the same dull jobs day in, day out, teaching them blind repetion and servility until death will only lead them to work below their full potential, which is inefficient. If for example, one were a janitor, and had to mop the exact same areas of floor every day they went to work (approx. 5:2) then they would soon come to appreciate the crushing boredom of their work and due to the many physical restrictions upon their working life (education/native intelligence/physical attributes) they come to grudgingly accept thus the pointlessness of hoping for a change in their life that probably won't ever come. This can lead to complacency in their work (already, that is a health and safety issue in many of the industry areas I have mentioned) and this harms the quality of their and the industry overall, as many other people in the same workplace are in a very similar position to one another (often this common ground is one of the only solid tenures of good relations amongst fellow workers)

The argument is simple, and uses Master Yoda's schema for the problem of Evil, as shown in "Star Wars: Return of the Jedi":

-Crushing routine leads to boredom (Mmmm), and thus, complacency.
- Complacency leads to a reduction in effort (it does), and so the quality of work suffers as a result.
- This in turn causes suffering for the worker who berated by their boss/kapo (they will be), and so they feel worse about themselves and the whole cycle begins again but only ever seems to get worse each time.

(F)lyng Ntz

Now you've done it.

Randy Finewax --- Ubermensch Journalist (?)

Does he Offend You? Yeah! Should he?

Clearly "in-trouble", ex-star, G.Glitter has recently been returned to us in the U.K. and I'm sure everyone is quite upset. However I am often concerned as to the validity of people's offence, or even anger, at the return of Mr. G. The cause of their upset is no doubt rooted in his release for serving almost a three-year sentence in Thailand accused of paedophilia. But the reaction of Glitter's supposed U.K. peers concerns me for two reasons:

The girl was probably a hooker. Something a great many people in this country tolerate all the time in this country, but especially when they themselves choose to play away abroad (the "Brit-on-Hols" amoralist, which is fast-becoming an enduring stereotype.) What offends us is more of an aesthetic sentiment, than a moral one. Correct, it is very wrong to abuse, or to sleep with a child that is under the age of sixteen (interestingly, a few days ago Glitter said that he did not know the legal age for sexual intercourse in Thailand is eighteen years of age) for many good, shall I say, "pragmatic" reasons. However, I can't help but feel that what upsets us more, is the fact that we cannot appreciate why or even how a consensual adult might find a person under the age of sixteen sexually attractive, for the majority of U.K. residents this is, simply put: A substantial head-fuck (I don't know the medical-Latin.)

And whilst I realise it would be a fickle and naive thing to claim outright that people who object to paedophilia on the grounds that it is not our cultural way of engaging in sexual relations with another person; that it is essentially a matter of taste, I think it would also be an act of powerful self-deception to say that most people dislike paedophiles, and are consistenly ill-prepared to give them a second chance, because we find them disgusting and repellent. We are angry not because of what they have "done" to another person, the interaction might have been mutually pleasurable, this is a side we never do, or (justifiably) want to, see, and so we cannot allow that it might have had any positive outcomes at all.
What becomes clear is that we are not so much angry with the crime itself but with the age of the particular persons involved, it is the nature of the intercourse that causes us offence. This once again lends itself strongly to the hypocrisy/hysteria/Much Red-top banner waving we can expect in the coming days and weeks.

Glitter himself has called into question the fairness of his trial and in the statement given this morning by his solicitor at Uxbridge Crown Court it was hinted that the trial might have taken place under illegal circumstances, Glitter's right of appeal was never considered by the Thai court, and so it should be considered null and void in the U.K. However, this really is a moot point. Glitter was previously convicted of child pornography offences (in the U.K.) back in 1999, so in the eyes of the law he is already damned and this case seems merely to confirm his predilection for small children. Not only that, the damage to his reputation and ability to live openly is damaged irreparably. The problem is that we as a nation have become so, overly-sensitive to the "p-word" a love that cannot even whisper its name, that we come to near hysteria over suspected or even confirmed paedophiles, even though they might have been forced into early-retirement by chemical castration, in the very British manner that we look for things to complain about, we get all 1984, and start to see the potential for paedophiles everywhere (restrictions on the use of cameras at schools is a good example) which, I feel, also invites cause reasonable for reasonable doubt, and as such we have allegations and slander, without evidence or proof, and yet it still it seems to carry the resounding power to ruin "normal", good-people's lives, who are in reality (i.e. sans-media hype) perfectly innocent.

p.s. It's also very hard to accept, from an aesthetic point of view, that G.G.'s hair looked better in the Glam-days than his current Machiavellian beard, which I think is doing his social persona, no favours at all.

I'm seeing Double/They're both Blowing Bubbles...

Click Me:
Mushareff Resigns to avoid Impeachment: I win!

Dieting=Anorexia?!

I finally clicked on that infernal "P*ink Patch" link (3/4 down the web-page)
that pervades the ad. banners of F*Book Inc. (Perhaps this a sign that all-invasive, repeat, repeat, advertising does work?)
and one of the so-called models
looked frightfully skinny (see the above pic.)
Surely the patches are intended
for people
who need to lose weight
in order to gain health benefits,
not just people who desire
to shed weight for its own sake
and so damage their health in the process.
I really feel this image is improper, not on moral grounds;
I'm sure there are some people who really dig 'rexia-porn, but on the simple fact that the picture misleads as to the correct usage of the product. Surely this breaks the definite descriptions act of 1985? Regardless, she looks gratuitously trimmed in the 'mid by some kind of digital-butcher.

Junk to the Left of me; Jokers to the Right.

Striking a personal note I've started clearing more "stuff" (with its grab-anything catchment, this is a deplorably over-used word, but here it meets my needs exactly) out of my room. I have just spent several hours photographing, cataloging, and posting it all on *bay. This is a depressing and (probably) futile task. If I don't want it, its hard to see why on earth anyone else might. It's hard to price the "stuff" because from many perspectives it is all CRAP. I'm desperately trying to find Niche-Heads who have an immense passion/addiction-to Mecanno or W*ndoS-95 Ethernet Cards.

But like a great many things I've tried to salvage something worthwhile from one of the many mini car-crashes in my little life. I've come to a strong conclusion about "stuff" I really HATE it. In a peculiar fashion it makes me envy the Poor (that is those severely lacking "stuff") if only because it allows them to be so much freer than I am. With "stuff"comes responsibility and dull labour. I appreciate this isn't too cool: There ain't nothing fun, or funny, about poverty. But I still wish I had been more sensible and not accumulated so much more "stuff" that makes me miserable and takes up more space on this rapidly shrinking Junk-dump we call: "The World".

But now I've had this chat witcha' and so we're friends now, could I just ask: Would you like to buy any pegs?

Wading Unreal into Murky Waters...

Freedom isn't. China is getting pricklier by the minute regarding the freedom of the press in their country. Many people have criticized the government for a lack of the transparency that was promised. This is compounded by the gradual seeping out of dirty little truths (see my previous blog entry) now including the revelation that the giant's footsteps we all marveled at, stomping toward the birdsnest stadium, were in fact computer generated for the delight of audiences at home. I thought they looked amazing, and I was really impressed at the skillful display, and sheer firepower of so many 'works, but I was quite gutted to learn that they were fake C.G.

Claims have been made in China's defense, but they seem trifling when China continually attmepts censorship of reality, and with long list of restrictions upon foreign journalism a devaluation of what Journalism is supposed to be about: Reporting Truths. However, this does give greater credence to the Bloggers, as we should be expected to speak freely and offer more honest opinions than registered journalists are able to:

Read the propaganda/evidence, form an opinion, then publish or perish. GO to it!

See here

Join my campaign for the testing of Chinese Athletes (here) to determine whether or not they are in fact little Android robots, or at the very least; Cyborgs!

"Transparency"+ The desire to Impress the World (inevitably) = Bullshit.

Love the Song but Not the Singer - Part 1

The latest revelation from the Chinese Olympics has emerged. The little girl in the red dress I mentioned in a previous article has returned to haunt us, but in a very different form. Like the ghost of innocence in Schindler's List and the un-shakeable presence of the Don't Look Now kid, she was one of the focal points of the entire four-hour ceremony. I went on and on, as I'm sure many of us did, how perfectly her neat and practised behavior stood in perfect synthesis with her gilded notes of her crystalline tones. It turns out she was miming: The voice and the face are not one and the same.

Despite my clear ability to be duped, I am only half-surprised by this. The ever-benevolent Chinese government decided that the girl who actually sang the song was not considered aesthetically pleasing enough to be the latest face of nu-Communism. And so, in the 'interest of the state' (that old chestnut is beginning to crack) she was replaced by a prettier girl, minus the talent (stop me if you've heard this one before.)

This new scrap of forced-hand Chinese honesty strongly undermines the myriad of voices from the press, Olympic athletes, and by implied murmur, the Chinese government themselves, that we should always keep politics and sport separate (there is a similar claim often made regarding the ethics of an author and the reception of their artworks; but I'll talk about that in part 2) Attempting to deny the debate about the relation between human rights and what has been popularly hailed as one of the best Olympics EVER, has blown up in the faces of all concerned, no pun, because it has only served to raise awareness of many political issues in the combined minds of a multi-million global audience. And like a simple cut left to fester the damage has already been done. If China, for one, had been more open about its past and the modern realities of its human rights situation, they might have avoided such an embarrassing, and self-inflicted, injury.

China has suffered for its botched deceptions; the murder of the American volleyball coach, two bomb attacks (despite widespread security precautions), the very public waving of several Tibetan flags, and now, the sheer artifice of the perfect, miming Child in Red. In isolation these minor events could, perhaps, be shrugged off, but when taken together they provide a damning testament to the reputation of a highly-secretive country trying to appear something that its not, an enlightened and free state, now having to patch up the cracks. The Olympics must go on!

With distinctly Orwellian tones, this causes one to remember many naughty things: China's attempts to erase its past through the strict filtering of information and restrictions upon internet access (Googling Tianeman Sq. in China mentions nothing about the massacre), it has tried to divert the attention of its critics, and quickly fold away all of those wrong flags, and stamping down any occasions of protest (the right to free speech that we can take for granted). As I have stated before, the seeming gullability of a world audience who allow themselves to be strung along the yellow-brick road of Olympic celebration, eager to see only what they want to see, implicates us in a united state of political complacency and so we cannot just blame China for forgetting the skeletons under the Birds Nest, as we too remember these things not-happening.

Another striking example of the consistent ability of politics and ethics to intrude upon the public domain is the rising conflict in Southern Ossetia; now titled the "Russian Five-day War" (a dubious claim seeing as it's not over by a long shot.) The first fighting between Russia and Georgia went largely unreported on Saturday morning. In a few of the newspapers it was given only a brief mention, several pages in. Daily Mail reporters, of all people, being the only publication to mention S.Ossetia on the front page.

This came to a head with the rise of the Irony curtain as a Russian and a Georgian athlete won Olympic medals in the women's badminton finals. The two girls hugged one another, seemingly in a show of solidarity, and nobly stated that politics had no place in sports (China won the gold medal but the poor girl was sidelined by the political significance of the bronze and silver medallists' embrace). It was a fine statement but I'm not convinced that their amiable gesture was in fact a rejection of the influence of politics in sports. In stating their renunciation of the aggressive divide between their two countries, the girls were in fact acknowledging its significance upon current affairs. If their intent was to claim a permanent distinction between sport and politics then the amount of press attention they recieved as a result of "not" saying or doing anything remotely political, quickly dissolved this notion in the minds of everyone else who watched them. In effect, they've given us a compelling doublethink: A contradictory statement; whereby one deceives one's-self into believing exactly what they don't think they do believe.

In trying to be apolitical, the girls have actually made a highly political statement. And have in turn served to raise further doubt as to the validity of China's claim that is necessary for them, and us, to keep their authoritarian reality apart from the neon-wonderland of the Beijing Olympics. However, their free use of deception has only increased the glare of the foreign media spotlight into the truths surrounded the murky smog of Chinese illusion.

End of part One.

"Keep your eyes on mine, o.k."

Whilst I hate to reference a mortal enemy, I thought the Daily Mail made a really good effort today. Their front page featured a double headline referring to both the Olympics ceremony and the rapid beginnings of future international conflict in Georgia that has already led to an emergency meeting of the U.N security council.

We are often so easily misled by propaganda magicians. In one open hand they show us what we want to see, in this case perhaps the best opening Olympic ceremony ever! Whilst, in the other hand, containing bad news about possible ethnic cleansing as Russia and Georgia fight over the disputed rights of another scrap of land (South Ossetia), a story is kept firmly tucked behind the magician's back.

I also think this ties in nicely with my comments about the Olympics themselves almost completely overshadowing China's terrible human rights record. See here.

(Being the Daily Mail, I couldn't help but "Jokerize '89" their color scheme. I think it looks pretty cool.)

Joey Snags (no, he's not a friend)

In a previous article The Crunching Sound of Credit Devoured I argued that vegetarianism is both a healthier and more environmentally sound way to eat more cheaply. I have now found there might be another way, Down Under...


(Sorry Skip!)

When Lights and Might make Right

Watching the truly epic display of the opening ceremony for this year's Olympics. 2,008 Chinese drummers beat 2,008 square drums calling down thunder, amazingly choreographed with sweeping stances, the skin of the drum lights up with the strength of the beat and the strikes of the rhythm.

It sounds like war. I can't help but think of the Nobel prize winning Hitler Youth; Gunter Grass and his novel, Tin Drum. Whenever the war strikes near the child in the story bangs his drum as a protest and warning of what's to come. What scares me is the military power of 1.3 billion people and the arrogance of their leaders should they decide to expand beyond their own borders.

Everyone knows that China has endured/undergone super-massive growth in recent years but I think it's still been all too easy to underestimate, speaking purely in condescending colonial tones, just how far the country would come; both in terms of its' modernization and obvious its' desire to form a solid cultural identity, to be recognised on the world stage.

But I don't think anyone should necessarily doubt that China deserves its' Olympics and the bright future of a country brave enough to go against neo-classical Western chauvinism and its dominance of world politics and economics. What is hard to stomach is any attempt by China to engage in international relations with the world are always carried out on their own terms. If China were a handshake it would grip too tightly, try to out-shake you, and make sure that somehow, its' hand was always wrapped over yours.

China makes claims to transparency, at least while the Olympics are on, but to my mind its own conception of the freedom of the press is thoroughly jaundiced. We only ever see the right side of China, the rest remains hidden in shadow. China's history is similarly obscured; all of the nation's mistakes, old and new, are neatly wrapped up in the phrase: "Human Rights Issues" which helps to maintain the charade of a silk curtain we will probably never see behind.

A little girl in Red is singing, she doesn't fidget or cry, she has obviously been well-trained; but she is also smiling. A Communist red flag marked with five yellow stars, representing the five united districts of the country, is stiffly marched along, a nod to the past.

I appreciate China's attempts at opening up to the world. It seems the best we can hope to do is cooperate and try to ingratiate ourselves with China. The commentators note that there have been no boycotts of the games by any country thus re-enforcing the claim that the politics and the sports should be kept separate. In principle, like so many other things, I agree with this claim. Little or no advantage would be gained by certain international teams not attending the Olympics. The main consequence of this would be further alienation from a country that has only just attempted to build bridges. I'm not saying we should forget what China was, nor should we ignore what it might become. My point is simple; that an uneasy alliance with China is better for the world at large, than total alienation and deepening feelings of enmity.

All over the city colored fireworks shoot up along the roads, some of them in large circles representing giant's footsteps moving toward the stadium. Blinded by the lights, silenced by a crowd cheering and united; in this setting its no wonder we forget Tiananmen, Tibet, and the many workers who were injured building the "Birdsnest" stadium (some workers are also rumored to have died during its construction), which for a few days at least, the eyes of the world will be focused upon; all of the controversial issues it raises well out of sight.

The New Nixon?

Richard Milhouse Nixon resigned from office before he could be impeached. It seems Mr. Musharaff, Abuser of Endangered Animals (see pic.) and the President of Pakistan, might be about to do the same thing...

Just as Reagan had his Monkey, Nixon, his Spirow Agnew, Musharaff has a Panda and seems destined to follow the greats...

A Blind Read - Reunited!

As to the article I wrote a few days ago about people leaving books for others to find, it has a name: BookCrossing! Cool!

The Crunching Sound of Credit Devoured

Like the slow rise of a doom laden Zeppelin all we hear in today's financial reports is more and more disastrous news about Inflation. Delivered to us from on high by the red-rags and the broadies alike, the message of indelible gloom faced by a nation without purchasing power is scattered and blown on the winds of un-certainy in one terribly phrased slogan: "The Credit Crunch", striking fear in the hearts of all British men (and women) equivalent to that klassick whispered warning; "Ze Germans are coming!"

Everyone is apparently feeling the pinch. Consumer spending is falling, as are house prices. To my mind this is no bad thing. Firstly, too many people piss their lives away patrolling the high-street for "bargains" (accumulating more stuff) when they could be doing something that is actually fun, useful, or creative.

Secondly, it's about time house prices fell! Between greedy bastard Monopoly Men buying up whole streets and upping the rents, and other people refusing to move home so they can stay put and watch their property "options" appreciate, there is little or no room for people with less money (students and, well, the poor) to buy a small plot of land to call their own.

What really is problematic, both for the common U.K. consumer and people in developing countries, is the rise of food prices. This is an issue featured on the news almost every night, and the supermarkets themselves are acting out with the creation of "bargain-bundle" deals, an assortment of random items (some of them branded, ooh) some of which you might want, the rest, meh. The price of food affects everyone and one of the most popular "solutions" (read: way of skirting around the issue without solving it) is to go to cheaper stores, the names of which, are both four letter words, and do more of your shopping there. The reason I say "more of your shopping", and not all, is because these foreign devils do not stock many of the items people need, half of their products are at best shonky (yeah, I swore, what you gonna do)and their prices, keeping in line with (you guessed it) inflation, have also increased! Have your wages followed suit? I doubt it.

My suggestion is that we instead EAT our way out of this recession we're apparently having, or going to have. The economist and Bloomsbury bed-hopper; J.M.Keynes had men digging, then filling, holes in the ground just to keep them working (so did Auschwitz, but the Jews weren't paid.) This meant that people had money with which to purchase and consume goods which stimulated demand and thus the need for workers to both sell and produce these items.

The framework of my proposal is complex, but sound: Eat less meat! Without spouting any ethical mumbo jumbo, which as a vegetarian I feel obliged to do, meat is more expensive to produce than vegetables and grains. Crops are a more efficient way to produce food than livestock, they use less water, eat no bone meal, and we harvest much more food from a field of crops than a few cows in a field (or metal box) and veg. is more environmentally sound, just don't mention Soya and Rainforests! These savings are passed on to the consumer (vegetables and pulses are CHEAP) and several servings can be gleaned from a variety of plants and bags of grains as opposed to a single pack of chicken. The alternative is to buy cheaper meat, further endangering your health, your taste-buds and most importantly, for some; your wallet (prob. leather.)

Note:

TAKE THAT B.N.P!

BBC news recently reported that a large surplus of Summer fruit crops have gone un-picked this year because of new government restrictions on the number of un-skilled foreign workers allowed into the U.K. If British people weren't so work-shy and reliant on accusing immigrant workers of "Te'kin ar jubs" (See South Park Goobacks from the Future.) then this fruit would've been picked and Sainsbury's "Basics" Cherries wouldn't cost £3 for 100g!