If your old enough you'll recall the days when British people used to regard the lot of those unfortunate enough to dwell outside these shores with more than a small degree of pity. Sure we weren't the wealthiest, most powerful of even the most content nation on earth but there was a certain degree of satisfaction to drawn from the knowledge that we were the least barmy and that, for the most part, enjoyed an unparallelled degree of personal liberty.
I recall many occasions from my adolescence when I'd witness news from abroad. Things like, civil unrest in the US, the antics of paramilitaries in France, food shortages in the Soviet Union or just the general petty injustices that foreigners seemed to endure, firm in my assurance that these things couldn't happen here.
Yes, that was a long time ago and in truth perhaps a rather a too rose tinted view of the past. But times have changes because, back then, we didn't put people away for saying the wrong thing or throw them out of work for their politics or impose summery fines or arbitrarily persecute motorists to raise revenue.
So when did the apple turn into a pear? Wish I could pin it down, things started to go wrong in 68 with the Irish thing but that was localised and had little impact on daily life in the rest of the country. How about The Common Market? as it was then called, well that certainly opened British culture up to the European method of non-de jure enforcement that we see in things like the way Customs an Excise enforce alcohol and tobacco limits, even though there aren't supposed to be any. In truth though, I don't think it's possible to pin it down to a particular event, it's more a case of the simmering frog. A liberty here an injustice there, chipped away in gradual process that we barely noticed. One thing I do know though, it's only going to get worse and no better.
It's not all bad though, remember those foreigners that we used to view with such pity? Yeah I know the US and Europe are in suicide mode but further afield things look more promising. The successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia, has been called The New America, the population already enjoys a greater degree of civil liberty than we do, now there's a sobering thought. China is the major prospect though the population is still relatively impoverished, largely because western economies are in dept to them for so much.
Personally I've given up trying to counter the ubiquitous disinformation and moral panics spawned by my culture's decline. Much better to just go with the flow and make best of it then perhaps I'll be able to retire abroad.
Friday, 3 February 2012
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Ongo Bongo Island part 2
Draft of part two of a children's story, for part one of an unrevised draft go here:
The Ongo Bongos were very frightened by the news of the storm coming and hid in their huts.. The storm blew very hard, much harder than any storm any Ongo Bongo could remember. Some of them hid under their beds and some hid under their tables. Some hid under chairs and some hid in cupboards. The storm lasted all night but as the sun came up in the morning the storm went away. When the Ongo Bogons went of their huts they found that the storm had caused a lot of damage. Some huts had their windows broken and some had their roofs broken. Some of the huts had been blown away all together and all that was left was some very frightened Ongo Bongos sitting in a pile of broken wood.
Illustration – devastation people looking sad
Clive had built a very sturdy hut and it wasn’t damaged too badly so after he tidied up he decided to go to Ongo Bongo Bay and see if he could catch some fish. He found his boat where he had left and he was about to take the stones out of it when he saw something very strange.
Clive looked at the the shore where the bay should be and saw it wasn’t there. It had completely disappeared and In its place was a big pile of sand. “Oh dear” cried Clive, “the storm has blown all the sand here and now Ongo Bongo bay has disappeared.”
Illustration – Clive looking at a big pile of sand where bay should be
Clive went back to his hut and he their he met the Baker who’s name was Sarah. Clive told her what he had seen, Sarah gasped, “Ongo Bongo!” with great surprise and held her hands up to her face. When people around heard they looked at her to see why someone should shout “Ongo Bongo” in such a way.
Clive told the other people what they had seen and very soon a large crowd of people could be heard crying out “Ongo Bongo” and the news spread that something very strange had happened during the storm, even if most people weren’t quite sure what it was.
It wasn’t long before the Mayor arrived at Clive’s hut looking very concerned, when he saw the people talking to Clive he went over to him and said, “Ongo Bongo” in a very important way. Clive told the Mayor what had happened, “Ongo Bongo,” said the mayor as if he could believe his ears.
Illustration – Mayor, Clive, Baker, Crowd
“This is very Ongo Bongo” said the mayor “we must find the professor and Ongo Bongo him what he thinks we should Ongo Bongo about Ongo Bongo.”
When the the crowd that had gathered heard this they were not sure what the mayor was saying but they though finding the professor would be a good idea so they all nodded their heads and said “Ongo Bono”.
They mayor, Clive the fisherman, Sarah the baker and the crowd all went to the professors house. When they got there they found that his house was very badly damaged. It was completely destroyed. They found the professor sitting in the rubble, he looked very sad and distressed. What happened?” he said, “someone Ongo Bongoed that I should Ongo Bongo because of an Ongo Bongo.”
Clive and some other people helped the professor up and Clive told him about the storm. “There was an Ongo Bongo?” asked the professor, “that Ongo Bongoes why it was so windy”.
The mayor tried to tell the professor about Bay disappearing but although he said, “Ongo Bongo” as importantly and seriously as he could, the professor could not understand him. So Clive told the professor what had happened.
At first the professor did not believe Clive and asked to be taken to Ongo Bongo Bay to see for himself. So all the people gathered followed Clive to the shore to see for themselves. When they got there they saw the huge pile of sand where the bay should. The professor shook his head in a very wise way, “This is very Ongo Bongo” he said, “I’ve been Ongo Bongoing something like this for Ongo Bongo time, I’m afraid this is something called – Island Shrinking.”
Illustration Crowd Professor center looking sagacious or professor in broken house
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Ongo Bongo Island part 1
Draft of part one of a children's story
Once, not so long ago and not so far away lived a people, who were called, by the people who met them, the Ongo Bongo people. The Ongo Bongo People lived on an island called Ongo Bongo Island. The Ongo Bongo people were very simple people, they did not have cars and they did not have phones. They did not have computers and they did not have television. They lived in huts they built themselves with the wood from the Ongo Bongo Tree. They ate the fruit that grew on the Ongo Bongo tree and they ate eggs laid by the Ongo Bongo Bird. They drank milk from goats that lived on the island but because they were very simple and could not remember words for different things so they called goats, the Ongo Bongo Beast.
Illustration - Ongo Bongo Island
Not many people visited Ongo Bongo Island so the Ongo Bongo people didn't know about cars or phones or computers or television, so they didn't miss them. When people did come to the island they found the Ongo Bongo people very peculiar and did not stay long. Why other people found them so peculiar was because the Ongo Bongo people were very simple and they could not remember many words. When an Ongo Bongo Person wanted to say something that they couldn't remember the word for they would say, “Ongo Bongo” instead. They would say Ongo Bongo in a way that sounded like the thing they were talking about.
If they wanted to say something happy, they would say, “Ongo Bongo!” happily and loudly.
If they wanted to sound serious they would say, “Ongo Bongo” very seriously.
And if they wanted to say something sad they would say, “Ongo Bongo” very sadly.
prompt
The Ongo Bongo people forgot words a lot, especially if they got confused or upset and if they got angry, some times they forgot words forever. This was very confusing for people who did not live on Ongo Bongo island so they preferred to stay away.
Illustration - ship sailing past Ongo Bongo island.
The Ongo Bongo people were very busy and there were lots of jobs for the them to do. They built houses from the Ongo Bongo tree, they collected eggs from the Ongo Bongo bird and they milked the Ongo Bongo beast. These were jobs that all the Ongo Bongo People did but some had other jobs. They had a man whose job it was catch fish and they had a man whose job it was bake bread. The two most important jobs on the island were the Teacher and the Mayor. There were only a few special jobs and lots of people who wanted to do them so when someone new was needed to do a job the Ongo Bongos had to decide who would do it.
The way they decided who would do a job was also very peculiar they would ask the person to talk about the job but because the Ongo Bongos could not remember many words, most of the time they would just say, “Ongo Bongo”.
The fisherman would be be the person who could say, “Ongo Bongo” in a way that made them sound like they could catch more fish.
The baker was the man who could say, “Ongo Bongo” in a way that made them sound like they could bake bread.
The teacher would be the person who could say, “Ongo Bongo” in a way that made them sound very wise.
The Mayor would be the person who could say, “Ongo Bongo” in the way that made him sound very honest.
Illustration - Ongo Bongo jobs
Asking someone to say, “Ongo Bongo” isn't a very good way to decide who does which job. Luckily the baker and the fisherman both worked hard and were good at their jobs so the Ongo Bongos did not get hungry.
No one really knew how good the teacher and the Mayor were at there jobs because it’s not so easy tell. Sometime someone would think the Mayor the or teacher was not doing their job well but they were both very good at saying, “Ongo Bongo” so they kept their jobs.
The Ongo Bongos didn’t need cars or computers and for along time, were quite happy, living in their huts. They ate their eggs and fruit. They ate the fish that the fisherman caught and bread that the baker baked.
Then one day the fisherman, who was called Clive, saw something very strange as he took his boat to the bay to go fishing. It was a dark cloud in the sky over the sea, it meant a storm was coming so Clive went home and told the others about what he saw. They thanked Clive and all went home so they would be safe. None of them knew that the storm would change life on Ongo Bogo Island forever.
Illustration – Clive looking at storm cloud
Friday, 20 January 2012
Black Dress
 |
I was planning to post a short story over the weekend but it's one of those works that's taken on a life of its own and I need to work it throught to see how it turns out. Meanwhile here's a picture I did ages ago, yeah I know it's blue rather than black, it's a comic thing. It's a useful picture because it demonstrates some colouring technique. As you can see there are two stages of the drawing, one's a simple wash the second has has had opaque worked into it. The medium is acrylic on cheap but quite heavy, Cotman watercolour paper. The actual drawings are quite small, probably about the resolution you can see them at, about 4" tall.
|
Sunday, 15 January 2012
Those that do harm
Note: The following is an extract form an essay on fiction writing.
It's very difficult for a lot of people to acknowledge the human capacity for gratuitous malice. Even for people who've been subjected to cruelty and torment themselves, That may be due to the fact that most of us recognize our own potential for aggression even if many underestimate their own capacity for such. Attendant to such self knowledge is the faith in redemption, that is, the belief or hope that a person may atone for past transgressions because we or they are not intrinsically evil. To a certain extent that faith is well founded and could be applied to the majority of people, conventional psychology states that only a small percentage of the population is irredeemably psychopathic but there is much disagreement about how to define that percentage.
One of the problems with psychology is that there is a tendency, with some, to attribute all abhorrent behaviour to one or another psychological syndrome or malady. There's a failure to recognize that malice, spite, violence, aggression and cruelty are intrinsic to normal human behaviour. The term psychopath has fallen out of favour in certain circles where the inclusive, sociopath is preferred. There's nothing more foolish than a layman weighting into a debate in a specialised field of which they are scantly cognisant, so I'm going to sidestep the issue by creating my own categories. Another reason for avoiding the psychological labels is that it's apparent that individuals categorized under a psychological label will not necessarily be manifestly cruel or malicious. Indeed they may even be regarded as talented or uniquely enabled individuals, who offer great benefit and insight to broader society. What I'm going to try to do is analysis and describe the reasons why you might encounter malicious behaviour and categorize, in descending order of severity, those that do harm:
Category A
This is the only category in which all the subjects are irredeemable, do not, under any circumstances, expect any reasonable behavour from people who fall in this category. You not only run the risk of disillusion you put your own prosperity, safety and well being in jeopardy. Unfortunately it is impossible to avoid contact with people who fall in this category completely but you can minimize the risk of harm you expose yourself to by recognizing likely candidates.
This is also the only category under which the subjects that fall within it exhibit an unambiguous pathological cause for their behavior. They're bad because they're fucked in the head, either congenitally or through injury. This doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid, although the majority will be below average intelligence, they can be highly intelligent and even successful politicians, professionals and businessmen/women but their propensity for cruelty may undermine their success.
Recognition
Many who fall within this category are likely to be recognized with relative ease, such as people prone to spontaneous acts of gross violence. Those within this group who manage their appetites for cruelty and violence more covertly can be difficult to pin down. There is however, a list of attributes that, while an imperfect tool, may be helpful for the purpose of recognition. These attributes are: superficial charm, propensity for lies or equivocation, self aggrandizement, lack of remorse or guilt, callousness, propensity to shift responsibility to others. Just as pedophiles seek out opportunities for contact with children you are likely to encounter these people in situations or occupations where they can exercise a degree of power or duress over others. Such occupations include: police, customs, tax office and residential care. That's not to say everyone in those occupations will fall within this category, just 10-20% which is about 10 times the incidence within the general population.
Examples
caveat: the following does not represent a psychological diagnosis or opinion of any person listed. It represents my opinion of those likely to fall within the category described above and as such represents my best guess, which I acknowledge, is likely to be incorrect. Please do not interpret this as a factual statement about any person, living or dead, listed.
Carol Tessaman, Joseph Stalin, Phineas Gage, An Extant British Politician -- noted for deceit and glibness, Myra Hindley, Reinhard Heydrich
Category B
People who fall in this category are those who've acquired their dysfunction through environmental means. This can include injury through alcohol and drug abuse but only where their effects are not irreversible. While those in this category may commit acts of violence or cruelty while under the influence that's not to say all people who commit acts while in such a condition fall within this category. Individuals in this category may conform to the dysfunctional stereotype, abused and tormented physically and sexually as a child. This is not necessarily the case though but they will exhibit a degree of isolation an remoteness from social norms characterized by nihilism in varying degrees. In some ways those in this category are the most volatile and dangerous, they're more likely to explosive suicidal acts that culminate in extreme violence and high body counts.
Recognition
The main problem with this category is that those that fall within it are defined by the extent they're at odds with society in general. So any assessment of likely candidates has to be in relation to the broader social context. To explain this I use two well known fictional social contexts, in what I call The Walnut Grove - Oceania Analogy. Suppose there's a person breaking up chairs and starting fights in Walnut Grove, they're probably not very nice are they? Now imagine someone doing the same in Oceania, you wouldn't necessarily draw the same conclusion would you? So you have to bear that in mind when you're looking at people at odds with social norms.That's not to say the person in Oceania is any less dangerous but they're more likely to be redeemable and less, sick in the head rather than a product of a sick society. You should apply the same list of attributes for assessing candidates for this list but be aware that people in this category are less likely to be successful they're more likely to be socially disadvantaged loners.
Examples
caveat: the following does not represent a psychological diagnosis or opinion of any person listed. It represents my opinion of those likely to fall within the category described above and as such represents my best guess, which I acknowledge, is likely to be incorrect. Please do not interpret this as a factual statement about any person, living or dead, listed.
Columbine Shooters, Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler, Herman Goering, Michael Ryan
Category C
While this is not the most prevalent category it is by several order of magnitude the category responsible for most harm and therefore the most dangerous on a broader scale. The good news is that on an individual level they're generally, although not always, less dangerous than the two previous categories.This is the first category for which there is no requirement for psychological dysfunction for those included, although they may exhibit such. People in this category do not necessarily have a predisposition to cruelty or violence unless they are provided with a motive to justify such. This category does not include those with genuine motive to commit violence, such as protecting themselves, their family or property. People who are included in this category are those who justify their actions with specious or false justification. Such justification will more often include self deception and deception of others to recruit allies. They prefer to equivocate but will justify outright dishonesty with the, ends justifies means rational. The scope of the harm perpetrated by people in this category can vary immensely from small scale family feuds to the global scale. Do not make the mistake of expecting reasonable behavior from people in this category, their capacity for self deception ensures they're nearly as intransigent as those in category A. Do not try to argue your case in the hope that reason will prevail in the mind of your adversary, any perceived reconciliation is most likely to be a deception by them to gain advantage.
Recognition
It's relatively easy to identify individuals in this category on a personal level, family members or colleagues who lie about you because of some imagined grievance are obvious examples. It's not so easy to recognize people in this category in a broader context. That is, people in the media or political arenas. Your assessments are likely to be coloured by your own preconceptions, which is why I will not include any explicit examples for this category.
Category D Everyone else
That's you and me, well I did say it was normal human behaviour.
It's very difficult for a lot of people to acknowledge the human capacity for gratuitous malice. Even for people who've been subjected to cruelty and torment themselves, That may be due to the fact that most of us recognize our own potential for aggression even if many underestimate their own capacity for such. Attendant to such self knowledge is the faith in redemption, that is, the belief or hope that a person may atone for past transgressions because we or they are not intrinsically evil. To a certain extent that faith is well founded and could be applied to the majority of people, conventional psychology states that only a small percentage of the population is irredeemably psychopathic but there is much disagreement about how to define that percentage.
One of the problems with psychology is that there is a tendency, with some, to attribute all abhorrent behaviour to one or another psychological syndrome or malady. There's a failure to recognize that malice, spite, violence, aggression and cruelty are intrinsic to normal human behaviour. The term psychopath has fallen out of favour in certain circles where the inclusive, sociopath is preferred. There's nothing more foolish than a layman weighting into a debate in a specialised field of which they are scantly cognisant, so I'm going to sidestep the issue by creating my own categories. Another reason for avoiding the psychological labels is that it's apparent that individuals categorized under a psychological label will not necessarily be manifestly cruel or malicious. Indeed they may even be regarded as talented or uniquely enabled individuals, who offer great benefit and insight to broader society. What I'm going to try to do is analysis and describe the reasons why you might encounter malicious behaviour and categorize, in descending order of severity, those that do harm:
Category A
This is the only category in which all the subjects are irredeemable, do not, under any circumstances, expect any reasonable behavour from people who fall in this category. You not only run the risk of disillusion you put your own prosperity, safety and well being in jeopardy. Unfortunately it is impossible to avoid contact with people who fall in this category completely but you can minimize the risk of harm you expose yourself to by recognizing likely candidates.
This is also the only category under which the subjects that fall within it exhibit an unambiguous pathological cause for their behavior. They're bad because they're fucked in the head, either congenitally or through injury. This doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid, although the majority will be below average intelligence, they can be highly intelligent and even successful politicians, professionals and businessmen/women but their propensity for cruelty may undermine their success.
Recognition
Many who fall within this category are likely to be recognized with relative ease, such as people prone to spontaneous acts of gross violence. Those within this group who manage their appetites for cruelty and violence more covertly can be difficult to pin down. There is however, a list of attributes that, while an imperfect tool, may be helpful for the purpose of recognition. These attributes are: superficial charm, propensity for lies or equivocation, self aggrandizement, lack of remorse or guilt, callousness, propensity to shift responsibility to others. Just as pedophiles seek out opportunities for contact with children you are likely to encounter these people in situations or occupations where they can exercise a degree of power or duress over others. Such occupations include: police, customs, tax office and residential care. That's not to say everyone in those occupations will fall within this category, just 10-20% which is about 10 times the incidence within the general population.
Examples
caveat: the following does not represent a psychological diagnosis or opinion of any person listed. It represents my opinion of those likely to fall within the category described above and as such represents my best guess, which I acknowledge, is likely to be incorrect. Please do not interpret this as a factual statement about any person, living or dead, listed.
Carol Tessaman, Joseph Stalin, Phineas Gage, An Extant British Politician -- noted for deceit and glibness, Myra Hindley, Reinhard Heydrich
Category B
People who fall in this category are those who've acquired their dysfunction through environmental means. This can include injury through alcohol and drug abuse but only where their effects are not irreversible. While those in this category may commit acts of violence or cruelty while under the influence that's not to say all people who commit acts while in such a condition fall within this category. Individuals in this category may conform to the dysfunctional stereotype, abused and tormented physically and sexually as a child. This is not necessarily the case though but they will exhibit a degree of isolation an remoteness from social norms characterized by nihilism in varying degrees. In some ways those in this category are the most volatile and dangerous, they're more likely to explosive suicidal acts that culminate in extreme violence and high body counts.
Recognition
The main problem with this category is that those that fall within it are defined by the extent they're at odds with society in general. So any assessment of likely candidates has to be in relation to the broader social context. To explain this I use two well known fictional social contexts, in what I call The Walnut Grove - Oceania Analogy. Suppose there's a person breaking up chairs and starting fights in Walnut Grove, they're probably not very nice are they? Now imagine someone doing the same in Oceania, you wouldn't necessarily draw the same conclusion would you? So you have to bear that in mind when you're looking at people at odds with social norms.That's not to say the person in Oceania is any less dangerous but they're more likely to be redeemable and less, sick in the head rather than a product of a sick society. You should apply the same list of attributes for assessing candidates for this list but be aware that people in this category are less likely to be successful they're more likely to be socially disadvantaged loners.
Examples
caveat: the following does not represent a psychological diagnosis or opinion of any person listed. It represents my opinion of those likely to fall within the category described above and as such represents my best guess, which I acknowledge, is likely to be incorrect. Please do not interpret this as a factual statement about any person, living or dead, listed.
Columbine Shooters, Timothy McVeigh, Adolf Hitler, Herman Goering, Michael Ryan
Category C
While this is not the most prevalent category it is by several order of magnitude the category responsible for most harm and therefore the most dangerous on a broader scale. The good news is that on an individual level they're generally, although not always, less dangerous than the two previous categories.This is the first category for which there is no requirement for psychological dysfunction for those included, although they may exhibit such. People in this category do not necessarily have a predisposition to cruelty or violence unless they are provided with a motive to justify such. This category does not include those with genuine motive to commit violence, such as protecting themselves, their family or property. People who are included in this category are those who justify their actions with specious or false justification. Such justification will more often include self deception and deception of others to recruit allies. They prefer to equivocate but will justify outright dishonesty with the, ends justifies means rational. The scope of the harm perpetrated by people in this category can vary immensely from small scale family feuds to the global scale. Do not make the mistake of expecting reasonable behavior from people in this category, their capacity for self deception ensures they're nearly as intransigent as those in category A. Do not try to argue your case in the hope that reason will prevail in the mind of your adversary, any perceived reconciliation is most likely to be a deception by them to gain advantage.
Recognition
It's relatively easy to identify individuals in this category on a personal level, family members or colleagues who lie about you because of some imagined grievance are obvious examples. It's not so easy to recognize people in this category in a broader context. That is, people in the media or political arenas. Your assessments are likely to be coloured by your own preconceptions, which is why I will not include any explicit examples for this category.
Category D Everyone else
That's you and me, well I did say it was normal human behaviour.
Saturday, 17 December 2011
Movie Life
A few years ago I was once called to account by a friend for mentioning the phenomenon of luck, "You believe in luck?" he said.
I picked up on his rhetorical tone and answered with something like, "I have the same profound conviction in the existence of luck as I do for the concrete reality of this mug of tea in my hand!" we were at a tea break in a work's canteen. As you might guess my friend was an intelligent and rational person, who had no sympathy for the supernatural or superstition. He was somewhat bewildered by my reply and prompted me further, indicating that he was surprised that I should embrace a concept that he believed was irrational and ridiculous. I countered, saying that he was inferring that I believed luck to be some metaphysical phenomena "That's not necessary," I said "just think of it as an adjective, like black or white -- good or evil." The discussion continued for as long as the allotted period for a tea break and embraced things like the difference between concepts and concrete reality, then we both returned to work.
So why am I pondering luck today and why is this post entitled Movie Life? Well yesterday something very strange happened, I had a rare encounter with good luck that coincided with some recent pondering on the virtues of selfish versus selfless behavior. I would say I'm the the last person to be prone to demonstrable acts of selfless behavior. In fact I'd say I'm suspicious of and often despise folk who display such behavior. I don't think such an attitude is rare, I think most people view the posturing and self proclaimed virtue of public figures with a skeptical eye, I don't really have to mention names do I? But the ice cream parlour that is selflessness serves more than a single flavour, and it doesn't always come with a generous topping of hypocrisy. People frequently put the comfort and needs of others before their own without thought of reward or to enhance their image in the eyes of others. Such acts almost never receive recognition but you sometimes glimpse clues to those likely to act in such a manner through everyday interaction. The guy who defers to people walking through a doorway or the woman who lets another pick up the last bunch of ripe bananas. Of course this is countered by those with a more self-serving outlook, the woman who uses her push-chair borne child to plow through crowds of Christmas shoppers, is one example of such. It's with those considerations in mind that I very recently swore a silent oath to be more selfish. It's not necessary to further detail the reasons I came to this decision but I'll just mention that a mixture of both personal reasons and observations of broader culture prompted the decision. The thing about swearing oaths is that you find that they're going to be tested sooner than you think.
So this piece of good luck I received, well, while out Christmas shopping I idly wandered into a charity shop. I think I was probably looking for second hand books but I found my self thumbing the racks of coats and I stumbled upon a leather coat in very good condition, pea-coat length, in brown leather. I'm looking for a new coat so why not see if it fits, I think and sure enough after trying it on, I find it's not only a good fit but very comfortable too. Charity shop prices have risen sharply since the economy went pear-shaped, so I was expected the price to be beyond my meager means but was surprised to see that they were still asking the relatively modest sum of £10 for the coat. It was while I was looking up the price that I saw the label. It was a name I recognized as being a label that held some reputation but as designer clothing is currently beyond my means, the label held no particular significance for me. I make my way home, confident that I've secured a bargain. It wasn't until I reached home and curiosity got the better of me that I discovered how much of a bargain.
I Google the label to find prices for the coats under this label and see sums like £150, £199, not a bad bargain, I think. Hang on all these coats are nylon or polyester, lets do a search on leather coats. Google spits out a few results, £750 is the first I see, oh shit, it's a £700 coat. There's the dilemma, even taking pre-Christmas inflation into account, I've brought a coat worth a great deal of cash from a Charity Shop for £10. Last week I would have auctioned it on e-bay and shared the cash with the shop, which I estimate would have left us sharing about £200 to £300. A nice dividend for the shop, I could pat myself on the back and even buy a decent coat with my share. That was last week though, since then I've sworn an oath to forsake acts of gratuitous selflessness and I take oaths very seriously. See what I mean, Movie Life? it's like a the plot for a cheesy rom-com.
I picked up on his rhetorical tone and answered with something like, "I have the same profound conviction in the existence of luck as I do for the concrete reality of this mug of tea in my hand!" we were at a tea break in a work's canteen. As you might guess my friend was an intelligent and rational person, who had no sympathy for the supernatural or superstition. He was somewhat bewildered by my reply and prompted me further, indicating that he was surprised that I should embrace a concept that he believed was irrational and ridiculous. I countered, saying that he was inferring that I believed luck to be some metaphysical phenomena "That's not necessary," I said "just think of it as an adjective, like black or white -- good or evil." The discussion continued for as long as the allotted period for a tea break and embraced things like the difference between concepts and concrete reality, then we both returned to work.
So why am I pondering luck today and why is this post entitled Movie Life? Well yesterday something very strange happened, I had a rare encounter with good luck that coincided with some recent pondering on the virtues of selfish versus selfless behavior. I would say I'm the the last person to be prone to demonstrable acts of selfless behavior. In fact I'd say I'm suspicious of and often despise folk who display such behavior. I don't think such an attitude is rare, I think most people view the posturing and self proclaimed virtue of public figures with a skeptical eye, I don't really have to mention names do I? But the ice cream parlour that is selflessness serves more than a single flavour, and it doesn't always come with a generous topping of hypocrisy. People frequently put the comfort and needs of others before their own without thought of reward or to enhance their image in the eyes of others. Such acts almost never receive recognition but you sometimes glimpse clues to those likely to act in such a manner through everyday interaction. The guy who defers to people walking through a doorway or the woman who lets another pick up the last bunch of ripe bananas. Of course this is countered by those with a more self-serving outlook, the woman who uses her push-chair borne child to plow through crowds of Christmas shoppers, is one example of such. It's with those considerations in mind that I very recently swore a silent oath to be more selfish. It's not necessary to further detail the reasons I came to this decision but I'll just mention that a mixture of both personal reasons and observations of broader culture prompted the decision. The thing about swearing oaths is that you find that they're going to be tested sooner than you think.
So this piece of good luck I received, well, while out Christmas shopping I idly wandered into a charity shop. I think I was probably looking for second hand books but I found my self thumbing the racks of coats and I stumbled upon a leather coat in very good condition, pea-coat length, in brown leather. I'm looking for a new coat so why not see if it fits, I think and sure enough after trying it on, I find it's not only a good fit but very comfortable too. Charity shop prices have risen sharply since the economy went pear-shaped, so I was expected the price to be beyond my meager means but was surprised to see that they were still asking the relatively modest sum of £10 for the coat. It was while I was looking up the price that I saw the label. It was a name I recognized as being a label that held some reputation but as designer clothing is currently beyond my means, the label held no particular significance for me. I make my way home, confident that I've secured a bargain. It wasn't until I reached home and curiosity got the better of me that I discovered how much of a bargain.
I Google the label to find prices for the coats under this label and see sums like £150, £199, not a bad bargain, I think. Hang on all these coats are nylon or polyester, lets do a search on leather coats. Google spits out a few results, £750 is the first I see, oh shit, it's a £700 coat. There's the dilemma, even taking pre-Christmas inflation into account, I've brought a coat worth a great deal of cash from a Charity Shop for £10. Last week I would have auctioned it on e-bay and shared the cash with the shop, which I estimate would have left us sharing about £200 to £300. A nice dividend for the shop, I could pat myself on the back and even buy a decent coat with my share. That was last week though, since then I've sworn an oath to forsake acts of gratuitous selflessness and I take oaths very seriously. See what I mean, Movie Life? it's like a the plot for a cheesy rom-com.
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Observations from Zog
I suppose it's time I came clean, I'm not writing this like most Blogspot or Wordpress users, sitting at keyboard or on a laptop in a cafe. I'm inputting this on an hyperspatial input station from a secret location on the planet Zog. Let me explain, you've heard of David Icke, you know -- reptilians, shape-shifters? Zog is where they, the Zogthurians, come from, I'm here with the Zogthurian resistance. It turns out that not all Zogthurians are evil and bent on planetary conquest. In fact most Zogthurians are quite congenial, the only real inconvenience, apart from the toilet tissue shortage, is the Zogthurian's habitual practice of conducting internal body cavity probes, it wouldn't be so bad if they at least warmed the end of the probe a little, brrrrrr.
As you might expect communication between Zog and Earth can be a little difficult at times. I'm not sure where Zog is but I know it's some distance from Earth, so we don't get all the news channels that you do at home. In fact there's no television at all and the radio broadcasts only come through occasionally. There is excellent internet access though, the Zogthurians spent a lot of effort securing the broadband connection between Zog and Earth because they're very keen on the internet. They're particularly interested in downloading something called Japanese AV, apparently it offers a valuable insight into human culture and psychology. There are two main consequences that follow from these circumstances, I get almost almost all my news of home via the internet and the Zogthurian consumption of tissue paper has tripled annually since the introduction of direct broadband from Earth.
So I'm not up to speed on news topics like the X-Factor or Jeremy Clarkson, that seem to preoccupy the newspapers back home. I should mention that we do get newspapers too, the tissue shortage has prompted the Zogthurians to import large quantities of newsprint to supplement the toilet tissue supply. Copies of the Daily Mail and Independent seem to be particularly popular although they do use all of the British tabloids for that purpose and the demise of the News of the World was widely lamented. So it was a certain degree of curiosity that I read headlines regarding the British weather. It seemed as soon as the summer had finished that the papers announced each inclement episode as if it were minor catastrophe. There was also number of ominous predictions emblazoned in bold type such as, "Arctic Freeze Predicted" and "Flood Warning". The latest example of this phenomenon was the announcement that it was actually snowing in December. I know I've been on Zog for some time but I still do recall that things like this used to happen quite regularly at home we called it -- winter.
Being on the planet Zog you might think that I'd be sympathetic to conspiracy theories, seeing as I know that Mr. Icke's seemingly fantastic claims are all grounded in solid fact. Well you'd be wrong there, as far as I'm concerned, Oswald shot JFK and the twins towers collapsed because some Arabs flew into them with bloody great aeroplanes. It's not that I don't think our politicians are above conspiracy and manipulation, Blair's 45 minute claim is a good example of such. I just don't think they're that good at it, they're as about as good at conspiracy as they are at running the economy. So I'm not a conspiracy buff or a truther as they liked to be called but when I caught sight of some other climate related material from the news, I couldn't quite shake the idea there might be a connection. The material in question was the climate change conference in Durban, that has been going on since November. The media has been heralding the rather prosaic approach of winter since the autumn like it was the first time it had ever occurred, could there be a connection? I wonder...
As you might expect communication between Zog and Earth can be a little difficult at times. I'm not sure where Zog is but I know it's some distance from Earth, so we don't get all the news channels that you do at home. In fact there's no television at all and the radio broadcasts only come through occasionally. There is excellent internet access though, the Zogthurians spent a lot of effort securing the broadband connection between Zog and Earth because they're very keen on the internet. They're particularly interested in downloading something called Japanese AV, apparently it offers a valuable insight into human culture and psychology. There are two main consequences that follow from these circumstances, I get almost almost all my news of home via the internet and the Zogthurian consumption of tissue paper has tripled annually since the introduction of direct broadband from Earth.
So I'm not up to speed on news topics like the X-Factor or Jeremy Clarkson, that seem to preoccupy the newspapers back home. I should mention that we do get newspapers too, the tissue shortage has prompted the Zogthurians to import large quantities of newsprint to supplement the toilet tissue supply. Copies of the Daily Mail and Independent seem to be particularly popular although they do use all of the British tabloids for that purpose and the demise of the News of the World was widely lamented. So it was a certain degree of curiosity that I read headlines regarding the British weather. It seemed as soon as the summer had finished that the papers announced each inclement episode as if it were minor catastrophe. There was also number of ominous predictions emblazoned in bold type such as, "Arctic Freeze Predicted" and "Flood Warning". The latest example of this phenomenon was the announcement that it was actually snowing in December. I know I've been on Zog for some time but I still do recall that things like this used to happen quite regularly at home we called it -- winter.
Being on the planet Zog you might think that I'd be sympathetic to conspiracy theories, seeing as I know that Mr. Icke's seemingly fantastic claims are all grounded in solid fact. Well you'd be wrong there, as far as I'm concerned, Oswald shot JFK and the twins towers collapsed because some Arabs flew into them with bloody great aeroplanes. It's not that I don't think our politicians are above conspiracy and manipulation, Blair's 45 minute claim is a good example of such. I just don't think they're that good at it, they're as about as good at conspiracy as they are at running the economy. So I'm not a conspiracy buff or a truther as they liked to be called but when I caught sight of some other climate related material from the news, I couldn't quite shake the idea there might be a connection. The material in question was the climate change conference in Durban, that has been going on since November. The media has been heralding the rather prosaic approach of winter since the autumn like it was the first time it had ever occurred, could there be a connection? I wonder...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)