A message to those that want to mandate vaccines..

The unvaxx'd repeatedly get accused of being selfish, so let's get selfish for a moment. When it comes to me and my health this vaccine simply doesn't meet my personal standards. It's simply not good enough for me, and I don't deem the balance of risk/benefit to be in my favour.

More to the point though, accepting this vaccine means accepting the premise that I can be forced or coerced into having any medical treatment the state deems 'satisfactory'; and I most certainly don't accept that. Again, it's not good enough for me. Perhaps it's good enough for you, perhaps you're happy with that, but not me.

Of course, people will state that government rules always set the bar for what's a safe standard, and that we all live by these rules already. However, those rules only set a lowest standard - they make sure the food sold in shops doesn't literally poison us, that there's no fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice. They stop medicines and foods from being sold and administered, but they don't force us to consume those things.

We are still free to say: "No, this isn't good enough for me. I'll choose something else; and if there's nothing else I deem good enough I'll choose nothing at all."

Again, the state sets a lowest standard, and it can only ever set a lowest standard. As if it attempted to set the highest it would have to ban literally everything, because everything comes with risk. Fast food restaurants would have to be closed. Every donut or cup of coffee banned. Every medication banned. Every human activity, sport, fairground ride, all stopped. As they all come with risk.

Either that or the state would have to micromanage all these things to perfection. Literally telling us how many donuts we're allowed to eat. Or how much exercise we're required to do or not to do. Likewise it would have to set the acceptable level of risk for any medication administered, as it does now - only in this scenario you'd no longer be able to say "No". It would decide.

So accepting the state can mandate what we do with our bodies means either believing the state knows best, and can manage these things to perfection - or it means simply accepting that it can impose the lowest standard upon you - i.e. whatever it deems satisfactory.

'Satisfactory' may be good enough for you, but it isn't good enough for me, and I don't accept it being forced upon me. So I'll decide what is good enough for me.

(click to enlarge)

Metals, Markets, and Digital Jewellery

Wow, it's December, over two months since my last post - that's flew by. So definitely time for a little update.

Firstly my stocks. I've bought more since my last post, and in that time they've shot up then shot back down again. At one point I'd shot up to about $230 profit, but I'm back down to just $3.86 now 😄 Though that's significantly better than my lowest point which was about -$60.

As I noted in my last post you can follow my goings-on here;

https://www.etoro.com/people/copperlocks

I think I'll leave it until the new year now however, I think I've invested enough. So I'll just watch it do its thing for the time being.

Gold and Bitcoin

Since my last post I've had a little revelation too, and it came in regard gold and Bitcoin. Watching analysts speak on YouTube for hours on end has given me a decent overview.

My main takeaway is that both gold and Bitcoin are competing for the same space in the human psyche. I've been quite scathing of Bitcoin in the past, stating that it isn't backed by anything. However, gold isn't really backed by anything either. Sure, it's more real-world and physical, but its value largely stems from its cultural status and how much people want it, rather than from how useful and needed it is. Shiny shiny, wanty wanty.

Its rarity adds to this of course, but ultimately it's the status, which in part stems from this rarity - gold is the king of metals. In fact, if we sidestep into the esoteric for a moment it's decidedly odd that the most sought after metal just so happens to be the colour of the Sun (with silver, its second-placed sister, the colour of the Moon). It's almost like it has to be this way in some alchemical fashion. This is just how the world works.

As humans we've been living the last six or seven thousand years or so in the age of metals. From bronze to iron to rail and skyscrapers. Metals like copper, tin, etc, have real practical value and usefulness. They've been needed. Whereas gold (and to a lesser extent silver) have been much more ornamental. No one needs gold jewellery, but it's nice to have, and it's perfectly natural that in the age of metals the most beautiful, rare, unreactive and Sun-like would be the most valued. The standard against which every other metal is measured.

It's superficial, but human consciousness demands that something fill this position.

Acknowledging this has made me reconsider Bitcoin (and potentially other crypto assets) in a similar light. If humans are moving into a digital age it stands to reason that this void will need to be filled in the digital world too. We spend so much time online, and the online world has so much practical value, that perhaps we'll likewise end up with a Sun-like digital gold standard - along with other forms of digital jewellery. Things which in practical terms are valueless, but that derive their value from the collective cultural reservoir, and from the human need for bling.

In the real world you flex with a gold watch or necklace, online it may be with some NFT artwork or avatar. It's maybe telling that the symbol for Bitcoin is orangey-gold, and Ethereum is silver. Mirroring the Sun and Moon dichotomy of gold and silver. In this regard you could view all the other coins and tokens as akin to other real world jewellery - the precious and not-so-precious gemstones, crystals, metals and other trinkets. The array of shiny, shiny. Only this time digital and online.

I still remain sceptical of Bitcoin, and unlike gold it isn't rooted in reality in the same way, so some other crypto asset could potentially fill this 'digital gold' role - assuming modern human culture does indeed have a demand for this. However, my attitude has softened a bit. Largely because I'm aware that I would've had a similar attitude to gold had I lived in the distant past.

I imagine myself as a fisherman living a few thousand years ago.

I have my wooden boat, my fishing net and my iron sword. Someone comes up to me and offers some gold in exchange for some fish. Me, being a stoic and non-superficial type of person replies:

"No thanks, gold has no practical use to me, and what value it has in wider society is dependent solely upon the confidence people place in it - which could dissipate at any moment, meaning I'd just be left with some shiny, but useless rocks. That won't feed my family."

Now, of course, all that would be somewhat true. You can't eat gold, and in a crisis a starving man will happily trade his ounce of gold for a single fish, but real crises like that are exceptionally rare, and in hindsight it would've have been smart for the ancient version of me to accept gold as a barter. History has shown it's retained its value.

So I now wonder if I'm making the same mistake with cryptos - "No thanks, Bitcoin isn't backed by anything, so its value is based solely on confidence - which could dissipate at any moment."

Perhaps like gold it's backed by the human need for a Sun-like gold standard - which will always be there to some degree; and which in the digital world will take a digital form.

I've also now recognised that whatever my views are on cryptos their operation and function overlaps with the operation of more practical things online. Such as social media, etc.

So, for example, in the age of metal, having mining technology was (and remains) practically useful for getting copper, tin, etc, but that usefulness also helps to get the gold too. As it's all mining. It's all the same industry. So the people with the knowhow to get the practical stuff also have the knowhow to get the luxury stuff - so why not exploit both. They're both aspects of the same industry. Likewise online it's only natural that the people that are creating useful online products are the same people that will also have the expertise and knowledge to develop crypto currencies. Again, it's all the same industry.

So the superficial and practical heavily overlap.

Even if, like me, you feel no love for crypto (or gold for that matter) it's still smart to have access to and expertise in that arena. As that expertise will also help to develop the online infrastructure that is essential in modern society. If you ignore the online market for 'digital jewellery' those that don't will have a huge edge.

Obviously I'm thinking more on a societal level here than a personal one with all this. For instance, a country or large business for security reasons might want a secure social media platform that they control, that can't be shut off by Silicon Valley. Just as a country might want to maintain its own steel industry to have a degree of self sufficiency in that arena. So if I was a government or a billionaire I'd invest in the crypto or 'digital jewellery' world primarily to develop the expertise and leverage to be strong in the more practical realms. As you can't just do one and ignore the other.

Controlling a social media platform is like controlling a copper mine, or a paper mill. It's a practical asset. Whereas developing a crypto is like controlling a bank or a mint. It's a little more abstract. These are loose analogies, but the point I'm essentially getting at is that you can't be a purist - like the fisherman above - you can't just focus on the practical - as the less tangible markets will be there influencing your world whether you like it or not.

I'm wandering off on a tangent here, so I'll wrap it up :)

I still don't plan on buying any cryptos or NFTs anytime soon, but I'll definitely start paying more attention to these things. Also I'll be interested to see if an inverse relationship develops between Bitcoin and gold as the two wrestle for that same niche in our psyche. I also wonder if the battle between the off-line real world and the online Meta-Matrix world will be reflected in this. Though I would guess the two are both too heavily intertwined for this to be the case.

Stock Market Crash

A little update on my investment portfolio ..it's now down $34.59 😭

My beginner's luck has quickly ran out.

In the time since my last post I've reassessed my plans a little though. I've realised that six months is really nothing -- or at least not enough to make a judgement. So I'm holding on to my stocks, effectively indefinitely. Unless there's something really dire that makes me want to sell some of them. I may even buy more (I've actually bought a little more since that last post).

So I'm looking more long term. I've also been learning about dividends, so that is now much more a part of my thinking.

Ironically, in spite of my downturn I think I'm now more invested than I was before. I'll keep updating periodically. I'm learning piecemeal, little by little.

My page can be found here for anyone that wants to know how not to invest:

https://www.etoro.com/people/copperlocks

We Can't Have Euthanasia, We've Abused Abortion

The strongest argument in favour of abortion is the argument that it's merciful. Whether it's ever right to take life is always a moral conundrum, but even people who are strongly against abortion are generally sympathetic to this case.

(Leonardo da Vinci sketch of a

foetus in the womb)

It's thought a child will be born severely handicapped, to the extent that its life will only be misery. Or a foetus is deformed to the extent that it won't reach full term, or if it does the child won't survive very long once born. In circumstances like these it can be a lesser evil to end the pregnancy. In order to shorten any suffering that might be endured by the child.

Again, it's not easy to say what is truly right or wrong, and personally I'm not entirely sure what I would do as a parent in such a situation. I hope I'm never in that position. And of course every circumstance is unique, so it's difficult to draw lines and make blanket judgements. I can be fairly confident though that nearly all parents in such situations are heartbroken, and are thinking purely about what is right for their unborn child. What is best, or perhaps least worst, ..and nothing else.

This is how it should be. Parents love the unborn child. It is a precious life, and they try to do what they think (and hope) is right in its interests. Even if that means ending its life prematurely so it can avoid any needless suffering.

This however is quite different to abortion for wider social reasons:

"There are too many people on Earth."

"I'm putting my career first."

"We're not ready to start a family yet."

"We can't afford to have more children."

"Etc."

With all these examples the decision isn't made solely with regard to the interests of the precious being inside the womb. It's made for wider reasons. Reasons that are in the interest of the wider group.

An otherwise healthy foetus - that would've went on to live a normal human life - is sacrificed for the greater good. That is: for other people.

[Of course, people will often use the expression that it's only a "potential human life." However, all future life is only potential. I will potentially live another 50 years if I'm lucky, but if someone murders me that potential goes away. So what's the difference? Well, the reply often comes: "But a foetus is only cells - it doesn't suffer".

Okay, so what if someone murders me peacefully in my sleep tonight, in a way that causes no suffering to me? My potential years ahead are gone, and I didn't suffer. So again, what's the difference?

(And this is assuming that the countless abortions that take place are completely without suffering of course.)]

Anyway, you've probably guessed by now that I'm very much against abortion for wider social reasons. It's an act of sacrifice in my opinion, and I think it's wrong.

This brings me to another point in fact; and one that's often lost on people on all sides of this debate. You can deem something morally wrong, yet also deem it lawful. Just because you view abortion (in my case abortion for social reasons) as morally wrong, it doesn't mean that you therefore must usurp the power over that decision from a pregnant woman.

You can believe it's a woman's right to choose and believe it's morally wrong.

These things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Personally I'm happy for there to be a balance between the mother's and the child's rights as far as the law is concerned. Obviously I don't believe people should have the right to abort babies far gone into pregnancy, but at the same time I can respect a woman's right to make such a decision up to a certain point in the pregnancy ..no matter how morally wrong I think it is that she's exercised that choice.

So I think we often get lost in the legal debate, and forget that we as individuals are entitled to have and to express our own moral viewpoints.

I'm not writing this to remove anyone's rights. I'm writing this to chastise people for the way they've exercised them.

This finally brings me to the title of this article.

Euthanasia, or assisted dying, is a very similar issue, and again, the best argument for it is that of mercy. That it's an act of kindness to help end someone's needless suffering. Like the argument for abortion at the start of this, it's an argument that everyone can sympathise with. No one wants to see unnecessary suffering, and few would hold it against someone if they sincerely helped a dying person to pass the final threshold of life more gently. Even those that are strongly against the idea in principle.

But..

..just look at how this sympathy has been abused with abortion.

How can we as a society be trusted to not take advantage of, or stretch, euthanasia laws for wider social reasons as well? Look at how readily we abort babies for these reasons.

In many ways it's been easier with abortion, as women's rights have been used as a wedge; - a counterbalance against the rights of the child. So it's a slightly more complex issue to navigate, as it concerns the rights of two separate, but intimately connected humans. It's not hard to imagine how euthanasia laws could likewise lead to a slippery slope too though. With the concerns of wider society overlapping so readily with the circumstances of the individual needing care.

People say "Of course we won't misuse this - it'll always be used purely in the interests of the person dying."

..but you already misuse abortion. It is rarely used in the interests of the child.

How on Earth can you be trusted with more leeway.

I'm A Capitalist Now.

Ooh, my Sainsbury's shares are up today.

Yes, shares. I recently opened an eToro account (!) I've invested £750, which is a lot for me -- almost a month's wages. This works out to be about $1000. So it feels like a nice round figure.

As this is a new little chapter for me it's probably a good time to post about it.

(I'm currently $14 up !!! - the powwwer!)

My philosophy so far is quite prosaic. I want tangible assets. So my basic thinking is essentially: "I can't afford to buy a house, so I'll do the next best thing and get a little piece of an actual real-world business."

I also think it's probably sensible to go with what you know. Hence Sainsbury's. Obviously I'm starting from a position of ignorance. 90%+ of the listed companies I've never heard of ..so for the time being I'll focus on what I know -- Amazon, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Tesco.

It's not exciting, but I know these places; I use these places. I actually like them (yes, I like Amazon). I have real world experience of them, so I can be fairly confident they'll still be around going forward.

Saying that though, and slightly more excitingly, I've also invested in some mining companies too. I like metals. (I bought some actual physical gold this year as well, which feels incredibly miserly, but having miraculously saved up some cash I've been mindful of inflation. So you can see where my thinking has been heading this year.)

I'm largely in the dark though with these mining companies. Aside from reading a few articles and Wikipedia pages, and watching a few YouTube videos, my knowledge is zero. So we'll see where things go.

They are at least tangible things to invest in however, whatever risks I'm taking. In fact, this brings me to things like Bitcoin and meme stocks, which I'll be staying well away from. I think you can make money from Bitcoin, but ultimately I view it as a Ponzi scheme. I don't like the idea of putting a month's wages into blips on a computer screen. Something which only derives its value from the confidence other people place it in.

Of course, people will often say this is no different to standard paper currencies, which equally derive their value from nothing but confidence. However, this isn't true. These currencies have value because they're backed by states. As long as there are 300m+ Americans that need to pay their taxes and bills in dollars the dollar will always have value. Whereas no-one needs Bitcoin.

Plus, people aren't really using Bitcoin as a currency. They're just buying it as an asset.

Again though, as before, this isn't to say that you can't make money from Bitcoin. You most definitely can, and people most definitely are. At the moment there are always new people coming into the market wanting Bitcoin. People like me for example, that have recently opened something like eToro. They generally think;

"Ooh, Bitcoin is fashionable, and it's up in value, I'll get a bit of that in my portfolio."

So almost everyone (except me) has a little bit invested in it, and there's an endless stream of new investors coming in adding to the pot. Helping to raise the value in their own little way. So a Ponzi scheme. (At least in my opinion anyway -- it's possible I could be missing something. Feel free to leave a comment explaining what that is.)

Perhaps if I was craftier and smarter I'd invest and take advantage of this hype too, but I fear I'd end up being one of the dupes. Left holding a big parcel of nothing when the music stops.

Anyway, I've disappeared off on a bit of a tangent. Returning to my own little portfolio my hope is to make $100 over the next six months or so. Not so much for the money, but more as an indication. If I can make circa $100 then that shows I can potentially make money actively. So I'll then scale things up and plough more time and money in going forward. If not I'll probably hold on to the shares and watch what happens, but otherwise step back and focus my time elsewhere.

Plans could change as I learn more though.

The Real Cultural Prejudice of the English-Speaking World

Today I came across this song on YouTube.

(Claire Laffut - Hiroshima)

I really like it. I know most people reading won't necessarily have the same taste in music as me, so I understand if people think it's garbage pop music. That's not so much the point though. It's a really summery, well-produced song. The sort of thing you could easily imagine blaring out of speakers and radio stations over the summer months. However.. the song's not sung in English, so it probably won't be.

For all the cries of racist Britain and lowbrow inwards-looking Brexiteers this issue never really pops up. You'd think a Remainer may have chastised us all for this by now. After all, it is the one real cultural prejudice that runs right through the English-speaking world like a stick of rock ..but no.

No matter how good, catchy or beautiful a song is; if it isn't sung in our language it isn't getting in.

This is something that first really occurred to me back in the MySpace days. I remember coming across bands and artists from other countries, singing in their native language; some of which were really good. Up until that point I'd always just assumed that Europeans couldn't make decent music (seeing Eurovision didn't help that perception). Then I realised: "Oh right, if it's not sung in English it won't get played here, and I'm probably never gonna hear it."

Even countries with good records of chart success, like Sweden, needed to sing in English - be it their catchy pop like ABBA or Ace of Base, or their great bands like The Cardigans and The Soundtrack of Our Lives.

It's a bit unfair for them, but it's also quite boring for us. I like hearing stuff in different languages. It's interesting. It's a bit exotic. I have no idea what the song above is about at present, but it's still enjoyable; if anything it adds an element of mystique. (I don't understand what the birds outside are twittering about, but I still enjoy their song.) Plus, I've probably learnt more French from looking up what songs mean than I learnt from all the lessons I had at school.

We're denying ourselves all these fruits. We'll take the wine, and the food, and the clothes, and the cars, but not the music.

Weird that it takes a Brexiteer like me to make this point. Again, you'd think a few EU flag-wavers would have pulled us all up on this by now, but I guess they're just not as immersed in European culture as they seem to think they are ;)

Drink Driving, Compulsory Vaccination

Just a rough post.

We've seen in recent weeks arguments being made in the media that vaccination should become compulsory; with being unvaccinated compared to drink driving.

Obviously I'm quite against compulsory vaccination. The body is sovereign in my eyes, and I would hope most other people share this view. However, the mainstream media can be quite persuasive, and as almost all people support things like drink driving laws the comparison can be quite difficult to counter when first confronted with it.

[We've dealt with similar arguments over the course of this crisis. With other things, such as mask mandates, being compared to seatbelts and other restrictions placed on driving.

See: Drive an inch, take a mile ]

Ultimately, unless you're a total libertarian, where you draw the line on state infringements upon liberty will be a personal judgement. It's a balance, which we all weigh up slightly differently. However, some infringements are clearly more serious than others and you would hope that most people would be honest enough to at least acknowledge this.

Most people instinctively understand that compulsory vaccination is much more serious an intrusion than restrictions on driving a car whilst under the influence of alcohol. It can be hard to explain this understanding though when caught on the hop. Especially when the argument is reduced to a simplistic:

"Well, you accept this one infringement in the interest of public safety; therefore the argument is settled and you must accept this new infringement too."

 

A little list..

Anyway, I've been listing the reasons why the two things are different. In the hope that I can put together a simple and robust refutation.

For the time being it's fairly rough, but I'll note it down now as a springboard towards something a bit more neat and fully formed.

• Being stopped from driving whilst drunk doesn't endanger you, whereas with vaccines there's a risk to health, however small.
• It sets a precedent for other compulsory medication. Why not mandate flu vaccines for similar reasons?
• Once the right to say "No" is removed it will result in diminishing standards (see the cake example below).
• Cars are heavy machines that amplify human agency - meaning it's harder for an individual to choose to avoid an oncoming high speed vehicle. Whereas you can choose who you do and don't interact with.
• Likewise the weight of a car makes death or injury highly likely. Whereas the risk of death or injury from walking past someone and potentially catching a virus is incredibly low.
• It's almost impossible to prove that someone has caused death by infecting another person with a virus - especially when you take into account the fact that both people choose to interact with each other. Whereas if a drunk driver runs someone over culpability is obvious.
• Restricting people's access to work, healthcare, supermarkets, etc because they're not vaccinated causes harm. Particularly if people are not free to set up their own healthcare, work, supermarkets, etc that do not require vaccination.

There are also some other, more politik reasons.

• The people pushing this have lied from day one - sorry, I'll put that a little more kindly - have continually shifted the goalposts. "Three weeks to flatten the curve" .. and so forth.
• Once adults have been forced, children will be next.
• The conflation of vaccines with vaccine passports and apps means social credit systems and the like will become more realistic possibilities.

Returning to the idea that it's virtually impossible to convict someone in court of murder via accidental flu spread. It's conversely the case that people have been prosecuted for forcing medication on people against their will.

So to allow the latter to prevent the former is just absurd.

*******************

the cake example..

(click to enlarge)

Facebook, and political opportunity

I haven't posted on here in a while. In fact, the reason I'm posting today has made me aware of how much my style of output has changed on here over the last 18 months. I seem to be posting individual article-style posts these days, when originally the intent was to do daily journal style entries.

Anyway, what's spurred me on is that one of my older posts received a comment. It was a post about the the last general election - particularly the Hartlepool seat. The commenter simply asking about one of the candidates.

https://freckledmonkey.blogspot.com/2019/12/hartlepool-table-time.html

Reading back the post reminded me of something I'd forgotten. Namely that in a few of the constituencies I was looking at independent candidates did quite well, and their relative success correlated well with their good Facebook showing. Indicating that they'd managed to get their votes by tapping into an avenue of self-promotion that the more mainstream candidates had failed to penetrate.

Politically active people tend to be a bit more Twitter focused. Whereas Facebook remains the domain of familial normality. The candidates had seemed to do well on Facebook by concentrating on local issues, and staying away from mainstream politics.

Reviewing all this at the time I suggested that there was a big possibility for mainstream parties if they could somehow tap into this way of reaching people. Obviously though it's hard for people affiliated with mainstream parties to detach themselves from national politics the way an independent candidate can. So it's difficult.

Facebook users tend to be quite conservative - and I don't mean politically conservative, but conservative in what they choose to like, share and discuss. As Facebook relates so heavily to real world social life, people have a tendency to avoid anything that looks 'weird' or 'controversial'. It's very much like a school playground where standing out is a major concern. Unlike say Twitter, where users can interact relatively anonymously with people they'll probably never meet in real life anyway.

So on Facebook it's very much mundane group think. With local gossip and 'keeping up appearances' being the mainstay of the interactions.

Consequently it can be difficult for political candidates to build up a base there. A person in a predominantly Labour area may vote Tory, but they'll refrain from liking a Conservative page for fear that others may see it and judge them. Likewise they'll be unlikely to share a post for similar reasons. Sensibly avoiding (from a social point of view) any controversy.

There's also the fact that many people find things like politics boring or annoying. So they don't want their timelines filled with a stream of political proselytising.

The local candidates seemed to do well by sharing 'local gossip' type stories on a regular basis - a new restaurant opening up, a shoplifter getting caught, a heart-warming story about some local football team - that type of stuff. In effect taking part in the local conversation, building up a following playing to that. Then cashing in on that reach come election time.

I should really have kept looking at this issue in order to develop some kind of 'Facebook strategy' for reaching people. However, the events of the last year have been something of a distraction. With local elections looming I should really try to refocus a little. In my area we have the Tees Valley mayoral election, and the election of the Police and Crime Commissioner coming up. I doubt too much can be gleaned from these contests. Still it might be worth paying attention.

The nearby Hartlepool by-election is also worth keeping an eye on.

We Need A Zero-Butterfly Policy

A courtroom. A butterfly hovers in the dock.

Judge. "Butterfly, you stand accused of murder. You flapped your wings in Brazil, which led to a hurricane on the other side of the world..

(that's meant to be a butterfly in a courtroom

..sorry it's the best I could do)

Anyhow, I've recently heard quite a few real life anecdotes about people being pressured into having the vaccine. One in particular where an employee was basically told; if someone dies of coronavirus you'll be responsible.

I shouldn't really have to point out how obnoxious this is. Whatever your own personal views are about the vaccine this type of labelling is obviously quite extreme.

Of course, like with the butterfly above, it's all based on hypothetical cause and effect chains too. That you possibly had the virus. That you possibly spread it to someone else. The assumption that that person definitely died of the virus. It's all very flimsy.

Plus it also completely disregards the basic fact that in order to spread something to someone else both people have to meet up. So unless you're breaking into someone's home and literally forcing them to be in the same room as you you can't possibly be held solely responsible. That person chose to go to the rock concert, or to go for a meal, or to go on holiday. They chose to take the risk.

And these hypotheticals can be applied to absolutely anything once we get started too. If you choose to stay home and sit on your couch every day it's more likely you'll have a heart attack. If you have a heart attack you'll take up a hospital bed. If someone else can't get that hospital bed because of you you're therefore responsible.

By sitting on your sofa you are a potential murderer.

If you don't go for a bike ride you'll become unhealthy and be a burden on others. If you do go for a bike ride you may fall off, break your bones, and likewise become a burden on others.

There is risk in everything.

Returning to the vaccines. If the vaccines give full protection then why worry about other people who aren't vaccinated. If they don't give full protection then the vaccinated too are also "potential murderers" themselves. So they'll be in the dock as well. There's no way out of this door-less room.

Ultimately we are biological entities. We will never be completely sterile. We will always have bugs and viruses in our noses and throats. Which will always have the potential to kill. So once we abrogate the right to decide who we do and don't interact with to the government we may never get it back. As we may never be clean enough. There'll always be an excuse for us to be detained.

Every baby, by virtue of its first breath becomes a potential murderer. Guilty from birth, and only ever innocent in death.

Again, by surrendering our right to decide who we assemble with we risk creating a state-enforced caste system. If you fall foul of 'the rules' you must remain an 'untouchable' ..and I choose that label deliberately, because it's apt. Just think about it, how is it not apt. You're literally forbidden from hugging people.

Yes, there's nothing new under the Sun. The 'new normal' may just be the old caste system.

If you're 'well-behaved' (or if you have the money) you can enjoy certain privileges. If not, it's poverty, lack of mobility and disease ..and, like with lepers of earlier eras, the illness and disease brought about by such poverty will be used as a further excuse to shutter you away. A vicious cycle, all built on nothing more than a breath of air or a butterfly's wing.

Top 10 Albums and Cultural Epicentres

I was recently talking about music with a friend and he asked me to list my "Top 10 Albums". It's the classic thing. One of those recurring discussions that crops up amongst music fans quite frequently.

Having perused his list I quickly rolled off my top ten. It wasn't definitive, or indeed ordered, more just the first 10 that occurred to me. Minus a few of the more embarrassing or clichéd ones that sprung to mind.

(my top 10, ..well 9)

I'm sure I could spend all week coming up with a proper top 10, or top 100 even, but what interested me, and why I'm posting here was the release dates of the albums. I added up the dates of my 10 albums then divided them by 10 to get the average, and then did the same with my friend's. Unsurprisingly they both came bang out in our teenage years.

I then asked a couple more friends to give me their top 10 albums. The exact same. It seems when it comes to music we can't quite get away from our teenage influences. No matter how worldly and cool we may think we are.

It's a debate that often comes up when I speak to another friend about music (one of the two I subsequently asked). He insists that music has been universally subpar in the last twenty years, and that the highpoint for music came in the early 90's. When I point out that it surely can't be a coincidence that the "best music" came out when he happened to be 15 years old he dismisses it. "That's just the way it is. Music is terrible now." Like he just got incredibly lucky being born as the apotheosis of all human music was being reached.

There are probably countless reasons why our musical tastes tend to have their epicentre in our teenage years. Part of it is no doubt just how new and fresh and coming of age everything is.

Another thing that plays a big part though is that it's actually hard to listen to new music. It takes time and effort. It's not dissimilar to trying new food. We like what we're comfortable with. What we're used to. "I'll just have chips". If we try something new or foreign we might not like it. So it's wasted effort. Plus, even if we do end up liking it, it often takes a few goes.

The first time there's that tentative; "Okay, I'll try this." Then a bit of umming and aahing as we weigh it up. Familiarising ourselves with it. It's usually only on the second or third time of eating it that we get that comfortable yummy feeling. Though we may kid ourselves - "I've always liked this!".

So it's very rare there's an instant hit the first time we try something. Acquired tastes.

I think it's often the same with music. If the autoplay is running on YouTube and an unfamiliar track comes on the first instinct is "What's this!?" Get my music back on!". You want to click back into the songs you know. That you can sing along to. However, if you persevere in listening, over time you're rewarded with new fruits. The first time you heard that new song it wasn't as fun as singing along to your much-loved favourites, but after a few hearings suddenly it joins the gang. Often you're not even aware of this happening.

We might think we liked a song the first time we heard it. Often though, we've heard it before, we just never picked up on it. Perhaps it was playing in the background of a TV show or commercial. Maybe it was on the radio in the background as you were out and about and doing other things. It's only when you become consciously aware of it that you suddenly think "Wow, I like this." Though it may have been worming its way into your bosom long before that moment.

This is partly why pop music has such an edge on more obscure stuff. As if something's truly obscure it has no way of catching you unaware like this over time.

I think this is why our teenage years are so formative. Partly because we're simply immersed in the culture of the era we grow up in, and there's no previous experience for it to compete with. But also because we have the energy and enthusiasm to invest our time in listening.

For instance, I still listen to new music now, but I don't put the same time into it I used to. My interest has moved to other things (books, history ..politics 😬). Before if I liked a song I'd buy the album, and go through the back catalogue, and learn the names of all the band members. Now I don't go to nearly as much trouble. Often struggling to even take onboard the correct name of the song.

The Actual Albums..

Anyway, I may as well list the albums.

When The Pawn - Fiona Apple

The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses

The La's - The La's

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy - Kanye West

Modern Life Is Rubbish - Blur

Forever Changes - Love

The Smiths - The Smiths

Jacksonville City Nights - Ryan Adams

Peasants, Pigs and Astronauts - Kula Shaker (don't laugh at that one - it's great !)

In Utero - Nirvana

In a way it worked quite well doing it quickly on the fly. If I had time to think I would've tried to be way too clever. Going for obscure, less honest picks.

The only one that isn't really a good reflection of my real tastes is Nirvana's In Utero. I do really like the album, but Nirvana were never one of my favourite, favourite bands. I was never that angsty and American. I think I picked it either to make the list a little less predictably indie, or to lean in towards the list my friend chose (that's more his genre, so I was maybe trying to be on the same wavelength a little).

It would've been more natural to pick an Oasis album or the Libertines first album. Something like that. I was actually going to add The Masterplan by Oasis at the time, but I wondered if that would count. Obviously greatest hits are strictly forbidden in these lists, but does that go for 'greatest B-sides' too? Either way that probably would've been a more honest reflection of the albums that instinctively sprung to mind. In fact, I've probably listened to Celebrity Skin by Hole much more than any single Nirvana album. Malibu in particular is a song I really like. So that probably says a lot about my preference for things that are a bit more melodic. In fact, it reminds me of when I was doing music at college back in the early 2000's; I used to enjoy winding the more mosher types up by stating, with faux-seriousness, that Celebrity Skin was better than anything Nirvana had ever released.

The Numbers.

The average for my above albums came out as 1993. I was born in 1982, so that would put the epicentre at eleven years old. Not quite teenage. The Love album probably skewed things a little.

I also worked out a range, by taking the average of the three earliest and three latest albums.

That gave; 1980 - 2005.

I'll give what came out for the other three too. Though I won't name them by name. I'm not sure they'd want their tastes to be doxxed this publicly. Or perhaps to be associated with some of the nonsense on this blog lol. So I'll just give the initials. A, R, and P.

A, born 1980.

Epicentre: 1993.

Spread: 1984 - 2001.

R, born 1979.

Epicentre: 1995.

Spread: 1991 - 2001.

P, born 1989.

Epicentre: 2007

Spread: 2004 - 2011.

Interestingly that last person's list included quite a few albums I really like. Albums such as Oracular Spectacular by MGMT and Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not by the Arctic Monkeys. So we have similar tastes, though our top 10 albums were still out by approximately the difference in our ages.

It makes me wonder if I would've liked those albums even more had they came out when I was in my mid-teens and not my mid-twenties. Perhaps by my mid-twenties I was too cynical and jaded to take those albums to heart the way I would have had I been younger.

The other two lists were quite different to my tastes (I won't list them all, but bands like The Smashing Pumpkins, Counting Crows and Pearl Jam figured heavily). Still, as we're all a similar age, we all had a similar era.

I might do some more posts on music going forward. I can't help but feel this is what lockdown has reduced me to though lol.

The New Normal - Eternal Halloween

I saw another government minister today saying something about masks and social distancing being here to stay, and that large weddings and Cheltenham style events will be off the table for the next few years. I say saw, but it's another one of these things I've just caught through osmosis from tweets. I haven't actually watched anyone say anything, or made an effort to see what was fully said. So it's just more "new normal" background noise I'm reporting on.

None of it surprises me. The narrative is pretty obvious, and we're all having to wade through it like treacle. So we may as well relax a little. Whatever was said it's all much of a muchness.

What got me thinking though was the masks. Apparently we can keep wearing masks and social distancing because it "costs nothing". I'm guessing they mean it's economically cheap, but it also wouldn't surprise me if they genuinely mean there's no downside at all. After all, they do seem to really love their masks (at least when the camera's on). Anyway, people on my side of the argument have been pointing out the obvious social costs to endless mask wearing.

It occurs to me that something that always gets missed though with the masks is vitamin D. Our bodies produce vitamin D naturally when we're exposed to sunlight, and in the winter months when we head outside it's normally only our face and hands that are exposed to the sun. Thanks to Covid however we now have people that barely leave the house, and when they do they're covering most of their face. Like weird not-so-cool vampires. Terrified of daylight. Not building up their D in the process.

You really have to wonder what the health cost is. It can't be good.

This got me thinking further about some of the other lifestyle changes that are currently being pushed. For instance veganism. (Apparently there's a "meat tax" on the horizon?? I think? ..another thing I must've picked up via Twitter osmosis). The vegan diet is pretty low in vitamin D, so you do need that sunlight if you head down that route (I'm guessing Dracula got his vitamin D from human blood, no wonder he could stay home all day). Now however we're encouraging young people to turn vegan, but to also walk around with their faces shrouded up. From now until forever. It's almost like death by a thousand cuts.

Personally I'm vegetarian myself, so my freckled face is my primary source of vitamin D. I definitely don't want to wear a mask outside for the rest of my life. Maybe I can use this excuse next time I don't want to wear one.

Of course, the answer always comes .."take vitamin D tablets!", but it's a poor substitute for my sun-kissed God-given face. Also let me know what the carbon footprint of those pill bottles is, because my skin is a self-sufficient, net neutral walking vitamin D factory :)

This is the thing though with the entire lockdown lifestyle. Everything is a poor substitute. Everything's a cheap knockoff of natural human life.

Can't get sunlight ..take vitamin tablets

Can't play sports outside ..exercise with an online trainer in your front room

Can't visit a museum ..visit a virtual museum

Can't hug a family member in person ..Zoom call them

Can't find love and romance ..watch porn, or order a sex bot

It's all a bit meh.

You really have to pity the people who love all this new normal stuff. Culturally and emotionally they're basically semi-comatose. It's not that they can't enjoy the higher meaning in life, it's that they can't even see it. When you mention to these people that we need our freedoms and human interaction, that life isn't worth living without these things, they're like "What?! What the hell are you on about?". Like those things are just pointless extras.

They got the monkey-brain. They experience life on a lower frequency. Though that's unfair on monkeys. Monkeys are quite expressive and vivacious. Zombie is probably a better term. Ahh, wait, NPC. I forgot, we have a meme for these people.

This is why they're happy to shut down our entire culture for years on end. No gigs, no concerts, no sporting events. Those things don't mean anything to the Borg. Basic soviet will do.

And this is the telling thing with the "New Normal". It's not the misery, or the lack of privacy, or the communal trough-like hygiene that illustrates how bad it is. It's the sheer ugliness of it all.

You can see it similarly in the US capitol. All that grey fencing. They've came in and instantly made America look more ugly. You don't even need to make an argument. It's past politics. Anyone with an ounce of aesthetic taste can see it instantly. Okay, this looks grim now.

The people pushing the new normal all look and sound ghoulish too. Bringing the spectre of death everywhere they go. Frightfulness. Like they've risen from the dead. They spook ya.

"Look into the eyes of the dead and dying ..you'll end up on a ventilator toooo. Wahahhaaaa!"

The fear and desolation in their own eyes peering out from behind a creepy mask. Even in their avatars.

And it's never noble, or natural, or peaceful death. It's always bloody and murderous death. If you question the masks, or the lockdowns, or the figures they'll come at you; literally shrieking "Murderer!".

Am I in Macbeth?

I'm getting a bit poetic now in my description of them, but I think we can only really describe these things with poetry ..even my awful poetry. We can't argue our way out of this, we're too crowded in by zombies, we have to paint our way out. With pretty brushstrokes, offering a richer vision of life. Richer in every way. Then hope enough people come over to the brighter side. Dazzled once again by freedom.

Leave these half-dead creeps in the shadows.

This morbidly brings me back to the poor old folks of earlier, masked-up and forbidden sunlight and human warmth. We may as well be wrapping these people up in bandages like Egyptian mummies, ready for the crypt. It's all macabre. A long lonely funeral service for the individual. All in the name of 'safety'.

These masks and lockdowns are burying people. Alive.

A message to all the losers out there..

It's prom night for the global school clique. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are taking their rightful place as prom king and queen, and all the cliquey gossips and popular cool kids are lining up courtside to take their rank. Some with genuine glee, others feigning their praise to elbow themselves ever up the social totem pole.

You though, you're on the outside. A loser. Watching on. Repulsed by the fakes and make-up and pretensions ..but maybe, if you're being honest, slightly jealous too. Why are these vacuous frauds so powerful and you so disenfranchised? You think to yourself that you'd never want to be like those people; that you've chosen your pious loserdom. Yet you also partly suspect that they'd never let you sit with the cool kids anyway. Even if you supressed every moral, bent every knee and faked it to your absolute limit.

..and this is thing. The point of this post. It's always been like this. Yes, things are bad, but no more bad than they've always been.

Normality has returned. It feels slightly crushing and terrifying, but these last four years have really been an aberration. A glorious one, but an aberration. It's amazing it even happened, and now it has happened it can never be taken away. It'll become gilded, like a summer memory. Preserved in amber, framed in gold.

Again, it feels bad that the standard superficial high school order has returned, but we've had this all our lives. It's always been this way. It's nothing we can't deal with. We're used to being losers.

So don't worry too much. Your Facebook friends have always been sheep-like. The media has always been sentimental mush. These people have always been in charge. Remember?

Plus, now these chauffeured brats have gotten their own way again perhaps they'll lay off us all for a bit. They've really thrown the kitchen sink at us all over these last four years. Especially this last year. In fact, it's been one long spoilt tantrum. A historic hissy fit. That we had the temerity to insist that the DJ play some of our songs for a time. They just couldn't tolerate it.

The privileged outrage at the fact that they weren't running the show. Their hysteric and wild-eyed attempts to restore themselves to the "popularity" apex. The sheer depths they went to. It's been fascinating and disturbing to watch. They just can't cope with being losers like we can.

They were literally prepared to destroy everything if they couldn't get their own way.

So maybe now they have got their own way again they'll stop the tears and boot-stamping, and return to bitchily clawing at each other as they scramble for social clout. Instead of aiming their hatred and ire at us. Maybe things might calm down a bit.

Of course it's not fair, it never was, but maybe this is the only way the drama will end. Let them have their victory, however they won it, and with angelic calm we can patiently take a longer view.

We've done okay. In fact, we've done pretty good. So just keep on keeping on.

We're Sleepwalking into a Mental Health Crisis

It's been a common refrain over recent months; "Lockdowns are causing a mental health crisis."

This in turn has led to calls for more help and funding. Whenever I see this debate appear I always wonder though; just where are we heading as a society?

Obviously people require help for emotional and mental problems, so I would never argue against it. Who would? However, I still nevertheless fear that as a society we may be making a rod for our own back.

For a start I'm uncomfortable with the way we're medicalising what are often simply normal human emotions.

As humans we feel the full spectrum of emotions. From euphoria to depression. For all manner of reasons. It's what we would call the human condition. Life is complex and so are we.

(a cheeky chimp ..swinging

happily in the trees)

In days gone by most people would eschew being labelled as having a "mental health" condition. Not wanting to be attached to the negative connotations that such a label would bring. These days however people embrace such labels. You only need to look at people's Twitter bios to see countless examples.

I'm not against this per se. Or against people discussing their fears and problems openly. In fact, as stated above, I think it's perfectly natural for humans to have such experiences and to discuss them. Life can be a rollercoaster. I just fear that we're medicalising the human experience in a way that will ultimately dehumanise us. I also worry that such mislabelling will lead to problems simply not being solved.

For instance, return to the problems caused by lockdowns. If you're depressed or anxious because you've had your freedoms curtailed is this a problem of your brain and body? Or is the issue the circumstances you are in?

If you're labelled with "depression" this implies that the problem lies with you. Since this problem is within yourself then it's you that needs the counselling, medication and whatever else is offered as a solution. However, if the root cause of the depression is the circumstances in which you're living then the problem can only truly be solved by changing or improving those circumstances.

It's like if you take a wild mouse and put it in a cage. If the mouse starts becoming withdrawn and behaving erratically when placed in this captivity is the problem the mouse, or is the problem the cage?

You can perhaps medicate or train the mouse to cope with being caged, but it'll always be a poor and clumsy attempt at making a bad situation more bearable.

Of course, the causes of mental and emotional problems are often a fine tapestry, but still, I feel this is what we're essentially doing to ourselves. Tailoring the human spirit to fit poor circumstances. Instead of tailoring the circumstances to better fit the people. In the process relegating what once would've been viewed as deep spiritual and philosophical experiences to something akin to a medical ailment.

In many ways we're doing a similar thing with lockdowns now. Instead of tailoring health care to fit a free society we're tailoring society (along with its joys and freedoms) to accommodate a health care system.

This leads me nicely to my final point of concern, and that's what happens once such a system of mental health care is fully in place. Over the last year we've seen coercion used and basic rights overturned in the quest for public health and safety. Will we eventually see similar things in the quest for mental hygiene? When we have an army of well-funded 'professionals' ready to safeguard our mental health will we see the communal mind being cleansed with a similar zeal?

..and more to the point what happens if individuals want to refuse or opt out of such 'help'.

This returns us to the labels that people are so readily accepting at present. There may be benefits to accepting such labels, but what about the potential drawbacks? What if such labels are used against a person?

What happens if such a system of psychiatric intrusion becomes a tool of the state, or of a certain political faction? Or if society en masse simply becomes zealous and hysterical? What are the safeguards to stop things from going too far?

Though it's obviously wrong, mean and immoral to label an enemy or opponent as "mad" it is nevertheless quite common. To paint someone as 'mentally unfit' is a well used and effective tactic. If you've already self-certified yourself as having mental issues then it would no doubt make it even easier for an opponent to do this.

What if people are wrongly barred from certain professions or activities because of such labelling? Or worse still what if someone is wrongly sectioned or forcibly medicated?

You'd like to think such things would be highly, highly unlikely, but that likeliness is only proportional to our continued vigilance ultimately. History shows us this.

When the Coronavirus Act was passed last year that contained changes which meant only one doctor's signature would be needed to detain a person under the Mental Health Act. Instead of the usual two.

This is mildly concerning. Normally in a free society a person's liberty can only be removed in a courtroom before a jury. So sectioning in of itself is an aberration from this process. Making such a thing easier and less accountable should therefore be a worry to most people.

Once again, it obviously goes without saying there are people out there with serious mental issues that require serious help and treatment. So I don't want to downplay the problem, nor doubt the intentions of anyone pushing for solutions. It is potentially a very slippery slope though. Especially given how mechanical and materialistic our view of human life has now become.

Things once deemed of the spirit and soul. The rainbow-like range of human thoughts and emotions. All reduced to mundane labels with bullet-pointed remedies.

Are we sleepwalking dimly into dystopia.

(..not as colourful as the monkey,

but perhaps more relevant)

The Democracy of Crossing The Road

Have you ever been in that situation where you're waiting to cross the road and it's taking a really long time? Perhaps the traffic lights are going slowly, or maybe they're broken altogether. As you're waiting that judgement presents itself. Do you patiently wait for the road to become completely clear of cars? Or do you perhaps make a run for it when you spot a smaller gap?

Of course, it's always sensible to wait until you know it's safe to cross. After all, you're just squishy flesh and blood, and they're hunking great machines. Though if you're really in a rush, or you're a particularly rash individual you may take the risk. Either way you're the one that has to avoid the cars. The onus is on you to keep out of their way. As they're an overwhelming force that you're powerless to stop.

When there's a few more people waiting to cross the road it's a slightly different situation. Again, the people are still just squishy flesh, and the cars remain dangerous obstacles. However, suddenly there's a tiny bit of strength in numbers.

The solid cars can still mow down the soft people, but the balance has shifted slightly.

It's difficult to say at what point the balance tips fully. It completely depends upon the situation I guess. You'll no doubt have experienced such a circumstance yourself though at some point;

There are perhaps now 10 or 20 people waiting at the traffic lights. All becoming increasingly impatient to cross the road. The impatience builds. A few eager feet edge ever-closer to the tarmac of the road. One guy, perhaps a slither more rash than the others, makes a move. Everyone else, like a flock of starlings, instinctively follows. The annoyed drivers having to slow down and stop with frustration as this herd of people then bustle across to the other side of the street.

A collective decision that happens almost telepathically. The subtle cues of body language. The building group impatience. The overall circumstances of the situation. That very minor rush of leadership. All rising to a crescendo of; "Yeah, we're all crossing this road now, damn it!"

Of course, it doesn't always work out like this. Sometimes a hothead may make a rush to step out and the others may think "I'm not following that idiot." Again, the circumstances are always unique to the moment. That potential tipping of the scales is clear enough to see though. An extreme example would perhaps be when thousands of football fans spill out of a stadium. As this throng of supporters floods army-like onto the street the cars are powerless in their wake. Having to wait like pedestrians until this force of nature passes. The sheer numbers, and the mood of those people making up the numbers, dictating the outcome.

Anyway, this 'crossing the road' phenomena always makes me think: democracy.

It reminds me that even in an absolute dictatorship there still remains this natural democracy. Ready to reach a tipping point when all these subtle cues and feelings coalesce to an apogee.

Many others before me have pointed out how 'democracy of the ballot' is essentially a sensible and more civilised substitute for this democracy of nature. A substitute for war, or other physical conflations. Where we can judge who has the greater numbers or force of passion on their side, without having to go through the storm of physical battle.

It also makes me wonder if great leadership comes in having the ability to read these great forces, or indeed in having the ability to conduct the feelings that lead to such tempests.

(This image I knocked up recently has little

to do with crossing the road, but it's vaguely 'roady',

and I guess it adds some colour. Mountain Stars.)