Welcome to lifejak

This is what happens when a scene becomes bigger and women start getting involved..

It's like being in a band. You're seventeen/eighteen/nineteen and you start a band. There are three or four of you. You're all mates and you're into the same music. You have your little in-jokes. Everything is about the music, and you all share the same dream. You start rehearsing, you write a few songs. You maybe get a few gigs. Everything's going great

..then one of the band members gets a girlfriend.

Let's say it's the lead singer, and the girl is "Chloe". Suddenly she's hanging around all the time and giving her opinions. Then, one day, you come into rehearsal and the singer says, "We've got a new band logo, we're gonna put it on all our fliers." And ..or course, you can't say anything, as the logo was designed by Chloe. She just took it upon herself to make one. You're then in the position where you either just accept this, and allow the aesthetic of the band to be ruined. Or, you say something, cause a big drama, and look like a bad guy. As Chloe was "just trying to help." Plus, "She's spent all this time making it, and it looks great!" The singer blinded by his infatuation, even though, deep down, like everyone else, he knows it's just not that good, and that if anyone else had made it he'd be much less enthusiastic.

Anyway, this all has that vibe.

And before any woman reading this gets completely irked off, I'm not saying women can't be in bands, or can never be part of the gang. If you're in a band and you need a drummer, and someone says, "Michelle's a drummer, she's looking for a band," that's different. In that situation Michelle is playing drums because she wants to, and she's now in the band because you need a drummer. It's not a boy/girl thing, and Michelle is being judged by the same criteria any other drummer would be judged by - i.e. is the music good, is the vibe there.

It's similar with memes. Obviously, everyone - male and female - is free to draw memes and upload them online. The problem here is that women are getting a free pass, because men are attracted to them. So we have a situation where more women are entering the space, plus more people in the space are getting wives and girlfriends. So, like the singer, they're allowing their boy/girl tendencies to skew their judgement. It's understandable, but it's not aesthetic, and someone needs to say it 😠

Normie Swarm

It's also got to be said that the meme popularity is partly a consequence of more normal people entering the space. There's nothing wrong with being normal, most people are normal, but if you like things to be a bit more interesting it's not so good. As everything ends up a bit Facebook or Saturday Night TV.

Earlier memes were good because they were insightful. Like the soyjak meme was good because it distilled down to a meme a type of person we were all familiar with, but didn't have a name or clear archetype for.

For instance, I remember the first time I saw the meme. It wasn't even the actual soyjak, it was just an image where someone had cut and paste together lots of people making that face.

My natural reaction was, "Ha, that's true, those people do actually make that face."

I'd seen people making that face before, but had never actually thought about it. It was only when I saw the meme - that is, when someone else pointed it out to me - that I consciously noticed it. And this is the thing. It's easy in hindsight to see these things, but it takes a bit of insight to be the first person to see it. To be the first one to notice the pattern and then point it out to other people, in a way that's easily communicated.

It's like stand-up comedy. A good comedian makes an observation about life, articulates it, then we, the audience, get the, "Haha, yeah, that's happened to me too." It's like a little lightbulb is turned on in your head, where suddenly something becomes much clearer. Thanks to the comedian's craft and insightfulness. Lesser comedians tend to be derivative though. Repeating familiar, well-trodden observations or formulas. So there's less originality and true insight.

Like when Peter Kay originally became massive. "GARLIC BREAD! ..Garlic? ..Bread?!" It was funny because he was original and he had his own style. He was the first person to do that sort of stuff in that sort of way. So we'd never seen it before. However, five or six years down the line, when you then get second tier, copycat versions of Peter Kay, doing that same sort of stuff if just gets tired.

It's the sort of, "Remember this from your childhood..", or, "My family member does this.." stuff you see getting shared on Facebook every day.

These memes, likewise, are just, "My wife says this..", only with a wojak in the picture.

Again, there's nothing wrong with this. Most people like familiar things. We can't all be on the cutting edge of the zeitgeist 24/7  ..and yes, I'm definitely being a bit of a dick pointing all this out. If people are enjoying it I shouldn't be whinging about it. No one's forcing me to join in. Plus, everything runs its course. The era of wojaks was never going to last forever.

I guess it has to go down as a win too really. Didn't we want the normal people coming round to our way of thinking? Wasn't that the hope?

I just wish it was on Facebook and not on my Twitter feed.

I'm Expanding My Water Portfolio

My anger about the potential fluoridation of our water has subsided somewhat. (That's not to say I'm now content to lie down and accept it. It will remain a key pivot going forward.)

Most of my annoyance stemmed from the fact itself: that the government have the nerve (and think they have the right) to medicate me against my wishes. This was amplified by the wider observation that so few other people seem to care. The post-Covid barnyard effect everywhere to be seen. Demoralised and confused people. Heads in the sand. "La la la, if I pretend this doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter" attitude. It's not that they are pro-fluoridation; that I'm right and they're wrong. It's that they don't have an opinion. They literally do not care what comes through their taps every day and into their bodies. Like a dog at its bowl, oblivious to how the water got there.

Obviously, I'm being very harsh here. Clearly my anger hasn't completely gone :)

Still, noting this though, I've moved on to doing what I do best - looking out for number one. My attitude now being, "Okay, I'm forced to live in this barnyard nation, how do I minimise the impact on myself?".

Water Diversification

My thinking is just to diversify things more. I already do this to some extent anyway. I drink bottled water at work and tap water at home. My rationale being that they'll somehow offset each other. The plastics in bottles can't be good, but at the same time how much faith can you have in tap water. So instead of going all-in on one option - the fear being that you'll pick the worst of the two - I mix it up. Hedge my bets. I think all things in moderation is probably a good general rule. I'm sure the body can cope with some degree of impurities and toxins. You just don't want to overdose.

Obviously (at least in my opinion), the addition of fluoride makes tap water less attractive ..and less trustworthy. So if we do get fluoridated I won't completely stop drinking it, but I will drink less. That means more of the portfolio will need to be dedicated to other sources. The easy thing is just to drink more bottled water, and to start buying bottled water in glass bottles too.

In fact, one of the things that currently limits the amount of bottled water I drink is my guilt about the impact it has on the environment (see, it's not all about looking out for number one!). Buying yet another bottle of Evian feels a little indulgent when I can just turn on a tap and fill a cup or water bottle. If fluoridation comes the guilt goes though. So it'll move from luxury to everyday essential.

I've also being looking online at water filters. That too is a potential option. Instinctively it doesn't appeal to me. Partly because of the hassle. It's one thing going to the effort to do something when the novelty is there, but once that wears off you'll soon get lazy. Good lifestyle habits should be as easy and as seamless as possible I think. Also, though filters undoubtedly remove stuff from water, you wonder what's added. So I definitely wouldn't want to go all-in and start getting 100% of my drinking water that way.

Perhaps it could be 10% of the portfolio.

Finally, I've even be watching a few YouTube videos from people who drink rainwater. I think it's unlikely I'll be drinking rainwater anytime soon, but it's always worth thinking outside the box. After all, it does fall freely from the sky. So in a world where money becomes tight, or other options are restricted, it would at least be an alternative.

Perhaps 2% of the portfolio ..growing to 50% when society eventually collapses.

Fluoride vs Teesside: We might be Socialists, but we're not Communists.

So, the government are planning on fluoridating the local water supply. Middlesbrough and Stockton. Amongst other currently non-fluoridated parts of the North East. Needless to say, I'm not too happy about this. It really is something of a red line for me. Personally, I think it's fundamentally wrong to medicate people en masse via their drinking water. And that's before we even consider any possible negative health consequences.

It's bad enough that we live in a country where it's essentially illegal to buy a loaf of bread that hasn't been fortified with chemicals. With tap water now joining the bread, the march of state interference has well and truly intruded into the most basic aspects of life. Of course, as I'm writing this, it's Easter Sunday (Happy Easter! 🐰🥚), and also the day that the clocks have went forward an hour for British Summer Time. So bread, water and time itself have all been tampered with by bureaucrats. (1)

A Crystallisation

Crisis is often an opportunity, so, annoyed though I am, I do see it as an issue that brings things into focus. I think the people that have re-opened this can of worms think we're still living in the 20th century. In the 20th century the fluoridation of water was normalised. This precedent has left some people with a current sense that medication via tap water is somehow acceptable. This is not the case. Back in simpler times people were much more enthral to their TV sets, and the painted association of anti-fluoride with "conspiracy nut" was very effective. However, things are very different now.

What instantly springs to mind when thinking back is that classic scene from the Stanley Kubrick movie, Dr. Strangelove. Where the paranoid general, "Jack D. Ripper," claims the Soviets have been fluoridating American water supplies to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of American citizens. It was a great movie, and was incredibly effective at shifting public perception. Modern Hollywood movies aren't quite as good now though, and the momentum of history is very much in the opposite direction.

(General Ripper, telling a bemused Captain Mandrake,

played by Peter Sellers, about the Soviet plot)

In the movie, the narrative was portrayed as a far-fetched "commie plot". A conspiracy, believed only by conspiracy theorists and other crazy kooks. Looking back however I would argue that it was literally just communism that led to fluoridation. Plain and simple. With little need for Russians. A mass medication of the population for the supposed greater good. With complete disregard for any notions of individual freedom. The scientist, the bureaucrat, the communist. The rule of experts, who simply know better than the child-like, or barnyard animal-like, population. Every man, woman and child reduced to numbers on a myopic chart or table.

In fact, this is the real difference between communism and socialism. In common American parlance the terms are often interchangeable. However, in practice there is a clear and important difference. (And I'm talking about the general sense of the terms here, as used in everyday British life. I'm not really interested in the dictionary definitions.)

In essence, a socialist is someone who sees a person without a home and wants the state to provide a home for that person. (2)

Whereas a communist sees a person without a home and not only wants the state to provide a home, but also wants the state to have a monopoly on all homes.

So the communist wants to abolish private homeownership, whereas the socialist just wants the state to build state housing. That is, they're not necessarily against private property. They might even actively believe in it to some extent.

And this distinction likewise applies to other political issues.

Hence why fluoridation truly is communism. A socialist wants the state to provide medication to those who need it, and who seek it. Free dental treatment, free dental products, etc, for those who want them. The communist, alas, forces this upon everyone ..and leaves no room for any individual seeking their own private alternative.

So, I must drink fluoridated water in the world of the communist, whether I want to or not. Whether it's good for me or not. As it is in 'the greater good'.

Now, in reality, it must be said that you can't really have state socialism without some degree of infringement and compulsion. Most notably that we're compelled to pay taxes to pay for all this. Still though, the socialist is capable of moderation and balance. Their desire for state intervention can be tempered by their appreciation of other values, such as liberty.

But the communist is unbounded. In their pursuit of utopia they will not even respect an individual's right to choose how they drink a glass of water.

////////////////////

Notes:

(1) It's also 'International Transgender Day of Visibility' today. Obviously, Easter naturally moves around on the calendar. Whereas these modern political days of worship are fixed on a certain date. So it's been amusing to me to watch the accidental collision of the two. The Labour Party tweeted out in recognition of the day. A clear mistake politically. They're stuck in a position where they're trying to straddle two horses though, so this has forced them to confront the fact. lol

(2) I say state, but we could also think in terms of community. We're so ingrained with this 'state versus individual' worldview that we often see no other possibility. Communities can provide for members through means other than the state though. Cooperatives, charities, churches. Taxes can be voluntary, like voluntary church tithes, as opposed to compelled. Imagine if everyone on a local estate put £1 in a community pot each week, instead of buying a lottery ticket or a scratch card. The lack of imagination we see in politics is a little disappointing. It would be nice to see some actual alternatives explored.

Invest in Our Culture

Yes, I'm back. Three posts in twenty-four hours. I've been busy.

This one's just a quickie though. I recently read back the post where I discussed buying shares in paintings. (See here: Note to Self: Buy Shares in Stonehenge). And it occurred to me that I hadn't really fleshed out that idea fully.

It would work like this. There's some kind of stock market where people can buy and sell shares in paintings and other pieces of art.

So, a gallery may sell shares in one of its pieces. Let's say they own the Mona Lisa. They want to raise funds, but don't want to sell the entire painting. They very much want to keep it. So they sell (let's say) 10% of it to the public on this stock market. This way they keep the painting, but also raise capital.

The people buying get to own a fraction of the painting. Which they can sell again just as easily on this public stock market. As with standard shares.

They get the satisfaction of owning part of a piece of art they're fond of, and can potentially make money from that too. However, the idea is also nice in a wider sense as well.

For example, they could buy a cheap copy of the painting and hang it on their front room wall. So they get to enjoy having the painting (a copy, but essentially the same image) and get the satisfaction of knowing they own a slice of the real thing. Meanwhile the original would be safely housed in the gallery (or in some other place of storage). With the money they've invested helping to pay for that storage. Again, think the gallery needing money to house and protect the Mona Lisa, and raising that by selling 10% of it.

Consider what a great gift such a thing would make too. It is Mother's Day today after all. Imagine your mother is a big fan of Pre-Raphaelite artwork. You could buy her a framed picture or poster (depending on taste and decor) of a Rossetti work, along with £100 of the actual real thing.

(Pia de' Tolomei - Dante Gabriel Rossetti)

Obviously, what reminded me of this topic was the recent destruction of the Lord Balfour painting by pro-Palestinian activists. We've seen similar acts from environmentalist groups. The way things are going paintings might need more protection and you might get a few bargains.

The Internet - Back in the Old Days: Part II

Yesterday I reminisced about the first time I ever saw a blog online. Today I want to mention the other thing that sticks in my mind from those college library internet days.

I remember idly browsing (again, this was in the early 2000s) and I came across a webpage that literally stated that Tony Blair was the Antichrist. Firstly, it shocked me that someone would even call another person the Antichrist, especially in the context of British politics. I just couldn't envisage someone thinking in such a biblical way. So it just seemed bizarre to me, and I assumed the person who had made the page was some kind of psychopath. Though, like with the American blogger, I was somewhat impressed that they'd managed to self-publish their thoughts on the 'World Wide Web'.

The second thing I found odd was how someone from outside the system (a lone, renegade voice) could be so focused on Blair himself. I'd been raised a socialist in a Labour-voting household, so Labour were the good guys. By this point in the early 2000s I was beginning to have my own complaints and disappointments with what Labour were doing, but still, "They're not as bad as the Tories," I thought, as I read the strange ramblings. "Surely the Tories are the real bad guys. Why doesn't this guy see that?"

It was such a weird thing to see at the time. It was so removed from what I was used to.

Of course, as the the years rolled by, and I too became increasingly aware of Blair, I'd often think back to that webpage. "Wow, that guy was right," I'd think to myself with a laugh - half-amused, but half genuinely impressed by the guy's prescience.

Even now I wouldn't go as far as saying Blair is the literal Antichrist 👿 but I'd be much more sympathetic to the page if I was seeing it today. I certainly wouldn't be mocking the guy for saying it.

(A malevolent looking Blair

- courtesy of PixVerse)

It shows how much things have changed. How much I've changed. It's also worth noting how we are part of a generation of people that lived both with and without the internet. We've experienced both sides. So it's perhaps worth recording our experience of this. Especially as so much of the internet of old has disappeared into the cyber-graveyard.

The Internet - Back in the Old Days: Part I

Recently I've been thinking about what the internet was like back in the long, long ago. Back when people didn't care about views and clicks. I think when I blog I still have a touch of this about me, though not nearly enough. As a lot of the stuff I post I genuinely don't care if another person sees it.

Now, you may say, "C'mon, this is just dishonest. Why would you even post something online if you don't want others to see it? Surely, if you genuinely didn't care you'd just keep it private."

And to some extent you'd be right. There's always a self-awareness, along with an innate desire for attention and success, that isn't ever truly absent. Back in the long, long ago things really were quite different though.

When I First Found The Internet

To give an example, I remember the first time I ever came across a blog. I was about nineteen/twenty years old, and at the time I'd never really even used the internet. This was around the year 2000. I vaguely knew what it was, but just didn't care. Music was the main thing I was interested in. So in my head the internet was just a big shared encyclopedia or phone book full of information, that you could access via a computer. I didn't appreciate the impact it was having or was going to have.

I can't remember if we had internet access back at home at that point, but if we did it was slow and painfully boring to use, so I rarely if ever did. I remember my dad being much more interested in it than I was back then. That's how behind the curve I was. I recall him telling me that we had it at some point around the turn of the century, but again, I just didn't care.

Anyway, the first time I remember using an internet connection that wasn't painfully slow was at college. The college I went to had a brand new library installed, complete with an array of new computers, and it had access to the "World Wide Web". That was, like, the big thing. As I didn't care I only originally used it out of boredom. I'd love to look back and say I appreciated the importance of it, but I just didn't. I remember sitting in the library in between lessons, completely bored out of my skull. Occasionally I'd type something into the search bar, like I was idly flicking through a book or magazine in a waiting room. The novelty quickly wearing off each time after a few half-hearted searches.

Then, one day, I randomly typed something into the search bar and up popped a person's blog. Of course, I had zero idea what a blog actually was back then. So initially it was just completely odd to me that someone had a personal diary online. I'm pretty certain the phrase I typed in was "Indie Music Is Dead." (I was obviously pretty unimpressed by the new music that was coming out at the time too.) The particular blog post that popped up had the exact same wording for its title. However, it wasn't quite the same topic I had in mind. It was an American blog (naturally, as America was so much ahead of the UK in regards internet use at the time). By a female teenage student. The initial post was vaguely about guitar music I seem to remember, but the rest of the blog posts were just about her life and her thoughts. Posts about what had happened in her maths lesson. Or how well her trumpet practice was going.

She was kind of a Lisa Simpson type American student. She cared about getting good grades. That type of person. I'm sure on some level she understood that having an online blog would garner views and attention, but she wasn't doing it for the clicks. That wasn't really the thing back then. There weren't even any pictures of her on the blog. The few pictures there were being related to the things she was doing, not pictures of herself. Again, like Lisa Simpson, she was the sort of girl that would've had a journal or diary anyway. In the days before the internet. Now the internet had came along she just did it online, because she could, and probably partly because she had a bit of an oddball interest in computers and such like. In fact, I remember being slightly baffled at the time that a teenage girl could even make such a website. I remember thinking, "Is she some type of computer programming whizz-kid? How has she even done this??" Like she was some high-achieving Mensa student or something.

Either way, it was all odd enough to catch my attention, and it was interesting seeing a person in another country going about their life. Seeing what American school or college was like first-hand, not just through a TV show. We take it for granted now, but back then America was much more of a foreign country. It really was The Simpsons to me.

That was the first interesting thing I ever saw online and it stuck with me. At the time I wasn't sure if it was good, bad or just plain pointless, but it obviously grabbed my curiosity. I remember occasionally revisiting the blog when I was in the college library. I can recall the phrase I typed so well because that was the only way I knew how to find it.

Now and again I'm reminded of it, and I'm always struck by how different things were to how they are now. It reminds me that the internet is a public space, much a like a public park. It's a place where we can just do stuff, because we want to. It doesn't have to be a marketplace where humans desperately sell themselves. It doesn't have to matter whether other people notice what we do, but at the same time, good things can arise when that unintentionally happens.

It's like how it can be nice to see a person sat reading a book in the park. It might even inspire you to do the same thing yourself. However, if the person is deliberately sat there with a book hoping to get noticed it's not really the same. It has to be genuine to make those genuinely nice moments.

Tomorrow: Part II (..Tony Blair gets a mention).

Midnight's Anglos: Ghostbusters

Xennials. We were born in the early 80s. Falkland babies. When Thatcher sank the Belgrano we were all given superpowers. We were fed the Protestant morals of Thomas the Tank Engine. Then we watched Ghostbusters..

Now, in reality, the term Xennial isn't that specific, and vaguely approximates the cohort of people born between 1977 and 1983, though some may place the goalposts differently. And we didn't get superpowers when the Belgrano sank, though being born in May '82, during the war, I like to believe this was the case. (Incidentally, Prince William was born June '82, in the full flush of victory. The holy maiden Diana experiencing the pangs of childbirth as the conflict raged. So one day we may have the fabled Xennial King.)

Anyway, back to Ghostbusters. Yesterday, on Twitter, Ghostbusters was referenced as a Xennial childhood marker. However, this garnered a response of doubt, as the first Ghostbusters movie was released in 1984 and people born in the early eighties would've been too young to have watched it at the cinema. With the cartoon following just a few years later.

Having been a toddler when Ghostbusters came out though, I know this wasn't the case. It made me realise that people born outside of that era don't understand just how big Ghostbusters was at the time, and how much it dominated the years following. It really was bigger than Star Wars. Some of my earliest memories are of the Ghostbusters. It dominated the childhood landscape, and it wasn't just the movies. It was the merchandise, the theme song, the action figures, the cartoon, the candy. I remember having the Peter Venkman and Egon Spengler actions figures (my younger brother got the other two). It was the first thing that I was really into. I remember choosing those two because they were the ones I identified with - Egon, the smart one and Venkman the smart-arsed one. My brother, being younger, had to make do with the two others.

Interestingly, noting the comparison with Star Wars, if you check the Wikipedia entry on Xennials, Star Wars is given as the main cultural marker.

In 2017 The Guardian noted, "In internet folklore, xennials are those born between 1977 and 1983, the release years of the original three Star Wars films."

Star Wars was the first movie franchise to be hugely merchandised, and then Ghostbusters in the 80s followed on from that. For me, Star Wars felt quite distant though. I was aware of it. In fact, as a very small child I remember my aunt buying me some Star Wars figures. I never really felt a connection to it though and hadn't seen the movies. So much so that I remember me and my brother flushing a Princess Leia figure down the toilet. At the time it annoyed me that I couldn't tell if it was a boy or a girl. I vividly remember my mam saying, "That's Princess Leia.." as if I should've been impressed by that, but my response was, "Why does she look like a boy? And why does she have a gun?". I think the hair buns and trousers fooled me.

It's funny looking back. Ghostbusters was definitely the thing for me though.

This all brings to mind a clear difference between Ghostbusters and Star Wars too, which I think in part highlights what influenced Xennials. Star Wars, though a movie, was a very childlike one. Darth Vader was a little scary, but there was nothing particularly adult or unsuitable for children in it. So the toys and flasks and lunchboxes were a nice, though commercial, fit. Ghostbusters, on the other hand, was a movie written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis.

Aykroyd was a Saturday Night Live comedian, who starred in things like The Blues Brothers, and Ramis was the guy who'd previously brought the world films like Stripes, Caddyshack and Animal House. So though Ghostbusters had childlike appeal in the form of ghost-catching, Slimer and Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, the humour and tone was very adult.

And not adult in a 'cool', taking drugs, stereotypically Hollywood influence-the-kids kind of way, but in an aimed-at-adults actual sense of the term. So it's strange thinking back that that's what we were watching. It's hard to imagine it didn't have an influence on our little heads.

Take 2: Turtles.

Also, as a final aside before I finish, in the late 80s there was a period where the Ghostbusters were eclipsed by the Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles. It was a noteworthy thing, as the Turtles had a similar dynamic. You had the gang of four guys. You had similar archetypes: Donatello, like Egon, being the science guy; Raphael, the Venkman wise-guy. The whole thing was quite wise-cracking and adult. Certainly in comparison to something like Star Wars, though not quite with the same zing of Ghostbusters.

I liked the Turtles as well, and likewise had the toys and figures. I do remember having an awareness that they'd superseded the Ghostbusters however. Meaning I felt a drop of disappointment that my favourite thing wasn't the thing anymore. In some ways the passing of the baton was a little bit like the Stone Roses taking up the mantle from the Smiths in the late 80s. Or Oasis following on from the Stone Roses. It was the latest gang people wanted to be a part of.

Part III. Simpsons.

Finally, the Turtles were supplanted by the Simpsons. Again, these days we tend to think of the Simpsons as being in the same bracket as other adult-aimed cartoons like Family Guy and South Park. At the time they filled a slightly different cultural niche though. Bart Simpson weirdly followed on from Michelangelo as the skate-boarding, pizza-eating, "cowabunga dude" cool kid. The slingshot being another set of nunchucks. People of a similar age might recall the Turtles seaside arcade game that was around at the time, which was subsequently followed by a Simpsons version that more or less copied the exact same format, and filled the exact same slot at the arcade.

So, casting back, we started with Thomas the Tank Engine, which was also strangely grown-up for a children's show. Thomas basically having a fulltime job and responsibilities; the Fat Controller on his back like some Victorian Mr Gradgrind figure. Followed by the Ghostbusters, then the Turtles. (Interspersed a little with Dogtanian and the ThunderCats.) Then finally we left childhood just as the Simpsons arrived.

It was a high civilisation decade as far as cartoons go.

Gold Rings and White Hot Lies

I remember being about seven. At school, at that time, I had a lovely, youngish female teacher. One day, when we were getting ready to do PE, as she asked us all to remove our jewellery, she told a personal story. Of course, it was mainly the girls that had jewellery, for the boys it was only really watches, but still, it was equally difficult getting the children to listen and take them off.

Anyway, she told us how her boyfriend was once a goalkeeper, a very good one, who played in goal for a football team. During one game he dived to save a shot and his gold ring got caught on the crossbar, tearing his finger off. Consequently, he had to quit football and end his dreams of becoming a professional goalkeeper.

Now, even back then, as a child, I was fairly sceptical. "That's quite farfetched," I thought. "Don't goalkeepers normally wear goalie gloves." However, I kept my thoughts to myself. Partly because I was a well-behaved kid that didn't openly contradict school teachers in class, but also because I understood why she was telling us the (probably made-up) story.

She didn't start the lesson thinking, "Ha Ha, I'm going to deceive these children. They'll never suspect my evil plan." She obviously did it because she didn't want us hurting ourselves when we did PE, by getting a necklace or watch caught on something; and felt a slightly gruesome, but relatable story might implore us to listen a bit more. Likewise she didn't want parents coming to the school gates asking why little Billy's brand new watch had been broke.

Anyway, that, but government.

With the caveat that governments aren't necessarily going to be as nice as my teacher was, and that the children they're imploring with their stories are in actual fact adults.

Art, Spark and AI Influences

I recently watched a video where someone was talking about artists suing AI companies for using their art to train AI systems. It's an interesting topic. Personally, I come down firmly on the side of the AI companies on this one. Mainly because the AI is essentially just learning much as a human would.

Let's say you're a fifteen year old Oasis fan with a guitar (as I once was). You learn to play by copying Oasis. Either you literally learn to play cover versions of their songs, or, if you're a little more ambitious, you try to come up with your own 'original' songs - though naturally these 'original' songs will very much be in the style of Oasis. That is, they will be derivative.

This is how we all learn. If it's music you start out trying to imitate your favourite bands, if it's art you naturally start out trying to draw or paint in the style of your favourite artist.

The hope is that eventually you find your own style, and this is what truly great artists do. However, it's an organic process, and even the greats are influenced by others. Oasis are a good example, as they wore their influences quite openly on their sleeve: the Beatles, T-Rex, etc, etc.

People claim that Oasis lacked originality, but this is just an untruth born out of that honesty over influences. Had they not had 'something special' about them they simply wouldn't have been as successful and loved as they were. Radiohead, Nirvana, the Beatles themselves, they all had their influences. It's just that most artists tend to be more coy about it. They might obscure their influences, or downplay their true influences whilst inflating more esoteric influences.

Now I'm not saying Oasis were as original as the Beatles (this has become a music article hasn't it), but the fact is, they wouldn't have been an 'A Tier' band had they been just another copycat act. Greatness has something 'fresh' or meaningful about it. It's hard to pin down what this is, but we recognise it when we see it. Wonderwall just works ..we like it. I could write another blog post attempting to explain why it works, but it does, and that's the main thing.

Most AI art tends to look derivative, but most art and music made by humans is derivative too. For every Wonderwall there are a million poor songs that sound either bad, or more likely, just plain boring. It takes a spark (of I know not what) to transcend this. I would think that AI art needs a human spark to excel as well, as, in my opinion, AI is just a very clever tool, or instrument even, that humans can play or play around with. I think you need a human to feel when that spark is there. "Yes, this works." This excites me.

Also, just before I end, it's worth adding for context that 'B Tier' bands can have some originality too.

For example, in a scene (or genre), you might get one or two truly original artists - that is artists with 'their own style'. Let's say with grunge it's Nirvana - they're the 'A Tier'. Then you'll maybe get a few orbiting moons that circle around that major planet - the 'B Tiers'. The supporting acts. They might sound a bit like Nirvana, they may even have a few really good songs that have 'something about them', but nevertheless they remain heavily derivative of Nirvana.

Now what this 'something special' or 'something about them' quality actually is, it's difficult to say. Can anyone ever truly have 'their own style'? What do we even mean by this?

Most people would agree that Nirvana had 'something about them', that they had something 'new'. (I would say the same was the case with Oasis, though this may garner more disagreement.) Either way, Kurt Cobain was once sat with a guitar playing and listening to other people's songs, which inevitably had some influence on his own music. Like the AI he absorbed them, churned them around in some way, then spat them back out. Adding something of his own life and soul in the process no doubt as well.

Again, it's hard to say what originality truly is, but if human artists were sued for copyright for learning and internalising the art of others, none would be left standing.

(Noel Gallagher being influenced by T-Rex

- badda bing)

The Spice Girls

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 1 - The Spice Girls

I'll start with an anecdote. I remember being about fourteen. My youngest brother, who was about six years younger than me - that is, still young enough to be truly child-like, as opposed to my more teenage ways - had the first Spice Girls album. This was mid-90s. Peak Britpop, peak Spice Girls. When every child under the age of ten owned a copy of that album. Anyway, as we shared a bedroom, there was a period of about a month or so where that album was played to death and I heard it constantly. As I sat playing Super Nintendo games that was the endless backdrop. Accompanied by a familiar routine. He'd put it on, then I'd complain that the Spice Girls were "crap" and tell him to turn it off.

However, I remember having this mild sense of cognitive dissonance at the time, as even though I repeatedly stated that "I hated the Spice Girls," that wasn't actually quite true. In truth I didn't mind the music. Some of the songs I even quite liked. In fact, the little arguments usually ended with me saying something along the lines of, "Go on then, you can have it on, if you want it on." I'd say I hated it, then feign a tolerance for it, as I secretly enjoyed the catchiness of the songs.

And no, before you jump in, lol, I'm not gay. This isn't "I secretly liked the Spice Girls and that's how I first knew.." The point I'm making is kind of the opposite one. As a teenage boy, like all teenage boys, I intuitively understood that "pop music" was a girl thing, so liking it didn't fit with my self-image. Had I been gay I would've probably not worried quite as much about looking a bit girly in the eyes of my wider social circle, and ultimately in the eyes of the opposing sex. So that slight cognitive dissonance was a consequence of two conflicting responses. My natural response to the music was a positive one, but that didn't chime with the image I had of myself, and that I wanted to put across to the rest of the world. In this particular case self-image won out. My desire to look cool and credible (and stereotypically male) overrode any desire I had to give an honest appraisal of a Spice Girls song. So "I hate the music of the Spice Girls" was the output. Even though that wasn't the complete and actual truth.

As I wasn't fully self-aware of this at the time it just resulted in a slight niggle of guilt. On some level I understood I was being dishonest. Which got at me a little bit. It annoyed me, and I remember stopping and thinking about it momentarily as I played my video games. Fortunately, pondering on it made me confront it somewhat. "Why am I lying?" I asked. I quickly realised that it was a case of what I've just written above. That I was tailoring my opinions to fit the public image I wanted to present. Or, in some sense, to simply live up to the image others already had of me. That is, to conform to the expectations others had ..be it friends, parents or teachers. In essence, I was bothered what other people thought of me, however much I thought or claimed otherwise. I didn't quite put it in that language at the time, but I came to the realisation and understood it nevertheless. It isn't hard to understand really when you make the effort to think about it (it's true of all of us), it's just hard to admit at first.

Once I became fully self-aware of this it was something of a revelation. I realised I'd been living in a social straightjacket. That my tastes, my true self as it were, had been supressed and overridden by a desire to conform to a spectrum of public personas. The school version of me, the home version, the self-image I presented to friends. The squirming and embarrassment I felt when those personas sometimes came into conflict. I decided I was going to be more honest. Of course, I wasn't stupid, I didn't turn up for school the next day in a Spice Girls t-shirt. It wasn't a radical overthrow of all care for social status and acceptance, but still, in my mind I had a much clearer understanding of things. I stopped lying to myself*, even though to some degree I kept lying to other people ..or at least sheltering them from my true opinions and tastes. It made me a lot freer. Like I'd developed a superpower that most other people didn't have.

*As a side note, it's worth adding that these things are never quite that cut and dried, and that although I did indeed become much more honest with myself, it wasn't quite that simple. We can never truly cast off our hypocrisies and self-delusions. In reality it's much more of a path or process. Obviously, I'm still better than everyone else, but not quite perfect.

The Spice Girls vs Nirvana

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 2 - The Spice Girls vs Nirvana

Fast forward. Another anecdote. This time I'm about twenty years old, and I'm at college studying music. There was a guy on the same course as me. A very nice guy, liked his music, played guitar, alternative, acoustic/rock type. We kind of bonded over liking some of the same music. Again, nothing gay. This was two straight males ..albeit with long hair, that didn't talk to women that much ..but still, purely platonic. As things used to be before the Internet.

Anyway, the music was generally 60s guitar bands, along with the odd "underrated" album by some unknown, underappreciated artist. I'm saying "unknown", but it was the sort of stuff that would've been known to every alternative type on a music course, or anyone who's ever read Q Magazine, but to us this was the niche, "Have you heard of this album.. !?" Aren't we the experts on music face.

So a mutual respect kind of developed, and it was good to know someone who was interested in music the same way you were.

But then, one day, he asked me what I'd been listening to..

Normally a question like this would garner a response of some indie band or other. However, the previous day I'd been haboring some nostalgia for the days of 2 Become 1, Super Nintendo and me pretending to hate the Spice Girls. So I'd had that pop classic on. Now, by this point it must be said, thanks to my earlier revelation, I'd really thrown off the shackles in regards what I allowed myself to like or not like. I basically just listened to whatever I felt like listening to, regardless of how cool or uncool it was, or what listening to it said to others about me as a person. Though if it was something particularly stigmatising I didn't always shout from the rooftops that I was listening to it. Either way, I listened to all sorts. From my much-loved bands like The Beatles, The Smiths, Blur, Oasis, and so on (if I had to be pigeonholed it was definitely indie) to stuff I just listened to when I was in the mood for something different, be it pop, dance, hip-hop, whatever. I just listened to what I genuinely liked, and in my own personal space I was more than happy to have the Spice Girls next to Radiohead and Nirvana in my CD rack. I'd really expunged any sort of snobbish bias by that point. Good music was just good music to me.

(Though, as another anecdote later on will show - yes, there are more anecdotes (!) - I still had a lot of cultural bias when it came to music. As, like with food, our tastes are partly shaped by the culture we grow up in. So my honest opinions were nevertheless biased by that factor.)

Anyhow, when I mentioned that the Spice Girls had been my most recent soundtrack the response I got was, "WHAT?! .. are you joking?" The guy genuinely thought I was joking. And he was genuinely disappointed in me when he found out that I wasn't, like I'd let him down in some deeply tragic way. Like he'd found out I was secretly a member of the Church of Satan or something. Though, saying that, with all the moshers and alternative types on that course that probably would've went down fairly well. It probably would've nabbed me a goth girlfriend even.

I remember feeling a little guilty when I saw his response. I knew the rules. I knew I was crossing the streams. In fact, by that point I was so free from social constraints when it came to my tastes in music that I kind of enjoyed publicly breaking the taboos. Saying the 'wrong thing' was always like a little social experiment to me. I knew what the response would be, but I wanted to see it in real time. To see how strong the contortions would be. It really is a little bit like having a superpower, you can walk through social boundaries that other people have a strict mental block against.

Conversely, there is a price to using it though.

Ultimately, that guy was a nice guy. He certainly wasn't mean enough to completely disown me for liking a Spice Girls album. However, he did lose some respect for me. His worldview naturally had a hierarchy, where people that listened to the Spice Girls and other 'manufactured' music were lower down and less credible than people that listened to Nirvana. It was a view I would've shared just five or six years earlier as I sat playing F-Zero and Super Mario Kart. So honesty, even over something as simple as music, can come at a cost to your social circle and reputation. Something most of us intuitively understand, even as children.

Overall I feel blessed to have been freed from the cognitive dissonance and compromised tastes I once had as a teenager. I think I've enjoyed music much more than most other people, who are partly hemmed in by music being their social badge. So I'd definitely recommend the self-reflection and self-awareness - hence why I'm writing this. Once you understand how your desire for social status affects what you assume are your natural tastes you really do become a better pilot of your own mind. A much freer bird.

However, socially it's also probably wise to temper that honesty in public when you do acquire that freedom of mind. When my original teenage self somehow decided to publicly hate the Spice Girls, semi-subconscious though that decision was, it was actually quite logical ..from a social point of view. As it spared me potential ridicule and alienation. Later on, in my more aware state, joining the Church of Satan might have helped me get a spooky girlfriend, but telling people I listened to the Spice Girls most certainly didn't. So breaking the subconscious social programming can have its downsides, and you do need to be mindful of that.

Energy Drinks

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 3 - Energy Drinks

A kid, let's say about ten years old, pesters his mam for an energy drink. "You won't like them," the mam insists, "they taste horrible and sour."

"Nor, I do like them."

"How do you know you like them if you've never had one?"

"I do. I like them."

Eventually, and reluctantly, the mam gives in. "Okay, I'll get you one, but just one."

She buys the can and hands it to the kid. He takes his first sip. His face wrinkles up as his natural disgust response kicks in when the initial taste hits his tongue.

"See," the mother states with vindication, "I told you that you wouldn't like it."

"Nor, I do like it." The child keeps on drinking.

This is kind of like with the Spice Girls earlier, only in the opposite direction. The child's tongue isn't impressed by the taste of the energy drink - the natural impression is that it tastes quite nasty - but his mind overrides this, as drinking energy drinks is seen as "cool", or whatever word kids use for cool these days.

The older kids or older brother drinks energy drinks. The YouTubers and other social influencers do. The drinks are full of sugar and caffeine and God knows what else, creating the sense that you get some type of drug-like buzz or rush from them. They're even packaged to look like alcoholic drinks. So it's all very edgy, adult and dangerous. A banana milkshake tastes much nicer - the tongue knows this - but the brain wants social status. It's much more important to look cool and credible.

So the child forces himself to gulp down the concoction. He pushes past his taste buds and convinces himself, "Yes, I do like these drinks." You could call this a lie, but in a sense it's not a lie, as he doesn't have the self-awareness to be fully conscious of the self-deception. What he wants is to fulfil a self-image. To mimic his peers. The drink and its taste isn't really that important, that's not why he's drinking it, it's just an inconvenience that gets brushed aside in pursuit of the more important goal. So when he tells his mam, "See, I do like these drinks," as he continues drinking, he believes what he's saying, in spite of his wrinkled nose. Though there might be a slight feeling of cognitive dissonance at the back of his mind somewhere as he says it.

This dissonance is quickly forgotten however. Once he pushes past that initial sourness it becomes an acquired taste. He perhaps tries all the different flavours and finds one he likes the most, "My favourite is the blue one", or rather one that's least disagreeable to his actual sense of taste. With the self-image fulfilled it then becomes habit. Consequently he might go on to spend the next ten or fifteen years of his life drinking energy drinks ..and believing sincerely that they're his favourite drink. That they're an essential part of who he is as a person. Regardless of the fact that his actual taste buds once upon a time told him otherwise. Or that, if he'd been born on a desert island, free from all social influence and need for social status, he'd have chosen the banana milkshake over the energy drink every time.

So who has the happier life? The person who sticks with the banana milkshake and forgoes social status? Or the person who pushes past their taste buds to make friends and have a social life?

Alcohol

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 4 - Alcohol

Don't worry, before you start saying, "Yeah, kids are stupid, with their silly fads and trends," we're getting to the adult world. With alcohol as a seamless transition.

Alcoholic drinks, like energy drinks, are also not so much about the taste, but more about the lifestyle and social status they offer. Now, of course, I'm not saying that alcoholic drinks (or energy drinks for that matter) can't be enjoyed for their taste - sometimes it's nice to have a cold glass of lager, whether there's a social world around you or not - but the truth is clear and apparent. We all understand how it was in large part a desire to look and be grown-up that led to us to want to drink alcohol as teenagers in the first place. It really wasn't the taste. In fact, back in the 90s we didn't just have Spice Girls, Sega and Super Nintendo - it was also the era of the alcopop.

Whereas energy drinks are non-alcoholic drinks marketed like alcohol, alcopops were alcoholic drinks marketed to appeal to children (or, if you're being generous to the makers, young adults). Youngsters weren't too keen on the taste of alcohol, but with some brightly coloured labelling and fruit "pop" flavours, the path to drunkenness was made a little more comfy. A sugar honey with the medicine. A helping hand to con and coax the basic instincts. Taste once again under the influence of self-image.

And, this is the thing, you never grow out of it. You can only become aware of it. From the young man sinking pints to look manly, to the gentleman sipping his whisky with the self-image of taste and refinement. Do people enjoy the taste of champagne, or do they just enjoy the idea of living the high life? Again, I'm not saying you can't enjoy the champagne, or whisky, or lager purely for the taste and experience, but it's highly unlikely that social aspiration hasn't played at least some part in it.

Even self-awareness of the influence can't truly sever you from it. As I type I'm not entirely sure how much of my own liking of alcohol is genuine taste and how much is social habit. It was certainly the case that I never enjoyed getting drunk and having hangovers when I was younger. It was much more the social pressure that led me to do it. I remember once I refused a shot of something in a nightclub and the bargirl handing them out called me "boring" (!). It's pretty hard to resist that type of social pressure. A single word shouldn't have that much effect on you - it's stupid to be bothered by such a thing, yet still, I recall it now, showing that it must have bothered me, even though I brushed it off at the time.

No one likes to look like they're ruining the party. My usual happy medium, even back then, was stating that I just drank beer or lager. No spirits, no whacky shots or cocktails, nothing with a ridiculously high alcohol percentage. However, when someone sticks a glass of vodka down in front you, which they've paid for (in spite of the fact that you may have said, "No, it's okay, just get yourself one") it's rude to not drink it. You feel obliged to accept the gift ..and the headache. Even the self-awareness doesn't excuse you from the social conundrum.

As I've aged I've gotten better at saying "No", so on the odd occasion that I do go out I certainly won't be having strange shots or glasses of vodka. However, I do still "like" the odd pint or bottle of beer ..but do I like it? This is the question. Do I genuinely like it, or is it an acquired taste, born purely of the fact that I've wanted to socialise over all these years? And if it is, is that a bad thing?

If I'm going purely on my taste buds I might prefer a cup of tea or glass of orange juice when I'm at the bar on the work night out. However, do I really want to be the weirdo at work on Monday morning who ordered a cup of tea when everyone else was having beers and cocktails?

Ultimately you weigh up the personal pleasure versus the social cost and try to find a balance. At least if you're self-aware of this inner conflict it's easier to find a balance you're happy with overall.

More Drinks

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 5 - More Drinks

Anecdote three. Actually, there was a little bit of an anecdote in that last chapter wasn't there. The bit where I was unfairly called "boring," so I guess it's anecdote four. This one is also night out related. Well, more evening at the pub related, but these days it's the closest we get.

It wasn't quite a pub where you drink shots of vodka, more a place where the people drink real ale. The type of people that like obscure real ale, from obscure little breweries, with funny little names. Where each initial sip comes with commentaries about the tanginess or fruitiness. The "grassy, earthy" flavour, or the "caramel" or "liquorice-like" aftertaste. The "Ooh, isn't this obscure." It comes with many of the pretentions you might normally associate with wine tasting. Though more beardy, and absent the elegant women.

It was also an arty, music type venue. Folk nights, open mic nights, quiz nights, arty spoken word poetry type nights. You get the picture. I'd came to see my friend play, so was in a friend of a friend type situation. On my own and talking to people that I vaguely knew through this one friend. Naturally music came up as a topic. I was asked by one guy what I'd been listening to. (Sorry for the sense of déjà vu.) We had another Spice Girls situation on our hands. This time it wasn't quite as bad. I'd been listening to funk music. Nothing obscure, just 70s chart type funk, blending into disco. The sort of stuff you get on re-runs of Top of the Pops.

I'd always hated funk and disco music growing up. I put this down to cultural bias in retrospect, as I foreshadowed in the second chapter. I grew up in a white, melodic rock household, so funk and disco were a bit foreign and unfamiliar. Again, it's similar to food. We like what we're familiar with, so unfamiliar things fill us with a sense of discord and apprehension. It takes a little bit of effort or cultural conditioning to overcome this. The first time I had Uncle Ben's Spicy Mexican Rice I was in uncharted territory. Now I eat it every week. It takes time to try new things, there's the danger you might not like it if you try it. If you're hungry it's easier to "just have chips." The familiar groove. The dependable, if boring, sense of fulfilment.

Anyhow, over the years my bias against funk and disco had gradually softened up. The odd song had made it through my defences. However, what had pushed me this time was simply the fact that a 70s radio station had been on in the background at work. I found myself singing along to a few of the songs (in my head, not out loud, I'm not that brave at work). Like with the Uncle Ben's rice, or should I say Ben's Original now thanks to woke-ism, I'd found a new taste I liked. "I quite like these adzuki beans," I thought, "..whatever they are." So I went home, searched on YouTube, and added the new songs to my roster.

Funk music is actually quite cool, so it shouldn't have went down too badly, but we were dealing with real ale drinkers here. I said "Funk" in response to the question, there was a slight look of disappointment, followed by a hopeful, "What type of funk?". When I said "'Upside Down' by Diana Ross, just that type of stuff," it sealed the deal. Any friend-of-a-friend reputation I had for being interesting went in a little beardy puff of smoke. They wanted some priestly baubles, some esoteric delights. They didn't want to be discussing music that normal, everyday people listened to on the work radio. Like with the ale, they wanted something with the appearance of novelty. A rare flavour. A sense of exclusivity.

"These people can't appreciate that strawberry jam is the best jam," I said to my friend as we walked home afterwards.

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 6 - Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Yey, we've reached the title of the booklet. It was always the plan. I think in that pub I began with a little bit of credibility, no doubt thanks to my friend mentioning me to these friends-of-friends in half decent terms. After all, I am interesting, in spite of what that bargirl said. Just look at me, writing little essays about funk, strawberry jam and the Spice Girls. Who else is doing this? If I wasn't the most interesting person in that pub I was easily in the top three. So there was a little bit of hope in the room when I opened my mouth, but it was quickly dashed. It's like they came to me expecting a banquet and found me eating a jam sandwich.

Now strawberry jam is the best jam. Of course, not everyone likes strawberry jam in actuality, nor jam in general for that matter. You may be reading this thinking that all jam is just icky congealed gloop. The point is though, yours would be an honest assessment. An assessment based on your actual sense of taste. Not a choice made with a desire to fulfil a self-image. Either way, whether you actually like jam or not, you should be able to recognise that strawberry jam is king. If you can't acknowledge to yourself that strawberry jam - the popular, obvious choice - is the best jam - especially if that's what your taste buds tell you - then you'll never have a true north star when it comes to judgement. Your taste compass will always be off. Corrupted by your desire to appear more intelligent in the eyes of others.

The average person, if asked for their favourite jam will give strawberry as the answer. If not strawberry it'll be some other popular choice - maybe marmalade or blackcurrant. (If they're really odd it might be lemon curd.) However, the cultured person will give a different answer when asked. "Actually, there's this wonderful little farmers' market, just outside town, they do this lovely gooseberry jam with a hint of cinnamon."

Now it may seem like I'm picking on these people for being pretentious, and, let's be honest, I am. However, the important point, the actual point, is that they often end up living a life of self-deception. Denying their senses what they truly desire, solely to please a societal self-image. And in their head, like the child with his energy drink, they'll truly believe that the obscure jam is their favourite. The very thought that the pedestrian choice could be best is anathema.

It's a bit of a silly example, after all, it's just jam. It gets to the nub so beautifully though. Freshly baked bread and strawberry jam is lovely. No matter how common it is. In fact, it is common because it is lovely. Imagine how beautiful strawberries would taste had you never tasted one before. Had they arrived from some newly discovered continent as an exotic fruit. Again, if you were on a desert island with all these jams placed before you, completely free from prior social influence, would you really choose the gooseberry and cinnamon?

This easy example also goes to show how intelligent people are much more cursed by this desire for status than average folk. As at least for average people there's a 'wisdom of the crowd' type aspect to the trends they flock to. For the intellectual however, seeking his separate, exclusive club, he defines himself in the opposite. If the mob are choosing it, he, or she, will seek something other. If the plebs are eating jam and bread, he will have caviar.

I know which I choose.

You come to my table, hoping for rare dishes and exotic delights, but you cannot value the simple strawberry. Nor the funk classic, nor the 90s pop hit.

Little Boy Blue

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 7 - Little Boy Blue

Imagine two children. An elder brother and a younger brother. The mother of these two children brings back two toy trains from the toy shop. A red one and a blue one. The elder brother takes the red train. "Red's my favourite colour!" The younger brother, by default, is then left with the blue train.

Blue now has to be the younger child's favourite colour ..their badge, their standard. As red is already taken. If they say that red is their "favourite colour" too, they get accused of copying. Plus, if they both have red trains, how will they know which is which. This simple reality may then become part of that child's self-image. "Yes, my favourite colour is blue!" Even though it's not a reflection of their actual taste, more a reflection of their circumstance. (Though to some extent our real tastes are partly a product of circumstance, and circumstance can imbue meaning. A Sweater Shop jumper once worn by a girl you had a crush on has its beauty and meaning enhanced by her presence. Though the stripey jumper, with its pretty colours, may have already had something of an aesthetic appeal to begin with.)

Another 90s reference for you there.

Of course, it doesn't have to be blue, it could be any colour. "What about orange? You like orange. Orange is a cool colour. Why not get an orange train?" Either way, you get the idea.

Parents often put their children on different teams when it comes to actual personality traits too. If one child is a bit noisy and out-going the other child becomes "the quiet one" by default. Personalities do naturally differ, however, the truth is, the differences are rarely large, especially between siblings. Parents noticing these differences will often over-exaggerate them though. "Stevie's a little tearaway, he's always getting into bother, but Timmy is no bother at all, you never hear a peep from him." Once typecast in such a way it can become hard to escape the label and expectations.

The reality is, we can all be quiet or loud at times. Troublesome or well-behaved. The full spectrum of human emotion and behaviour a possibility in all of us. Just as the entire spectrum of colours is open to our choice and appreciation. Not just blue or red.

Long Hair Is For Girls

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 8 - Long Hair Is For Girls

It's also worth noting that aesthetic taste can naturally override social cost at times. It's not all one way. Long hair is a good example, and this one relates to me somewhat. Despite being male I've always preferred having long hair. As a teenager and young adult it was just "what I liked." Long hair obviously looked better I thought, and I always instinctively felt that short hair looked angular and ugly. I preferred, and still prefer (though it matters increasingly less these days), the way I look with long hair when I see myself in the mirror. A short, army-style haircut just doesn't appeal to me.

However, it slowly dawned on me - a little too slowly - that what "I like" isn't necessarily what everyone else likes. I may like long, feminine locks, but perhaps that's because I like females, and as a consequence, by nature, that's what defines my notions of beauty. So my personal fashion choices are warped a tad by a sense of what I find appealing. Females, on the other hand, admire males, so they may not be too impressed by guys with girly waves of hair. Maybe the girl in the Sweater Shop jumper would've liked me a little more had I paid more attention to what she liked and focused less on appealing to my own tastes. Though Mick Jagger didn't do too badly, so I can't blame it entirely on the hair.

Most people understand all this instinctively, just as I instinctively once understood that it made sense to "hate" the Spice Girls. At that age I also understood how long hair on males was viewed, however I guess the pull of my own tastes was just too strong on that one. Plus, it must be said, I was never quite the epitome of laddishness, so my instincts probably weren't quite as strong as they otherwise would've been. In fact, another example of the teenage me lying about the Spice Girls serves as a good case in point. Though I played football, and was laddish enough to "hate" pop music, I wasn't quite laddish enough to be entirely upfront about how much I liked the Spice Girls, and girls in general - as in, like liked. Even at the age of fourteen or fifteen I found it incredibly embarrassing admitting that the image of Ginger Spice, overspilling from a union jack dress, appealed to me on a primal level. "No," I'd protest, "I don't care about girls." So I was a bit too delicate for sure. Maybe explaining the hair.

This is where our natural personalities do break the social mould. I remember watching wrestling as a child. My favourite wrestler was always Bret 'The Hitman' Hart. Most the other kids liked Hulk Hogan or the British Bulldog, or some other stereotype of masculinity. Whereas the eight year old me aspired to imitate the guy with long hair, sunglasses, jeans and a pink leotard. I wanted to beat everyone up in the Royal Rumble, but I needed to do it with a bit of poetic cool. Some subconscious feminine flourish. Even at that age the He-Man archetype didn't hold much appeal. So perhaps I was always destined by nature to be a long-haired fop.

The characters in wrestling, and in the Spice Girls, clearly appeal to these natural personality variations that exist. A certain percentage of boys will want the Bret 'The Hitman' Hart action figure instead of the Hulk Hogan one. Likewise, for every girl aspiring to be 'Ginger' or 'Baby' Spice, some will prefer to be 'Sporty'. Another 90s thing that held this appeal was the TV show Friends. For girls you could be the good-looking, slightly ditzy one (Rachel), or the bossy, get-things-done one (Monica), or the quirky one (Phoebe). Likewise, for males you had the dichotomy of Joey and Chandler - the dim, alpha male and the smart, wise-cracking beta. With Ross as the everyman, in touch with his emotions. Navigating the adult responsibilities the other two didn't have.

I remember (anecdote time) when Friends first blew up in the 90s. I'd never watched it, but I'd heard the name bandied about and knew that other people at school watched it. At the time the name just sounded really gay to me. Not gay gay, but gay gay - though the two uses of the word are, of course, related. In fact, to detour a little, this is the thing with language, it naturally evolves. Words become popular because they accurately convey a meaning. You can try to be clever as a writer and find "more articulate" ways of saying things, but you can't really beat the natural swamp of human culture. Millions of people, talking every day, having to communicate. I could describe the name Friends as "twee", but that word wouldn't be quite right. Plus, a teenager would never use that word. Gay is the right word. Yes, it is a bit offensive, but it also conveys the impression accurately. So I can be honest and use it, or dishonest/inaccurate and not. I can't have it both ways.

It's similar with emoticons and text-speak. A few times in this little series of pieces I've used "lol". It's not conventional to use these expressions in "proper" writing, and they're considered low-brow, as they're associated with idiot teenagers texting each other. So you will definitely lose social brownie points for using them. However, at the same time, "lol" is so common because it's actually very useful. When we communicate in person we can use intonation, gestures, facial expressions. They all help to convey sentiment. With the written word we lack those things, so terms like "lol" do help. Your teacher or intellectual friend might say, "No, no, no ..you should improve your writing skills and vocabulary to better communicate using the written word. Text-speak is lazy and bad practice!" However, those people don't complain when they're reading something that uses italics, which also adds tone and emphasis to text. Again, there's no right or wrong. You just have to accept you can't have it all ways. Just as with the balance between being honest and being sociable, there are downsides whichever way you want to go. For me it's "lol" all the way, but I've probably already burned more bridges than you have.

Anyway, back to Friends, lol, I remember wondering why the tougher and cooler kids were watching something with such a gay-sounding name. I also remember noticing at one point that almost everyone in my class had started acting differently. The girls and boys suddenly adopted slightly different mannerisms. One lad even started using emphasis in his sentences differently, "..could I be anymore bored of this." (Look how useful that emphasis is.) I noticed this behaviour change, but didn't understand it. Then I finally saw an episode of Friends. "Ah, they're all imitating characters from this show," I realised. "Could that guy be anymore Chandler." It was a bit disappointing seeing how easily their personalities had all been flipped by a TV show, but I guess in hindsight it was in many ways tapping into characters they already possessed to some degree. Of course, having finally seen an episode I started watching it as well ..begrudgingly. It was a little too sentimental for my tastes overall, but, admittedly, it was a good show. It would've been another teenage lie to argue otherwise, though I had a good go as I continued watching it.

Naturally I resonated with Chandler the most too.

The Greatest Hits

Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 9 - The Greatest Hits

Would I order a jam sandwich if I was out at a restaurant? Probably not. Though perhaps if I was into my food as much as I'm into my music I would. Maybe if I'd wanted to be a chef instead of an Arctic Monkey I'd be putting down a marker. Maybe at my own restaurant I'd be going full punk. "Let's give the people what they really want !"

"Yes, Madam, if you want beans on toast, you can have that ..and no, I won't be adding any fancy seasoning to make it look more up-market. Just straight out the tin, onto the toast. As you'd have it at home. You don't have to fake it here."

Now a person may sit happily eating beans on toast if they're at home, in their own home, but they wouldn't order this in a restaurant. They'd order something more appropriate to the situation, whatever their belly wanted. Plus, the whole point of heading out to eat is to do something special and fancy. So it would defeat the purpose somewhat. The point of this little series isn't really to be puritanical about taste though. As I noted earlier, it's more just about being mindful of these influences. Being aware that social pressures can affect our choices (in ways we often don't realise) when it comes to food, music and many other things, and that likewise, being honest about our genuine likes and tastes can come at a social cost.

Self-awareness gives you a bit more freedom. You can weigh up the pros and cons more easily.

I'll finish with one last anecdote. When I told my friend I was writing this he mentioned a time when he was travelling in a car with another friend. It was a longish journey, and they'd spent the time listening to two albums: The Police's Greatest Hits, and Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd, with The Police, by far, getting the prominent share of the air time. Anyway, when they reached their destination - another friend's house - this other friend asked what they'd been listening to on the journey. The first friend, without missing a beat, stated Dark Side of the Moon. When my friend pointed out that the Greatest Hits had had a fair bit of journey time too, the first friend then played this down lol. As if, really, they hadn't been listening to it at all. Obviously it didn't carry the same cultural gravitas. Hearing this did make me laugh out loud. The Greatest Hits of The Police is a pretty impressive collection of songs. Many would say classic collection. If it was something in the actual mould of the Spice Girls you could understand the shirking of association, but here we see a higher level of wanting to be niche. A true desire to be interesting, that craves only association with the most critically claimed and esoteric rarities. It's a sad situation that many true music fans fall into.

I must admit though, prejudice against "greatest hits" is something I too used to suffer from. Even long after I'd made peace with the Spice Girls. Listening to a "greatest hits" or "best of" collection kind of suggests you're not a "real" fan. You just want the popular hits. You don't want or appreciated the hidden gems and more obscure albums. So it's not really the done thing. However, it is the strawberry jam of a band's back catalogue. The "best of" generally is the best stuff. Admittedly there's the problem that the track choice has been curated by someone other than the band members, but still, generally, the public gets what the public wants. So if you're downplaying a greatest hits, to the point where you're reluctant to admit you've even listened to it, you've probably went too far in your quest for coolness. It's much better to come back down to earth, so you can enjoy the good things in life once again.

Strawberry Jam is the Best Jam - Contents

I haven't posted much on here over the last month or so, however, I have been busy ..and no, I wasn't busy the whole month making AI Brexit Girl images. I did say, back in December, that I was going to do an article explaining how to 'fix your aesthetic compass using strawberry jam.' I had a little too much to say for a single article though, so it morphed into a little booklet or series of articles. That's finished now, so I can finally upload it here. The writing style is slightly different to my normal style, meaning I'm not entirely sure if it's horrendous or not. If I'm happy with it in six months' time I'll turn it into a little PDF, if not it'll just remain here, hidden amidst the weeds of old opinions. I'll upload the chapters or pieces in reverse order, just so they flow in the right direction for anyone visiting the blog page.

Chapter 1 - The Spice Girls

Chapter 2 - The Spice Girls vs Nirvana

Chapter 3 - Energy Drinks

Chapter 4 - Alcohol

Chapter 5 - More Drinks

Chapter 6 - Strawberry Jam Is The Best Jam

Chapter 7 - Little Boy Blue

Chapter 8 - Long Hair Is For Girls

Chapter 9 - The Greatest Hits

The Adventures of Brexit Girl

I've been playing around with AI and I've came up with a new superhero. (Yes, this is what people with too much time on their hands do.)

It's Brexit Girl. With so many media polls seeming to show support for Brexit at an all time low I figured we needed some help. She has a pet fox called "Sovereign" and spends her time beating up people like Guy Verhofstadt, Batman-style.

I already have a full comic book world order mapped out. Her arch nemesis is 'Stop Brexit Man' Steve Bray, who answers directly to Cardinal Richelieu from Dogtanian.

(28 views; the sheer reach we have)

Obviously, all great heroes need to be flawed, so I was thinking her major flaw could be stupidity (dressed up as ditziness). I like the idea of her conforming to the stereotype Remainers have of Brexiteers. Like she doesn't know what the Schengen Area is, but still ends up winning the day each episode, to their frustration.

Incidentally, I used Gencraft to make the image. You get 10 free image prompts a day with a free account. It's a little hit and miss, but fun to play around with. If you want to make your own Brexit Girl it's: female superhero; anime; orange red hair; pet fox; union jack outfit ..and variations on that theme.

Education Austerity, 2024

Back. 2024. I had to order a new laptop on New Year's Eve as my old one finally buckled under the strain of age. So we really are back and feeling fresh.

I'll start the year with a little thought experiment.

Education has been a recurring theme here. Particularly my view that it's largely a waste of time in its current form. I think it should be stripped back. Less time, more focus on mathematics, English and spoken communication.

Anyway, I was thinking what if we had real education austerity. What if the government said to parents, "Right, you're only entitled to one hour of state education per week, per child."

What would you want your child spending that hour doing?

I suspect few would say an hour long French lesson, or an hour of school assembly. Or an hour of sex education; or religious education, or storybook time. Or PE, or home economics. Or even history or English literature.

I imagine for most people the thinking would go something like this:

Can the child read and write adequately? If no, then an hour of learning to read and write. If yes, then an hour of maths.

(If you disagree with this the comments are open. Obviously, I have quite strong opinions, but it's a genuinely open question. Plus, as I believe the parent should have ultimate say, not the state, I'll defend your right to choose how that hypothetical hour is spent regardless :)

I think this is a good way to think about things as it really focuses on the question of what the purpose of education actually is. What do you really want for your child. I think most parents when pressed would want their child to enter the adult world with excellent maths, English and social skills.

When they send their child to school they simply assume they'll be getting the maths and the English (the usefulness of spoken communication generally goes unacknowledged). However, school is such a blob of different things the maths and English can get a little lost. There's also that tendency for children that aren't naturally academic to think, "I'm bad at Maths, it's not my thing, but that's okay, I'm good at art and history." Meaning they kind of switch off and give up on the lessons they don't like. As if the real world will overlook your bad maths if you make up for it in some other genre of learning or expression.

Again, the parents just assume. "They have weekly maths and English - they must be doing something. They must be making some progress."

But this really is largely wishful thinking. For many kids any lesson will just be an unfocused blip on another long, messy school day. It's a big blancmange, and at the occasional parents' night any failings will be squarely aimed back at the parents themselves.

You need to read more with your child at home / You need to make sure little Noah does his homework / Little Noah needs to work a bit harder.

Never mind the fact that you've paid for a service.

Education takes up so much of a child's time, and we spend so much public money on it. Yet there's no laser-like focus on getting what we actually want from it. I really doubt adults would be so careless if it was their own time and money.

It really is just a bad habit we've all been born into though. You go to school and that's just the way it is. If you question it the initial response isn't even an education concern, it's "..but who will look after the children when parents are at work?" - a childcare argument. If you really push people you'll get, "What? So you're saying learning about history, or Shakespeare, [or this or that, etc] isn't important?!"

Which is easy to bat away, as firstly, there's an infinite amount of culture. Even if you deem something culturally important, who decides what is and isn't? Who decides what is learnt and what gets left out. Then secondly, and more importantly, compared to developing your reading, maths and social skills, all these things are much less important.

If you want your child to learn about Romeo and Juliet you can plonk them down in front of a documentary, or movie, or YouTube video. You can sit with a cup of tea and learn these things passively. Whereas learning to read and write, and learning maths requires application and practice. (As does developing social skills, which requires making the effort to go out and interact with other humans.)

As with the one-hour thought experiment. If you only had an hour you'd make the most of it. If people were spending an hour of their own time and money it would no doubt be put to good use. They wouldn't waste it on something they could get for free by turning on a BBC history documentary.

Your Child Needs A Haircut

Imagine you sent your child to get their hair cut. They need to get their hair cut as they need to head out into the world and function. It's not a luxury, but a thing that needs doing.

However, the child returns and the hair hasn't been cut. You ask why. The answer comes that the hairdresser instead spent the hour teaching the child about the Spanish Armada. You go to the hairdressers to complain and the reply comes back, "What?! You don't care about the Spanish Armada? You don't believe it's important that your child knows about this important part of our history?"

Obviously, no one would put up with this in real life. They'd immediately say, "I gave you £20 of my money and an hour of my child's time. Specifically to get their hair cut. I want my money back."

This is essentially how the education system works though. And it's often worse, as unlike the imaginary hairdresser, it's often teaching things you'd rather your child wasn't learning, and not just about the Spanish Armada. As per the sex education and various other ideological lesson topics.