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)