well, no not really. its largely stability. but new things are occurring for me, quite big new things. OK, so its nothing to dislodge Obama-McCain from the front pages, or make me a redtop regular like that darn Cheryl Cole (now, am i not more interesting, surely than that racist old moose?), but its a still something in the mundane litany that is life.
my course finally starts this week, and whilst I'm still in the "oooh, its gonna be so great" stage, and I'm also into the "shit, now I'm scared" stage. its not even a conscious thing, just a generally nerviness; i had a bad nights sleep for the first time in a couple of months the other day, all fear, panic etc. part of the usual fear/anxiety attack package. its not surprising, new places, new people, and plenty of opportunity for me to embarrass myself in some way. of course I'm not trying to think like this at all, drawing on the marvellous kind remarks of all and sundry (who seem to think I'm more suited to doing this course than is actually possible), and remember I'm actually entering an area I'm good at, and engaged by. but unlike my first time at uni, this time i have invested a lot of money, and, more importantly, hope into this. i don't think I've ever wanted so desperately to do well at something in my life. the first time round everyone was going, my expectations weren't high (i wasn't the greatest student at school, believe it or not, in spite of people's impressions), my uni wasn't considered great (though i can't speak highly enough of those who taught me, and put me on this course), and i just went with a fairly open mind. this time , a desire for success weighs slightly heavier on my bony little frame. frankly this is as close to ambition as i get; its my cup semi-final, if you will. now, I'm fairly certain of my abilities, and fairly certain of my work being as good as any, but after 6 years out it still feels big. and there's a little man in a quasi-SS uniform saying "zere can be no failure!!"
so its tense. but i should be fine, once i get past the first few days.
on a brighter side, i am still in the gainful employment of Satan's Own Bookseller, but now for the diminished hours of about 16 a week. enough to keep my wallet ticking over nicely, and able to buy the odd drink for the Ammah et al.work is rapidly going down the chute, frankly, so I'm glad to have it in a less prominent place in my life. The company's ability to do whats in its own best commercial interests in our store gets more lamentable every day. despite the masters getting the big bookseller gong, I'm sure on the ground level in many branches it's a mess. i know it is at ours. too many head office edicts that counteract each other and divert us from keeping our most basic services running efficiently (IE customer orders, and books shelved and in the right place etc.). we have an increasing lack of order, and an increasing inability to stay on top of deliveries and duties, that is largely due to staff cuts and new staff being inexperienced. also, head office, and their henchwoman in the form of our regional manager, do not know when to ditch an idea because its impracticable in our particular store; their continued interference in store layout is meaning sections are fitting very badly. fact is, the workers in shop know the capacities of the sections, and the best way to keep them. they've needlessly meddled in the layout to the detriment of organisation, and thus, sales. the other day i counted a loss of £80 sales in a day because i couldn't find the books customers were after; i think this can be a similar figure for each person. its a lot of money. and the main reason is the layout changes and staff cuts. its very silly.
furthermore, good staff are leaving due to dissatisfaction and stress, and the some of the part-timers are not up to the increased responsibility on them. i can think of one specific example in particular, and i have no idea why he's being offered the hours. this Xmas could be the most shambolic in my time there; with less staff,and more inexperienced staff in charge of completely inexperienced Xmas temps.it will not be good. we've over-relied on the ability of replacing key experienced booksellers with weekenders, and now the we're dependent on them. dependent beyond their abilities or experience. it will be interesting, at the very least.
hopefully, for my self at least, less hours will = less caring and the ability to leave knowing I've done my best, and i don't have a come back for 5 days.
apologies, for general earnestness of this whole blog, but you know, if i only wrote when feeling funny, it'd be twice a year. and you REALLY wanna know my progress don'cha? :)
keep you're best end up, my children
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Thursday, 7 August 2008
Democracy-government by the people. yay!
A very kind, and politically conscious, friend of mine bought me John Pilger's documentary film The War On Democracy a while back, and I've finally got round to watching it. It's an exceptionally good film, that, without being excessive, hits the real threat the USA is, and has been for half a century, to genuine democracy.
The documentary shows how the USA has for fifty years now been conducting secret wars against Latin American countries and their democratically elected socialist governments. One after another has been removed in coups funded by the United States; in fact often trained and actively participated in by them too (usually through the CIA). The myth is that these are defences of democracy, and national security; they rarely are. They are anything but, and are more to do with the maintenance of US political and economic power in countries in which they have no sovereignty. The list is very long: Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela,...... the list goes on.Most of the regimes the US helped to install were not democratic, and in cases (Pinochet in Chile notably) they were openly fascist military dictatorships.Arguably the most "stable" (meaning free from direct US interference)country in South America is Brazil, and Brazil operates a capitalist "democracy" on the terms the USA likes, ie a wide poverty gap, reliance on America, and free from such distressing ideas as egalitarianism.
Of course the other reason for US interference in these regions, other than the basic ones of political and economic power over their policies, is the fact that a successful socialist country (or even a social democratic one) in Latin America would be a powerful precedent and example to its own disenfranchised minorities. I can't pretend to be utterly anti-American; i love too many American bands, writers, films, and various other products to declare that i am. but most of these cultural products are very much within the oppositional sphere of American culture. They are not the folks in government, in business, they are not the ones with political power. Mind you, not that i have much need to state this. I love sixteenth century English poetry, but I'm not remotely fond of its political system. But, to some unfortunately, to like some aspects of a culture equals tacit approval of its politics. it plainly doesn't.
Democracy for most people in this age seems roughly equatable to a vote every few years. Now I'm not the man to get into a debate on the varieties of democracy and their problems; this isn't the place, and I'm not good enough to do it anyway. But democracy is not just about a vote. it is about the people of the country having control of its government. it is about power, and equality of power. it is about one man/woman having one vote in the wider sense of the word. How powerful is your influence? How powerful is your bosses influence? Are you as politically powerful as the man who owns a local business? Are you as politically powerful as the great Satan Rupert Murdoch himself?
The answer, naturally, is no; its arguable that Murdoch is the most powerful man in Britain, and he doesn't even live here. But he has such financial clout, and media power that his "vote" is worth several million of your own. Not just him, but many many others have this excessive power. A power that corrupts any so-called democracy from day one. so i guess by this reasoning I'm declaring we don't live in a proper democracy? Well, I'd say no, we don't. It has many aspects, but not enough.
The USA (and us by implication, we behave similarly, if not so extreme) is conducting the modern form of what Pilger (and me, for that matter) calls Imperialism. the wielding of economic and political (and cultural) power in a country in which they have no right to interfere. They are distorting what democracy exists in their favour, and for their economic benefit. The current fear is about China and the power it increasingly wields; little mention is made that the USA has held a much greater level of power than China currently has, since the second world war, and with a malign influence almost everywhere they've interfered. Some of the US establishment is open about this: for them Might is Right (just like the playground bully); others hide behind a facade of "democratising" and "progressing" these countries. It isn't new, we did it in Africa and Asia in the 18th and 19th centuries, under the banner of Christianity and progress. what it reality means is the exploitation of others resources for our own benefit. The terms have changed, the motive and outcome has not.
Of course large parts of the USA don't understand this animosity towards them; mainly because the ideology runs so deep in America, the ideology of a specific form of harsh free market capitalism, that to question it is to question your own parentage.
Anyway, i just recommend you watch Pilger's documentary, and you take an opportunity to read about the new forms of democracy being tried in Latin America with Chavez in Venezuela, and Morales in Bolivia. I don't know where they'll lead, or whether they'll prove the genuine emancipation they seem at present. But if the US media opposes them and tells you they are awful, then they're almost certainly doing something good.
i hope you'll take the time to think and read about these things ,and most importantly question who's telling you what and why. Cheers
The documentary shows how the USA has for fifty years now been conducting secret wars against Latin American countries and their democratically elected socialist governments. One after another has been removed in coups funded by the United States; in fact often trained and actively participated in by them too (usually through the CIA). The myth is that these are defences of democracy, and national security; they rarely are. They are anything but, and are more to do with the maintenance of US political and economic power in countries in which they have no sovereignty. The list is very long: Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela,...... the list goes on.Most of the regimes the US helped to install were not democratic, and in cases (Pinochet in Chile notably) they were openly fascist military dictatorships.Arguably the most "stable" (meaning free from direct US interference)country in South America is Brazil, and Brazil operates a capitalist "democracy" on the terms the USA likes, ie a wide poverty gap, reliance on America, and free from such distressing ideas as egalitarianism.
Of course the other reason for US interference in these regions, other than the basic ones of political and economic power over their policies, is the fact that a successful socialist country (or even a social democratic one) in Latin America would be a powerful precedent and example to its own disenfranchised minorities. I can't pretend to be utterly anti-American; i love too many American bands, writers, films, and various other products to declare that i am. but most of these cultural products are very much within the oppositional sphere of American culture. They are not the folks in government, in business, they are not the ones with political power. Mind you, not that i have much need to state this. I love sixteenth century English poetry, but I'm not remotely fond of its political system. But, to some unfortunately, to like some aspects of a culture equals tacit approval of its politics. it plainly doesn't.
Democracy for most people in this age seems roughly equatable to a vote every few years. Now I'm not the man to get into a debate on the varieties of democracy and their problems; this isn't the place, and I'm not good enough to do it anyway. But democracy is not just about a vote. it is about the people of the country having control of its government. it is about power, and equality of power. it is about one man/woman having one vote in the wider sense of the word. How powerful is your influence? How powerful is your bosses influence? Are you as politically powerful as the man who owns a local business? Are you as politically powerful as the great Satan Rupert Murdoch himself?
The answer, naturally, is no; its arguable that Murdoch is the most powerful man in Britain, and he doesn't even live here. But he has such financial clout, and media power that his "vote" is worth several million of your own. Not just him, but many many others have this excessive power. A power that corrupts any so-called democracy from day one. so i guess by this reasoning I'm declaring we don't live in a proper democracy? Well, I'd say no, we don't. It has many aspects, but not enough.
The USA (and us by implication, we behave similarly, if not so extreme) is conducting the modern form of what Pilger (and me, for that matter) calls Imperialism. the wielding of economic and political (and cultural) power in a country in which they have no right to interfere. They are distorting what democracy exists in their favour, and for their economic benefit. The current fear is about China and the power it increasingly wields; little mention is made that the USA has held a much greater level of power than China currently has, since the second world war, and with a malign influence almost everywhere they've interfered. Some of the US establishment is open about this: for them Might is Right (just like the playground bully); others hide behind a facade of "democratising" and "progressing" these countries. It isn't new, we did it in Africa and Asia in the 18th and 19th centuries, under the banner of Christianity and progress. what it reality means is the exploitation of others resources for our own benefit. The terms have changed, the motive and outcome has not.
Of course large parts of the USA don't understand this animosity towards them; mainly because the ideology runs so deep in America, the ideology of a specific form of harsh free market capitalism, that to question it is to question your own parentage.
Anyway, i just recommend you watch Pilger's documentary, and you take an opportunity to read about the new forms of democracy being tried in Latin America with Chavez in Venezuela, and Morales in Bolivia. I don't know where they'll lead, or whether they'll prove the genuine emancipation they seem at present. But if the US media opposes them and tells you they are awful, then they're almost certainly doing something good.
i hope you'll take the time to think and read about these things ,and most importantly question who's telling you what and why. Cheers
Monday, 4 August 2008
Contract For Tender: assassin wanted for hit on bookstore manager
as if it isn't bad enough working with Drusilla, and trust me it isn't easy being in the "command" of an extra from Rentaghost, i also have to put up with the Machiavellian machinations of the Poison Dwarf; now the Poison Dwarf took up her position as manager a while before i arrived, but in the first six months i was there, she managed to get rid of four perfectly good, intelligent members of the full time staff, and several others have gone since then. and anytime she takes on anyone with a brain and a spine intact they're are usually gotten rid of as soon as is expedient (i like expedient, its the sort of word she no doubt loves), not overtly but in the more subtle low-key way: be as inflexible, unhelpful and difficult with them til they leave of their own free will. thus the job has become more difficult as time has gone on: malleability and manipulability are her favoured qualities in staff. I'm unsure why I've lasted so long;maybe its cos she has generally been nice enough to me, or maybe its because I'm endearing (ha!). i suppose she may even see some actual value in my work, but the implausible should probably be left out of it.
anyway, what with the increasing staffing cuts (which i suspect she doesn't fight much, or represent the seriousness of our staffing situation to The Big Folks), she has become more of a pain; she's persistently Pollyanna-ish, and fails to take seriously the stress levels of staff, that are rocketing every time we don't get someone replaced. its a silly situation. i suppose when you're on three times the salary everyone else is, it's not worth caring.
she's a deceptive wee beastie, anyway; looks like a cheery sweet little ball of Next dresses and hippy jewellery, but there's some serious steel underneath.
today we had several weekend staff in to help out; with Drusilla in the stockroom, i was fortunate enough to get a weekender for company on the first floor; makes a change these days not to be on my own. was nice, until t'Poison Dwarf, says "i don't think you need ------- up here , Rabid, its not very busy; so i think we'll send her to help out on ground". i nearly blew, honestly wanted to walk out there and then. i pointed out there were five of them downstairs already, but it buttered no parsnips. (don't you just love that "you know if you have issues, you should talk to me"spiel, when they don't listen to a bloody word you say??). when i started at The Place, the staffing was 3 upstairs, and 4 downstairs, plus the manager and the assistant manager. these days, except for the M and the AM, there are only three full time staff, and the rest of us are part-timers on varying hours. The First Floor nominally has 1 full-timer, and three part-timers. but most of us don't coincide hours-wise, and it ends up being one or two of us manning the floor. while everyone else is pulled into ground. its farcical, really. our floor is treated as little better than an afterthought. doesn't help that certain members of the ground floor staff are less than diligent, and more prone to coordination and delegation than actual work.
i really need to think about whether i need the money and the discount enough to warrant all this crap. and it can only get worse in the run-up to Christmas. bastarding company. you know someone's making millions out of it, but it ain't the people that do the work. heigh ho.
like Gloria, i shall survive. with luck , and a following wind.
anyway, what with the increasing staffing cuts (which i suspect she doesn't fight much, or represent the seriousness of our staffing situation to The Big Folks), she has become more of a pain; she's persistently Pollyanna-ish, and fails to take seriously the stress levels of staff, that are rocketing every time we don't get someone replaced. its a silly situation. i suppose when you're on three times the salary everyone else is, it's not worth caring.
she's a deceptive wee beastie, anyway; looks like a cheery sweet little ball of Next dresses and hippy jewellery, but there's some serious steel underneath.
today we had several weekend staff in to help out; with Drusilla in the stockroom, i was fortunate enough to get a weekender for company on the first floor; makes a change these days not to be on my own. was nice, until t'Poison Dwarf, says "i don't think you need ------- up here , Rabid, its not very busy; so i think we'll send her to help out on ground". i nearly blew, honestly wanted to walk out there and then. i pointed out there were five of them downstairs already, but it buttered no parsnips. (don't you just love that "you know if you have issues, you should talk to me"spiel, when they don't listen to a bloody word you say??). when i started at The Place, the staffing was 3 upstairs, and 4 downstairs, plus the manager and the assistant manager. these days, except for the M and the AM, there are only three full time staff, and the rest of us are part-timers on varying hours. The First Floor nominally has 1 full-timer, and three part-timers. but most of us don't coincide hours-wise, and it ends up being one or two of us manning the floor. while everyone else is pulled into ground. its farcical, really. our floor is treated as little better than an afterthought. doesn't help that certain members of the ground floor staff are less than diligent, and more prone to coordination and delegation than actual work.
i really need to think about whether i need the money and the discount enough to warrant all this crap. and it can only get worse in the run-up to Christmas. bastarding company. you know someone's making millions out of it, but it ain't the people that do the work. heigh ho.
like Gloria, i shall survive. with luck , and a following wind.
Sunday, 27 July 2008
a mere bagatelle
this is a random ("its like soo random", well, no. the proper sense) collection of general musing points, herey goes:
- the Glasgow East by-election was a mixture of the funny and disturbing: Labour losing a solid heartland seat is not such a surprise, as its being so late to come. Labour have abandoned almost every core principle, even the least controversial ones, and given a contest in Scotland where there is another option that is, these days, looking more to the left of Labour (SNP), its not a big shocker. it'll be interesting to see if it occurs in an English constituency, where the alternative is the Tories or Lib Dems, both of whom are concentrated on the centre right now. The truth is that Labour have introduced so many policies that would've been expected of the Tories, they may have lost the heartlands forever. this could be the beginning of the end for the party (or it could be a rebirth. my money is on the former. especially, as the post-defeat analysis has been about them not being right-wing enough (how,exactly? a lack of kinky sex,and jackboots???), or problems with the leadership. but what the defeat has shown is that the party cannot go chasing as far into Thatcherism as it likes without losing the party base. they banked on always being able to rely on them on the basis of fear of the Tories. but when the Tories are indistinguishable from them, and they seem to have no regard for civil liberties, human rights, and egalitarianism(supposedly their core values), and are prepared to increase tax on the poor, but not the rich, then there is no choice. to use, an oft-quoted Orwell example, no-one can distinguish the pigs from the men anymore. it took forty years odd, and a solid, powerful, and increasingly radical trade unionist movement to put Labour into government, it may prove twice as difficult to win back the progressives, and radicals in this country. i can't say I'm sure they'll even try.
- on a connected note, i almost feel sorry for Gordon Brown. he's intellectually superior to Blair, that much is always obvious. Brown could have ideas, Blair needed to hire people for it. but he's become a Blair-mould prime minister (a mould he does not, and could never, fit), and finds himself being swayed backward and forward in the wind by the media, the public and his party. he can't win, if he doesn't change, he's called washed-up and backward, if he asserts a more classical Labourist position he's accused of U-turning. the poor man is scared, and he didn't/doesn't realise that what made him so popular in that first few months was his solidness, his honesty, and the fact he wouldn't be the straw man like Blair. regardless of whether i agreed with him (mainly i don't) i expected him to hold to his position and beliefs unless genuinely convinced. he hasn't, and unlike Blair, he lies very poorly. he's a symptom of all the flaws of the last decade: a government in debt to an ideology, Thatcherism, it should've opposed, and in fear of the media and public to such an extent it could never cling to any values. The difference between the 1945 government (and even the 1960's Labour government) is indicative: everything the Conservatives did from then on, was being pulled by Labour's values, and thinking; since the 1980's everything, including New Labour, has been a direct outgrowth of Thatcher's values. The Tories, along with their media allies, make the agenda. sad. very sad.
- the furore over Max Mosley's victory in the 'Nazi sadomasochism sex' privacy case has been just as "funny" (for want of a better word). the News of the World is screaming its usual "restricting the freedom of the press" line. but what right do they have to interfere in people's private lives? i can imagine how little they'd have to say about Mosley if he was involved in shady business practices, people in glass houses etc, so they give us the spurious news of an F1 big-wig's less orthodox sex life. utter crap. none of their business or ours. these things are only of interest if the party involved is making some claim to moral/sexual normality ( for example the exposure of Tory ministers personal lives when they were standing on a narrow notion of "Family Values"). there is no incursion into press freedom here, other than to say that if the press are to intrude into people's personal lives, they have to justify in terms of wider public need to know. what's most irritating was the sanctimonious balls of seeing the paper that proudly present page three girls, taking the moral high-ground on someone else's sex life.it wasn't the sadomasochism or even the spurious Nazi-link we should be offended by, it was the NotW use of the word "sick" in it's headline. i had rather hoped were past the stage where ANY consensual sexual act was considered sick. are we all so certain of our own proclivities, and likings that we'll condemn others for theirs? god, i hope not. and if the NotW wants to get het up about such things maybe it should consider the extent to which its role as page 3 purveyors plays in the grooming of girls to enter the sex trade.
- on a more personal note, when I'm hitting a periodic downturn (as Gordon would probably phrase it), i try to remember Christmas 2002. now i wouldn't say Christmas 2002 was the worst time in my life, but it had an outstandingly bad convergence of BAD SHIT going on. I'd left uni, and after six months dispiriting unemployment, i was entering into 18 months doubly dispiriting employment. the sort of low level job, with no mental involvement we all end up taking sometimes for purely cash reasons. furthermore, I'd managed to shatter two of my closer friendships (one irreparably, and the other after some time, salvageably). the irreparable one was one i still miss, as they'd been a very close friend who'd helped me through my inaugural and nasty bout of depression. none of this was helped by the fact other friendships were suffering from impermanent and very permanent separations: all my uni friends (with one exception, who I'd only just started to know properly) had gone back to their respective home towns, or new home towns; my school friends had gradually fallen away to the point where they remain (i only have one, who i see rarely, that i consider a proper mate); and a couple of other friends had gone away to their first year at uni too. i had at one point, probably one person was a friend, and actually talking to me. the two friends I'd probably count my closest had yet to become proper friends at all, I'd hardly spoken to them. it was NOT a good Christmas. how i managed to survive it intact, without even medication (which I'd come off six months earlier) or much in the way of career-based engagement, i do not know. i had, like all fools, A Plan; a plan that took me 4 years longer than expected, but a plan all the same. and if i am not a well-regarded novelist at 27, then i am a fairly well-regarded and liked, if over-opinionated, fool at 27, who has some idea where he wants to go. hallelujah for that.
a small secular blessing and a furtive fumble to you all :)
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Chavs
watching the news this morning, who should i see but Guardian writer Zoe Williams, who i usually agree with, and find generally lovely, suggesting the term chav should be avoided as a term of class abuse. now obviously as someone who hates Chavs, but considers themselves on the left politically, i was a bit vexed. i read Zoe's article on the website (link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/16/thinktanks?commentpage=5&commentposted=1), and responded as follows (though i've corrected the odd typo that evaded my censor):
Whilst there is undoubtedly some class prejudice in the term Chav, certainly among myself and my friends it's use is more culturally specific than that. Which would be my argument for it being a suitable term of abuse, if not a nice one (but hey, we're not gonna pretend to be completely without annoyances, are we?). i also see a limited number of middle-class chavs, and most working-class people aren't chavs at all. The term amongst people i know is used for those who are roughly as follows: aggressive; tasteless (culturally, and sartorially; which isn't so much a poverty issue, as most of the clothes worn by them are as expensive as our own); contemptuous of manners, learning, and anything involving bookishness. The Chav is nearer a subculture like the mods or rockers, than a class-based term of abuse. Certainly, to view them as passive, poor, victims is inaccurate; part of the attack is based on them being loud, obnoxious, and unavoidable. Furthermore their attitudes are often tending toward the racist, and homophobic; in this they have more in common with the skinheads of the eighties. Undoubtedly our society is to blame for them, but i wouldn't be too quick to feel sorry for people who're more likely to start a fight from a small offence (ie bumping into them, or looking near them). maybe a nicer society will stop producing people who shout abuse at me for merely reading a book.
Whilst there is undoubtedly some class prejudice in the term Chav, certainly among myself and my friends it's use is more culturally specific than that. Which would be my argument for it being a suitable term of abuse, if not a nice one (but hey, we're not gonna pretend to be completely without annoyances, are we?). i also see a limited number of middle-class chavs, and most working-class people aren't chavs at all. The term amongst people i know is used for those who are roughly as follows: aggressive; tasteless (culturally, and sartorially; which isn't so much a poverty issue, as most of the clothes worn by them are as expensive as our own); contemptuous of manners, learning, and anything involving bookishness. The Chav is nearer a subculture like the mods or rockers, than a class-based term of abuse. Certainly, to view them as passive, poor, victims is inaccurate; part of the attack is based on them being loud, obnoxious, and unavoidable. Furthermore their attitudes are often tending toward the racist, and homophobic; in this they have more in common with the skinheads of the eighties. Undoubtedly our society is to blame for them, but i wouldn't be too quick to feel sorry for people who're more likely to start a fight from a small offence (ie bumping into them, or looking near them). maybe a nicer society will stop producing people who shout abuse at me for merely reading a book.
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
it always rains on Sunday; well, actually not just Sunday....
so, I've been bad and not blogged for a while. its nothing personal, i just thought things were getting a bit serious between us, and i didn't want to over-commit. typical male really.
I've actually been decorating in much of my spare time anyway. and Jeez, it's hard! especially fucking wallpapering. another thing added to the "wifely qualities desired" list (it now reads: car and driving license, ability to engage with people better than i can, some cooking skills, must never require me to wallpaper so much as a foot). but the painting's alright, and kinda relaxing in a Karate Kid way (paint fence!!). saw that t'other day. good film. made me feel 6 again. back when straightforward cowardice wasn't the only option, and a girl like Elisabeth Shue was a dim plausibility. and the moving around of furniture has revealed a nicer layout which maximises space.a small gain, but a gain all the same. of course, redecorating also allows me time to listen to whatever Cd's are grabbing my handle: Stereolab (who are a JOY on a sunny day), Sparks, and Steely Dan. The last two are recent acquisitions, and whilst i expected to like Sparks, i wasn't expecting how much. i bought Kimono My House, and its absolutely brilliant. loony tunes pop that sounds as mad now as it must have done in 1973. the very new liking for Steely Dan could be age catching up with me, because previously they seemed a perfect example of "critically adored band i will never get", but once you get past the shiny west coast 70's sheen, they are really clever, melodically and lyrically. and like Stereolab, perfect for hot summer days. the new Young Knives album is still getting heavy play too: reminding me why i miss blur and XTC not releasing anything.
work, as ever, is daft affair. my employer's central hive mind seems to have gone doolally long ago; our understaffing continues, despite its obviousness to all. i don't think we're far off the sellers getting together and taking it up with the manager or even the area manager. the ever stroppy Drusilla won't ask for help to the manager, and she in turn won't ask for help from the regional and area managers. when the visits came, all problems were concealed, and my manager bounced about pleased as punch that we'd got such a good report, despite it being a paper over the cracks job. they can claim we haven't the budget for more staff, but its crap, and we need staff. everyone's getting increasingly stressed, and fed-up, and the new selling scheme simply can't be executed because we aren't even on top of the basics.it will end with people getting ill or quitting, if something isn't done soon.Furthermore as some staff are leaving and not being replaced, then what exactly is happening with that money?? 4 shopfloor staff manning a two floor shop on a half term Friday is just ridiculous. what with The Aardvark leaving soon, for the great Metropolis, its all going a bit Eartha Kitt. we lurch from crisis to crisis. and i am only surviving by the fact i shan't be working too many hours after the course starts in September. mind you, my need for extra hours is not pleasant; i feel like the manager has me by the danglers. Mind you, not sure i could care anymore. to cap it all off, the uniforms are in, and ugly and ridiculous they are. they make us look more untidy than we did in our own clothes. and I'm already finding customers are looking slightly down at us. the uniform connotes idiocy, submission, dronery. we;re no longer people to them, merely servants. i despair of it all.
i am currently reading a history of Early Modern Europe; its a fascinating read, and full of real characters: Frederick The Great, Frederick William II, Catherine the Great, Voltaire, Robespierre. not to mention the typical succession of venal popes. the reasons for the coming together of countries are interesting. Napoleon certainly can take some responsibility for Italy as a united state, after his conquering brings it under one power for the first time in a long time. the book is by Tim Blanning, and I'd highly recommend it.
on the political front, the Tories are throwing out offensive policies by the day, as if concerned they might be becoming too electable; first, the work training camps for the under-21's (Workhouses are sooo this season). the fact community service is what we give to Minor criminals, and the Tories want to extend it to the unemployed only shows you that, for them, unemployment and criminality are roughly equivalent. Then i read one of their ministers suggesting the MLA was unnecessary, and that libraries might be something that could be run by private firms.wankers. Michael Gove has been bashing away at "progressive Child-centred learning" too; so, as usual its the sixties fault. utter crap. the education problems really started in the 70's and 80's with cuts in funding, the prescriptive weaknesses of the National Curriculum, and the increase in testing. the government have further added to these problems, by making education more instrumentalist and job-focused. its not child-centred learning that's dangerous, its employer-centred learning. "we'll teach you the basic skills you need to do a crap service industry job, and fuck the the genuine learning". skills centred learning is the responsibility of the employer not the schools; their job is to enrich children's knowledge, and equip them to discern, discriminate, reason, and argue. i note too the Tories have said nothing against the godawful city academies scheme; almost certainly because they're rubbing their hands in glee at Labour introducing a policy they'd have loved to have got away with.its all disappointment on that front. but with the Tories looking scary again, the awful possibility i might be compelled to vote for a Labour government that's a disgrace to the name rears its head again. i can't, i won't. a pox on both of you.
how are you? is the cream working?
avoid managers, Tories, and wallpaper forever.
ta ta.
I've actually been decorating in much of my spare time anyway. and Jeez, it's hard! especially fucking wallpapering. another thing added to the "wifely qualities desired" list (it now reads: car and driving license, ability to engage with people better than i can, some cooking skills, must never require me to wallpaper so much as a foot). but the painting's alright, and kinda relaxing in a Karate Kid way (paint fence!!). saw that t'other day. good film. made me feel 6 again. back when straightforward cowardice wasn't the only option, and a girl like Elisabeth Shue was a dim plausibility. and the moving around of furniture has revealed a nicer layout which maximises space.a small gain, but a gain all the same. of course, redecorating also allows me time to listen to whatever Cd's are grabbing my handle: Stereolab (who are a JOY on a sunny day), Sparks, and Steely Dan. The last two are recent acquisitions, and whilst i expected to like Sparks, i wasn't expecting how much. i bought Kimono My House, and its absolutely brilliant. loony tunes pop that sounds as mad now as it must have done in 1973. the very new liking for Steely Dan could be age catching up with me, because previously they seemed a perfect example of "critically adored band i will never get", but once you get past the shiny west coast 70's sheen, they are really clever, melodically and lyrically. and like Stereolab, perfect for hot summer days. the new Young Knives album is still getting heavy play too: reminding me why i miss blur and XTC not releasing anything.
work, as ever, is daft affair. my employer's central hive mind seems to have gone doolally long ago; our understaffing continues, despite its obviousness to all. i don't think we're far off the sellers getting together and taking it up with the manager or even the area manager. the ever stroppy Drusilla won't ask for help to the manager, and she in turn won't ask for help from the regional and area managers. when the visits came, all problems were concealed, and my manager bounced about pleased as punch that we'd got such a good report, despite it being a paper over the cracks job. they can claim we haven't the budget for more staff, but its crap, and we need staff. everyone's getting increasingly stressed, and fed-up, and the new selling scheme simply can't be executed because we aren't even on top of the basics.it will end with people getting ill or quitting, if something isn't done soon.Furthermore as some staff are leaving and not being replaced, then what exactly is happening with that money?? 4 shopfloor staff manning a two floor shop on a half term Friday is just ridiculous. what with The Aardvark leaving soon, for the great Metropolis, its all going a bit Eartha Kitt. we lurch from crisis to crisis. and i am only surviving by the fact i shan't be working too many hours after the course starts in September. mind you, my need for extra hours is not pleasant; i feel like the manager has me by the danglers. Mind you, not sure i could care anymore. to cap it all off, the uniforms are in, and ugly and ridiculous they are. they make us look more untidy than we did in our own clothes. and I'm already finding customers are looking slightly down at us. the uniform connotes idiocy, submission, dronery. we;re no longer people to them, merely servants. i despair of it all.
i am currently reading a history of Early Modern Europe; its a fascinating read, and full of real characters: Frederick The Great, Frederick William II, Catherine the Great, Voltaire, Robespierre. not to mention the typical succession of venal popes. the reasons for the coming together of countries are interesting. Napoleon certainly can take some responsibility for Italy as a united state, after his conquering brings it under one power for the first time in a long time. the book is by Tim Blanning, and I'd highly recommend it.
on the political front, the Tories are throwing out offensive policies by the day, as if concerned they might be becoming too electable; first, the work training camps for the under-21's (Workhouses are sooo this season). the fact community service is what we give to Minor criminals, and the Tories want to extend it to the unemployed only shows you that, for them, unemployment and criminality are roughly equivalent. Then i read one of their ministers suggesting the MLA was unnecessary, and that libraries might be something that could be run by private firms.wankers. Michael Gove has been bashing away at "progressive Child-centred learning" too; so, as usual its the sixties fault. utter crap. the education problems really started in the 70's and 80's with cuts in funding, the prescriptive weaknesses of the National Curriculum, and the increase in testing. the government have further added to these problems, by making education more instrumentalist and job-focused. its not child-centred learning that's dangerous, its employer-centred learning. "we'll teach you the basic skills you need to do a crap service industry job, and fuck the the genuine learning". skills centred learning is the responsibility of the employer not the schools; their job is to enrich children's knowledge, and equip them to discern, discriminate, reason, and argue. i note too the Tories have said nothing against the godawful city academies scheme; almost certainly because they're rubbing their hands in glee at Labour introducing a policy they'd have loved to have got away with.its all disappointment on that front. but with the Tories looking scary again, the awful possibility i might be compelled to vote for a Labour government that's a disgrace to the name rears its head again. i can't, i won't. a pox on both of you.
how are you? is the cream working?
avoid managers, Tories, and wallpaper forever.
ta ta.
Thursday, 24 April 2008
let Joy be unconfined!
well, its been a long time. and don't think i haven't been thinking about you all. but things a have been pressing upon me; and my inclination to tell has been somewhat low. but now i can say.
firstly the interview went spiffingly well, and i seemed to have the needed effect, and they offered me informally a place on the course. hooray! medical concerns proved unfounded after a simple test. double hooray! i am happy and somewhat lacking in things to say. had a lovely meal out today, purchased some nice CDs (Chapterhouse, PJ Harvey, Young Knives, and T'Kills).
the interview went nicely, anyway, and i was pretty elated afterwards. i seemed to hit the right buttons, without trying, by just mentioning my interests. had a nice a chat about Henry James (which versions are better; i checked after and I'm reading the New York versh, the thicker prosed revision from later on), what critics i liked. why i did my dissertation on the subject i did. so, aceness in a bag.
the eye test, after waiting rather longer than i expected and feeling like i was in Death's waiting-room, went in an exemplary fashion too. nothing wrong other than a side-effect of my drugs, so nowt to worry about. having said that, the test to check pressure was one of the more irritating things I've ever had done. not painful, just irritating and tricky. like certain dental practices, its something the body's natural responses do not seem to want to let them do, not without discomfort.
the previous week's Appraisal-type thingy went amusingly; effectively i was told to shut up. or keep my complaints or concerns to myself and my manager. like everyone else isn't pissed off! it's pretty obvious anyway, the Boss (not Springsteen, alas) does not want me helpfully pointing out to colleagues the ways in which are exploited and treated badly, in meetings. Especially as she cannot really answer these questions adequately. so, when you can't beat the criticism, its easier to shut it up. hey ho. it happens. I'm quite amused by it really. but in future, i shall avoid getting too involved. if there is no respect for your opinion as a worker, then they can't expect you to care about your job too much. their loss. of course, the rest of the meeting was mixed with the sort of flattery that is supposed to pacify me, and stroke my poor little ego, after such robust criticism.oh, the lunacies of management. really does erode humanity and respect.
as does the government continually. the getting rid of the 10% tax band is another nail in the coffin of The Labour Party, which has now decided it actually prefers taking money off the poor than the wealthy. I'd always hoped for a return to redistribution of wealth.the government have somewhat misinterpreted the spirit of the phrase.mind you, you can't be too surprised. when i mentioned to someone the other day that I'd have a 70% rate on earnings over £200,000, i was met with the usual disbelief, and the retort that people who earn more money work harder for it. lord, why do people still believe that balls. the further you go up any greasy pole, the less actual work people do (often they spend most of their time telling other people what work to do). and my argument that those who get the most out of society are obligated to put more back into it, held little appeal to her either. oh well. such is Britain 2008. all self-interest, no socialist spirit.
but frankly at the moment i am in such a positive mood, i can put aside political annoyances, and just think "thank fuck! I'm on my way!"
Cheerybye
firstly the interview went spiffingly well, and i seemed to have the needed effect, and they offered me informally a place on the course. hooray! medical concerns proved unfounded after a simple test. double hooray! i am happy and somewhat lacking in things to say. had a lovely meal out today, purchased some nice CDs (Chapterhouse, PJ Harvey, Young Knives, and T'Kills).
the interview went nicely, anyway, and i was pretty elated afterwards. i seemed to hit the right buttons, without trying, by just mentioning my interests. had a nice a chat about Henry James (which versions are better; i checked after and I'm reading the New York versh, the thicker prosed revision from later on), what critics i liked. why i did my dissertation on the subject i did. so, aceness in a bag.
the eye test, after waiting rather longer than i expected and feeling like i was in Death's waiting-room, went in an exemplary fashion too. nothing wrong other than a side-effect of my drugs, so nowt to worry about. having said that, the test to check pressure was one of the more irritating things I've ever had done. not painful, just irritating and tricky. like certain dental practices, its something the body's natural responses do not seem to want to let them do, not without discomfort.
the previous week's Appraisal-type thingy went amusingly; effectively i was told to shut up. or keep my complaints or concerns to myself and my manager. like everyone else isn't pissed off! it's pretty obvious anyway, the Boss (not Springsteen, alas) does not want me helpfully pointing out to colleagues the ways in which are exploited and treated badly, in meetings. Especially as she cannot really answer these questions adequately. so, when you can't beat the criticism, its easier to shut it up. hey ho. it happens. I'm quite amused by it really. but in future, i shall avoid getting too involved. if there is no respect for your opinion as a worker, then they can't expect you to care about your job too much. their loss. of course, the rest of the meeting was mixed with the sort of flattery that is supposed to pacify me, and stroke my poor little ego, after such robust criticism.oh, the lunacies of management. really does erode humanity and respect.
as does the government continually. the getting rid of the 10% tax band is another nail in the coffin of The Labour Party, which has now decided it actually prefers taking money off the poor than the wealthy. I'd always hoped for a return to redistribution of wealth.the government have somewhat misinterpreted the spirit of the phrase.mind you, you can't be too surprised. when i mentioned to someone the other day that I'd have a 70% rate on earnings over £200,000, i was met with the usual disbelief, and the retort that people who earn more money work harder for it. lord, why do people still believe that balls. the further you go up any greasy pole, the less actual work people do (often they spend most of their time telling other people what work to do). and my argument that those who get the most out of society are obligated to put more back into it, held little appeal to her either. oh well. such is Britain 2008. all self-interest, no socialist spirit.
but frankly at the moment i am in such a positive mood, i can put aside political annoyances, and just think "thank fuck! I'm on my way!"
Cheerybye
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
lies, damn lies and statistics
well, the new training sessions trundle on, with the less than earth shattering news that nothing new is really being told to us. however many branch managers, and other managers (regional or otherwise) hole up in a hotel or whatever for a day or two, and discuss (or are told, I'm unsure which)the interesting ways in which we are going to improve customer service,thus making customer cheerful gaily book-buying dreamkittens, and in turn making The Company lots of lovely money. good plan, eh?
well, then you see what they come back with. firstly the fact that people like us to be polite, approachable and friendly. this really hadn't occurred to me whilst hacking the heads off small children within plain view of them, and scowling at all moments; in fact i had rather assumed that Bookshop was a term, like Massage parlour, that is used euphemistically for a place where one goes to be verbally assaulted, hidden from, and occasionally beaten with a copy of Brewer's Mythology. you know, the sort of place Conservative MPs like to relieve themselves of their salaries in.
next, we discovered that sometimes people SAY things that mean one thing, whilst their body language.facial expression MEANS something completely different. again, a new one on me. i had presumed the clientele were all flab-fisted versions of Kryten from Red Dwarf, completely unable to be anything less open sincere darlings. which was why, i assumed that their faces were sooo downturned and slack because they are locals and therefore not always of the best upbringing, and prone to debilitating bouts of what Doctors diagnose as Slumpyface ( a congenital weakening of the facial muscles leaving one with the appearance of a badly worked-over corpse in a strop).
so, we are all to concentrate hard on making ourselves approachable and friendly. i am determined to do this, and shall spend my whole morning (instead of stickering books, shelving books, answering the phone, sorting displays and tidying sections) stroking a beautiful ginger longhaired cat called Algernon and occasionally telling him ribald tales which will make him snigger in a catlike way. this will leave me feeling so warm and loved, that i shal greet every customer with an affectionate pat on their head, and offer them to come to mine for a sherry and a Brandy Snap stuffed with lashings of cream. this, i feel, will instil a true bonding and kinship betwixt me and Daz, Shaz, and Mrs Tweedy-Volvovulva.
Later in my daily workings my manager comes up and cheerfully says:
"Thankyou for your input into today's session, Rabid, there were some really productive points you made..... this week" .the implication, though more of a battering round the chops with a large bottlenose dolphin, being that i was less than helpful in last weeks session. Now in last week's session we were discussing the marvels of the Loyalty card, and how it's possessors spent on average a good 30% more every visit. now, Temerity being in fact my middle names, i merely pointed out that this figure should be treated sceptically. Manager tries to allay my scepticism (ha, as if ANYONE could) by repeating the fact in a more precise and convinced way (a tone that was hissing at me "these marvellous facts cometh from Our Great Overlords; THEY SHALL NOT BE DOUBTED!"). why is it people expect you to believe something more on second telling? i made the point (a cogent one, i thought) that this did not establish that the loyalty card made people spend more, merely that those who had them did spend more, and i suggested a more likely reason for this was that people who spent more were more likely to take up the loyalty card offer. the fact couldn't establish cause and effect. i also had issues with not knowing how the information was obtained(the criteria of the survey, etc), and more importantly was very sceptical as to how we could obtain any accurate info on non-loyalty card customers (esp. those who spent cash.)
alright, so i must admit a deep-seated distrust of people in marketing/strategy/HR departments of business. all those splendid folk who come up with these schemes. they are basically Management consultants on permanent contract. i have no idea why i should trust their facts, or ideas, or really whether they are competent. fact is, most of those people I've met in these roles are a bit simple, and seem to treat their "discoveries" (obvious things like body language, behavioural patterns,etc) like they are outrageous works of genius. they aren't. And i certainly don't trust them to evaluate their own proposals' success. would you trust an inquiry into a company run by that company in pretty much secret? didn't think so. furthermore, as any scientist or social scientist will tell you, you can skew any investigation or research to support what you propose if you frame its terms properly. That's what drugs companies do,and it is the reason why within a week you'll hear that Bread is bad for you from one group of scientists, and that it is good for you from another.
but i don't think my scepticism was particularly unwarranted in this instance. the point was valid, as was my other point about how basic civil principles(politeness, helpfulness, using knowledge) are passed off as a grand new science that Our Overlords have discovered. There's a brilliant episode of Blackadder where they propose to "sail round the Cape of Good Hope"; the real plan being to sail to France, spend a few weeks or months there, come back tanned and pick up the money and glory. you can't help feeling these types do something similar. Only, this is the really disturbing thing, they genuinely think their ideas are new, and clever,and scientific. (everything has to be scientific in business. it's the economic myth of The Economy, a vast complex mechanism that gives everyone what they want: Economics and business as virtual laws of physics backed up by maths, and rigorous science. people are no longer people, erratic, whimsical, they are to be studied and measured like rats. you can't tell an economist that people don't have to behave the way they predict, they will not have it. And if enough people break their rules, they merely start doing studies to measure our unpredictability, so that that can be noted and predicted. so if we don't do A, we'll do B or even C; but we obviously won't do D,E,F...)
anyway...... *breathes out* all in all it's been an aggravating couple of days at work; the severe strain of Drusilla accusing me of being rude to weekend staff, after i put a in the diary on silly mis-shelved items, has just about worn off. i was torn between boiling rage and doubled-up laughter (probably my usual state now i think of it....).darn someone should give that fucking pot a mirror before he starts calling the kettle black. but such is Drusilla since she was given power; some folk carry on being nice normal human beings, others want to march into the Sudetenland instantly. Dru is definitely the latter, and i really will not take much more of it. Her
idiocy will not protect her, a swift "fuck off" is possible if I'm pushed.
Her usage of the phrase "it's all good" is enough to make me Gothricidal. I HATE that phrase. it is NOT all good. i am not going to assume yr naive carefree "anything goes!" attitude into my life. things are not All Good. far fucking from it.the phrase just reeks of Capitalist Populism trading on relativism. wanna coffee? "its all good" want a book with that? "its all good" wanna to put Dido on the stereo? "its all good" wanna kill six people before turning the gun on yrself? "IT'S ALL GOOD" bah, fucking humbug. some things are good, some are not. most of the things Drusilla does are certainly bloody not. speak some sodding truth you gormless girl.
now, i go before i implode.
love to you all, hope auntie Beryl's thrush has cleared up!
icture at the top is Morning Sun by Edward Hopper
Sunday, 23 March 2008
Head Above The Parapet
so, here's today's ishoooo, one that rarely leaves our radar (such are the media), immigration.
now, anyone who writes anything about immigration these days is flagged up as racist, lily-livered liberal, provocative or whatever. it's the worlds most controversial subject. it probably shouldn't be; but because it is, it means it's a tricky subject. no-one seems short of opinions on it. worse thing is, it's almost impossible to have sensible debate about it: half those with something to say are thinly veiled racists, the rest are gonna get accusations of it, or accusations of being ridiculously PC.
It's a subject those on the Left often avoid, or adopt silly positions on, merely to avoid the R-word.As someone who firmly places themselves on the Left, but is sympathetic to the centre too, I'm probably running into a minefield. best really to enumerate my issues with immigration, and deal with them one by one:
1) why do people want to come here?- i have a concern that large numbers of people now are coming to this country for economic reasons, regardless of how much they subscribe to the underlying values of the country. For instance, it is no good preaching multiculturalism (which is a good thing, and perfectly suited to the pluralism and democracy of this country), if some of the individuals we in let are of a vaguely racist and xenophobic bent, and determined to preach their prejudices against other minorities in this country. the number of instances of racism I've heard from other immigrant groups: Caribbean disliking African, one Eastern European disliking another, Muslims hating Jews, and the one that always amuses me, those Oirish who seem to dislike most recent immigrant groups. the lunacy of this is obvious. most of us are immigrants at some stage. the only grounds we can disagree on are beliefs, not national origin or skin colour. The country Britain is (or perhaps should be) is founded on various general principles: democracy, anti-terrorism, the legal system (whatever its flaws, which need addressing), freedom of speech and thought, and a respect for civil liberties based largely on Mill's utilitarianism. no individual has primacy under law (or should do). unluckily we can't do too much about those who are naturalised and don't subscribe to these views, we can only deal with them as and when they break the law, and hope they go off somewhere else. we can, though, try to prevent people coming to this country with views that don't agree with this tolerance. it's that old chestnut, we should tolerate anything but intolerance. sounds daft, but its a good ethos (even if a little circular). so, we do not need people of extreme religious viewpoints, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim or otherwise. the recent growth of real religious intolerance, ie religious groups demanding privilege or protection when criticised, is profoundly disturbing. Sometime in the middle of the last century we managed to hit a decent settlement in this country whereby people had religious freedom to worship however they choose, provided their practise does not infringe on another individual's freedom, or go against the law. the obvious example would be something like forced marriage, or any restriction of female rights within some religions. It has to be consensual. the second part of this settlement,the one that has increasing attacks upon it from Christians and Muslims of certain types, is that your religion is a personal belief. so, like your political, economic, and social views, it is open to all criticism. Racism/xenophobia is wrong,it is prejudice based on incidental factors: coulour, where you are from. a prejudice against a religious or political group is perfectly reasonable. unfortunately, the former often goes under the guise of the latter, thus we have flagrant sillinesses like the incitement to religious hatred bill.
if people are to come to this country, we need more than mere commitment to an improved way of life, in material terms. this country should be a haven for people who subscribe to our basic freedoms.we have enough nasty racist, sexist homophobes to deal with already.
2) we have serious problems with what we do with people coming here- we need to make a serious decision whether we are prepared to put more money into helping immigrants into our way of life. for my part, i think we could afford to do a lot more. but if the electorate, continues to feel as it does, then maybe a limit on immigration is necessary just to make sure the immigrants we do accept get the proper help they need. what help? well, we need to sort the language issue for starters: having a friend who works in TESOL i get a fairly clear idea how underfunded and haphazard the teaching of English is to newcomers. not enough teachers, not enough equipment,not enough organisation.you wouldn't send children into society incapable of proper communication, we certainly shouldn't do it to adults. To pretend we don't have enough money to do this is daft. As is the view that we don't have enough jobs or houses for them. The council house stocks need building up again; Mrs T's fab idea of selling off a national resource has left us in trouble, and with house prices and debt increasing, it will soon become as clear as it once was that to expect everyone to buy their own house is a lunacy. We also need to address the integration issue. to have closed ghettos of immigrants with little English, or understanding of the culture. we need to spread the immigration throughout the country, and we need more than the citizenship test in terms of education. The citizenship test is useful but not really helpful in the long term; anymore than getting a child to cram for one exam, and then expecting them to be Maths geniuses.we forget our children have 11/12 years of education, home instruction and example to help them into society. And it is all too clear what happens when children's education and upbringing have been lacking. The same applies with immigration, they aren't children but they haven't had the constant exposure to the culture that makes a person comfortable within it. mind you, who has?!
3) we need to be extremely careful who we take from where- at present our immigration system
seems in some instances to see itself as a means of stealing the cream from other countries. Doctors, Nurses, businessmen,etc. we are not doing those countries any favours by taking these people from them,not to mention the anger we incur from Britain's current residents.we should be offering more opportunity to people in this country to become Doctors, lawyers, whatever. Not out of misguided notions of "native" preference, but merely because it is not good for society to have these people thrown into low-level employment. we need better education to do this (which is a whole different subject).
Furthermore, to take these people from their country when their country could do with them politically, is dangerous for its stability. if we drain, for instance, Arab or middle eastern states of their more moderate engaged sections, then we run the risk of more radical extremes controlling them. not good at all.
realistically, we need to be taking more on the basis of asylum, than economic migration. Or at least sharply delineating the two.Asylum seekers have a threat to their lives. Their need is simply greater.
anyway it isn't beneficial to use other countries to plug our skills/job gaps. they need these people, and we need to help more people here already to greater achievement.
i am all said out now, frankly. so, comment and maybe I'll reply and say more in the next few days. happy egg-snaffling!
now, anyone who writes anything about immigration these days is flagged up as racist, lily-livered liberal, provocative or whatever. it's the worlds most controversial subject. it probably shouldn't be; but because it is, it means it's a tricky subject. no-one seems short of opinions on it. worse thing is, it's almost impossible to have sensible debate about it: half those with something to say are thinly veiled racists, the rest are gonna get accusations of it, or accusations of being ridiculously PC.
It's a subject those on the Left often avoid, or adopt silly positions on, merely to avoid the R-word.As someone who firmly places themselves on the Left, but is sympathetic to the centre too, I'm probably running into a minefield. best really to enumerate my issues with immigration, and deal with them one by one:
1) why do people want to come here?- i have a concern that large numbers of people now are coming to this country for economic reasons, regardless of how much they subscribe to the underlying values of the country. For instance, it is no good preaching multiculturalism (which is a good thing, and perfectly suited to the pluralism and democracy of this country), if some of the individuals we in let are of a vaguely racist and xenophobic bent, and determined to preach their prejudices against other minorities in this country. the number of instances of racism I've heard from other immigrant groups: Caribbean disliking African, one Eastern European disliking another, Muslims hating Jews, and the one that always amuses me, those Oirish who seem to dislike most recent immigrant groups. the lunacy of this is obvious. most of us are immigrants at some stage. the only grounds we can disagree on are beliefs, not national origin or skin colour. The country Britain is (or perhaps should be) is founded on various general principles: democracy, anti-terrorism, the legal system (whatever its flaws, which need addressing), freedom of speech and thought, and a respect for civil liberties based largely on Mill's utilitarianism. no individual has primacy under law (or should do). unluckily we can't do too much about those who are naturalised and don't subscribe to these views, we can only deal with them as and when they break the law, and hope they go off somewhere else. we can, though, try to prevent people coming to this country with views that don't agree with this tolerance. it's that old chestnut, we should tolerate anything but intolerance. sounds daft, but its a good ethos (even if a little circular). so, we do not need people of extreme religious viewpoints, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim or otherwise. the recent growth of real religious intolerance, ie religious groups demanding privilege or protection when criticised, is profoundly disturbing. Sometime in the middle of the last century we managed to hit a decent settlement in this country whereby people had religious freedom to worship however they choose, provided their practise does not infringe on another individual's freedom, or go against the law. the obvious example would be something like forced marriage, or any restriction of female rights within some religions. It has to be consensual. the second part of this settlement,the one that has increasing attacks upon it from Christians and Muslims of certain types, is that your religion is a personal belief. so, like your political, economic, and social views, it is open to all criticism. Racism/xenophobia is wrong,it is prejudice based on incidental factors: coulour, where you are from. a prejudice against a religious or political group is perfectly reasonable. unfortunately, the former often goes under the guise of the latter, thus we have flagrant sillinesses like the incitement to religious hatred bill.
if people are to come to this country, we need more than mere commitment to an improved way of life, in material terms. this country should be a haven for people who subscribe to our basic freedoms.we have enough nasty racist, sexist homophobes to deal with already.
2) we have serious problems with what we do with people coming here- we need to make a serious decision whether we are prepared to put more money into helping immigrants into our way of life. for my part, i think we could afford to do a lot more. but if the electorate, continues to feel as it does, then maybe a limit on immigration is necessary just to make sure the immigrants we do accept get the proper help they need. what help? well, we need to sort the language issue for starters: having a friend who works in TESOL i get a fairly clear idea how underfunded and haphazard the teaching of English is to newcomers. not enough teachers, not enough equipment,not enough organisation.you wouldn't send children into society incapable of proper communication, we certainly shouldn't do it to adults. To pretend we don't have enough money to do this is daft. As is the view that we don't have enough jobs or houses for them. The council house stocks need building up again; Mrs T's fab idea of selling off a national resource has left us in trouble, and with house prices and debt increasing, it will soon become as clear as it once was that to expect everyone to buy their own house is a lunacy. We also need to address the integration issue. to have closed ghettos of immigrants with little English, or understanding of the culture. we need to spread the immigration throughout the country, and we need more than the citizenship test in terms of education. The citizenship test is useful but not really helpful in the long term; anymore than getting a child to cram for one exam, and then expecting them to be Maths geniuses.we forget our children have 11/12 years of education, home instruction and example to help them into society. And it is all too clear what happens when children's education and upbringing have been lacking. The same applies with immigration, they aren't children but they haven't had the constant exposure to the culture that makes a person comfortable within it. mind you, who has?!
3) we need to be extremely careful who we take from where- at present our immigration system
seems in some instances to see itself as a means of stealing the cream from other countries. Doctors, Nurses, businessmen,etc. we are not doing those countries any favours by taking these people from them,not to mention the anger we incur from Britain's current residents.we should be offering more opportunity to people in this country to become Doctors, lawyers, whatever. Not out of misguided notions of "native" preference, but merely because it is not good for society to have these people thrown into low-level employment. we need better education to do this (which is a whole different subject).
Furthermore, to take these people from their country when their country could do with them politically, is dangerous for its stability. if we drain, for instance, Arab or middle eastern states of their more moderate engaged sections, then we run the risk of more radical extremes controlling them. not good at all.
realistically, we need to be taking more on the basis of asylum, than economic migration. Or at least sharply delineating the two.Asylum seekers have a threat to their lives. Their need is simply greater.
anyway it isn't beneficial to use other countries to plug our skills/job gaps. they need these people, and we need to help more people here already to greater achievement.
i am all said out now, frankly. so, comment and maybe I'll reply and say more in the next few days. happy egg-snaffling!
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Multifariousness
such things have i to divulge:
i have an interview, an interview of the academic sort, and i am now somewhere between afraid and considering making a robot of myself to do the interview for me. which is silly. i always said that i wouldn't mind an interview, because i was fairly confident of conveying my intelligence and enthusiasm well. but now one seems to be in the pipeline (no date yet), i am actually afraid. not because i can't talk about literrrachewer with people, but because it's an "Interview". and i don't like those; frankly i don't like any situation where i have to impress. i'm crap at job interviews too. at least in this instance i can summon some genuine enthusiasm, more than i can in most job interviews (what do you feel you could bring to this job? my natural brilliance, and a my innate desire to get money, now what can you give me????! eh?).
i can see it will take some considerable mental adjustment to keep me confident and relaxed about it. it just seems sooo important. i shall be drawing upon every compliment i've received to keep me pumped.
On another front, the inaugural session of The Place's new training scheme occurred the other day; it actually sounds alright, their plans: more customer service, more help, more engagement with people's desire for books. however, i've yet to be shown any reason why we'll be freed up to do this; are they going to increase staff so we can spend more time with customers? are they going to cut the silly constant stickering and destickering that takes up large quantities of time? one imagines they aren't going to, they generally only see half the equation in these things. they can't cut costs on the staff side, and expect us to have more time for customer-based stuff. i also have very real doubts about the company's ability to see their own economic strengths : offering a broad range of books to people, in their hand. that physical tangibility is the only advantage, aside from customer service, we have over internet companies. but if we get caught up in trying to overstock items to compete with the supermarkets, then we'll lose what people came to us for in the first place. no-one goes and buys on a whim really in either supermarkets (their range is too small), or online (their range is too large, and too distant; for all the benefits of internet selling, it isn't "Shopping" and doesn't appeal in a "in yr hand" kinda way). But the company offers little evidence to me that they realise this: our range and depth is becoming increasingly narrow, and quantity is taking precedence over quality and width.
On another front: two of my friends have just split up after years together. it's final, it seems, and very sad. i can only say they are both splendid chaps, and hope they both find what they're after in the future, and they both prosper. they deserve nothing less.
Also the Dark Lady (she'll like the Shakespeare reference) is having dude trouble, i gather, and i hope that that sorts itself. she, too, is a splendid and lovely chap, and i hope she don't get messed around. bury yourself in books, my dear, it's what i always do. until then think of Nigella and the special way she holds the precious things, think of Senor White, and sneer on.
oh, and referring back to the training: they had clearly spent ludicrous amounts of money on fucking consultants to come up with most pointless diagrams, pie charts, etc. why do management-level business folk love to convince themselves (let's face it, no-one else is convinced) that what they do is some kind of science, definable by rules. Furthermore they see fit to explain the bleeding obvious to us, in the guise of training: "some customers like us; some, Brian, are indifferent; and some don't like us at all. they prefer value, and good customer service, and a wide range". Worse, its obvious to anyone that has ever been trained by these sorts, or been on a training course with the consultants, that these people are the most stupid people you could ever meet. As my friend and i agreed yesterday (she's been victim to these people too), they're like the people you meet at school who have no special intelligence or ability of any kind, but an overwhelming desire to get on, and an appallingly chirpy semi-stalinist way of going about it. their ambition is so far exceeding their talent they're an actual danger to society. the fact they get paid several times what the rest of us do, only takes the complete piss.
how would you feel if you're child told you that, when they grew up, they wanted to be someone who goes into other people's jobs and tells them how to do them??? i hope you'd slap the little bugger and set him straight. hopeless wastes of space.
i am reading Adam Philips book Equals (a mixture of Psychonanalysis and politics, and literature), if you're at all interested. its as usually good, as i expect from him.
i'm also loading up Motown, specifically Smokey and Marvin, and some rarities CDs. i love the Motown. so that stuff, plus some soul of the more southern variety, is counterbalancing the very good new Radiohead album, which whilst good, is no more "up" than you'd expect.
so all is fine, considering....
how are you? still got that condition, what did the doctor say?
and Mandibles, it was a loveliness to see you. a fine afternoon.cheers, darling.
Friday, 14 March 2008
things i said, in my head, in response to customers
"no, dear, we don't do a delivery service"
"well done, nice to see you're trying. but a good first step would be to put that doughnut down"
"did we not specify on the application form: Must Be Clean?"
"did we not specify on the application form: must possess opposable thumbs?"
"if you let that child spit on the carpet once more, i shall spit on your child"
"yes, and if you really want to talk to your angels, can i suggest alcohol"
"yes, but she's probably scared. lets face it, you are a rapist in waiting"
" i don't like you, please don't pull that ingratiating racism on me"
"the point of breasts as a feature is fine; but my dear you look like a child's picture of the sea"
"he may be gay, but still, you're a cunt"
"he's thinking my owner's a human doughball"
"i don't remember the war; no, i don't remember the war; no i don't remember rationing."
"Jesus hates you; you know that don't you? in fact he probably thinks you need a shag"
"please don't come any nearer; ew, god, no"
"well done, nice to see you're trying. but a good first step would be to put that doughnut down"
"did we not specify on the application form: Must Be Clean?"
"did we not specify on the application form: must possess opposable thumbs?"
"if you let that child spit on the carpet once more, i shall spit on your child"
"yes, and if you really want to talk to your angels, can i suggest alcohol"
"yes, but she's probably scared. lets face it, you are a rapist in waiting"
" i don't like you, please don't pull that ingratiating racism on me"
"the point of breasts as a feature is fine; but my dear you look like a child's picture of the sea"
"he may be gay, but still, you're a cunt"
"he's thinking my owner's a human doughball"
"i don't remember the war; no, i don't remember the war; no i don't remember rationing."
"Jesus hates you; you know that don't you? in fact he probably thinks you need a shag"
"please don't come any nearer; ew, god, no"
Thursday, 13 March 2008
morbidly english grumpiness
so, I'm catching up on my ever-increasing backlog of music magazines/newspapers that have built up since early January, obviously after I've done my ironing, had my haircut, watched Lovejoy, eaten lunch etc, and i get to the Radiohead interview from the whole promoting In Rainbows thing, and i read, and it interests me. I'd forgotten how clever, funny, and thoughtful they are about what they do. i haven't yet got In Rainbows, but i shall do soon i think; its sounds ace.anyhooo it sent me back to listening to all the other albums (except Pablo Honey which is shit), its amazing how you forget some bands after they've been there so long, even after you have a relationship with them (aural that is), and just take them for granted, and semi forget how great they are.
the last few albums were all brilliant, and whilst a little bit more arty, more esoteric than the big sellers of The Bends and OK Computer, in many ways equally as good. i never liked the stadium aspect of the band (i hate stadium, i hate U2, i hate Muse, REM get worse the bigger they try to be), and since they've jettisoned that aspect and gone pure art on us, they've been sooo much more interesting. a real listening experience, shut the door, turn off the light, sit and LISTEN. i just keep coming back to Kid A, Amnesiac (my personal fave), and Hail to the Thief, and finding more there, the same way i do with the Beatles, The Smiths, Sonic Youth, My Bloody Valentine, all the greats. furthermore they seem a genuine art and pop band at the same time, the way Bowie, Roxy, Blur were. concepts, lyrical themes, real musical inventiveness. a sense of dynamic that you don;t get from most artists, but with real emotional core too.
i hope they go on for a lot longer.
my relationship with bands can be a fairly intense one, but only after time these days. the increasing funds at my disposal mean I've lost the times when i bought an album, and played it non-stop for weeks, or months because i had nothing else to do; like the true eighties child, my attention span is gnat-like sometimes, and i read books and get distracted by other things. until i end up with 25 CDs on the player top, and 10 books on my shelf, simply because they interest me, and i want them NOW. but in the end, its a system of competition, and the great will surface. Radiohead are managing that at present, as are Sleater-Kinney. And my Huxley fetish is still alive, as is my metaphysical poetry one, but new ones join and enhance the understanding, enhance the pleasure : Henry James, the Ammah's comp CD has got ace stuff on it, the baroque indie goes Tin Pan Alley-isms of the Magnetic Fields, the poetry of Jamie McKendrick. the new loves, and the old friends vie endlessly for my attention, each showing me something new. lordy, i love the books, and i love the CDs.
when I'm not indulging in these sensual pleasure (currently, along with cheese, and muffins, the only ones i get), i have the scintillating company of friends. Ammah and her wry wisdom, always seeming to know when I'm in trouble, and always reminding me i ain't alone. the folk at work who make my Saturdays a darn sight more fun than my weekdays "on the job" (titter ye not!).
i ask this, fine people, how many of you can ask a question at work, and have a friend and colleague who can sing (from a popular song of the last 50 years) an appropriate answer??eh? well, i do. Lucille, my dear, it is a unique talent. almost as unique as being able to make me smile so often; so if i get grumpy and withdrawn, please be aware it is never you. I'm just a big grouch. you were much missed in yr recent absence, by me, and the Aardvark :) i shall say no more but:
Dinner Lamb!!
goodnight, and good luck, chillun.
PS. i think I'm going to fall in love with Samantha Morton.but just temporarily. a few days or so.
PPS. the picture is Ennui by Walter Sickert (1914)
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
brief pinko rant
i couldn't let yet another marvellous government suggestion pass without comment. this morning's news carried the story about the possibility of the twits introducing a pledge of allegiance to the good old queen and country; and more diabolical shit about britishness. what tosh! what do think they'll achieve? i mean i certainly wouldn't pledge allegiance to the country, regardless of my citizenship, or my feelings about it. do they really think, after Iraq et al, that people are prepared to stand by their country's behaviour? is it to be my country wrong or right? well, they can cock off.
the government comes up with a daft idea like this (imported from the land of daft nationalistic ideas, the USA), with some view to improving a sense of citizenship and engagement, as well as integration. nothing wrong with that aim, really, but superficial tat like pledging oaths and having a Britishness Day won't give you that. if the government were really serious about those things, they'd increase and improve teaching of politics and history within schools. these are what really make people intelligent engaged citizens, and furthermore improve their sens of national identity by familiarising them with the structures, ideas, and history that have formed the country.
unfortunately, the government doesn't like that idea for several reasons i suspect:
1) the teaching of history and politics is such a political hot potato they scared of opening debate on it
2)this would require genuine educational reform, not merely infrastructure/funding reform; it would cost them money. also, i doubt if those ratted private providers of education the government wants to roll out via city academies (the churches, business men, charities) would be too keen on the state making them teach these subject properly.
3)the levels of intelligence, scepticism, and social and political nous teaching the subject properly would encourage, is not the sort of thing governments like to encourage. its easier to keep people dumb and obedient.
its aggravating but true. cheap options, like pledges /oaths etc are easier to deal with. genuine emancipation based on historical and political knowledge, expensive and undesirable.
ps. Lucille, my dear, your blog entry is coming :)
the government comes up with a daft idea like this (imported from the land of daft nationalistic ideas, the USA), with some view to improving a sense of citizenship and engagement, as well as integration. nothing wrong with that aim, really, but superficial tat like pledging oaths and having a Britishness Day won't give you that. if the government were really serious about those things, they'd increase and improve teaching of politics and history within schools. these are what really make people intelligent engaged citizens, and furthermore improve their sens of national identity by familiarising them with the structures, ideas, and history that have formed the country.
unfortunately, the government doesn't like that idea for several reasons i suspect:
1) the teaching of history and politics is such a political hot potato they scared of opening debate on it
2)this would require genuine educational reform, not merely infrastructure/funding reform; it would cost them money. also, i doubt if those ratted private providers of education the government wants to roll out via city academies (the churches, business men, charities) would be too keen on the state making them teach these subject properly.
3)the levels of intelligence, scepticism, and social and political nous teaching the subject properly would encourage, is not the sort of thing governments like to encourage. its easier to keep people dumb and obedient.
its aggravating but true. cheap options, like pledges /oaths etc are easier to deal with. genuine emancipation based on historical and political knowledge, expensive and undesirable.
ps. Lucille, my dear, your blog entry is coming :)
Sunday, 2 March 2008
More and more it seems to me that i don't really like most people. My life would undoubtedly be void and pointless without the ones i do like (many of whom i love), but i think i average about 1 person in every ten that i truly like. Furthermore i reckon a lot more people would come to a similar conclusion if we weren't caught in a world where being "friendly" is considered the way to be. "Friendly", as opposed to Friendly, is that state of being deeply disingenuous,f ake, unopinionated, and just being nice to people, regardless of any real connection with them. the perverse thing about this is it wouldn't be necessary, if people could just get along being polite, and civil; without pretending that they are best mates with people. If anyone's seen Ghostworld (the film), there's a girl in that that embodies this perfectly, running up to the Scarlett and Thora characters, and just shrilling at them "hey, you guys, we should, like, soooo meet up", when its obvious to the watcher and the girls themselves that this is very unlikely. Girls in particular (careful , generalisation coming) are quite bad for doing this. men tend to get quite staggy, or quite silent in the company of people they don't like, or don't know. You could, i suppose, blame adverts, or television, or whatever, but as a society we do seem to consider insincerity acceptable; surely, i find myself wondering, we can get along without it? you know, say hello, be polite, ask questions, try not to offend unless you have to, without all that coming into it. After all human connections are rare and precious, and to behave as if everyone is your best friend is degrading to them, your real friends, and yourself. Maybe its just we fear we aren't liked, or aren't even sure what friendship is. Who knows. Montaigne's essay On Affectionate Relationships says it all, really; its about a meeting of minds, of humours, of souls (whatever they mean). and if i hold you my friend, it is real esteem, not merely acquaitanceship. i do not feel compelled to extend enthusiasm, affection, and excitement on those i do not know, i will extend civility, politeness, and a certain level of interest, but you may have to wait to get the first three. It just isn't given gratis. Few things piss me off more than insincerity. What amuses me most about it, however, is that the worst offenders for insincerity are often the ones who don't get irony, and are quick to take offence. Peculiar.
I had an eye test the other day. Strange things eye tests: you allow a person you barely know to come very close, breathe heavily, and generally make you feel slightly uncomfortable. I don't feel the same strangeness about dental work, maybe because it has that whole surgical air, maybe because when having the eye test, one can see everything. Well, not much of everything; once glasses are removed, lights dimmed, and small light shone in yr eyes, you are only aware of the vaguest of shapes. but it's definitely more invasive, somehow. mine asked me first:
"any problems?"
to which i was about to explain as briefly as i could my feeling of underachievement, alienation, anger at my employers, and occasional loneliness, when she clarified with
"with your eyes, i mean?"
i said not really, but mentioned my occasional reading problems in the evening, then she hands me a board with paragraphs of varying print sizes on it, and asks me to read the smallest. i read it with feeling and gusto, and almost an actor's assurance. she's says its brilliant, and i'm very good at reading. Somehow i always undermine my whole case. the rest of my examination involves me trying to seem fine, whilst not actually lying about anything. It's a bit like an exam for which you don't know the wrong answer.
I even managed to pick a new pair of glasses that leave me safe from appearing like Timmy Mallett.
Having finished re-readings of a couple of Huxley novels, i've come to the conclusion that he is ludicrously underrated.As intelligent, funny and self-aware an author as the twentieth century had.
I contrast this with the sales of books by Jordan, Colleen McLoughlin, and varying shades of misery memoir (you know the sort: Don't Uncle, it Chafes, Friend Of The Family(but not all of them), Death to All Nuns). I may have to write one of my own, explaining how my life was ruined by the lavishing of parental love,abject respectability,comfortable living, reasoned boundaries, and instilling of moral values. Poor Rabid grows up with parents, to be bullied for going on outings with them to a sinister "park", accruing dangerous knowledge at a leisurely pace, and having sickeningly consensual early fumblings with women. Lord knows if I hadn't grown up with this deprived background i could have made some money from writing depressing books about being ass-raped. seriously, i do feel sorry for people who have had these upbringings, but i don't reckon writing badly-written samey memoirs about it is the answer. Now, if they could actually write and wanted to turn them into fiction......
The whole Jordan(or Katie Price, now she wants to be seen as telling the truth; there's nothing like exposing the real you, is there? it was bad enough when she was stripping the outside, the inside is even more obscene) thing is more disturbing, because as far as i'm concerned she is abusing people through ideas. The number of teenage girls and boys who buy her autobiographies (she has three! three!) is really chilling. As a model of the vacuousness of pure celebrity for it's own sake, she is peerless. she has no reason for fame, no good one anyway. and yet she seems to be a role model for people. girls see her achievements as admirable, boys see her as a model for a partner. Despite her being transparently pointless and stupid. Of course the argument could be made that she has made a success of herself on her own terms. but then so does a lucrative prostitute, or a successful criminal. The manner in which we gain our money and fame is surely more important than how much we have. Let us please not pretend that wealth = success, or fame= success. what you're known for, and the attitudes you convey are more important. hands up girls, who is happy having her as model of how to get what you want?? hands up, who wants young girls growing up thinking that sex is the best way to success?
i'm a bit angry, tis true. but it seems to me another example of capitalism screwing women for its own ends. All the just rhetoric of George Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Simone De Beauvoir, and countless others produces Jordan. christ, we're in trouble.
the picture at the top, more than incidentally, is by Grace Hartigan and is called Billboard (1957). a good reminder of what can happen when a person prefers to paint a picture than appear in one.
Sunday, 24 February 2008
picture (not mine) and poem (mine)
George Braque- Still Life: Le JourWatching the Windows
He stands there, looking eastward,
in dim praise at your presence.
The rain is falling through the streetlight
from nowhere. His favourite nuisance
is back again. He cannot wait to see
where you’ll meet, accidentally,
so your husband should never know;
your bedroom light a beacon, his sight
is clear: your husband will never know.
But it’s all been cryingly told
this morning, husband found the bills,
the evening ahead is quiet and cold,
the streetlight, for now, his whole world fills
Sunday, 17 February 2008
Silly man that i am, i've always hid an inner aesthete (sometimes less inner than bleedin obvious), maybe it's because i fancy myself as a dandy, like our friend on the left. which i'm not, because i'm not confident enough. but i do believe the presentation of a style is important, the presentation of a taste is important, and not merely because its fashionable, but because we are the only creation we ever truly have creative control over. But it isn't about Aestheticism alone, its about tying aestheticism to an ethos too. the personality is a creation as much as a look is. some people, mainly in fashion, have the former and not the latter(yet some still aspire, often with truly hideous results; anyone who's sampled the so-called "dandy" prose of Sebastian Horsley's recent memoir will know what i mean).
Due to the impending refurbishment of my dwellhole, somewhat forced, i've been nudged into a slightly more "Colour!Shape!Form!" state of mind than usual. It is truly amazing the effect a quick scan of a Dulux colour chart, and a flick through a furniture brochure will have. Misty Buff! amethyst! China Blue! Toffee Crunch! Lemon Sorbet! Mandarin Segment! (alright, i made the last one up); suddenly i'm seeing colours in my sleep and some weird synaesthesia when i play a Cocteau Twins album. more bizarrely, my inner William Morris seems to have appeared from nowhere, and is angling me at some very Victorian-looking colours, and some unnaturally Baroque looking tables.
i intend to keep my sensible hat on (not black top hat) though; redecoration is fine, new curtains fine, i may even be pushed into a new carpet, but no furniture. i live in this bloody space, and i can't be arsed to upturn my carefully acquired routine so i have some swankier drawers. i want it to be as brief and painless as possible. The thought of moving the 600-odd CDs and two bookcases worth of books out into the garage has got me semi-teary as it is. the things, the precious things! but i'm getting rather enthusiastic about a new colour scheme after 12 years with this one. i want nice deep intense colours, and a lot of cream or white to make sure it isn't too dark and depressing when slitty-wrist season kicks in. And it's an excuse to get some new posters in; the Ratpack and the Smiths will stay, the rest goes. I quite fancy some art posters: Rothko, Velazquez, Whistler, Hopper, who knows! The fact i'm reading a book about twentieth-century British Art is only contributing to all this frippery. fun though.
Which was what last night was. kind of. Happy drinking in a quiet mood, and then the Three Boozes came in, ripped to the gills, and being generally filthy and loud. The Nag had not seen such wassailing in a while i think; i myself had a gentle knock on the face by a friend getting overly friendly, and a story involving another drunken friend's snapped frenulum (look it up, my dears, and say a loud "ow!"), which may have been told in rebuke for knocking his ghastly shirt. Then to top it all off, when said story is getting bogged down in sketchy medical detail, and certain shouty pissed folk are unsure what is being referred to, OUT CAME THE PENISES. IN THE PUB. IN FRONT OF A LAYDEE!!
i should like to make perfectly clearly i kept my own sword very much in its scabbard. i'm not yet prone to public duels. and the two gentlemen involved should really be more than slightly embarrassed. i laughed so hard (sorry, wrong word) i still look like distant cousin of Cherie Blair this morning. thoroughly disturbing, and neither big nor clever(them, not me)
i was going to do loads of stuff about the Huxley i've been reading, but frankly it'll keep. i'm too busy worrying about my frenulum to bother (apparently, its quite a common injury).
think on this, children, and keep 'Yourself' to yourself.
cheerioh!
Monday, 4 February 2008
Evil lurks everywhere
if you are a NBF (thats non-book flogger) you may jump to the natural conclusion that booksellers and library folk regularly get together on opposing mounds of earth outside yr town centres, and throw book stands and OED's at eachother, all the while waving either cash or library cards in a mocking gesture. well, this may occur in some places, but generally i like to feel we're bound together in fraternal feeling. Two excellent bookloving groups attempting to spread literacy, and reading through the public, whilst sharing in a mutual shrug at the often ludicrous behaviour of our public.
in fact i have friends spread throughout our local libraries; and a marvellous mixture of the kind, intellectual, grizzled, and frankly mad, they are. but love i feel, not the squelchy oozy kind of love, more proud, public spirited, and friendly love. though in the past my yearnings for the odd library gel have become oozy and even fuzzy.
but, brothers and sisters, some changes are afoot at my local (library that is, my pub hasn't changed since Richard III stooped through the door and asked for a pint of Guinness). the local council was stormed by the Infidels (the Tory Party, if you don't mind foul language), and the marvellous person in charge is on record as not really seeing the point of libraries.
now i'm not generally a nationalistic person, but four things get me teary-eyed in shirt tugging blubbing jingoistic pride:
the English Legal System
the NHS (regardless of problems, still the most humane thing ever)
the codification of football
the public library system
the last must be the single most important egalitarian idea ever. imagine: the ability to borrow pretty much any book, for free; the opprtunities for entertainment, education, improvement, self discovery are endless. in the last twenty years this has come under attack, like everything else, from daft notions that everything benefits from a commercial/retail model of practice.
this is, quite frankly, BOLLOCKS.
one need only look at the utilities, the transport system, the postal system to see how much privatisation, and contracting out, ruins the quality of service of areas that need to be run for public benefit. steadily the ideas are invading libraries too.
my library system has hired, for lord knows how much money, a group of management consultants!!! yes, the single most pointless group of people history has come up with so far. a non-job; hands up, who thinks that getting people in from outside is a better idea than consulting the wonderful, imaginative folk who are familiar with particular needs of their customers, and the problems of running the system?? anyone?? i thought not.
the ideas so far seem to amount to self-service (ever been to a railway station? seen how many people use the self-service machines there, and how many still queue for an actual person? miniscule isn't it?), making people do more tasks they aren't professionally qualified to do; and a lot of cosmetic bobbins that almost certainly will have negligible effect on people. i mean, whats better a library that's empty but gorgeously styled, or a library that's old, but has most of the books you could want?
there's a whole industry built up now based on the notion that the "product's" appearance is more important than its quality. the takeover of marketing etc. of course, another reason is the growth of consultancy groups who are obsessesed with relatively cheap cosmetic change over long-term investment. thus investment goes into buildings ( as in schools, hospitals etc), but continuous investment in the necessary things to make these establishments worthwhile is ignored (books, staff, equipment etc etc).
it doesn't take Wittgenstein to work out the underlying thrust of these changes: getting rid of staff. self-service, more computer-based information, less people to help you with your enquiry.
and this stuff gets combined with small beer changes such as telling staff they aren't librarians, they are information scientists. and a spade is not a spade, it is a surgical soil scapel .
to be honest i'm not entirely against self-service, as a principle. but my insiders tell me that any reasoned problem staff can see in the new technologies is brushed aside with a couple of responses, used by business and political charlatans everywhere:
1) "it'll be fine in practice, you'll see" combined with Pollyanna-ish smile
2) "you're just being cynical, and negative and resistant to change". or use of such phrases as saboteur.
New Labour is very fond of both of these practices, especially the latter. points are not answered, plans for dealing with problems not suggested, the questioner merely attacked as being unhelpful, old-fashioned, dogmatic, unmodern. anyone who knows their Gramsci will know this is how false ideologies work, the slandering of opponents and the attempt to convince listeners that their suggestions are radical, forward-thinking, and common-sense. you don't win the argument, you merely paint critics as out-of date.Goebbels liked to do it too.
furthermore, when asked what action would be taken if the public posted complaints, employees were told pretty much that complaints would be ignored. how's that for accountability,eh? so this change is going ahead regardless of employees, regardless of practicalities, and last of all regardless of the public that uses the libraries.
my informants also gave me a link to the consultancy's website. and it's rather as you'd expect: brightly coloured, full of clever and impressive sounding mottoes, and marvellous cosmetic ideas, yet not a single instance of they actually do for the no doubt daft sums of money they receive. lots of stuff about team effectiveness, and trends.
unsurprisingly they also waffle on about Brain Gym, that marvellous mental improvement scheme that seems to be invading schools on the most dubious evidence of success. its a mere step away from Paul McKenna, and one more from Deepak bleeding Chopra. if you want an eloquent discussion of the flaws of the analysis of Brain Gym's success, you should see the brilliant Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column in the Guardian (her's the link: http://www.badscience.net/?p=225 ). the top picture shows you the sort of crap folk like them come up with,; they do love diagrams, pie charts etc
its all guff i tell you. anyway. i shall end this rant here, for now. and maybe the next post will be full of the marvellous ideas and thoughts my current reading has offered me.something more positive. bye for now.
Thursday, 31 January 2008
all say now: " I AM AN INDIVIDUAL!!!"
So, in a world in which the inevitability of change is the only thing we cannot question, my ever-loving employers have decided to implement some changes. Firstly we are to wear uniforms. can you feel my pestilential scowl level?? i have no objection to dressing smartly; in fact i do so every day. and i would quite happily wear a shirt and tie for the job, provided i get to choose the shirt and tie. Okay its only a black shirt, but i hate black shirts (mostly); it clearly has been designed to please Drusilla the Goth, to match his splendid dreads. the whole fucking "alternative community" dresses in black; which is reason enough to hate it. however i hate having clothes chosen for me. i am not a fricking child. and they've got some sodding fleece, so we can't put a jumper over it. cuntybastards! puerile, and juvenile as it no doubt sounds, i do not want my personality eradicating. i like my personality, it tooks me 20 odd years to develop it and i have no desire to have it whitewashed (or in this case blackwashed), for reasons of identification and commerciality. people know i'm staff, they bloody walk up to me and say "you look like staff, can you help me?" (one day i will say back to one of the gurning unwashed buggers : "and you are clearly a customer. i can tell by your witless ambling"). i have a badge. i do not wear a coat. and i am either carrying books/fittings/POS or standing behind the counter. this i assume would make me a staff member.(i actually had a customer shake his books at me the other day; shaking, people, is the universal sign of "Serve Me, Grunt!").
so, now my large collection of smart, gaily coloured and stylish clotthing is to be lost to the public. no longer shall i flounce hammily about the health section in my red sweater, nor shall i skip merrily in my paisley shirt. bastards. Unsurprisingly, the shirts are the most bland, inoffensive, dehumanising things, as always happens when one wants to please the public, and not offend any staff. boooorrrrring. i'm hardly Pierre Cardin, but i don't want to look like other people. not clothes-wise anyway.
its like being at school. i may have to wear yellow pantaloons to offset this distress; or maybe some seriously wide/skinny trousers. white trousers; stillettoes. though being male (i am, honest) this may provoke more comment than i can handle. i'm camp enough already without turning into Tootsie.one of various reasons the job appealed to me was the freedom of dress; now they've (metaphorically) stripped me of that too.
furthermore, my manager is being sent on a training course, so i gather, for a new selling regime, which she will relay to us individually in one-to-one lessons. i am going to be taught to sell things. which isn't something i've been doing for the past four years, obviously. that helping customers, running things through the till, ordering stuff for them, that was NOT selling. i have a horrible feeling they are going to make us into those hard-selling pricks i hate in shops that cannot leave you alone for a moment. yeah, so effectively, we're being retrained. And i have no doubt this training will be more pushy and more false. we're turning into those US-style shops that are full of thick, inanely grinning idiots overburdened with disingenuous bullshit.You know the ones: the ones that look like the children of some disturbing religious cult, determined to convert you. i don't need this: i was brought up to be helpful, polite and friendly and, until people give me reason to be otherwise, i am. but i will not laugh at their racist jokes, smile at their unfunny remarks, or indulge their truly atrocious purchases.i shall smile, thank them, and and say goodbye. i don't do lying to make tits feel normal. in fact i don't do lying very well at all, which is why i don't, and shan't, do it.
in the time i've worked there, they seem to have chucked out their best ideas, and imbibed all the crap ones. so, quality, depth, range, sensible (and consistent) special offers go out the window; staff book-knowledge, enthusiasm, and intelligence also go out the window. And, surprise, in come silly uniforms, silly policies, offers that last so long (two weeks, a week even) no-one knows where they stand, and in come more staff who don't know a book from bog-roll,Noel Coward from Noel Gallagher, and think the Vietnam war was something to do with Hitler.
thats before i even start on the lunacy of central orders policy!
Please, please, next time you meet someone with an MBA or whatever, please, for all our sakes, kill the fucker. Before we look like the guys at the top.
Sunday, 20 January 2008
introductions!
please allow me to introduce myself (er, i'm not Mick Jagger). hello chaps!
i would be the Rabid Bookseller. here to expound gobbily upon any subject that grabs my tangent-prone imagination; with specific reference to books, and the floggin thereof.
today i'm uncharacteristically unRabid, but i'm sure that will change. i live and work in one of those medium sized New towns that pepper England like rabbit turds. i work for a large book retailing chain, a job that started with joy and enthusiasm, and has gradually angered me beyond normal repair. i made a grave mistake in entering an industry that knows a lot about business and very little really about books. Though recently even my employer's commercial sense has become questionable.
why do i not quit, you ask?
three current reasons;
i would be the Rabid Bookseller. here to expound gobbily upon any subject that grabs my tangent-prone imagination; with specific reference to books, and the floggin thereof.
today i'm uncharacteristically unRabid, but i'm sure that will change. i live and work in one of those medium sized New towns that pepper England like rabbit turds. i work for a large book retailing chain, a job that started with joy and enthusiasm, and has gradually angered me beyond normal repair. i made a grave mistake in entering an industry that knows a lot about business and very little really about books. Though recently even my employer's commercial sense has become questionable.
why do i not quit, you ask?
three current reasons;
- like all angry folk, i rather lack any personal confidence. and i have an unerring tendency to cling doggedly to any rut i find.
- i rather love books, and i rather like selling them. To some people. Some of the time.
- and i also love the rather nice discount said job gives me on books.
so there you go: i am actually rather sweet, vulnerable, even. but like the rest of you, i imagine, prone to taking the benefits (cash or otherwise) and squishing my eyes up moistily in nostalgic though of happier days in the job. i'm also prone to over-writing, can you tell?
i suck. but NOT AS MUCH AS THEY DO!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
