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!

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.

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"

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)

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 :)

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.

picture (not mine) and poem (mine)

George Braque- Still Life: Le Jour















Watching 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