Thursday, 30 July 2020

Can ye believe it?

Once again, The Heggie Zone is kinda embarrassed to present and expanded & explained Twitter rant.
This one is on the linked article, entitled "Kanye West Is Publicly Struggling. We Need To Give Him Grace"
(source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/elaminabdelmahmoud/kanye-west-mental-health-dangerous-media-narratives?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc)

A quote from Craig Jenkins included within reads
“The lack of context regarding his [bipolar] diagnosis...in coverage...
which questions the viability of the presidential bid
but never entertains the possibility that the man giving all the
outlandish pull quotes might not be doing so well right now,
illuminate our inability to step back and ponder the ethics
of the internet content mill…”
But is this even TRUE? How is there a lack of context?! I'm not American, I have never heard anything he's done BUT I know he's bipolar and super irresponsible about it.
West's struggles with Bipolar Disorder have been widely reported and discussed. It'd be like adding context that Stevie Wonder is blind - it is a really well-known factor. We all KNOW he's 'not doing so well' but he is deliberately putting himself out there to be seen.
He is also putting himself out there to be ELECTED. The press' ethics must be first and foremost concerned with protecting the public more than Kanye West.

My tweets in bold, copied directly from my feed 29/07/2020.

It's a challenging read but I can't say I fully agree with it. Mercy & compassion have their place but Kanye & HIS ENTIRE TEAM are guilty here of some f*ck*d up sh*t that negatively impacts anyone living with mental health issues.
Kanye West is not an individual, he is a person with EXTENSIVE management and a very famous family of in-laws. It seems that not one of them, let alone all in a unified action, is capable of 'controlling' the situation. Not that I blame Kim for example - but she's begging for understanding after the fact each time. I can understand she loves him... okay, I can't but I get her commitment to her marriage, but I don't understand why she is 'letting him do this' to himself, her, and their children. It's ultimatum time, dearie. Get help, step away from the limelight, or I take the kids and leave.
Most of us would be subjected to an intervention - and probably sectioning under the mental health act. If you had a meltdown at work your boss would (hopefully) send you home cos no way can you be doing this sh*t in front of customers / clients / members of the public / co-workers. But more than this, every negative bit of press Kanye-and-team whip up affects EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL WITH A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER. He is perpetuating all the negative stereotypes of mental illness.

I feel it is wrong to blame the media for the media hungry Ye machine. They don't seem to be inaccurately, cruelly, or especially unkindly representing him. And plenty of similar speculation has been applied to Trump's incoherent ramblings. It's par for the presidential course.
The press aren't hunting out these stories - they're attending 'campaign rallies' and interviewing him (probably at invitation) to promote the albums he endlessly fails to deliver.
I have seen lots of articles questioning Trump's sanity, his 'fitness to lead', and speculating as to whether he's had a stroke. Now, whether or not Trump has a diagnosable disorder he is clearly several sandwiches short of a picnic. I am bothered by the stroke speculation as a brain injury does not necessarily make him 'unfit' although if it was covered up in his medical that's a pretty serious business.
Kanye cannot possibly expected to run for POTUS without speculation, analysis and criticism. Saying he should be exempted from such scrutiny on grounds of his well-publicised mental health problems is a really irresponsible stance that could theoretically help him into the White House!
It takes a lot for me to defend the press. But here they are not being intrusive, sensationalist, dishonest, manipulative... which is quite remarkable in and of itself. What they are is standing back and letting West rip himself apart. If you're asking "but should they?" how do you think journalism works?! Reporters don't start or end wars, they write up what is going on. Criticism is fair when they are unfair... but West's rants are his own.
And now he's running (however implausibly) for POTUS his instability becomes a matter of American National Security and needs to be reported as such.

IMHO Kanye risks making people believe that all bipolar people are... wildly unstable, incapable of holding responsibility etc. and that is TERRIBLE. The stigma of mental illness is bad enough without him taking it back DECADES.
The article keeps going on about Kanye's pain and trauma. We all have pain, we all have trauma, not all of us are bipolar but even those who are don't all act out so badly.
Mental health has long been taboo but headway has been made in recent years - so why is Kanye being encouraged / enabled / excused from f*ck*ng over every other person battling their demons?!
I am 'only' struggling with 30 years of depression but this angers me so much. People are mistreated, outcast, shunned, denied housing, denied work - and West, a bloody billionaire, is making their lives harder and causing people to be afraid of people with mental health problems.

What I think Kanye / his team *should* have done is take him down a Kate Bush style path - all the creativity, minimal public appearances. Let him have dignity in mystique. Especially after the first few meltdowns. NOT about hiding but saving him from himself.
At a time when Black Lives Matter is a major headline West is accusing Harriet Tubman of selling out black people, he has previously called slavery a choice. If he were anything but a Black person himself he would have been 'cancelled' by now! He says the most appalling things and is given a pass, time and time again, because of his diagnosis... but is it right to do so? Oddly enough you can be an asshole AND bipolar; the one does not necessarily stem from the other.
Being a creator does not mean you have to be constantly on stage, giving interviews, etc. You can release albums, even play concerts, but you don't need to keep talking shit. If this was his first major incident I would be more forgiving but at this point there have been MANY. You would think that the prior experiences would keep him on his medications and off his soap-box...

How can you treat Kanye as multiple people? Even if he had multiple personality disorder the 'man who knows what he's doing' is the same being who is saying these outrageous things. The same person who admits not taking his meds is running for POTUS. That CANNOT BE IGNORED.
This comment is particularly aimed at the following quote:
"The truth is you have to be rather callous to laugh at the unwell person
in front of you. But you don’t need that callousness
when you imagine it’s the West who knows what he’s doing,
the West who is immensely capable of processing his pain."
Can you actually run for POTUS without knowing what you are doing?! He knows he needs his meds, he knows what happens when he is off them, he knows he has embarrassed himself, humiliated his wife and offended his entire race several times before now... More to the point his extensive support team - managers, agents, assistants of every kind - know what he's doing and they are LETTING HIM. It is the moral equivalent of watching someone neck a bottle of vodka and then take their truck for a drive. THAT IS NOT ON THE PRESS.

Should the media be *accountable* in the articles they write about a misician [sic] having a spectacular and uninhibited public brain fart or should they be responsible and accurately represent a man who is running for the ultimate public office? Literally can't be both.
IF West was JUST promoting another undelivered album... no, even then - cos he's consciously, deliberately seeking promotion. This is not press intruding into Harvey Price's hospital room, unresearched speculation on royal doings, or any other number of invasive examples of sensationalist journalism.

If Kanye was a private individual, or an involuntary public figure like a royal or a WAG, I would totally agree that the media needs to step back... but there's a world of difference when the person you're writing about is actively courting publicity.
As I put a moment ago - royalty never asked for publicity, children and spouses (or other relatives) of celebrities shouldn't be hounded, used or abused for the sake of a story. But Kanye isn't an involuntary celebrity, he's not even a private celebrity - he is a courting publicity, letting it all hang out as publicly as possible celebrity. Even then, if he was a recording artist having a mental breakdown there'd be an argument that they should back off* but he's RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

*In the UK right now Johnny Depp is suing the press for calling him a wife-beater and Prince Harry & Meghan, Duchess of Sussex are also suing the press for unwarranted breaches of privacy. The press, as a whole, are SHIT. They don't back off, they hound people until they break. Then they make a big deal out of the obituaries. Kanye West is not being hounded - he is feeding them.

How exactly is the press supposed to address the negative depiction of someone battling mental illness when this is what they're handed on a plate? I dare say there are lots of positive stories they could write for balance but a lot of people don't want their diagnosis 'outted' [sic].
Again, as I said before, this negatively impacts a lot of people. Lots of people with bipolar disorder and other mental health diagnoses are out there, doing good, being responsible, getting on with their lives but they shouldn't have to put their stories out there JUST to counterbalance West's breakdowns so the public can get a more nuanced view of mental health issues.

I have nothing against Kanye West as a human being. I hope he gets the help he needs. I just have a problem with blaming others for the harm he is doing.

Sunday, 19 July 2020

Wedding Gown Addendum

I wrote a blog entitled "On the subject of Royal wedding gowns" in response to the marriage of Harry and Meghan (pub. 22 May 2018) it seems only fitting that following the marriage of Beatrice and Count Eduardo Mappeli Mozzi I do a bit of an update.

First we need to go back to the wedding of Prince Andrew and Sarah Fergusson in 1986.
I make no apologies for my love of this couple. They were the royal pairing of my childhood and I still think they're adorable. I will be devastated if the allegations against Andrew are proven; I think the allegations are most likely founded in a desire for notoriety or to deflect public interest away from Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's numerous other high profile contacts...
Anyway, the point is this was the royal wedding that had the greatest impact on me and it's only right to reference it in a blog about their daughters.
Sarah's wedding gown was waaay better than Diana's "heap of crumpled hankies" look while being very eighties. It was also embellished with lots of symbolism which is a thing I really like.
Maybe I just have a thing for younger sons because I won't book much criticism of Harry and Meghan either, HOWEVER, using Princess Eugenie's wedding as an opportunity to announce their pregnancy with Archie was a major faux pas.
Princess Eugenie, Andrew and Sarah's younger daughter, married Jack Brooksbank (a British wine merchant) on October 12th, 2018.
The particularly noteworthy detail about Princess Eugenie's gown was the open back / lack of veil combination. Princess Eugenie had spinal surgery for scoliosis as a child and wanted her scar visible to empower others.
I thought Princess Eugenie's choice of gown was superb - classic, elegant, and meaningful.

I must confess that I feel... 'dubious' of Princess Beatrice's new husband, Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi, but I wish her every happiness. I feel intensely for Princess Beatrice too as she had to postpone her wedding due to the chaos of Covid-19.
Princess Beatrice finally wed her 'Count' on 17th July 2020 and officially became the first royal-born step-mama of the modern era as Eduardo has a son Christopher "Woolfie" (b. 2016) with his former partner. The first photos released make me think how much she looks like her mum and I love the eighties vibe she's got going on with her gown. As much as anything I think it's nice to see sisters do it their own ways; no indication of trying to 'out do' each other... and sadly there was a lot of speculation of that kind as the younger sister married first. Ye gods I loathe the way the press treats the royal family!
As yet there is little to go upon as to why Princess Beatrice chose the gown she did but I love it... from the beading reminiscent of the 1920s, the poofy 80s sleeves, the deep contrast hem which screams 70s at me for no adequately explained reason... But most of all I love her smile. Her big day may not have been as big as she'd planned and dreamed of but I truly hope it was everything she wanted it to be.
EDIT
Well, I missed my guess three times over with the dress (mostly) dating to 1961! Honestly, three whole decades guessed and still wrong LOL.
Here it is, being worn - sans sleeves - by her grandmother, HM Queen Elizabeth II:
And another photo from Beatrice's wedding:

Friday, 24 April 2020

The God, the Goddess, and the Girl

When my grandparents died, many years ago, and only a few weeks apart, I envisioned my grandfather who had passed first rejuvenated as the young groom he had once been - but instead of awaiting his bride at the alter he was awaiting her at the pearly gates. When she passed she was returned to her youthful state, radiant and joyful, reunited with her husband. It was a comforting vision.
Recently I heard of a child's passing which let to a rather different imaginary scenario. The name is deliberately omitted as it could apply to anyone with such a disability; this is not intended to represent their experience and I mean no disrespect.

An original expression by Rev'd Heggie Speller (ULC)

The God and the Goddess stand at the edge of the forest, looking out into the clearing. The God wears heavy robes in autumn gold and russet, he wears a magnificent pair of golden antlers on his head; he has a long bushy beard entwined with ivy, flowers and pine-cones. The Goddess looks rather like the girl's mother did - just before she brought home a baby brother. The Goddess' robes are floaty and pale, silvery like her skin.

The God and the Goddess stand at the edge of the forest, looking out into the clearing. Time does not work here as it does in the mortal world: they are always here, and always guiding the recently deceased in their journey through the forest - regardless of how long the journey might take. A small innocent child's journey might be a mere skip through the woods on a summer's day; an old man, burdened by guilt and regrets might have a trek through a near endless night, hounded every step of the way by fearsome beasts and spectres as he is forced to confront his wrongdoing.

There is always enough time. They have guided every soul that has appeared in the clearing, just as they always will. Every journey is different but they follow similar patterns, none is particularly unique - not even this one.

The God and the Goddess stand at the edge of the forest, looking out into the clearing. They are imbued with a certain amount of omniscience, not that it is usually necessary - they journey usually explains itself and much of the life that went before - but today the Goddess feels the new arrival's rare experience, she will need this insight to begin this particular journey.

This clearing, if you will forgive the pun, is not the physical plane. But a disembodied spirit is a distressing state find yourself in. So here, in the first steps away from 'life' the spirit manifests a form. The form is usually as the spirit was in life only whole and healed from any sickness or infirmities; the aged find themselves in the prime of life, the lame can walk, the blind can see, the mentally impaired are freed of those constraints. This is often a joyful moment but for those who have never experienced things such as independent movement or sight or clear thought it can be confusing, even frightening.

In the clearing stands a girl young girl, not a small child but not yet approaching the cusp of womanhood either. The girl exudes fear and the Goddess intuitively understands why - the girl's earthly existence was an especially difficult one. For all the girl's appearance is of having had several years on the mortal plane she had been born with a disorder which rendered her life experience more of a protracted infancy; everything is new and frightening to her, for all this place is designed to comfort all as the arrive. The girl has the air of a newborn fawn - struggling to stand on spindly legs that have never been used for such a purpose before; the wide eyed fear of a deer caught in the headlights only emphasises this impression.

"My dear, all is well," the Goddess speaks in a low tone as one gentling a skittish creature. "You have fallen asleep in one place and awoken in another, that is all."

The girl is just as confused that she understands what the Goddess has said as she is by being here.

"Your mother, your father, your brother, all your family... they will follow in their time. When you reach the other side of this wood they will be right behind you."

The girl's expression is astonished by the reference to her family, but not nearly so much as in a moment's time. The Goddess asks the girl's name and, having 'heard' the echo of the girl's mother's voice cooing her name from within the girl's memory, the goddess speaks the name aloud.

"I- I- I don't understand," the girl stutters, she has never spoken before. Her voice, barely used in life is suddenly formed into words and it startles her just as everything else has. Language is new to her but somehow it it there, in her newly able mind.

"All is well, child," the Goddess repeats soothingly. "You have fallen asleep in one body and awoken in another, that is all."

"I am... standing? Speaking?"

"Yes, child," replies the Goddess who has moved forward a little - the girl did not see her move but she is clearly now closer, the God is further behind. "When we travel through this place what was before is no more. It is no bad thing - what was broken is mended, what you could not do before you can now."

"Why could I not... before?"

"Every body is different - boys or girls or in-between, tall or short or in-between, fat or thin or in-between - and where some bodies work well, some don't. Some bodies start out okay and develop problems, some are born with problems."

"And I was born with problems?" The girl's face moved into an awkward facsimile of a frown, having never formed the expression before.

"Yes, child," the Goddess knew to leave it there whilst the girl used her new-found faculties to process the information.

"And the problems are gone now because that's... better? Better to not have problems?"

The Goddess can feel the bubbling resentment in the girl. Why should she have had to endure so much in her short life? The Goddess could see in her memories lying immobile while others moved around her, moved her inert body - sometimes, but never meaning to, causing her pain in the process. She hadn't resented it in life for she didn't understand it - now she was starting to. The God could see and feel all this too, and for the first time the God spoke, his voice rumbling deep like distant thunder:

"The differences we have in life are only for a time - when you move past time we move past differences too. Some people have an easy time, some people have it harder but by the time you get to your journey's end all is equal."

It was too advanced a concept for the girl who was still struggling to accept she was standing for the first time, barefoot on soft damp grass; speaking for the first time, to two strange beings she didn't recognise.

"Don't worry, child," murmurs the Goddess. "What was is done, and is no more. Now you can walk and talk and run and play and always hereafter - that is all that matters."

"What... what happens now?" The girl asks eventually. "What am I to do, now that I can?"

"Come with us, child," says the God.

"Come with us, child," says the Goddess.

"Where?"

"Into the woods, to the other side," says the God.

"You lived among trees before, didn't you?" The Goddess asks and the girl nods. "Now walk among them, run your hands across the rough bark, feel the leaves crunching underfoot."

"And my family will follow?"

"For you it will be only a moment, for them it will be many years," says the God.

"They will see you again and be overcome with joy," says the Goddess. Time does not work here as it does in the mortal world: the Goddess has seen the reunion happen already and knows her words to be the absolute truth.

The girl is still unsure but as she is unsure of everything going into the woods with the two strangers before her makes as much sense as anything. She feels wobbly on her feet, the pressure on her soles is strange, but as unfamiliar as the motion feels she takes her first steps and is graceful. The girl moves toward the God and the Goddess and enters the forest with them.

There is always enough time. The God and the Goddess encourage the girl to look and absorb every colour and texture and experience the wood gives her - they stop to smell the wild roses and the movement of a caterpillar, they stand in the stillness and listen to the birdsong. And yet the girl's journey is done in a heartbeat for there are no chasms to cross, no darkness to endure, no ferocious animals to outrun; the girl's sufferings are over.

They emerge from the forest into an open meadow. Wildflowers bob in a gentle breeze, stands of trees offer welcome shade, willows trail in a shallow stream that ripples over polished stones.

"What now?" asks the girl. As she turns the God and Goddess are leading her mother and father and brother out of the forest. Her mother and father are much as she remembers them, but her brother who was just a little boy a moment ago is an older man - for he grew up, got married, had children and saw them grow to adulthood long ago.

Despite them all seemingly arriving together they greet each other with such joy it is as if they have not seen each other in years. The girl stands in confusion and watches the outpouring of love between them. Then, finally, her mother sees her - her smile is brilliant sunshine, her tears of joy are soft summer rain.

"My baby! My baby!" she cries, raining kisses on the girl she has not seen in decades. The mother is overwhelmed at the strength in the arms that were never able to return her hugs before.

"Mummy!" cries the girl in return, so far as any of them are concerned this was her first word, for the God and the Goddess are forgotten about and the family is whole again.

Time does not work here as it does in the mortal world; the family meet and greet those who died long before and those who had yet to be born. The girl's fragile, limited mortal existence fades from her mind like a dream upon waking - she runs in the grass and picks handfuls of colourful flowers which instantly reappear on the broken stems; she paddles in the chill water of the stream. Her family too forget the sufferings they saw her endure and watch the child she has been reborn as with joy. Eternity is a family picnic on an idyllic late-summer afternoon. There is no hunger, nor thirst; no pain, no regret; no need to sleep, no need of any kind at all. They are complete.

The God and the Goddess return through the forest to the arrivals clearing in the mere blink of an eye, ready to guide and reunite more souls crossing from life into the hereafter.


Thursday, 23 April 2020

More At Risk From Reducing Risk?

People put at risk by the lockdown, arguably more so than they are at risk from coronavirus (Covid-19)
Examples are chosen from a variety of sources and contexts - no single issue is exclusive to any one nation or group of society, many more examples exist.

At Risk Children
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-52370968
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/opinion/coronavirus-child-abuse.html
The Very Poor 
And the soon-to-be very poor - businesses are already collapsing, entire sectors will be decimated
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/coronavirus-could-push-half-a-billion-people-into-poverty-oxfam-warns
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-lockdown-pubs-hotels-restaurants-industry-closures-a9475921.html
https://www.ft.com/content/5d198135-b38f-4512-b611-9f017f76929d
People Suffering Domestic Abuse 
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/apr/21/domestic-abuse-women-in-herat-afghanistan-may-survive-coronavirus-but-not-lockdown
People With Cancer 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/04/coronavirus-crisis-is-stopping-vital-cancer-care-doctors-say
People With Other Health Issues
Due to the cancellation of just about every service people are suffering needlessly. For some this means no monitoring of low risk conditions, but others will permanently lose mobility due to lack of physiotherapy, for example. Meanwhile, others will die awaiting diagnosis, treatment or surgery. It's like people's lives don't matter unless they have the 'right' illness!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-nhs-operations-cancelled-cases-deaths-hospital-a9464726.html
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/19/dad-pulls-tooth-cant-get-dentist-lockdown-12579357/
People With EXISTING* Mental Health Issues
* no one seems to have clocked that the pandemic and lockdown will be triggering mental disturbances in the previously mentally well
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52302066
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8192449/Coronavirus-lockdown-led-increase-suicides-police-chiefs-say.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-suicide-rates-uk-mental-health-support-a9451086.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52295894
People With Addictions 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-suicide-rates-uk-mental-health-support-a9451086.html
People with Eating Disorders
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52365945
Future Generations
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/22/we-do-not-have-to-worry-about-paying-off-the-coronavirus-debt-for-generations

I have my doubts whether history will look kindly on the lockdown. I think the fact that we shut GPs / community centres / schools is bad enough, took away community support from those most in need, and hid away in our homes from a disease in selfish fear rather than helping each other is going to be received poorly by future generations. For me, the closure of the churches and other places of worship has been the most brutal thing - in the face of death so many people look for spiritual solace. Saints of past plagues were those who went forth, ministering to the sick and dying with no thought of their own safety; the 21st century 'faithful' chained the doors shut. Personally I think that has a lot to say about the kind of people we've become.

I also have my doubts as to whether it will actually achieve anything. They talk of 'flattening the curve' but they might just be extending the duration of the pandemic rather than actually saving lives. They talk of creating a vaccine but viruses are notoriously hard to vaccinate against - even if it is possible chances are it'll mutate...

So what we have here is that people are suffering and dying, perhaps entirely needlessly, of treatable conditions; people are suffering and dying needlessly because of isolation and anxiety; people will CONTINUE to suffer and die from being terminally separated from their families by being denied the chance to say goodbye or attend funerals; people will suffer and die from poverty and financial hardship, unemployment and the destruction of their livelihoods for MANY YEARS TO COME.

Of course it sucks that people are dying of Covid-19* but people are mortal and communicable diseases exist; it's a normal and natural occurrence. What is not normal and natural is allowing - or more accurately - causing others to suffer and die for the sake of a disease they don't have! Nor is it normal or natural to throw the entire planet into a financial crisis that will take generations to pay off.
*Current thinking is that most people who get Covid-19 are asymptomatic, most people who get symptoms get better without medical interference so still only a small proportion of those affected are actually dying and most of those were either sick already or had massive viral loads!

A lot has been said of the inaccuracy of comparing Covid-19 deaths with those from seasonal flu... but now this virus is here chances are it'll stay (unlike SARS or MERS) and seasonal flu - even outside of its pandemic forms - claims millions of lives yet NOTHING is ever shut down or limited during flu season. Those 'at risk' just have to take their chances while life continues on as usual. Why is it okay to put immuno-compromised people at risk of one disease and not another? It makes very little sense.

Personal pet peeves:

  • Someone I was at school with is currently in danger because her essential surgery was cancelled - so she's in hospital for 'pain management' and being put at risk of rupture, sepsis AND of contracting Covid-19 (or other hospital-acquired infections)! Ludicrous! 
  • I have seen a company produce a t-shirt calling people who are outside their homes 'dicks'... You cannot tell if someone is a key-worker by looking at them. You don't know if they're shopping, getting exercise or our for their mental heath. Whether they're out for the first time that day or the first time that month. 
  • I don't buy into this whole idea that people breaching lockdown are putting the NHS at risk. The NHS is already at risk from decades of gross mismanagement (not underfunding) and as Covid-19 has no treatment they're just using (non consenting) humans as guinea pigs. Chances are the cure (if there is one) will come from people developing antibodies...but they don't want us developing antibodies?! Also, the more people who contract it the more chance it has to mutate to something less deadly. Not to mention that most people who contract Covid-19 recover spontaneously without any medical assistance.
  • My youngest is at uni having her education fucked over [yet again] and incurring a huge debt for the privilege. Meanwhile other young people are being granted or denied qualifications based on predicted grades...when I was at school the biggest factor in a predicted grade was whether a teacher LIKED you or not! I fear for their future cos employers will know that the class of 2020 didn't sit their exams.
  • My mum has been having a crisis the last few weeks - we honestly thought she was about to die (and in all honesty she still might) and we had to face it all knowing there was no outside help to be had - no care, no equipment, no support. We've coped...heaven knows what others have done! I reckon there are currently a lot of people dead in their homes that no one knows about yet...
  • I lost my 20s to child-raising, my 30s to working minimum wage to get off welfare while putting myself through uni, now I'm losing my 40s to caring for my stroke-survivor mum...only now the world is gonna be completely decimated so there's literally no chance of my ever being able to rebuild my life. Imagine being in the current climate, out of work, in poor health and / or approaching retirement age... imagine knowing full well you'll probably never get hired again, you've used your savings to survive lock down and now you face an old age of poverty through no fault of your own? This is BLEAK. Money may not be everything but it helps put a roof over your head and food in your belly.
Additionally it's not just people suffering. Animal charities have been severely affected - rescue centres still caring for animals without being able to claim re-homing fees, stables caring for horses when the income has dried up, zoos threatening to cull their animals... https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/20/zoos-may-cull-animals-lockdown-continues-12582877/ Yet another reason why vegans can't support zoos imho!

A couple of months ago we were in an eco boom - reuseable, recyclable, repurposing were key watch words - now people are buying immense quantities of single-use face masks (with no one asking why the CDC has suddenly decided to endorse them after YEARS of saying all evidence showed them to be ineffective and might increase your chances of respiratory infection). Streets are littered with masks, many more will go straight to landfill...and don't get me started on the NHS PPE plastic face shields! People literally only care about the environment when it's convenient to them.

There's people simultaneously cooing over goats roaming Llandudno or Venice's canals running clear... and then demanding PPE for medical staff despite it's straight-to-landfill nature. Completely oblivious to the hypocrisy. Hopefully I'm not a hypocrite - in general terms I dislike my species and the planet would do well to be shot of us.

Save the planet, not homo sapiens!

Wednesday, 4 March 2020

Generation RANT

A tweet I saw today (04/03/20):
“Young people are so privileged” says member of generation
that bought up all the houses on the cheap and got free uni education
and loads of free shit and voted to remove young people’s rights
and opportunities and burnt up the planet so young people are screwed.

I disagree with this on so many levels. Buckle yourselves in - RANT AHOY!

Generations 101:
LOST GENERATION born 1883-1900 (currently dead)
GREATEST GENERATION born 1901-1927 (currently 93+)
SILENT GENERATION born 1928-1945 (currently 75-92)
BABY BOOMERS born 1946-1964 (currently 56-74)
GEN X born 1965-1980* (currently 40-55)
MILLENNIALS born 1981-1996* (currently 24-39)
GEN Z born 1997-2010* (currently 10-23)
ALPHA GENERATION born 2011 or after (currently 9 and under)
* dates disputed

For the record my parents are Silent Generation (1942 & 1944) I'm Gen X (1978) my eldest is a Millennial (1996) and my youngest is Gen Z (1999)

Disclaimer: this rant is from a British perspective - I am well aware that the generations in other nations struggle with entirely different issues.

1) Young people are so privileged
Well, lets see... today's young person usually comes from a smaller, wealthier family than their parents' generation, they have better education, better diets, better health, longer life expectancies... Today's young people have greater legal protections and better working conditions than ever before so, yeah. Privileged. More on this topic to follow.
The theme of younger people blaming the older generation for their woes, and conversely older people bitching about how easy the younger generation has it, are timeless - go look at Aristophanes' The Wasps (circa 446-386 BCE) for a generational conflict over two-thousand years old. There is eff-all unique about this.
It is basic, timeless human nature: parents always think their kids have it easy (and in many ways they do) and kids always think their parents fucked it all up (and in many ways they did) - each generation has different difficulties and challenges, that is the way of the world. One day you will be the older generation and to blame for every complaint the current youth have.

2) says member of generation
Right, can I just stop you right there. Being a member of a particular generation does not automatically follow that you have lived a life with any particular privileges. 
My generation largely grew up in the thriving 90s - boom years for many but especially hard on those of us who were welfare dependent - no food banks in those days! (And let's just mention here that the supposedly blessed Silent / Boomer generations had to deal with dig for victory and rationing!) 
From that perspective today's youth ARE privileged because so much is available, and not just in terms of food. In my youth if you wanted to know a thing it was hours of research at the library IF your parents let you go, now immense amounts of information are just a click away and accessible everywhere... so long as you have the tech, which not everyone can afford.
'Available' is a loaded word because whilst it might be present not everyone has it. Not every household in the '60s had indoor plumbing, not every household in the '80s had a phone, and here I am in 2020 still sans automobile. Don't assume the two are synonymous.

3) that bought up all the houses on the cheap
Yes, houses were cheaper in the past and even allowing for lower wages and so on have you SEEN what interest rates were like in the 80s and 90s?! Also, if they hadn't bought those houses what would you be living in? If your landlord hadn't bought that property for you to rent would you expect it to still be sitting there, in livable condition, at a 1970s price?! If people HADN'T invested in property there'd be a lot of people living in squats and a lot of those homes would be rotting shells.
Seriously though, if people hadn't bought property in the past where would the youth of today be? I have a roof over my head because my parents invested in property, my daughter works in property rentals, my youngest is renting in an investment property at uni.
And here comes another privileged generation comment: back when your parents or grandparents or landlords bought their house or investment properties (dependent on specific dates, obviously) here are some of the other things they may have been contending with: 

  • No minimum wage
  • No statutory sick pay
  • No maternity paid leave and for many older gen women they were actively excluded from the workplace after having a child

That oh so 'lucky' older generation usually had a sole (male) breadwinner paying 15% interest on a mortgage and heaven help him if he got sick or laid off. Women didn't have it any better being expected to stay at home... suffering from financial dependence, thwarted aspirations and worse if the marriage was unhappy. There weren't the refuges and help against domestic abuse like there are today and marital rape wasn't even outlawed until 1991! Now OBVIOUSLY not all domestic violence / rape victims are women but given that almost all the currently available support is geared to female victims the point is negligible. A woman had little choice but to stay because although divorce has been available (there's that word again!) for generations it is fairly meaningless if one party has no where to go and minimal means of supporting themselves.
The younger generation has minimum wage and sick pay and maternity pay and civil partnership and rights for co-habiting partners and work welfare and maximum working hours etc etc etc precisely because of the shit your grand/parents endured. Debt might be higher now but there's far better terms and conditions.

4) and got free uni education
FFS GO LOOK UP UNIVERSITY TAKE UP RATES. Just 4% in the early 60s (when my parents were 18-ish and working rather than studying) according to this source:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jun/24/has-university-life-changed-student-experience-past-present-parents-vox-pops
It might have been 'free' but very few got the chance. And then Labour fought against the state footing the bill because university was seen as privileged, elitist, intensely Tory... 
My kids have spiralling uni debt but they wanted degrees and understood the concept that if you want it you have to pay for it.

5) and loads of free shit
What on earth are you talking about now?! My parents never got anything handed to them. Neither did I.
My dad left school at 15 with no qualifications, worked his arse off in the building trade, got zero support when he got sick in his 50s and lost his job. He paid that 15% interest rate and went without for every damn thing he has.
My mum's parents forced to quit her education after her O-levels because education wasn't valued. She was forced out of work when she was expecting me in the late 70s, she cared for her parents at home until they died in 2000. Tell me, what did she get free? Or that she doesn't deserve what little she has.
I was a teen mum, forced to subsist on welfare because subsidised childcare didn't exist. my youngest attempted suicide after I was forced back to work and she was left home alone. I put myself through 5 1/2 years of uni only to end up living off my mum's pension caring for her full time as a stroke survivor. I am nearly 42 and I haven't even started supporting myself yet. Nor am I ever likely to be able to.
But yeah, sure, all us oldies got handed everything on a plate. Whatever.

6) and voted to remove young people's rights and opportunities
Is this a Brexit comment? I suppose it must be cos it doesn't make any kind of sense.
First up, we never voted into the EU. I thought we voted into the EEC (which was a good idea) but it turns out we joined in 1973, BEFORE the 1975 & 78 referendums (and the youngest person to vote for the EEC would now be 60!). 
The EU came into being in 1993 (although the fate was sealed with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992). This was never a democratic process. And that, for me, is a huge problem. We never voted to give anyone EU "rights and opportunities" so why should we be vilified for voting to leave a situation we the electorate never chose to be a part of? A few alleged perks don't negate the restrictions our nation has suffered.
Freedom of movement has, to a large extent, meant that work hungry migrants (who, I want to make perfectly clear, I have no problem with whatsoever) have been willing to take the jobs so many of our native young people turn their noses up at. I've encountered a fair few barely literate young adults who think that their GCSE grade D in PE entitles them to better than scrubbing toilets for minimum wage. What is it about our society that results in such a shoddy work ethic?!
As most young British people are working in the UK I'm not clear what Brexit is supposedly doing to harm them. People travelled / worked / studied abroad before this, they still do and always will. Not to mention, a lot of people travel / work / study OUTSIDE the EU.
Young people HAVE rights, and opportunities - loads of which are unconnected to the EU. Given the fact that Brexit is the ONLY example of direct democracy in recent British history you could only ever blame GOVERNMENTS, not an electorate, for any other perceived slights to the youth of today... and neither the gov't nor the electorate is all Boomers anyway so you still can't blame a specific demographic! 

7) and burnt up the planet so young people today are screwed
The industrial revolution is where today's environmental woes began and given that dates back to 1820-1840 no fucking way are you blaming that on people born over a century later. 
It was far older generations than mine who were responsible for Bhopal and Chernobyl, my generation has suffered for the actions of previous generations; the kids who died at Aberfan from the coal board's greed would have been Boomers; the smogs of my parents' youth were the fall-out from their great-grandparents. The young people of the past were screwed over too.
But contrary to popular bullshittery we didn't just sit there and take it - the activism of previous generations is WHY there's a growing vegan movement, why there are renewable energies to invest in and electric cars to buy... It was Boomers who were protesting at Greenham Common, Silent Gen behind CND, both for Greenpeace... The oldies were trying to save the bloody planet before the disillusioned youth were conceived! 
Environmental activism isn't a 21st century phenomenon and nor is it mid 20th century people's fault it's not fixed.

But here's what for me at least is the kicker:
The man who tweeted this is actor / comedian / director David Schneider who, according to Wikipedia, was born May 22nd, 1963. Making him a Boomer like the people he's so harshly criticising. He doesn't even seem to have any kids whose futures he is worried for.
He apparently went to an independent boys school and then uni all the way up to doctorate studies. He is exactly the privileged generation he bitches about on social media. Maybe this is his definition of comedy?! I for one am intensely annoyed by incredibly privileged people like this guy spouting outrage about the conditions of a working class they have never been part of.

Wednesday, 19 February 2020

Further Ranting About A Twitter Rant

Today I got blocked on Twitter by some dumb c*** who accused me of defending Jimmy Savile. NOT what I was doing. I was defending, as usual, the principles of due process and 'innocent until proven guilty' - pointing out that there can't be a case against Savile because he is dead as the dead cannot present a defence.

More to the point, the row started because of nasty allegations calling Prince Andrew a proven sex offender.
1. He had an acquaintanceship with a man who was later convicted of sexual offences - which is not a crime
2. He has since also been accused - which does not make him guilty
3. He has not even yet been questioned

I have tweeted at length about this too.
An ordinary person will spend time with hundreds of people in a lifetime, a person in Prince Andrew's role will encounter thousands. If you think you KNOW the people around you, you're an idiot. Every rapist, murderer, child molester, whatever was someone's relative, friend, co-worker. If you think that "they must have known" you have got to be crazy.
I've lived a fairly sheltered life - I have spent years stuck at home as a full-time mum and now as a carer. When I have worked it has never been with lots and lots of people. But can I say I have never associated with a person who has groped, molested or raped? Of course I can't! I knew fairly little about most people I worked with. I didn't know if they were married or had kids or spent their weekends in babygros and adult diapers.
I've never done well with friendships but the few people I would count as true friends I know only a little better. I am aware I know what each person CHOOSES to present to me, that I only see the tip of the iceberg about another person's personality.
As for relationships I've done even worse but the fact I ended up as a single mother, twice over, is pretty indicative that you can be fully intimate with someone and still not know them.
There are allegations that Prince Andrew has failed to co-operate with the FBI...there are also counter claims that the FBI has not attempted to contact him. Either way, his co-operation is entirely voluntary at this point. Who knows where the truth lies?
Meanwhile, it's hard for the US to take the high ground after refusing to extradite Anne Sacoolas, wanted in connection with the death by dangerous driving of 19 year old Harry Dunn. Nations have a tendency to protect their own - just the way things are. Briton's expect the nation to come to their aid when they're jailed abroad or whatever - and I've tweeted at length about how dumb I think that is too.

The fact that Prince Andrew knew someone who turned out to be a sex offender is, imho, not particularly meaningful. You honestly expect any of the royal family to know everything about everyone they know?! That's not even a thing that regular people with far smaller circles of acquaintance can be expected to know.
As yet there's no proof he knew of any wrongdoing or committed any crimes himself, only allegations - hence my arguing for due process. The other tweeter brought Savile into it and I pointed out that the two cases are entirely unalike as Savile is dead and there can be no case brought against him...and that is where it all started - with the assertion that a complaint filed does not equal proof of guilt "that's what courts are for, not social media" - mind you, you can't argue with the type of idiot who actually believes 'there's no smoke without fire' (probably thinks they sank a real ship for the film Titanic an' all...)

My tweets on this read as follows (copied & pasted direct):




  • I'm blocking you for defending witch-hunt and thinking due process is an optional extra. Moron.
  • I have no sympathy for Savile but we have a legal process for a damn good reason. THAT is what I am defending.
  • If YOU would expect a fair trial, a weight on evidence rather than hearsay, DEMAND that principle is applied for others
  • Every person who supports trial by media deserves (IMHO) to be accused of heinous crimes they didn't commit.
  • I think my abhorrence of this comes of being bullied at school. Especially by teachers whose word was law.
  • My daughter too got punished for being in fights... as the victim of a persistent bullying campaign.
  • [This tweet is edited as it involves an allegation of child sexual abuse as told to me but turned out to be false] I reported it, as you do. Police got back to me: Kid didn't have a stepfather. Kid had a history of not knowing fact from fiction, and a psychiatrist.
  • I blocked the kid. But I know others who believed them.


"In the year to the end of March 2017, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated:
  • 20% of women and 4% of men have experienced some type of sexual assault since the age of 16, equivalent to 3.4 million female and 631,000 male victims
  • 3.1% of women (510,000) and 0.8% of men (138,000) aged 16 to 59 had experienced a sexual assault in the last year."

So if one in five WOMEN will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime how likely do you think it is that those acts were perpetrated by just a handful of 'monsters' you personally will never encounter? I'm not going to go so far as to suggest each victim has a separate assailant but we're still not talking about a small group of serial rapist and gropers. We're talking about a significant number of people here - do you even know which of the women you know have been sexually assaulted? Do you even think they would share with you? An awful lot of people never tell their nearest and dearest such things. If you don't know the victims in your life how do you expect to know the perps? Do you think they're easily spotted by their sinister moustaches and black hats or what?!

I am an exceedingly opinionated potato and I believe a lot of things about a lot of people, usually based on little more than intuition. I try to be careful about how I express those opinions, if I even do.
I don't even have much faith in due process. But it's the best we have - we all deserve a fair hearing and assuming someone's guilt based on social media bullshit and the tabloid press is just DUMB.

Plant Milk Comparison

My dad (77, a lifetime carnivore), my elder daughter (24, an opportune eater who tolerates my non-foods) and myself (41, vegan for several years) sat down last weekend with a whole lot of shot glasses to taste test 8 different plant milks.

Our taste test comprised (in alphabetical order):

  • Almond, unsweetened (13kcal/100ml) Alpro
  • Cashew (23kcal/100ml) Alpro
  • Coconut, unsweetened (14kcal/100ml) Alpro
  • Hazelnut (29kcal/100ml) Alpro
  • Hemp (26kcal/100ml) Good Hemp
  • Oat, unsweetened (40kcal/100ml) Alpro
  • Pea (34kcal/100ml) Sproud
  • Walnut (25kcal/100ml) Valsoia


OBVIOUSLY there are loads more - rice, soya, macadamia, tiger nut, blended, flavoured, sweetened, organic...

I use almond as my go-to all-purpose non-milk because it's the lowest calorie and has virtually no flavour. My mum drinks a glass of milk plain and prefers cashew as it's creamy but is okay with oat (which is good as cashew isn't so easily available).
I have been asked many times for my opinions on the 'best' plant milk but it comes mostly down to individual taste so I really recommend trying as many as you can. Also, I would recommend anyone new to plant milks to do the following:
A. If you use large quantities would it be a more economical idea to make your own? Especially if you want to reduce your waste or live in an area that doesn't offer carton recycling... Incidentally we use plastic shot glasses for my mum's meds so they will be reused many times. You can always use glass or paper cups.
B. Think how you use milk. Do you drink it plain, have a dash in coffee, pour it over cereal? The difference in flavours can make a huge difference and you will need to taste test the milks as you use them - especially for hot drinks as some separate and *TMI alert* I vomit with hot soya milk.
C. Where are you at in life? Look at the calorie counts, sugar or protein content depending on what matters to you.
D. Alpro milks are frequently on offer (3 for £3, usually) so stock up for a taste test economically.

Our rankings went as follows:
Dad
1. Hazelnut* / Walnut*
3. Pea - as the only one who could tolerate Pea milk he took it home!
4. Cashew*
5. Oat
6. Almond
7. Hemp / Coconut - which he dubbed "arsenic and cyanide"
Daughter
1. Cashew*
2. Hazelnut*
3. Walnut*
4. Oat
5. Almond
6. Pea
7. Coconut
8. Hemp
Me
1. Cashew* / Walnut*
3. Oat
4. Hazelnut*
5. Almond - despite being my go-to it is bland, nothingy and not nice on its own
6. Coconut - watery and white, didn't even realise how much I disliked it, shan't buy it in future!
7. Pea - with the comment "bloody weird NO" definitely not worth the 2nd highest calorie count
8. Hemp - with the comment "bleuuuu socks ICK"

*As the same three milks made all of our top 4 I will discuss those in a little detail.
Cashew (Dad's # 4, daughter's #1, my joint first)
As someone who hasn't had cow juice in over 7 years it's not the easiest to say but to me Cashew is the closest to dairy milk. Coconut is very white; hazelnut & walnut are rather brown. Coconut & almond are rather watery but Cashew has a hint of creamyness. Also, unlike hazelnut, walnut, coconut the flavour is pretty neutral meaning it's a great all-purpose choice. (For the record, almond milk doesn't taste of almonds. Before I first tried it I was terrified it'd be like liquid marzipan!)
Hazelnut (Dad's joint 1st, daughter's #2, my #4)
As above, hazelnut is a bit on the brown side and tastes, unsurprisingly, of hazelnuts. Hazelnutty coffee or hot chocolate would probably be just fine but in tea? Probably not. Fortunately I loathe tea. Actually, I don't like hazelnuts but I like this milk. Weird, huh?
Walnut (Dad's joint 1st, daughter's #3, my joint 1st)
Again, brown. Again, strong walnut flavour. I have since tried this as a latte and it was DELICIOUS. Like hazelnut I think it'd work better in particular contexts: with muesli? Great! To make a strawberry blancmange? I kind of think the pepperyness of the walnut would make that pretty gross but I could be wrong.