George George George

How could I ever form an argument as remarkably well as this man can?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers

What an excellent article by George Monbiot.

Go on, take a look...

Tailored?

The joy and the despair of people sharing experiences with polar opposite outcomes can be directly translated to this example.

A lovely friend of mine went on a long holiday this year (3 months in South East Asia), and within that time he went to Vietnam. He went to a town called Hoi An on the coast to have a suit tailored to fit him. Months later, I went to Hoi An. Tailored clothes were on the agenda, but so was relaxing and this seemed like the perfect place in which to do it. Hoi An is quietly situated on a river, with restaurants and shops lining the water. Lanterns softly light the town at night, but night time adventures tend to cease at around 10.30pm. A little sanctuary. 

This friend enjoyed Hoi An and had a great experience with his tailor of choice, so much so that he recommended the place to me. I went there and I can say with confidence that I will absolutely not recommend it. I still like the person who recommended the place to me, for how can I blame him for my own disappointment? Indeed, my experience was a colossal disappointment, but maybe my expectations were too high.

The place is called Kimmy's, and in fairness to them, I get the impression that they are not one-of-a-kind shit, they are one-of-most-if-not-all-that-are shit.

The prices are high. By saying that they are high, of course I don't mean that they are anything like what they would be in London, but everything is relative. A good price comparison is a packet of cigarettes: in Vietnam, expect to pay about 65p for a packet of 20 Marlborough Lights compared to the £6.20ish that you would pay in the UK.

Anyhow, Vietnamese workers get paid little, but they pay little for food (around 30p for a meal in a restaurant), little for fuel for their mopeds, for rent et cetera. So to get charged US$120 for a suit jacket and trousers that can be made within hours is quite obscene, particularly in light of the terrible quality of craftsmanship. 

I say that it is obscene mainly because it is unclear to me where the money goes. The cost of the fabric in Asia is next to nothing, but if you ask them how much a wool mix per metre costs, they don't know or refuse to say, but charge a solid $20 extra for a 'better' fabric for the item that you have asked for. You can get beautiful silk fabric in London for £3 per metre, so I was fairly confident that I was getting ripped off on the basis of the costs of the fabric alone. 

Do the employees who spend a couple of hours stitching together a few seams in their tried and tested methods get the moolah? I saw no evidence to suggest that there were countless wealthy Vietnamese people walking around.

The friendly employees of Kimmy's take your measurements (shoulder to shoulder, neck circumference, neck to waist, shoulder to wrist, under arm circumference, upper arm measurement, waist, hips, thighs, waist to knee, nostril to nostril...), but to experience your first fitting is a huge surprise. Every detail of your body that they write down is used as more of a general guideline than as a rule. And every design detail that you ask to be included in your jacket/shirt/dress will be ignored because they also seem to adopt a basic template with which to make a lady's jacket/shirt/dress.

Intuitiveness is certainly not something that a Vietnamese tailor can lay claim to and celebrate. It seems as if they are instructed on how to make a basic item and no more. To incorporate changes that you insist on as a result of the first fitting being so wrong, they disregard anything else that needs to be altered to in order to maintain a balance with the design. Buttons are sewn on unevenly, scorch marks will be left on your 'better quality' fabric, sleeves are sewn in poorly so that they don't sit comfortably and they look uneven, sleeve lengths are too short... Seams on trousers are wonky; straps on dresses are mismatched; lengths that you ask for are not provided; pockets are fake!

I stayed in Hoi An for nearly a week because I enjoyed cycling to the beach, eating the good food, and revelling in the comparative quietness. But going back to Kimmy's again and again and again for refit after refit because they don't know how to sew well was unexpected, and it added some frustration to my experience there. 

It was also very dull having to try on these disappointing items of clothing. If it had been cheap, I would have been less bothered. But the fact is that I could get all of the items from the high street for the same price, of better quality and superior fit, and without expectations of perfection. For surely that's what tailoring is? Working to achieve results of perfection. If only I had appreciated the merits of what was already available to me.

Please don't mistake this entry for someone with no perspective - I realise that in the grand scheme of things that can go wrong in life, this is going to have little impact on me or anyone else. No one has died. It's just really irritating. A disappointing clothing experience? A little shallow, I guess. But I really really like clothes, and I was so looking forward to being the owner of beautifully crafted, perfectly fitting fabric on my small frame. So not the end of the world, but a sad little let down for sure.

Short Tight Black Skirt: A Story

Teeny tiny little black stretchy skirts adorn the bottoms - just about – of the man-conscious young woman in Sydney. Style? Non. Fashion? Iffy… but perhaps it has been a brief member of the fashion club. But in my opinion, a person dressing fashionably is doing so with art in mind, as well as a desire to impress/stun their peers for their innovation and daring, and not as a way to promote drooling or possible wolf whistles.

These skirts are worn day and night. They don’t just seem to be the nightclub or bar uniform. During the day, a loose top and/or jacket is mock-casually thrown with it, with suitably tousled hair or an ever complimentary top-knot. At night? Anything goes really, as long is it is a relatively small anything.

At night it is particularly comical to see, as a throng of young women will walk three or four abreast with their very similar attire. You will see this a number of times in one evening. There may be a slight difference with the texture of the fabric – perhaps one is wearing a ‘body-con’ style dress/skirt, with thick synthetic fabric that squashes the contents in a little. Perhaps someone else is wearing stretchy jersey fabric that rides up much more easily. Perhaps another has gone crazy and chosen mauve.

It is the norm to not be wearing tights with them. Unfortunately, a high percentage of women suffer from water retention, and the evidence is clear. It just baffles me that they would choose to display the water retention evidence so visibly.

There must be an equation that identifies this look:

Short (usually) black skirt + boy/men = flirtation + boost in confidence + sexting (and beyond)

I’ll admit that I’m not certain of how to balance this equation. But there it is.

And there is nothing wrong with the equation except for its obviousness and the baseness. There’s always a place for baseness. I eat pork scratchings after all.

The positive is that I saw a kangaroo

After meandering through a few information streams first, I managed to arrange a stint pruning grape vine in Canowindra, New South Wales. Canowindra has a population of around 1,700 people. The final step was to give Tony a call. Tony will "set up [my] accommodation".

Tony was called, and my first impression of Tony was poor, as he answered the telephone with "yeah". But this is the man who makes the final arrangements for farm work, people do this all the time, so I suppose I need to pack away the now redundant expectations that good manners are normal. Asking if there was anything that I needed to know, he replied there was nothing except that I would be staying in the Canowindra Hotel and to call him when I'm close to arriving so that he could brief me on the work.

I arrived the following week at 8.30pm, called him when I arrived as there was no signal anywhere else on the journey, and he appeared to forget that I was due to arrive and that I was due to start work the following day. "Oh no - you're at the bus stop now?" he asked. "Why yes, Tony, as arranged last week, I am," I replied. "Oh no. There's no accommodation. I told the agencies to stop sending people." he said. "Right. But we spoke last week and arranged it," said I. "Oh no. You're at the bus stop now?"

He came to meet me at the bus stop, and described a story to me. This involved farmers not expecting a group of 14 people to start working 3 days previously, and the Canowindra Hotel overbooking so that grape vine pruners were unable to stay. 12 people were currently located in one room in one other hotel on a floor. As it turns out, I was one of the lucky ones to get a bed. This I shared with two strangers in a filthy room. As Tony sorted this room out for me, he said that he'd be back shortly to talk about the work etc. He didn't come back that night.

The following morning saw no improvements. He looked like shit with his hangover, but confirmed that I would be starting that day. I asked about payment, tax numbers, forms that I might need to fill in... Payment in cash on Fridays. No forms. We get on a bus that takes us to the farm. That's it. And what about the accommodation? That will be sorted today. Is there anything else I need to know? No.

Off to the farm. I was reassured later by a scatty Camelia, who it turns out organises all of the farm work and liaises with the farmers, that the accommodation would be organised. She is the one who condones what is bordering on slave labour. (I would have made around $6 an hour, if not less.) Of course, nothing else was mentioned about anything else.

The accommodation wasn't arranged and I spent a second night in the filthy bed and room.

The following day saw storms and nobody was allowed to work. The rest of the week saw the same forecasts. So there was a group of us who were expected to pay for filthy accommodation, in a town that sold food at twice the price you find in Sydney, with nowhere to go except for a single street. I couldn't justify spending any more time there. Short lived? Absolutely. I had expected to spend about 5 weeks there! But proper accommodation still wasn't arranged for the third night, despite repeated promises. The secateurs were left with Drunk Tony on Wednesday evening, and one of my room buddies, Judith, and I packed our bags ready to leave the following day. We both left our bank details and a thank you note for the initial chance to work on a farm. And left.

A week later, by text, I have been accused of stealing the secateurs, of not paying for the accommodation, and for not paying for the transport to the farm (?!). All of the information about extra costs were mysteriously not spoken of, and some wench has decided that she'd like to threaten me with the police and immigration department. Apparently, she is "sick and tired [of people] who constantly leave without being honest in paying what you have to pay". Right. Workers must be a little tired, too, of the disgusting conditions in which they clearly have to live and work. I'll see what happens...

Compatibility

"How long can you wait for a person to tell you that love is not enough? That all of the wonderful things that make a great couple are just too much? That energy, passion and opinions can't compete with cool, lovely and nice?

I suppose there must come a time when Defeat holds up its flag and tells you that you're pathetic, but also that you are more than what you are sinking into, and therefore you need to buck up and move on. Waiting to be discarded, or to be told that the energy is too much, that Love is too complicated and not worth a hop - let alone a leap - of faith is something that can kill any crevice of optimism and romance that a person may hold."

I wrote the above a little while ago as a way to explore a non-development. It's interesting to look at this now in a different context, feeling slightly more cynical. Or maybe it's not even cynicism, but rather realism.

I read something earlier today in Malcolm Gladwell's excellent 'The Tipping Point', which put an interesting slant on compatibility and perhaps why Failure must slap you in the face from time to time:

Perhaps most important, though, we store information with other people. Couples do this automatically... Wegner [Daniel, University of Virginia psychologist] argues that when people know each other well, they create an implicit joint memory system - a transactive memory system - which is based on an understanding about who is best suited to remember what kinds of things. "Relationship development is often understood as a process of mutual self-discolsure," he writes. "Although it is probably more romantic to cast this process as one of interpersonal revelation and acceptance, it can also be appreciated as a necessary precursor to transactive memory." Transactive memory is part of what intimacy means. In fact, Wegner argues, it is the loss of this kind of joint memory that helps to make divorce so painful... The loss of transactive memory feels like losing a part of one's own mind."

Practically, I think this can help to explain why some people just cannot work together. If you are so out of sync with each other, with completely different temperaments, alternative ideals and contrasting politics, then you are both likely to approach your environments in completely different ways. Although this could be a harmonious coupling, where each individual will remember what they are best suited to remember and bring different valuable things to the relationship, it could also be a source of frustration. Expectations are sometimes not met, and one half of the couple is left wondering why the hell the other has put so much weight on something they consider to be trivial, and consequently see the other as redundant. And vice versa.

The individuals will be left disappointed and frustrated, and expectations will not be met.

Perhaps this could be applied practically in a work scenario: you have spotted three recurring mistakes in a client's short automatic email. This email reaches hundreds of people per year and could have a negative impact on their business, and consequently your own. (See this BBC article as an indication of why easy business can be lost.) You'd like to advise them of their mistake but are unsure about how to approach it delicately, though you feel strongly that it is an appropriate course of action to contact them.

Just to be sure, you ask a colleague their opinion. Highlight the paragraph to them, and show them the three mistakes. Then ask them how they think the errors can be communicated. The colleague responds unexpectedly by saying that only two of the three mistakes should be highlighted, because in his opinion only two can really be noticed and the third is less important.

Perhaps he thinks that this approach is a softer blow to the person who has made the mistakes? To me, the colleague's answer is wholly stupid, and merely fuels ignorance. The fact is that there are three mistakes, and he is too much of a dolt to understand them all. However, if his partner of over two years asks him the same advice, she is likely to accept it as sound as they are so harmonious together. They bring different ideas and memory systems to the table in their relationship and get on brilliantly. In their world, their individual thoughts, opinions and memories are cohesive. In my world the ignorance - granted, of something relatively small - is unacceptable. Of course, we would never get on and never be able to build anything like a transactive memory system.

With this in mind, suddenly, thinking about relationships and compatibility makes more sense. You offer different things to the table so that you benefit each other, but each individual notices and appreciates the offering, making it clear that the offering is valued and applauded. This failure that sometimes happens? It's just a practical wake up call that you need, to encourage you to try something different.

Is this the best coffee in London, nay, the world?

Some people feel wretched if they have no access to coffee. If I am in the presence of one of these folk, I consequently feel wretched as they verge on being unpleasant. So if I can ply them with good coffee, or help with directions to good coffee, then I am more than happy to comply.

I love coffee, but do not consider myself to be an aficionado. I know the difference between very good and okay, but possibly not between very good and exceptional. Perhaps the difference between very good and exceptional lies in individual opinion anyhow. But how valid is the individual opinion if they frequent Starbucks et al?

The last time I drank a Starbucks coffee was after a friend highlighted that they now make flat whites. With respect, I felt that it was good. I would be inclined to venture in for another if I had a hankering for one and the store was convenient. Previously, though, I asked for a latte and it was vile. I asked them to make it again on account of it being watery and burnt. They duly made it again and it was the same shit. This was not a one off.

Could the same thing happen at Monmouth (coffee company)? Or in... Kaffeine? This is doubtful.

Monmouth has a tone of middle class country farm about it, despite being perched confidently in Covent Garden, London Bridge, and Bermondsey Street, with contrived communal heavy wooden tables, a style also exemplified perfectly in the popular and oh-so-pretentious coffee shop, The Town Mill Bakery, in Lyme Regis in Dorset, neighbour to the original place of Monmouth, from where I believe the coffee company gets its name. However, I think a pretentious place can embrace this title with something resembling pride if they can make it work. And both Monmouth coffee and The Town Mill Bakery work because the goods that they offer are really very good..

However, for something a little less twee, with a touch more elegance, Kaffeine could be the place that tops it. Coffee after coffee is a success, and although I think that Monmouth coffee is exceptional, the overall coffee-drinking experience is often let down by service with an attitude. Kaffeine has always been friendly without gushing and I always feel comfortable being there. I thank the friend who introduced me to it. Best in London? A definite contender. Others... Flat White? A bit tired... Macaron in Clapham? Delicious, delightful, indulgent - this is high on the list. 

But what makes a good coffee? Good beans, ethically sourced of course, because there's nothing worse than the taste of guilt; top-notch equipment; good skills. No burnt milk, not too much froth, a cup that is not too large (grande, anyone? I think not. A 5oz cup is just perfect), a smooth texture, a good consistency that is thicker than a glass of full fat milk but thinner than honey. Apparently, the Synesso Cyncra is "the holy grail of espresso machines", and is what is used to make the deliciousness as provided by Kaffeine.

A friend in Sydney is saying that it is the best place in the world for coffee, beating Italy and France. Apparently, a coffee movement is happening. Lots of new and previously uncommon techniques are being used to satisfy the needs of the common coffee aficionado. Perhaps I shall soon find out if he is boasting, deluded, or indeed spot on.

nom-nom

Life: pro-abstinence group to advise the UK government on sexual health

Diversity is a wonderful thing. Diversity in opinion is particularly great, as it can generate all sorts of discussion and ideas, not to mention stimulating arguments, allowing us to see the different shades of grey between the black and the white.

Often, because of recognising the different opinions in between, you form a strong conclusion. Neutrality on anything but cleaning products, socks and pencils is a fool's stance.

However, what about when one is at loggerheads with a person on the other end of the scale? I'm going to refer now to my beloved 'The West Wing', that America television series created by the exquisite Aaron Sorkin, and in particular to a scene with the crazy Christian, Mary Marsh. It comes towards the end of episode 1, season 1 and she wants to know "whadda we get?" for being insulted the day before by the deputy chief of staff, Josh Lyman, on television. She brashly provides a list of options that she wants the White House to arrange: school prayer, the eradication of pornography (!) or getting rid of condoms from schools. Although aware that they reduce the risk of teen pregnancies and HIV, she asserts that abstinence also does the same trick.

Well of course it does, but not eating also reduces the number of fat people, and taking cars of the roads reduces the number of cases of asthma and bronchitis.

I couldn't help but watch in awe the first time that I saw this, because this opinionated character is in the White House making crazy demands from the government! Trying to force teenagers to stamp down on their curiosity and unsettled hormones, and deny them the education that allows them to make safe decisions? How does she even get the meeting?! How is somebody who is striving to eradicate key parts of science and social studies, not to mention responsibility, even allowed such a prominent voice? How is such strongly worded ignorance allowed any kind of place in public? Obviously, it's not only in America, but for this topic to get such serious attention in such an advanced nation blows my mind, and I could never see anything like this happening over in the UK or in Australia, and certainly not France or Germany.

Except that now this is happening in the UK. An anti-abortion/pro-abstinence group, 'Life', has been drafted in as a sexual health adviser to the government.

It would be funny if it weren't quite so troubling. Sexual health advice from a group of people who are against an individual's right to choose and to make informed decisions about their lives? It's likely that the drafting in of this group is merely a political manoeuvre, one that allows certain groups to feel like they are being listened to when in reality they should be keeping their distinctly skewed observations to church meetings.

Remarkably, 'Life' compares behaviour in 2011 to that in the 1950s, claiming that the 1950s was a time when people celebrated the notion of waiting until one was mature enough to deal with the consequences of having sex, that "it was a culture that supported and cherished marriage and faithfulness". Of course, a vital bit of information is left out about a woman's right to work and have a career, to be taken seriously as a working woman, to receive a decent wage to live off, and to be able to live independently and make informed decisions about themselves. 

It was more of a patriarchal society then than it is now, and women had no choice but to submit to the repressive tactics of men - if a woman were to become pregnant, what were the chances of her making a 'respectable' marriage? Slim. Consequently, without this chance of a respectable marriage, how would she be able to have a life outside of her ageing parent's home if she is not allowed a living wage? How would she be able to have any material comforts and make any friends with the label that the male-driven society has given her?

Women in the 1950s didn't choose not have sex, they were forced to behave how men wanted them to behave, whilst observing the very same men choose their own fun without the same possible visible consequences of unsafe sex. For 'Life' to be melancholic about this limited existence is a sick and ignorant mistake. For the UK government to allow them a public voice is a disgrace.

In response to the government's move, The Telegraph's Ed West comments about how contraception is only effective with "sensible, responsible people" and that it is "vastly less effective with semi-literate 14 year olds who half want to get pregnant  to fill their lives with some meaning". Not a ridiculous comment in itself, but surely, then, this semi-literacy and boredom or 'lostness' is the thing that needs addressing? The alternative cannot surely be to preach abstinence as the correct and sensible course and so narrow the semi-illiterate's education even further? What a stupid idea.

If abortion rates need to be tackled, then we need to be looking to the women who are having the procedure. The most recent figures (as of 24th May 2011) outline that around 80% of abortions in the UK are carried out on women over the age of 20, and 29% of these are carried out on women over the age of 30. (About 12% of abortions were for 18 and 19 year olds.) Now, presumably, the latter of these women have been out of the education system for some time - is Mr West suggesting they go back to school in order to learn that abstinence is key?

An interesting figure in this context is that 16% of all abortions occurred within marriage. Again, for West and co to suggest that this married 16% would listen to sexual advise from a group that preaches abstinence is ludicrous.

What is also ludicrous is the idea that these numbers can explain a situation. Every individual that decides to have an abortion does so in personal circumstances. In times when 2 million young people (those under the age of 25) are unemployed, with few prospects to get good work, and when thousands of people have been made redundant due to the incapabilities of the country-controlling banks, how could it be a bad thing for people in uncertain times to make the decision not to give themselves more financial insecurity?

And perhaps the financial aspect of raising a child isn't the main factor for these women who choose to have an abortion. Perhaps they are not healthy. Perhaps they are physically fine but mentally unstable. Perhaps a full time job that they feel pressurised to have in a society that demands time and money to be given is their priority. Sex is often the release from the pressure and the stress. And I'm going to say it: accidents happen.

If trying to limit the number of abortions is more about the financial strain on society that the government is trying to stem, then perhaps they could also place limitations on other factors that put a big strain on the health care system. Perhaps a fat person should be restricted to just the fruit and vegetable and the meat aisles in the supermarket. Fancy some bread? You're over 14 stone? I don't think so, go back to the veg aisle, buddy, we don't want to operate on your straining heart - can't afford it.

Of course, that's ridiculous. Everybody has a right to choose what they eat, just as everybody has a right to choose on the massive impact of having a child. A woman has a right to decide about what happens to her own body if she is able to - and yes, a foetus is part of the woman's body via the umbilical chord. (The latter comment had to be clarified as 'Life' are unsure about it, according to their website.)

Am I missing a point? The Christian/moral point. Excuse me, but until the Christian soldier with that weapon hands it over and never kills another human life again, until pigeon shooting and deer stalkers hand over their guns, until farmers cease to slaughter lambs for food, I cannot consider morality in absolute terms, and certainly not in relation to abortion. 'Thou shallt not kill... except for when it suits you' often seems to be the missing part of this commandment. You cannot claim to be absolutely religious or moral only when it is convenient. Or at least, you cannot claim to be strongly moral and expect me to listen if you also advocate war, believe in the death penalty and you eat meat.

The sex education that I received was excellent. This education came through school (science and religious education), magazines and common sense. There were no cartoons or bananas, there was no condescension but instead a respectful relaying of useful information about all of the types of contraception available, how to use it and why we should use it.

There was encouragement not to be promiscuous because sex is a big deal and it is intimate! You are placing much trust in your partner and there needs to be mutual respect. We were told of all sorts of diseases and how they could be contracted. We were not scared off, but informed that in this fun activity there can be consequences, and you need to be prepared for the risks. We were prepared, and I am sad that students in other countries are not offered the same information to be prepared, or that poor schools in the UK cannot reach their children properly. Abstinence is a fool's message.

I had a Catholic upbringing, so I am not insensitive to the argument that we should respect the sanctity of life. And this is an important point: the woman earning £15,000 a year with an unemployed partner, or the 38 year old woman whose own life is statistically more physically vulnerable if she has to play house to a foetus for a while, or the woman who was raped, or the 26 year old phd student who forgets to take a pill for the first time in 5 years... I find it hard to believe that any of these women find the decision an easy one to make. But it is theirs to make, and if she has the support and love of a partner, then so much the better, and they can make the decision together. An informed decision.

An informed decision similar to the one that the 16 year old should be able to make about being sexually active and about contraception with information provided at schools, clinics and in magazines. Ignoring the facts will help no one - ignorance is the biggest and most troubling disease.

Mama monkey & her baby