Time for Turner to turn in his grave again

/
Political works to the fore in ‘incredibly strong year’

It seems that Mark Wallinger is the favourite to win this year’s Turner Prize with his recent show State Britain, which ‘painstakingly recreated the protest slogans of activist Brian Haw inside the cavernous spaces of Tate Britain’

This year’s citation is for his recent show State Britain, which painstakingly recreated the protest slogans of activist Brian Haw inside the cavernous spaces of Tate Britain:



I’ll leave aside my thoughts on the ‘mascot’ Brian Haw for now and quote this comment on Wallinger’s ‘art’:
Lozenge - Madrid:

If that is what Wallington did (painstakingly recreated the protest slogans of activist Brian Haw), why hasn’t Brian Haw been nominated for the Turner Prize, after all he should own all the artistic rights? Or is it that, what he did were only signs and not art and when they were painstakingly recreated, they became art? If so, couldn’t Haw sue for plagiarism, or does that only happen in literature and music? So, when did it become art and whose art is it?
Not everyone agrees and, after all, Mark is a bloody nice chap.
BluebellCottage - Manchester:

Mark is a totally fantastic guy and artist. He inhabits the moral high ground, and sometimes seems to be able to do no wrong. He created a ‘simulacrum’ of Brian Haw’s protest piece. By so doing he made it art, he ‘validated’ it. He launched it into the collective subconscious that we all are a part of, by using not only the institution but also the geographical location of the Tate Gallery to ram home his point. For God’s sake he deserves the prize, this year.
‘BluebellCottage’!?

Right On Baby!

See also: What price a Haw original? Er…nothing

'a war of revenge'

/
Truthdig - The Greatest Threat to Choice

By Chris Hedges
The relentless drive against abortion by the Christian right—the first salvo having been fired with the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision last month to uphold the federal ban on the procedure known as “partial birth abortion”—has nothing to do with the protection of life. It is, rather, a cover for a wider and more pernicious assault against the ability of women to control their own bodies, the use of contraception and sexual pleasure.

The movement openly conflates contraceptives with devices or substances that cause abortion. It holds up as heroes of “conscience” those pharmacists who refuse to sell contraceptives. It works to block over-the-counter sales of Plan B emergency contraceptive pills.

It peddles, with hundreds of millions in tax dollars handed to the movement by the Bush administration, abstinence-only sex-ed curricula and opposes a vaccine against the HPV virus, the major cause of cervical cancer, claiming it would promote promiscuity.

The denial of contraception, as is well documented, increases the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. And abortion is never going to go away. If it again becomes illegal, the rich, as in the past, will find ways to provide abortions for their wives, mistresses and girlfriends, and the poor will die in unhygienic back rooms. But since this is a war with a wider agenda, abortion statistics and facts do not count.

The Christian right fears pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, which it sees as degrading, corrupting and tainted. For many, their own experiences with sex—coupled with their descent into addictions and often sexual and domestic abuse before they found Christ—have led them to build a movement that creates an external rigidity to cope with the chaos of human existence, a chaos that overwhelmed them.

They do not trust their own urges, their capacity for self-restraint or judgment. The Christian right permits its followers to project evil outward, a convenient escape for people unable to face the darkness and the psychological torments within them...


It's simple. I just can't stand the man!

/
spiked | What’s worse than Blair? His critics
Today, Blair-bashing – which is indulged by many of those who bowed and scraped before Blair 10 years ago – is driven by cynicism and frustration. It has become fashionable, a sign of respectability, to say that you don’t like Blair.

From Labour government ministers to Labour Party members, from the commentariat to the ranks of the anti-war movement, Hating Blair is the new Loving Blair. Yet it is a contentless, shallow and gesture opposition. It is not about properly analysing what ‘Blairism’ means and why it is a problem; it is simply about saying ‘I blame Blair for everything!’

Cynicism with politics, and fatalism towards the idea that we might really change things for the better, is now expressed in the sentiment that Blair’s continuing presence in parliamentary politics is the cause of all the nation’s problems. Blair is now discussed as a ‘boil’ on the Labour Party’s record, or a ‘blot on the British political landscape’, who must be squeezed and drained and Tcleared away before things can get back to normal.

Anti-Blairism is an emotional spasm rather than a political critique, and often it is driven by petty and envious inter-Labour rivalries. It is the lowest form of politics.



For 'New' read 'Old'

/
New fears over additives in children's food, trumpets The Guardian.

'Potential link to behaviour problems prompts advice to parents over diet.'
Food safety experts have advised parents to eliminate a series of additives from their children's diet while they await the publication of a new study that is understood to link these ingredients to behaviour problems in youngsters.The latest scientific research into the effect of food additives on children's behaviour is thought to raise fresh doubts about the safety of controversial food colourings and a preservative widely used in sweets, drinks and processed foods in the UK. But the Guardian has learned that it will be several months before the results are published, despite the importance of the findings for children's health. (emphasis mine)

Researchers at Southampton University have tested combinations of synthetic colourings and preservative that an average child might consume in a day to measure what effect they had on behaviour. A source at the university told the food industry's magazine the Grocer last week that their results supported findings first made seven years ago that linked the additives to behavioural problems. (emphasis mine)
Well how outrageous! Waiting until the study receives suitable peer review and is published in a scientific journal - as opposed to THE GROCER!

Isn't that one of the ways we attempt to discover what is solidly based science and what is complete tosh (or even fraud and lies, as about 10% of it eventually turns out to be).

But wait, you say. This study supports findings from a similar study by the same people in 1999 so why should we wait any longer before confiscating those pineapple chunks and sherbet lemons from our kids?

Mmmm, let's see:
Food Standards Agency - Working Group on Food Additives and Behaviour in Children Meeting minutes 13 December 2002

Professor Jim Stevenson of the University of Southampton presented a brief review of a 1-year study that had been funded by the Government in 1999:

“Do food additives cause hyperactivity and behaviour problems in a geographically defined population of 3 and 5 year olds?”

Professor Stevenson summarised the main findings of the study. The Chairman reminded members of the Working Group that the report of this study had been referred to the Committee on Toxicity (COT), (in 2000 and later in 2001). He summarised the observations made, and conclusions drawn by the COT. 

The principal points made were:

  • There had been a large placebo effect
  • There were no changes associated with exposure detected in a clinical setting and only one of 3 parameters deriving from parental observations showed any association.
  • A substantial number of children (55 of 277) were unaffected by the challenge (or indeed displayed improved behaviour), but showed worse behaviour with the placebo.
  • The COT considered that although the observations were consistent with previous data, and statistically significant, the magnitude of the reported effects was small compared with previous research. They concluded that the data did not allow assessment of whether there was an adverse effect of the additives examined in all the children, or a possible idiosyncratic effect in a susceptible sub-group. The COT had considered that the findings warranted further investigations.
The report of the study had been sent to two scientific journals for publication, and was currently with a third journal for consideration. It was agreed that the contractors would let the Group have sight of referees’ concerns/comments, as these could inform the design of future studies. Professor Stevenson noted that he would forward these to the Secretariat with commentary.  The Group was asked to consider the feasibility of funding further studies to determine if there is a relationship in children between exposure to certain food additives and behavioural effects/changes. It was agreed that such studies were feasible and should be supported.
Utterly conclusive, what?

Spit that sweet out boy!




Listen, she just happens to be a woman, right

/
YouTube :  Park it here

I was on the MR2 site this evening and I came across this video. The car she's trying to park is a Toyota MR2 Mk1, similar to mine (even the same colour). OK they don't have power steering but they are very easy to park, if you know what your doing. With the lock and the geometry of the Mark 1 she could have got it parked in this spot in just one move but let's be fair and call it two...





Junk Science Nation

/
The Independent - Junk food nation

'3.6 million people in Britain suffer from malnutrition Hospitals see 44% rise in cases as cost to the NHS hits £7.3bn'

Amid estimates that up to 3.6 million people are suffering from malnutrition, including conditions found in sub-Saharan Africa, MPs and doctors last night called for action to tackle poor diets, and for all patients to be screened for malnutrition. They called for the Government's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) guidelines to be made compulsory.

In 2002, 2,729 people in English hospitals were diagnosed with malnutrition. Last year, the number had risen to 3,931.

The British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition estimates malnutrition costs the NHS more than £7.3bn a year, double the annual obesity bill. Doctors estimate that up to 6 per cent of the population could be suffering from malnutrition and serious vitamin and mineral deficiencies caused by poor diet. Most do not have their conditions identified.

Experts said a reliance on pre-prepared food and failure to eat enough fresh fruit and vegetables is depleting levels of essential micro-nutrients. The deficiencies are found in teenagers, the elderly, adults and babies as young as 18 months. They warn the balance of nutrients is also disturbed by binge drinking, excess sugar and drug use.

The Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield, who obtained the hospital figures, said it was "deeply disturbing that the number of patients suffering from malnutrition has almost doubled in the last five years. Far too many patients leave hospital less nourished than when they were admitted.

"It is time patients were routinely screened for malnutrition, and offered specialist nutritional support."

Whenever you read an article like this one in the Independent, with no references or links but littered with terms like, 'doctors estimate', 'experts said', 'doctors...called for action' 'The British association for (please insert suitably impressive terminology here) this or that 'estimates the cost of' (overeating, undereating, underfloorheating or whatever) at £X gazzillion pounds' you know you've arrived in the land of bullshit.

If confirmation is required you next check out the individuals and organizations involved. After turd-examiner in chief and so called 'expert' Dr Gillian McKeith PhD(sic) - short for phud! - was shown up for the charlatan she is, journalists had to cast around for another suitable celebrity expert.

This time they came up with Dr Mike Stroud (who is at least a real doctor), best known for his record-breaking expeditions with Sir Ranulph Fiennes, since they first teamed up in 1986. As a leading authority on survival, nutrition and endurance Dr Stroud appears frequently on TV and radio (natch). He was the endurance and medical expert on all three series of BBC TV’s, ‘Are You Tough Enough for the SAS’. He is also presenter and endurance expert on a new BBC TV series, ‘The Challenge’. The link above takes you to his management site, where he  comes under 'Artists'.

Anna Denny, MSc, has worked at The British Nutrition Foundation since September 2005.

And the organization, BAPEN? Find out for yourself at the 'about/history' page on their website. Oh, save yourself the trouble, it's just one line: 'The history page will appear here soon.' As soon as they've got some, I presume.

Their 'vision'? 'To help ensure that those suffering from malnutrition or other nutritional problems are appropriately recognised and managed.'  Who'd have guessed?

Then we have the politician, Lord Hanningfield, long time local councilor, ex-farmer and, since May 2005, Shadow Minister for Local Government and for Transport (Diet, Nutrition and Faeces Examination surely? -Ed).

Now let's take a closer look at that article, headlined, '3.6 million people in Britain suffer from malnutrition Hospitals see 44% rise in cases as cost to the NHS hits £7.3bn..

There is just one FACT in the Indie article:

In 2002, 2,729 people in English hospitals were diagnosed with malnutrition. Last year, the number had risen to 3,931.

There are over 1,000 NHS hospitals in England.

In 2002, on average, each hospital came across about 2.5 cases of 'malnutrition' a year. In 2006 it rose to about 4 cases. Sub-Saharan Africa it ain't.

But here's the real killer quote from the Noble Lord himself: 'Far too many patients leave hospital less nourished than when they were admitted.'

LESS nourished? I thought the problem was junk food and ready-made meals? No! It would appear that hospitals, where the vast majority of dieticians, nutritionists and other sundry experts work, can manage to make people who eat crap even less nourished after a stay.

Still, losing a few pounds and finding your vitamin and mineral levels depleted has got to be better than losing half your face to the MRSA bug. They can't feed you properly, they can't wash their hands - better stay out of hospital people, even if it does mean living on KFC.

Mmmm, KFC...




”Ooh no, stop messin’ about!”

/
According to America's tired old man of letters and Kenneth Williams lookalike, Tom Wolfe:

“Bush is portrayed as a moron. I’ve only conversed with him a couple of times – not for very long – but I found he was more literate on literature than the editor of the New York Review of Books, Bob Silvers. I’ve talked to both of them, and he makes Bob Silvers look like a slug.”

Old age is a terrible thing...



James Wolcott:

I've never had the honor of slinging the literary hash with our unbeloved president, but I did exchange brief hellos with Mr. Silvers at the book party for Gore Vidal's Point to Point Navigation, and "slug" was not the descriptive term I would have chosen. Pertaining to Mr. Silvers, the word doesn't strike me as apt.

I suppose it all depends on one's perspective. Perhaps Mr. Wolfe is still besotted by the iconic image of Mr. Bush in his flyboy gear in the "Mission Accomplished" photo op, with its sonic-boom echoes of Chuck Yeager in The Right Stuff. Wolfe in his writing has always had a slavish spot for manly men or reasonable fascimiles thereof who know how to read instrument panels and strike a rakish profile, as opposed to liberal sissies who agonize over which fork to use at the latest Upper East Side dinner party for the undead.