....and by extention little boys, big girls and big boys.
Thankfully Poly Styrene didn't subscribe to this view and has left us with some songs that many would argue defined punk rock.
They certainly did for me.
With her passing at the young age of 53 from breast cancer many of us have lost yet another who walked beside us as we navigated our way through life in our formative years.
Along with others Poly provided the soundtrack to those years.
She will be sadly missed.
Up and down the country there doesn't seem to be a week that goes past that there isn't a gig being held with the proceeds going to a cancer charity.
Maybe it would be a good idea to mourn our loss in a proactive manner befitting her memory.
It's a sad loss. Poly was an inspiration to British female youth I'm sure. I can recall Germfree on Top Of The Pops as a nipper and it stayed with me 'til I heard the album a few years later and was hooked.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me that you mention the seemingly weekly cancer charity gigs. I'm currently waiting on a book called "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" by Devra Davis which concerns the mafia-like corruption and deception of cancer research and the medical professionals. I'm hoping it's an informative read, but expecting to get higher blood pressure. I can recall as a youngster the mantra was "1 in 4" will get cancer but it seems to have been upgraded to a "1 in 3" rate. What are the implications for future generations if this sort of increase is the world we live in? And let's not go there on Fukushima and what that may eventually become.
I don't wish to sidetrack from Polys passing but this does feel apt to me in light of her prophetic lyrics on many songs. After all, what is "Germfree Adolescents" but a critique of a sterile dying dystopia?
RIP Marion
I wouldn't think that discussing cancer, cancer care, and how it is provided, or the wider health implications that Fukushima will no doubt cause would be viewed negatively by Polly.
ReplyDeleteShe would probably be pleased that her passing had acted as a catalyst for further discussion
So onto the cancer business.
I reckon that "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" will have you becoming incandescent with rage.
It's the nature of the beast isn't it.
Once business and gets into bed with health the patient never profits.
I once argued that a socialist health care system would run far better if the pharma side of it was nationalized.
The counter argument put forward was that nationalization only encouraged lowest common denominator services.
Personally I don't consider that to be an insurmountable issue to deal with.
What do you think the rise in cancer rates is down to?
Is it all the chemical additions to the food chain?
Is our immune systems struggling to maintain a general level of health?
Is it stress related?
Thanks for the measured reply, I also feel Poly would appreciate discussion on the cancer topic. As for causations of cancer the only logical conclusion is the environment and intake
ReplyDeletethat we experience; be it in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the fluids we drink...all in theory manageable and measurable and, as you suggest, not insurmountable. The first sensible
option would be for a full disclosure of dangerous substances and the complete banning of said chemicals, a task the WHO should have undertaken years ago. But big pharma has such a
(strengthening) stranglehold on the means of production and choice that the WHO seem toothless to stop the ongoing inclination toward manufactured lifestyle. Perhaps it's the consumerist
conundrum and need for mass-production in a spiralling global population that dictates circumventing health issues in favour of supply and demand, personally I feel it is more about profiteering
and a disregard for the consumers' long term health.
The threats that now face humanity (and the rest of the living planets') health seem so entrenched in stifling corporatism that alternatives appear relegated to an "in an ideal world" scenario. Meanwhile
the heads of powerhouse nations continue to want and use nuclear capabilities (be it for power, weaponry, food radiating for longer shelf life) without any obligation to find safer methods. Many answers
are available but the will (and money) is not forthcoming...without wind, water and solar energy impetus we seem fated to allow big business to supply without restriction in their preferred methods.
We are being hoisted by our own petards and the near future suggests not only a continuation but probable increase in the suffering; on the horizon we have the dangers of solar activity and depleting
atmospheric protection, the colony collapse of our friends the bees and a probable massive reliance on GM foods, a global water shortage that will only lead to ill-health (and violence), the continuing
use of depleted uranium in the 'war on terror', a multitude of inferior nuclear industry death-traps built often on critical land sites, the expansion of progressing nations and their demand for first world lifestyles
requiring far more power and producing far more pollution, the continuing kowtowing to the energy industry and loosening of regulations leading to more Deepwater Horizon-style events, the perpetuation
of 'new-and-improved' scientific developments without full long-term analysis...all essentially driven by the elites' determined vision of a world run on profit and 'sink-or-swim' mentality.
So in answer to your question(s); I think most definitely chemicals are increasing ill-health and indeed our immune systems must be struggling to balance and protect us from alien/toxic attack. Stress
may also be a factor in many cases but perhaps this is one of the few aspects that we as individuals can have some small control over...preferrerably not through medical/pharma assistance but through finding
methods to reduce the anxiety; be it sports, relaxation techniques, healthier eating, etc...not that I'm inclined to Krishna, sorry Poly. Not that I'm dismissing a more spiritual, dare I say holistic, approach
to personal well-being...it's just not my bag to embrace a Steiner-ist ethos...blame Lydon and his 'hippies' stance :)
It's like we're running before we've learned to walk safely and all those that fall behind are forgotten collateral damage.
Thanks for the reply. I'm just about to head out, but will respond as soon as I have time.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comments, and to be honest much of it is singing to the choir for me, but hopefully others will choose to respond to.
fuckin hell.The health service provides on basis of class. i am sure that a distinguished gentleman would have the capital to provide help for his cancer or whatever the symptom he has wrong with him.Shocking statement maybe, but i support the NHS 100 %, but i think it seriously needs to be managed well enough before the greedy privatisation bunch gets their hands on it
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. Privatisation is the slippery slope to only those who can afford health care receiving it.
ReplyDeletethat's right,and when we do get private care its "ok Mr (fill in blanks), you have cancer, how much are you willing to pay us" lol
ReplyDeletewe fall into the private care hands when we seek for help elsewhere,even when we go to holland and barrett we fall into the private care hands. Our current service needs to improve and nurse given time to recover from long shifts. The NHS is killing its staff,its service and its technology. No need for them to shut down wards and hospitals. That's them waving a white flag in the air. As a nation we need to fight and invest in our current NHS system,eg give to cancer charitie and the likes, the list goes on and on!
ReplyDeleteI work in care. So I see how funding doesn't come close to matching what is required.
ReplyDeleteWe really need to step away from considering health care in all its forms as a business.
As a tax payer I contribute to a system that shouldn't allow people to fall through the cracks.
Sadly that it isn't currently up to the task is no reason for some to see it as an excuse to attack it. We should be firming it up instead.