Friday, 2 March 2012


Before I left Hong Kong for Siam, I passed by another Omega watch in Causeway Bay (Hong Kong is crazy about watches so the density of high end watch shops is quite striking. I took the opportunity to try the Omega Speedmaster on for the first time - It felt spesh. This  specific watch is pretty much one of the few 'as is' terrestrial brands that was integral to the Apollo Mission moon landings including the first one in 1969.  So I tried it on.


I really enjoyed explaining why 1969 was such a special year to the staff, and they appreciated listening to more reasons to talk about the watch for potential customers. I waffled on that there were five momentous and historical events in 1969. The most important was probably the launch by the US military's special projects mafia called DARPA, of DARPANET. This led to the internet which apparently is quite popular in many parts of the world regardless of cultural inclination, or notions of cultural superiority. It pretty much works for everyone.

Then there was of course the first Apollo mission Moon landing which is the reason for the limited edition  release of the watch this 40th anniversary. The NASA space missions were largely responsible for propelling the United States now unsurpassed technology culture into perpetual orbit. 

Then there was Woodstock which is where it got interesting because the manager of the Omega shop joined us at that point as he was old enough to remember that ideas like make love, not war became mainstream, as well as say a better understanding that marijuana wasn't an evil drug and so what if people took their clothes off and danced to the Grateful Dead or the irreplacable Janis Joplin. I really enjoyed having someone there who was even more qualified to talk about it than I. He was smartly turned out, respectably dressed with wire frame glasses and yet he seemed to authenticate what may have looked like counter culture in its day but is largely just mainstream culture today.

Then of course the Stonewall riots took place which I wrote about just recently over here. Clearly homosexuality isn't the most effective lifestyle for birth propagation (if that's a good thing given each human's carbon footprint) but it did mark the point when a person's sexuality was of less consequence than the things they believed and did. I think also there's a deeper philosphical question about sex that is answered in the issue of homosexuality acceptance, but I've possibly waded through a theoretical and auto didact 'degree' of understanding in gender dysphoria studies that I picked up in my early 20's while breaking personal land speed records. I've yet to knock that episode into a decently shaped post that I anticipate entails some weaving in (and out) of Baudrillardian simulacra. I began to think about it late last year while occasionally chowing down with the formidable Tim Footman who counts a contributed chapter on Baudrillardian philosophy in one of his books, writes a great blog and has effectively snookered me  for life, on any racial observations with an idiosyncratic style of logic, an example of which he uses here on Kurt Vonnegut of all people. It leaves me with an infantile respost, both insipid and arrogant; along the lines of 'but I believe I'm still right'. Here's the Stonewall Riots.

Lastly to amuse the people at the Omega shop, I threw myself into the topic of great events that happened in 1969. Of course there were too many things that made the year an absolute corker including The Beatles playing their last gig on the roof of Apple Records, Golda Meir became the first female Prime Minister of Israel and arguably was an inspiration for Margaret Thatcher while continuing to validate Israels right to statehood as indeed Gaza and the West Bank have.


What else? Well, the maiden flight of the Boeing 747.


John and Yoko.


It feels important to share from the authoritative books I've read on the matter, that the British people were both primitive and unfair in their treatment towards Yoko Ono. Once again they further eroded their dwindling reputation for characteristic fairness by being a bully towards her in the media. They considered John Lennon to be only theirs.

Sharing isn't the greatest British quality, or so it appears when it comes to national treasures. Nevertheless, it's important to  know that had it not been for that unfair treatment from the Great British Public. Well who knows, maybe they wouldn't have felt the need to flee to the United States despite enduring the toughest of immigration battles and maybe John Lennon wouldn't have been shot. Another episode of British reliance on tabloid opinion that killer the golden goose as with Princess Diana. 

When I see the Anglo celebrity obsession in this day and age, I"m convinced that the British are still fucking peasants as far as I can see.