The family friend

This is possibly one of the greatest social curses you can inflict upon a child (after red hair, an Irish accent or a name like Richard Phlop). The family friend will always wait in a corner expecting you to remember them and then feel gravely insulted when you fail to put a name to the vaguely familiar face in front of you in less time than it takes them to tell you that they've known you since you were this big (always being slightly lower than their hip). And this is the ones that you keep in contact with, that you see every couple of days. Invariably however you will meet the more insidious family friend - the friend of grandparents. These are the ones who don't live anywhere near you, don't remember which one you are (despite being six or seven years older than the other one) and insist that you've grown at least 4 inches (10cm for those non ancient people out there who make up most of the Interwebs) despite not having grown for the last few years due to the fact that you're now over 25.

If you're unlucky you will see this particular species once a year, for granny's birthday. If you're exceptionally unlucky or you've irritated more than a few leprechauns in your time, they will live near your grand parents and so you will see them every few months shortly after you make the arduous 6.5 hour odyssey, crammed in the back of the non airconditioned car that your dad has decided isn't quite broken enough to warrant a new one, when all you really want to do is either find a small dark corner and rock back and forward like you're suffering withdrawal, or find a wealthy person to adopt you and ensure that you never have to deal with 80's mix tapes again. That is when this most cunning of beasts will strike.

"How's school going (great, I wish I was there right this very instant)... I knew you when you were this big (that's because you knew my parents when they were that big too)... Do you remember me (yes, is there a way that can be changed?)..." and on it goes. You can't get a word in edgewise though so they just yammer on about how good it is to see you and how their second cousins nephew has just got his first job and how Mrs Betty Stein (you know her, from Brightly, her son babysat you once when you were 3, remember) just got a cataract out again and it's about time she started looking after herself, she's not 93 anymore you know. All this leads up the inevitable finale, "Do you have a girlfriend yet, you're getting old". The appropriate answer to this of course is "No I don't. All of the girls I know get scared off when they find out that I spent half of my Christmas holidays being talked at by a seventy year old with rheumatoid halitosis"
Don't try to complain about it either because parents are in on this too. "She's just interested in you (I wish she wasn't)... well just talk to him (about what? he only wants to talk about arthritis treatments)... It's only for a little while (you can die in less than a second; a week is a long time)... - or my personal favourite - just be nice, it isn't often they get to see young people (because they're old, they're not supposed to see young people)"

The only way that this can be made worse is by adding both a large group, and a few people of your own age who all know each other. This means that you're stuck wandering around trying to fend off vicious comments regarding your young age or your above average IQ unable to escape into the only possible place that there is to hide because the second you try, all conversation in the circle ceases and eight pairs of slowly narrowing eyes all point at you.
You gravitate to the back wall and look around at everyone you do know at the party (your siblings, next to you counting bricks, or your parents, easily mingling with all their old friends from before time began) and then compare this small number with the number of people of you don't know (all of whom are happy and laughing, except the fat guy with arthritis and rheumatoid halitosis who wants to talk to you about your Great Aunt Ethel). You realise that this is like a school reunion for your parents - you shouldn't be there.

Just in case you detected no hint of sarcasm here, I'll warn you, there was a bit; it's the only way that I can talk about this with out running to a small dark corner and rocking back and forth like I'm suffering witdrawal.

Silly Season

I'm going to make what will probably be an unpopular confession. This is one of the times of year that I don't really like. The days leading up to Christmas are some of my least favourite. This is for a few reasons (someone once said that I always have more than one reason for doing or thinking anything, my reply was that without more than one reason, you're just floating), primary among them the over commercialisation of everything. The next is the self-righteous sanctimonious statements from people, Christians in particular, such as "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" or similar. The third major reason is I despise Christmas Carols and you almost can't walk anywhere without having your eardrums assaulted by countless versions of White Christmas (something unlikely to ever happen in Australia), or Silent Night (unlikely to ever happen in Sydney) or any number of others (this is just personal preference and is unlikely to ever be anything major). Now, I don't think that many people outside of the retail industry will disagree with me on the first dislike and the third is just a personal preference built over years of playing these over and over again. So what this will be talking about is the second and probably more controversial point. The whole mythology built up around Christmas is essentially false. Therefore most of the traditional Christmas things are falsehoods.
Before I go on I will clarify what I mean. What I don't mean is that people have been deliberately lying to you all these years (unless you've been told Santa exists - disregard this if you know that he does). One of the problems with a polygraph test is that if you think it is the truth, then the machine thinks that it is also. This doesn't mean that it isn't wrong, it just means that you are not lying. People still think of this as truth, therefore they are not lying, they are merely passing on well documented urban myths that they believe.
I should also clarify, this is nothing against Christianity. All I'm saying is that the 'history' of the myth of Christmas is incorrect.

First of all, and probably the most damning piece of evidence against this so-called history, is that Christmas was not celebrated until a few hundred years after the birth of Christ. This was because before this, celebrating a birthday was considered a pagan ritual and therefore not appropriate. One theory holds that later on, people started attending festivals such as the Saturnalia - the celebration of the dedication of the Church of Saturn, the Roman god of time. This particular festival was celebrated over a week before the 23rd of December (on the Gregorian calendar). It was decided that a Christian festival should be held to help believers be able to not attend. What better thing to pick than the birth of Christ. This, while clearly showing that the celebration wasn't primarily about the birth of Christ, isn't enough to be able to advocate a worldwide boycott of Christmas (something that will almost never happen). However, if you look at the way the Saturnalia was celebrated, it bears similarities to the Christmas celebrations. Everyone, regardless of social standing, would have a massive feed together and sit around having fun for a few days giving gifts to their friends and family(sound familiar?).
The other theory is that it replaced another festival called Sol Invictus, the birth of the unconquered sun in much the same manner. Isn't it coincidental that of the 365 days in a standard year that happened to be the date that Jesus was born.

Some of the myths of Christmas also need addressing, first but possibly not foremost is my personal favourite, the 3 wise men, but equally validly, all of the parts of your standard nativity scene, like the snow (which is fairly rare in the middle east). Many of these myths have been propagated and continued through the carol Away in a Manger. I'll look at the 3 wise men first.
The tale is that there were some magi (wise men, where we get the term mage from) who decided to pop around for a visit. Being chivalrous guys, they brought around something for their hosts; Gold Frankincense and Myrrh. The 3 gifts are where we get the 3 men from, because obviously there couldn't have been more than one person taking a traditional gift for a king at a time. Now in these times, magi were kind of a big deal what with being high priests and court officials and royal advisors and such like, so even if there was only one magi heading over, he wouldn't have been alone. He would have had probably a consort of guards, some slaves, camel drivers, apprentices and assorted others, especially since they travelled a fair way (Myrrh comes from Yemen - near India). Now one magi travelling on his own (not counting all of his employees) was also unusual. Traditionally they came from Persia (modern day Iraq) and so for only 3 to travel when they were part of a fairly insular sect of Zoroastrianism would have been almost unheard of. So in all likelihood there would have been a group of 10 or 15 magi and an entourage of about 100, a far cry from the 3 that has been espoused for around 1400 years.
Away in a Manger I dislike, not the least for its dissappointing chordal progression and scalar melody. However its lyrics were written by someone who wasn't aware of the situation that happened. The lyrics can be found here. Firstly, who romanticised a manger to be a nice looking cot that any mum would be happy for their baby to use? A manger is a feed trough. It was likely lined with a bit of hay left over from the animal's dinner, probably had manure around or in it and almost definitely wasn't 2 foot long (just long enough to fit baby, not long enough for him to move around). Next, the carol states that this was outside. No it wasn't. This, if we are going to assume it was at an inn - something that is also disputed, would have been for guests to keep their animals in. It would have been a covered shed. Next, cattle usually only low when they have been disturbed, this would in all likelihood wake any nearby babies. I have never seen a baby which was woken up without crying unless it was fairly sick (probably from lying in manure all night).

There are other reasons that this post could quite easily incite violence upon my person due to unpopular statements, but that would require much more length than I would like to give it. Add to that the fact that I am lazy and you really have most of my reasons against continuing this.
Anyway, I might not be back for a couple of months so until then, be safe, eat fruit and remember, it is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.

psych

Human psychology is one of a very few completely amazing studies in the realm of human knowledge. The more you learn about it, the more it amazes you. This post is going to hopefully show a couple of the different ways that people think, particularly with regards to body language but also mentioning responses to situations. The latter I will discuss first.

I'm sure you're aware that the easiest way to split people up is by gender, not just physically, but also mentally, emotionally, and psychologically, anyone who tells you different is fooling themselves and lying to you. This is what made me think of this particular topic to discuss - a difference in responses. You probably know, but you may not have realised, guys respond to things almost immediately, especially in the case of disagreements or arguments. There will likely be a large fight, and then 5 minutes later you would never know it had happened. This is different to the female approach which tends to be more considered, thought out and slower. There will probably be a separation and then there will usually be a long drawn out hate thing happening. This may last for years until the original slight is forgotten; I've seen this happen over failing to mention a new haircut before.
Now the new piece of information is that there is actually a name for this phenomenon. Males are usually 'situationalists' and females are usually 'generalists' or 'universalists'. These names refer to the way an incident will affect a relationship. Guys will often think only in terms of the current situation, and therefore anything after that will be as if it had never happened. Girls will add or subtract the situation from the ever growing pile of situations. This can mean that something that happened months ago which a guy will have completely forgotten will be remembered and considered by a girl. Which is also why guys forget to buy flowers after a fight and girls won't forgive without them (a generalisation I know, but an apt one).
I thought about this after a female friend asked for advice over a perceived incident with a mutual friend. My answer was to let it go and see what happens (situationalist): the situation will probably sort itself out. My friend was worried that there might be a schism in the future (generalist) and was wondering what the cause may have been: the situation won't sort itself out and will be affected by any other situations in the past or future. Just as an example of the two different ways of thinking.

I also said I would talk about body language. Body language is possibly one of the most fascinating things to observe in humans. It is one of the hardest things to lie about and most people have an instinctive, albeit basic, understanding of the out-workings. For this reason, a conscious understanding of body language is almost crucial in understanding people (something I have spent a great deal of time trying to do).
First thing to notice is stance. If you have a group of people standing in a circle, look at the feet of the both yourself and the people around you. The feet will be pointing in the direction of the person each individual most wants to impress. When they say something, often they will initially look in this direction as well, especially if they are about to say something funny or important to the discussion at hand. Next thing to notice here is with the guys. How far are the legs apart? This is most noticeable when sitting down. The guy who's legs are the furthest apart will usually be the dominant male of the group. This comes from the idea that the alpha male will need the most room for his genitalia. This has both advantages and disadvantages. Males in the group will almost instinctively follow this persons lead, however, if they are showing themselves to be too dominant, females will be subconsciously intimidated.
Position of the head is also easy to notice. If a persons head is slightly to one side, exposing one side of the neck, they are trying to defend themselves through deliberate non-aggression. In this case, their legs will often be closer together. Their voice will often be softer and they won't often disagree with the general consensus. This posture comes from saying that you are no threat, and to prove it, here is my head on it. If you notice this combined with slightly spread legs, they will likely by trying to manipulate something subtly (or they have a sore neck). If the head is slightly back, the person is confident and will often be in control of the situation. Conversely, if the head is forward and down slightly, the person will be more passive in any situation. If the head is forward and up with no apparent interest, back away slowly; this person is moving into a strike zone.
Here's one that you can try in a small group of friends. When everyone is relaxed, change your stance slightly; fold your arms, cross your legs, lean back, what ever you want (as long as it is natural). You will notice that people in the group will often follow this change without thinking about it. The more you notice this however, the less likely you are to follow the change yourself. The more someone likes you, the sooner and the more accurately they will follow your movements; the converse is also true to the extent that if someone really doesn't like you, they will sometimes reverse your movements in themselves.
Now remember what I said about stance? This is sometimes misleading. If there is an interest between two people one will often look away from each other and they may be facing someone else. This person will be the one who is most nervous about the situation and won't know what to do. They will also rarely the person who initiates any change in the status quo. They will look away and attempt to never make eye contact. If eye contact is achieved by design or by accident, it will be broken quickly. This can be fun to watch.
The final thing that I will mention is the shoulders. This can be a more accurate indication of temperament than either the face or the rest of the body. This is due to the effect of the lungs on the positioning of the shoulders. If your observee is confident or wishes the illusion of confidence (also related to dominance) their shoulders will be further back. Quiet sadness can be seen through the lowering of one shoulder (not always two as commonly thought); this shoulder will usually be the shoulder of the dominant hand. The other shoulder lowered can sometimes indicate aggression. Both shoulders lowered indicates pensiveness, distraction, or submission. It can also show more sadness than a single shoulder. These responses are not definitive and so to get a conclusion from these only is misleading. It must be combined with other signs to make a cogent diagnosis of the situation.

The absolute final thing that I have to mention in regards to all of this is that this comes mostly from my own observations which have at times been known to be wrong. The other thing that has to be noted is that every different person will be slightly different and so while this may work for some people, it will never be an exhaustive list of the only things that you need to watch. Use at your own risk.

Beloved Wife

Two events recently made me think about what marriage actually is. One, appropriately enough, was a marriage. The other is slightly less obvious, and so in order to retain suspense here, I'm not going to tell you what it is yet.

Disclaimer: You will not agree with this so don't tell me that you don't agree with this.
Immediately preceding the wedding I was wondering if I would actually go (despite the fact that for me to get there it would have taken me only a couple of minutes). This was mostly due to the fact that I am not really a wedding person, eg. I missed a family wedding for the potential offer of work (which never eventuated) but also partly because I would feel obliged to get into some fancy clothes (by my standards) and I don't like fancy clothes; I didn't have a real reason and so I went. During the wedding my mind went to the thought that a wedding, in its simplest sense, is essentially a moot point. Let me explain; What a wedding basically is, is a contract between two people the assures long term co-existence for mutual gain. Look at the vows: have and to hold (co exist); from this day forward ... till death do us part (long term); love, comfort, honour, keep, care etc (mutual gain). So in reality, a marriage contract is essentially the same as a long term share house agreement (long term co-existence for mutual gain) or a business contract. When you look at it this way, a marriage is basically a formality, a hoop that people like to jump through. This is especially the case following new laws here in NSW that state that an uncertified de facto relationship that has been in place for 3 years holds the same legal weight as a legally binding marriage certificate. And even more the case as divorce rates continue to climb leaving the 3 year de facto relationship as almost an ideal in many cases.
While I was writing this, I was reminded of something that happened a few years ago. There was an attempt to pass a law that meant that in order for intercourse to happen, a signed contract was required ensuring that there would be no ambiguity in rape cases (conveniently forgetting both drunken sex and forgetfulness). My thought upon hearing about this was that it already exists - its called a marriage certificate.
Any way, after that detour I'll get back to my point. If marriage is a formality and there is a continually easing of the difficulty of escaping the legality of the ceremony, then surely it would be better to simply agree to this long-term co-existence for mutual gain and leave it at that. I know that this may sound unromantic or crass and kind of stupid, but if the certificate is really only worth the paper that it's printed on, then the best way would be to disregard it from the start. It would save a lot of trouble on all sides and potentially a lot of mess.

Now don't tell me that this approach will simply lead to more short term or abusive or broken relationships. The quality or success of relationships is usually compared against a long term marriage, something that is sadly becoming more and more rare.
Also, don't say that in a Christian marriage this is less likely to occur. Yes it is, but the rates are quickly reaching equilibrium.

And finally on this point If a marriage is just a long term co-existence for mutual gain (kind of like a symbiotic relationship between sucker fish on sharks that clean parasites of the sharks back), then what is the major point of the whole thing. If we compare it this way, then there is no romance about it, a tapeworm will remain faithful. If we look it as merely a contract, then it is a very expensive contract to sign, there is the cost of the ceremony no matter how simple it is, the cost of changing any documentation about your identity, the cost of... ... ... and then statistically it will end within a matter of years. In the book Company by Max Barry, one of the Characters states that any relationship only works when clear rules are drawn up about who is the greater, otherwise a power struggle breaks out and then both the relationship and everything else suffers. Often, both the Bride and the Groom take the same vows, meaning, effectively, complete equality - both parties promise to do for the other what they promise to do for them. If you take this view, then all marriages are flawed from the start. This isn't to say that I support either misogyny or hardcore feminism (which is the same just with different people on top of the pile) either in a marriage or out of it.

The second thing that made me think, ready for this, was a throwaway line in a 1970's cult sci-fi movie called Logan's Run (I told you you wouldn't expect that). In this movie, everyone is an individual unit who essentially lives for self pleasure, whether that requires a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth person). Thus, there is no such thing as a family and therefore, no marriage or married couples. Two of the characters find grave stones, not understanding what they are they read the writing on them. Most of them say some variation of Beloved Husband or Beloved Wife and because there is no marriage, this is also not understood. When they find someone who has been in a family, they ask what those words mean. When it is explained, the first response is that the words hold them together. This was, for me, a mind blowing thought. Essentially, what is being said is that being called a husband or a wife, is what keeps you with the other. This made me realise that all of the above reasoning was flawed. As long as there is a Husband and a Wife, they remain together; without this distinction, there is nothing. The two characters perform what is called a common law marriage, they get married without any ceremony and minimal witnesses (in this case, they decide to call each other husband or wife).
This on its own was enough to make me rethink all of the above but interestingly, not to redefine what I was calling a marriage (the long term co-existence for mutual gain). What it did do, in terms of the above argument, was say to me that my share housing or parasitic symbiosis analogies were wrong. What a marriage does is eliminate the self (interestingly the aim of communism). At the point that you say "I do", you no longer exist. Both of you exist as one entity; suddenly instead of there being Alphonse Romano and Jane Smith, there is only one, the Romano Family (as I wrote this I realised again how much this name sounds like a mafia boss - how it that in a post about marriage), 1 entity rather than 2 individuals. This is a truly symbiotic relationship, without the other, you no longer exist, suddenly Alphonse Romano is an individual again, but now there is only half of him, the same applies to Jane Smith.

So the upshot of this, Marriage in its simplest form, co-existence for mutual gain, is moot unless there is another agreement underlying it. Whereas in a business agreement or a share house there is always more than one party right the way through it, what sets a marriage apart from these is that there is only one party from the exact moment the contract is signed.
That is why marriage is important, and also where it works the best.
As with everything I say, the is the ravings of an occasional lunatic, take it or leave it as you will.

Dogma - a review

I just watched the movie Dogma again. For those of you who don't know, dogma is a comedy about religion. The difference about this one is firstly it is the only one that I know of where the screenwriter and the director (and indeed one of the main actors) was raised as a follower of the religion in question (Catholicism), and secondly the ratio of comedy and actual serious religious debate and theological discussion. It also seems to be unique in that it features two nymphomaniac drug dealers as main characters. I don't think that it gets it all right, but what it does quite successfully is provoke thought (if you're willing to have it provoked). In one of the first scenes, someone who is quickly revealed to be an angel has a discussion with a nun in which he convinces her that God does not exist by comparing all religion in an interpretation of the Lewis Carroll poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter" which can be read in its entirety here. From there, interspersed with the sometimes puerile humour and the continuing plot (which manages to hold itself together fairly well), we get moderately continual discussion about the nature of God, the nature of Faith, and the human condition, not bad for a 2 hour comedy.

As a movie, it holds together quite well. The plot is well thought out with enough twists to make it interesting while not making it overly stupid or confusing. The characterisation is well done so that the characters are nothing if not believable. Their reactions (in most cases) are what you would expect from what they have been built to be and as a response to the situation that they find themselves in. Dialogue is also one of the strengths of the movie. Alongside the pop-culture references (which make it both accessible and fun) you have dialogue that fits easily with the characters. The comedy is also well done; I mean who can't laugh at two people discussing which gun they are going to buy based on how much it will scare people, especially when one says "Mass genocide is the most exhausting activity you can engage in, next to soccer. I'll take this one" with a perfectly straight face, then for those for whom this is too subtle, he also puts in a significant amount of drug and sex humour, but even this is done well. The situational humour is quite good as well, most of this is derived from our knowledge of what is happening in the movie or from its twisting of Catholic tradition.

The main strength of the movie however, will be lost on most of the audience. This movie is aimed partly at his cult following and partly at thinking, open-minded Christians, and it is this last group that will get more out of the movie. Much of the movie is intended to push people to thinking about Catholic tradition. Little things like discounting the standard image of Jesus, the Caucasian guy, by saying that he's black and then explaining why this is the case, or plenary indulgence, or the continual Virgin Mary (is it so much of a leap of faith to say that a married couple never had sex? - this was also one of the major controversies surrounding the movie). The problem with this approach is that the reputation of the director (Kevin Smith, known for such movies as 'Zac and Miri make a Porno 'or 'Clerks') almost seems to prohibit Christians from watching it. Also the way in which he did it meant that he took fairly inflammatory traditions and roughly tore them to pieces, something traditionalists don't tend to like. Another thing it does is tries to redefine what a martyr is. Being martyred traditionally means dying for your faith, one of the characters calls it being bludgeoned to death by big rocks. This almost takes the 'pleasure' out of martyrdom.

Final Wrap Up
As a movie it is quite a good bit of entertainment as long as you don't mind a bit of crude humour. All of the people who watched it with me come from fairly different backgrounds and think about different things in different ways and we all enjoyed it. If I had one criticism of this part of it it would be that the quite often the seriousish parts and the comedic sections were removed from each other. As a treatise on Catholic thought and tradition, it is quite good as far as it goes. Being in the format that it is and seeing that it's first intention is to entertain, it does very well with this. People who know a bit about the actual Catholic church (not what you read in the Da Vinci Code) will get a lot out of this movie. I don't recommend it to people who are traditional in their views of religion, or who aren't able to take humour that is pointed at them or a group that they are a part of. The start of the movie features a disclaimer which not only points out that the movie is first and foremost a comedy, but also points this out with its wording.
I'd give this movie 8/10 all things considered.

I'll leave you with one of my favourite parts of the movie. God, played by Alanis Morrisset, has just been asked what the meaning of life is; her answer?

God: [pokes the main characters nose] "Nweep."
Metatron (voice of God): "I told you she had a sense of humour"