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"

Things to do before you die

In 2003 the BBC published a list of 50 things to do before you die, as voted by the English public. Now I know that there are any number of these lists including books to read, movies to watch, wines to drink or virtually any activity you can imagine. What brought this one to my attention was both the fact that it was featured in a stand-up comedy set by Bill Bailey and the fact that most of them were kids dreams and either easily attainable or virtually impossible. You can see the list here. The list includes things like ride a motorbike on the road, or go fishing, or catch a section of the Orient Express, or look at a waterfall. And then it features things like see the earth from space, drive a formula one car and fly in a fighter jet. Bill Bailey would have liked to see something in there like number 67, lunge wildly at the Pope.

Now at this point, I must admit that I can't remember what the aim of this post was going to be, so it may get a bit train of thought - prepare for potential brain wandering.

As far as I can tell the only real functions these lists actually serve is to give people a more achievable goal "I must do that sometime" and therefore can serve to give people ideas on how to spend their time, money etc. This can be a positive function; everyone needs goals to achieve, otherwise life is a continual monotony that merely leads from day to night to day, it also can help to generate economic stimulus for the people involved in selling these pursuits (greed makes the world go round). The other function is to get people distracted by the list and envious of the people who can and do follow it. This last function is completely negative. While greed is positive for monetary exchange and economic growth and therefore in the capitalist world is good, envy is not. Envy, or avarice, commonly known as one of the seven deadly sins, is wanting what isn't yours, or what is out of your achievable range. Even in a capitalist sense, envy is bad; it leads to disillusionment and can in some cases reach points of both self and external hatred. It is the negative part of greed; while greed can be positive when in moderation (wanting something else leads to growth of other things), envy is never good.

The first of these lists was an interesting idea; 1001 things to do before you die. After this though, almost every man and his dog has written a list that seeks to be the definitive list of the more trivial of human achievement. They have never tried, except in a few rare cases, to be anything more than a list of 'things it would be nice to try one day, preferably while still alive' and thus are nothing more than a triviality. You can lead a full life and never have explored Antarctica (number 23) or skydived or hot air ballooned (numbers 6 and 7), this is recognised by all those except the people who get distracted and envious. As such, these people are the true market for these lists, the people who decide they can't die before having completed as much of the list as humanly possible.

The lists that have been more than that are things like one by someone called TrevorJ:
read every Shakespeare play
run for office
have a newspaper byline
play in a band/orchestra
own a business
attend the Nobel prize ceremony & speeches
deliver a speech at your country's legislative assembly
write a book
raise a child
dress up as Santa Claus & give presents to children

This one contains some meat, to carry out this list means that you have to achieve something. Even the one that looks the smallest, the last on the list, is something that at the time is usually a major thing for the recipient. These are real achievements and are recognised as such so they have made it onto the list.

One person I read in the process of writing this argued that the smaller things such as on the 50 things to do before you die list may have as much worth. His argument was that it depends on your goals, if your goal is to have fun, then the original is better, there aren't many cases where running for office or delivering a speech the the legislative assembly will be particularly fun. The question then becomes one of what is worthwhile and becomes a question of value judgements, so I'm not going to get into it here. I will however ask, what is more valued, major achievements or having fun?

Some positivity for the morning

Looking back at most of my posts, I've noticed that most of them have been at the least negative and at the most quite angry (even after quite a lot of self censoring). So instead of me discussing why I think this happens, I have decided that it's time for me to be a bit more positive. This will be a collection of positivity, and I think that I will also include some positiveness in other things to come. Bear with me on this, it isn't something that I excel at.

I actually don't really know how to tell people about things that I find positive, so I'm just going to give you a list. This list is by no means exhaustive, but hopefully will serve to give you something to look into.

Good Food - good food, I would say, is one of the universal pleasures. I don't know of anyone (besides those with eating disorders) who can say that they don't derive pleasure from good food, especially in good company.
Good Music - this is something that will vary from person to person, I'll give you some of my favourites. Prokovief, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky (Russian classical); Ella Fitzgerald, The Idea Of North, Dave Brubeck (jazz); Kansas (especially the freaks of nature album), Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Mike Oldfield (non modern rockish stuff); The Living End, The Cat Empire, My Friend the Chocolate Cake (look these guys up, if you don't you can't be my friend), Muse, RHCP (contemporary music); Kamelot, Epica, Within Temptation, Dream Theater (more progressive or symphonic metal style).
The Awesomeness of Nature - I quite like watching storms, especially in conjunction with another awesome natural thing like the sea. Spending time in nature, especially wooded areas, and definitely with very few people around is great. Note that I am not using awesome as a generic descriptor, I am using it in terms of AWE inspiring, completely different.
People - People that know me well will know that moderate or large groups of people aren't something that I handle particularly well, but small groups of friends are great. People working together to achieve a positive goal is great. People even just getting along is always nice too.
It may seem superficial, but Aesthetic Beauty - while 'It is only an auctioneer who can equally and impartially admire all schools of art.' (thank you Oscar Wilde), it is also true that 'We do not ask for what useful purpose the birds do sing, for song is their pleasure since they were created for singing.' (thank you Johannes Kepler) and this is beautiful. Also related is this from John Cage 'The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason.' In saying that aesthetics is incredibly personal and individual. This is also one of the universal pleasures.
and finally, Good Literature or Movies - while there are many movies out there where as you watch them you just shut out anything but the movie and don't have to think about them (the same applies to books) there are others that when you watch or read them, you are required to think. These reward your thought by giving you more than is initially there. You can in some get 3 or 4 different layers of thought (try reading Jasper Fforde's book The Eyre Affair or Norton Juster's book The Phantom Tollbooth and you'll see what I mean) and in all of these you are rewarded again with not only another chance to think but something more extra (yes I'm sorry about the grammar, English was forte my never). These are the ones that you can always come back to again and again and they won't get old.

Well I hope that was enough positivity for one day, I'm going to leave you with some quotes about happiness or positivity. Have fun and enjoy yourself.

When the glass is half empty here is my solution. Relate it to a maths equation... let x=full and y=empty. So, if 0.5x=0.5y, therefore 1x=1y, therefore full = empty. Now you can look at an empty glass and make yourself feel better. -- Ryan Jenkins
Happiness is an imaginary condition, formerly attributed by the living to the dead, now usually attributed by adults to children, and by children to adults. -- Thomas Szasz
Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities. -- Aldous Huxley
The good life, as I conceive it, is a happy life. I do not mean that if you are good you will be happy - I mean that if you are happy you will be good. -- Bertrand Russell
A person is never happy except at the price of some ignorance. -- Anatole France, and finally, to get you in the mood for whimsy
Not a shred of evidence exists in favour of the idea that life is serious. -- Brendan Gill

Regrets

I watched a movie the other day in which someone's final advice to his daughter was "regret nothing" and this seems to be the catch cry of our age. Do what you want, and as long as you get off scot free, everything is all good. We aim to live without any regrets. Here we run up against a problem though. This problem is that regret is our way of telling us that something we did, we didn't want to do. What about the people who say that they regret nothing because whatever they did is what makes them what they are today? This also is stupid, what made them what they are today is regret. It made them say "Y'know what, I'm not going to do that again". Regret is the point at which you say "I wish I didn't do that" or "I wish I could take that back" or "That was a dumb thing for me to do". Yes, to some extent you actions made you what you are today, but in the end it is your actions mixed with your regret that finish the job.

There are many things that I regret doing, many of them are what made me what I am today but only with the regret. If I didn't regret what I had done, I would still be doing them and therefore, I wouldn't be what I am - I would be what I was. As for not regretting things because they've built you to where you are, you can still regret what you've done. As I've said, regret is simply wishing something that either has happened to you or that you've done hadn't. This means that this approach makes about as much sense as saying "I don't regret putting too much flour in the cake, because this only made it what it is", it may not be a major problem, but you still get a flawed cake.

Regret is part of the human condition; it is a greater instinct because it learns. Where instinct may be tempered by experience (ie you may learn how much instinct is right or you might piece things together more efficiently), regret is a definite; you learn yes and no through it. To live without regrets may be an ideal, but it is an ideal that can not be achieved unless either you're perfect, you don't learn, or you don't care.
In saying all of this, regret is not necessarily a good thing. Regret is also part what makes us wallow in self pity, it makes us stay up at night wishing that things had gone differently, it can hold us back especially if we regret something we shouldn't.

Looking around at what other people have said about regret, it seems that most people take regret in terms of the positives, i.e. I will not regret the positive things that I have done, but I will regret the positive things I haven't done. This is how people can say that they wish to live without regret. The error in this line of thinking is that regret also refers to negatives, i.e. regret the negative things I have done and don't regret the negative things I haven't done. Thoreau once said that "to regret deeply is to live afresh" and it is. When you regret deeply, you make the unconscious decision to live differently next time.

So, after all that, how do I wrap up regret?
Regret must be resolved. It has to be dealt with so that you can move on from what you have done. That isn't to say that it should be forgotten, forgive and forget is one of the more stupid maxims in our culture, but it should be put away and filed under experience.
Regret must never be the end of something. If you simply regret your actions, you always will, but you will regret it the next time you do it as well.
and thirdly, Regret is both positive and negative. It is both a tool for learning and a tool for self loathing, a way of moving on from things and a way to get stuck in them permanently.

Finally, two different people have said things which sum up societies attitudes to regret and the two main views of it. Judge for yourself.

I want to live my life so that my nights are full of regrets. - Fitzgerald
and secondly
I want to live my life so that my nights are not full of regrets - D.H.Lawrence

Environmentalnessness

This is something that I've been thinking about recently. How are humans as a whole treating the environment? what about global warming, rising sea levels, extinction of species? what do we need to do? what should we do? what can we do? There is a song called Perfect Harmony by one of my favourite bands. It implies that the only way that we can live in perfect harmony with the world, is to be part of the world, but not part of humanity. The protagonist never saw his mother, was born in a secret part of the deep forest, and was brought up in the forest by the animals and the spirits of the forest (yes, there was a bit of that going, but their lyrics are often inspired by fantasy so it fits in context). He was the 'only human being to live in perfect harmony'. So what should we do if that's the only way to fit? I'll discuss each of my questions separately. Before I start though, I must say that I am, have never been, and probably never will be an environmental activist, an animal rights activist or anything related to these fields. I'd just like a bit of responsibility.

First of all, humans aren't treating the environment well. Think about yourself, do you use electric lights? are you reading this on a computer? I'm not talking explicitly about your carbon footprint, although we may as well ask about that also. How big is it? Do you even know? I'm not trying to take the high ground here, I'm about as bad as anyone.

Global warming. While there is some (granted that there isn't much) doubt about whether its anything more than a cycle, and while it is a natural process (granted that the effect is increased by human activity), global warming isn't the point. The point is that the effect is exacerbated by humans. Yes it is irreversible (unless you want to start sucking all of the greenhouse gasses out into space) but it isn't as bad as it can be. This also apparently affects the sea level. I don't pretend to be a smart person, but as far as I knew the sea is most of the reason that the worlds temperature isn't as high as it could be, we should be thankful for rising sea levels to some extent.

Extinction of species. I will preface this by saying that I am not a fan of the whole thing. However, if we were to take the theory of natural selection, (which incidently is not a theory no matter how many people want to claim that it is, the theory is evolution. Natural selection has been shown to be true many times, for example, look at the peppered moth) the fact that these animals are dying out means that they were not suited to live in the environment in which they were in, they were weak and failed to adapt. In a strictly Darwinian sense (which I do not agree with) this is a good thing - it shows that those which are stronger live and the weaker perish.
However, biologically speaking, in any certain environment whether it be in nature or somewhere else, the thing which fulfils any function best is the thing which suits that function best, e.g. the best thing to get rid of quick breeding insects is something that will eat flies, a spider which has been designed (or evolved depending on where you stand) to fit this purpose. When you take spiders out of the system, insects thrive and eventually overrun the system in which they find themselves. From this alone, preservation of species in their native environment is a good thing.

The final real question there is what is there to do. Yes we've all heard what we should do and how we should do it. Yes we've all been told over and over again that we can make a difference individually. And yes almost everyone either is doing something or wants to do something. So I'm not going to give you any of these. What I'm going to give you is a reason. The reason comes by way of a question. What is it worth. It is unspecified. It may be the environment as a whole, it may be the area where you live, it may be the pandas. For me, it is potentially my kids, or, if that never eventuates, the next generations. People often say that they want to give their kids a better life than they had, how about their kids or their kids or so on. I heard someone the other day say that the sun would die in 5 billion years from the 17 of Movember this year; now I am fairly sure that the accuracy of that statement is suspect, but I'm fairly sure that the earth itself won't last that long under it's current level of strain. My reason is that our kids shouldn't have to deal with the way we've screwed everything up.

Ⓐ=peace

This is a transcript of a piece of graffiti that I found while walking home from uni this afternoon.

Ⓐ=peace.

First of all, before you ask, Ⓐ is the international symbol for anarchy, along with a black flag. The black flag refers to the non nationalist, non united nature of anarchy, that they don't fit don't go together in a national sense and so therefore don't use a identifiable flag. The Ⓐ itself comes from a quote, Anarchy Is Order, so it is an A inside an O and is the most well known symbol of the anarchist movement. So I thought it would be a good time to discuss anarchy as a movement and as a concept.

Anarchy as a movement is defined by the belief that a compulsory government is unnecessary, undesirable, but more than that, it is harmful. Anarchy has also become synonymous with chaos, although, the two are not mutually inclusive. Chaos may be a method that an anarchist uses to achieve his or her goals, but it is not the explicit aim of the anarchist. Instead, anarchy, is intended to both challenge repressive power and promote freedom and self-autonomy. These seem like admirable goals, and indeed, I agree with the concept to an extent. The problem comes when the goals are achieved. With self-autonomy comes complete self-governance which means that the only things that are required of you are what you require of yourself. This leads to sociopathy, which is considered a serious mental illness. Sociopathy is where you do what amuses you, when it pleases you, regardless of the consequences. Fortunately there aren't many true sociopaths, and many of those who have some sociopathic tendencies are either too scared to do what they want, or to dumb to be able to do anything with any level of intelligence and get caught quickly. With the removal of external governance, everyone becomes a sociopath, maybe not in the accepted meaning of the word, but none the less, people will do what they want, when they want - sociopathy.

Before I go on, I had better clarify something. I believe that a certain amount of true anarchy is required in any well functioning government system. To some extent, the job of the opposition party is to be anarchists. At some level, someone needs to challange what the government says so that thought will be applied to the decision that is being made. If there is no thought, and the government simply does what it thinks is best, then bad decisions are guaranteed to be made. Bad decisions will still be made, but there will be less of them, and the mistakes will be smaller. However, this does not mean that I condone anarchy as a system. It has its place, but its place is not as the majority rule (or unrule) or a nation. Its place is in challenging the government, good or bad.

Now that I've said that, Ⓐ≠Peace. Lets take a very basic definition of peace - the absence of war (although I have in the past said that this is not an accurate definition, check here for details, especially at the end of the post). The achieved goal of anarchy has been documented in history. The bible (and I'm using it as a historic text, not for any other purpose. The happenings here have been confirmed by other historical documents of the time) describes what happens when there is no established rule. Judges continually says that "In those days, Israel had no king." Then we read about things like genocide, rape, mutilation, fratricide, murder, kidnapping, wholesale slaughter, and the list goes on. "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" are the last words in the book. It doesn't sound like peace to me. Even with our basic definition of peace, when we aren't reading about these exploits, we are reading about pitched battles and armies lining up to fight. Ⓐ≠Peace. It can help in leading to peace, but it of itself is not peace. It can help to challenge the established order of things where war is a past-time for the men of high command, or an economic boost for a country, but even there, the main work needs to be done by an established government. We can see anarchy at work in countries like Afghanistan or Iraq where the established government, as brutal or evil as in may have been (I am not passing judgement, merely passing on the views of many people) was removed and a power vacuum put in its place. These two countries went from having law and order to nothing in a matter of weeks or months. Now Afghanistan may be a lot better than it was, but it still isn't great, and Iraq is definitely not anything to be proud of.
If we want to take a less basic and more accurate definition of peace, I would put forward that it is probably more about stability and strength combined. Anarchy of itself requires either an absence of strength or a weakness from the upper echelons of society, especially in the rule of society. So there peace and anarchy are opposed, but what about the stability. Yes I will grant that anarchy used well can assist stability in either a region or a group, but it requires more finesse than most people possess.

In a way, the anarchist movement is like a dog that chases cars. It chases and chases, the knowledge that it won't achieve anything always in the back of its mind, but it keeps trying regardless. Then one day, it does make a victory, and then it doesn't know what do to with it.

Differences of Opinion

It is interesting that people say that all religions are the same. Even the most cursory glance by the most ill-informed spectator will prove that thesis wrong (although if this were the case, people wouldn't say this). There are many differences between religions of any system that go beyond the syntax or the name of the deity. It is also interesting to note that out of all of the religions, the one that stands out as the most different to the others is Reformed Christianity (as separate to Catholicism). The main difference between RC and all other religions is in the role of the human, in this case, you, or me. The other fundamental difference between most of the religions is in the response of the deity. The final difference is the working of the goal of the religion.

I will start with the difference that I mentioned last, because it is the easiest to figure out. In all religions the ultimate goal is what I am going to call Deification. The reason I use this word is because the goal of every religion is to either become the deity or to become like the deity - hence deification. This is one fact that holds all religions together as different to humanism or secularism. In both of these the aim is to either better society, or get what you can. The difference between religions starts with the way that you achieve your deification. There are two main groups in this - what is called by some people as the Right and Left hand paths. The right hand path (a less used term because it is not accepted by its practitioners) achieves deification through association, ie, you reach God or godhood by being with of associating yourself with God. This varies in its outworking, but is essentially the method used by most of the larger religions. The Left hand path achieves deification through emulation, ie, you reach godhood by being like a god. This means that the left is usually associated with magic, magick or the occult. It is found most commonly in paganism.
Now I admit that this separation isn't perfect, but it is one of the quickest ways to separate religions. I also admit that most religions that can be grouped in the Right Hand will dislike being put there, but when you look at the teachings of most religions, they will fit into one or the other.

The role of the human is unique in Reformed Christianity. According to RC, you or I take no active part in the deification. In RC this process is completely carried out by the deity in question - God. In all other religions the human must complete some task, perform some duty or the like to be able to receive the prize.
In Catholicism you must go to Mass and follow the sacraments (laws set-up by the Pope - God's intermediary on earth). The sacraments may vary from Pope to Pope of from year to year.
In Islam, you must perform certain tasks (called the 5 pillars), follow the law, not eat the wrong foods, and perform jihad against the devil (jihad has also come to be associated with physical warfare). Also the only way that you are guaranteed to reach the goal is to die in a holy crusade, which will transport you directly to paradise.
Confucianism concerns itself with enlightenment, social order and social duty.
The Bahá'í must follow rules about their life and help society.
In Judaism, there are a lot of traditions that you should follow, but in essence all that you must do is live a good live. Even if you don't, you will be punished and then allowed into heaven.
In Hinduism you are expected to follow certain rituals, but in this there are many different ways that you can follow depending on which of the deities you follow most strictly.
In Buddhism, Nirvana is achieved by disconnecting yourself from physical reality and 'liberating' yourself from physical desires. Through a series of re-incarnations you can work yourself up the chain until you become a supreme being.
As you can see this one difference that separates RC from all other faiths.

The next difference is the response of the Deity in question. In all of these religions the deity will judge you or your efforts but most of them have differences in the way that this is carried out. In RC the judgement is carried out on the basis of the work that has been done for you. In most others, your life is weighed and if what you did right out weighs what you did wrong then you achieve your goal.
In Scientology (not strictly a religion, but I'll mention it any way), the judgement is not carried out by a deity, but (as far as I can tell, the church of scientology prides itself on not letting people know its doctrines) by your thetan - your inner-self, so you self judge based on how many souls of long dead space beings reside in your body.
In Buddhism and Hinduism, if you are worthy, you will reincarnate as a higher being that you were at death, however, if you are not judged as worthy, you will reincarnate as a lower being. This will continue until you reach your deification.
In Catholicism and Judaism, the judgement is reserved until after death. Your soul is transported to either purgatory or gehenna to be purified. then you are allowed into heaven. Your tenancy in purgatory can be shortened by penance of the living.
In Islam you are sent to either heaven or hell, however, hell may be a temporary punishment in some cases.

These are just some of the differences between religions, and there are many others that it would take both many years and a lot more knowledge on a lot more topics than I have to discuss. However, I may outline some other differences between religions (especially the Abrahamic religions with which I am most familiar) later.

Tips for better Love

My last post (where I got angry), highlighted something to me. It seems to me that the meaning of love has changed somewhat. It has become trivialised, and almost conversely been made an ultimately attainable ideal (something that is a virtual impossibility - if everyone can reach the ideal, it isn't really an ideal; there is another level that you can get). It seems to me that now, the meaning of love is sex. People make love, or after they have sex, they are 'in love'. I have no doubt that the 12 year old mother and the 15 year old father say that love each other, but I have serious doubts about the veracity of this statement. A few years ago, love was called a feeling, or sometimes, it was more than a feeling, but it had no manifestation in reality, there was no qualitative test for it except for the amount you felt or said that you felt. I disagree with both of these definitions. Yes both of these can fit into an understanding of love, but neither are a true meaning, the best I can say about these are that they are a symptom rather than a condition - which is not to say that love is an illness or a disease.

I would like to illustrate what Love is with a few actual happenings, not hypotheticals. The first one happened on the 28th of April 1996 - the Port Arthur massacre. You may wonder how I can find love in this situation where 35 people were killed and 21 were injured. This will be revealed. The second is a friend of mine and his Love for his wife. The final one is a bit of a conglomeration.

On the day of the Port Arthur massacre, Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people in a matter of minutes, the first 12 killed and 10 injured happened within 15 seconds. In this time, once people got over the initial shock, something amazing happened. Many of the later injuries in this original killing, happened while the victims were trying to defend their friends or family, men stood in between the gun and their wives, or pushed their daughters under the table where they stayed safer, one man physically lay on top of his wife in an attempt to save her life - one which was ultimately successful. These people, who were in the majority of victims, all died while literally taking the bullet for people they loved. This is Love, they were willing to lay down their lives for the people that they cared about.

The next incident refers to a friend of mine. He is moderately elderly (mid 50's) and his wife was diagnosed as having early onset Alzhiemer's Syndrome, a degenerative disease affecting the brain. She survived longer than expected, 7 years. During this time, she lived in a nursing home so that she could be cared for by people who knew how best to look after her. Despite not being the primary caregiver, he visited her at least once every day, usually over lunch. He retired so that he would be able to spend more time with her. In the later stages of her life, she barely remembered anything, this included his face, voice, name, and only really how to eat and sleep. Despite this, he continued to visit her daily, right up until her death, feeding her lunch, showering her, all the things that needed to be done for her comfort and continued health. This also is Love. He freely gave of himself with no ulterior gain; he got nothing out of his continued care for her, except for spending time with her, the care could quite possibly have been given more efficiently by those trained to give it and yet because of his love for her, he couldn't stand idly by and let others care for her when he could be.

The final illustration happened through a couple of people both separately but as a result of the same event. The first happening was the actions of Ian 'Jack' Cutmore. This man died while trying to save the lives of his two step-daughters, who were twins, and one of his sons while they were swimming in a local lake. He pulled the girls out and held up his son, who was rescued. However, to do this, he got himself trapped in the same mud and silt that the children were trapped in. He died at the scene. These actions are similar to those seen at Port Arthur, but differ slightly. Unlike those at Port Arthur, he could have saved himself, had he not gone back the second time, or had he not been so single minded in his aims. The second part happened as a result of this. The biological father of the twin girls who were saved, started doing everything that he could for the family. He was already on good terms with the entire family, consisting of Jack's children from his first marriage, Jack's widow's children from her marriage with the biological father, and their own children, but this shifted into a new gear. He held an auction, donating everything that he decided he didn't need to be sold to raise money for a car for 9, education for eight, food and hopefully be able to keep their house out of town. He headed up a donation trust fund for the kids. This also is Love similar to my friends display of love with his wife. He gave, not all of his time, but much of his belongings for, not just his kids, but also his ex-wife and her children and step-children. For this, he got nothing except respect from those who respect this sort of thing.

These are all good examples of real love, not the romantic kind which seems to dominate our awareness, especially through Hollywood.
For further listening, look up a few songs which cover the different types of 'love'
- Let me put my love into you - AC/DC
- Never fall in love again - Burt Bacharach
- Fields of Gold - The Police (nice... but eventually useless)
Or slightly better
- I don't have anything - VAST
- Lady D'arbanville - Cat Stevens (doesn't really make sense until later on, and still more about his confusion and inability to believe the situation)

Once again, we read the newspaper, and once again we are shocked by what we read. I think that over the period of my newspaper and other news media attention paying I have learnt to never be shocked by what happens, disgusted yes, but shocked no. This was brought to my attention again today when I read the story about a 12 year old who was about to be giving birth, a child to her 15 year old boyfriend who lived with her and her mother and again when I read the story about the students who consider rape, not just ok, but the way to go about getting sex. I am going to discuss them both.

Note - there is a great deal of self censoring in the following because it pissed me off a lot and even still, I may get a bit violent.
Firstly the girl. The story (which can be read here) was told mostly because her father made a call to DOCS saying that this sort of thing was happening. DOCS replied that they had no power to do anything about it because they can't stop two children talking. I will say that in this case, DOCS did not repulse me as much as other players involved - DOCS are ruled by, not just bureaucrats, but also by people who are convinced that everyone needs as much freedom as they can get, which means that when an 11 year old falls pregnant, unless there was a 30 year old father, they aren't allowed to care. However, everyone else was most definitely repulsive. Including the people who have tied the hands of DOCS the way that they have. THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ACTION AND THEY HAVE DISALLOWED ANY LEGAL METHOD OF DEALING WITH IT. THIS IS GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS PARTICULARLY STUPID AND I VIEW IT AS AN DEPRAVITY.
While I freely admit I don't know the full circumstances, the father was absolutely wrong to leave it at that. I like that he told DOCS first, but when that avenue was exhausted, he gave up. This was completely ignoring his responsibilities as a Father. Again I will stress that I don't know the circumstance that he was in, whether he was disallowed by a restraining order or something, but still he should have done something more than outsourcing his responsibility, especially after that attempt failed.
The 15 year old 'live-in' boyfriend I would like to meet - he would quite possibly never walk again (say what you will about me). I actually don't know what to say about this because it's just so painfully stupid, irresponsible, disgusting, {insert your own descriptor/s here} - I would like to smack him in the face so hard that he can see the back of his neck. This is a boy who still doesn't really know what life is, he might have just got a job, he can't drive; he is still what we refer to as young and stupid, except that when we talk about young and stupid, we're usually talking about doing a couple of dumb things - this is chronic degeneracy. First of all, stick with someone your own age, no, three years isn't much in the grand scheme of things but when we're talking about someone who is still in primary school you're still (I would like to say f***head, but I won't, however, I can't think of any better words to use here). Secondly, grow a brain. and thirdly, if you don't want to consider either of these, learn how to use a condom - which isn't to say that I condone having to use one at your age.
The girl also needs to wake up and grow a brain. Yes it is hard to say no to something when you're 11, but it's harder to have to deal with the consequences when you're 12. Yes this sort of thing was commonplace back in the day, but that still doesn't give any justifiable excuse for it happening today.
The mother, who the two kids lived with is possibly the worst of the lot. By this happening under her roof, she condoned the actions of these barely pubescent kids. she can deny it as much as she wants, but by her not putting an end to, at the very least, the boys tenancy there and at a still possible stretch, his life, and then she should have been forbidding the relationship (acknowledged that this is quite hard to do in the 'enlightened' day and age). Yes I can talk about the father's responsibility, but the fact that he no longer lives there means that at least to some extent, she has taken his responsibility. Even if she shouldn't take that responsibility she still has her own there.
I'll just clarify some of what I said earlier. The girl (and the boy for that matter) are both minors. Technically someone having sex with a minor is defined as rape and it is punishable with long jail terms. I said that this was commonplace back in the day, but only with marriage; if it happened outside of marriage, either marriage would happen very quickly (not possible now without a judges permission - probably not forthcoming) or one of the parties would be killed in the town square.

Time to move on and take a few deep breaths before I bust some major artery or break something.

The other story (which can be read here), about the pro-rape students, I'm actually not sure which is worse. These are students - all male - who have probably grown up in rich families, gone to exclusive (read here high fee) schools and have been taught that they are paramount. They seem to believe that because their dad is some high-flying CEO and can buy them a lot of toys, that they are better than other people. These are the people who are convinced that no matter the circumstances, they are right and even if they are wrong, then daddy can bail them out by paying the right people. Most of this occurred at a college of USYD. I don't know what is worse, that there is the capability for this to happen at this college, or that when rapes actually do occur there that nothing is done about it. One reported case was that the college advisor had to find the master key to be able to stop a rape happening - which means that none of the other students (senior residents or otherwise) were doing anything about it and none of the on campus supervisors were doing anything about it; also the guy in question didn't get the hint when the advisor knocked on the door to ask what was happening, otherwise, he wouldn't have been there when he found the key.
They have defined themselves as "anti-consent" and joined a now shut facebook page called 'Define Statutory'. Ok then, here is my definition of Statutory Rape (because that's exactly what it is). She didn't say yes and you kept going. That is all it needs to be to be rape.
In terms of the players in this sordid state of affairs that disgust me, there are four. The students, the staff supervisors, the parents of the students and the makers of the facebook page that drew attention to this.
The students I don't think I have to say much about, and I won't, otherwise, something will be broken. I'm just going to leave it at grow a brain, get some sensibilities and a conscience, or alternatively, let me have a 'talk' to you that I can guarantee you won't consent to. Again, while this may have happened in the distant past, it occurred when you had captured your victim in battle and you desired to demean the entire enemy - if it happened outside of this, you were executed; so don't try to justify your actions.
The staff supervisors also acted abhorrently. Yes they are quoted as saying that it is "in every way at odds with what we are trying to achieve", but they hadn't done anything about it it prior to this happening. The fact that the resident advisor had to find the master key to be able to stop this happening doesn't speak very highly of your resolve to stop this happening. Yes, I will admit, you have gotten together with various groups including the police to set up a liquor accord which is some of the problem, but in this you haven't discussed sexual assault at all because it is "a delicate issue" because "the colleges are very closed communities". Closed communities just means that those who are in charge of enforcing rules need to do a better job of it because they are alone in it and this is something that hasn't happened as yet.
To the makers of the facebook page I will say the same thing that I said to the students and then add that inciting the actions is worse that committing them, especially if you wash your hands and say that you aren't at fault if someone else does something. Yes you are and you are more at fault.
And finally to the parents of the students, the ones who have brought their kids up in such a way that they think that this is fine. I have no doubt that when you find out about this you publicly condemn the actions of your kids, but that isn't all that is required. What is required is that prior to this happening you condemn the actions of those who perpetrate them, and condemn them with extreme prejudice. If your child thinks that these criminal acts (even if they weren't disgustingly abhorrent and bereft of humanity as well) are fine to commit, then you have failed in your duty as a parent, the main instiller of values in your child's life, and don't give me anything about that being the job of schools, if you're willing to outsource your parenting to schools, then give them your child completely and don't ask for him or her back.
EDIT: shortly after writing this, I noticed that NSW minister for women was "sickened" by this. All well and good, now do something about it.

Sorry about that, I just felt the need to break something.

Isn't it nice when people work together. Have a look at this. I don't think any more really needs to be said in regards to that.
It is worth noting, that they aren't sure if there will be any long term side effects, but from the initial reports, it looks fairly good.

Choices -

What would you do if you were given a choice similar to the one proposed in movie The Box? If you accept, you will receive a million dollars, and then, someone in the world, probably someone you don't know and would never meet, will die. Remember that they may well be a 'bad' person, or they might be about to die anyway, or in them dying you might save the lives of many other people who they might have inadvertently killed for example in a car crash. However, they might be a family man who is the sole income earner for his 5 kids and wife, or it could be a human rights activist or some other such person.
What about the potential from Death Note; If you write a name in the book, they will die that night. Who would you choose? Would you choose people that you really really don't like, or would you choose people that you deem as evil, and if so, then who would you choose and how would you define evil? or would you just never use your power.
What if you were a 'mutant' such as in X-men? Would you work to defend those who hated you? or would you defend yourself from them? What if your choice (either way) meant alienating some people who you have had as friends or even making them enemies.
What about the choices that are made in the Sin City story 'The Yellow Bastard'? Could you choose to die to save the life of someone else - who you probably didn't know very much at all? or if you don't want to answer that one take the choice featured in 'The Big Fat Kill', another Sin City story - could you kill many people to save the lives of others?

What about some choices that are more likely to happen; chances are that we will never find ourselves in any of these situations so how about some plausible ones.
How about a simple one to start with. What if when receiving change for something you slipped it in your pocket without counting, only to find out 15 minutes later that you had been given an extra couple of dollars? What about if you had been short changed by the same amount?
What if you found a wallet on the side walk that had a $50 in it? What if there was no identification? What if there was a couple of hundred dollars in it and no identification?
What if a close friend of yours was assaulted and you found out who did it. What would you do? What if after you notified the police, they managed to get off all charges? What if it was a friend of yours?

Just something to ask yourself.

In other news, it is the beginning of the month formally known as November. Movember is a charity to raise both funds and awareness for two issues in men's health, Depression and Prostate cancer, both of which are ignored by men due to the stigma attached by it and the desire to appear bigger or tougher than you are. Get behind it guys.

Descriptions of God

There are many ways in which God (in the Judeo-Christian form of the Diety) is described. Most of these don't appear to have any basis in either the literature or the mythos of these two religions. So I thought I'd look at a few of the descriptions that come from either the Septuagint (known to Christians as the Old testament), or in the final case, from the book of Revelation.

I think my favorite description of God comes in Isaiah 6 verses 1-4, simply because it shows the sheer awesomeness of God. Basically Isaiah describes God by talking about other things. For example, the first thing he mentions was that the hem of his robe filled the temple. By way of comparison, on us, the hem is at most an inch and more often only about 10mm; this hem, the tail end of the robe, filled one of the biggest buildings of 5th century BC Israel - a space roughly 3500 cubic meters.

The next thing that is mentioned is his entourage. We have an indiscriminate number of seraphim, what are now considered (at least in christian circles) as the greatest of angels. They have 6 wings. With two of them they are covering their faces (so that they don't see the incredible glory of God, like Elijah had to wait in the cave - another awesome description of God), with two of them they are covering their feet (so they don't sully the sanctity of they ground - like Moses and the burning bush) and with two of them they are flying (even if for no other reason than they can this shows awesomeness). Still we haven't recieved a clear physical description of God.
Then these guys start singing. They're singing about how awesome God is, even though there isn't much that can compete with them. Their voices shake the entire temple, meaning that even without direct contact with the ground, their voices are having the same effect as an earthquake, and they're just God's crew.

My next favorite description of God has already been mentioned. It comes in 1 Kings 19. Elijah's life has been threatened and so he is feeling quite depressed (understandably). It shows both the awesome power of God and seemingly conversely, his incredible gentleness. Elijah is hiding in a cave in Mt Horeb when God tells him to step outside for a moment and see God's glory. A tornado style of thing comes and tears up the mountain, an earthquake shows up and shakes the mountain around, and then comes an inferno. We're also told that God wasn't in any of them. This is merely the glory of God. When we actually do see God, it's in a gentle whisper that essentially says, 'don't worry, I am here'.

The final description of God, as I've said, comes from Revelation, in particular Chapter 19 v 10 - 16. Here, we are given a description of Jesus. This isn't the baby jesus of the stable (yes lack of capitals was intentional there) or the caucasian jesus on the cross (which conveniently forgets that Jesus was a Jew and therefore didn't have blue eyes) - this is a warrior king about to ride into battle. His eyes are fire, he wears many crowns (making him a King of kings), his robe is dipped in blood (presumably the blood of his enemies, meaning that he is riding out against an already defeated army), out of his mouth comes a razor sharp sword where there should be words, he is the one who treads the winepress mentioned in chapter 14 which leaves the blood of his enemies flowing at a height of around 6 feet for 300km, and finally on his thigh is tattooed KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS as his name. Yes he does have tickets on himself, he isn't meek and mild like we've been told.

Dreams

Dreams are one thing that I think we take too much for granted. I mean, what actually is it? We lie comotose for a few hours, hallucinate vividly and then usually suffer amnesia about the whole thing. What, except for the fact that it happens to everyone, is normal about this? I ask this question because of a few dreams that I've been having lately - things like being in the very centre of an explosion (the only part of this dream I remember) or windsurfing in a river style of dam thing before going to get psychoanalysed. These are the less messed up dreams. So my question is, Why do we put so much stock in our dreams? It isn't often that I think about explosions or dying in them, or even windsurfing, so why did I dream about them? Is it a Freudian slip of my subconscious or is it just random? These are things that I don't know or pretend to understand. The inner workings of my subconscious brain are something that I'm still trying to figure out.

However, I'm not just going to leave it there. I had a dream last night that I would like to discuss. In it, someone said to me that he knew why I did things. This almost definatly has to be an outworking of my subconscious somehow - so I took note. I was told that I only did things so that I would be recognised as a good person (ironically this was immediatly before I beat someones face in), something that I have in the past noticed. So then the question arises, why did my subconscious feel the need to tell me this and why now? I don't know I and I don't particularly wish to speculate.

In other news, I've changed the layout of the blog and was wondering if there is anything else that I should do to it, or if there's anything that you would like me to discuss here. If there is, feel free to leave a comment below.

It will be sunny one day

Often when I see something that is supposed to be inspiring or motivational, I look at it and almost immediately think how clichéd it is, often because these things end up being clichéd on their own, and as the demand for these things increases with our desire to 'improve' ourselves, I don't envisage that this will change any time in the near future. This means that me finding something that I see as motivational is a rare occasion, which I suppose has given me a bit of a pessimistic view on many things.
However, on these rare occasions that I find something inspiring, I usually save it somewhere. This has lead to a large pile of quotes sitting on my computer like:

All knowledge is stored somewhere. Be it in books, heads or deep under glaciers. And when we find it, we make it ours. Faith is bricks; knowledge is mortar. -- From The Book of Cataclysm

or,

Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, whereas culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform. It is grotesque. -- U. G. Krishnamurti

These get left in the WSOGMM of quotes that I find interesting due to their humour or their views on the world.

I recently found a letter that Stephen Fry sent to someone who was suffering from depression which I found to be quite thought provoking. Having lived through it, he wrote to her, not with specific advice, not by telling her how much she was loved (in fact he said that he didn't want to do that), but with understanding. The link to see the letter is here. He likened human emotion (in some cases) to the weather in what I think is one of the most insightful metaphors around. In essence, he said that, Yes sometimes it rains, Yes sometimes it rains for a long time, yes at the end of the rain, the clouds go away and the sun comes out, no you can't control the rain, and yes life can be crap. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety just for the gentle way he says it.

Happiness is not achieved by the conscious pursuit of happiness; it is generally the by-product of other activities. -- Aldous Huxley

RIP Sheldon Kaplan

You will never have heard of Sheldon Kaplan, and yet, he has made an incredible impact on the lives of many people you know, and possibly your own. He is the inventor of the ComboPen, an early auto-injector syringe used to combat nerve gas. He is also the person who realised that this system could be used in other applications - like the more well known EpiPen, which he also invented. He died about two weeks back.

Many people who have designed/built/invented medical equipment are sadly overlooked in any capacity except for in obscure textbooks about medical history or occasionally for the Nobel Prize for physiology/medicine (again mostly ignored), and yet, they usually make a difference in most peoples lives. For example how many of you have heard of Roald Dahl? How many of you knew that he helped develop the WDT valve for alleviating hydrocephalus, a developmental disease more common than Down Syndrome.
This is a sadly ignored part of research and design.

However, now that I've mentioned the Nobel Prizes, how can I fail to lead you to the Ig-nobel prizes; the awards that are given to achievements that that first make people laugh then make them think, and according to Nature magazine are "arguably the highlight of the scientific calendar." It is a list of absolute, whacked out, brilliance that Australians feature on possibly more frequently than our population would normally allow. It features things that often deserve more attention than they get, for example, Lal Bihari, the (not) dead founder of the Association for Dead People, an Indian organisation that actively lobbys on behalf of people who have been wrongly declared dead and therefore no longer exist - leaving them unable to work, travel, acquire property etc, despite being still alive. Or this years Peace Prize (slightly more deserving than Barack Obama in my opinion), Stephan Bolliger and associates from the university of Bern, Switzerland for their research on whether it is better to be hit in the face by a beer bottle if it is full or empty. Or my personal favorite, the Australian man who in 2001 invented and patented the wheel. (the patent application and acceptance can be seen here)
Click here for more details on the award and the winners.

Life to the full

Dylan Moran once jokingly said that you should be as alive as you can until you're totally dead, a sentiment that I agree with, and one that was poignantly apparent yesterday. I went to see someone I've known all my life (who will remain anonymous) who has just been diagnosed as having dementia; two weeks ago he was almost fine, last week he didn't remember who he was. Yesterday he seemed better, meaning that he could mostly keep a reasonable conversation, but he still wasn't great - he couldn't find his way across the hall to go to the toilet. However, he was enjoying humour that he wouldn't have found amusing before. What does that have to do with living life? He's virtually bedridden, can't remember how to comb his hair or shave his moustache and yet he is still trying to make a go for what ever he can. When you compare that with other people younger, fitter, smarter, more ambitious and healthier than him (read here us), he blows us out of the water with zest for life despite not being able to live nearly as much as we can and having a definite limit on his mental capacity.

This is not me proposing hedonism as a great way to go, this is me saying that we should enjoy life. When you look around at us today, we have everything we want right at our fingertips and this is the problem. All we seem to want is what we can get easily. To have to try to get anything is anathema to our societal stance. It inhibits our enjoyment. We have to be reminded that working for something increases our appreciation of it. All we want to do is, in the words of Voddie Baucham, get what we can, can what we get and sit on the can. No, what I want to put forward is what John Piper calls Christian Hedonism, the view that says that we should enjoy what God has given to us because 'he is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him'.

How's that for train of thought. But I'm not done. I want to also mention someone else I know (who will also remain anonymous) who has been virtually reduced to a anxious wreck from his job. He, despite being 30 years younger has had almost the polar opposite response. He has withdrawn and is depressed about almost everything. Now, I do know that anxiety and depression almost always go together, but when you compare the two responses, I'd much rather take the first response.

Victory

How do we win at things? I realised that my views on this subject may be different to others after watching the movie Donnie Darko the other night (which did not blow my mind as advertised). Shortly before the end of the movie I said that he won. This was greeted with confusion by the other people who were watching with me, primarily because in the process of doing this, he lost. But in this losing for himself he won in general. This I called a victory for Donnie. Why? I'll try to explain. (NB. Watch it and then judge for yourself, it is a brilliant movie)

The following contains spoilers.

In the action of his loss, he made the choice to lose, thus countermanding anything else that was going to happen later (which due to a temporal anomaly has already happened). In doing so, he died rather than living through all that was going to follow - crime (perpetrated by him), the loss of his sanity (so far as he and others could see) and the death of his girlfriend (who at the time he hadn't met). He decided that the loss of his own life was a price that he was willing to pay for this outcome. He cheated the destiny that he had foreseen for himself. He made the choice to avoid his destiny in an act of freewill that was beyond belief. As he himself discussed, the future is predetermined - he made the choice in the present to stop that from happening.

As for him winning, in the moment shortly before his death, he comes to the realisation that this is the only way to not let everything happen; his victory comes about through the loss of the other party - the destiny. For a victory to occur, you do not need to win, you merely need to not lose when your opposition has. This is the victory that he achieves.

Responses to daily occurances

The other day as I was walking into Sydney for uni, I was quite surprised at two responses to things that I did. The first happened as I was about to step out to cross the road. I looked around to see a car bearing down on the corner. So, not wanting to be hit by a 1.5 tonne piece of moving machinery, I stopped. The driver of the car seemed surprised and waved her gratitude to me; that was what surprised me, that she felt grateful to me for not making her hit me - what I thought was essentially self defence on my behalf. The other response, which worried me more came from a homeless woman who asked me for the time. She asked me just as I passed her so I had to turn around to tell her. When I did, she looked at the ground with an expression that I would have described as fear. Being a six foot bearded male who habitually wears sunglasses and hides his expressions while in public, this is something that I have seen before, but not from someone who initiated the contact. The question that I found myself asking as I walked along was why these responses were so surprising.

The first response I think stems from societies changing attitudes towards responsibility. Where your responsibility used to stem from your actions and position, society has tried to change so that in as far as is possible, you are not responsible for anything that you do, or that happens to you - especially if something goes wrong. This has lead to an increase of court cases that should be laughed out, but amazingly win, like the guy who sued the preschool for not looking after his child while the lawn was being mowed by a volunteer parent. His child was run over while running over to daddy, who happened to be mowing the lawn at the time (for more of these click here). This attempted decrease of responsibility has had a not too subtle effect on the way we think. We can always find someone to blame, can always point the finger, and almost always find a way to pass the buck. The driver of the car, didn't expect me to take responsibility for my stepping out into the path of her car and when I did, she showed her gratefulness through a wave which itself is surprising. Usually, in this circumstance, people will beep their horn at you, trying to tell you that you are at fault and that you should back away from imminent crushing - fair enough as a warning, but as anger, probably not.

The second response is a bit more puzzling. Why would someone who asked for the time appear scared when she received it? and why if she was going to respond that way did she ask in the first place? It may be that she wasn't expecting help and so her reaction was based on a surprising reaction. In that case, why, if she wasn't expecting anything, did she even ask? and why was she so worried when she did receive help? These I think come from the way that we have as a whole started to almost require a choice in everything we do. When she solicited my aid, she limited my choices. So when I turned to give her the time, she was worried about the outcome that didn't involve my actual response. So then why did she ask? My thoughts on this lead me to the conclusion that she wasn't expecting any response and she possibly didn't even want one. If she didn't get a response, she could at least say to herself that she had tried. This may not have been her motive, but thinking about it, to me it seems the clearest possibility. This desire for a lack of response has grown to be a curse upon our society. We fool ourself into thinking that if there was no reaction from a third party (or even a second party) then our responsibility in the matter ends there. In actuality, our responsibilities grow at this point as we then have to deal with what would have happened on our own, and this is too scary for many people these days.

On a different note (E flat to be precise), listen to the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky - Awesome in 15 and a half minutes of music.

What is the nature of war.

A recent discussion I've had got me wondering about this. We in Australia are privileged to not have to worry about this in general - out of all the armed conflicts that our military are involved in, we have only had about ten fatalities in the last decade, and most of what we do is in peacekeeping and training rather than actual front line combat; we aren't directly threatened by any imminent fights on our soil; we are allied to many nations that are strong militarily and will protect us even if just to keep trade routes open - by and large, we're fairly safe here from open warfare. And yet, it is something that regularly finds it's way into our news bulletins and papers. It intrudes on our nation's consciousness. Probably our biggest national holiday is the 25 of April, ANZAC day, where we remember one of the most devastating armed conflicts in recent history and the Australians who were there. Out of the top 40 highest grossing movies of all time, 11 of them feature open warfare of some kind, whether it be massive galactic battles or fantasy style sword and shields with cavalry charges. It can't be because war is a good thing; Jimmy Carter said it this way, "No matter how necessary, war is always an evil, never a good". By my reckoning, the only real reason that humanity would spend so much time, money and effort on this base waste of life, is because either we enjoy it, or it is somehow part of the human psyche. I can't think of anyone who enjoys war (except for those so devoid of humanity that we call them sociopaths or psychopaths) so we are left with only doing it because it is part of our nature.

In a small way, you see wars all of the time in nature; predator kills prey being the obvious example, but nothing compared with the violence that humans visit upon one another for nothing more than an idea or an order. The most ruthless murderers are those who kill for their ideas and this is never seen more than in war; look at WWII, the most pitiless murderers were those who killed for the idea of the so-called master race, the Aryans. Now look at the other side of the coin, at the Allies; they often killed for no more than an order - the most lasting peace before armistice was the unofficial Christmas Day truce, where hundreds of thousands of troops on both sides of the war lay down arms for up to a week for no more reason than it was Christmas and they didn't want to fight. In many places they disregarded orders to keep fighting and talked with people who only hours previously had been shooting at them. This then would seem to mean that war is not part of the mind of a normal person. Why then do we persist? Is it just a part of our collective character or is it hardwired into our heads genetically?

We all know of the horrors of war, so I won't go into them. We all know that normal people don't enjoy war, so I won't discuss those who do, or why we don't. I'm going to finish with the words of Adam Roberts, someone not known for his knowledge of war, but for his satirical humour. he says that the end of war isn't peace, "For what is war but struggle? And the opposite of struggle is not peace, but death." His point is that struggle is an integral part of life, regardless of what we do with ourselves.