30 August, 2010


so summer is coming and i couldn't be more excited. summer fashion, sand and my albino skin rarely sit well with one another, but i have found some amazing new things that could just make this season bearable. slut wear, it seriously just not me. a winter full of stocking, scarfs, army boots and skinny jeans are much more up my ally. still, my latest finds give me hope for the coming sweltering season.

and. here. we. go.
(top to bottom: SHIN MultiDress $198, Necklush Inkdrop $74, Galibardy Apple Ring Red $34, Paola Loves To Shop Subway Map Wayfarer Sunglasses $10, Black Milk Cape $70, Underground Fred - Cuban Heel Gold Beat Boot $79.50)

29 August, 2010

acid-rave sci-fi punk-funk!

an hour ago, a free copy of klaxons new album, 'surfing the void' happened to fall into my computer shaped lap. a 'laptop' if you will. i know it has been a while since i raved about a band and their music, this has been mostly due to the fact that no one recently deserved my praise. the klaxons do! their much anticipated second album is amazing. cited as a band with the complex and aptly named musical genre, 'acid-rave sci-fi punk-funk' speaks to everything i love. combine this with some amazingly odd fashion choices, my love runs free.

get your hands on a copy of their album! if you haven't heard of them, WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN? in prison? a coma, perhaps. well, if so you are in need of a serious musical education. one, you can find here. or just check out their new single, 'echoes' official video below. could be just me, but i feel the need to run through the desert..... i never feel the need to run. disturbing.

24 August, 2010

seriously, who cares?

answer, the governator!

as i put of studying for a psychology quiz, i began having a look around the new yorker online site for blog post inspiration. i forgot how much i really enjoy writing on this thing. what i expected to find was not what has me angry today. i thought, i would uncover some cool new book, movie, play or music review to pique my interest but instead, i found this.

last wednesday in california a lot of people thought that they would be getting married. not a big deal, people get married every day. except this day all wedding parties were disappointed. the 18th of august, 2010 was set to mark the day when preventing same sex couples from marrying would be deemed unconstitutional. a federal judge thought that this would be a great day to appeal the decision of 'perry v. schwarzenegger'. hence gay marriage is still illegal in the state until at the very earliest the 17th of september or the latest after a supreme court decision in 2011.

ok so what is in a month? it's surely isn't that long, and what is one more year? the answer is, a lot! i have a few friends who are planning weddings and really excited about starting a new chapter of their lives with the person they love. i can't imagine the heart ache they would all go through if, on their wedding day, they were told, 'sorry not today, maybe sometime in september. though, i wouldn't start re-organising'.

my problem with this decision is obvious. but, i guess i don't understand why there is such a fuss over same sex marriage. how can we live in a society that openly allows gay people all other opportunities, but legally binding themselves together is for some reason offensive to the publics moral sensibilities? i'm not going to speak for the christian right who oppose such a union, but i will ask them this. gay people don't choose to be gay, they were born that way, there is nothing wrong with that. it isn't a disease that they caught and the gay men and women i know are good people who deserve to be afforded the same rights as any straight person. moreover, how does it at all affect you?

the answer is, it really doesn't. one line, in a deeply disturbing historical text (i'm speaking of the bible, of course) is all it takes for religious people to oppose gay marriage. god said, "sorry boys if you like streisand and eachother 'like that' you can't get married". ok so that might not have been his exact words, but the sentiment is there. and lets face it, gay people are not the only people to be excluded by doctrine. the catholic church, continues to receive its tax exempt status from the government when its institutional sexism runs rampant. they don't allow women to become priests and openly gay men are disallowed from entering seminal school under the very vague excuse, god said no.

but, most people who aren't religious, and this is a large chunck of the australian population according to the latest census data, don't really mind. and why should they? gay marriage affords couples with legal rights regarding their children, spousal privilege and tax incentives that are made available to all straight married citizens.

seems fair to me. gay couples are just asking for what is given to straight people without question. vermont had the right idea, 10 years ago. come on australia, catch up!

23 August, 2010

so this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.

apologies all for my unplanned sabbatical, but my uni and work load is kicking my butt. still, after the disappointment of the recent election i feel the need to vent.

now, i vote labor/greens and as a result have a certain level of moral egotism that goes with such a decision. not that all left of centre voters are this way, but considering that gillard may loose this election because 3 ex national party independents get to decide for 14 million people i think my piety is somewhat warranted.

firstly, vote for whoever you want. this is how democracy (usually) works. but, it is a decision that should be taken seriously and requires a citizen to actively pick one side or the other in the two party preferred system, for a reason beyond disliking a ministers hair cut. if this is the case then you are who i'm angry with.

my parents vote conservatively. this is a problem on so many levels for me but they are both small business owners and need a stronger economy for the immediate future and also as they near (not too near) retirement age. many a conservative (abbott nlp) voter has pitched this argument to me under the reasoning, that rich people know how to deal with their own money and as a result know how to look after yours, the tax payer. all fine. still, my wondering continues, are we so bad off now? australia is doing the best out of the entire worlds advanced economies, in unemployment levels, inflation and interest rates.... krudd did us a solid with stimulus. maybe, the labor party aren't so working class anymore. i heard gillard even went to university.

still, i realised this week as i drove home from sydney (passing cars and thinking 1 out of 2 people voted stupidly for abbott) that, maybe the reason conservative voters are able to look past the partys racism, religious fear mongering, wacky science climate change denying proposed policy is because they vote for themselves and their own backpockets. there is something very wrong with this. when i voted on saturday my mind wasn't on how this act of civil duty would benefit me, but rather how it would enrich the entire nation. how a national broadband network (without internet censorship) could benefit rural and poorer communities, how mining companies could be held accountable for environmental problems and how conflicts engaged in by our armed forced could be helped with more aid to the defence department.

maybe, i'm just less pragmatic because i have the luxury of being young and idealistic. i love australia. i'm a patriot. voting is something that not everyone has the right to in this world and here people don't take part fully in the process. we call the system, 'broken' and refuse to immerse ourselves in information and make a decision, but rather rely on trends and catchy slogans to make the decision for us.

if nothing else this election has shown that people are scared. the gfc, climate change and pesky non-white immigrants are invading our small isolated corner of the world. instead of hope and a 'yes we can!' attitude australia's 5.8% swing to a howard henchman shows we would rather turn back the clock 4 years and undo the mistake of 2007.

it's depressing, i never thought i would see the day when the american public is smarter than 14 million free australians. this is the country that voted for george bush.... twice.

09 August, 2010

i still miss you, bsg.

there is absolutely nothing i don't like about this video. check the portrait art's youtube profile. the person who draws these is my new role model..... you know, coming from someone who can't even sketch an accurate stick figure.

06 August, 2010

is that...? O.M.G!

....another one of the reasons we love stephen fry. he inadvertently introduces us to some very cool people like, THE STROKES.

(l-r: albert hammond jr., caitlin, fab moretti, nikolai fraiture, me and kathryn)

03 August, 2010

a mind of one's own?

ok, so sorry for being so very slack of late but i do have a good reason. i have been staring at this post for 3 days trying to work out what it actually is and what i'm trying to say. it had the ideas, i think, to be one of my best ever but, alas, i don't think it's going to work out.

earlier this week, i began reading a book that has been sitting in my mini library forever. virginia woolfe's seminal non-fiction work, a room of one's own. in this short novel, originally 2 speeches, she outlines her views on women, fiction and the things that are required for great literary work. but, it is more than that. it is a post-world war 1 depiction of the plight of women throughout history up to that point.

so many things in this book got me thinking. perhaps most significantly, the way men saw women as far beneith them and not just intellectually but also, emotionally, spiritually and culturally insignificant. the concept of the work is that, 'a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction'. i began this adventure into early 20th century feminism expecting her to slander men, call them idiots and all female writers exceptional thinkers and people. this is far from the case and, i think, the reason why it will continue to influence not only the way i write on here but also, what it means to be a woman today. with the relative freedom to aspire to be whatever i choose.

this leads me to my second point. woolfe's main point in giving these speeches to young women who had only just begun to explore their new found access to education at a university level was to push them to understand this right (one she was not afforded) and also, their responsibility in paving the way for future female writers. she gives immense credit to the likes of jane austin, george eliot and the bronte sisters, as brilliant women who not only dared to write within their own styles but, who wrote in some cases exceptionally well. these women inspired woolfe and as a result she, i believe, inspired a generation of newly emancipated women who now influence the writers of today.

freedom? check. education? check. money? check. all requirements for the ability to choose your own fate. this got me considering how i feel about these three things, that i had never once considered to be a part of my life. but, they all are. without the ability to choose, then women today would be nothing more than wives forced into marriage and producing children in the 10s and 12s, instead of the 2s or 3s. how, although i respect women who choose this life for themselves (as mothers with the responsibilities that go with such a thing) i perhaps don't value it enough. what do i value? the power of love? not really. kindness? hardly. intelligence? oh yea!

reading this book made me look at the slightly disturbing aspect of myself that i value more than anything. and not in just me, it's what i judge you on first as well. intelligence. i've always dismissed it as fine, normal even, to do this. after all, it's better than judging someone on their appearance. but, when did i become such a snob? maybe, it's something built within my dna.... or is that just an excuse. still, after thousands of years of men telling women they are beneath them is it not completely understanding that we feel the need to push back in some way?

the short answer is, no. there was a line in the second chapter, that suggested the reason men (specifically during the 16th century and then again, when women demanded their right to vote) of these times saw the need to put down a woman's worth was to elevate his own. this is what i do. i think you are stupid, i feel smarter, i feel superior. this is not acceptable. there is always someone smarter than you are, and always someone not as intelligent at you. maybe, we should all remember this next time someone asks a 'stupid' question. i know i'll try.