australia, who do you think you are?

over the past few weeks i have given a lot of thought to tomorrows national holiday. australia day, synonymous with bbqs, beers, fake/real flag tattoos and the wife beater. sad really, i have no real inclination for celebration. why? i mean, it's our nations day of celebrating uuuummmm yeah we commemorate the...., well that is to say, there is triple j's hottest 100 and yeah.... ok so i had no idea what the day was meant to be about and i assume not many others do either so i researched. the day is in an effort to pay tribute to the arrival of the first fleet in sydney cove in 1788, when the british hoisted the union jack and claimed the land under their sovereignty. wooooohhh!

this act is the reason why various aboriginal people declared the day, 'invasion day'. seems fair enough really but, my problem isn't with history so much as it is with the present. the day is seen as nothing more than a bank holiday in the sun and an excuse to get completely trashed and bitch about angus and julia stone's song 'jet plane' reaching the number 1 position of the hottest 100 (yest that's my ominous prediction btw). not that there is anything wrong with such past times, especially the last, but it does indicate how this country is missing something. a sense of national identity.

another criticism of the indifference that occurs on australia day is the fact that it falls during the school holidays. some teachers believe that due to this children are not as engaged as they are with other national holidays, like anzac day, and have no real concept of the importance of such an event. this lack of engagement in my mind has cemented the one dimensional hedonistic self image of australians. we like sport, having a laugh with a drink our hand and chilling on the beach. surely, there is more to us than that?

be it a result of our countrys short history, or our connection to britain and the united states, we haven't been given a chance to really branch out on our own. no civil wars or wars of independence, we haven't had the opportunity to grow as a nation by ourselves. not that wars are good things, but they do see change and a rallying of people behind a cause. we are still a member of the commonwealth because we seemingly can't be bothered or want to become independent knowing if we do, we can't win gold medals in sport at the commonwealth games. sad really.

getting back to my original gripe. australian tattoos have become a bogan trait. either through un-originality or a lack of understanding many aussies will proudly show off their 'patriotic' ink whilst subtly trying to say they have gone through pain for their noble homeland. now THAT pisses me off! mostly because i'm quite convinced that they have no idea what it means to be an australian. i know this, because i'm not even sure what it means anymore. but, having 'australia' or the apparently 'un-british' part of the flag (the southern cross) tattooed with abandon across your ass is about as offensive to me as burning the flag right in front of my eyes.

ok alright so, maybe it isn't all that bad, but it no longer posses the ideals it once encompassed. a symbol of perceived patriotism and egalitarianism was hijacked by racist thugs and well, the brand seems to have been irreparably damaged. blogger henry stones described the average southern cross tattoo holder in a smh article as possessing many traits, including: "you call rum and cokes 'rumbos' and you drink a minimum of two cartons a month"; "you have started a conversation regarding matty johns' innocence" and "you have a rat's tail".

perhaps a bit harsh, still it is concerning. this is how we show we care for our country? widespread apathy i fear will be the theme for tomorrow and whilst being wholly depressing is also scares the bejesus out of me. what's going to happen when the day comes we have to stand up for what we as a nation believe in, and can't think of a single thing worth fighting for?

something small to make you smile.

the internet is full of crap. i think, we can all generally agree with this statement. we fill a vast majority of our time with complete trash. not that it isn't highly entertaining or interesting, but still not exactly plumbing the depths of human achievement. having the most friends on facebook may get you interviewed by some vacuous morning show host, but probably not a nobel prize or even a job.

this brings me to this photo. i found this yesterday and am inclined to believe that it is easily the shining peak of my internet surfing. a golden ray of light, through the otherwise dark intellectual vacuum of online content. the picture of elisebeth and dave mitchel, in kings cross circa 1965, is just so lovely to me. it speaks of a seemingly more exciting time in history. a time when people tried, or maybe just pretended, to care about the sucky world they lived in and endeavoured to fix its problems.

now, i know this is an incredibly idealised view of australia in the 60s. still, it made me genuinely smile at the two people (presumably married) and the way they seem to just casually 'fit' the world at that time.

go to heaven for the climate, hell for the company.

so, on this cold winter morning i decided to re-aquatint myself with the wondrous show that is boston legal. funny thought provoking stuff that often quote the great works and idea of mark twain. i'm quite ashamed to admit that i do not own one book by this influential and prolific american author; anyone who knows my book collection understands how big a deal that is. still, i have, like many high school children, read 'the adventures of tom sawyer' and enjoyed it about as much as any kid does a book they are being forced to read.

still, this post isn't about twain's books per-se but, rather the idea that live behind his works. ideas that americans pride themselves. still, i'm not sure twain's countrymen today are living by his patriotic example and have even stopped listening. history teaches, why aren't these people listening? this is a nation, where one 5th of americans can't locate their own country on a map, a mere 13% of senior students in the state of mississippi can read at an adult level and one 3rd of students in california can't even find the pacific ocean. the pacific ocean! it's right there.

some of his quotes that could help these uneducated young adults to find some thirst for knowledge are:

- 'classic.' a book which people praise and don't read.

- whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's tome to pause and reflect.

- all you need is ignorance and confidence and the success is sure.

- get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

- i don't like to commit myself about heaven and hell - you see, i have friends in

both places.

- we have the best government money can buy.

- a man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.

- don't let schooling interfere with your education.

- clothing make the man. naked people have little or no influence on society.

- all generalisations are false, including this one.

- fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. truth isn't.

- honesty is the best policy - when there is money in it.

- action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often.

- there is no distinctly american criminal class - except congress.

- loyalty to the country always. loyalty to the government when it deserves it.

- better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak out and remove all doubt.

- familiarity breeds contempt - and children.

- i can live for two months on a good compliment.

- laws control the lesser man... right conduct controls the greater one.

- good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.

- wit is the sudden marriage of ideas which before their union were not perceived to

have any relation.

- such is the human race, often it seems a pity that noah... didn't miss the boat.

- the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

- the lack of money is the root of all evil.

and finally, my personal favourite in today's australian political climate...

- when red-haired people are above a certain social grade their hair is auburn.

hope there really isn't a hell or i'm pretty screwed!

i have recently begun reading a book called 'the end of faith' by sam harris. it is a continuation of my research into the idea of atheism and how it is connected to the way i feel about the existence of god(s). i have come to the conclusion, that, i in fact don't believe in god. an all knowing, all powerful being who participates in the day-to-day affairs of human beings to me seems ludicrous, but more than anything that such a baseless belief is actually dangerous.

now, before you get your angry typing fingers ready this is what i think. this isn't what i think everyone should think and i'm certainly not so deluded that i posit that i can change a single persons mind about the importance of religion/god to them. that is not the point of this post. all i seek is a conversation on the topic that is civil, thought provoking and honest without it descending into anger and/or fear mongering.

as such, i'm going to tell you a bit about what i think. firstly, i do 'think' as opposed to 'believe' when talking about faith. the only reason is because thoughts can be changed, beliefs seem, to me anyway, more solid and i'm not sure they should be. we as people are forever changing is seems slightly silly to have a belief that can't be altered or even reversed when given further consideration. ok moving on, i was raised catholic and the dogmatic way that such an old church conducts itself never really appealed to me. i suppose, all the poetic revelations spoken about by devout people, in all the iconic literature was never experienced by me and as a result it left me feeling as though i was missing something that everyone singing in church clearly understood. the 'oh. huh. cool.' revelations about the world came to me rather from books. poetry, literature, philosophy, psychology, history helped me understand why i was standing here, now, living the life i lead.

most simply put, i have no faith in god and for a long time was really very angry about that. that was until i realised, you can't be angry at god and then not believe in him/her/it. i'm happy to say i'm no longer angry at god, and haven't been for some time, but rather was just ambivalent. this came from the realisation that the ceo of the universe could never be understood and so i devoted my time to understanding other things.

in most circles that i travel in being an atheist isn't a good thing, not that i habitually share the fact, but rather you instantly get the response, 'oh michelle that's really sad.'. but, it isn't and why should it be? oh, i'm going to hell? well according to the old testament, as i haven't been to church in about 5 years and even then my heart really wasn't in it, i'm going there anyway so i may as well leave the world slightly better off than i found it. so, i go to university, i learn some stuff, i go to work, i hang with friends, be good to my family, vote with a conscious and pay my taxes. that's better than some people and god hasn't even entered into the equation yet.

by the way, i just realised this might be a long post so buckle up kids. next, i have a rather large problem with the thing most religious people (specifically christians, it's what i know so...) habitually and very successfully seek to ignore. the past. i'm not about to go all richard dawkins on your ass' mostly, because he is far too militant in his views. declaring war on organised religion as a fantasy that needs to be extinguished, as an example. not my view, but he does have a point. it is the almost stereotypical point presented by atheists for their lack of belief in god. still, it needs to be said. the crusades, inquisitions, the burning times (witch trials), priests interfering with children, and even the current war on terror have links to organised religion as one, if not their entire, root cause. genocide is a common theme. it is even thought by some historians that the dark ages, that followed the fall of the roman empire and saw about 800 years when all science and critical inquiry were considered religious heresy, had not occurred we today may have ventured outside of our own solar system. this is all academic of course, and entirely my point.

most atheists that i've met merely transfer their faith from god to science. i'm not usually one to follow a crowd but i do agree with this. not that science is our saviour or anything but rather is can be rationally argued. it has a rich history of great thinkers who dared to look past religion and seek for an answer that was tangible. moreover, in our growing secular society this is also more relevant. we all like to think there is something bigger than ourselves, something for us to hitch our wagon to. for some that is god, and for others that is science. it's a social reflex. we are primates, we enjoy the comfort and security that a community provides and if that community believes as you do, then the group is strengthened. so, i guess i hope for the day where, dare i say we become evolved enough. or a future when we don't feel the need to rely on a personal god, to steer us in the right direction and then judge us for our ability (or lack of ability) to follow instructions BUT rather put that faith and trust in ourselves.

this brings me to what i believe in. as the atheist range is large, simply because it is linked with defining 'god' or 'deity', there are many different types of atheism (not even including agnosticism) and i suppose i find myself sitting in the 'practical atheism' corner of the metaphysical boxing ring. individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. the existence of gods is not denied, but is designated unnecessary or useless. it is seen that gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life. i agree with this and perhaps most strongly think that belief in gods does not motivate moral action but rather that people are innately humane and make decisions about their moral actions according to this code rather than their wish to go to heaven. this isn't to say that the law plays no part. i mean, no one wants to get shived in jail.

i suppose in many ways this makes me a humanist. to me, it is more powerful and meaningful than a belief in god. we shape our own lives. autonomy as opposed to fate. the international humanist and ethical union is an organisation that requires its members to accept one minimum statement about its beliefs and politics. "humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. it stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. it is not theistic, and does not accept supernatural views of reality". i really like this concept. i guess it's everything i always wanted catholicism to be; a pope without prada? scandalous!

so, not all atheists are angry liberal god haters who despise their own rational nature. i hope i have shown that some of us just have chosen to back a different horse in this race. i hope there really isn't a hell though. oh, wouldn't my face be red!

-------------------------------------

note: the picture that i chose to use is of the eagle nebula's 'pillars of creation' taken by the hubble telescope in 1995. it shows the early formation of a star and thus, is a nice combination of science and things believed to be crafted by god(s).

who do you think you are?

i'm seriously lucky to have a mum with facebook. you put up a little comment about watching, 'who do you think you are?' and wondering what is lurking in your dna. this is what i got back.

my ancestors were a heady mix of several convicts, lots of thieves, a madame and that's just in the 17 and 1800s. a few more colourful characters since then but, according to mum, all lines lead to ireland. four leaf clovers, guinness, leprechauns, binge drinking and casual violence. add to this a 15 year old convict who came to australia on the second fleet. when he died, 1839, he was recorded to be worth 11 million pounds. that's a lot of money now, back then he was a venerable bill gates.

just one wonderful story: my grandmother used to visit HER grandmother (my great-great grandmother) every sunday and at the insistence of her great-aunties was not allowed to tell her grandmother that her mother (ellen) had died. four months later old grannie was dead too. now, this is where things get hilarious. turns out, grandma (aka. eliza stephens) in her youth was arrested for 'keeping a disorderly house' and in 1870 was sentenced to 3 years, which she served in the uk and then immigrated to australia. married a nice wealthy farmer and proceeded to pump out 5 kids, the eldest being ellen. the name 'ellen' (which is my and my mums middle name) came from this line. mr. wealthy farmer's mother died when he was 10 years old and his younger sister was 2 years old; they were reportedly close and her name was ellen. he named his first daughter after is younger sister and it has stuck through generations.

anyway, this whole line goes back to the 15 year old kid that came out on the famous ship 'the scarborough' with the second fleet. that kids name was jonathan griffiths. follow that link for details but the cut down version is he was arrested for stealing 5 pounds worth of stuff and sentenced to 'seven years transportation'. he arrived on norfolk island in 1790 and began learning how to build ships. he moved to sydney in 1795 and later began building ships to use in the carriage of grain up and down the nsw coast. his family later relocated to victoria were the began farming and (oops unpc alert) whaling. he died in his 80th year with two wives (not at the same time, thank god), 9 children, a small fortune and an island off the coast of victoria named after him. 12 generations removed from me.....i feel quite insignificant after all that.

i'm so proud. no really, a madame and a self made millionaire, how cool is that?! this is all just my mums side of the family. god only knows what we might find on my dads side....we dare not look.

what ever happened to famous last words?

yesterday i was re-watching the hbo series rome, that i cannot recommend enough btw, when SPOILER ALERT caesar is killed in the senate and finally dies at the hand of his pseudo (maybe actual) son brutus. his last words were, 'et tu, brute?' meaning, 'even you, brutus'. this got me thinking, you only ever hear about famous last words in history and also do they really even matter?

admiral lord horatio nelson's, who died after the battle of trafalgar, last words are heavily debated, 'kiss me hardy', 'fan fan....rub rub....drink drink', and 'thank god i have done my duty' are all posited as his final testament. i think the last is the most poetic, if it's true. the poet that lives in us all, yes i believe we all have one, is driven to say something ethereal in those final moments before the complete unknown. when asked by her husband how she felt on her death bed elizabeth barrett browning said simply, 'beautiful'. to feel and articulate such a thing when in pain and presumably shit scared is a testament to a persons mind, life and subsequent spirit.

still, on the flip side we have h.g. wells, who was another great writer. his final words reflected his life in another way. in his independence and willingness to buck conventions he said, 'go away. i'm alright!'. in more recent years our heros have decided to find the funny. humphry bogart famously said, 'i should never have switched from scotch to martinis.'. we are forced to laugh at the absurdity of death and how we treat it with kid gloves. maybe, it's all the life insurance ads on morning tv talking now but, everybody is going to die. you may as well go out in style.

my personal favourite has got to be oscar wilde, 'my wallpaper and i are fighting a duel to the death. one or the other of us has to go.'. he died how he lived with eloquence and humor. i guess that is what i want. not for my final words to sum up my life, because they simply can't. but to say something profane, to have the last thing you say to impact the people still alive is terribly precious and powerful.

karl marx must have had a similar idea, the man didn't want his final words recorded and as a result they were, 'go on, get out - last words are for fools who haven't said enough'. maybe that's true. but, the reason we feel the need to record and look back on them is because these were people who did have a lot to say. men and women who did the world a service (or disservice) and are celebrated or condemned accordingly. last words only seem to matter if the words of a life time are deemed to matter.

i suppose what it comes down to is having a legacy, having done something with your life that has left the world slightly better off. that and i'm terrified of going out without style. 'hey, everybody, watch this!' or 'don't worry, they don't usually swim backwards.' are terrible examples. my biggest fear isn't dying or even being locked in a cage. but, if i end up in the darwin awards then i will haunt the entire world until the end of time.

you know, it's all my mothers fault i'm this way!

as i contemplate my future winter fashion choices and what i will put with what, it dawns on me the obvious impact 1950s and 60s fashion icons have on me. in some subliminal way, twiggy, bridget bardot, marianne faithfull, lauren bacal, edie sedgwick and of course janet leigh with their unique brand of amazingness have snuck into my wardrobe dreams. yes i dream of clothes, what of it! it's a nice reprieve from the giant badger with his good friend the knife wielding clown! but i digress....

i'm not naive, i know that fashion goes in cycles and my love of these amazing women is a result of what is 'cool' at the moment. still, i think my love for these radtastic ladies ('cept ole edie, not sure how to reason her away. that's her there btw.) is perhaps a product of my upbringing. good looking, clever, independent but still with nice husbands, wealthy, blonde = my mum. doesn't really explain why i have their haircut, but i suppose it could shed some light on why i do seem to enjoy somewhat of a 60s lifestyle. i mean for god sake i just bought a bicycle from that decade!

art, film, music, the sexual revolution, the pill, BARBARELLA, more sex, pop art, easy rider, the free speech movement, the original star trek series, hippys, mick jagger before plastic surgery, minimalism, 2001: a space odyssey, CREAM (the band, you dirty birds), the civil rights movement, screen printing, the beatles, more drugs, oceans eleven (original NOT remake), beehives, more rock n' roll, mini-skirts, the mamas and the papas, goldfinger AND dr. no, warhol, the bikini, jimmy hendrix, nehru jackets, planet of the apes.

i could go on, but i really should stop now while i can. anywho, i know i have an incredibly idealised vision of this era but still assassinations, wars and prime minister swimming misshaps not with standing, if the tardis were to come by i'd definitely ask william hartnell for a lift back to a more revolutionary time.

two heads are better than one.

i've never really been one to believe in the term 'soulmate', it has always seemed just a bit too simplistic. the idea that out of the seven billion people in the world there is only one person out there who is perfect for you is just too insurmountable. the statistical possibility (or rather impossibility) is well, depressing. moreover, there are too many happy couples out there for it to be that black and white.

the other problem i have with the term is the idea that to be with your soulmate is to be complete. as though i'm not a whole person without a romantic partner. now the germiane greer feminist in me is just plain offended by that assertion because it means that once i find a romantic partner i cease to be the person i was before meeting that said person. it's ludicrous! i like being me. being me is fun, i'm not about to change that for regular sex.

still, having said all that i do understand why so many people pay into the idea of there being one perfect partner for them. it's an attractive romantic notion. one that is first spoken of by a very smart man about 2500 years ago. aristocles (or plato) had a very interesting and to be honest mad opinion of the idea. he believed that early man consisted of four arms, four legs and one head with two faces on it. but that a being was far too powerful and the ancient greek god, zeus, the father of all gods, feared such a being and so cut the being in half. the two halves of the one being, now modern man, were forced to spend their entire lives looking for their other half.

now i'm not saying that this isn't mad, it clearly is. but rather, that it is a powerful compunction that we all seem to have. to find that person who 'fits' us and an equal or other half of the whole. one complements our inner and outer strengths whilst tempering our failings or weaknesses. oh i don't know maybe i'm reading far too much into this. or maybe, i'm just another person looking for their 'better half'.