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?

mellowing in my old age....kind of. ok maybe not.

a few weekends ago i attended a lovely wedding. the best kind, with a bride and groom that you actually like and can stomach how much in love they are, without day-dreaming about taking a firearm to the crowded reception. not that i'm bitter. well, that's not entirely true. i am, but i wasn't that day. furthermore, i think the experience of actively enjoying a wedding, sans feeling the need to get completely trollied on free wine, has softened my view on god.

ok so let me explain. religious weddings usually make my very cynical atheist side come out. that day, i tried really hard not to mock or giggle. right, so i giggled a little bit.... still, in my active repression (of which i have years of catholic church-going practice) i found myself listening. i'm not saying i believe in god now. i haven't seen the light and i still think strong belief in god is a bit mad BUT maybe, just maybe, denying the existence of god is as moronic as believing in one.

as a result of this, i did what i have always done. go a reading. so i read-up a bit. philosophy is generally fun for me, saves me having to think up my own ideas, and i found a very interesting guy called robert g. ingersoll. an american political leader, don't worry he wasn't very 'good' at that, and orator during the 19th century. he gave a speech in 1896 entitled, 'why i am an agnostic'. it spoke to me, answered some questions i hadn't known to ask.

ingersoll wrote, "is there a supernatural power-an arbitrary mind-an enthroned god-a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world-to which all causes bow? i do not deny. i do not know-but i do not believe. i believe that the natural is supreme-that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken-that there us no supernatural power that can answer prayer- no power that worship can persuade or change-now power that cares for man.

i believe that with infinite arms nature embraces the all-that there is no inference-no chance-that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be necessary and countless effects.

is there a god? i do not know. is man immortal? i do not know. one thing i do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, change the fact. it is as it is, and it will be as it must be."

i like this on many levels but, to name just two. nature, science, evolution and humanity in my mind are all linked. to stop looking to the heavens for answers and instead look at each other i think is, not only powerful but, also sensible and practical if you want actual answers about life, the universe and everything. secondly, his ideas of prayer as essentially scripted hoping. this desire for certain things to happen if we hope/pray really really hard will make some blind bit of difference. good people that do good things for the right reason, is in my mind, far better use of their time on earth than spending hours and hours of their life in a draughty old church (where god lives) and recite barely remembered scripture like it was a song from childhood.

so this is me softened. hmmm maybe not in hind sight, but still i was genuinely happy for the bride and groom even if i do think they were brought together by a random series of events over thousands and thousands of years and not god. because if so, where is my knight in shinning armour? ok maybe a lot bitter.

congrats guys! hope you like the egg rings.

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.

news corp. trying a new scam for cash? no?

edmund burke once said, 'all that it necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.'. fair enough but, what is the result when evil men do something good? this conundrum has sprung from the recent decision, of news corporation head honcho rupert murdoch, to force our hands to our wallets in his latest new untested model for profit. the 'paywall' has, since the start of this month, started charging readers £1 per day for the online news pages of 'the times' and 'the sunday times'.

now, it is a fiercely held belief amongst liberal thinking people, that old rupert is a unscrupulous right-wing evil profit hungry bastard, i think this too, and that his latest scheme for profits is another example of his abject greed. morover that it also, won't work. why are people in the uk going to fork out money for something they have always been able to view, for free, when they can get equal if not better news journalism elsewhere? the answer is they won't. the guardian actually welcomed times readers the day the paywall was enacted.

here is my point, surely the guardian is shooting themselves in the foot. the day they realise that people aren't buying actual tangible newspapers anymore and they need some cash to you know, pay their employees. but also, maybe we should have to pay. rupert murdoch is most definitely evil but, that doesn't necessarily mean everything he does is evil. like most things television, books, movies, music, clothes, food (sex....ha nah just kidding), the things we spend our hard earned money on are treasured more. we enjoy them more due to the fact, we have sacrificed money and feel the need to savour the experience. maybe, because it is actually costing us something. news could be the same.

my other weird pro-rupert point (ok now i'm starting to scare myself), is that print media is a dying art form. yes, i do believe it is art and the publics willingness to go and view day-to-day events in an online environment has seen cut backs that directly affect the quality of the printed form. for example, the sydney morning herald last year was forced to sack all their sub-editors in an effort to cut costs. this has lead to a severe drop in the quality of the paper. typos and/or spelling errors on the front page of the oldest continuously published broadsheet newspaper in australia. disgusting! moreover, after these cut backs the paper has been accused of 'dumbing down' content and becoming far to akin to a tabloid magazine. as opposed to its previous status as a reputable port of call for serious news readers.

the internet is full of crap. lets be honest even my blog, that i love, is full of grammatical miss steps, spelling errors and unsubstantiated claims. we need experienced professional news sites to outweigh the amateur. still, i think we need both. but, if we aren't going to or even just open to the idea of paying for online content then we are to blame when the 4th estate can't afford to operate and there is no one on the front line of news, reporting to us as it's happening.

without real news reporting, who can we trust to tell us the truth? politicians? ha, yea ok.

murdoch's play for the british publics pounds sterling will probably crash and burn. his uk online newspaper sites are going to take a serious hit. not only because they don't want to pay for news content but, also because they are going to dismiss the idea out of hand as sheers profiteering on news corp.'s part then go read something else. this is not to say the idea is a bad one, it isn't, its quite a practical. to be honest, i don't think it's too much to ask for this service to be a paid one. we have got far too used to everything in the internet world being free.....

well kids, nothing worth having is free. maybe, its time we began to accept that in the online world as well.

the cut.

new york magazine's online fashion blog the cut is one that i follow fairly religiously. it's not for just the obvious superficial 'oooh so pretty' reasons, they actually have something to say. the cut heavily critiques fashion lines, questions ethics of the fashion industry, and opens up debate on topics ranging from elle mcpherson eating powdered rhino horns to michelle obama's obvious love for all things metallic to australia's push for more realistic looking plus sized models. still, to date the weirdest thing i have come across on this site is regarding the power of the mullet.

everyone, who owns a mirror and lives in a community that would mock you mercilessly if you sported the dreaded hairstyle understands the 'yuck' factor when you see someone sporting a mullet. business in the front, party in the back, is terribly outdated but more than that has a very unattractive socio-economic connection that can't be ignored.

still, like most things the iranian government has taken the eradication of the ghastly hairstyle way too far. earlier this week, the telegraph (which i don't usually go anywhere near) reported that, "in an attempt to rid the country of 'decadent western cuts', iran's culture ministry has produced a catalogue of haircuts that meet government approval. the list of banned styles includes ponytails, mullets and elaborate spikes. however, quiffs appear to be acceptable as are fashioning one's hair in the style of simon cowell or cultivating a 1980s-style floppy fringe."

and yes, if you are caught sporting one of the banned styles you will be arrested. these new laws have been enacted under the guise of strict islamic law and coincide with iran police who carry out regular morality checks. ok, fine. it's only a mullet it probably should be stopped but come on, where does this stop?

i am very lucky, like all of you, to live in a country that although it is heavily regulated by governing officials, have not (yet) gone to such extremes as to prevent this form of personal expression. the mullet might be hideous but it is just that. a choice.

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).

this is australia!

not america! and definitely not sparta. though some days i do get this strong urge to kick certain people into a big bottomless pit. but, i digress...

in my daily stroll through internet news sites i came across something so deeply disturbing that it has awoken a fierce angry fire breathing dragon within me....and not the cute puff kind! lateline is a goldmine, full of wonderful political commentary and today it did not disappoint.

check this video out!

now, i'm not going to say that christian's don't deserve a voice, they do. i'm just not entirely sure that we should be going the americanised route on this. in god we trust? please. have any of them read the bible, god is vengeful. he killed more people in the old testament that anyone else in the entire book. not someone i am personally happy for my governing officials to be taking advice and guidance from with regards to taxation, immigration and environmental reforms. the guy got a little pissed off one day and FLOODED THE EARTH!

i'm not completely stupid, i do know that the whole jesus/god/bible deal is a metaphor blah blah blah and as i was raised catholic, i'm sure i have some latent rage regarding the subject of organised religion. you believe what you believe. i don't agree with you. the world keeps on a turning. politicians are no exception to this rule, they can have beliefs but i don't want to see them begin to seep into day-to-day policy making decisions.

then again, i conceed that they already have. western culture is drenched in christian morality. stealing is bad, adultery is bader and murder is the badest. in other cultures, with a different religious morality, that order is different. for example in some islamic states adultery receives a harsher punishment than murder. neither is right or wrong, it's just how it is. but, this morality is so imbedded in our societies that it will never be removed. most importantly, i don't like faith being used as a tool for self promotion.

as krudd and tony 'budgie smugglers' abbott freak out over how close the next federal election is going to be, they are willing to do almost anything to get a few more votes. if that means parading their religious beliefs out for everyone to see, then so be it. i really do worry about this 1. because people are eating this crap up and 2. THIS IS NOT AMERICA! that is just not how we roll here and also, well those idiots voted for bush (twice) who essentially made all his decisions with 'gods' council. it really is like talking to your imaginary friend, which is fine i had an imaginary friend when i was 2 years old, BUT these men are world leaders!

please take jesus/god out of the equation when you vote. god doesn't direct these men and if he does 'talk' to them then we have a much bigger problem. 'cause everybody knows, when you talk to god it's prayer but if god talks back then you probably have schizophrenia.

fur coats....yay? or nay?

i personally have nothing against vegetarians per se. still, the wankery ones who do it for stupid reasons or aren't consistent do seem to grate on my nerves! there are many good reasons to become a vego. health reasons, it is proven to be a much healthier life style. environmental reasons, its been reported that the run off from abattoirs causes more damage to the environment than driving a large fourwheel drive. animal rights, concerns that animals are unfairly treated in an inhumane way.

all are good reasons, i suppose. still, seems like a lot of hard work for animals that were they smarter, quicker or endangered wouldn't get eaten. although, i do eat free range chickens and eggs but that's only because i think they should at least get a bit of a run around before i eat them. but, all this comes down to was the douche bag environmental wankers handing out flyers for the ethical treatment of animals at uni a few weeks back.

cows have feelings and are bad for the environment (methane, run off, farming practices) and eating them is also murder. all fine, all true and thus, fair enough. BUT whilst wearing leather boots and drinking bottled water (that is also bad for the environment) they did nothing but piss me off with their inconsistent eco posturing! you are either all in or not at all. but, to me if you sit on the fence and pick and choose what you like and don't like about a cause, that is worse. even if you do do that don't go around bitching to me about tofu and saving the bloody whales!

so quickly, on the topic of fur. i think they are pretty. i am definitely not against the industry or people who wear them. but if you do wear one and then not eat meat you are a hypocrite and i hope you get eaten by a shark!

arh ceeelllloooo.....

avant garde is defined as, "any creative individual or group active in the innovation and application of new concepts and techniques in a given field (especially in the arts)". the video below features cellist zoe keating. she is rather amazing in her composing and layering of sounds and other music. give it a listen, check out her site and get your hands on her album, 'one cello x 16: natoma'. wondefully weird....it's when things become redefined.

internet bulling is really really bad. that is, unless you win!

a rather public facebook slinging match occurred yesterday between an acquaintance of mine and an extremely undignified girl with the emotional range of a teaspoon. as usual i inserted myself and littered the argument, with a fun turn of phrase and pop culture references. it wasn't so much that this girl, lets call her 'chase', was a nasty piece of work and very rude to all involved, she was. but, it was more that she kept ending her sentences with a preposition that really bugged me. moreover, she had no punctuation and kept using the world 'civilised'. i think this was because it has 3 syllables and she thought that the use of it made her seem smart. she then proceeded to leave out vowels and consonants of innocuous words like 'lik'.

i know i am a bit of a grammar snob, but this comes from the fact that, i have terrible grammar and spelling (as wados can attest too). still, i get away with blue murder by RUNNING WORDS THROUGH SPELL CHECK. it really isn't that hard. how do you expect anyone to listen to your argument when you spell like you are in kindergarten? a slow kindergartener at that.

it's not that being unable to spell correctly makes you a bad person. everyone is free to write however they like. but, what someone should tell chase is that when you comment on facebook or send an email full of misspellings and errant apostrophes people judge you; and by people, i mean me. i don't think this is just arrogant snobbery on my part because if you were a bad writer and not great at spelling then (like me) you would check the contents of you comment before sending. also, this is a public space. people of the public read your comments. the real life equivalent is going out wearing a bright pink jumper with an alien on it and then expecting people to take you seriously.

still, this fetishisation of language/spelling does piss me off to no end. it isn't something that should be trendy! mostly because it is simply useful. then again, i would rather be judged by my ability to use the english language than return to the days of yore when the arbitrary measure of a human's worth was how many animals they could kill or their talents with a pastry bag.

i think 'chase' ought to check out a nice little video i have found for her. it outlines some of the mistakes she made. you know, so when she picks a fight with someone next time she will at least be able to say, 'i couldn't care less!' correctly. other snappy phrases are also included in this video so she won't, in the future, speak like a rhesus monkey on speed!

also, i am sure there are many grammatical and general language mistakes in this rant. as such, i would urge you to point them out. it's how i learn. except wados, you have done enough for this post my friend.

i really don't get the lesbian 'dress code'.

seriously! as i write this in the uni library, cause i ran out of internet again damn house md and its addictive episode goodness, i am stting opposite a very dykie looking lesbian. though can't be sure she really is gay but the crew cut and trucker singlet are indicators.

last night i went to the opening of the sydney travelling film festival and one of the two movies we watched was 'the topp twins: untouchable girls'. the film follows the lives and careers of new zealands finest yodelling, activist, rural lesbian twins. they were hilarious! their complete abandonment when it comes to performing is very endearing and leaves you forgetting and not even caring that they are so out of this world different.

still, the only problem with them is the way they choose to dress. come one, flannel is not a good look on a lady. BUT, for these two women it doesn't really matter. the crew cut hair and thick new zealand rural accent is actually charming. maybe because they are from the country is is more acceptable. if you are gay living in sydney, you have no excuse to not dress with some sense of femininity. it's as if they think dressing feminine comes from the love of a good penis....ummm somehow i don't think that is right.

anyway back to the topp's, an act like this would never find the level of fame and receive national love were they from australia. new zealand is very lucky in this respect. maybe it is because it is comparably such a small country but the topp twins in my mind seem to personify liberal thinking and acceptance that australia is severely lacking. these two women who have been openly gay from the very beginning of their public lives are truly beloved by all new zealands from every walk of life. from the big city gay scene to their rural home town cattle drive community.

these two women through their extensive advocacy work (anti-nuclear, gay rights, anti-apartheid, breast cancer awareness) make me feel terribly good to be a human being. still, the fact that had they been from rural australia they would never had reached the level of national fame that they do in new zealand. and THAT makes me ashamed to be australian. god bless new zealand.

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'.