I feel really, really sorry for Florence Welch. I mean, she's gorgeous and talented and I want to marry her one day (call me, Flo ;)) but Lungs was an absolute monster. Every single was huge, the album is a ripper, it won that many bloody awards and I can attest that the Florence + The Machine live show is a must see, easily one of the best I've seen. Coming into a second album is hard enough but with the weight of expectation on your shoulders as big as she must be carrying on her delicate, classic frame, pale skin contrasting beautifully against her flame red hair framing those big eyes... wait, where was I going with this? Oh, right, weight of expectation.
To her credit, she definitely attacks the issue of how to top Lungs pretty well. Those moments in Lungs that gave you goosebumps, the big closing refrains in Dog Days Are Over or Drumming Song, those amazing vocal excesses that absolutely soar over the massive production... she's made an album of them. Every song could be a single, every tune an amazing testament to her incredible pipes. It's almost pointless me picking out specific songs to discuss, just randomly pick one, it'll be epic. Lead single "What The Water Gave Me" is a good start, though.
So, does that make Ceremonials a good album? Hell yes. Does it make it a great album? ...eeeeeh, sorry Flo, it kinda doesn't. See, the wall of sound backing up incredible vocal lines, wailing melodically and with amazing emotion works on a song to song basis, but 56 minutes of it and it starts to become, well, washy. By the last song it was all just waves of beautiful but indistinct noise. It's by no means bad, it's just missing something.
See, what made Lungs such a good album was the dynamics within it; you had the huge, almost operatic tracks, but then you also had Kiss With A Fist, Girl With One Eye, My Boy Builds Coffins... tracks which had space to breathe and a degree of relaxed brevity which made the bigger tracks that much bigger. Ceremonials, while still being huge, sounds less huge by comparison because everything is the same size.
I'm a big advocate of judging every album as if it was the group's debut, without the baggage of previous experience or biases, and as a standalone record, Ceremonials gets the thumbs up from me. The production cannot be faulted, the band is tight and Flo has a beautiful eye for hooks. Two beautiful eyes... and hair... and her skin is so white and smooth... I just want to stand next to her, she's so statuesque... uuuuh, back on topic. Ceremonials; excellent big production pop record. Just to clear up, Lungs is probably a stronger record, but this is more like dropping from a nine out of ten to an eight. I swore I'd never use a number system in my reviews but it's just the easiest way to express that idea. Give her a listen, just stay the fuck away from her, she's mine.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Fuck, I Should Have Reviewed The Hunter Today.
Curse my hubris, now I have to make a blog post out of nothing. Uuuuuugh this is gonna be painful for all involved.
I'm sick of people getting mortally offended when I disagree with them. I'm not calling you a shithead when I say I don't agree, for fucks sake. I mean, if you put your idea out into the public forum, surely you realise that some people may not agree with it, and they will probably express that opinion, right? Just as you expressed yours... You know what, this is running closer to a topic than a tangent, here we fucking go.
Say you've met someone, and you don't know them well enough to know all the ins and outs of their beliefs but you know enough about them to know they're a decent person, you have mutual friends, isn't it a safe bet that they're not gonna turn out to be a closet racist, or homophobe, or rapist or whatever? Wouldn't you at least trust your own judgement, if not your friends'?
I had a discussion with a rad-fem friend of mine about Schroedinger's Rapist, and either my understanding of the concept is fucked or I give off way more of a rapist vibe than I'd like. See, my understanding of the concept is that, although one in six men are statistically rapists, once you've got to know the men, the odds get better. They're never zero, but men who demonstrate certain personality traits are more or less likely to rape a lady, so you can kinda pick and choose your male company accordingly. Apparently not, though. Apparently I'm just as likely to be a rapist as the guy with an "I <3 Rape" shirt... that hurts.
Where was I going with this? Oh, yeah... I don't hate you just because I disagree, I just think you're wrong. Let us talk and discuss, as men used to do. Now I must depart, as I have double vision. Toodles.
I'm sick of people getting mortally offended when I disagree with them. I'm not calling you a shithead when I say I don't agree, for fucks sake. I mean, if you put your idea out into the public forum, surely you realise that some people may not agree with it, and they will probably express that opinion, right? Just as you expressed yours... You know what, this is running closer to a topic than a tangent, here we fucking go.
Say you've met someone, and you don't know them well enough to know all the ins and outs of their beliefs but you know enough about them to know they're a decent person, you have mutual friends, isn't it a safe bet that they're not gonna turn out to be a closet racist, or homophobe, or rapist or whatever? Wouldn't you at least trust your own judgement, if not your friends'?
I had a discussion with a rad-fem friend of mine about Schroedinger's Rapist, and either my understanding of the concept is fucked or I give off way more of a rapist vibe than I'd like. See, my understanding of the concept is that, although one in six men are statistically rapists, once you've got to know the men, the odds get better. They're never zero, but men who demonstrate certain personality traits are more or less likely to rape a lady, so you can kinda pick and choose your male company accordingly. Apparently not, though. Apparently I'm just as likely to be a rapist as the guy with an "I <3 Rape" shirt... that hurts.
Where was I going with this? Oh, yeah... I don't hate you just because I disagree, I just think you're wrong. Let us talk and discuss, as men used to do. Now I must depart, as I have double vision. Toodles.
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Hunter Review
Oh man, is there anything better than 40-year-old stoner metalhead country fans who can play the shit out of their instruments? I wouldn't know, Mastodon are about the only band who fit that description... well, Maylene and the Sons of Disaster aren't 40-year-olds or stoners, Baroness aren't 40 and I'm sure there are a lot of stoner metal bands out there who like country... look, the point is, Mastodon is a really good band.
Having established my biases, let's dive headfirst into the review of Mastodon's new album, "The Hunter." The band has touted this as a re-imagining of their sound and aesthetic, all the way down to the typeface used on the album cover; a gutsy move for a band that has established a huge fanbase and earned gobs of critical acclaim for all four of their previous records. That said, all four of their previous records sound very different, so "changing up the Mastodon sound" is hardly as big a deal as, say, Dragonforce or Motorhead saying it.
So, what is this new Mastodon sound? Well, somewhat awkwardly... quite reminiscent of the old Mastodon sound. Or should I say, sounds. "Black Tongue" and "Blasteroids" could slot into 2002's Remission album nicely, "The Octopus Has No Friends" could be a Blood Mountain b-side and tracks like "Stargasm" and "Bone Dry Valley" come from the same proggy place as 2009's Crack The Skye.
Is this a bad thing? Not so much. If you're a fan of their previous work, there's no reason why you shouldn't like this album. If you're a fan of melodic heavy music in general, it's definitely worth a listen. The group may segue into stranger places here and there, especially on the spacey and absurd "Creature Lives," but for the most part it's full of sludgy riffage, blasting choruses and Brent Hinds doing that thing where he shreds but it doesn't really sound like normal shredding. It certainly doesn't re-invent the genre or break any new ground, and it's not the best metal release of 2011, but if you want to listen to a decent metal album that takes a few creative risks, this should definitely be on your list.
Having established my biases, let's dive headfirst into the review of Mastodon's new album, "The Hunter." The band has touted this as a re-imagining of their sound and aesthetic, all the way down to the typeface used on the album cover; a gutsy move for a band that has established a huge fanbase and earned gobs of critical acclaim for all four of their previous records. That said, all four of their previous records sound very different, so "changing up the Mastodon sound" is hardly as big a deal as, say, Dragonforce or Motorhead saying it.
So, what is this new Mastodon sound? Well, somewhat awkwardly... quite reminiscent of the old Mastodon sound. Or should I say, sounds. "Black Tongue" and "Blasteroids" could slot into 2002's Remission album nicely, "The Octopus Has No Friends" could be a Blood Mountain b-side and tracks like "Stargasm" and "Bone Dry Valley" come from the same proggy place as 2009's Crack The Skye.
Is this a bad thing? Not so much. If you're a fan of their previous work, there's no reason why you shouldn't like this album. If you're a fan of melodic heavy music in general, it's definitely worth a listen. The group may segue into stranger places here and there, especially on the spacey and absurd "Creature Lives," but for the most part it's full of sludgy riffage, blasting choruses and Brent Hinds doing that thing where he shreds but it doesn't really sound like normal shredding. It certainly doesn't re-invent the genre or break any new ground, and it's not the best metal release of 2011, but if you want to listen to a decent metal album that takes a few creative risks, this should definitely be on your list.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Pros And Cons Of Fucking Da Poh-Leece.
It's CHOGM this weekend, oh joyous day. I'm happily separate from the whole parade of self-congratulatory wank and scolding poor countries, but as is regularly the case, something about the whole event has gotten my heckles up, and I feel the need to play devils advocate once again. I should totally rename this blog "Don Quixote" or something like that, what with all the tilting at windmills I seem to do.
So, should the police be able to arrest the CHOGM protestors or is it an infringement on their civil liberties? And the wider question, are the police just a tool for social control that exist to limit our rights?
Short answer, yes. In their current form, the police are something of a tool of government oppression and a weapon to maintain the status quo, blah blah blah same old shit you've heard from your token leftie friend a million times before. The CHOGM protesters are, by and large, staging a non-violent demonstration on a public space. It's not as if there's a law against what they're doing, but there's the risk one of the signs might piss of Her Majesty or something, so the fuzz come in and sweep up the young folks. Hypothetically, if someone throws a bottle at the the Queen or a delegate or something, that person is probably gonna get scooped up and they kinda deserve it. See, throwing a bottle at someone is dangerous, someone could get hurt. Assuming it's a glass bottle... I couldn't see a plastic bottle doing much damage unless it was full. Tangent! My point is, if someone did something violent or dangerous, they'd get arrested anyway, not because they are/were a protester, but for the relatively harmless act of staging a demonstration, there's nothing illegal there, so arresting any protesters would be a pretty good vindication of the whole "police as social control" theory.
Consider how much police presence there'll be in the city during this weekend. It's gonna be insane, I've heard tales of snipers, swat guys, the whole deal. I'm skeptical to their validity but I wouldn't put it passed this increasingly conservative government of ours. I consider this an overreaction, and there'll probably be some pretty dodgy arrests, but hey, you're entitled to your own opinion on just how many cops you'd need to protect a delegation of officials from over 50 nations.
So, fuck the police, right? Well, not so much... see, as much as I don't like tools of government oppression and things of the sort, I'm also a fan of my own safety and the keeping of my shit in wherever it is I'm living at the time. The simple fact of the matter is, if people had no restrictions shit would get fucked. That's just one example of what happens when people are given free reign; if they think they can get away with it, a surprisingly large amount of people will start going nuts. I'm not going to say everyone advocates this, but I'm sure most people are advocates of their right to safety of themselves and their belongings, so from that perspective, a team of folks who's job it is to look after our safety probably has a place in a functioning society.
In their current form, the power of the police is being abused to keep everyone toeing the line; locking up people for stuff like marijuana possession or public urination is excessive and unnecessary, but it keeps people fearing the dangling sword of the law and perpetuates the meme that the police are gon' come getcha if you do anything "naughty," naughty being what pisses off the old white guys that run the show. Unfortunately, the larger a society is, the less it regulates itself and so some sort of institution that protects the safety of the citizenry and enforces the rules that society as a whole decides are the best ones to live by is unfortunately, necessary.
So, should the police be able to arrest the CHOGM protestors or is it an infringement on their civil liberties? And the wider question, are the police just a tool for social control that exist to limit our rights?
Short answer, yes. In their current form, the police are something of a tool of government oppression and a weapon to maintain the status quo, blah blah blah same old shit you've heard from your token leftie friend a million times before. The CHOGM protesters are, by and large, staging a non-violent demonstration on a public space. It's not as if there's a law against what they're doing, but there's the risk one of the signs might piss of Her Majesty or something, so the fuzz come in and sweep up the young folks. Hypothetically, if someone throws a bottle at the the Queen or a delegate or something, that person is probably gonna get scooped up and they kinda deserve it. See, throwing a bottle at someone is dangerous, someone could get hurt. Assuming it's a glass bottle... I couldn't see a plastic bottle doing much damage unless it was full. Tangent! My point is, if someone did something violent or dangerous, they'd get arrested anyway, not because they are/were a protester, but for the relatively harmless act of staging a demonstration, there's nothing illegal there, so arresting any protesters would be a pretty good vindication of the whole "police as social control" theory.
Consider how much police presence there'll be in the city during this weekend. It's gonna be insane, I've heard tales of snipers, swat guys, the whole deal. I'm skeptical to their validity but I wouldn't put it passed this increasingly conservative government of ours. I consider this an overreaction, and there'll probably be some pretty dodgy arrests, but hey, you're entitled to your own opinion on just how many cops you'd need to protect a delegation of officials from over 50 nations.
So, fuck the police, right? Well, not so much... see, as much as I don't like tools of government oppression and things of the sort, I'm also a fan of my own safety and the keeping of my shit in wherever it is I'm living at the time. The simple fact of the matter is, if people had no restrictions shit would get fucked. That's just one example of what happens when people are given free reign; if they think they can get away with it, a surprisingly large amount of people will start going nuts. I'm not going to say everyone advocates this, but I'm sure most people are advocates of their right to safety of themselves and their belongings, so from that perspective, a team of folks who's job it is to look after our safety probably has a place in a functioning society.
In their current form, the power of the police is being abused to keep everyone toeing the line; locking up people for stuff like marijuana possession or public urination is excessive and unnecessary, but it keeps people fearing the dangling sword of the law and perpetuates the meme that the police are gon' come getcha if you do anything "naughty," naughty being what pisses off the old white guys that run the show. Unfortunately, the larger a society is, the less it regulates itself and so some sort of institution that protects the safety of the citizenry and enforces the rules that society as a whole decides are the best ones to live by is unfortunately, necessary.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Dream Analysis Of A Messed Up Dream By Someone With Only Rudimentary Dream Analysis Understanding
Being told I'm classless because I live in the northern suburbs by a man with a moustache wearing a grey cotton tracksuit while trying to buy an apartment from him, then being sent to scout for different apartment complexes which all somehow turned out to be exclusively homosexual sports clubs but finding a rather attractive young bikini model in one and, after a rousing round of cunnilingus and appearing on a magazine cover doing the same, walking halfway across Perth to rob a video shop where, as I left, I ran alongside a four wheel drive consoling a tearful ex-girlfriend that I hadn't changed.
That is the basic synopsis of a dream I had last night. I'm a firm believer that everything in dreams is representative of something on the dreamers mind, so here's my attempted dissection.
First of all, the fact that I was trying but failing to buy an apartment; pretty obvious, my desire for independence weighed against the self imposed roadblocks that prevent me from getting it. Realistically, I could quit drinking, stop going out and get a full time job while studying in my spare time and could afford a place of my own, but that would involve me giving up home comforts, so there's internal conflict manifested in a physical situation. In the dream, it was never resolved whether or not I finally did purchase the apartment, which is probably symbolic of how the internal discussion continues in my brain.
The man in the tracksuit calling me classless is, in my opinion, something like middle class guilt manifesting as an antagonist. Being middle class, Caucasian, straight and male, it's very easy for me to lose perspective and fall into a haze of ignorant privilege, but this is something I try to avoid. The overtly classless man attacking me is some sort of mental reminder to not let myself become lazy in my social awareness.
Scouting for different apartment complexes is probably an extension of the "independence" theme, but the transformation into homosexual sports clubs is probably about internal alienation. I have nothing against homosexuals in any way, but I couldn't truly belong to a gay community because I don't share their frame of reference. I suppose this reflects my paranoia about everyone in society secretly hating me or marking me as an "outsider," which probably needs to be fleshed out in more detail but I don't think I mentally possess the tools to do that right now.
The bikini model is clearly a sex thing; I've got a pretty big libido (especially lately... I pretty much have not stopped thinking about sex for like a week) and so really I'm surprised how tame it was. I've had dreams recently involving menage de trois with movie stars (and close friends... awkward) on infinite beds... the fact that it was pretty straight, fairly tame cunnilingus is a slowing down for me. The magazine thing is probably just an admission that I'm an extroverted, exhibitionist arsehole.
The long walk to the video store just to rob it is a bizarre one, for a few reasons; number one, I'm often running or walking in dreams, but I never go anywhere. I usually stay in the one place the whole time, expending energy but going nowhere. Apparently this symbolises my lack of agency. This dream was different, I strode effortlessly to my destination without feeling tired or hot. This could possibly symbolise a newfound sense of agency, but agency towards committing crimes? It doesn't make sense. It could possibly be that my increased control over my life that I feel is being used to do things that people don't approve of (and there's been a couple things lately that friends don't approve of) which probably implies that I feel some sort of guilt deep down, but this is all speculation.
The last part of the dream is a bit weirder. As I ran from the video shop, I passed my ex-girlfriend and her family in their car and I greeted them. They drove beside me as I ran, and she proceeded to berate me for the kind of person I'd become. In the dream, I responded that I hadn't changed at all, that I am who I always was and it was her who had the problem and must come to terms with it, which resulted in her breaking down into tears and slapping me (out of an open car that I was keeping up with as I ran... told you it was weird). My ex most certainly wasn't the break down into tears type, so that was a bit odd to see. I was told to get into the car where she and I sat very, very close. As in, all over each other close. Sex drive, lingering feelings, weird symbolism for my desire to please everyone... I couldn't tell you what it means because it was at that point my brain exited the dream so it's all a bit hazy, but yeah, definitely a weird, emotionally confused bundle of thoughts right there.
Conflicted desire for independence, personal desire to remain socially conscious, a feeling of alienation, overt libido, newfound power used to alienate others, an admission of personal pride juxtaposed against past versions of myself that it clashed with... Yeah, I definitely need meds.
That is the basic synopsis of a dream I had last night. I'm a firm believer that everything in dreams is representative of something on the dreamers mind, so here's my attempted dissection.
First of all, the fact that I was trying but failing to buy an apartment; pretty obvious, my desire for independence weighed against the self imposed roadblocks that prevent me from getting it. Realistically, I could quit drinking, stop going out and get a full time job while studying in my spare time and could afford a place of my own, but that would involve me giving up home comforts, so there's internal conflict manifested in a physical situation. In the dream, it was never resolved whether or not I finally did purchase the apartment, which is probably symbolic of how the internal discussion continues in my brain.
The man in the tracksuit calling me classless is, in my opinion, something like middle class guilt manifesting as an antagonist. Being middle class, Caucasian, straight and male, it's very easy for me to lose perspective and fall into a haze of ignorant privilege, but this is something I try to avoid. The overtly classless man attacking me is some sort of mental reminder to not let myself become lazy in my social awareness.
Scouting for different apartment complexes is probably an extension of the "independence" theme, but the transformation into homosexual sports clubs is probably about internal alienation. I have nothing against homosexuals in any way, but I couldn't truly belong to a gay community because I don't share their frame of reference. I suppose this reflects my paranoia about everyone in society secretly hating me or marking me as an "outsider," which probably needs to be fleshed out in more detail but I don't think I mentally possess the tools to do that right now.
The bikini model is clearly a sex thing; I've got a pretty big libido (especially lately... I pretty much have not stopped thinking about sex for like a week) and so really I'm surprised how tame it was. I've had dreams recently involving menage de trois with movie stars (and close friends... awkward) on infinite beds... the fact that it was pretty straight, fairly tame cunnilingus is a slowing down for me. The magazine thing is probably just an admission that I'm an extroverted, exhibitionist arsehole.
The long walk to the video store just to rob it is a bizarre one, for a few reasons; number one, I'm often running or walking in dreams, but I never go anywhere. I usually stay in the one place the whole time, expending energy but going nowhere. Apparently this symbolises my lack of agency. This dream was different, I strode effortlessly to my destination without feeling tired or hot. This could possibly symbolise a newfound sense of agency, but agency towards committing crimes? It doesn't make sense. It could possibly be that my increased control over my life that I feel is being used to do things that people don't approve of (and there's been a couple things lately that friends don't approve of) which probably implies that I feel some sort of guilt deep down, but this is all speculation.
The last part of the dream is a bit weirder. As I ran from the video shop, I passed my ex-girlfriend and her family in their car and I greeted them. They drove beside me as I ran, and she proceeded to berate me for the kind of person I'd become. In the dream, I responded that I hadn't changed at all, that I am who I always was and it was her who had the problem and must come to terms with it, which resulted in her breaking down into tears and slapping me (out of an open car that I was keeping up with as I ran... told you it was weird). My ex most certainly wasn't the break down into tears type, so that was a bit odd to see. I was told to get into the car where she and I sat very, very close. As in, all over each other close. Sex drive, lingering feelings, weird symbolism for my desire to please everyone... I couldn't tell you what it means because it was at that point my brain exited the dream so it's all a bit hazy, but yeah, definitely a weird, emotionally confused bundle of thoughts right there.
Conflicted desire for independence, personal desire to remain socially conscious, a feeling of alienation, overt libido, newfound power used to alienate others, an admission of personal pride juxtaposed against past versions of myself that it clashed with... Yeah, I definitely need meds.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The Never-Ending Struggle Of What You Want Against What You Need.
As much as the individual may feel autonomous, in control of their destiny and beholden to none but themselves, the individual is also deluded and wrong. Between the genetic commands that shriek at us on pretty much every level of our consciousness, the underlying social pressures to conform and the immediate peer pressure one may face without even realising it, your personality and choices are as much everyone else's as they are yours. What is curious, then, is how often genetics, society and immediate peer pressure come into direct conflict with each other.
Consider monogamy. While it is true that companionship is good for the mental well being of most people, the idea of conflating one's sex partner with one's long term companion doesn't really have a naturalistic explanation. And before anyone jumps in with the "fuckin' Christians ruining everything!" screed, monogamous marriage isn't a Christian invention. Tonnes of other faiths were pulling that shit way before Christianity even existed. In terms of a cohabitation contract, I get why marriage is appealing, but in terms of companions and sex partners, it's a clear example of society clashing with physiology.
So, why would society fight against physiology? Nowadays the religious influence is undeniable, but it's 2011, there are more atheists and agnostics than ever before, while more religious folks are on the liberal end of the spectrum. It's a scary thought to consider; some things are so ingrained in society, there's no rational explanation for them, but yet we still believe them as if they were true. The average person will be pro-monogamy, anti-drugs (but somehow OK with alcohol and cigarettes) and fairly set on getting a well paying job that they may not like, but does that really make sense? Monogamy covered, the wealth of evidence to suggest that certain drugs are nowhere near as bad as they're made out to be, while alcohol and smokes are up there with the worst things for you. To put it in perspective, I was prescribed a drug as a child that is now illegal for me to use recreationally as an adult. Think about that. My developing brain was fine for amphetamines, but if I want to get focussed and buzzed now (and when assignment week or exam time rolls up, why the hell wouldn't I?) I'm breaking the law. It's bonkers. As for the job thing, I believe I've ranted on the topic before but how insane is a society that values income before happiness? Have your cake and eat it too if you can, but seriously, don't settle for the cash. You will regret it.
As much as I'd like to think I'm above all this social pressure, the simple truth of the matter is my psyche is completely and totally shaped by a combination of those three forces; my genetic imperatives are tempered by wider social pressures telling me to be civil and civilised, while peer pressure inside that encourages me to conform to some social norms while rejecting others. None of it was really my choice, but awareness allows you to compensate for it. As is always the case, the more you understand how people work, the more torn you are between forgiving them and hating them. Looks like I'll just conform to my physical desire to get plastered, that'll help.
Consider monogamy. While it is true that companionship is good for the mental well being of most people, the idea of conflating one's sex partner with one's long term companion doesn't really have a naturalistic explanation. And before anyone jumps in with the "fuckin' Christians ruining everything!" screed, monogamous marriage isn't a Christian invention. Tonnes of other faiths were pulling that shit way before Christianity even existed. In terms of a cohabitation contract, I get why marriage is appealing, but in terms of companions and sex partners, it's a clear example of society clashing with physiology.
So, why would society fight against physiology? Nowadays the religious influence is undeniable, but it's 2011, there are more atheists and agnostics than ever before, while more religious folks are on the liberal end of the spectrum. It's a scary thought to consider; some things are so ingrained in society, there's no rational explanation for them, but yet we still believe them as if they were true. The average person will be pro-monogamy, anti-drugs (but somehow OK with alcohol and cigarettes) and fairly set on getting a well paying job that they may not like, but does that really make sense? Monogamy covered, the wealth of evidence to suggest that certain drugs are nowhere near as bad as they're made out to be, while alcohol and smokes are up there with the worst things for you. To put it in perspective, I was prescribed a drug as a child that is now illegal for me to use recreationally as an adult. Think about that. My developing brain was fine for amphetamines, but if I want to get focussed and buzzed now (and when assignment week or exam time rolls up, why the hell wouldn't I?) I'm breaking the law. It's bonkers. As for the job thing, I believe I've ranted on the topic before but how insane is a society that values income before happiness? Have your cake and eat it too if you can, but seriously, don't settle for the cash. You will regret it.
As much as I'd like to think I'm above all this social pressure, the simple truth of the matter is my psyche is completely and totally shaped by a combination of those three forces; my genetic imperatives are tempered by wider social pressures telling me to be civil and civilised, while peer pressure inside that encourages me to conform to some social norms while rejecting others. None of it was really my choice, but awareness allows you to compensate for it. As is always the case, the more you understand how people work, the more torn you are between forgiving them and hating them. Looks like I'll just conform to my physical desire to get plastered, that'll help.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
...So, Does Anyone Win This One?
The answer is: No. At this point in time, the way the carbon tax legislation looks, no one wins. Here's my take on why.
The Liberal Party lose this one on the mundane level of a piece of legislation they resisted passed, but they also lose it on bit of a personal level for me. Guys, please stop crowing about broken promises and the death of democracy, you're making no sense. The Labor Party pledged that there'd be no carbon tax under a Labor government, but we don't have a Labor government, we have a Labor-Greens coalition. The conditions which Labor put forward for there being no carbon tax were not met, no promises were broken. As for the whole "death of democracy" thing... didn't it pass on a majority vote? Oh, but it wasn't the citizens majority, regular people didn't get to vote... as they shouldn't have. You don't hold a massive, nationwide vote on every bill, it's not how representative government works. Stop playing to the general ignorance of people, Liberals. I know it's normally a legitimate political strategy, but in this case it's making you look bad. Er, worse.
Labor lose this one because the bill is a dud. It might offer some incentives to go green, but for the most part it's just gonna pass costs on to the consumer. I'm a consumer, so this pisses me off, but seriously, can we stop letting CEOs and massive corporations win? They don't need any help, they're doing great. They aren't "job creators" or however the Rand worshippers want to frame it, they don't need any more legs-up. Labor's reaction to their victory was pretty shameful, but hey, I don't expect class from a bunch of union heavies and their cronies, so that falls in the indifference pile.
Greens lose this one because they're showing just how much they fail as a left alternative. Any left-wing party worth its salt would have made the bill radically different, protecting consumers and making the incredibly rich big corporations wear it, but of course, in this centre-right government, that's a no-no. As an environmental party, Greens do fine, but for protecting socially liberal, economically left ideas and trying to bring a sense of rationality to an increasingly USA-esque government, they're just not cutting it.
Of course, it goes without saying that consumers lose this one, the costs get passed to them, but manufacturers lose this one too. There'll be layoffs, there'll be collapses and reshuffles, a few people with business degrees will be incredibly stressed, but they'll also be rich so screw them. I have no sympathy for guys like that, it's like when that Hayward wanker at BP kept crying and saying he just wanted his life to go back to normal... guess what, you can't pull that card. Not only are you a tremendously wealthy privileged white guy, you were also responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters of all time. You don't get to cry, or complain, or wish your life was normal again. Not until you fix your mess. And if you have to neglect your family, work yourself to ill health and never truly recover from it, that's exactly what you deserve.
In true middle class style, it's not gonna be so bad. Fuel is gonna be expensive as shit and our power bills are gonna look pretty tasty, but the creamy middle of society will survive. And that's really it, in the end, isn't it? We'll get by, life will continue to live in a quantum state of being awful and fantastic and we'll slowly get used to paying more for stuff. Ugh, if I was any more jaded I'd be a 'nam vet.
The Liberal Party lose this one on the mundane level of a piece of legislation they resisted passed, but they also lose it on bit of a personal level for me. Guys, please stop crowing about broken promises and the death of democracy, you're making no sense. The Labor Party pledged that there'd be no carbon tax under a Labor government, but we don't have a Labor government, we have a Labor-Greens coalition. The conditions which Labor put forward for there being no carbon tax were not met, no promises were broken. As for the whole "death of democracy" thing... didn't it pass on a majority vote? Oh, but it wasn't the citizens majority, regular people didn't get to vote... as they shouldn't have. You don't hold a massive, nationwide vote on every bill, it's not how representative government works. Stop playing to the general ignorance of people, Liberals. I know it's normally a legitimate political strategy, but in this case it's making you look bad. Er, worse.
Labor lose this one because the bill is a dud. It might offer some incentives to go green, but for the most part it's just gonna pass costs on to the consumer. I'm a consumer, so this pisses me off, but seriously, can we stop letting CEOs and massive corporations win? They don't need any help, they're doing great. They aren't "job creators" or however the Rand worshippers want to frame it, they don't need any more legs-up. Labor's reaction to their victory was pretty shameful, but hey, I don't expect class from a bunch of union heavies and their cronies, so that falls in the indifference pile.
Greens lose this one because they're showing just how much they fail as a left alternative. Any left-wing party worth its salt would have made the bill radically different, protecting consumers and making the incredibly rich big corporations wear it, but of course, in this centre-right government, that's a no-no. As an environmental party, Greens do fine, but for protecting socially liberal, economically left ideas and trying to bring a sense of rationality to an increasingly USA-esque government, they're just not cutting it.
Of course, it goes without saying that consumers lose this one, the costs get passed to them, but manufacturers lose this one too. There'll be layoffs, there'll be collapses and reshuffles, a few people with business degrees will be incredibly stressed, but they'll also be rich so screw them. I have no sympathy for guys like that, it's like when that Hayward wanker at BP kept crying and saying he just wanted his life to go back to normal... guess what, you can't pull that card. Not only are you a tremendously wealthy privileged white guy, you were also responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters of all time. You don't get to cry, or complain, or wish your life was normal again. Not until you fix your mess. And if you have to neglect your family, work yourself to ill health and never truly recover from it, that's exactly what you deserve.
In true middle class style, it's not gonna be so bad. Fuel is gonna be expensive as shit and our power bills are gonna look pretty tasty, but the creamy middle of society will survive. And that's really it, in the end, isn't it? We'll get by, life will continue to live in a quantum state of being awful and fantastic and we'll slowly get used to paying more for stuff. Ugh, if I was any more jaded I'd be a 'nam vet.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Some Issues Are Really Complicated.
Here at Tuesday Night Wrist, sometimes we (I) make it seem like we (I) have all the answers. While this is the case a lot of the time, there are some things that aren't so clear cut as to be a case of "here's the problem, here's what we can do to solve it, here's why people who disagree are retarded." I hate those, they remind me that I don't have all the answers.
I didn't really want to write in this vein, because it's far more ponderous and thoughtful than what you usually get here, but a friend suggested I use it as a tool to try and get some clarity into my opinions, and hell, it might get other people thinking too, who knows. Weirder things have happened. So, here goes: My internal conflict on the subject of decriminalised and regulated legal prostitution.
First things first, some basics. 1) It's not the oldest industry in the world, agriculture is. Sex predates agriculture, but it doesn't predate simple economic systems. Besides, even if it was the oldest industry (which it isn't), who cares? Religion is really old, and we all know how I feel about that. 2) I'm not a radical feminist or anything, I'm not one of those "all sex is rape!" nutjobs. I respect some of their reasoning, but to call all penetrative sex between a man and a woman "rape" is such an incredibly long bow to draw, I can't be bothered with it. I'm not gonna use the "well I've had sex with a girl and I'm not a rapist!" canard, but to claim that all women are being forced into sex by society is... an oversimplification. 3) I'm certainly not torn about the issue because I'm an anti-sex conservative prude. Seriously, it's 2011, fuck whatever consenting entity you like.
So, reasons why the decriminalisation and regulation of prostitution would be a good thing; like drugs and gambling, sex is a thing all people (to some extent) do. It's not dirty and to be shunned, just like it's not a sacred expression of love between a man and a woman or whatever the fuck Disney has girls believing now. Let's be 100% realistic here, the human race has sex with itself a lot, very regularly, for lots of different reasons. In fact, think about it; the odds favour at least two of your Facebook friends are having sex right now. One big reason that prostitution is seen as such a taboo is because sex itself is taboo, but the sex taboo is nonsense. So from that perspective, yes, it makes sense to decriminalise and regulate prostitution as a way of making sex and sexual matters less of a social hot-button.
Also, while we're being honest with ourselves, let's all just admit right now; some people go to prostitutes. I'm not saying you do, or that you should, but some people do. Not everyone who goes to prostitutes are creeps or weirdos or rapists who haven't snapped yet, or anything like that. Some people just want to trade money for sex. I'm not gonna make a moral judgement either way (but as you may have guessed, my opinion is the standard "as long as they're both consenting adults..." stuff), and realistically, the whole "why would you sell your dignity!?" thing smacks of total bullshit. If you're worried about dignity, would you ever do a service job? Or a cleaning job? Or any job where you have to wear a silly hat or uniform? The fact is, the vast majority of jobs are paying you to do something that taxes your dignity and your sanity. Having sex for reasons other than lust, love or fondness is less dignified than cleaning toilets? I've done both, and I'd much rather be having crappy sex than cleaning toilets any fucking day. Yes, I realise that prostitutes aren't just having crappy sex, they're having regular sex with lots of different people in a fashion that may be unpleasant, but I maintain that in terms of undignified and taxing work, there are a fair few jobs that'd rank as just as or more unpleasant than work in the sex industry.
So, why don't I use the word "legalised"? Because that's not what the issue is. Some places have it such that it's not illegal to be a prostitute but it is illegal to solicit one. While I think that this goes some way to weeding out the creeps and treats the women involved more like citizens and less like criminals, it still carries a certain degree of social taboo. Decriminalised and regulated means that it will not be a crime to partake on either side, but it will be monitored in such a way to ensure the safety of everyone involved. John registration feels slightly Big Brother-y to me, but some sort of system wherein all activities can be made sure to be clean and, you know, not completely degrading or unpleasant for the prostitute, man or woman, is something I can get behind.
Now, after all that, it seems like I'd be all for the decriminalisation and regulation of prostitution, but the thing is, I'm not. These are less clear cut, but I can't be a wholehearted supporter of that cause while these things are still rattling around in my head.
First of all, a guest lecturer in a journalism unit very much put me in my place about the topic. She was quite a horrendous bitch on virtually every other topic, but when I asked her why it wouldn't help the working women (and I guess men by proxy) to make them less demonised and unprotected, her answer surprised me to the point of speechlessness. I can't remember her exact wording, but it was something along the lines of "what made you think that is what makes them unsafe in the first place?" She elaborated on this by explaining that what really makes prostitution so dangerous is what the girls involved are asked to do; it's not always "regular" sex. She had interviewed a lot of different working girls, all the way from upper class call girls to trafficked sex workers, and a surprising majority of them had claimed that a considerable percentage of their clients had wives or girlfriends. Further, the problem wasn't that they couldn't "get any". The problem was that the "any" they wanted wasn't the "any" their partners wanted to give; it was unprotected, anal, dangerous, dominating, you get the picture. The problem is, in short, that prostitutes aren't used as "sex workers" but "sex whipping boys" who, by virtue of their job, HAVE to consent to situations that put them in real danger. I don't have an answer as to how to stop this, but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed before prostitution can be made "safe."
Further, a feminist reading of the situation in general reveals a few interesting ideas. Please try not to get turned off by the phrase "patriarchal construct," I promise I'm going somewhere with this. You could make the argument that the idea of "sex as necessary" is a social construct in some small way, because physiologically, it's kinda not. Yes, humans (particularly males) do need some form of sexual release, but masturbation fills that role. We need companionship, but realistically, prostitution doesn't fill that. Escorts could, possibly, but it's largely a social problem that is rooted in the inherent alienation and impersonal nature that is a part of modern life. The idea that, in order to be happy and relaxed, we MUST bonk another person no matter the cost is... well, it's crazy. There are celibate folks that have pretty much proved that you don't have to, and yet it's used as a justification as to why, in the end, it's OK to be sex obsessed.
For the record, I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm somehow above all this. Yeah, I've been known to objectify women (I challenge anyone to tell me, honestly, that they haven't ogled a member of the gender they're attracted to. If you have, that's objectifying. You don't stare at a lady's arse thinking "fuck, I'd love a conversation with her") and I'm a fan of sex. Sex is great fun. I'm comfortable with saying "society's view of sex is pretty warped" but if you were to ask me how, or why, I couldn't give you a straight answer. I hope this stuff gets people thinking, but right now I'm just bummed that I feel more confused than before. How depressing.
I didn't really want to write in this vein, because it's far more ponderous and thoughtful than what you usually get here, but a friend suggested I use it as a tool to try and get some clarity into my opinions, and hell, it might get other people thinking too, who knows. Weirder things have happened. So, here goes: My internal conflict on the subject of decriminalised and regulated legal prostitution.
First things first, some basics. 1) It's not the oldest industry in the world, agriculture is. Sex predates agriculture, but it doesn't predate simple economic systems. Besides, even if it was the oldest industry (which it isn't), who cares? Religion is really old, and we all know how I feel about that. 2) I'm not a radical feminist or anything, I'm not one of those "all sex is rape!" nutjobs. I respect some of their reasoning, but to call all penetrative sex between a man and a woman "rape" is such an incredibly long bow to draw, I can't be bothered with it. I'm not gonna use the "well I've had sex with a girl and I'm not a rapist!" canard, but to claim that all women are being forced into sex by society is... an oversimplification. 3) I'm certainly not torn about the issue because I'm an anti-sex conservative prude. Seriously, it's 2011, fuck whatever consenting entity you like.
So, reasons why the decriminalisation and regulation of prostitution would be a good thing; like drugs and gambling, sex is a thing all people (to some extent) do. It's not dirty and to be shunned, just like it's not a sacred expression of love between a man and a woman or whatever the fuck Disney has girls believing now. Let's be 100% realistic here, the human race has sex with itself a lot, very regularly, for lots of different reasons. In fact, think about it; the odds favour at least two of your Facebook friends are having sex right now. One big reason that prostitution is seen as such a taboo is because sex itself is taboo, but the sex taboo is nonsense. So from that perspective, yes, it makes sense to decriminalise and regulate prostitution as a way of making sex and sexual matters less of a social hot-button.
Also, while we're being honest with ourselves, let's all just admit right now; some people go to prostitutes. I'm not saying you do, or that you should, but some people do. Not everyone who goes to prostitutes are creeps or weirdos or rapists who haven't snapped yet, or anything like that. Some people just want to trade money for sex. I'm not gonna make a moral judgement either way (but as you may have guessed, my opinion is the standard "as long as they're both consenting adults..." stuff), and realistically, the whole "why would you sell your dignity!?" thing smacks of total bullshit. If you're worried about dignity, would you ever do a service job? Or a cleaning job? Or any job where you have to wear a silly hat or uniform? The fact is, the vast majority of jobs are paying you to do something that taxes your dignity and your sanity. Having sex for reasons other than lust, love or fondness is less dignified than cleaning toilets? I've done both, and I'd much rather be having crappy sex than cleaning toilets any fucking day. Yes, I realise that prostitutes aren't just having crappy sex, they're having regular sex with lots of different people in a fashion that may be unpleasant, but I maintain that in terms of undignified and taxing work, there are a fair few jobs that'd rank as just as or more unpleasant than work in the sex industry.
So, why don't I use the word "legalised"? Because that's not what the issue is. Some places have it such that it's not illegal to be a prostitute but it is illegal to solicit one. While I think that this goes some way to weeding out the creeps and treats the women involved more like citizens and less like criminals, it still carries a certain degree of social taboo. Decriminalised and regulated means that it will not be a crime to partake on either side, but it will be monitored in such a way to ensure the safety of everyone involved. John registration feels slightly Big Brother-y to me, but some sort of system wherein all activities can be made sure to be clean and, you know, not completely degrading or unpleasant for the prostitute, man or woman, is something I can get behind.
Now, after all that, it seems like I'd be all for the decriminalisation and regulation of prostitution, but the thing is, I'm not. These are less clear cut, but I can't be a wholehearted supporter of that cause while these things are still rattling around in my head.
First of all, a guest lecturer in a journalism unit very much put me in my place about the topic. She was quite a horrendous bitch on virtually every other topic, but when I asked her why it wouldn't help the working women (and I guess men by proxy) to make them less demonised and unprotected, her answer surprised me to the point of speechlessness. I can't remember her exact wording, but it was something along the lines of "what made you think that is what makes them unsafe in the first place?" She elaborated on this by explaining that what really makes prostitution so dangerous is what the girls involved are asked to do; it's not always "regular" sex. She had interviewed a lot of different working girls, all the way from upper class call girls to trafficked sex workers, and a surprising majority of them had claimed that a considerable percentage of their clients had wives or girlfriends. Further, the problem wasn't that they couldn't "get any". The problem was that the "any" they wanted wasn't the "any" their partners wanted to give; it was unprotected, anal, dangerous, dominating, you get the picture. The problem is, in short, that prostitutes aren't used as "sex workers" but "sex whipping boys" who, by virtue of their job, HAVE to consent to situations that put them in real danger. I don't have an answer as to how to stop this, but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed before prostitution can be made "safe."
Further, a feminist reading of the situation in general reveals a few interesting ideas. Please try not to get turned off by the phrase "patriarchal construct," I promise I'm going somewhere with this. You could make the argument that the idea of "sex as necessary" is a social construct in some small way, because physiologically, it's kinda not. Yes, humans (particularly males) do need some form of sexual release, but masturbation fills that role. We need companionship, but realistically, prostitution doesn't fill that. Escorts could, possibly, but it's largely a social problem that is rooted in the inherent alienation and impersonal nature that is a part of modern life. The idea that, in order to be happy and relaxed, we MUST bonk another person no matter the cost is... well, it's crazy. There are celibate folks that have pretty much proved that you don't have to, and yet it's used as a justification as to why, in the end, it's OK to be sex obsessed.
For the record, I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm somehow above all this. Yeah, I've been known to objectify women (I challenge anyone to tell me, honestly, that they haven't ogled a member of the gender they're attracted to. If you have, that's objectifying. You don't stare at a lady's arse thinking "fuck, I'd love a conversation with her") and I'm a fan of sex. Sex is great fun. I'm comfortable with saying "society's view of sex is pretty warped" but if you were to ask me how, or why, I couldn't give you a straight answer. I hope this stuff gets people thinking, but right now I'm just bummed that I feel more confused than before. How depressing.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Just Let Them Have The Fucking Cigarettes.
I don't want to make a big deal out of this, because I'm already a big smelly liberal and frankly I'm a little too frazzled to really make this coherent, but can we all admit, this isn't even about cigarettes anymore?
For the uninitiated, turns out the Federal Government is paying for asylum seekers' cigarettes while they're in detention. And this has got some people all annoyed on both sides of the fence. Consider this an open letter:
Anti smoking people, please stop. You've all got to be the most sanctimonious, holier than thou group of pricks in existence. Let's be totally clear, we all know the risks. People are well aware of just how bad smoking is for you, it's been public knowledge for sometime. Cigarette companies can't advertise, they have to display horrendous images on their packaging, which is soon to be made plain by some stupid law. Don't you think you've done enough? I know what you're thinking, "we haven't done enough until no-one smokes!" but seriously, is that even your call? Yeah, yeah, I know, liberal scum, but seriously, get off your high horse. You have as little right to tell someone to stop smoking as they have to tell you to piss off if your kid was crying right next to them or you were drinking a Red Bull. For the record, I hate both those things, but if it's happening near me, I'll move. Why? Because I respect your rights. Evidently you don't do the same.
Smokers complaining about how much they have to pay while these dirty brown people get them for free... guys, some compassion, please? Normally I'd just tear you down, call you morons, whatever, but this time around, I just can't. Never mind the simple fact that you have enough disposable income to afford smokes in the first place which makes you better off than a disturbingly large percentage of the rest of the world, but do you really reckon a free packet of Winnie Blues makes them feel all that better about what they've just been through? I realise this is the equivalent of banging my head against a racist brick wall here but it's just so exasperating. Living your whole life in a first world country doesn't make it OK to just sidestep having a sense of perspective.
Man, I'm gonna go on record here and say I'm proud of the government on this one. This is a decision that helps no-one but the asylum seekers. I didn't think our government worked that way, and to see just a shred of shared humanity in this otherwise messy issue brings a smile to my face.
For the uninitiated, turns out the Federal Government is paying for asylum seekers' cigarettes while they're in detention. And this has got some people all annoyed on both sides of the fence. Consider this an open letter:
Anti smoking people, please stop. You've all got to be the most sanctimonious, holier than thou group of pricks in existence. Let's be totally clear, we all know the risks. People are well aware of just how bad smoking is for you, it's been public knowledge for sometime. Cigarette companies can't advertise, they have to display horrendous images on their packaging, which is soon to be made plain by some stupid law. Don't you think you've done enough? I know what you're thinking, "we haven't done enough until no-one smokes!" but seriously, is that even your call? Yeah, yeah, I know, liberal scum, but seriously, get off your high horse. You have as little right to tell someone to stop smoking as they have to tell you to piss off if your kid was crying right next to them or you were drinking a Red Bull. For the record, I hate both those things, but if it's happening near me, I'll move. Why? Because I respect your rights. Evidently you don't do the same.
Smokers complaining about how much they have to pay while these dirty brown people get them for free... guys, some compassion, please? Normally I'd just tear you down, call you morons, whatever, but this time around, I just can't. Never mind the simple fact that you have enough disposable income to afford smokes in the first place which makes you better off than a disturbingly large percentage of the rest of the world, but do you really reckon a free packet of Winnie Blues makes them feel all that better about what they've just been through? I realise this is the equivalent of banging my head against a racist brick wall here but it's just so exasperating. Living your whole life in a first world country doesn't make it OK to just sidestep having a sense of perspective.
Man, I'm gonna go on record here and say I'm proud of the government on this one. This is a decision that helps no-one but the asylum seekers. I didn't think our government worked that way, and to see just a shred of shared humanity in this otherwise messy issue brings a smile to my face.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Over-Empathy
I was initially unsure if there'd even be a post this week, what with me being lazy and leaving some rather large assignments until the last minute, but I recently suffered from an emotion, so there's a post here. It goes up early because one should make hay while the sun shines.
There are so many problems with the world, on every level. Take the well-informed individual; this person will suffer personal problems, that's a given. Everyone has them. Then, there's immediate demands on his/her time, like work or study or other commitments that take up a certain amount of mental energy. Then there's larger problems, like the overall state of his or her locality, city, country, etc. It's impossible to be well-informed and not have some gripe about the way society is run. Then there's global issues. And the universal issues like "what the hell is the deal with the universe?" If you are anywhere near sensitive as well as being well-informed, this does weigh on your mind. In the interest of my own mental health, here's a breakdown of my layer-cake of gripes. Some details left joyously non-specific to make me seem less like a whiny bitch.
I somehow manage to possess two of the most at-odds personality quirks in the universe; I automatically assume everybody I know has a dim view of me, only putting up with me rather than legitimately enjoying my company AND it bothers me if I'm not a main source of the happiness of the people I know and care about. So, yeah, needless to say, it can be a tad confusing. I have no idea why this is bothering me now because, at present, my life is going pretty good, but for some reason it is. I suppose all I can hope for is that the almost constant stream of support I get from my large group of very good friends will somehow convince me I'm an alright guy. Fingers crossed.
This semester of university will not defeat me, no sir. I may be doing some units that are, frankly, a terrible fit for me (Sports Journalism? What the hell was I thinking? Admittedly the actual assignments don't seem so bad, I enjoyed covering the Football West State League Final but I haven't gotten my mark back yet so who knows how this is gonna go) and most of them demand lots of small assignments, which is historically my undoing, what with my overwhelming laziness and lack of organisation, but I will destroy it. I'm smarter than this, just you watch. I'm gonna bust out those assignments in my most awesome, "I don't need to study because I've been pretentious and culturally aware enough to wander through a Communications degree with a minimum of effort since as long as I can remember and milking natural talents is friggin' boss" way. Watch this space.
Australian politics, at this stage in time, could pretty accurately be described as the world's most banal shitstorm. There are some things going on tat should probably get people riled up in a pretty serious way:
1) The Labor Party playing fast and loose with their own leadership is a joke. As if everybody with a pulse didn't already know that they're just pawns for union big-boys anyway, the idea of ousting a leader for one much more malleable to the whims of the big players behind the scenes without the input of the people is just... disrespectful? Our first batch of Gillard was one we (as a nation) didn't vote for, and we've only ourselves to blame for the second. If Rudd gets re-inserted into the leadership before the next election rolls around, there's the distinct possibility Labor will lose every last ounce of credibility they've ever had.
2) When Tony Abbott has a higher approval rating than whatever opposition he's up against, you know we're fucked. Let me make this totally clear: Tony Abbott is less preferable than basically anyone short of Josef Mengele. This is a man who's refutation of anthropic climate change was "It was hotter in the time of Jesus of Nazareth." Wait, what? Based on what, exactly? Abbott is a credulous, ill-informed theocratic numbskull who would be more at home in the red states of America than he is in the (somewhat) moderate nation of Australia.
3) Speaking of "moderate," how is gay marriage still a big issue? I thought we'd fucking covered this. The research does exist, gays won, they aren't bad people.
4) That "Fuck Off We're Full" isn't just a racist catch-cry and that it honestly represents what both major parties effectively feel about immigration blows my mind. We aren't full, we're underpopulated, do some reading.
5) There's no liberal left wing option that isn't currently spitting in the ocean or turning into a party I really don't like. I'm looking at you, Greens.
These are issues worth considering. Economically, I know people all across the board and I can generally respect their opinions, but be honest, do you know any legitimate conservatives? Do you know anyone who, unapologetically, wants to return to a society modelled after the 1950's with all our morality and most of our laws drawn from The Bible? And not the Christian Bible, but the Bible that only exists in the minds of xenophobic white Americans? I didn't think so. So why, pray tell, do the two major parties in this country feel the need to pander to this mindset? It boggles my fucking mind. Unfortunately, no one is really angry about just how retarded our government is, and will inevitably be, because compulsory voting prevents us from really going off the deep-end like the USA. So we're all kinda tolerating our "OK-but-really-not-great" system because it's too hard to change but it's unlikely to get worse. What awesome fun that is.
Oh man, American politics, you make me smile. Republican candidates, you're the comedy superteam of the century, it's brilliant. Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Perry, Mr. Santorum.... thank you. You've made Stephen Colbert pretty much obsolete, because between you guys and Glenn Beck's steadily decaying mental state, it's impossible to lampoon right-wing ideology any more. It worries me that you may actually believe those things you say, but I'm almost certain Obama will win so that dulls that. Seriously though, the nation is in incredible debt and you guys want to cut taxes, continue to fund an unwinnable war of ideology for a resource that is destroying the planet (except you don't believe it is) all the while going against centuries of scientific research and discovery in your claim that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old? This shit is gonna be hilarious, I can't wait for acts two and three. Oh, and the rest: Ron Paul; the gold standard? Really? It's only an outdated and archaic (almost like you) system that'll probably screw over the world economy, but hey, at least it's shiny, right? Jon Huntsman, Jr.; At least Obama likes you, right? Being the Democrat's Republican must be weird. Tim Pawlenty; Awwww, you seemed nice. Probably the guy I hated the least. Shame that me being ambivalent to your existence means you probably have none of the qualities the Tea Party is looking for. Brevity aside, keep your eyes peeled, this may be the last US President we ever see. Not kidding.
Standard tripe about people's beliefs being different from mine and casting doubt on the nature of the universe as a whole. You know, I've stopped worrying about what it is you say you believe and more about what you actually say. This isn't directed at anyone in particular but more and more I find that some people who tout themselves as "atheists," "skeptics" or "liberals" actually hold some pretty disrespectful or nonsensical beliefs, while some people who say they're religious, or more conservative, or spiritual or whatever are really much more on my side. This isn't a case of me getting terms confused, I'm very, VERY well versed on what it means to be atheist, liberal, skeptical, left wing, naturalist, whatever. This is a case of people latching onto terms that they think applies to them, or that they heard somewhere, and just going with it, rather than actually stopping and thinking. I mean, you can't call yourself a liberal and then say that you think gay people are immoral, wrong and shouldn't be allowed to be gay. You're allowed to think that, but you're definitely not a liberal. By that same token, you're not a conservative if you believe the government has no place telling people what they can and cannot do in their private, personal lives as long as they don't hurt anyone else. You've gotten your terms mixed up. People conflate right-wing and conservative all the time because it's a very common pairing, ditto left-wing and liberal, but the fact of the matter is, you can be anywhere on either axis, they're your beliefs. You don't have to give them a name to legitimise them, although you should probably be prepared to defend them if they come up.
Wow, that felt great to get all out, it's like vomiting after too much booze to avoid a hangover. Except in this case, the vomiting is voicing my opinions, the booze is social concerns and the hangover is probably something like burnout or depression. Aaaaah strained metaphors, you are the secret ingredient to my crappy writing.
There are so many problems with the world, on every level. Take the well-informed individual; this person will suffer personal problems, that's a given. Everyone has them. Then, there's immediate demands on his/her time, like work or study or other commitments that take up a certain amount of mental energy. Then there's larger problems, like the overall state of his or her locality, city, country, etc. It's impossible to be well-informed and not have some gripe about the way society is run. Then there's global issues. And the universal issues like "what the hell is the deal with the universe?" If you are anywhere near sensitive as well as being well-informed, this does weigh on your mind. In the interest of my own mental health, here's a breakdown of my layer-cake of gripes. Some details left joyously non-specific to make me seem less like a whiny bitch.
I somehow manage to possess two of the most at-odds personality quirks in the universe; I automatically assume everybody I know has a dim view of me, only putting up with me rather than legitimately enjoying my company AND it bothers me if I'm not a main source of the happiness of the people I know and care about. So, yeah, needless to say, it can be a tad confusing. I have no idea why this is bothering me now because, at present, my life is going pretty good, but for some reason it is. I suppose all I can hope for is that the almost constant stream of support I get from my large group of very good friends will somehow convince me I'm an alright guy. Fingers crossed.
This semester of university will not defeat me, no sir. I may be doing some units that are, frankly, a terrible fit for me (Sports Journalism? What the hell was I thinking? Admittedly the actual assignments don't seem so bad, I enjoyed covering the Football West State League Final but I haven't gotten my mark back yet so who knows how this is gonna go) and most of them demand lots of small assignments, which is historically my undoing, what with my overwhelming laziness and lack of organisation, but I will destroy it. I'm smarter than this, just you watch. I'm gonna bust out those assignments in my most awesome, "I don't need to study because I've been pretentious and culturally aware enough to wander through a Communications degree with a minimum of effort since as long as I can remember and milking natural talents is friggin' boss" way. Watch this space.
Australian politics, at this stage in time, could pretty accurately be described as the world's most banal shitstorm. There are some things going on tat should probably get people riled up in a pretty serious way:
1) The Labor Party playing fast and loose with their own leadership is a joke. As if everybody with a pulse didn't already know that they're just pawns for union big-boys anyway, the idea of ousting a leader for one much more malleable to the whims of the big players behind the scenes without the input of the people is just... disrespectful? Our first batch of Gillard was one we (as a nation) didn't vote for, and we've only ourselves to blame for the second. If Rudd gets re-inserted into the leadership before the next election rolls around, there's the distinct possibility Labor will lose every last ounce of credibility they've ever had.
2) When Tony Abbott has a higher approval rating than whatever opposition he's up against, you know we're fucked. Let me make this totally clear: Tony Abbott is less preferable than basically anyone short of Josef Mengele. This is a man who's refutation of anthropic climate change was "It was hotter in the time of Jesus of Nazareth." Wait, what? Based on what, exactly? Abbott is a credulous, ill-informed theocratic numbskull who would be more at home in the red states of America than he is in the (somewhat) moderate nation of Australia.
3) Speaking of "moderate," how is gay marriage still a big issue? I thought we'd fucking covered this. The research does exist, gays won, they aren't bad people.
4) That "Fuck Off We're Full" isn't just a racist catch-cry and that it honestly represents what both major parties effectively feel about immigration blows my mind. We aren't full, we're underpopulated, do some reading.
5) There's no liberal left wing option that isn't currently spitting in the ocean or turning into a party I really don't like. I'm looking at you, Greens.
These are issues worth considering. Economically, I know people all across the board and I can generally respect their opinions, but be honest, do you know any legitimate conservatives? Do you know anyone who, unapologetically, wants to return to a society modelled after the 1950's with all our morality and most of our laws drawn from The Bible? And not the Christian Bible, but the Bible that only exists in the minds of xenophobic white Americans? I didn't think so. So why, pray tell, do the two major parties in this country feel the need to pander to this mindset? It boggles my fucking mind. Unfortunately, no one is really angry about just how retarded our government is, and will inevitably be, because compulsory voting prevents us from really going off the deep-end like the USA. So we're all kinda tolerating our "OK-but-really-not-great" system because it's too hard to change but it's unlikely to get worse. What awesome fun that is.
Oh man, American politics, you make me smile. Republican candidates, you're the comedy superteam of the century, it's brilliant. Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Perry, Mr. Santorum.... thank you. You've made Stephen Colbert pretty much obsolete, because between you guys and Glenn Beck's steadily decaying mental state, it's impossible to lampoon right-wing ideology any more. It worries me that you may actually believe those things you say, but I'm almost certain Obama will win so that dulls that. Seriously though, the nation is in incredible debt and you guys want to cut taxes, continue to fund an unwinnable war of ideology for a resource that is destroying the planet (except you don't believe it is) all the while going against centuries of scientific research and discovery in your claim that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old? This shit is gonna be hilarious, I can't wait for acts two and three. Oh, and the rest: Ron Paul; the gold standard? Really? It's only an outdated and archaic (almost like you) system that'll probably screw over the world economy, but hey, at least it's shiny, right? Jon Huntsman, Jr.; At least Obama likes you, right? Being the Democrat's Republican must be weird. Tim Pawlenty; Awwww, you seemed nice. Probably the guy I hated the least. Shame that me being ambivalent to your existence means you probably have none of the qualities the Tea Party is looking for. Brevity aside, keep your eyes peeled, this may be the last US President we ever see. Not kidding.
Standard tripe about people's beliefs being different from mine and casting doubt on the nature of the universe as a whole. You know, I've stopped worrying about what it is you say you believe and more about what you actually say. This isn't directed at anyone in particular but more and more I find that some people who tout themselves as "atheists," "skeptics" or "liberals" actually hold some pretty disrespectful or nonsensical beliefs, while some people who say they're religious, or more conservative, or spiritual or whatever are really much more on my side. This isn't a case of me getting terms confused, I'm very, VERY well versed on what it means to be atheist, liberal, skeptical, left wing, naturalist, whatever. This is a case of people latching onto terms that they think applies to them, or that they heard somewhere, and just going with it, rather than actually stopping and thinking. I mean, you can't call yourself a liberal and then say that you think gay people are immoral, wrong and shouldn't be allowed to be gay. You're allowed to think that, but you're definitely not a liberal. By that same token, you're not a conservative if you believe the government has no place telling people what they can and cannot do in their private, personal lives as long as they don't hurt anyone else. You've gotten your terms mixed up. People conflate right-wing and conservative all the time because it's a very common pairing, ditto left-wing and liberal, but the fact of the matter is, you can be anywhere on either axis, they're your beliefs. You don't have to give them a name to legitimise them, although you should probably be prepared to defend them if they come up.
Wow, that felt great to get all out, it's like vomiting after too much booze to avoid a hangover. Except in this case, the vomiting is voicing my opinions, the booze is social concerns and the hangover is probably something like burnout or depression. Aaaaah strained metaphors, you are the secret ingredient to my crappy writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)