Category: Culture

Out on bail

How bout that sub prime mortgage bail out – or not. I see the ASX is down 5.4% already after what I reckon is a good decision from Congress. 

My questions about the bail out are:

why is the government stepping in to assist failing companies rather than failing taxpayers and their mortgages?
why is the government responsible for the economy anyway? I know it’s universally accepted that that’s the case – but why is it so? Why aren’t businesses and industries responsible for the economy? Why is the government blamed when it tanks but ignored while companies take the credit when it grows?
who would be an executive of a global company now when a failure leads to mass losses – perhaps that’s why the salaries and payments are so high…
whose idea were NINJA loans (no income no job)? whose idea was it to call them that? Where did the “A” in the acronym come from?
why would congress pass a bill that the majority of the public think is a bad idea? who does this decision benefit politically?

Lots of questions, no real answers.

September 30, 2008

Jesus shaves…

And other “interesting” Christian marketing.

I wish you could buy some of these items directly from this page.

September 23, 2008

Another post about God

I’ve heard some strange claims about direct instructions from God – but this one takes the case – who knew Allah was a Bruce Willis fan?

A 40-year-old man walking his dog in the nude was Tasered by police when he refused to follow an officer’s commands.

David McCranie of the Tallahassee Police Department in Florida says an officer on patrol spotted the man shortly after 8pm Friday.

The man was asked what he was doing and told the officer, “Allah told me to watch a Bruce Willis movie and walk the dog,” McCranie said.

McCranie said using the Taser was the only way to subdue the man without having to hurt him.

The man was then sent for mental health evaluation and treatment.

September 15, 2008

It’s the end of the world as we know it…

So the large Hadron Collider has been turned on. While I may have spent yesterday running around yelling “Panic Panic!!!” and singing Muse’s Supermassive Black Hole… they’re not actually colliding any serious particles until later this year.  

The idea, for the unconcerned among you, is to recreate the conditions of the big bang by colliding particles travelling at close to the speed of light. The intention is to find the Higgs Boson or the “God Particle” – how Mr Peter Higgs name became synonymous with God is beyond me.

When you perform a task of this magnitude a lot of nut cases come out of the wood works – there’s a group convinced the experiment will create black holes which will destroy the world. They made a youtube video – which I haven’t seen so won’t link to. There are crazy Christians who seem a little concerned this will somehow “disprove God” or help atheists in their thinking. And then there are the stupid, ignorant atheists – perhaps my favourite group in this situation who provide comments like this on the news.com.au forum:

“I love how 99% of the negative comments about the LHC are all from Christians. I’ll Believe Physics, thats been proven, over christianity, which hasnt been proven, anyday…Christians: Look at it from a ignorant christian perspective. They are spending 11billion to prove that God created the earth. Meanwhile i dont see Christians spending money to prove that Science didnt create the earth..” – Alex from Adelaide.

Thanks Alex for your valuable insight.

Christians do not argue that science didn’t create the earth because to do so would elevate science from a study of observable phenomena to a sentient being able to perform the act of “creation”.

My other favourite was this one:

“The church must be soiling itself waiting for the day that scientists proove there is no god and that we were created from the big bang and they have the hard and fast proof. The biggest business in the world “the church” will be bankrupted. Unless of course religion can actually proove god exists. Science will have the hard and fast proof very soon. Posted by: Andrew of Australia“

Andrew is obviously pretty angry at the church – angry enough to make a claim about science’s ability to prove or disprove the metaphysical.

Atheists, in the main, are a fairly ignorant lot, often influenced by militant atheists to “believe in science” as some form of religion. Here’s the thing Alex, and other atheists out there, us Christians also believe in science. Some Christians even engage science as a weapon (think Creation Science Ministries or whatever those guys call themselves). Scientific outcomes are driven by starting hypotheses – and these are driven by the organisations funding the research. Science is not an objective entity. Science is a broad church. The reality is that science is now driven by ideology and commercial imperatives more than any church I know. Throw money into the mix and see what sort of “scientific findings” we can come up with. Most churches are driven by a goal to spread the gospel – for free. Most churches I know are “not for profits” and their “wealth” is tied up in physical assets used for the cause. Would you have churches meet in our “public” school buildings Andrew?

Not if the Sydney Morning Herald has its way. I’m no Hillsong apologist – in fact I have massive problems with their “prosperity” theology and their music, and and endless list of other gripes that I won’t go into. But this article on public schools as secular institutions being no place for any form of religion is dangerous and stupid. It’s also the worst piece of ideologically driven journalism I’ve seen for a long time, and it belongs in the opinion pages – not the news.

Quotes from the article below:

“A teacher at one public school said students had returned to class after an Exo day concert complaining about attempts to convert them, while the Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Associations says it is an attempt to sneak evangelism into schools and reveals the need for new laws.”

“The NSW Education Act says that “instruction” at public schools must be non-sectarian and secular except in designated religious education classes.”

“A spokeswoman for the Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Association said religious recruitment in schools was inappropriate. “We need to ensure that children when they go to school aren’t exposed to discreet evangelism,” she said.”

I would think that an opt in program clearly run by a church group openly trying to promote the bible is hardly “discreet evangelism” or “instruction” or an attempt to “sneak” evangelize.

September 11, 2008

Snakes on a plane

Life imitating art. Just like Palin’s VP nomination could eventually imitate the plotline from “Commander in Chief” where an aging president dies having chosen a young, underqualified, female VP candidate who has to take the reigns unprepared. 

Scary if you’re on an Air India flight – or an American.

clipped from www.watoday.com.au

Snake slips onto Air India flight

Crew on an Air India passenger jet discovered a snake coiled up under a seat and were unable to catch it as it slithered around the plane, the airline said today.

The snake was disturbed during a routine check on the Air India A319 aircraft, which had landed at Delhi airport after a domestic flight from Srinagar.

It evaded capture by slipping into an air vent and could not be found even when staff unscrewed panels inside the fuselage, opened all the doors and fumigated the plane.

“There was commotion which scared the snake and it went further inside,” an airport official was quoted as saying by the Hindustan Times.

Reports that the snake was a venomous cobra were denied by an Air India spokesman.

“The aircraft was parked at Delhi airport for maintenance purposes. There was a snake but not a cobra,” he said.

“We have no details of what kind of a snake it was, or where it is now. We have taken up this matter with Delhi airport authorities.”

  blog it

September 8, 2008

On secular humanism

In my continued reflections on the debate I’m having with my e-friends (ok, so they’re friends in real life – but the tyranny of distance means I see them maybe once a year) I find myself increasingly frustrated with the “secular humanism” movement. It’s really a quasi-religion set up to give atheists a framework to debate from. Secular humanists see their beliefs as the default “logical position”. 

The definition of humanism from Wikipedia:
“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 it does not accept supernatural views of reality.”

My problems are as follows:
1. Humanism describes itself as optimistic on the human race’s ability to save itself. Human nature is seen as inherently good – but slightly selfish. This is how they reconcile survival of the fittest with external factors like our social “herd” instincts (best epitomised by Facebook), good and charitable acts without external motivation (which is how they dismiss the good and social acts of religious adherents), and the chaos obviously occurring between humans (Russia v Georgia is the latest example).
2. Humanism holds itself on a pedestal – and humanists look down on those who need the “crutch of religion” or the “imaginary sky friend” to get them through day to day life.
3. Humanists, in relying on reason, dismiss the notion of the supernatural – and will not debate on the possibility of anything supernatural existing without first seeing the evidence. This makes even approaching a discussion on religion almost futile.
4. Humanists rely on faulty evidence when dismissing Christianity – eg inaccuracy of scriptural translations.
5. Humanists are sold on postmodern thinking – which is yesterday’s news – rather than the modernist view of truth as verifiable, actual and objective.
6. Humanists are generally pretty smart – and generally blinkered by confidence in their own ability to reason. Human intelligence has limits. Humanists, in relying on their own prowess and dismissing the opinions of others as “subjective” and influenced by wants, desires and needs – are limited to their own capabilities. Some of the world’s most revered scientists – perhaps by nature of their positions as revered scientists are secular humanists – eg Einstein.
7. Further, humanism fails to recognise the limits of human capabilities – what if one day God is scientifically demonstrable? What happens to the current humanists? Human knowledge and understanding is in a constant state of flux – to pin a philosophy down to “what we currently think we know” or “what we can currently test” is dangerous.
8. Ethical living is not a natural response to atheism – nor is it the common response. Because secular humanists have realised the shortcomings of their position (slippery slope of morality) they seek to massage their philosophy to include this concept of “ethics based decision making.” Anarchy and hedonism are more logically consistent results of atheism.

Some key highlights from Wikipedia:

“In certain areas of the world, secular humanism finds itself in conflict with religious fundamentalism, especially over the issue of the separation of church and state. A faction of secular humanists may judge religions as superstitious, regressive, and/or closed-minded, while the majority of religious fundamentalists see secular humanism as a threat to the values they say are set out in religious texts, such as the Bible and the Qur’an.”

“Some criticize the philosophy of secular humanism because it offers no eternal truths nor a relationship with the divine. Critics allege that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea of postmodern cynicism and anomie. Some argue that this philosophy has always been antireligious and it is often used in connection with atheism.Humanists respond that such criticisms reflect a failure to look at the actual content of humanist philosophy, which far from being cynical and postmodern, is rooted in optimistic, idealistic attitudes about the future of human society that trace back to the Enlightenment, or further, back to Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and Chinese Confucianism.“

“Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:

  • Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
  • Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
  • Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
  • Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
  • This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
  • Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
  • Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.”

You can’t really argue with someone holding these beliefs that a supernatural being exists – it runs counter to the tenets of their “faith.”

August 15, 2008

On dialogue with atheists

I have some friends who are atheists – not just soft agnostics like most of society – but reasoned, secular humanists who think Dawkins lacks objectivity and is a rabid fundamentalist. You know, the logical type of atheists who have thought through life and made their own conclusions on the basis of the evidence they see around them. The type who make “moral judgements” based on empathy and reason. I’ve spent the last couple of weeks in pretty intense debate with them via email. The discussion has been protracted and mostly frustrating. I’ve also been feeling pretty outnumbered – it was three to one and then they introduced these two guys I’ve never met into the email circle. One of them is pretty much the only person who now reads this blog – so hi. I actually don’t know where he sits on the issue because he just commentates on the debate – and how much he hates analogies. 

This debate has made me question – not my beliefs – but my response to having them attacked. Pride is something I struggle with. I want to be right, I want to engage in the debate in an intellectual sense and essentially prove my faith* and convince these guys they should convert – and be just like me. Which again, kind of misses the point of Christianity – because I should be trying to convince people to be just like Christ. Here’s the rub – the Bible promises that the world’s wisdom will see Christianity and its message of a capitally punished God as foolishness (1 Corinthians) – so I can’t expect to be convincing, nor can I mention this in some kind of argumentative context – because to argue the veracity of something using that thing doesn’t really stack up. I can’t say “the Bible is true because it says it is.” Nor can I say “the Bible is true because I have experienced that it is” – because that is subjective. I also can’t say – “the Bible is true because all the observable evidence (ie pain and suffering) suggest it is” – because all the observable evidence is observed, and compartmentalised based on the starting hypothesis – ie if God is not there it’s all just chance and coincidence. My basic instinct in this debate is to debate. To apologise (in the “mount a defence for” sense) for my beliefs. Is this the right way to respond? I’m not convinced that it is – not in the frames of science and philosophy.

Science is limited. Science has merit, and a place in the world. Science answers questions of cause and effect, and makes observations to test and demonstrate hypotheses – science is good at what it does. What it can’t do is test that which can not be observed – and it is limited to the theories and subjective whims of those testing them through hypothesis. I can observe “facts” and essentially plug them into my frame of reference to demonstrate a theory. The theory always comes first.

History also has limits – postmodern criticism has merit – but to rob any text of the chance of being true and accurate objective history does a disservice to our understanding of human history and anthropology. Why can’t we trust the accounts of a number of people recorded in the one book – from very separate original documents – to reveal truth? This exercise also taught me that those who are passionately disinterested – or dispassionately interested – in Christianity have very little knowledge of the actual text of the Bible – and its history. Instead relying on years of inaccuracies and insipid, purposeful lies. “The bible has been changed over time” is one of those half truths that misses the point – it hasn’t been changed by whim – but by desire to bring it closer to the original text based on rigourous academic scholarship. It has been used as a political tool in the past – and those who most stridently opposed that were the Christian church – and these men were martyred for the cause. This sort of shoddy criticism has no grounding in anything but what my atheist friend told me in primary school so I believed it.

I think it’s unhelpful to present this debate (theism v atheism) in the sphere of the rational, observable or philosophical. To do so puts the existence of God on our terms – a God by nature transcends the rational and observable. God sets the rules for this debate – not humans. To move God into these realms, and into our terms is not rational or reasonable – if God exists then there is no reason for him to conform to our experience of the world – or human conventions of understanding – anymore than there is reason for us to bark when communicating to dogs. We do not do this when interacting with our subordinates (the animal kingdom).

Thanks to Dawkins, Atheists now tackle these arguments by realigning the burden of proof and changing the terminology – now we, “theists” have to demonstrate why God must exist – before even tackling which God they should believe in. Therefore the Bible is dismissed as an authority (partly because post-modern literary criticism means nothing can be trusted as true anymore), Christians can’t claim any unique authority on the debate on the basis of the historicity of Jesus – particularly because any of the eye-witness accounts to his life must now be ignored or disputed, any third party accounts of Christianity – and the leaders of the early church – are not as valuable as “modern science” and observation – and the default position is now that the complexity of life is a product of randomness and an infinite spectrum of time. I don’t really understand that being the default. Atheists are now critical of the “watchmaker” assumption – ie when you see a wristwatch in a field you assume based on complexity the watch was designed and placed there. I think that’s something that’s been slowly indoctrinated. Atheists are now taught to proselytize in the same way they accuse Christians of brainwashing their children and others.

One of these guys scoffed at my suggestion that his lifestyle is the result of his atheism – and vice versa. He suggested the two were not linked. The atheist point of view by definition dismisses the idea of God – and hence questions regarding whether their atheism influences the way they live are flawed – theism v atheism is still the fundamental question that ultimately shapes the worldview of the individual – morals, ethics, philosophy and conduct all stem from this fundamental position – whether we (or they) like it or not.

The “church” has been responsible for some terrible injustices over time – or at least these have been conducted in the name of the church – ignoring the wildly publicised misdemeanours and wars, in a broader sense the church has failed to adequately educate casual church attendees. Both these atheists had backgrounds including church attendance. Both had strong – and in my opinion inaccurate – understandings of the “teachings of the church” and felt adequately qualified to make assessments on the basis of their childhood experiences. This may be unfairly representing their opinions and positions – but in my opinion something as serious as religion – and the underlying foundation we build our lives on – should be considered by adult minds. Both in the case of people who have always been Christians – and in the case of people who have chosen not to be. In either case I’d hate to think this is the kind of decision you make at 10 and never revisit.

It’s been a pretty interesting discussion all told – and I’d love any readers input on the issue. This post ended up being much longer than I planned.

*Not technically scientifically possible because faith is the belief in something that can’t be observed.

August 14, 2008

A dog’s life

I imagine a lot of Saudi’s will be walking pet fish from now on.

clipped from www.smh.com.au

Saudi religious police ban pet cats and dogs

Saudi Arabia’s religious police have banned selling cats and
dogs or exercising them in public in the Saudi capital, because of
men using them as a means of making passes at women, an official
said.

  blog it

August 1, 2008

Contractual Obligation

I was going to write something a while back on the Cristiano Ronaldo saga at Manchester United. For those of you who aren’t fans of the “Red Devils” or the “Beautiful Game” – so aren’t au fait with the situation – Cristiano Ronaldo is the biggest, brightest, best superstar playing for arguably the biggest, brightest, best club in the world (well they’re European Champions, and back-to-back winners of the world’s best football league). The problem is, Cristiano doesn’t see things this way – he’d rather play for glamour club Real Madrid. Real pay their stars exorbitant wages and don’t really win anything – but they go into massive debt to buy players and mercilessly exploit their image rights to pay the interest. But I digress. Cristiano’s problem is that he signed a five year contract with Manchester United pretty recently. In the murky world of Football politics and contractual law – clubs can sell contracted players for “transfer fees” – essentially the longer the contract the higher the fee the club can receive. In fact, players can move clubs for free at the end of contracts (and sign with new clubs on free transfers in the final year of their contract with the transfer taking place upon expiry). It’s in the best interest of the club to sign players up for long term deals. Wage structures in these contracts often reflect “potential value” rather than actual. So a young player is offered a contract with a lot of zeros because the club wants to keep them for a long time – and if they see a chance to sell their star they get the best possible price.

The integrity of contracts is fundamentally important to the commercial survival of clubs. Some clubs in England survive, financially and competitively, by buying and developing young talent and onselling them to the top clubs at a profit. Sonny Bill Williams decision to disregard his contract with the Bulldogs has brought the contractual argument into the world of Rugby League. His case is distinct from the round ball game, and from Cristiano Ronaldo’s situation – in that he is switching across codes – rather than within a code. League also doesn’t have a transfer fee system, and it has a salary cap – which football (in the literary and global sense) doesn’t.

My take on both situations is that these players are being led astray by greedy “sports agents” – the antithesis to Jerry McGuire. Agents benefit greatly when their charges sign new contracts – they get massive commissions – 10% in the case of Cristiano Ronaldo’s proposed deal. They’re like leeches. They also are the ones that broker the legal side of sport’s contracts – and they advise their clients to sign on when perhaps it’s not in their best interest to do so.

A contract is a contract – and, sports clubs, and governing body such as the NRL – have every right to expect they be honoured. The FIFA (the global football body) President, who nobody really likes, came out and basically said Ronaldo (who is on millions of pounds per year) is essentially being treated as a slave – not particularly helpful (or politically correct) stuff from someone who is meant to be the game’s senior figure. NRL CEO David Gallop has been much more statesmanlike in his handling of the SBW situation. Although Gus Gould gave him a bit of a roasting for pretty much overseeing the death of Rugby League as we know it. I’d be interested to hear other people’s thoughts on what this means for the game.

My friend Ben seems pretty convinced that the NRL needs to shrink (number of clubs) and expand (nationwide) which has been one option suggested by a few people. That’s probably an unfair summary of his argument – but I think he’ll email me to clarify when he’s read this, so I’ll leave it as is.

July 30, 2008

Monkey Business

This is really the craziest piece of legislation I’ve ever seen. Thanks Peter Singer.

clipped from www.smh.com.au

Don’t make a monkey of human rights

In Spain, a funny thing is happening on the way to the circus
— all the monkeys are disappearing. At least, that is what a
group of legislators on an environmental committee is hoping will
happen, now that the Spanish parliament is considering a resolution
to grant certain human rights to “our non-human brothers” – great
apes, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and orang-utans.

The measure has broad support and, barring the unexpected, is
likely to become law within a year. After enactment, harmful
experimentation on apes, as well as their use for circuses,
television commercials and films, will be prohibited. It will be
legal for the 350 apes in Spanish zoos to stay there, but their
conditions will have to be drastically improved.

With a single stroke, Spain will also become the first country
to acknowledge unequivocally the legal rights of non-humans.

  blog it

July 30, 2008

The problem with this resurrection

Unlike the other more significant resurrection – which is massively more significant, and you should investigate it for yourself… I’m finding it hard to find inspiring topics.
I would happily write about coffee – roasting it, drinking it, tinkering with my massive machine (that incidently is up and running since last mentioned here)… but I don’t think it interests that many of my current readers.
I would happily write about the problems with the Catholic Church and World Youth Day – but that would just be a vehicle for my intolerance.
I would happily write about a Christian response to the “arts” – particularly in the context of the nude photo frenzy recently… but that would be slightly too far in the past to be edgy and current…
I would happily write about the new Batman movie – which I saw last night, which was excellent – but really, there are better film critics out there than me.
I would happily write about how the GST should be used to control inflation rather than interest rates – but I feel grossly unqualified to make the necessary economic arguments.
I would happily write about the Cristiano Ronaldo saga, and what I’d do with the 85 million pounds Manchester United would get for him.
I would happily write about how Manly sit atop the NRL table and are looking pretty good this year… but neither of those topics are all that interesting to anyone but me.
I would happily write about all the topics I could possibly write about but don’t feel inclined to – which I guess I’ve actually done.
I would happily write about how I could have simplified this post by using a colon.

So, in conclusion – I’m looking for inspiration, topic requests, things people like to read about that are consistent with what I like to write about…

July 18, 2008

I feel like chicken tonight

Just a few posts (and some months) ago I mentioned Heather Mills tireless campaign on behalf of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (why aren't they called PFTETOA?) – well, not to be outdone, everybody's favourite bimbo Pam Anderson has waged in with her own cause du jour – the treatment of chickens by global burger congomerate KFC.

Pam – who has been residing in the Big Brother House as a "celebrity guest" – is going to use her new found fame and reputation to bring the poulty plight of these poor hens to the world stage. It turns out KFC is cruel to chickens… not only that… they actually kill them and fry them in oil. Who'd have thunk it?

"I've been in Australia filming Big Brother House, in which my housemates and I are confined and sealed off from the outside world, much like the chickens who are crammed inside barns for KFC," the letter reads."

I think she meant "crammed inside buns"

July 9, 2008

Of mice and men

I’ve never read the John Steinbeck novel I stole this title from – but in a piece of fact from the “stranger than fiction” category – this story just has me scratching my head.

New research from Brazil is pushing the boundaries on human fertility. I know this is a major issue for infertile couples – but surely there are boundaries to scientific research – or at least there should be.

“Our data indicate that the mouse can yield human sperm cells,” said Irina Kerkis of the Roger Abdelmassih clinic and research centre in Sao Paolo, Brazil.

Science, like the arts – who are in the midst of their own “boundaries” debate, is a wonderful tool for helping people understand the world around us – and for making life better and more comfortable.

This advance – like many others – comes at a cost. What do you do with the family tree following the application of this research? Is it a reverse Stuart Little? Only with the mouse not actually talking? Do you keep, and pamper the mouse for as long as you both shall live in recognition of its unique place in the family structure? I don’t know – and they seem like stupid questions to be asking, on the back of some pretty stupid research.

My problem with science – and its approach to tackling undoubtably serious issues like curing diseases, healing the sick and helping the barren conceive – is that it tries to fight of the inevitable and creates false hopes, and false securities. Nature is by its very nature natural. There is a place for the natural order of things, as a Christian I see this place as coming under God’s authority – and that forms the basis of some of my objections. Stem cell research falls in the same moral boat – it’s great for those who want to preserve life (arguably at the expense of others) but this is fundamentally selfish. Why do we seek to preserve life? If overpopulation is a pressing concern – and it seems to be one for the sustainability lobby sector – shouldn’t we subscribe to the James Bond theory of “live and let die.” Seeking to prolong life by whatever means necessary ultimately cheapens life and is a real life example of the drowning man clutching at straws.

July 7, 2008

12,000,000 killer bees?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npnZvTLMR1w&hl=en&fs=1]

Robyn particularly likes the “200 Killer Wasps” Toyota ad. She laughs every time it’s on.

In a case of life imitating advertising – a truck carrying 12 million “endangered bees” sparked local panic in Ontario when it overturned. Most of the bees were recovered.

Bees play a vital role in US agriculture – and climate change is apparently killing them. According to the first article the US population only took this seriously when they realised Bees were responsible for a large component of their ice cream production.

With Global Warming happening ice cream will no doubt be in increased demand – so more freezers will be purchased, in turn emitting more greenhouse gases. The demise of the honeybee is a viscous viscious cycle.

July 7, 2008

Reflections… or lack thereof

They say (they being the ultimate in non-specific generalisations) that the reason vampires don’t have a reflection in the mirror is because they don’t have a soul. That’s an interesting opening sentence for this blog. It turns out Keira Knightley agrees with the “Australian Aborigines” who believe that every photo steals a portion of your soul (sucks to be wearing red at the Oscars then). (And now for the “reveal” when it comes to this somewhat bizarre segue) As a result of some three years spent as a law student I estimate that I too have lost a significant portion of my soul. I was talking to my friend Ben this afternoon – who has just started doing law post-grad – about why I dropped law and decided to turn my rant into this post.
I didn’t like the smug superiority that radiated from the inevitably private school educated pretty boys with their deck shoes and polo shirts – or the “look at me” hairstyles with sticking up fringes invariably worn by single-sex-school-educated girls who carried all their books around in those rectangular shopping bags from Sportsgirl or whatever chain it is they liked to buy their ridiculously undersized shorts from.

Mature aged students though – the ones who through lack of better judgement thought that asking pointless hypothetical questions, that have no real application in the world they’re so much more familiar with than the run-of-the-mill high school graduate, were actually improving the quality of the education of the younger “peers” who were just so lucky to have the benefit of their company in class – they are the worst kind of animal. Their existence is so pointless and vacuous that one wonders why they didn’t stick with whatever mediocre career path they were no doubt traversing when they decided “a law degree will no doubt aid my slowing ascent up the corporate ladder and keep the yapping jaws of the generation below me who already boast multiple paper qualifications thanks to the somewhat new university policy of maximising revenue through double degrees away from my heels for just that little bit longer…

And that ladies and gentlemen, along with the fact that I wanted to salvage part of my soul, is why I dropped law – and also why I’m glad I don’t have to sit through a lecture with mature aged students who are being “retrained” or “reeducated” or “reskilled” on the company credit card. I’m also startled by the realisation that my peers (ala Ben) are now exactly that type of person.

February 26, 2008