'Tis the Season

So this week(s) I’ve really struggled to put anything on the page, despite having over 6 weeks now to think up and write something, I’m sorry to say I have nothing profound or noteworthy to say. I imagine the responses elicited by this post will be “Cool story bro” and I am going to use Christmas as my excuse. It’s the silly season and Christmas and New Year’s is a complicated time for blog writing; Do I write about my own personal Christmas celebration? My unimaginative New Year resolutions? Do I write about the money spent? The unwanted presents? The Band Aid song going around? My Cats? In the end dear reader you are going to get to know what I love about Christmas and why I like spending money; not exactly ground breaking, I know.

I love Christmas. It is that simple, it is by far the day I look forward to the most in any year. I could list while all the other holidays don’t compare, Easter (I dislike chocolate and don’t do religion), Halloween (I’m Australian.) But the take home point is that I love Christmas. It is not the giving or receiving of gifts that I love the most nor the food (though the food comes a close second), but the overwhelming sense of security I get from being surrounded by the people I love. Even as a child, my fondest memories are dominated by a sense of security most keenly felt in the moments before I feel asleep for the traditional mid-Christmas day nap, essential in my family after having a large meal. It was those moments between not being awake and not being asleep either, where I could hear the various rooms of my Grandma’s big house filled with the voices of my family. Their conversations unimportant, people who I knew loved me. These moments gave me such a strong sense of  self and belonging, security in knowing that in this wide world filled with 7 billion people I had my own people who supported me no matter what and a place within my family.

Essentially the point of that rambling story is that I draw security form those around me, which is I am sure true of a lot of people. What I do not draw security from however is money. Not that money isn’t important, it is, it gives you options, choices. However largely due to my upbringing money is not a measure of security for me. My family lives by the saying “you can’t take it (money) with you into the next life”. Money is therefore in my opinion meant to be spent. Now I don’t mean all in one go or right now, you can have it marked for future expenses etc. but sooner or later the money will be spent. There is no point for me having it sit there just to make me feel secure. Money itself has no intrinsic value; you can’t eat it or wear it. What it does gives you, is options and choices, if I can reasonably afford something, why not? Even debt often frowned upon I feel gets an unnecessary bad rap.  As long as the debt is feasible it’s “all good”. This view has been strengthened through uni, debt is simply you curbing your future consumption for current consumption, e.g. uni I would not be able to go to uni without student HECS debt. It’s a necessary evil. I do acknowledge however that at my current stage of life I largely have a lot of freedom and no responsibility, no kids, no house etc. However regardless of what stage of life I am in I adhere to the ideal of working to live, not living to work. 

-Mrouge-

Sydney:The Failing of Australian Media and Society

The tragic events from Sydney in the past week has (somewhat disappointingly) brought into stark reality the apparent difficulties of multiculturalism. Both during and after the siege, it has been emphasised to the public that the hostage taker followed the Islam. Whilst it is clear to most people, that the siege in Sydney was the act of one man acting alone, it is apparently still not clear to the Australian media. The Australian media has an incessant need to speculate with little fact, even less evidence and almost no concern for the society that they are 'telling' the news to.

During the early stages of the 'siege', many news outlet made vast assumptions of he gunman, the origin of the flag being shown in the windows and in general the nature of the 'siege'. A very simple example of this would be the dramatisation of the situation as a death cult seen in the Daily Telegraph, showed Australian society, the true nature of the Australian media, to sell ads, to sell as many copies as possible and to protect their own bottom line. The media today, values these goals above all else, even if it comes at the cost of Australian values, even if it adds fuel to the hysteria of the situation.

First and foremost, the media needs to take a look at themselves. What they give to the public has an effect to their consumers. Consumers, pick up a newspaper, because they want to be informed. We watch TV because we want to be able to see whats going on. Sometimes, we consume mass media so that we can form an opinion based on others' opinions. So when a media outlet, gets it wrong, it has an effect on the public. The notion that issuing a retraction or a 50 words apology makes everything okay again needs to be quashed. 

'Consuming' an apology is not enough to remove the preconception caused by 'consuming' the original source of incorrect news. Once we consume something, our opinions change. Reading an apology doesn't automatically revert our opinions back that way. The media cannot be allowed to use apology as a tool to sell sensationalized media. The media has an implied responsibility to distinguish facts and speculation. They should not be reporting speculation as fact. This is only made worse when facts are simply wrong. 

As the public we need to stop consuming news such as this. We are not fools. Yet, again and again we pick up the same drivel, knowing there are betters sources of news out there which are fairer, balanced and factual. Then why do we continue to consume such trash? Certainly it is easier to be told what to think. Easier still to just stare in front of the screen and get all the facts from the one source. It is however, highly dangerous. The opinions that you form are not your own, but rather those of others. When we are lazy about forming our own opinions, it becomes easy to fall into a rut of complacency. 

Australia needs to do more than just being told what to think. Growing up, again and again, it was impressed upon me that Australia was a welcoming, multicultural society made up as a jigsaw of world cultures. Perhaps, cynicism comes with growing up, but the reaction after Sydney was not the one I was expecting; at least not the one I would have expected when I was young. Apparently, being just tolerant of other culture is enough now. As long as we're not making trouble for others, we've done our part for society. Australia, we need to think for ourselves and dictate our own society.

~TastyJacks~

Cool Stories: Clubbing Balls

+ MRouge+: Labour Migration and Rejection from Jobs

JWren: Why the Victorian election was a farce...

Andrea: An Epic Tale of Good Versus Evil

When I was younger, like so many I grew up with stories from those from the older generation(s). Of particular note for me was paternal grandfather who had some extraordinary stories based on real life. The greatest story tellers of my life, weren't afraid to embellish their stories; drawing on real life stories and just making it slightly more exciting than it otherwise would be. 

I've had a very long week working this week and haven't been able to clear my head, read up on current affairs and really don't have much to write on. Plus considering Christmas is so close ,I think I might go back and write something lighter. Its interesting because the posts I use to write, use to be exactly this, a whole bunch of cool stories. 

Every year, the university calender is littered with "balls." No, that's not a euphemism.  Balls are just dances with less formality, a little more emphasis on fun and a good night out. I think every year, I've attended two, most of which I've organised. The success and enjoyment of each of them have varied but there is one particular one that sticks out in my mind.

Balls

This particular ball was in my second year at university. Out of the all the balls I've been to, this was the only one that wasn't a Melbourne University ball and one of the few I didn't organise. One of my friends organised it and asked me to come. To be honest, I think I was just filling up numbers but regardless, I didn't mind going; any chance to share a drink with friends and meeting some people.

Balls are usually themed and the amount of effort that's put into fulfilling the theme varies between ball to ball. Sometimes, they're very loosely used; just an excuse to wear a suit and for the girls an excuse to wear a nice dress. Others, are a lot less formal; onesies, full costumes of sea animals, game characters, characters from the future all spring to mind.

Terrible movie

The theme for this particular ball was "Midnight in Paris." Which, for that year, wasn't unexpected considering the movie had just come out. Me, having never enjoyed costume wearing/making just wore the same suit I do to all the balls. I think everyone else made some sort of effort but you know, I'm a fun hater.

When I first got there, it was striking how well decorated the venue was. The lighting and the theme was well matched . We all sat down and exchanged some pleasantries and you know, all the usual thing normal people do. At some point I went to the bar.

Part of the fun of balls is the free flowing alcohol. I mean, half the cost of any ball is the free flowing alcohol Its important for me as an University student and as Jackson Chen, it was important to get the most value out of any dollar. At the bar, there was a limit of two drinks per person.

Me, trying to get the most value out of the night took two drinks, even though really I was only going to need one. But you know, whatever. Found the most expensively looking drink and asked for it. A mixed drink called something sunrise. Or sunset, or something. It doesn't matter.

Weaving my way back to the table, drink in hand one of the girls (I didn't know) exclaimed where'd you get that!

In all good stories, the main character are detailed in long descriptions. I would like to give you this description but I honestly can't remember much. Not going to lie, pretty good looking though... We're going to call her Amy. Mostly because I don't know any Amys so no one can be offended.

In typical snarky Jackson style I replied.

> "At the bar."

>>"What's it called"

>"I dunno."

*short pause*

> "Would you like it?" *Offers said drink*

>>"Have you drunk from it?"

>"No"

>>Proceeds to take it from my hand. "Thank you"

Many Decorations

You know, looking back,  I never got to taste that drink. It was a very girlie looking drink anyway. Definitely not a burly big man like me.

(You know she probably knew exactly what drink it was, just didn't want to get up and get one. I don't believe I fell for that.)

The ball was certainly different from all the other balls that I'd been to. Being an 'other' University's ball, I saw a lot of high school friends there who I hadn't seen since graduating. It was nice catching up with them and seeing some other friends. There was a girl there who I hadn't seen for a very long time, where when we parted, we left a few things unsaid and it was nice seeing her again. Actually thinking back, we still left a lot unsaid between us.

Much alcohol

Anyway, I digress. I drank a lot, danced a lot and then drank some more. Again, looking back I don't remember a lot (which is unusual for me). I remember dragging friends on to the dance floor (because woo dancing), taking photos and using the toilet several time. I remembered being particularly tired after a long stint on setting the the dance floor on fire with some massive moves. The girl who had taken my drink, was also at the table sitting down.

So we started talking. I really, really wish I remembered all the things we talked about. I remembered her telling me about her cousins? Where she was staying after the night finished? I don't remember whether I decided to be obnoxious Jackson or charming Jackson. Probably obnoxious. I feel like we talked for ages but honestly it was probably 20 minutes? It was a good chat though, always good to have intelligent conversation with people you don't know well. They don't have pre-conception and misconceptions which these days is a real luxury to have. The conversation was honestly, very interesting and rather intense. I still remember bits and pieces. Alcohol infused conversations are the best.

As the night winded down, my friends filtered back to the table and Amy asked me whether I was going to the after party.

There's not a lot of things I don't like. Okay, thats a lie, there's a lot of things I don't like, but one of the things I don't like is clubbing.

>"Nah, I don't think I will"

>> Various back and forth as to why I don't want to and her saying why clubbing is great. (its not)

>>"Well, I'm going to get changed, but I'm coming back and when I'm back I expect you to be ready to go"

>"Um ... sure."

Such Wow

So she goes away and the friend who invited me started teasing me and egging me to go. You know how it is between guys. I had had a fair bit to drink at this point, but and there was still alcohol to be consumed to ensure the greatst value for money was achieved. I wanted to talk about anything but what I was doing for the rest of the night. But he was very insistent.

After 40 minutes of, "so are you going?" or "What did you talk about" or " why don't you want to go" or " Come, don't be a fun hater" I got sick of it and said

"Its been 40 minutes. If she comes back, which I highly doubt, I'll go, but you need to shut up and let me enjoy my beer."

Of course, as soon as I say that, Amy creeps up behind me and goes, "alright lets go, Jackson." Ok, creeps up is a bit of a strong word. Seriously, was it unreasonable of me to assume that she wasn't coming back after 40 minutes? Who needs 40 minutes to get change. I don't even.

Change

Now one of my biggest pet peeves is people not doing what they say they're going to do. I give my friends a lot of grief for it, so I not wanting to seem like a hypocrite I went. There was a bus to get there, and guess who I was left alone with to go to the club with. We just talked some more. Not going to lie, the conversation was pretty interesting. That conversation I remembered.

When I got there, there was apparently an entry fee, even though there wasn't supposed to be. As soon as I saw that, I made my apologies and left. After all, all I said was that I was going to go. I didn't say I was going to stay. That 40 minute detour cost me the last train home, meaning I had to split a wonderously expensive cab ride home. Slightly anti-climatic I know.

At the end of the day, that ball was probably the most enjoyable ball I've been to. It was nice, relaxing and I met some good friends. There were some conversation that night, that were absolutely magical, that I don't expect on having again anytime soon.

Story telling is something different. I exaggerated a lot of what happen and combined a few stories together to make something readable. What happen afterwards and which bit I did and did not exaggerate is up to you. Because every story needs a little mystery.

An Epic Tale of Good Versus Evil

This week, I’d like to speak about what makes a person evil. This is going to be based on a Ted Talk that I recently watched, given by Professor Zimbardo and relating to the crimes against humanity committed by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib. Zimbardo is a psychologist who conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which he used university aged males to simulate a prison environment, giving one group the title of ‘prison wardens’ and hence the other group became the ‘prisoners’. Zimbardo observed that it didn't take long for the prison wardens, who were given power, to blindly follow orders from the experimenters and hence display acts of cruelty and injustice towards the helpless prisoners, who in turn displayed signs of mental breakdown within a short number of days. Overlooking the obvious and blinding ethical problems with this study, Zimbardo managed to show a different side to evil than what is generally given in movies, books and other media sources.

Many stories centre on a clear distinction between good and evil; take Harry Potter, where the distinction is made clear by which house one is sorted into, or the Lord of the Rings (yes I’m aware I’ve mentioned LotR in more than one post now), where, for the most part, being good or evil merely depends on what race you are. This overly simplistic view of two dichotomies causes problems when we translate these beliefs to our own reality. The prison wardens and prisoners in the Stanford Prison Experiment weren’t different in any way at the beginning of the experiment, however by the end, one group were committing sadistic acts on the other. So yes, it can be seen that good and evil seem to fall into group patterns. However, Zimbardo argues that the order should be reversed; one is not put into a group because one is evil, rather a group can become evil if the situation leads them to it. This hypothesis is validated in the event of the Abu Graib prison tortures, where previously upstanding American soldiers were told by authorities to obtain information from the prisoners as soon as possible. Blind obedience of these orders, stemming from values that are generally accepted and celebrated in our society such as respect for authority and ability to follow instruction, and a group mentality perpetuated by a misguided value of ‘doing the right thing’ and ‘serving one’s country’ resulted in horrific acts of physical and sexual violence and humiliation.

For me, this understanding of evil is terrifying. It is basically stating that, if given certain orders in certain situations, any human can commit evil acts. And from my understanding, following orders is something that is, if not innately human, definitely taught to us by school, family values and society as a whole. If this is the case, then anyone is capable of evil – and I think everyone has a few dark thoughts occasionally that can testify to the postulation that there is a bit of evil inside everyone. An interesting means of proof for this, I think, comes from the popularity of ‘shock jocks’ in the media – take Kyle Sandilands, for example, who is known for some very rude and derogatory comments and is generally publicly chastised for these comments, but whose listeners all followed him when his radio show moved stations. I think that the reason Sandilands is popular is because he merely voices all the negative thoughts that we sometimes have, and it’s comforting to know that someone else is also thinking them, but that someone is worse than you because he’s actually gone ahead and voiced these thoughts. So from ZImbardo’s theory, anyone can be evil if they’re in the right situation – which just means that those who haven’t committed any acts of evil have just been lucky enough to avoid such trying environments.

However, as Zimbardo points out (and I fervently cling to this inkling of hope for humanity), there are people who stand up and act as the ‘hero’, who are not slaves to blind obedience. And the only way that we can do that is if we’re aware of what is happening around us, and, more importantly, aware of what’s going on inside our own heads. If we KNOW that we’re in a situation that could possibly cause us to act cruelly towards others, then at least we may question our subsequent decisions. It is important that, while we may enjoy epic tales of battles between good and evil, we  keep in mind that one person is not born ‘good’ or ‘evil’. As Sirius Black wisely points out:  

Why the Victorian election was a farce...

While much of last weekend’s Victorian election was focused on the return of Labor after ousting a one-term Liberal government, not a lot was said about the results in the Legislative Council (upper house). In fact, I'm sure that most wouldn't have the slightest clue as to who was elected to the house of review, with the vast majority of coverage focused solely upon the Legislative Assembly (lower house).

Much could be speculated as to the root cause for this lack of interest – for one, the fact that voters were largely disengaged with this election (myself included, admittedly) right up until a couple of days beforehand. There is not much that can be done about this disengagement, given the increasing decentralisation of power away from the states (and towards the federal government), as well as the lack of motivational or inspirational party leaders. However, my main concern is how the general population’s disengagement teams up with the more serious issue at hand here – that is, the farcical nature of the upper-house election process.

The simple fact is that the current upper house ballot procedure doesn't work. Voters are given a ridiculously long piece of ballot paper, on which is listed senate candidates from the main political parties as well as candidates from a myriad of micro parties. These micro parties, listed here, often focus on capturing the vote of a highly specific segment of the population. For example, animal rights activists in the case of the Animal Justice Party, cyclists in the case of the Australian Cyclists Party, conspiracy theorists in the case of the No Smart Meter party (seriously, read their policies… they’re pretty out-there), or xenophobes in the case of the Rise Up Australia party. I'm not arguing that these parties don’t have a right to be heard – on the contrary, people should be able to vote along the lines of whoever they believe best represents their own interests. Where I take issue is when someone’s vote is transferred under a “preference deal” to another party at the discretion of the party they voted for.

In essence, the system of voting 1 above the line is intended to reduce the chance of informal voting due to a tedious voting process. However, putting such a system in place become tedious in and of itself once it gets to the counting of votes, and people’s votes are incorrectly attributed to parties due to the delegation of preferences.

The alternative to these dodgy preference-shifting deals is to number the boxes below the line in order of individual candidate preference (all boxes in the case of Federal elections, or 1-to-5 at least in the case of the Victorian election). This is such a daunting task that only a small percentage of voters ever do so – most don’t have the time/interest to investigate each candidate and sort out some sort of preferential ranking.

The end result of such a flawed system is the likes of which we saw in the 2013 election – the election of a Ricky Muir, a motoring (and Kangaroo faeces) enthusiast.

A similar result looks likely in the recent Victorian election, with the likely election of multiple Shooters & Fishers senators, as well as representatives from the Country Alliance, Sex Party, DLP and of course the major parties. For further details, see here.

While I am no expert in the design of elections, it is plain to see that the current system is flawed. By simply allowing for more than one preference to be allocated above the line, these back-room preference deals would be able to be rendered ineffective. This would also allow for voters to who usually vote below the line to vote based on policy, rather than on random name selection amongst the candidate lists of parties. Surely, any system would be better than the current one, which is just inherently bad for democracy.

In many ways, this problem is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the more the upper house becomes less representative of the broader population, the more voters become disengaged from the political process. Consequently, the more disengaged voters become, the more likely it is that these radical parties gain disproportionate representation in our democratic structures. By facilitating such a system, it allows the mandate of the majority to be used in order to make decisions in the interests of the minority. This process simply can’t be allowed to continue unquestioned. 

#J.Nic#

Labour Migration and Rejection from Jobs

So currently my life has involved a lot of rejection; that is job rejection. Going on various job interviews for internships and graduate jobs only to hear back a week later that it I did not get the job. I don’t have a lot of words to describe this feeling of rejection other than it sucks, it makes you question yourself, your skills, your abilities, your future, your previous decisions, pretty much everything. So how to take this rejection, well my dad uses the word resilience’s, definition; the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness, an individual's ability to properly adapt to stress and adversity.

But it would be really easy to blame someone else….

Like every good arts student I have over my university life looked at labour migration, I viewed it as an important part of my history; my grandparents like many others in this country were not born here and migrated from elsewhere. What I didn't really consider was that it would impact my future, or impact it in a negative way, I was going to travel, obviously, maybe even live in another country for a while but this was a positive of open borders, and a distant future. Not something that would have a practical impact on things in my life, like my ability to get a job.

The immigration policies of a country represent more than just how many lives the country can support, they are a reflection on how generations have understood and represented ethnicity and national identity. Expressed in the selection or exclusion of certain groups of migrants throughout history. National borders have acted as filter, separating out the unwanted and wanted flow of migrants. So how would I construct Australia’s migration policies today, in 2014 when I’m thinking about my future and my job prospects? I have always believed that we should have more open borders, that Australia has a duty to accept refugees, to help people searching and wanting a better life, those people were my grandparents 60 years ago. We are so lucky in this country, we should accept other people to come and experience this amazing country (not to go all nationalistic on everyone). I believed that those people who equated their ability to getting a job or losing a job to foreign workers were naïve, and downright wrong. But I am no longer just a arts student, I am also a economics student, I get to draw nifty graphs in international economics on how an influx of labour from a country whose workers’ wages are lower, in turn lowers the wages in their destination country. Nifty equations where it’s quite reasonable for countries that have an abundance of cheap labor to manufacture goods and those countries that don’t shouldn't. It’s an easy equation it means those industries should not exist in a country such as Australia, or at least not to the extent that they do, this has meant a lot of people lose their jobs, true, just look at the car industry. It is the fun world of outsourcing; fun fact 60% of jobs in the USA (I’m not sure about Australia) are non-tradable that means they need to be provided locally, which means that 40% of jobs are tradable, they can be provided at long distances, due to the ease communications; the internet. Some of these jobs everyone knows, call centers are prime examples, but they are plenty more emerging in the future.

This prompts a little personal reflection; is the University degree I studied for trade-able? Are my skills better suited to be provided in another country? We now live in a world of economic transformation spear headed by the buzz word, globalisation, with “border free economic spaces”, driving people’s desire to migrate, while at the same time there is an increasing trend to make people illegal through a process of re-bordering. Governments have essentially transformed migration into a complex web of legality regulating migration at an all-time high, including Australia. Would I feel more secure if Australia restricted its migration? To know that the jobs I am applying for will not be overseas in 5 years time available to people who are far cheaper than me? It is ridiculously tempting to fall into this line of thought, this suspicion of the foreigner, the other person, in the other country stealing my job. However despite my lack of any internship or graduate job currently I still do not believe it is an acceptable line of thought. Resilience in my case is not just about applying to another job despite the rejection; it’s more about not falling into the temptation of blaming others. I could go into a lot of detail on Australia’s immigration policy from 1901 to present but I've been informed to not give the readers one of my arts essays. So in short I believe that we should accept people from other countries, it gives us a richer society. We have the ability to support more people and we should.  That in the end those others are just people, there should not be an us and them mentality as they deserve the same opportunities as I do, even if those opportunities are in Australia.  Also despite the gloom and doom of economics in the end all the equations and graphs conclude that trade between two countries, even in labour, is always good, that sure some people lose, but on the whole everyone wins. 

-MRouge-

Reading

Today I want to write not about a topical issue or opinion, but something that I am nevertheless passionate about. A lot of the time, I think I can take reading for granted. It’s something that you can do whenever you want, wherever you want, without needing anyone else to participate or validate you. To pick up a book, and to get lost in it is completely your own choice, and I think it is such a unique way of exploring your own emotions and reactions to situations that may not present themselves in real life. To be able to become connected to characters that someone else has made up, in a way that is different to how anyone else is connected to them, is something really unique. To interpret a story, to imagine a place, to fall in love with a character happens to every person who reads in a different way. You aren’t told how to love them, or how to picture something. It’s true, reading isn’t easy – it’s not something that you can do to necessarily relax your brain after a long, busy day, because reading requires emotion from you, and thought. Reading isn’t like watching a TV show, where you are told how everyone looks, so you can just sit back and turn your mind off. When you read, you have to imagine.

For me, reading is an escape. Using a book to forget any problems I have in real life is a habit I got used to at a young age, and it hasn’t ceased. There is something comforting about being able to lose yourself in another world, the problems, passion and pain of another person. I think it always helps to reflect on this in order to get to know yourself a little bit better, because the characters that affect you the most are the ones that are most telling of your personality, I think. Not in that they are similar to you, but your reactions to their actions are what define them, and you. So I’d like to quickly list a few characters from some of my favourite books that have had a lasting impression on me:

Eowyn (The Lord of the Rings) – Okay, the first one has to be a kick ass girl in a tale dominated by men. The Lord of the Rings has always been my favourite, but I actually remember when I read about Eowyn’s deeds in killing the Witch King, and I just remember my heart soaring. I don’t think I realised that what I was missing from the Lord of the Rings so desperately was a character I could actually relate to – I was an impressionable young teenager when I became obsessed with the story, but needed someone to look up to. And while I can’t claim to have killed any Nazgul, I think Eowyn certainly taught me that girls can be cool and important in their own right, which is a lesson that I like to think has stuck with me until now.

Max Remy (Max Remy, Superspy) – I have always been a huge and dorky fan of all spy-related novels, but I think Max Remy is my favourite heroine. She is a no fuss, smart and funny girl who goes around solving mysteries with her best friend Linden – what on earth is not to like? She was someone I so desperately wanted to be, and someone who made me laugh when I was having a bad day.

Heathcliff (Wuthering Heights) – This has got to be my favourite classic, but for a long time I had no idea why, because I really didn’t like the main character, Cathy. But the more I thought about it, the more I realised that Heathcliff is who drew me in. He’s an awful person, really, and someone so grumpy and disillusioned he can’t have been easy to be around. But to me, he’s a perfectly flawed character. He isn’t a lovely person – in fact, he quite hates most people himself. But his one redeeming quality was that he loved Cathy with his whole entire heart for all his life, and with that in mind, his actions were justified in my eyes. I felt his pain and sorrow so deeply, but the reason why is still a bit of a mystery to me.

So there are three of my favourites, but obviously the list could go on. My point is, I think it’s important to reflect and understand why certain characters had an impression on you!

Why I Don't Like Nice People

A while back there was an open letter published to Tumblr regarding the toxicity the site has become. It a community which once prided itself on being progressive and open, the site had fallen far from its ideals. When asked which was worst, Tumblr or the opening hostile 4Chan, this particular user argued that 4Chan was more welcoming.

Today, society advocates transparency, to be welcoming and opening. It also advocates that people should be nice, trustworthy and hard working members of society. In our generation we strive to be successful, to be viewed as progressive all the while keeping our friends close. 

Friends, come in all shapes and sizes. For me, (and I emphasis for me) friends are not necessarily the most trustworthy and nicest people I know. Its not to say I don't trust my friends, but its not the pre requisite. Friends should be interesting, engaging, challenging and loyal. They don't need to agree, don't need to agreeable and certainly don't need to be nice to me.

I find myself suspicious of the nicest people, The really open people, the ones who portrays that they are nice and wants to be seen as nice people. Of course everyone wants to be seen as nice and be accepted but apparently, I'm more likely to be friends with people who aren't.

Don't look at me like that, I just find them hard to understand, that there are people who are hiding nothing.

People who claims that they themselves are horrible people, understand their own flaws and knows why they're not 'poster grade' people. They are more likely to understand the flaws in others and understand that people aren't perfect. At least I know they're not trying to hide all their flaws. They're comfortable enough to say, I'm not perfect and you're going to have to deal with it.

In many ways, I don't think 'nice people' are so accepting of such flaws.

Tumblr, despite everything it set itself to be, devolved into everything but. The community of Tumblr is not unlike society itself. We expect so much from the everyday people in the street. Similar to what tumblr expects from its members, society expects everyone to be nice, full of hope, inspiring and all those other great things we learn about in primary and high school. 4Chan at the very least, is exactly what it claims itself to be. Whilst its not the most positive community on the internet, it doesn't claim to be. It doesn't set up unfair expectations on its members to follow. This self serving community, has no illusions of perfection. They don't set out to be perfect and are in doing so, can be considered more accepting.

A lot of us don't have a lot of time for anyone but ourselves. When we're not studying, we're at work. When we're not at work, we're browsing Facebook and the internet, looking for whats wrong with our friends and society. And if its not a birthday, a group dinner or something like that, we're probably not going to go out. It is so easy, to find flaws, when we've been taught to find them from day one.

Its easy to expect perfection. Harder still to accept it when its not there.

~TastyJacks~

Recognise

Ok, so I really struggled this week to come up with a topic, so if this post seems a little convoluted, you can probably blame it on my exam-brain. In any case, it is incredibly tempting to focus entirely on topical, news-item discussions – especially given the current speed at which news items have been surfacing, then fading to irrelevance, before again re-surfacing etc. As such, I think it is often important to take a look more broadly at issues which tend to simmer under the surface and rarely gain much media traction, despite their objective importance. This is why today I’ve decided to concentrate primarily on the fight for constitutional recognition of Australia’s indigenous peoples.

Needless to say, Australia has had a long and turbulent history with regards to the recognition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in all respects. Prime examples include the failure to recognise indigenous voting rights up until the 1967 referendum and the failure to recognise native title rights until 1992 through the Mabo case. These policies of recognition finally made way to right the vast majority of the ship in the direction of reconciliation and broader recognition of indigenous Australia.  

In more recent times, you could single out our parliament’s failure to officially acknowledge and issue an apology for the Stolen Generations until as late as 2008. In contrast to the previous examples, this recognition was purely a no-strings-attached apology, designed as a purely symbolic admission of guilt for the mistakes of past government policy. I must further emphasise the point here that this recognition did not encompass the positive advancements in policy attained by earlier policies, but merely sought to apologise for the negative policy choices of past governments.

As this issue rose to contention in the mid-2000s, and prior to the apology being made by the newly elected government in 2008, then PM John Howard set out his reasons for not issuing an apology as:

1. Not wanting current generations to take responsibility of the actions of previous generations
2. Debate over the consistency of children removal and policy application
3. The apology is all symbolism and no substance, with it having little practical implications for the concerning gap between indigenous Australia and the rest of Australia.

Former PM John Howard citing his reasons for opposing The Apology

Say what you will about Howard and his policies, he definitely displayed courage of conviction in his positioning and reasoning. In spite of this, I would definitely take issue with the first two reasons he gives, particularly the first reason. I believe the “principle” of not showing accountability for past actions by previous generations is a backwards policy designed purely to shelve blame and ignore social responsibilities. Such a policy forgets the fact that the government is not just a collection of individuals governing, but a projection of Australia’s populous. Absolving the Australian Government of responsibility for the Stolen Generations would be akin to absolving the German Government of responsibility for the Holocaust, or the American Government for the Atomic Bombings etc. Maintaining sufficient accountability is a core tenet of a right and just system of government.

Despite this, I believe Howard’s third point holds a degree of validity. In secondary college, our school motto was Facta non Verba, which translates to Deeds not Words. Howard was contending that, without proper supportive action aimed at resolving major issues within indigenous communities, the issuance of an apology would be simply lip service and would hold little validity. Howard was committed in this respect, instituting “The Intervention” into the Northern Territory’s indigenous communities; a policy which has both been widely praised and widely condemned. In any case, as with any major shift in policy position, it illustrates the importance of supporting a position with strong and meaningful action, rather than just token gestures and piecemeal offerings.

Bringing this back to the constitutional recognition at hand, there have been many stalls in the process of pushing for a referendum to decide on indigenous recognition within the constitution. Interestingly (and somewhat surprisingly), the first push towards this recognition came from Howard himself in 1999, who suggested the implementation of a preamble at the start of the constitution recognising Australia’s first peoples. However, progress has stalled recently, with some likening the movement to being just a small “post-it note on the fridge” of the wider parliamentary agenda, indicating the lack of real concern or opinion either way over this issue.

Indeed, with the Abbott government recently reneging on their promise to take a referendum on recognition to the next election, it still remains to be seen if Australians will collectively ever care enough to push for this referendum, given the largely symbolic nature of it. While it is my opinion that it is a necessary step forward for reconciliation and community re-engagement with Australia’s first peoples, many still fail to recognise the importance of recognition, and much like in previous decades, deny accountability for the actions of others. This has to change in order for true progress to be made in Australian society.

For more information about the campaign for constitutional recognition, see www.recognise.org.au

#J.Nic# 

The Aid Dilemma

“Aid would be a great thing if it worked” William Easterly

It has taken a long time for me to get to this point of view and it’s is an unpopular one, but I feel that we should not continue to give aid in its current form. I firmly believe that aid is fundamentally flawed and that giving aid in its current form or simply increasing aid to the poorest nations is not the solution to economic development. Other credible alternatives should be looked at and engaged with. It’s a controversial and unpopular opinion I know, and I didn’t really form this opinion or look into aid much until I saw William Easterly’s debate on it. I would really recommend watching as he is able to summaries everything that I want to say below but in a far better way than I ever could.

First off the idea of aid is that in the earliest stages of development there is a shortage of capital.  There is a market failure, as both domestic and global markets do not wish to finance what is perceived to be “risky” investment in the poorest nations. Aid’s job is therefore to step in and finance these “risky projects” and foster economic development by “bridging the gap between the desired levels of investment and actual domestic savings”. However evidence suggests that “the bulk of aid tends to augment consumption rather than close the financing gap of productive investment”. (Abeaz 2005, p440). There is now increasing academic evidence that the current system of aid has not only failed to promote economic growth and poverty reduction, but can actually do more harm than good, with this failure most clearly seen in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

You could argue as Jeffery Sach’s does that we simply do not give enough, and that the problem lies in the amount of aid we give. And while I believe that he is right in some respects, I don’t think we give enough, Australia’s aid (Government’s budget) in 2012/13 was 40c in every $100 (I think this this has changed with the new budget and its sits around 20c now?) The USA gives 20c in every $100 of their budget. So yes, there is clearly more room for Australia’s on a government and individual level to give more. But I don’t think simply giving more money is the answer. As William Easterly says $600 billion in aid has been given to Africa over 45 years and standards of living and incomes have not risen, in some cases they have even gone backwards. I the idea that simply throwing more money at the situation does not sit well with me.  

The idea of aid is to help the poorest nations, and distribute it on a needs based allocation. However much of the research done on the distribution of aid finds “that the flow of foreign aid seems to have little apparent relationship to human needs in developing countries”(Akram, 2003, p1356).  Essentially the poorest nations aren’t even receiving the most amount of aid. In reality there are other factors that contribute to the way aid is given, that have less to do with a needs or poverty reduction, and more to do with the broader foreign policy goals of countries.

There are many problems associated with the current aid regime including; the asymmetrical relationship between countries, the huge fragmentation and proliferation of aid agencies, lack of coordination and the accountability of aid. You can just take a step back and think about if you hear about anyone losing their job when an aid project fails? When millions of dollars in aid fails who is held accountable? Most common answer is no one. There is no sense of responsibility for the outcomes of aid.  There is a lack of coordination, coherence and focus in aid. Looking at Africa “in a typical country there are 30-40 donors, in addition 75-125 foreign Non-Government Organisations that fund a thousand or so distinct projects, involving 800-1000 foreign experts” (Van de Walle 1999, p339). How could you possibly expect anything ever to get done?  As Abeaz (2005, p439) states “The ultimate stakeholders of the aid relationship may be poor people, but they rarely have an effective voice in the design or in the evaluation of aid-funded programs”.

A lot of people argue that aid is not the problem it is the corruption within these countries. There is now widespread support for ending practices of giving aid to governments with bad records of corruption, human rights abuses and incompetency that would render aid ineffective; in essence making sure aid is given in an informed manner. But how do you avoid punishing the poor in these countries when their governments perform badly? Dambisa Moyo in her book Dead Aid argues that in reality very little of the aid trickles down to those in abject poverty “Too many African countries have already hit rock bottom – ungoverned, poverty-stricken, and lagging further and further behind the rest of the world each day; there is nowhere further down to go”.  And therefore if you were to cut aid off it would have a very minimal effect on those in poverty and harm those most in power. This is still a hard pill to swallow and it will likely never be tested out. There is also emerging evidence that aid actually fosters corruption, the saying goes aid “makes good governments bad and bad governments worse”. Inhibiting democracy and entrenching the ruling elite. Also the standard diagnosis is that all countries within Africa are corrupt, with highly visible examples of terrible governments and widespread war and violence; however this is not the case for all and does not explain the disparity of living standards in equivalent levels of corruption South America or parts of Asia. I’m not arguing that governance has no impact but that its impact is used inappropriately as a single explanation, and a justification to continue to give aid in its current form.  

The issues that face the poorest nations, in particular Sub-Saharan Africa are multifaceted and there is no silver bullet. There is very little incentive to change the way aid is given. Because there is such little incentive, many ideas and alternatives to aid are dismissed and not researched fully. What is the point of all this? Essentially what I am trying to say is that people should stop giving aid, but that this is really hard to do and seems callous and simply horrific in a lot of cases, so instead I’m saying think about the money you are giving. Give to those aid agencies that specifically involve local communities in aid projects from the beginning and that embed projects in local institutions, instead of going around governments, fostering accountability within the community. Even though its hard to do and it’s easy to just give money; look up aid agencies, see how transparent they are when it comes to allocating funds and whether or not they acknowledge local views, what locals think is needed, not what foreigners think is needed.

.  -Mrouge-

Mental Health

When the world gets older

And the nights grow colder

Dreams get darker 

When it all seems naught

And you want to stop

Just for it to get faster

1 in 16 are currently experiencing depression. One in 6 experience are currently anxiety and one in four have a mental health condition. Suicide, is the biggest killer of young Australians, more than car accidents.

These are very easy to find statistics; These are the big picture;  the numbers without the story, the illness without the words to describe them.

Everyone understands, that mental health issues whilst horrible, is not something that people should be ashamed of. Then why are we so afraid to talk about the issue.



As friends, we are taught to always be there for that mate that isn't 100%. When someone close to us is suffering, a common response is to simply be there if we're needed.

Sometimes, its not easy to ask for help from a mate. On this blog last week, Andrea wrote about Emma Watson's speech at the launch of the heforshe campaign. During the speech, Watson spoke about gender inequality using an example about how men are less likely to ask for help if needed, which is a negative product of gender inequality. Many, (particularly men) don't want to burden their friends with their own pains and problems and try to cover it up as much as possible. They don't want to show weakness, and just want to work through it themselves.

For these people, just being there when needed, is not enough. Friendships should go one step further. We should be striving to do something more. More than just simply being there if we're required.

Why should it be the person suffering to have to make the first move?

Josh, wrote a couple weeks ago, the importance of getting all the information before forming an opinion. He went further to emphasis the reliability of any information we use to form our opinions. In a lot of ways, you can never have all the information and you certainly cannot always get first hand, perfection information every time. The issue of mental health is one of them. No one is going to understand another person's mind on an issue so complex. Often we are faced with two options. One, to accept that we're not going to know everything about an issue, yet still give take the most suitable course of action. To accept our "opinionated" bias, yet have the confidence that what we know, whilst perhaps not the full picture, is enough to at least take some sort of action.

Source

The second is to simply give up. To accept we're not going to know everything and never form (and voice) our opinion. Its easier, safer and you are going to end up offending less people. For me though, its not enough for friends and family. If I was placed in that situation, I need to believe that I will always take the first. To accept the risk of offending for the chance that I can help. To suspect that a friend is not okay in terms of mental health and then deciding that its too much of a hard topic to talk about would be downright negligent.

With the death of Robbie Williams earlier this year, the issue of mental health has never been more at the forefront of people's minds. Lets take it as a chance to have that conversation with friends and family to ensure that are where they want to be. Society currently expects those suffering to ask for help when needed. This needs to change. We need to actively help them, rather than passively offering it.

~TastyJacks~

N.B. A small reason for writing this is Friday and not be seen as a hypocrite. 

Blog writing is a daunting affair.

I’m sitting here, facing a blank document on my computer screen the night before we theoretically have to post, in true Andrea fashion. What on earth could I possibly have to say that interests people? What would compel anyone to read the vomit of my thoughts? A few topics have crossed my mind – issues that I’ve been considering, and may or may not have had the opportunity to discuss with others in order to develop my ideas. Recently, there have been a variety of occurrences in the media that have sparked my interest, and there are a few events that I think can be tied together with some potentially tenuous threads. Maybe I haven’t thought this through enough in order for it to properly constitute a blog post. But I’m going to try.

First event: the speech of Emma Watson. Yes, I know what you’re thinking – this is old! This has been spoken about to death! Okay, I hear you, so I’ll try to keep it brief. I really enjoyed her discussion of the definition of feminism, and her demonstration of how fluid it is. It’s a scary word, and with it come images of bra burning and man hating. Emma’s (yes, we’re on first name basis) main argument was that feminism is a man’s issue too, and that no one should be excluded from a discussion that has effect on everyone’s lives. Without going into the potential criticisms that can be raised with her speech, I just want to highlight that one point: gender equality is everyone’s problem. Now let’s move on.

Event number two: The marriage of Amal Alumuddin and George Clooney. Again, yes, I know that this discussion can probably be predicted. Comparative to George Clooney, Amal (yep, first name basis again) was not a household name. Imagine if you were to be thrust into the spotlight, say, ten years from now, after you have achieved a certain level in your career and academia. Imagine that the paparazzi are following you, and media articles begin to surface about you. Imagine that you have put over a decade of hard work, study, dedication and sacrifice into your career. Then imagine that the only good things people can seem to find to say about you, the only things they seem interested in, is what dress you wore on Tuesday and how sleek your hair looked after being caught in a windstorm (okay that last example didn’t actually happen, but we’re IMAGINING things, here). For someone like Amal, the way she looks (and yes, I’m not denying that she’s beautiful or even that I totally love her style) is something that is just coincidental to her incredible intelligence and success. For me, it makes sense that someone is celebrated not for something she can’t really control (i.e. her beauty), but for all the years of hard work she consciously dedicated to becoming an internationally acclaimed barrister and businesswoman. You’re probably sitting there nodding and agreeing with everything I’m saying (it happens all the time), but maybe you’re wondering how I’m going to tie this in. My point here is: imagine it was you. If it were me, I’d be pretty pissed off that all my years of study went relatively under the radar. And I wouldn’t want my (far off in the distance) children to see me represented like that at all. Media misrepresentation is everyone’s problem.

Event number three: phew! And here I was, thinking that I had nothing to write about. It’s funny how, when given the opportunity, it’s so easy to blab on about all your thoughts. Blog writing seems to be quite therapeutic! But I digress – I promise I’ll try to come to a concluding argument with little blabbing from now on. Event number three is the murder of Mayang Prasetyo by her crazy chef boyfriend, who tried to cook her after dismembering her body. This is obviously a shameful, disgusting and horrific display of violence, and I honestly can’t help but shudder whenever I think of it. Despite this, however, some newspapers have chosen to focus on the decidedly unrelated fact that the girl who was MURDERED used to be a man. Some newspapers have made this the focus of the story, one even calling her a “She Man” on the headline – as if that was the reason she was killed. It is an appalling injustice to Mayang and her family, and this headline, in its’ ‘shock value’, draws away from the basic fact that Mayang was murdered. The horrific event of her death was almost overshadowed by issues of gender; whether she was a woman, or a man, or both, or neither. Everyone seems to be so caught up in definitions of gender, and who should do what when, that we’re missing some really vital points.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that a) the media can royally screw some things up, and b) gender equality is everybody’s problem. Discrimination based on gender can happen to anybody at any time, and it’s high time, in my opinion, that this stopped. If we can just look past these somewhat gender tainted goggles that we all seem to be wearing, maybe we can be, just as Emma Watson stipulated, ‘free’. 

Opinions

So when Tastyjacks introduced me in this post, he spent a while claiming that I have a relatively neutral stance on most issues, and rarely take opinions. Back in first year, I was asked whether or not it was ever appropriate to kill a nun; my immediate response went something along the lines of “well, it depends if she was Hitler or not”. Clearly, since this point, I have been known largely as a fence-sitter in most matters.

I have never really explained why I tend to do this. For me, it comes down to two main reasons. Firstly, I may not have adopted a position because I have no particular interest in the issue; this isn't to say that the issue is not nonetheless important – it’s just that I may not have (as yet) deemed the topic to be of too much relevance to me.

The second (and main) reason that I choose not to adopt a position is because of ignorance. Despite its negative connotations, ignorance is, at its heart, simply unawareness (or unwillingness to become aware) of the many facets of an issue. Basically, the upshot is that I feel uncomfortable expressing an opinion on a subject when I know too little about the subject matter.

Contrary to the opinion of many, it is impossible for one to be across everything in enough depth to lend validity to particular points of view. And even then, these points of view may still remain divisive and varied across a spectrum (counter-intuitively, a very good thing). Where I really take issue, is with people forming opinions with little to no “real” knowledge of a subject area (that is, knowledge that is untainted or as unbiased as humanly possible).

One of the core tenets of academia is the principle of reflexivity; that is, a process of recognising and identifying your own inherent biases, and hence being mindful of the way in which these may (usually unconsciously) shape your values and assumptions (and as such, your opinion).

Herein lies the problem. Human beings may spend their lives studying a particular area, and still have neither the mental capacity nor time to become deeply familiar with a minuscule segment (within a larger segment, within a broader area etc. etc.) of a topic. As such, we naturally rely on others’ summations and representations of the facts.

Herald Sun, 24th September, 2014

Facts will always be tainted or misconstrued when heard second hand; this is a fact of life. What really worries me is when people pay complete disregard or fail to acknowledge their own reflexivity (whether unintentionally, or intentionally *cough* Rupert Murdoch *cough*). Examples abound, but the most topical one (and I'm sure you’re already thinking about it) concerns the attempted murder/police station shooting in Endeavour Hills. The moment this man placed that ISIS flag in his pocket, this issue turned from a singular pg.3 newspaper article, into a Herald Sun 10 page-long bonanza (laced with fear-mongering, speculation, and sensationalism). Something as simple as an apparent belief in an ideology turned the perception of this man from a criminal to a terrorist. I am not questioning the gravity of the incident – two attempted murders and a shooting is still a big news event regardless – but the mere presence of a weakly-constructed association with ISIS blows this serious-but-routine crime into a full scale act of terrorism.

This tainting of information gives rise to ignorance. And ignorance gives rise to ill-informed, dangerous opinions. Once these opinions gain a decent foothold, and get turned into actions, we should all indeed be very alarmed.

#J.Nic#

What is Art?

I love interacting with art both contemporary and traditional art. However contemporary art often receives a bad reputation for being something that “anyone can do”.  I was talking with one of my friends who is actually a fine arts student (and in my opinion does some fantastic work). We were talking about what it takes to be an artist and what some of the students are working on currently. What they are working on is often highly conceptual, and the main complaint is that the public often does not enjoy or understand their work and why it is considered art. Most people enjoy traditional art because they can easily see the technical skill involved in its creation. There is often a clear message and story involved. It is seen to be worth a lot because of the amount of labor hours put into the work, expressed in the precise and detailed painting and drawing skills. A talent that few people are seen to possess.

Contemporary art on the other hand is often criticised as something that “anyone can do” with little skill or talent. However I believe that there is a lot of talent and skill that goes into creating a contemporary piece, but that it is manifested in different ways and is harder to discern. Saying that it is hard to justify why a plain mirror in the gallery in London, is artwork and worth a couple of thousand dollars despite the fact it looks exactly like a mirror you could have bought from IKEA for $10. And this is where the intention behind art comes into play. Art is all about intention. Sure “anyone can do it” but they haven’t, and that’s the point. As a Artists you have to convince other people of your artworks worth, you have to have them engage with the artwork for it to be of any value.  You aren’t just putting up a mirror, you have to explain what’s the idea of putting up a mirror in an art gallery. When someone else questioned “Why don’t you just write a book” if art is meant to have all these meanings and ideas behind it. Well that’s a different medium. The point of art is that it is visual manifestation of ideas. It is something physical that all can see, and take from it what they want.

Some of my favourite artworks are by contemporary artists such as Ron Mueck and Patricia Picinini. I think their work easily shows the skill and technical ability that can go into contemporary artworks. Ron Mueck is an Australian Hyperrealist sculptor and I would recommend seeing him if you ever get the chance. 

Ron Mueck, Big Baby II (1997), polyester resin, fiberglass, silicone, synthetic hair. 

These are huge sculptures and even those in my family who have little interest in art of any kind can stand back and appreciate the work. There is an overwhelming sense of scale and grandness to Mueck’s work which contrasts with the brilliant small details in the work.

Ron Mueck, Mask II (2001-2), mixed media.

The other Artist Patricia Piccinini (Another fantastic Australian artist in my opinion) looks at modern issues and concepts that are facing our world. She deals with ideas such as genetically modified organisms, the use of science to enhance nature, and our own ethical responsibilities. She uses all types of media to portray her ideas but I particularly like her sculptures.  

Patricia Piccinini, The Long Awaited (detail) 2008 Silicon, fibreglass, human hair, Plywood, leather, clothing 152 x 80 x 92cm 

Taking it to more extreme forms of Contemporary Art. I was confronted with the fact that even I have limitations to what I think is artistic expression. Casey Jenkin is an Australian Feminist Performance Artist. And when I saw/read about her latest artwork I was turned off and did not like it at all. I felt that it was purely done for shock value. Her artwork is vaginal knitting (no pictures this time). When asked about it Jenkin’s aim was to address taboos surrounding women’s bodies and female genitalia by attaching it to a normal traditional activity; such as knitting. While in theory I agree with what she is trying to do I think her artwork fundamentally fails to engage with its audience and turns people off. And that at the end of the day is what I think makes art valuable and what defines something as art and not something you walk by without a second glance. Its ability to engage with its audience. 

-Mrouge-

The Writers

So a while back I asked Andrea to write a post for me and my friends got offended that they weren't ask. Ok, they weren't offended but you know.

The idea here is to take turns to write one post a week and if we feel the urge, to post more, but hopefully at least one a week.

There isn't a plan on what we'll write. There's no particular topic of posts and conversation that we're all going to write about. I guess if there had to be a plan it would be to write what we want and generate some dialogue. I'm not going to lie, I have no idea how this is going to turn out. Hopefully it'll be fun, serious and a little bit distracting for everyone, readers and writers alike.

Each of the writers are vastly different. We have vastly different personalities, different levels of enthusiasms, different opinions and different styles of writing. But its not like, I chose these three, just randomly. They've all been reading my blog, telling me when they don't agree and when they do. They've all been there to lend advice, an ear or an opinion for me when its been required.

Josh: 

Differences: Not even from Melbourne, calls dinner tea

Became friends like normal people would

I've known Josh the longest. We have had the most conventional of friendship. We've been to all the parties, all the birthdays, all the day trips, the classes and been through stupid drama together. In the whole time I've known him, Josh is the neutral one of any group (or circle); the one listening to all the opinions before gently extracting an opinion out of it. He has tempered some of my more unconventional opinions more than once. Charimatic and disgustingly popular, Josh with all his 'diplomatic' skills and his pacifist stance on the world, makes him the most useful person to think your thought process through with. If anyone makes Josh take a stance on a topic, then you're doing well very (very) well

Andrea:

Differences: doesn't follow world politics (extensively)

Became friends via snap chat (because we're cool kids, My snapchat score would be about half of what it would be if it wasn't for Andrea.)

Andrea and I were placed in the same group for one of our engineering assignments. Over the past few years, Andrea has been the one most likely to challenge my opinions on stuff. Its easy to make friends with people who agrees with you, but so much harder to make friends with someone who is willing to post a challenge.  Without a doubt, Andrea and I have the most polarising opinion. I don't know if its fair to say, but Andrea is more likely than me to adopt the more popular and conventional opinion. But unlike most, Andrea can justify the 'popular' opinion (her opinion) without using the wonderfully useful argument ending line of  "everyone else agrees with me."

Steph:

Differences: doesn't go to Melbourne University

Became friends from that one night

If Josh and I have a conventional friendship, then Steph and I have the opposite. We skipped that stage where you make small talk for months and months and just became friends. Steph and I relish the chance to be proven right and go against popular opinion. In many ways, we're the cynical representing all the dark opinions that normal people would not normally voice out loud. For the most part, we agree on a lot of things and leave a lot of things unsaid, because  lets be honest, small talk isn't the most enjoyable thing in the world. For the most part, we have a good grasp on each other's opinion on topical conversation so we don't argue a lot. We're judgmental of everyone and everything which inevitably means that we're the harshest critic of ourselves. Because we're both stubborn people, too often we just agree to disagree.

At the end of the day, we're not afraid to disagree. Recently former US. President Clinton said, "We are less racist, sexist, and homophobic than we've ever been, but we do have one continuing problem:we don't want to be around anyone who disagrees with us. More than ever before."

Lets see how Sweet Sour Disposition will turn out.

~TastyJacks~