The Hypocrisy of Australians

Over the last week Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, or colloquially known as the Boston Bomber, pleaded guilty and was subsequently sentenced to death. This comes a few weeks after two Australians, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, were amongst eight drug smugglers to be executed in Indonesia despite unprecedented pressure from the Australian government and widespread international condemnation. The contrast in the amount of coverage by the media coupled with the vast difference in reactions by the general public shows a darker side of human nature.

Tasrnaev’s lawyer asked for Tsarnaev to be spared death and be given a life sentence instead. Tsarnaev, 21 and recovering after a period in mental health care, will be the youngest in America’s death row. His age is similar to those of Sukumaran’s (25) and Chan’s (22) when they were sentenced.  All three were either migrants or from migrant family. All three were recreational drug users and sellers.

More similarities can be found, some trivial, others not so much. However, the reaction by the public and the media could not be more stark.

In the weeks and months prior to Chan and Sukumaran’s execution, the Australian public voiced their opinion strongly against the death penalty. Thousands of tweets, hundreds of Faceboook posts and dozens of vigils were echoed (and compounded) by the media which covered the drama surround the nightmare incessantly. The Australians public interest in the case spiked massively in the weeks leading up to the execution, more so than during the sentencing; in fact four times as much. In the time between, despite all the trials and all appeals, Australian’s interest in the case was negligible.

Whilst disappointing, it is perhaps not unexpected. Until something is right in our face or confronting, we simply don’t care. Without urgency, we, as Australian, don’t care about the death penalty. Until two of our own, we did nothing about capital punishment. It took two men, only weeks away from being executed for us to care about something beyond our own Facebook wall.

Not a month later, Tsarnaev was sentenced to death. In a state which hasn't had an execution since 1947, (virtually) nobody batted an eye. The latest sentencing barely registers a blip in Australian interest. Below, is a graph of the search term "Boston Bombing" The massive spike at the time, corresponds to the time of the actual bombing. 

How did we decide that Tsarnaev’s doesn't warrant our time, whilst the execution of Chan and Sukumaran does?

A possible reason that because the sentence was from an American court it makes them immune from Australian criticism. Or perhaps, because the criminal is not Australian means that Australian simply doesn't care?

Regardless of the reason, Australians takes the moral high ground when it concerns and suits us. If its not relevant to us, we ignore it and move on. To me, it’s a hypocritical stance to take. 

~TastyJacks~

If the Government is going to take our data they may as well vaccinate our kids

Dear Readers,

I have no idea what to write about, like everyone else at this time of year I am currently very busy, I’m not sure exactly what I’m doing, but I’m somehow very busy. So then the question arises should I be writing something light-hearted and appropriate of the public holiday’s? Or should I delve into a topical issue?  Seeing as I don’t have anything remotely interesting to talk about in my own personal life; except of course a certain family member getting a gf, I’m going to talk about the anti-vaccination debate.

So let me start by stating my stance very clearly on vaccinations. THEY ARE A GOOD THING. All the credible scientific evidence supports them as well as almost every single religion (well the main ones anyway), not going to find that a lot are you? Vaccinations are an important part in ensuring that our communities remain healthy. But despite all this there still seems to be some “debate” around them.

Now there are two sides of this story that I feel should be explained and looked at separately.

The first is the view from the developing world; here there may actually be a case to justify people’s resistance or antagonism towards vaccinations. Not because of anything to do with the vaccinations themselves being bad but because of the socio-political environment. If you are someone who is illiterate, has very little formal education and are part of a minority community in a country that has a record of treating minority communities badly. You probably have a valid reason to be distrustful of what is often either foreigners or the government coming into your community and giving your child something that on the surface, a needle in the arm, is causing them harm. This is particularly so if you live in a country, where the government in the past has performed human rights abuses such as sterilization of minority communities (say in Peru, where a sterilization program under the administration of  President Alberto Fujimori has been accused of genocide and crimes against humanity, targeted at indigenous people under the guise of a "public health plan) . I believe in this case you have a valid concern and more work should be done in these communities to better education and communicate what exactly a vaccination is, how it works and why it is good.

The above scenario however does not apply to people who live in developed countries, such as Australia and the United States, who are literate and have accesses to a wide range of information and still try and cling to the disproven theory of vaccinations causing autism. This is simply a wrong. The initial study that conducted the research was disproven, I don’t feel I need to go into it all, just look it up in google. Point is in this case vaccinations are not a debate and should be mandatory, and the government should be allowed to enforce this. To take an economic view, vaccinations provide positive externalities, in the form of herd immunity, those who are too young to be vaccinated or unable to due to allergic reactions are protected. People who choose not to vaccinate their children create negative externalities whereby they not only put their child at risk but other people and their children around them who cannot for whatever reason be vaccinated. The recent outbreak of measles at Disney Land (USA) show that despite all the campaigns and information available, people are not vaccinating their children; a market failure is occurring. And when a market failure occurs the government’s role should be to step in so as to reduce these negative externalities and protect the community. Now when it comes to adults this gets a bit tricky as autonomous individuals free to make their own choices and in charge of their own bodies regulating vaccinations for adults is not going to fly. But this does not hold for children, it is already acknowledge that for a number of reasons children are not capable of making their own decisions especially when it comes to weighing up complex long-term decision making, that part of the brain is simply not developed. This idea is already acknowledge in a number of aspects in society, e.g. legal drinking age is 18, children cannot get married, primary school is mandatory, child labour laws etc. the list goes on and all as a society to protect the welfare of children. So for that reason I do not understand why we cannot add vaccinations to the list of things that are necessary to protect our children and the community at large. 

-Mrouge-

The Ignorance of Growing Up

Hey guys!

Ignorance is Bliss, Bliss is Happiness, Happiness is Ignorance.

(THIS IS A REALLY SHORT STORY BUT IS IMPORTANT TO THE POINT.)

When I was young, in primary school, I was in the school's first chess team. In our second term we competed in our first chess tournament.  Being our first tournament, the team had extremely low expectations and it just a chance to get away from class. Because of how the system works, the last game is always the closest; you're matched with other competitors who have same or similar scores. In the end, I won from a losing position when my opponent made a critical mistake.

The win just, by the skin of teeth, secured third place for us.  Which meant we all got trophies and medals.  For a second semester team with no previous competitive experience, it was quite an achievement.

What I didn't know, was how critical that last game was. I didn't know how close my team was to getting medals. I didn't feel the pressure of my team mates analyzing my every move. I stayed in touch with my opponent afterwards. She mentioned that she knew the stakes and felt the pressure when she made the critical mistake.

(THERE! NO MORE STORY)

Being ignorant about what could go wrong and all the possible consequences that could happen is so often liberating. When we don't have that pressure to perform well, we can concentrate on what we need to do and our own goals.

And that is the worst thing about growing up.We become less ignorant and more educated.

When we're young, we're told we can do anything we want. Teachers get us to write and draw with crayons about what we want to be when we grow up, however fantastical it seemed. Some people drew pictures astronaut or being a firefighther or the Prime Minister of Australia. During sport, our parents would tell us the point of sport was to have fun. "Winning is just a plus," they would always say.

And as we grow up, we realise just how difficult it is to achieve those dreams. How, not everyone gets to be an astonaut or how there's only one Prime Minister and only the winner gets the trophy.

How life gets in the way of our dreams. As our needs and priorities become many, our dreams become increasingly narrow. Its just extremely disconcerting that as we grow up, our dreams narrow. 

I can't help but imagine what would have happened if I went to play that same game, knowing what I know now. Knowing all the things, that could go wrong with every move of the chess piece, knowing that all my teammates were relying on me so that they could get a medal. I don't know if I would have still won, but it definitely would have weighed on my mind.

It isn't so much the pressure that knowledge gives, its knowledge of all the things that could go wrong. Sometimes, knowing less might help us achieve more.

~TastyJacks~

Rotten Apple? Expectations of innovation leaving a sour taste in my mouth

Time for a bit of a change of pace. OK, so one of my many pet hates of recent years involves the tech industry, and more specifically, how they “innovate”. More specifically, I dislike the culture of expectation that has emerged, to the point where companies that aren’t seen to be constantly innovating are seen to be falling behind.

I’ll clarify what I mean: In the time that Steve Jobs was Apple’s CEO, the company blew the world’s collective mind on consecutive occasions through the introduction of “revolutionary” products such as the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

Since Tim Cook took charge, many people lament the lack of innovation, specifically the lack of big-picture leaps in technology. They view Apple’s recent innovations as being purely incremental in nature, rather than the old days of huge new inventions unveiled with each fresh product-launch. And by “many people”, I mean the vast majority of tech websites (see: here, here, here and, my personal favourite (purely for the wordplay), here). 

I do not dispute these facts. Just because Apple has not stirred the proverbial pot recently, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a bad sign for Apple, or likewise a good sign for competitors. People cannot continually expect companies to churn out innovation after innovation, year after year – that’s simply not the way life works.

These “journalists” lament the fact that these companies no longer have vision, and see it as a point of weakness. What many journalists often overlook is the fact that these companies are just like other conventional companies; conventional companies where product innovations and R&D all cost substantial amounts of time, effort, and money. If these costs cannot be recouped through the marketing of the product itself, then it is simply not worth innovating. The bottom line is that, if Apple can still make a stack of money by incrementally improving its product design year-on-year, then why would it even bother continually re-inventing its products each year?

So then, this poses the question of why Apple is no longer innovating like it used to. In this respect, Everett Rogers’ work on the Diffusion of Innovation model provides a number of answers. As an example, I’m going to use the iPhone, or to define the sector more broadly, the “smartphone” sector. Rogers’ model has stages along the process from which an innovation is first conceptualised, to the point where it reaches full market saturation. These stages are, in chronological order: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, Laggards.

In the smartphone realm, Blackberry (and to a lesser extent, Windows) were the Innovators and Early Adopters of a phone which paired internet connectivity (and its web browsing and email capabilities) with the conventional mobile phone. These phones were marketed to businesses, with high levels of success. However, they had limited success with individual consumers, due to their inflexibility and lack of real utility for average consumers.

Following this, along came Apple in 2007 with an offering which was directly targeted at the consumer market, offering a sleeker, more practical and more customisable solution to Blackberry’s offering. It was an instant success. In this sense, Apple were the Early Majority to the smartphone market, with the android system (and its myriad of manufacturers including Samsung) lagging behind a year or so, classing it as a Late Majority.

Finally, just as the market is heading towards the point of full innovation saturation, and realising the error in their ways, both Windows and Blackberry re-launched their smartphones towards 2012-2013. They ditched their business-aimed phones and adopted a format closer the consumer format chosen by Apple. In this sense, they had undergone a transformation from being the Early Adopters to being the Laggards of the market. This just goes to show that having the upper hand as an innovator or early adopter does not always guarantee success, and shouldn’t be put up on a pedestal as always being the optimal thing to aim for. More often than not, a strategy of imitation can be just as successful as a strategy of innovation.

This pattern is replicated over and over, no matter whether the product be tablets, phones, computers, smart-watches, etc. etc. Such a process can be expected each time a disruptive innovation is presented to the market, and it is not always guaranteed on who will seize the opportunity at the right moment and create a successful innovation. Innovation doesn’t always equal success, and as such it is unreasonable for tech writers to continually whinge about having a lack of it in big tech companies.

For more information, see Rogers' book.

#J.Nic#

How to: Play God

To what extent is it acceptable to determine fate with mathematics? The neutral tweaking of numbers until they present a logical and precise conclusion, a simple solution to the most complicated of problems.  It seems…natural, right? How else can one ever come to an objective conclusion without calculating probabilities and the effects of external variables, without forming an equation, like a question, and a solution, like an answer. In the movie the Imitation Game, Turing and his team of cryptologists, in conjunction with the British Secret Service, determine which populations to save, and which to abandon, using cold, hard maths. As someone who relies on lists and values straight and logical answers to every problem, this method of determining the future seemed acceptable to me. These people had true power – they were playing God, and helped the Allies win the Second World War. And there is a sense of comfort that these people were only using statistics and mathematics to wield that power; perhaps if more mathematicians and cryptologists were in government, or if the politicians listened to them more, the outcome of various current situations would be different. I think a lot of issues would be treated differently on a global scale if utilitarian ethics were employed (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people) by people who only looked at the facts and figures.

Take climate change, for example. The numbers would show that the effects of climate change would change the lives (negatively) for billions of people in future generations, and perhaps even some people now (take the island of Tuvalu, for example, which will be shortly under water due to rising sea levels). So, instead of climate change becoming a political issue, which is manipulated this way and that for votes and popularity, the theoretical mathematicians, scientists and statisticians that are in charge would put measures into place immediately, for the greatest good to the greatest amount of people. Future circumstances would be considered over current ones (like profits gained from oil and fossil fuels) and in general, the larger masses of not-so-rich people might benefit, as opposed to a small and privileged few becoming still richer.

I can’t say I’m a politician, or a mathematician, or even particularly well versed in global issues. I do think, however, that on a large scale, cutting out all the ‘politics’ behind politics, and just assessing a situation objectively through mathematics and statistics, could turn out better in the long run. Alan Turing and his team couldn’t publicly announce that they failed to stop the bombing of Coventry because it would mean the Germans would realise they’ve cracked the Enigma code, hence causing the war to be delayed. The politics behind that statement is just a nightmare. But, in reality, the employment of their objective techniques severely shortened the war, and hence minimised the amount of lives lost regardless. The problem comes into it when people point fingers, and ask the question: “what makes them able to choose who lives and who dies?”

In this case, I think my line of argument can only be successful in large scale situations. Emotions, compassion and subjectivity are important in everyday life, and must in no way be diminished or looked down upon. They are the cornerstone to social interactions, and emotional intelligence is vital in understanding the issues that must be addressed in the first place. So perhaps, from a grassroots level, emotional intelligence is important in affecting social change, but from a top-down approach, calculated mathematics can be the most effective way to solve a problem. 

Capital Punishment

The temptation was pretty high this post to write a rebuttal to Tasty Jack’s previous post, about the metadata, and his tomato as a fruit analogy. But turns out I’m far more opinionated on other issues, so this week I want to talk about capital punishment. It has come up again in the Australian news due to the eminent executions of two members of the Bali 9 group in Indonesia, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. For me this isn’t a debate, it honestly shocked me that people, Australians can be against capital punishment in our own nation, but see it as legitimate in other countries, Australian citizens or not. These people are totally wrong (sorry to my bf and Tasty Jack but you are) and I’m going to tell you readers why. We shall start with why in my opinion any truly civilized person that values human life would not condone judicial executions. And then move on to the whole other issue of national sovereignty and interfering in other nations judicial system if you are all not bored by the end of this rant.

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the court-ordered execution of a person for a serious crime.  And I firmly believe that under no circumstances it is the right course of action, capital punishment dehumanizes and desensitizes all those involved and has a corrosive effect on society itself. Essentially by a nation condoning the legalized murder of a criminal; the state and justice system send the message that in some circumstance it is ok to kill. I don’t believe you can have it both ways and say murder of a citizen by another citizen is abhorrent; and the murder of a criminal by the state is not. Forcibly taking someone’s life is murder, even if you dress it up with fancy courts and court documents. Taking some inspiration from Andrea’s earlier post, on good and evil, I also don’t believe in the arbitrary good versus evil person, no person is all good or evil, and that fundamentally “people are worth more than the worst thing, crime, that they have done”. By having judicial executions a nation is accepting that the value of a person’s life is lowered because of what they have done, and thus that not everyone is equal. “Taking one life even for the most heinous of crimes in no way upholds or protects the value of all human life.” all it achieves is the diminishing of a life. If your humanity can be lowered because of what you have done, then it opens up more serious issues such as can your humanity be lowered because of who you are? Where you stand in society? Your background? etc. This leads nicely into the issue of the justice system being fair for all people of all classes. Going to my trusty statistics I’m going to say it’s not.  “The death penalty, both in the U.S. and around the world, is discriminatory and is used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities.” (Amnesty international http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts) Looking at some fun facts also from Amnesty USA, and thus relate to the United States experience; almost all death row inmates could not afford their own attorney at trial. Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 82% of all executions have taken place in the South. Since 1977 the overwhelming majority of death row defendants 77% have been executed for killing white victims, even though African Americans make up about half of all homicide victims. Essentially when dealing with the justice system don’t be black, Hispanic or any minority group and most importantly don’t be poor that way you can be sure to receive some actual justice, and avoid being murdered by the State.  

While some countries employ the death penalty as a deterrent for what they believe to be unforgivable and unacceptable crimes, statistics have shown that on this front it also fails. Evidence increasingly shows that judicial executions are in no way a deterrent,  e.g. for 2013, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty states in America was 4.4,  compared with the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.4 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state)  “In Texas, the United States Jurisdiction in which more executions are carried out than any other, there has actually been an increase in the number of homicides in recent years”. Despite the rhetoric of the Indonesian government “Ample evidence from Singapore, Malaysia and other countries proves its ineffectiveness in deterring drug trafficking and reining in drug use” http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/05/indonesia-uses-faulty-stats-drug-crisis-justify-death-penalty .Statics have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent and does little to achieve justice and peace for the victims and their families, which makes it pretty useless as a tool against crime.

Capital punishment removes any chance of redemption or rehabilitation, which as far as my knowledge is one of the core ideals of the criminal justice system/prison system. Redemption and rehabilitation is what is ultimately need in healing the wounds that have been inflicted on all those involved, which achieves a sense of justice and peace while still upholding the value of life. Often the death penalty is often employed as a way of seeking revenge and justice offering little peace or relief for those involved.

All this has not taken into account the series issue of what happens when an innocent person is wrongly accused. I acknowledge that this is not really an argument in the case of the Bali 9, but it is still an important point in the anti-capital punishment debate. A life imprisonment for a wrongly accused man can be overturned but an execution cannot be undone. There is significant chance that an innocent man can be wrongfully convicted and executed, especially if you look at the argument above and death penalties bias towards the poor and minority groups. “DNA testing has suggested that as many as 70 of 1076 Americans executed since 1976 might have been innocent”. Not only has unnecessary traumatic pain been inflicted on the wrongly accused person and their families, but on the victims and their families, pain that cannot be undone. So yes, I’m going to air on the side of caution and say it is better to have no executions than to wrongfully execute even one innocent person.

Okay so this went on a little longer than expected, but let wrap up with the national sovereignty bit/linkage to the Bali 9. Yes they are Australian citizens who committed a crime in another country, with different laws and customs. I agree that laws of a sovereign nation should be respected, my arguments against the Bali 9 members not being executed do not relate to them being Australian citizens, but that capital punishment in any country be that the United States, China or Indonesia etc. should be criticised and protested against due to the arguments I have given above. Capital Punishment is not something you get to cherry pick, its wrong under all circumstances. It is easy to say that Australia has a terrible human rights record, and still perpetrates human rights abuses (asylum seekers being the big one) and therefore say that we should not criticise the Indonesian government. I think this is a weak argument as all nations have failures when it comes to human rights abuses. And that instead you should criticise human rights abuses such as capital punishment wherever they occur. I’m quite happy to lay out Australian’s failings with regards to Asylum seekers in my next post. 

-Mrouge-, 

Freedom of Speech, Australian Governent, Religious Freedom

Hey guys! This is a reply to Jnic's post last week which can be found be clicking here! 

First the qualifiers. I think most of my friends know my views on religion and society. Despite, having a Catholic education and a church attending parent, I have remained agnostic at the best of times and downright atheist at the worst. In preparing to write this post, I spent the better past of this week researching the issue at hand and these views of course will reflect the qualifiers above.

Egyptian Newspaper

What has happened in France has of course sent shockwaves across the Western world. France, compared to the other Western country has a relatively high Muslim population and has for at least the past decade, had a very strong separation of secularism and state. France, whose national anthem is from revolution, who's chant of Viva libertie and viva la France, has always represented the ideals of freedom. Now, in the 21st century, it feels like the Western world is increasingly being forced to choose between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. (I understand these are vast generlaisations but lets roll with it.) Even France, with all its ideals set in freedom, is facing the same problem. From here, I feel #Jnic# in his last post more than adequately set the context for this post.

Rally at Paris

In Australia, Tony Abbot's government approval rating has polled at appallingly low numbers. Yet for whatever reason, he and his party was chosen by the majority of Australians in the last election. If we believe in what we are taught from day one, that democracy is the best political system that is on offer, then we at some point need to trust democracy. To do so we need to trust the government that we choose. When they believe that some invasion of privacy is necessary for the safety of the country, we  can't just plug our ears and ignore the facts.

Which isn't to say, we shouldn't criticise and demand something different but when there's no viable alternatives on the table then I don't see the point in complaining. At the end of the day, both Sydney and the latest massacre happen within a month of each other. Not half year before that, the same thing happened in Canada. It may be alarmist of me, but doing nothing seems to be downright negligent.

If the government was to decide, that they need metadata to ensure my safety then so be it. Because at the end of the day, the metadata which our government are taking from us, I trust, will be used for the right reasons.

Increasingly, we are worried about the erosion of our freedom and privacy. I feel what has been overlooked in many cases is how many more ways we now have to express our freedom. With the advent of social media, the internet and the ability to reach potentially millions of people, we have been given more freedom than any of forefathers could have imagined. Whilst some of that may have been taken away we need to understand, this generation, in the here and now, has more 'freedom' than any other generation before us.

 

 "I am a Muslim and I love Jews", "I am a Jew and I love Muslims" at Paris rally

They say that knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit and not a vegetable. Wisdom is knowing that it doesn't matter; it still makes a good vegetable soup. Freedom, gives us the right to say what we want. However, we need to recognise that a lot of things that we say, could be conceived as extremely offensive to large groups of people who are willing to act on it. Whilst we cannot let extremist, change what we do, we need to think more critically on the effects of what we say. It is in this light, I don't understand why the magazine which was targeted chose to publish their latest edition and why it has been so popular. I honestly hope that it has been popular to support victim's families, rather than just proving a point. Surely there are better ways than to express our freedom of speech.

Religious freedom however, is a completely different beast entirely.

In VCE English, we were taught that there's no right way to analyse a text. In primary school, we were taught that we are allowed to choose to believe and follow in whatever religion we chose to. So what happens, when people use religion to justify horrendous actions, such as the ones we've seen in the past couple of months.

There are ways to contrive anything to become something that it originally was not intended to be. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on the Islamic faith, but at some level, we need to make judgement as to what a group of people represent or at the very least, intended to represent. Fundamentally, from all the values that I was taught, from the people I have met and my own life experience, I believe that (many) religion are a ideal which provides a lot of positive guidance for people lives and that it has a hugely positive influence on society.

So when, extremist group, use the ideals of Islam (or any other religion) to justify their actions I feel more than justified in saying, their interpretation is wrong.

I heavily frown upon using the populace argument, but in this case I'm going to. At its very core, religion is shaped by its followers. The belief of a religion should evolve and change over time, directed by its leaders. It should follow that, the belief that the majority of a religion is the belief of the majority of its followers. Following that, when the majority of Muslim would rather not associate themselves in the same light as ISIL followers, than again, I can justify myself when I say their interpretations as wrong.

 More state power, not free speech, the likeliest we-are-Charlie result

Reddit user raises an often understated point.

Odd World Leaders at the march

~TastyJacks~

The freedom-safety tradeoff; why we should refuse gaining one at the expense of the other

This post is in response to the content of this article:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/01/george-brandis-is-using-paris-sydney-terror-attacks-as-a-lightning-rod-for-metadata-laws/

">MFW trying to define metadata" ~ George Brandis

The events of the past number of months have been undeniably shocking. It can be argued that terrorism has not been this prevalent since the watershed attacks of the early-to-mid 2000s. Each time issues of national security are raised, I become despondent as to how ruling authorities of many countries behave. My apprehension is not so much towards the direct military/police action that is taken following an attack (although I am by no means condoning all of these responses as weighted or proportionate); rather, it surrounds how massive sacrifices to freedom are made under the façade of “national security”.

Ultimately, governments seem to believe that they need to be taking part in a constant trade-off situation, between the freedom and liberty of its citizens on the one hand, and the safety of the broader public on the other. Herein lies the hypocrisy of many nations. Western democratic nations constantly and sometimes loudly (*cough* ‘Murica *cough*) espouse the values of individual freedom and relative-libertarianism. While the extent to which this is an actual portrayal of reality is always being debated, it is plain to see that, since the fateful morning when those planes descended upon Lower Manhattan, the collective freedom of individuals right throughout the Western-hemisphere has fallen – this coming despite the onset of the Information Age and all of the extra freedoms that should have come with it.

The “safety-precautions” taken post-9/11 most definitely exceeded their original scope of terror-prevention and detection. This has been most recently confirmed by Edward Snowden’s revelations on the NSA’s PRISM program; a clandestine, electronic mass-surveillance program which treats the entire population as persons of interest, in spite of the lack of the law’s usual requirements of probable cause. This scattershot, blind luck approach is not only largely ineffective, but also highly invasive and restrictive. In spite of this, elements of the US government has remained largely unaccountable for this mass privacy breach due to the consistent playing of the “national security” card- an over-played catch-all trump card used to justify the unjustifiable.

I do not doubt for a second the need for adequate preventative and public safety measures, though. Do I care that I’m unable to take a bottle of water with me on a plane? If it’s going to lessen the risk of me dying aboard a bombed flight, then of course not. Do I still have faith and believe in the necessity of our police and security services (ASIO and ASIS)? Of course I do, since there has, and always will be, hateful people who intend to bring harm upon others.

Instead, what I would advocate for would be measures, proportionate responses to these threats, as opposed to the over-reaching, counter-productive responses that have been taken by many governments around this world. I’m all in favour of surveillance, so long as it is highly-targeted and done in cases of reasonable suspicion. In the same way, I’m all in favour of people having more freedom, just so long as it does not impinge on the ability of others to safely enjoy their own freedom. The current Australian government, with its proposed metadata laws, is acting as if it is offering the golden key to all public safety; an easy-fix for all sorts of crime prevention. In reality, these ineffective metadata laws are thinly-veiled in their attempts to hand more control to the government. I sincerely doubt the passing of these laws would make any sort of noticeable impact upon a crazed individual’s capacity for delusion and hatred.  

It simply doesn’t have to be a contest of picking one over the other. It doesn’t have to be freedom vs. safety; national security vs. individual privacy; over-reaction vs. under-reaction… Just because we aspire to live in a safe society, it doesn’t mean that we have to sacrifice our freedoms in order to achieve this. As a famous little girl from the Old El Paso ads once said...

#J.Nic#

'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~