Blog Home of Acoustic Eagle

The Film Documentary Catfish

2012-01-12T02:22:00.016+11:00

Spoiler! and you might consider seeing the DVD, if you haven't already, before reading on.

The following is an article about the film documentary Catfish.

Before I could really get into writing on it, I needed to see what I could discover about validating the documentary as something factual, rather than write upon something based on a mock-up. I had read the Wikipedia entry and criticisms against its validity as based on anything factual. However, while researching, I found a site for the 20/20 tv show (transcipt from that site below body of this article.)

The story behind Catfish was revealed on the show and this site contains video footage of interviews of some of the key people involved, namely Yaniv (Nev, pronounced 'neev') Schulman, a 24yo photographer living in New York City, and Angela Wesselman, a 40yo married woman in Michigan and the instigator of the controversy that is Catfish.

So how did Nev, his brother, a filmmaker Ariel (Rel) Schulman and their friend Henry Joost come about making a documentary that concerns something that any social network user may pause to consider: is that new online friend really who they say they are?

- especially when it appears they might be 'too good to be true', one would think.

My own opinion on the validity of the documentary is that it is a film that has been created by the filmmakers in terms of a story, it's a beautifully and poignantly edited work - and one that may appear to suspend credibility for how nicely it pieces together. This is to the credit of the filmmakers and is, in itself, an entertainment while exploring the supposition of the outcome of a situation where an innocent (Nev in this case) is taken in by a manipulator.

I think what might have happened is that Nev was flattered by the attention that his photograph brought him and receiving the painting by 'Abby' and all the gifts, he was emotionally drawn into the world of the sender of these gifts. Rel and Henry, being filmmakers had been filming from early onset this event - of Nev receiving this peculiar attention - and decided at some point to run with the whole scenario of it. Thus were they able to manipulate the film's making to produce the documentary to a credibility whereby the viewer is presented with elucidation to question the genuineness of who they are interracting with online. This in itself is worthwhile and the film can be described as events that are documented for one reason, amongst any other, that it poses this reasonable question.

So what is the Catfish story?

One cannot help but like Nev, he's a bright, good-looking young man drawn into a relationship with 8yo Abby Wesselman, a prodigious child artist. Nev has had one of his photographs widely published, a photo of a pair of dancers from a dance company. Abby has sent Nev her artistic rendition of that photograph. Nev, Rel and Henry and impressed with her amazing talent. And so, for some months, Nev has friendship with Abby on Facebook, and Rel and Henry have been recording that. Abby's mum, Angela, continues to send him paintings and prints of her daughter's paintings. Through the relationship via Facebook, Nev connects with Abby's contacts, including Angela and Angela's older daughter, Abby's step sister, 19yo Megan Faccio.

And so it begins. The romantic relationship Nev ends up having with Megan, who is apparently a veterinary technician, a really attractive multi-talented -sings, writes songs, dances and also paints - single girl. The relationship extends to phone calls and over 1,500 text messages that become sexually explicit over time. Nev is in the throws of love, and he must meet this girl that's so intrigued him.

Left: an image constructed by Nev, superimposing a photo of Megan with him. The jpg is titled, on his Facebook site, "Someday".

But he's got his doubts now as he, Rel and Henry have since discovered that the sound wavs that she's been sending Nev of her singing and songs she has apparently written for him, are actually those of someone else's: the men have found the proof online.

Nev expresses how gullible he's been.

"They're complete psychopaths!" he says of Angela and Megan.

Feeling very foolish now he adds, grinning, "I've probably been chatting with a guy the whole time!"

Rel and Henry are, however, very interesting in continuing to film Nev's relationship with Abby, Angela and Megan.

Rel, Henry and Nev get the opportunity to film a dance company near enough to Michigan state. They decide to visit Abby at her home at Ishpeming. Meeting Angela for the first time, she's, naturally, nothing at all like the image she's posted on her Facebook site of herself, except perhaps her long braided hair.

Upon meeting Nev, she behaves shyly around him, letting her braid out for her long hair to be admired, and Nev's friends suggest to Nev that Angela's actually "in love" with Nev, and has probably been the whole time.

By now, and after some more proofs, some coming from the child Abby herself. (yes, Abby admits, she does sometimes paint), but it is actually Angela, who is the artist and the creator of those paintings. By now everything's falling into place for the three men. When they try to track down "Megan's" farm, she and her horses are not there. Angela tells her that Megan has gone into a rehab facility. But that's just one of the many lies that Angela has cooked up, even telling Nev that she (Angela) has cancer, which she does not.

What Angela does have is a marriage to husband Vince (also not looking at all like his facebox) and Vince's two very retarded twin sons. Angela spends her time looking after her husband, her step-sons who require intensive and constant care, and Abby. She paints prolifically. The other thing she spends time doing is fooling Nev into believing that he's been having an love-affair with 'Megan'. Angela does in fact have an eldest daughter, estranged and not seen in the film.

What Angela does do is pull images off the net of a real girl by the name of Aimee Gonzales, a model and photographer. She also 'creates' other 'family' members and friends of 'Megan's'. Angela becomes all these people interacting on Facebook with Nev. The ruse has been an elaborate one.

Below: one of the many photos that she poached and fraudulently used to pose as 'Megan', the images belonging to Aimee Gonzales, model and photographer from Vancouver.

When all the truth comes out, she shows Nev the two phones she uses, one for when he converses with her Megan persona. She expresses how deeply sorry she is for fooling Nev - not that her humilation stopped her there and then and at that point.

So why is the documentary film called "Catfish"?

From the words of Vince, Angela's husband, recorded as he sat on his front porch and one of the final scenes of the film:

"They used to tank cod from Alaska all the way to China. They'd keep them in vats in the ship. By the time the codfish reached China, the flesh was mush and tasteless. So this guy came up with the idea that if you put these cods in these big vats, put some catfish in with 'em, and the catfish will keep the cod agile.

And there are those people who are catfish in life and they keep you on your toes. They keep you guessing, they keep you thinking, they keep you fresh.

And, uh, I thank God for the catfish, because we'd be droll, boring and dull if we didn't have someone nipping at our fin."

So, what do you think of what Vince says? Do you think what he says has merit, that if we didn't have catfish encounters, would we be "dull" and "mushy"?

And is the pain and humilation experienced with these catfish worth enduring, just for the life experience?

In hindsight, everything, hey...?

One wouldn't want too many catfish in life. They would wear you out. However, I think that after one has had such an experience, it could not be easily forgotten and would serve to remind of that question - just how well do you know, or how easily might you accept, that person for who they say they are - or who they try to sell themselves as. And what is it that they want from me? And if they are not genuine then what self-gratification are they seeking to gain from my attention?

Anyway, Angela and Nev have a conversation before the three men leave to return home to New York:

Angela: "A lot of the personalities that came out where just fragments of myself. Fragments of things I used to be, wanted to be, never could be...

...and I don't know most days who I am."

She seeks Nev's comfort in her words, but he lets her speak. Clearly Nev has compassion for Angela at her house, while nursing his own humiliation, Rel and Henry filming the exchanges. It's only after they arrive back in New York, when Nev receives another box in which there is the pastel drawing that she drew of Nev while he sat with talking with her. In this final scene in the movie, you can tell that he's been altered by the whole nine month experience with Angela, his personal 'catfish'. There's an edge of anger in his voice from the humiliation but in his face the filmmakers have shown, in that short scene, Nev has matured.

I couldn't help but admire Nev for his bravery: the film having a lot to say and contains a timely message for those who use the internet. The film is extremely good for an indie. If you have not seen this film, I can recommend that you do and you'll see what I mean. In this article, I've drawn from the main points of all that is featured in the film, but there is much more in it - the myriad of lies, reminding of the old saying "Oh what a wicked web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive."

Yes, interestingly, Angela's lies to Nev did not stop after Nev's, Rel's and Henry's visit to Ishpeming. I had looked at Angela in some psychological profiling and thought that she could have schitzophrenia. The 20/20 online article proved that to be correct (for those interested in reading more, see that below).

Link to article from The Quietus: Fishing for the Truth: Social Networking Doc Catfish Reviewed

Link to Moviefone blog: 'Catfish' Creators Tell us if it's Real or Not

Also a link to Angela Wesselman's art (goes by the surname of Pierce here).

.....................

Transcript from 20/20 site with the feature article,

Exclusive: 'Catfish's' Angela Wesselman Speaks Out

By THOMAS BERMAN, GAIL DEUTSCH and LAUREN SHER

Oct. 8, 2010

When the documentary-thriller "Catfish" opened in New York City to enthusiastic crowds, the movie's star was at home in Ishpeming, Mich., probably doing laundry.

Angela Wesselman, whose real identity is not revealed until the end of the movie, was a troubled housewife who spent the bulk of her days caring for two severely handicapped stepsons and building an elaborate web of online deception until it all spun out of control.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News' "20/20," Wesselman admitted that she's a mastermind of deception.

"A manipulator is what my husband calls me," she said. "But yeah, I manipulate and it's not right. ... I never thought I'd become so entangled in it."

Spoiler alert! All the twists and turns of the movie "Catfish" are revealed in this article.

Wesselman posed as an 8-year-old budding artist named Abby and a 19-year-old teenager named Megan, and lured Nev Schulman, a trusting 24-year-old New York City photographer, into a romantic relationship online.

In the film, Schulman's world comes crashing down when he learns that Megan, the girl of his dreams with whom he's shared the most intimate fantasies, does not exist. Megan and Abby are both characters created by Wesselman's imagination and brought to virtual life on Facebook.

"This woman is exceptional," said Schulman. "I'm totally fine admitting she just outsmarted me."

How Elaborate Cyber-Charade Began

Wesselman said her problems began when she looked for feedback on her artwork online, and was met with snide and stinging critiques. However, when she posed as an 8-year-old artist named Abby, people online -- namely 24-year-old photographer Nev Schulman -- were kind and accepting.

An online correspondence began and the charade escalated when Wesselman created the character of Abby's older sister.

"I really created [Megan] to make it more of an age appropriate conversation for [Schulman]," she said.

Megan became Schulman's obsession and the core of Wesselman's growing cast of characters. She created online profiles for at least 21 relatives and friends to round out Megan's social circle.

"It's not normal for just one person to be on Facebook ... with just one friend," she said of her logic. "You have to have other friends."

Wesselman Says She Was Diagnosed as Schizophrenic

To bring these personas to life, Angela assumed all of their identities. She posted messages on Facebook in the voice of Abby, Megan, their brother and friends, switching minute by minute.

"In my mind there were days where I actually believed that Megan existed," she said. "I immersed myself into thinking that somewhere she's there."

She claimed she had no problem navigating such a complex fantasy world.

"I have been diagnosed as schizophrenic," she said. "But ... I don't think I have multiple personalities in normal life, really. I just think I have the ability to create a lot of illusions for people."

Who Are the Real Victims?

Moviegoers and critics alike have questioned "Catfish's" legitimacy. The New York Times' A.O. Scott scolded the filmmakers for exploiting Wesselman for their documentary -- an accusation which they and Wesselman, deny.

If anyone was led down the primrose path, it was Schulman, Wesselman said.

"When I first started interacting with them on Facebook ... even though I knew it was all a lie ... and all these people were fake ... I was like, 'This would make a great film. ... I hope they're filming it,'" she told "20/20."

But her involvement in the documentary has come at a high personal price. Wesselman must live with the movie's stigma and, perhaps worse, explain it to her family. One day, she will have to apologize to her daughter Abby for looping her into her twisted fantasy world.

"She has a hard time with it. ... She gets angry about it at times," Wesselman said. "Someday, she's going to know how this really came down. I do worry about how it's going to affect her for the rest of her life."

Then, there's Wesselman's estranged 21-year-old daughter Megan, who served as the inspiration for the character.

"I haven't seen her recently," Wesselman said. "I've spoken to her just briefly ... to let her know what was going on ... and she's not happy."

The Real Megan: The Real Victim?

Another person with a bone to pick with Wesselman is Aimee Gonzalez, a 30-year-old photographer at Bella Divine Photography, a model and a mother of two, whose image was hijacked by Wesselman. She was floored to discover her photos had been used in Megan's Facebook profile.

The filmmakers brought Gonzalez and her husband Andrew to New York under the guise of doing a documentary about photography, and revealed that her identity, her husband's and even her little sister's were stolen as part of Wesselman's charade.

"I couldn't believe that somebody would do that," Gonzalez said. "[Wesselman] sent me an apology letter ... and I never responded to it."

But Wesselman said Gonzalez should be grateful for her moment in the spotlight.

"It sounds weird to say, but it's given her an opportunity she wouldn't have had before," Wesselman said. "She's doing the things that I wanted to do, the things I can't do. I can't go to New York, I couldn't go to Sundance. ... I can't be that person ... and she is ... so I guess it's sort of that jealousy and it's not her fault."

After Catfish: Putting Her Life Back Together

After the cameras stopped rolling and the truth came out, Wesselman said she continued to send Schulman e-mails attached to fake identities.

"I just couldn't let it go," she said, adding that she attempted suicide as a way out.

"It took months of counseling afterwards to really point out how far I had immersed myself into that ... and that I couldn't get out of it on my own," she said. "And I had to get help to stop it."

Now, her husband and friends monitor all of her e-mails and time online. She insists that she's not engaged in any fake online relationships.

"It would literally kill me to do this again," she said.

Wesselman said she's replaced her virtual relationships with the real ones that don't dissolve in the Ethernet.

"I'm more stable because of the boys coming and bringing light to the problems," she said. "I've been able to focus more on our family ... on our relationship ... on making things right in the home ... and to me that's a benefit."

Book Review: Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States

2011-11-27T12:55:00.003+11:00

Because of the ever-continuance of the urban sprawl and the growing rise of urban enclaves, not only by by subdivisions of those with wealth and those in poverty, but by immigrants, I became interested in the rise of the gated community, particularly as a means for preservation of traditional cultural values of a particular nation, and of a means to deal with urban crime.

Fortress America is a scholarly work and well-researched for the time it was written in 1997. The authors Edward Blakely and Mary Gail Snyder did all the legwork to interview people who are part of these communities, many of them self governing. The three types they delineate are lifestyle community (ie., sporting/recreational mutual interest), the prestige community and the security zone community. Naturally the degree of 'fortressing' varies, from anyone-can-get-in (or a hole in the fence) to armed security. From page 61, the words of one gated community resident:

"It's almost a release to come back here. You're dealing with elements that are sometimes very undesirable. It's like the old moat and castle. You get back to your spot and feel secure."

I can't help thinking though that there could be more a trend towards gating in the times to come, considering that the more affluent suburbanites, keen to defend property values and requiring a greater security from the incidence of crime - theft and vandalism particularly- as society will continue to divide according to what a group of people commonly share in terms of their traditional heritages. And this is spite of how liberally 'multiculturalism' is promoted. Human nature, will always be human nature - as children group together in a school yard and shun or outcast a child or other children who different - and if birds of a feather flock together, then enclaving, and gating, seems could well be a growing future trend.

In fact, a conundrum is created by this. For if a sub-cultural group forms a suburban enclave, what's to stop that societal group from gating, given that we live in the 'free world' and can petition government for gated subdivision? Could this be a way of the future - where a world is created by how local residents can self-govern, providing for the finances for their own community upkeep? Would not this be an attractive proposition to allieviate the usual acceptance of what's traditionally and culturally been the responsibility of [local, state and federal] goverment? And so, could our society now be a state of real evolution? That which has been long accepted as traditional government and government upkeep (of say, infrastructure) would now be provided for by residents within gates? The state would still have ultimate governorship, but the government coffers are less burdened by what it has for many generations traditionally provided.

There's been incidence of religious sects with their own peculiarites of belief systems/cultures, sourcing towns for to create an enclave of their followers. The only difference with this and gated communities, is that there are no gates. Yet there would nonetheless rest in that particular area, the influence of a group's belief system.

And so basically, this is what an enclave or a gated community creates and defends: like-minded people.

In the last chapter of this book, the authors provide alternatives to the gated community establishment. Their solutions are very sound and included constructing new neighbourhoods that allow only a slow flow of traffic ie., meandering streets rather than the traditional 'grid', open community spaces where people can feel safer. I like their ideas, and government would need to be forthcoming in foresight to making society a safer place by town planning in this manner. But I cannot help thinking, in our times, 14 years past the first printing of this book - that governments would be less inclined towards being this innovative, particularly if it means a greater government expenditure. So much of what's in our contemporary world now is privatised. And so it could be a 'natural' follow on that whole communites could also follow the way of privatisation? The conundrum, as I mentioned earlier, could come from the multicultural, and thus 'politically correct' view that all cultures are equal and free to express their differences. Any enclave in this manner, based on economic status, traditional cultures and belief systems has therefore a potential to become a community within gates.

And if the gated community is a way of a societal future, who's to know in our economic times, how greatly this will evolve?

From page 1:

"The setting of boundaries is always a political act. Boundaries determine membership: someone must be inside and someone must be outside..."

Book Review: The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells

2011-08-12T01:29:00.005+10:00

One of the modern classics on my must-reads list and I was, upon completing it, delighted but a trifle disappointed in terms of how I enjoyed it. Having seen both movie adaptations and having a recording of War of the Worlds by Jeff Wayne, I finally dusted off the old Penguin that I've had shelved.

The reason for my delight stems from appreciation of Wells' philosophical musings, told in conversational style by the narrator. As in the opening of Wayne's classic rock opera (that gives chills every time I listen to it):

"No one would have believed, in the last years of the nineteenth, century, that human affairs were being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as our own; that as men busied themselves about their affairs they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water."

The above is the opening sentence of the novel, and gives clear indication of what sort of narrative style the reader might expect; for it's a wordy novel in the manner of such of that day before mass media and when the printed word made up a good bulk of human interest. As I mentioned, I was a little disappointed as there were times in the novel where I felt more than a bit bored, especially when the narrator describes what happens to his brother in London. Later the narrator resumes his own story and what happened with the curate, symbolically representing the minds of religious men and the overtly selfish, and the man on Putney Hill, representational of the political and worldly, with all their dreamers' schemes. Wells makes the point that all men, being faced with an overwhelming threat, are all cut from the same cloth and all share common human vunerability.

Truly this novel is a classic of science fiction and consistent, I feel, with many greats of this genre, and there's something of the prophetic in events described as to situate man in a place of absolute levelling, for Wells has much to say about human nature and how he sleeps, even though evident and overwhelming threat may present that concern all.

This classic work is more than science fiction, it's also a horror tale; shocking, terrible events described therein to cause the reader pause in reflection of its theme: is the invading 'Martian' an evoltion of knowledge avarice and the greed of men, especially man in the Technological Age? Thus is the novel also as a warning.

How about that the first line of the novel was changed to suit our times?:

"No one would have believed in the early part of the 21st century that human affairs were being manipulated keenly and closely by economic interests greater than..."

The Fragile House: A Poem

2011-06-21T05:56:00.003+10:00

This is a poem I recently wrote. It's been a long time between them. I always thought I'd get back to writing poetry someday. This is a start (- like trying to a car started after a cold night!). Btw, I chose the name 'Carrie' as it seemed to fit in (not named after a real Carrie):

THE FRAGILE HOUSE

Carrie built a fortress for herself
She made it tough and strong
So strong no one could criticise
The beauty of herself and her wonderful house.

It was made of glass, it was pristine
And although it was all around her
It could not be seen
She was able to walk,
To talk
And many heard her words
And they sounded so good
To so many ears

But try as she might
She couldn’t seal all cracks
The ones that were trying to show through
She tried to be nice
Tried to be kind
Tried so hard to be so cool

But the darkness inside some rooms
Couldn’t reveal light
The lights she tried so hard to ignite
So the darkness would not be perceived
By anyone near.

Oh how lovely! they would say of Carrie
A beauty to behold
But wearily she continued to try to continue to light
Those dark places inside
She tried wallpaper, tried paint,
Tried some new decor
But blood red marks remained on the walls
Alas! many a flaw

So cracks showed up
Those she tried to hide
But people said, how lovely is Carrie, she’s pure
She’s good
No, she cannot lie
And Carrie harkened to their words
And fooled herself a little more.

One day someone came by the gate
And beheld the pristine place
But couldn’t help noticing the fragile glass
And darkness appearing through the grates.

He said, this fortress is not all it appears
Can’t you see it too?
For I see plainly because I looked
As my first impression
Did not do.

But others said “no” we see only what we want
And Carrie said, “I will show you only what I will
You will only see that!”

But the person said, “But I see something else
Other than what you’ve said
Now what is it you’re trying to hide away?

Carrie frowned, she pouted and stamped
“Enough!” she shouted from inside her gates
My fortress is besieged, now this is war!
So she turned it around
To make it seem that
This person who had seen the cracks she’d tried to hide
Would be seen for their own faults
And she would open them wide.

She subtly accused this new visitor,
(for such are the rules of the game)
And the ones who had been sleeping, yawned
And agreed with her
For it is easier to stay safe
Than sorry
If you stuck out your neck
For there’s a guillotine in truth
And you don’t want your head chopped off!

But the other persisted
And made their proofs
And Carrie had a fit
And went through her roof!

Anger raised its ugly head
(She thought anger was ugly,but one dark crack)
Resentment soon followed
And jealousy after that
For there was someone now that
Could see through the glass
And found some proof
That all was not as perfect as it seemed
That fortress that was herself.

Her fortress was glass,
Strong, thin and fragile
Her goodness its painted visage
A coverup for all her faults
For in her glass castle
She lacked the courage to be
As authentically real
As her foe appeared to be

She had met her match
And not knowing what to do
Started throwing things at that one
Through the window sills.

The other ducked and dodged
Got hit nonetheless
But wouldn’t the play the game
With someone who really considered themselves less
(than how they wanted to seem)
Good, kind, generous – and all the rest.

So the ‘foe’ stood back
And let Carrie display her fits
And others came around
And beheld that for a bit

To finally see what her foe had been actually getting at

But it was much easier to behold the fortress
Said one bystander, one former friend
Of Carrie’s
It was easier, the path was smoother
And no one got upset

Now it’s all work
And we don’t like what we see
Those cracks, that darkness
Seeping out,
To fairer weather
We will flee!

My dears, replied the foe
(though really a friend was he)
The darkness was always there
The cracks in every where,
Every who
Even you.
And in me.

It’s always too hard to have to cover up
What’s really contained inside
Yes, it’s work, but
The work to maintain far harder still

For when we play along
With this whitewashed song
We are a little less
Of ourselves
And

Truth! How could that be wrong?

Yes, be kind, be good, be generous
But don’t cover up the sin
For we love
We err
And we never always get right
What it is that we continually try to ignite
To hide the reality that is ourselves?

Carrie stood disheveled
With ruined fortress all around
Her feet
That had known no real peace
For the longest time she had
Kept up the image
Of that seemingly beautiful fortress
That sleepy souls had once loved to behold

She looked down
Then looked up
She stopped.

A smile formed
(one that was real, no longer needing to try)

And now you are free,

said her friend.

Just

Be.

Book Review: Heart-Shaped Box by Joe Hill

2011-02-23T22:21:00.002+11:00

My second reading of this inspired horror/road trip novel by Joe Hill, the son of author Stephen King. This time I read it, I found more to muse upon and enjoyed it more.

At times it reads as if it is a movie script and Hill writes in what a director might include in 'special effects'. Most times when I read this style by an author, I do not like what appears to be an author's assumption that their literary work will be filmed. But in Hill's case he's extended the reading experience into something extremely visual, the author carefully illustrating, without drawing out, all settings and character description. And his does it in a matter-of-fact way that is anything but pretentious. Indeed there's a crispness here that's refreshing.

His main character Justin or "Judas Coyne" or "Jude", is a 54 year old, mostly retired famous rock star. He's got a depth of kindness, a quality that has been submerged in the brooding sameness of his existence and his wanting to escape from the world in which is instantly recognised. He has a history that continues to wound him, some major regrets over friends and lovers with which he has been close, and a terrible past with a brutal father that comes back, as it were, to haunt in the form of a ghost within a box (heart-shaped) that he buys on the internet. Everything, somehow, appears connected.

Jude, a collector of items of ghoulish kind, finds the purchase of the ghost irressitable. However, the woman he buys it from has her reasons for selling, a thing that Jude and his current live-in, much younger goth girlfriend find to their growing horror.

The narrative takes the reader from the superficial that the characters are used to living in onto depths of feelings repressed, bringing them to a place of decision when this murderous supernatural threat looms: to fight or to succumb to what appears the sum total of all bad decisions and tragedies of the past.

The novel also contains a strong theme about fatherhood, and the influence of a father over the psychological state of offspring.

Hense, this novel has so much and is not merely a horror tale, but provides illustration into the depths of an experience, entwining states of the physical, emotional and spiritual. Hill achieves an entirety of character with some profound insights into the motivations of the wounded, while yet taking the reader on a pacey thrill-ride. It's also a novel in redemptive theme and it's great to read a book occasionally the provides that sort of satisfying sense of closure.

This is Hill's first novel and I am very impressed by his style of authorship. I've got a copy of his next entitled, Horns, that I'm looking forward to. Oh, a good thing about this author is that he hasn't followed in dad's footsteps and left 'open enders'. As much as I greatly admire King, those loose ends can be too annoying.

It is interesting to note that the title Heart-Shaped Box is also the title of a song by deceased rock performer, Kurt Cobain, who gets mentioned within the context of Hill's horror novel.

Tabloid Media is News? It is?

2011-02-13T11:59:00.007+11:00

Finally, it got to this viewer: a regular viewer of one of the main tv station's nightly news broadcasts.

After I realised I was listening in an attitude of agape and aghast to what the news presenters were saying, I knew I had to write something; it would require some venting.

For some years now I had been becoming aware that the 6pm news wasn't just 'news' anymore. It had become - and increasingly in more recent times - a place where so called "celebrity" watchers could watch, in mainstream voyerism, the antics of the rich and famous. No longer are celeb tabloid doings relegated to the many, many magazine titles or the internet. Where once we were sit in front of our tvs to keep abreast of the issues that concern our nations and our world, we are now force fed a diet of inconsequence - nothing at all that could truly in any real way impact our lives, or keep us informed - rather, trash fodder that amuses us 'around the water cooler'.

Now we intimately can know their affairs, their court appearances (as in the case of no-publicity-could-possibly-be-bad-publicity, Ms Lohan), their caught-on-camera controversies, their new babies, their divorces, their wild partyings etc., etc. And because this IS now mainstream, apparently it is completely acceptable to show at that timeslot that was reserved for the more serious issues pertaining to life in the context of nationhood and world events.

And this is the thing that got that bug up my a*** and led to this article:
Last Friday the 11th of February, one mainstream tv channel heralded their main news headlines. And they were in this order:

1. A major arterial freeway was partly closed due to landslip fears (due to flooding).

2. The city of Melbourne's tropical-like weather conditions and how that's impacting community.

and

3. "Warnie-Gate"

Note that the last major headline had its own cliche title. And so, not for curiosity sake, but for the sake of understanding, we will try to understand what "Warnie-Gate" is, and how such a trivial piece of media dung captured the import of third billing on the evening news.

Some background:

Big in the 'news' *cough* right now is the love affair between the famous spin bowler of Aussie cricket, Shane Warne and British movie actress, Liz Hurley. This romance between the two has been gaining momentum in the media, until finally, with lots of photos of their kisses in the mainstream newspapers, they apparently have become something we can rely upon to keep us informed about our world. Must be very important, after all - "Warnie", as he is coined in Aussie colloquial terms, has been a cricketing 'hero' (*another cough*) and idol in my country for quite some years.

Shane Warne is known as 'a bit of a larrikin'. He made headlines for being caught sex-texting other women while still, at the time, being married to his wife. Just to give you the sort of idea of the man being talked about here, England's The Mirror (and the Brits apparently love their tabloid press too) from June 10th, 2000, wrote headline:

"MUM PLAGUED BY OBSCENE CALLS FROM CRICKET HERO SHANE; His messages left me feeling sick to the pit of my stomach ..they were the most perverted things I'd heard."

That's a headline, and a headline is one that is so-written to be attention grabbing. But the gist of it is, that 'Warnie' fancied a young woman while over in England at the time and sent her lots of more-than-suggestive text messages, messages that were intercepted by his then wife, Simone who went on to divorce him.

And who would blame her, considering he went on to do that texting caper again. Some would call him a 'lad', but others would just call him an adulterer.

Btw, she went back to Warne later, and left him again after his adulterous ways came back to haunt. So now we get the gist of this chap... .

..but one that must be irresistible, because aside from his person being seen regularly via product endorsements, in 2010 the Channel 9 network had Warne fronting his own prime-time chat show - and that in spite of his sterling reputation. This lasted for four episodes until a ratings slump brought on the show's axing. I wasn't watching and don't know who was. I only have to look at this guy's face and think to myself well, that cat's liked the cream a wee bit much and then goes back for some.

Anyway, that's the background. And now to headline three the evening news last Friday. "Warnie Gate" turns out to be how Warne's Mum bumped her son's front gate in her car while trying to evade the media that's been parked outside of his house keeping vigil in the hopes of mega-buck paying paparrazi photographs of him and Liz. If you wish to see YouTube video of Channel 10's 'report', click here.

Hmm, I wonder how much she was paid, or the pap-snappers were, for a certain photograph of Ms Hurley sucking on a baby's dummy some years back? This image of Hurley has stuck in my mind since seen I've seen her on tv or in a movie. To suck on a 'dummy' (as we Aussies call the 'pacifier') is apparently to stop one's teeth from clenching due to the side-effect of the party drug ecstasy. 'News' articles had otherwise reported that she had been sucking on a dummy in an effort to quit smoking, but the dummy-sucking photos were around at the time when people at rave parties also used this 'fashion accessory' to stop wearing down enamel.

Maybe she actually took the drug, maybe she didn't that night. But the thing is is that she got her face in the press and someone got paid.

I do not care if Hurley and Warne are in the throws of love, or if they are not. If they are, how nice for them, but if they are not - well hell, it's good tabloid and now mainstream news fodder. Anything's grist for the mill in these times as people are lulled to becoming less and less discerning in what constitutes news and what is entertainment.

How does such a phenomenon in our contemporary times come about? Well, it's this way: the big fish media conglomerates also own the offshoots of their main shareholdings and that includes the real tabloid press, ie., weekly celeb gossip magazines and the like.

Frankly, I am disappointed in Australian news broadcasting and how trite it has become. I happened to find a newspaper from the 90s recently and within its pages were news items of the like of the reporting of crimes and more serious issues that had far more the substance to feed the masses than the 'Maccas' fast-fare that is being served up in this day.

(In a while I'll go down the shops for the Sunday Melbourne daily and I know what I'm likely to find - for the very most part - within those very disposable pages.)

If the public don't wish to be treated like a society of mushrooms - aka kept in the dark and fed b***s***, then they are going to, as a more discerning society, be able to tell the difference - not only between real news and tabloid entertainment 'stuff' - but between what is fact (ie., reliable and trustworthy in discriminating reading/viewing) and what is fiction.

Here's a scenario for you:

Movie star Mr X meets Pop starlet Ms Y at an exclusive club. They drink and they talk and come up with an idea that it would be a 'hoot' to fake a hot romance. Man, it would sure create some great publicity for their faces, as well as making some quick but sizeable bucks. And heck, maybe a fling on the side between them anyhow would be fun anyhow.

So...how important is it that we eat the high fat, sugar and salt content of the junk food the media offers up, and will we really want to bother expending the kilojoules in energy to want to talk about it over the cooler at work or at playgroup? In the end - and if there's any real truth to be uncovered about anything that tickles the you-will-consume-it-because-this-is-what-we-will-feed-you media, the truth, once exposed, is only going to make us look sillier for being childishly interested in the goings on of well-known attention seekings.

And bad press? Is there any such thing? In the words of Oscar Wilde:

"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."

So, carry on Ms Lohan, 'Warnie' and Co., and keep firing our imaginations with your drivel. As long as it can be capitalised on, the behaviour is self- and media - serving, even though we might be the idiots that end up eating it. And I would never have thought that the time might come when a viewer with any intelligence in discrimination would consider veto of a once-reliable evening newscast.

The 'consumer' can either eat, or refuse what's put on the plate.

Book Review: The Passage by Justin Cronin

2010-11-18T08:47:00.003+11:00

Within the genre of 'apocalyptic' fiction is this novel of 766 pages that a reader can immerse themselves in, and I enjoyed it.

The theme is in the type of: scientist makes discovery in jungle location that he thinks will enhance the lifespan of mankind but the military want to use discovery for their own purposes. What is produced from this discovery is in the form of extreme 'bio-hazard'; tested on convict subjects destined for execution, they transform into what is called "Virals" - blood drinkers of super-human abilities that are mysteriously and psychically connected. Also, there's a strange little girl that is somehow the key to it all.

Happy to report in this review that the author does not appear to be going with the contemporary popularity of the 'vampire', though the word is mentioned in the novel, the author's creation of this being fits the science fiction mould.

The novel is a balanced mix of violence/gore and, on the extreme other side, of human survivors and colonists who are people of deep sentiments about their post-apocalyptic world, themselves as individuals and the close others in their lives. The author works this well, representing people who, despite overwhelming and constant threat from Virals, have a faith that keeps them focused and driven for change. I think the faith element and the way the story keeps travelling without overblown, wordy meandering (it is well-edited for such a big novel) keeps this book very readable.

There was something, however, that I found a trifle irritating and I couldn't put my finger on it until I realised that the narrative lacks some light and shade. In a way, it is narrative perfect, and maybe because of that it reads a little flat and smugly - despite all the action that is vividly depicted.

I hope this next comment isn't a spoiler, but get to the last page and, yes, the story is not yet all told. I discovered that the filming rights have been bought, and really, I'm hardly surprised as the novel has all those intriguing apocalyptic, science-fictiony/action and romance bits that is good motion picture and tv series fodder.

I can recommend this title if you are the sort of reader that likes to hunker down with a chunky read. And, true to good apocalyptic fiction, it can make the reader think about the possible future of the planet and mankind's custodial existence.

What's Cool? What's Real? More on Teen Boys.

2010-06-17T06:54:00.000+10:00

Last Sunday June 13, 2010, I read an article in the Herald Sun by Australian journalist Brigid O’Connell: ‘Hip’ Boys Under Great Pressure. In my blogroll here I presented a series "Boundaries: Antisocial Behaviour in Teens". I thought I would add this last part after reading the article.

Recently I got a phone call from someone I know in Hobart who was saying that, only in the week just gone, there was more in newspapers about how teen boys are continuing to harrass people in the mall of Hobart’s CBD: shoppers and store owners are being threatened.

If I hadn’t have experienced this for myself whilst living there I wouldn’t have actually believed it. There’s Tasmania, down the bottom of the planet, far far away from most of the mayhem that a bigger part of the planet is threatened with – from terrorist threats to sunamis – and there’s the ordinary conservative Tasmanian being harrassed by kids in designer gear from middle/working class families and who go around in gangs in an attitude of menace!

Also in the tv news in the last fortnight is a report on the rise of juvenile crime, and how the penal system is woefully inadequate to deal with acts of violence, theft and gross vandalism (etc.) that is on the rise in Australian society by mere kids, some under the age of ten.

You would have to wonder why.

Brigid O’Connell’s article gives some insights. The article begins:

“A generation of boys is at risk of being drawn into violence, early sexualisation and having dangerously low self-esteem.

Adolescent health experts say pervasive technolog and bombardment by hyper-sexualised images has produced “a new fragility” among boys, with judgements based on looks and possessions.

In her book, What’s Happening to our Boys? Maggie Hamilton refers to a “secret world” of teenage boys…”

There are four words in that snippet from O’Connell’s article that stand out to me:

dangerously low self-esteem

I have observed for myself the behaviour of teen gangs in a busy shopping mall. They approach strangers to beg money and cigarettes, or badger people in other ways. However, their gaze is kept steadily on their friends in the group as if point scoring for rude acts of bravado. If they can impress the others in their gang, they will then feel pretty ‘cool’ about themselves.

But they will have to continue in like behaviour to keep that cool feeling happening.

So much about our modern world is external image. Also the fleeting and the feelgood in a world that consumes fast food, instantaneous communications (inc. the latest gadgetry), and all manner of gratifications that include alcohol and sex. There’s little waiting for anything good; there’s enough common wealth in the ordinary citizen in our times for the affording of luxuries that previous generations had to work hard and save for.

O’Connell’s article makes a list of the things that are “wrong with our boys”. I will paraphrase for the most part unless otherwise quoted:

“The Risks"

Lack of enough sleep from the use of electronics ie gaming, tv, the net.

Boys being media trained from an early age to prefer one ‘cool’ product brand over another – and buy accordingly.

Over protective or absentee parenting.

Media of influence (in the article the show Jackass was cited).

Lack of communication and role modelling by fathers.

Peer pressure to ‘fit in’ to have the same goods ie clothes and gadgetry that the coolest guys can only have.

Less space and suitable places for boys to be boys and “let off steam”.

O’Connell then provides a list of solutions:

The bedroom is for sleeping and resting: tv and computers turned off.

Education about media trickery. Quote: “learn that self-worth isn’t about possessions”.

Frequent casual chats with teens instead of the formal sit-down-and-we-will-talk, communications.

Good male role-modelling.

Quote: “This generation wants to express their emotions, they need to be praised and listened to and a father should teach that masculinity and feelings go hand in hand.”

Being careful how you express body-image to your youngsters.

Quote: “Boys need to take responsibility and feel valued. Talk about how to deal with failure and disappointment”.

On that last point headed under the “solutions”:I strongly feel that it’s vital for youngsters to find their own self-worth from inside themselves, to know the value of their own uniqueness and place in society. It crosses my mind when I see acts of teen violence on tv (there’s been a lot of it on Australian urban trains and stations in recent years) that there’s a contempt for society by these ones who would do these mindless antisocial acts. I remember the woman I saw on the bus who refused to complain to the busdriver of harrassment by a teen boy for fear of how he might retaliate. And this is why:

A poor self-esteem could well belong to a person that might make another pay for how he considers he is made to feel about himself.

Dangerously low self-esteem. Dangerous not only for the one who gives into the ‘cool’ image without considering what is ‘real’ – what’s really going on – but dangerous for anyone who would ‘interfere’ with a teen with such fragility of self-esteem.

Something to think about isn’t it?

My Child Wouldn't Do That...

2010-05-26T06:07:00.000+10:00

I was watching a popular tv talk show in which parents were talking to the show’s host about one of their daughters involved in a crime for which she had been charged. There was no way that they could ever believe that their daughter could have been involved in this serious crime, and they had the backup consilerence of their lawyer, also interviewed on the show, and made his statement of the girl’s innocence based on his consideration of evidence.

Yes the crime was a most serious and brutal one, the molestation and murder of another girl.

The parents showed photos of their daughter as a younger child growing into teen years and she looked just like any other. They had sent their daughter away from home to study in a school in another countrywhere the crime occured.

I got to think about this, and, of course, there must be the benefit of the doubt of the girl’s innocence of the crime based within the “innocent until proven guilty” precept. That’s for a court to decide.

The girl that these parents had raised could not be, to the parents’ minds, the one who committed (with her boyfriend) the heinious act.

Or could she?

In my previous blog I talk about how, when a child reaches a certain age, they are forming into adulthood and are experimenting with things that the parents have previously protected them from in parental authority. Some teens go on to form secret lives apart from their parents and those closest to them. While they might talk about these things of experimentation with their peers, their parents will remain in the dark. For instance, what teen girl wants her parents to know that she is engaging in sex, and possibly with more than one partner? The son experimenting in drugs, or selling them? Or what a teen might be doing and talking about – and to – online?

Parents, upon discovery of their offspring’s misbehaviours, can immediately go into denial. A school principal calls the parents in to discuss their son’s behaviour – how he’s brought a knife into school. This is just one example. The response with many parents…? “My child wouldn’t do that.”

And to them, the parents, that’s the end of the story. Something within them shuts down and will not accept that their child is capable of things that the parents find unconscionable. They will think about the new baby that they brought into their home from hospital, that toddler and young child the teen once was – that youngster fresh at school – their child behaving as children should. They will consider all the best efforts put in by themselves to see their child grow into responsible adulthood. And then they will shake their heads and, in the projection of how parents can see their children as part of themselves, repeat again: “not my child”. Of course, this is sad – not realistic, especially when the evidence is overwhelming, – but sad.

What may appear on the surface may not be indicative of what’s underneath. A youngster may go home to his/her parents and appear as they would like to appear to them. But they’ve been out doing the things that the parents would be up in arms about.

But what the child is, is his/her own person – no longer an extension of all the parents’ hopes for them. Some experimentation on the teen’s behalf can go too far, that’s unfortunately true.

And who knows what lies within an individual, what desires or lusts, what motivations? These things are intensely personal within each individual regardless of age. The parents hope for the benefits of nurture, but nature is also involved – to put it simplistically. A child is a product of his/her ancestry. I’ve read stories one parent who have been concerned for a child’s behaviour and psychological well-being/stability when the other parent has been convicted of doing some unconscionable crime. Will that child take after that parent who lacks normal social conscience?

By adding the ‘nature’ factor, you could say that I’m asking: “Can a parent really say that they absolutely know their child?”

And so, having watched the tv talk show I felt sorry for the parents as I felt they had done the best for their offspring and were, right there, living with denial. They would like to consider their daughter inherently good, but within the human psych is the capacity for inherent corruption.

My personal philosposophy is this: That we are neither inherently good or inherently evil, but inherently corrupt -that is, of corruption capability. And having accepted, personally, this inherent corruption, capability of corruption, in ourselves, we can choose to rise above it.

I think that teens need to explore the dark places in themselves. I find this very normal. But when this exploration ends with the harm of other human beings, then that is the place of active concern. The denial of parent(s) will only hinder truth about a child and his/her behaviour.

If parents, in such situations, could only detach and attempt to see that the child they raised is their own (his/her) person and not an extension of themselves, even of their pride. Hard to let go, and to stop feeling the guilt of failure they could be feeling, but nothing, selfishly on the parents behalf, should hinder the restoration and healing of the child.

Even if the truth of a matter will hurt before the healing comes.

If you are interested in further of my lay psychology articles, please visit my Wordpress site Acoustic Eagle's Views.

All the Single "Ladies"?

2010-05-15T05:53:00.000+10:00

I was watching Good Morning America this morning and one of the featured articles was about a dance troupe of girls around the age of eight years performing their act to the tune of Beyonce's "All the Single Ladies".

What ensued was discussion in controversy about the suggestive dance moves performed by these pre-pubescent girls: "Eight year olds acting like 28 year olds" (28 being the age of Beyonce) was a comment by one of the show's panel. Another repeated comment was "What are the parents thinking?".

If you watch the film clip of Beyonce with two other women performing the song, it's quite mesmerising. Beyonce is an amazing dancer, and one of those contemporary pop divas well recognised for the 'booty-factor' (another would be Rhianna). But eight year olds gyrating and booty-shaking across a stage in those outfits?

I'm one of the opinion that children should be left to have a childhood. It doesn't last long in the length of a life and there's plenty of time for growing up and enjoying the innocence in that time of human life and development. Certainly, the dance routine by the tots has gained attention - maybe it's their, and their parents' fifteen minutes worth? Who knows the motivations behind the decisions some make?

And if you watch the dance by Beyonce and the other two women, there's a lot of leg spreading and butt pointing - danced out by these much younger ladies in the dance competition.

Remember the time when your mother said, or told your sister, to "keep your knees together and behave like a lady"?

Well, in contemporary pop clips (with pop songs directly marketed toward all pop-loving age groups) there's a lot of legs going at opposite ends of the pole and a lot of booty butts being made obvious. I think one of Rhianna's trademark moves is that particular one, appealing to the position of choice by lusty men who just might buy the music associated with the visuals.

As so, having put some reason in order, it might make you think about how girls are being introduced to adult-concept sex in these all-age film clips. I recently read a book, published in Australia and written by a number of authors, entitled, Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls (Spinifex Press 2009). What is discussed within its pages is the moral concern for children in the light of rampant consumerism - the marketing of items like clothing for example - and a media that promotes 'bad' being 'good' along with all the other confusions and subliminal messages that are incorporated into what is being sold to the young.

Ultimately I think that the line of distinction should be drawn, primarily by parental authority, to respect to those of tender ages and maturity to letting childhood be a time of enjoyment and exploration that then leads into adulthood...not by contrived imitation of adult conceptual acts that could end in the unwarranted precociousness in children.

Book Review: The Tattooed Girl by Joyce Carol Oates

2010-02-22T10:36:00.000+11:00

I don’t know what has taken me so long to discover Oates but I so enjoyed this novel, even through its bleakness.

I was caught along with the main character of Joshua, and the way the author so eloquently depicted this character – his wanting to be with others, yet in his genius and introversion, intent on desperately needing his own space and treating others as if filing them away like his many manuscripts, finished and unfinished. So when Alma, the ‘Tattooed Girl’ comes along, he has found someone who can give him that space, not expect anything from him as some others who are close to him seem to demand upon him, and she, so unlike himself, appealing to a part of himself that is the unknown, or the unknown (in his ever searching mind) of humankind. Thus she stays a companionable mystery.

The novel, I feel, is a story of redemption, even though the ending would otherwise contradict. It is redemption for Joshua who goes through ‘hell’ and Alma, a creature (it would appear) from hell, and the thorough exploration of these two as they casually interact and are a part of the lives of others who might seek to have a part in their lives whether good for them or not good for the two of them. Unfortunately, both characters are doomed in their own ways, but to say more would be a spoiler.

Joshua has the luxury of his genius and wealth, (with Alma on the other end of the scale) to force people out of his life at whatever desired length in his neurotic and highly introverted world, and yet having the needs of all others. Oates has provided the reader with such a depth of their life experiences that it’s as if God, or a benevolent force, is present in the lives of her characters, speaking to them via the author’s use of symbolisms through the characters’ activities.

I felt also it was a novel about madness and the tyranny of souls, with strong wills, imposing themselves against each other - those souls with their own depths and reasons for how they think and the things they do. All this instead of calm acceptance of the common ground of people, everyone having the same needs ‘under the skin’ – the primary ones of love and acceptance and of being needed, and, of course, in greater courage, communication instead of leaving things long unsaid.

I would have given the novel five stars but for the language used by the author that I thought was unnecessary given the author’s talent. I felt she could have found another way to describe Alma’s circumstances without the liberal use of the ‘c’ word and some very distasteful things descriptively described. Some readers may forgive that as the book goes into that broad area of the human condition, touching on the Holocaust, so it would figure to this reader that her intention may have been to illustrate in gross terms so as to shock.

This would be an excellent novel as a choice in a reader’s group for discussion.

I will be reading more of Oates, but only when in a mood to.

Book Review: The Swan Thieves by Elizabeth Kostova

2010-02-10T09:41:00.000+11:00

Reading any well-written novel requires patience as a reader and the ability in a relaxed frame of mind to savour the words as they are ordered on a page.

And so, with The Swan Thieves, you are invited not to hurry, or even be overly concerned with the plot, but to more deeply appreciate your love for the written language.

Kostova is one of those authors that I have found who caters for this manner of reading appreciation and from the moment I saw this new title by the author of The Historian I knew that I was going to like it.

I read The Historian a year after it was published and found it ponderous, especially the third quarter of it, but nonetheless was very impressed with its use of language. After reading The Swan Thieves I am able to draw a comparison between the two novels. For a start, I feel that Kostova has taken care to better flesh out her characters, which I found was lacking in her previous novel. Making a character more three dimensional lends, I feel, to giving the plot a firmer substance. This is what The Swan Thieves needed for a reader not to get lost in too much of the ethereal – particularly as the plot concerns artists and art and an interwoven mystery.

Like while reading Kostova's previous novel, I found I was feeling bogged down in the latter half and it was around then I realised that it does indeed take a patient reader to read her novels. One thing the author tries to do is to 'paint with words', which I feel is carried a little too far, for example from page 323, “...a blue paper napkin...”. Should such a writer who writes so well be concerned with trivialities ie the colour of the napkin? Another from page 350: “The [beer] bottle had picked up the light of the fire, which made it glow from the inside, like a topaz.” So it seems that the author would like readers to pick up each subtlety and nuance as one would pick them up in a detailed work of art, which was to this reader to be a bit of a yawn.

The conclusion is drawn in rather suddenly, but satisfyingly, towards the very end. The novel also has a skilful and inspiring treatment in art appreciation, which is one of the most memorable themes of the novel. The Historian, and even for its well-written text, did not stay memorable with this reader, but I was much more impressed with The Swan Thieves. I can recommend it to anyone that likes the savouring of words and a narrative with a gentle touch.

(To visit my Goodreads site to see other reviews by site owner, Acoustic Eagle, click here.)

Excuse Me, You 'Whooped' Something...?

2010-02-09T09:13:00.000+11:00

In my observations of people, something I do being a writer, and having enough time to spend in public places while waiting for public transport and getting about on my own fairly much, I tend to take note of behaviour that might be, in an isolated situation, considered odd. However, in very recent time, and particularly since I lived in the southernmost state of Australia, I have noticed something that seems increasingly to be a behaviour that is becoming less odd and more noticeable in young people, and I've only ever heard it coming from young men.

That is the 'whoop'. I don't know what else to coin it.

The sound reminds me of when our high school biology teacher used to take us in his combi van to the zoo and, nearing the ape enclosures, one would hear the unmistakable sound of the black and white monkeys make that incredible sound that all other living creatures would be able to distinctly hear all over the jungle!

It is a carrier, a sudden sound carrying up and down a street and particularly guaranteed to frighten the old lady or any casual pedestrian that has been unfortunate enough to pass by at a time when a young fellow has been given to this verbal act of like violence. Maybe before society was less tolerant, and less intimidated, it might have been called 'disturbing the public peace' – that was in the days before shows like Jackass were on TV, or any other form of entertainment that says 'look and me and my need for notoriety – no need to excuse my self esteem issues'.

Does that sound fogey, prudish? After all I realise that young men have that certain vigour of life that begs expression, plenty of energy that needs releasing – hobbies, sports ie possible skateboarding (for eg), hanging out with mates, girlfriends, riding around in cars – you know the usual teen/young adult pursuits where this energy used and entertainment forms are enjoyed.

Last week I was one of those casual pedestrians. It was just before bank opening hours and two young people, both around the age of twenty, a male and a female, were talking together and we were the only three people in the immediate area. The girl was standing and the young man was seated on brickwork. They were talking distinctly enough for me to hear that they were discussing a mutual male friend of their's. Just as I passed this young chap, he let out a whoop that contained an expletive. Right in my earshot, enough to make me jump.

Not giving the guy any satisfaction (is that what they want? Satisfaction?) I kept walking normally without reacting. Ignoring is best. Funny you know, as soon as he did this whoop, the two resumed talking in the same manner like they were before the loud noise was released. I heard the girl say,“That wasn't a very nice thing to say about so'n'so...”. The boy's reply was another expletive about this mutual friend of theirs but in the previous conversational tone.

In Hobart city the other week while waiting for a bus, I watched two men in their mid to late twenties cross the busy road in front. Before arriving on the other side, one of the young chaps let out a whoop. They entered a building and when they came out, another whoop. I realise that these chaps don't have Tourette's syndrome, but it reminds me of that. And the monkeys.

Not being a viewer of TV shows like Jackass, those shows in which youngsters are doing public pranks by which to shock and appal that might be called antisocial acts, I might assume that this phenomenon of the public (hear-I-am-hear-me) whoop has descended from some source of possible entertainment origin. People have been cheering, calling and whooping and the football for countless years, but that's at the football. Now it's to do with one young man always in the company of other youngsters – never on his own. Because that would be Tourette's.

So, through curiosity, I would like to know how whooping in public has come about. Does anyone reading this have clues?

Society is geared that it has certain boundaries or limits of acceptable behaviour in public areas to make the flow of people safe and peaceful. A whoop is a sound of elation over something, as the sound carries the hearers share in the person's 'exceeding joy'. Whether you want to or not. And whether you want to or not, you'll notice the young chap that's let everyone know he's there and regardless of how it's received – well by the friends he's with – or irritatingly by strangers in his vicinity, you'll notice him.

Funny thing isn't it? The youngster doing the crazy or antisocially-inclined thing might think something about himself momentarily while he's doing the act. But the sane people being treated with contempt (re the old woman walking by just at that moment and I've seen that happen) is going to think the worst of a fool.

(The monkey that I remember that does the whoop is the Spider Monkey, pictured)

The Mobile (Cell) Phone Phenomenon

2009-11-30T05:21:00.000+11:00

This article is a continuation from my previous one entitled 'The Sense of Self' – so it is in regards to psychology and not to the actual device of the mobile phone or it's ordinary usefulness.

In our times, it appears everyone has one, the mobile (I'm Australian) or cell phone. I have to laugh as, when at the time they first appeared in society, it appeared to me to be regarded as fashionable – to be 'seen' to get out one's mobile in a public place and talk to whoever was on the line. Later, when mobiles got cheaper, most people have got one.

They are handy and particularly useful when one is alone and requiring some aid or necessary contact. Many parents will not hesitate to get their children phones to ensure that they will be able to remain in contact wherever they are. People who drive have a mobile in case of car trouble. Tradespeople can keep in contact with their offices to make and keep appointments – the list goes on. There's every reason to agree that the mobile is a useful and beneficial device; it assures that we can have contact at all times and like I said, especially in times of need.

You might call me old fashioned but I barely use mine. The only times I do is when I'm answering a call, or contacting someone for some reason away from home. You see, I come from a time when all there existed was the landline and they were connected by cables (no 'hands free' or conference calling). So I've got to say it amazes me that people, who might be sitting on their lounge room sofas, will immediately reach for their mobile phone and use that instead of their landline, even though the use of mobiles is more expensive than landline use. Indeed the mobile phone has become an extension of the hand for many these days.

Do you know or have you seen or met someone who appears addicted to mobile phone use? I've read articles where people have reported as 'lost without their phone' couldn't function at the full speed that they have become used to. Phones are automatic – they provide immediate access – which, like I said above, is a good thing in some circumstances. But, like all things to do with human nature, the convenience of any device or luxury for that matter, may become a thing of dependency. So much dependency that, without that device or luxury, life is not the same, hardly 'complete'.

If we could step back a moment from this odd idea! The mobile has only been in use in recent history, and for thousands of years there was no such thing, let alone a landline telephone. You might say that the mobile is here to stay, and an integral part of human society, it is entrenched in the way society functions today. But the mobile, I would argue, is still a device and something useful but it does not make it, will not ever make it, integrated as a part of the innate human psyche. It is a device only. But some cannot exist (they would say) without one. They cannot see themselves without the automatic availability of it. And I think it's becoming a problem, psychologically speaking, in contemporary circles.

One circle of society that I feel it's becoming a problem (in the way of psychological health) is in the world of the teen. Text messaging might be cheap, but if a teen has an addiction to sending and receiving texts, then the sense of self is affected. There's a lot of 'quantity' before any quality here. For to receive text messages – that may give the teenage personality a sense of being loved, valued and accepted – one must also send text messages. Some very addicted teens go through much money each week just to pay for their mobile phone use. I have heard of one teen that will even steal money, or use other family members' phones, just to supply her 'habit'.

The addiction syndrome comes from the 'fix' of being noticed or peripherally 'valued' by the person that has sent the text or voice call. For a short time, that person (whether teen or anyone) feels valued, and has a increase of the self-worth – that they feel that can only be supplied by others responding to, or sending them, calls and messages. They will spend much time texting back and forth and really saying little of anything, just to assure themselves that they are valued and wanted by the person(s) they are communicating with via phone. It can also give the appearance of being 'popular'. And while all this is going on, and with the mobile so accessible, they will neglect the real reason why they have become addicted to this instant form of communication in the first place.

And so, in a world of the instant, of the 'now', how could this be good for society as a whole? I believe that such behaviour of seeing to have what is desired 'now' will only create a world of people who will, through conveniences, be them to lack patience and tolerance with others and with circumstances that are not so instant, that are not so accessible.

Patience and tolerance, I say, in this society of growing population, are two of the more needed virtues. But if a person's thinking is wired to imparting and receiving in the 'immediate', then it can hardly make for a world that is patient for the good things of living to manifest, for life to evolve and unfold more naturally in the human psyche, and for it to be in a good state of health. And I think it is important at this time in human history that there is more self-awareness in individuals, more need for a teaching of psychology in schools (for eg) and more appreciation for the lasting things of value, rather than the self-gratifications that come from any addictive forms.

Driving and Texting

There is one very dangerous misuse of the mobile phone that I wish to mention: that is, the use of the phone whilst driving.

Recently I read an article where a girl was lamenting, with great sorrow, the death of her sister in a car accident. Her sister had been text messaging about an item of clothing, nothing much really, and something (in sad hindsight) that could have waited until the girl was no longer behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Alas, I quite often see people talking on the mobile whilst driving in the knowledge that this is against the law. The law has changed only recently in Australia and now there are stiffer penalties for mobile phone use while driving. So, if a mobile voice call takes away from a driver's concentration, how much more concentration is required to do a text message, how much more time is taken eyes-from-the-road ahead? The girl in the story in my previous paragraph ended being killed because of text messaging behind the wheel of her car.

But, and this is the saddest thing, while we have responsibility as drivers to make sure we get to and from our destinations in safety, it is also our responsibility to drive for the safety of all other road users (speeders, tail-gaiters, and people that don't use their indicators can also take note!) and all pedestrians. It only takes a moment to collide with another car or a pedestrian, for a car is a potential killing machine on wheels.

I would like to relate what an acquaintance of mine does every time her mobile phone rings while she's driving (and who says we should always obey that ring when it rings when there is such thing as voice-mail?) She finds a place to pull over and park. Then she will use her phone. I think that, for some, it is all too easy to give into the temptation of answering that demanding ring tone. But, if one has a 'policy' of pulling over, without exception, making it a personal 'rule' of safety, then one just might spare a tragedy – the terrible tragedies that people have to live with, from the consequences of selfish and thoughtless behaviour, for the rest of their lives.

So...just how important is it?

And for those who cannot live without the mobile phone, you could ask yourself, how that phone makes you feel? Is it a useful device that keeps you in contact for good reasons, or has it become and extension of your personality, so much so that to be without it is like being without part of your personal self-worth? It's something to think about.

The Sense of Self

2009-11-29T06:04:00.000+11:00

Much of what inspires me to write is from my observations of how people treat the other people in their lives.

These observations run the gamut, from the people in the intimate life of the individual, to the people on the outer peripherals, like for instance other road users, people who work in shops and service industries, or without the human element even involved, the way that individual might treat his/her environment. The latter could include the individual's home or the society in which they live – and whether the individual sees themselves as an integral part of their environment or something that they feel more detached from. And example of this could be when they are habitual litterbugs, abusing that environment in some way, or when they care not for the safety of other road users by speeding – in fact, any of the 'me first' behaviours.

It has been my deep consideration that the sense of self, or put it another way, the self-esteem (or self worth), is the most neglected part of the human being. People go to a physician if the are sick, but, if habitually their behaviour is 'not well' or dysfunctional, the sense of self and the self's 'health' and continued 'well being' will be the last thing some people will want to look at.

For it is hard to look at the self. Who wants to see all of one's faults? In an extreme example, the narcissistic personality will blame all others for their faults ie., why they feel they are not successful. If they are getting criticised at work (for eg) they will blame the boss or their co-workers. If, in the narcissist, the elevated sense of self is criticised (brought to light) or attacked, they will look to anybody else to which to lay blame for their own faults.

Or take the example of the man who batters his wife. His sense of self is so dysfunctional that he will say in his own 'self defence' “She made me do it!”. Of course, we know that we alone are responsible for our own actions. And if we are responsible for our own physical health, being a total human 'unit' like all others, then it follows that we are also responsible for our own emotional health, and that includes the caring and self-nurturing of one's own self esteem.

It is difficult, however, to admit to faults. For we know that to the wrong sets of ears, to admit to faults could be like an admission of 'I know I have a problem within myself' (the admission being good) but to certain hearers it is a way for them to feel elevated, in their own esteem, to the person making the honest admission. I could go further by saying that a person who visits a psychologist's office might be viewed by some people as automatically dysfunctional by the wanting to visit a 'shrink'! Whereas, the person seeing the psychologist is in a healthy state by seeing someone because of the acknowledgement that such help for their emotional well-being is good and beneficial.

So, there can be a great reluctance to admit to faults, and with that, a reluctance to seek help – from friends, family etc – and from professional sources. You could even say that in some circumstances, in some societies, that it's 'pride wars'. Take for instance a work place, or any place of competitiveness, any place where 'image' or how one makes an impression is regarded as desirable. In that situation, one cares for how one is perceived. But, even then, that perception can only be appreciated by the person trying to make or keep the impression. The results can only be gauged (by that individual) by how others in that person's circle are responding to that person's behaviour.

There are those that seek popularity, and there are some that more naturally draw others to them and popularity is more naturally a part of their way. I believe that this is only one type of personality – those that are naturally gregarious and in that may give out the vibes that each person in their sphere is special to them somehow. In their very gregarious and people-loving behaviour, they make each person feel valued. For that reason they remain popular. It is sad, however, when people seek popularity and their nature doesn't more naturally have this people-loving/ valuing trait.

I suppose what comes to mind is the person that seeks many contacts on the internet, posts many posts on their Facebook site (for eg) and expects his/her many contacts to pay attention to everything they say. However, because they do not have the natural (or aquired) behaviour of people-valuing, they expect many comments to their posts, but neglect to reciprocate. And while they see people posting to their comments it will make them feel good about themselves, give them a sense of esteem (as they are being noticed by others). But they are so intent on this needing to be noticed that they are not regarding other people with the same esteem.

I have thought it amazing that a person on such a social networking site can have as many (if not more) than 500 to 3000 + contacts (for eg) and yet the ones who have left comments to every word they post are but a handful! To me it says, 'out of all those people there must be someone out there who's going to make me feel good about myself'.

It seems like a dream, doesn't it, to keep desiring this esteem, this attention, from others. It reminds me of someone who spends each day on the same beach with a metal detector, with a whole lot of other people with metal detectors on the same beach, hoping to turn over something buried in the sand. It's a lot of hope for the sake of someone's needy sense of self-worth.

And yet, these seeking ones, these ones that need so much to be valued and noticed by others, are not recognising the symptoms from their own behaviours. For what they are not seeing is that, within ourselves is soul (or spirit) that has more potential for the wholeness of the self than what they are giving themselves more credit for – if only they would come out of denial of those symptoms and begin the work of the pursuing of health of the emotional self. For some, going into the 'inner self' would take too much effort and they are lazy. (Especially with the internet and the great sea of humanity out there to be 'fished'. )

And so, for some there is no desire to look inside to see honestly for themselves their dysfunction and to therefore come out of the denial about it. To them it's like an assault to the personal pride. And, in a world full of people with the same needs, it's seems a trend to seek, particularly via the internet in these contemporary times, whatever might be gained as a way of compensation for what the individual feels, but may not perceive, they lack within themselves.

I believe it is the human's basic need to be loved and accepted. In the situations that life can bring, whether for good or for ill, that need remains. When, in favourable social circumstances (ie good friends/family conditions) that individual feels loved/nurtured, then the soul of that person flourishes.

In unfavourable/undesirable circumstances (ie when one finds themselves alone or in new social environments or suffers from a dysfunctional background) that need to be loved and accepted will manifest in dysfunctional behaviours that will merely prove to be stop gap, or band aid measures. The underlying problem, however, will remain.

The self will continue to suffer poor health, unless there is coming out of denial of what that dysfunctional behaviour is saying in its symptomatic manifest.

“When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate.” Carl Jung

Star Trek: Original Cast Motion Pictures

2009-11-14T07:08:00.000+11:00

After seeing the brand new Star Trek movie, which I previously mentioned was very good - except maybe for the part in the plot that dealt with the planet Vulcan (if you're a Trek fan you'd know what I mean), I was keen to see the original movies, with the original cast, again. I had the DVD Star Trek the Motion Picture (ST 1) and it's a movie I never get tired of.

In fact, and as I mentioned before, I've probably seen that movie more than any other -except maybe for X Men 1, and Dante's Peak; those are my three 'can always watch 'em again' films.

I know for a fact that die-hard trekkies were disappointed in the first movie of the original cast ST movies, as it wasn't true enough to the format of the original series. But I first saw ST 1 at the cinema, the year it was released, 1979. At the time, I was in total awe.

There was magic about it. I'd been such a fan of the original tv series, and I felt the first movie was so fantastic - just the way the cast were reintroduced to their loving audience and Scotty taking Kirk to view and board the refitted vessel in the pod. The audience are treated to the awesome sight of the great lady Enterprise in sweeping panoramic views. For someone that loves 'Trek' I remember it brought a small tear to the eye!

Major highlights for this 'trekkie' included: the soundtrack - the majesty of music - as well as the nostalgia; the impact of Spock's arrival on the bridge and his dispassionate attitude upon being so warmly greeted by his friends and fellow crew members; when the alien probe appears on the bridge and it lit up like a giant arc welder (you had to squint to watch it - intense) and finally the tie up to the plot where it is discovered by Spock that V'ger's inability to know 'simple feeling' leads to Spock's answer to his own seeking.

Those Vulcans are an amazing race in the world of science fiction. They are into 'logic', which they regard as the highest of all virtue, yet they are also deeply spiritual. Both are experiences of 'mind'. And it is through his human half that Spock (humans, which Vulcans regard as 'lesser than' for their predisposition to feel and express emotion) comprehends that he has discovered his 'wholeness'.

Roddenbury remains one of my personal heroes for his 'vision', his integrity towards humanity, his tolerance, and especially what he was expressing during his creative life with the producing of Star Trek (right up until season seven of ST The Next Generation) that the mind, with all its capacity for nobility - and the mind's ability to rationalise before more 'reactionary' behaviour, that stays with me and makes me an appreciative fan. I personally have never bothered seeing anything past STN Gen season six. I did see season seven, post Roddenbury's death, and I felt the whole thing had gone to the crapper, frankly. I never bothered with spin-off series after Next Gen.

Anyway, I bought myself ST 11 and ST 111 this week. The individual DVDs were presented in a printed tin slip-case, like the sort of decorative tins used for biscuits. Very collectable. It was great to see those movies again. For those who know, Spock dies in ST 11 The Wrath of Khan and lives again in ST 111 The Search for Spock. I wasn't too keen on The Wrath of Khan, it was my least favourite of the movie series, but apparently the die-hard fans loved it for its authenticity.

Looking back now, I think that Star Trek the Original Motion Picture was a good artistic introduction into the movies that followed.

I'm looking forward now to buying ST 1V - the one about the whales and nuclear 'wessels' sic Chekov. It's a wonderful heart-felt story.

Oh gosh, what am I talking about? ...you'd have to be a 'trekkie' to understand.

Lie to Me: Some Thoughts on the Series

2009-11-01T06:28:00.000+11:00

I've just finished watching Lie to Me Season One on DVD, and I must say, it's a very thought provoking series.

One character in particular, Loker, acts as a curious kind of 'control personality' into the masks people can wear when they are with others: the face people can put on to hide their true selves, thoughts, feelings, motivations and intentions.

Eli Loker (played by Brendan Hines) works for the Lightman Group, headed by Cal Lightman (British actor Tim Roth), and has a personal 'working' philosophy of being brutally honest in his chat with the other characters. Speaking what's on his mind, it causes his hearers to become somewhat unnerved, and it elicits the realisation that people will only present the person of themselves that they want the other to see, with responses in conversation that cause people to lie and speak half-truths. Thus, Loker's unguardedness confronts the usual guardedness that people may be so used to presenting.

Curious, isn't it? I don't know if it's very often that I've ever met anyone who's naturally at ease in a social setting, who isn't really bothered about being guarded or self-shielding, particularly with acquaintances. It's all very complicated, for a personality will naturally guard itself in an environment of not knowing what aspects of that social environment he/she can trust and feel at more ease in. Complicated creatures we are.

This show is interesting as it uses the findings of Dr. Paul Ekman, a psychologist and advisor to the show. Ekman has written books on emotions and their relation to facial expressions. The show's producers have used his information to create a series where, by the study of the face and body gestures, the characters in The Lightman Group are able to discern who's telling (or likely to be telling) the truth, or who is lying. Ekman discovered that facial expressions are commonly shared across all human types, and can tell a far different story to the words that can come out of mouths.

An example from the show. Lightman overhears a man telling his lover he's going to leave his wife for her. The woman is hopeful with starry eyes from this man's words. But Lightman has seen the tell-tale shoulder shrug on the man while the man was speaking and has observed that's a giveaway to the truth not being told.

It's a fascinating series using factual studies. Better than the 'average' series for that element.

The Heroes Series

2009-10-13T04:09:00.000+11:00

I've just finished watching all three seasons of Heroes; the last season had 24 episodes. I really enjoyed the first season of this well-produced, extremely well-cast show. The plot was good and the ending tied up nicely. Disappointed with Season Two, which seemed to mostly follow the lead of the first season but without the first season's freshness. But having gone so far, I had to borrow Season Three from the local video library and watch all 24 episodes within a week.

This was a bit hard to do as it seemed any time I had the tv on, I had to keep watching so I could take back the DVDs before my rental time was up! Ended up having a Heroes marathon and by the end of it, with all the twists and turns in Volumes Three and Four, which are included in Season Three, I was glad when it was over.

However, in watching it all within a week I thought my attitude towards such a fabulous show was petty, really. But at one point, in Volume Three, I got tired of all the cuts to possible future and past events to then be brought back into the present in the lives of all the characters. I was in a spin about who was 'changing sides' - who had become a 'bad guy' when they began as a 'good guy', who seemed to me to have become confused as to their personal identity and original purpose for their actions, and how 'bad guys' could become 'good guys' for at least one episode. When Volume Four came along, I was a trifle more relieved and somewhat less confused - and I was hoping that Mohinda Suresh was too. Such a conflicted character!

It was at times that I thought that the script writers, those 'puppeteers' (that invented the character of the puppeteer) had taken everything to the greatest extremes with such liberty with their characters. I know that they must be ardent comic book fans, and we, the viewers, are reminded that this is a moving picture comic book show, or else we might become lost in the moving still-frames of convolution!

Anyway, after it was over, and the box was returned to the video store, I missed seeing their faces and the dedicated way that those actors played those most implausible roles: Mohinda (glad he got rid of the skin condition and had his head on straight about things at the end), Matt Parkman (one of my faves - some minor confusion in his purpose but always a good guy), Hiro for his addictive cuteness, Ando for his endless side-kick comedy, Claire for her never losing her cheerleader appeal, Peter for his earnestness and loyalty, Nathan for his ability to come back to life (?), Angela for her ruthless ploting but dedication to family, Tracey (she's cool), Noah for his agent mind-set and to ever leave the viewer hoping in the goodness in even a most hardened soul, and all the other characters, including Mr Muggles who knows how to sniff out a sandwich under a bed. I should mention Sylar, or Gabriel...is there yet hope?

A truly brilliant series with the show's producers as 'true believers' to the appeal of the comic book. I have been fascinated, really, but the brilliance of their vision for Heroes because one, as a viewer, is able to use the remote on 'pause' at a given moment to behold that comic book still captured using flesh and blood actors.

I very much appreciate the dedication and fabulous descriptive artwork of a comic book - the ability to capture so much in one frame, one page. The producers of Heroes were able to brilliantly translate the visual artform of comic book into the media of television. It might be a while before I want to see any more Heroes on tv. But it has been quite an experience.

Are You a Soft Touch?

2009-10-06T07:11:00.000+11:00

(...and thoughts on online-Christianity.)

At the risk of 'a soft touch' being lost in translation, as I'm an Australian, I would like to define the question:

Are you the sort of person that can say 'no'?

This is not an easy a question as you might think.

This week I took a little foray exploration into a Christian network site. Current research into a topic of reading led me by curiosity. Within the first two days I was mailed by money scammers, posing as Christian and one as a 'new Christian' (sic, the one I found in my inbox a few days ago).

Of course, they've got the usual sob story to tell. This second one I received said that they were dying of cancer, that their husband was killed in the Middle East conflict, and that their huge fortune is tied up in a European bank. To get this money released, with all the emotional blah blah, they want your help (and your bank account details) to make that happen.

And so, I'm asking you, are you a soft touch? Do you for a moment give such a tale any credit at all? (Most sane people wouldn't.) But consider a person of tender considerations into the human condition, that you might suppose would express faith for the love of mankind. Might such a one even, for that moment, entertain that this person who has mailed them, (apparently wealthy), but begging, and who needs their help? (The abovementioned scammer posing as 'Christian' mentions they are 'new' in attempt to appeal for encouragement in the faith...ha!)

To a person like myself who's been on the net a long time, I'm not surprised that these sob story scammers would target a social network based on Christianity. For it is that sometimes believers can, unfortunately, get their sense of charity all muddled up with their personal belief in God - and put that tender heartedness before street-smarts out there in the wider world.

And there would exist those ones with such a tender-hearted misguidedness that would politely send an e mail back and say 'sorry to hear you're in so much trouble but I can't help...' instead of deleting or reporting the scammer. Their minds may be confused ie. 'what if this person could be genuine...?' What? Hello! In any ISP inbox, in comes scam-mail, with the same sob story - except maybe the scammer omits to add the word 'Christian' (or any other faith based on the love-concept) to it?

These sort of scammers are targeting these sites why? Because they are relying on the gullibility of a group of people that they are assuming are given to emotions before intelligence.

Scammers would target the religious, as these criminals are relying on misplaced human empathy to get a hearing. So why should there be any gullibility through religious belief? Are wits left behind when someone converts to a faith, any faith?

Do wits need to be left behind when a person takes up a path that they might think deals more with emotions than intelligence? (I would think that God, as creator, created the 'mind' to be used, not overlooked in favour of religious mind-sets that leads to foolishness, hypocrisy and even annoying religious behaviour.)

I remember one time, years ago, a young man came up to me in the city and asked me for a couple of bucks to buy a coffee. Well, looking at the red glaze in his eyes, and not being someone who was born yesterday, I rebuked him, told him to get some help for his drug addiction. He was yet another begger, trying the 'con' in an attempt to appeal to them who find they cannot say 'no' with that soft touch vulnerability.

Righteous words and righteous choices will have their respect in the eyes and ears of others. And this can have further significance if the person you need to say 'no' to needs to hear a 'no' to get them on the right track again, a path away from error.

But on another occasion, I was approached by a young girl at a bus mall and asked me for the forty cents she lacked to make up her bus fare. I could see that she wasn't begging, just someone who needed some help to get home. It was actually a good feeling to help her, I mean, put yourself in her shoes. I could, because something similar happened to me once.

The considered form of empathy is always good, but sometimes picking the ones in genuine need can be a hard call and one has to judge. But being a 'soft touch' won't help, common sense must apply. Christians, or others who profess faith and 'love' towards their fellow man, don't need to constantly prove to the world this faith of theirs (philosophically speaking, faith is a journey and it changes over time with maturity and wisdom) by being a 'soft touch' - by being a person that would favour emotion over common sense/intelligence. Emotional energy needs saving for something more worthy of it.

Btw, I posted an edition of this blog on the site before I left there, without any replies to my posting. I've been a follower of Christ and a student of the Book for some twenty years – and I would prefer the gist of my writing to be understood, not compacted into someone else's narrowed way of thinking/believing. In fact I would prefer to write secular because it seems that religious people have a penchant for wanting to preach at others. Many of them want to correct the one who appears not to believe in the same fashion that they do. I can just hear it now from some religious soul that may have read this blog through (sorry if this sounds a bit paranoid), ie., '...but you must have charity...” and tell me what the scriptures say, those passages that I'm well familiar with, to support their – blah. Why is it that Christians are so quick to demonstrate their Christian-ess to others? What have they, individually, got to prove? I tell you, I've had experiences online with people who profess Christ and I've found amongst them the greatest assortment of unnecessary advice and admonition.

And it seems to me that anyone who says they are 'Christian' are grist for these millers. In terms of persecution, which the believer accepts as part of the Christian experience, I've found that it is unfortunately so that Christians can be the worst persecutors of other Christians.

Just because a person takes up a faith, doesn't automatically make one a teacher or corrector. Was this sort of behaviour suitable when, before conversion, such behaviour - that crosses into emotional/reactionary - may not have even been considered? Some take on an immediate familiarity towards other believers that crosses into interfering. I don't know why some leave their minds behind – but that could have to do with how a religious person needs to constantly prove to others how much 'faith' they have. There's altogether too much talking, not enough listening, and not enough quiet.

Sometimes people get into a belief system (not only Christian I would add here) and want to let others have the unwelcomed benefit of their own personal revelatory awakening. It is one thing to share one's own wonder at one's new-found faith in wisdom, yet another to appear like someone who has lost touch with the real world. It's a good way to put people off – and I still scratch my head over why certain door knockers go to such persistent efforts. What doesn't get 'turned' gets 'burned', a lot of the time - that is, what gets 'burned' by religion remains on the defensive to it (that's why door knockers are so pathetically tragic). Do people really need religious presentation in their lives, or a faith that offers them greater freedom than what they are currently living? Some Christians bring their own 'church walls' along immediately, and the door bangs shut.

And there seems to be a sort of 'possessiveness' between religious Christians too, as if one has a right to interfere into the life of the one on the receiving end with unwanted advice and all the assumption that goes along with it.

I tend to think that some people – and this may sound harsh – may have been better off remaining in the secular world, rather than taking on religion. Might they remember a time when they had some intelligence, including emotional intelligence?

In a local newsletter I read about a woman who had had a tragic early life, but had spent the rest of it in charitable works. She had written a book about her experiences. The article does not one mention her being 'Christian'. I want to say to any professing Christ that may be reading this blog, that there are plenty of people out there in this world that are doing works that demonstrate the sort of love and good human empathy that Christ spoke: “...as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me”. They don't need to tell the world that they are 'Christian' – no need of such religious boasting or that lame sort of misguided 'evangelism'. If you believe in God then it would to you be that God has got the measure of every heart, and is the witness to every act.

There's much more I could write, for the risk of being misconstrued. Those given to overt religiosity would have compulsion to misconstrue what's published here by this 'other' Christian, because of how they think faith 'should' be – and 'should be' expressed. I've got a word for them. Unless you are giving a 'word in due season'* – mind your own business and keep your busy body religio-self out of my yard. Whatever help you think others might need, if it is unwelcome, then that speaks about the one that has spoken (or typed) more than what common sense and personal respect to their would-be hearers should respectfully allow.

“I am the way, the truth and the life....” Jn 14:6

"Life" is not a word interchangeable with 'religiosity'. Christ came to set the captives free. So should you.

….. Footnote: Just before leaving that network site, I got mail from some genuine people that was of some vague, dull, religious content. It sounded very flowery, and no doubt in context to something off in the writer's own 'reality'. I sure hope that such folk are not deceived into thinking that words used in such a manner are another way of 'evangelism'. The guy was saying something that I attributed to himself, but I didn't care to know what that was. There were other things on that s/n site I found were very odd.

*Prov 15:23

On Sex & the City - The Movie

2009-09-24T05:55:00.000+10:00

I watched a DVD yesterday, Sex and the City: The Movie, and I was so impressed I'm actually moved to write. If you haven't seen the movie - and who by now hasn't (aside from me!) - then there's a spoiler warning before the following:

I've admired this tv series - good writing, great wit and four main characters that the viewer can get to know intimately. The world of Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda is one of true and enduring friendship: women who share all the highs and lows of living in a city they love and going through their respective relationships with their men.

As season six wrapped up so nicely, I was curious to see what the producers of Sex and the City: The Movie, would make of a film. I found this movie ultimately satisfying as to the continuing fictional saga of the lives of these four women, and that, as life went on five years later, there was more of a story to be told - (and indeed more, as the next movie is currently in production).

In the end of season six, Carrie finally gets her man, her Mr Big, that on again, off again true-love romance that was worked through the entire six seasons. Finally, he proposes in this film and Carrie is given a gorgeous dress for her wedding after featuring within the pages of Vogue magazine in various bride's dresses. The layout in the pages is just stunning.

As usual Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is stunning herself, such a fabulous model for these dresses, and for everything she wears throughout the movie. I must say that I have an interest in stylish clothing and I was particularly drawn to one she wore (pictured) as it has classic 50s lines - scooped neck and tucked in waist. I wasn't too keen on the bell-shaped skirt, and would prefer a more classic A-line.

I was also very moved by this movie as I found it, wit aside, very realistic when Carrie expresses her humiliation and disappointment when Big doesn't show for the wedding. (As anyone knows who has seen this film that all was not lost...it just took more time for the characters to elucidate the reasons for their decisions at the time.)

In the car outside the library where the wedding is to be held, Big prays that Carrie in her beautiful dress will turn to look at him and so to assure himself that the marriage will be only about him and her. But she is so caught up with the beauty and pageantry of the dress and the wedding celebrations (that had taken on a greater proportion than first planned) that, with stars in her eyes, she is thinking more selfishly, having lost the perspective of her and Big's honest first commitment to marry. It is an innocent mistake, but a fatal one, not rectified until the end of the movie.

Having written my last season on 'Thoughts on Marriage', which includes a part on 'the wedding', I found this misfocus on behalf of Carrie a slice out of life - you would have to read my series in this blogroll to see what I mean. Of course Big has made the fatal error, full of self-doubt on the very day of his wedding, by humiliating his bride-to-be. Carrie's reaction when she confronts him is one of those cinematic tear-jerking moments.

One could see, through the series of misevents, ie. Lily playing with Carrie's mobile phone and then putting it in her little bag so Carrie cannot find it, Miranda's fostering Big's doubts about the wedding by her own upset with Steve, that the time wasn't yet right for Big and Carrie to marry at that point.

So, it is wonderful when the two characters, having had their eyes opened to the errors of their self-absorption, to finally see what it has been that their hearts had been desiring - each other -when they had spent so much time harbouring their own thoughts with fear of revealing the honest truth. Their motivations all come out into the open during the film. With the truth of that, the audience is consoled that their marriage would have a more solid foundation.

Thus, Sex and the City: The Movie, while fun, enjoyable and a great story, shows something about truth in relationships, and how honesty can acheive so much more to the fulfillment of the desires of hearts.

I give this movie a 5 out of 5 stars. If you haven't seen it, go see it. It will make you feel good.

Thoughts on Marriage Part 6 (End)

2009-08-28T05:12:00.000+10:00

For all the Right Reasons: A look at love, commitment and marriage work.

A previous part in this series is entitled "For All the Wrong Reasons". This final part is looking at reasons for marriage to be the good option, and how it might remain that way.

It's a funny thing romantic love. I really loathe to relate that it is not merely an emotion, but a collection of feel-good – and sometimes painfully experienced – physical reactions, through the endocrine system that elevates the soul (mind, emotions and will), to thus enhance the feeling experience. I think it would be highly beneficial for those who say that they 'fall in love' to understand this before they commit to a partner that may not be the most suitable for a life-match.

In the Australian reality tv show The Farmer Wants a Wife, a group of single blokes who own their own farms are given the choice of ten ladies, whittling down their choice to one woman by the end of the series. In interviews, many of the prospective female candidates say, after being with the farmer for a little while in a get-to-know-you time limit say, "I think I'm falling for him". (Falling? Sounds a bit risky. Some of the comedy skits are 'falling' [down] jokes – two-legged creatures that we are, take one leg off the ground and one is immediately put to disadvantage! )

I did some cringing right there, when this young woman expressed how much she's feeling for the guy she's known in such a short time. And yet, in the next episode, she's been rejected by him and ousted.

The girls are well aware of this happening before they sign the contract to get on the show. And yet some are very willing to feel that risky emotion that puts them 'out there' for hurt and disappointment. It upsets some of the guys too, to think that some of the women are that quick to take an emotional stake in them. Could it be that by saying that "I think I'm falling in love with you" is a way of making the other person to more lean towards them? We all know that the game of love can be a dangerous one. Hearts can be broken, or at least hurt and smarting.

Feelings are one thing, and the hormones, secreted into the body: phenylethlamine, dopamine and oxytocin, are those that greatly enhance them.

From an article from The Readers' Digest How to Pick a Perfect Mate Feb edition 2007:

“After sex, the brain releases oxytocin, which results in that warm, companionable feeling of love and the creation of social bonds important for child rearing. Watch out – sex on a whim can lead to feelings of love for a person who is entirely wrong for you.”

Can it be said then, that feelings can be deceiving? Even though they can, at that time, seem so strong – that it influences the will towards a lifetime stake in another?

Sometimes 'love' happens, that is, the feelings of love. And based on that emotion, and that lovely cocktail of hormones, people will commit to a life together – without the projection of what it might take to fulfil that commitment and grow together, taking up the responsibilities of a shared household (including housework) and the joint input of raising offspring.

I think most will agree, and as I have stated in a previous part in this series, that the 'honeymoon' period of marriage usually lasts around a period of (as little as) one to two years or so. And then?

I interviewed a person that had been married for about 25 years. I asked him what he thought of marriage. He said that he liked the security of it, the comfort of always being with the same person. Overall his experience had been good. As I also know his wife, I feel her answer would be similar, if not the same. They've had a marriage that has weathered storms and yet has remained a good experience and they have remained very supportive of one another.

And I often have read magazine articles of couples that have been married for 40, 50 or even 60 years that express, in those elderly years, the blessing that their spouse has been and sharing their lives with that person. They are the ones to whom marriage has been most suitable.

Then, there are many, many other marriages that go bad. In the book Wifework: What Marriage Really Means for Women, Susan Maushart, a self-proclaimed feminist, writes of the disappointment many wives feel, the disillusionment, when they enter into marriage with the best hopes, and, after the honeymoon period, with all the joy of sexual freedom expressed in it, that, unfortunately, it can ensue towards that long human tradition - as it were- of stereotypical role labour: a resulting division in the relationship.

To further overall paraphrase, she says that while some men will say, at the beginning, that their wives will not be taken for granted, that they and their wives will share equally and be equally satisfied partners in marriage, this unfortunately is not always the case. The best intentions....

Married women might think that their mates, or the lazy partner of either gender, are going to do their share. Like I said the best intentions...that's how we begin. In the cerebral of it. But living it out can sometimes prove that wrong.

Maushart writes: “What have changed enormously are not the role structures, or divisions of labour, but the expectations we bring to marriage. The mismatch between our words and our deeds, the rhetoric we profess and the reality we construct is acute. And the confusion this engenders, I am convinced, does not simply contribute to our spiralling divorce rate. It explains it. ...one of the most pressing ethical concerns of our age.”

Also on the topic of men and monogamy:
“For monogamy did not simply make participation [in marriage] feel good...it made males live longer and more productively. In Darwinian terms, monogamy enhanced male survival.”

Maushart states that, from statistics, it is women who are the main instigators of divorce, with their ex husbands entering reasonably quickly into another marriage, sometimes within a year. Some men like to have 'wives' – wives instead of equal partners, wives instead of finding and nurturing that special female to whom they desire to commit.

You may have heard it said before, that working women have expressed that it would be good to come home to a wife after work. There's a clean house, dinner on the table and sex etc. Well, Maushart says that old stereotypes, from history and generations past, can return when the husband - and this is the crunch - really begins to see his partner as the one that will do all or most of the housework. Entrenched in the minds of some is that women are better at doing that... maybe because their wives remind them too much of their mothers on a less than conscious level.

Ever heard someone's husband say, "Oh, I don't help with the washing, she does it better than me!” or 'I couldn't change a nappy if you asked me to, and the smell of poop makes me want to throw up...and which end of the baby does it go on again?". They might even give you a boyish grin along with the words. It could be so that their wives even are working women, but these husbands are all too keen, habitually, to let the Hard Work (and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!) of housework is "women's work". Women do it better...and other excuses.

“Honey, could you please find me a clean singlet? I can't find anything in this cupboard. You know I we males can never find things around the house.”

Oh yes?

(In other words...“you do it”)

(Honey comes up beside him and grabs the item of clothing from right out in front of his eyes)

….(“thanks Mum...oops... I mean, Honey”)

Intentions are Good. But...

And so, with the best intentions, the words of the two, before marriage, confirming that the couple will launch into a life together, helping each other with mutual respect to divisions of labour, care of home and children.

So how might it be that things can change? That it could be that labour division via stereotypical gender roles could come about? Maushart supplies reasons for that in her book. But I will add my thoughts that the gender/stereotype division of labour can and does happen. As a result, many women become disillusioned by marriage, finding that their husbands are getting the better end of the deal and, having that revelation, decide to opt out of the contract. And who might blame them?

Also there can be a 'relaxing' in one partner, to lying more in front of the couch watching tv (conscience bothering or no) for example, when the other is more to willing to do the work without complaints, although the partner doing the work is consciously or subconsciously resenting this 'automatic' work delegation. For a lazy soul to marry a hard working soul – by nature – is a good ride, and a bit of a free-ticket. Wouldn't you agree?

But wait a minute. You might say I'm being sexist and too stereotypical. I would answer that, in a previous part, I mentioned one couple in which the wife behooved housework and rarely cooked. Indeed her husband had to get home from work and do most of it. It can happen in either gender, but from the traditional/stereotype (in a more clinical sense of the word) there's reality about most work being the work of the 'wife'.

For what should marriage be, but a mutually satisfying experience, based on love that can go from a sublime feeling of "he/she is the only one for me – so much so, that I want to share a whole life with him/her" to, each day, each year as it comes, growing together, and being mutually supportive emotionally, financially and in all forms of work in the division of all labours. This without the drudgery of coming to a place of falling into habit, routine and taking the other for granted.

One final word on 'work' within marriage. Housework, as I stated above, is hard work. Anyone would know this if they had to get down on their knees and scrub out bathtub ring. And while, as children, we took (usually) our mother's work for granted, it is up to husbands, or wives as the case may be, to realise that housework is actually work. It takes energy, sometimes much of it, and time, time spent in front of the tv with a beer or a soap opera or any other pastime that is leisurely.

Keeping Personal Attractiveness:

This taking-a-life-partner-for-granted has whiskers on it, as the saying goes – and let's hope she'll shave her legs too and keep herself looking good. For partners to stay together they both need to continue in their personal attractiveness to each other – so to keep the sexual/emotional interest happening. One woman I knew married a man who was good looking and fit at the beginning of their relationship. Over time, and a lot of taking for granted, he ended up an overweight trackie-dack-wearing, tv sloth. She, on the other hand, continued in her external personal self-esteem habits. Her loathing his personal appearance to her was only part of their whole marriage demise.

The couple also need to continue to entertain each other. This involves a lot of communication, something that some couples leave this off after a time period, and the taking of holidays to get away from the grind of routine. Interest between couples needs continual application.

There's one story I remember of a woman who took up golf, because her husband was away a lot because of his love for the sport. Seeing that they were spending too much time apart on the weekends, she took it up and surprised herself by becoming quite good at it. And being with the other golfers in the clubrooms after their games was good socialising for the couple as well.

Real Love

The final word in this series is on the matter of love. Sometimes some couples do find the true sort, the sort that leads through the years to companionship – friendship – if you like. Talking to a psychologist recently, he said that young couples are young enough where they have the years and youthful energy to deal with life and its challenges a bit more experimentally. They can afford, because of those two factors, to make errors and, if it fails, to begin life over again. Harder for them who through whatever factor that compels people to stay together when they otherwise would be better off, for overall holistic health and well being, apart. It can be a tragic, predictable, and very unhappy life they can find themselves enduring. And is enduring that 'wedlock' (sounds like a prison term) worth such continual heaviness of heart and real dissatisfaction?

Getting married is definitely the easy bit to the comparison of years of experience and enjoying the honeymoon period, can be a bliss. And in hindsight, for many of us that have been married and have found it to be far below our original hopes and expectations, we might have wished we had the wisdom then that we have today – and to have then had a greater personal definition of how we expected our marriages to be.

Fortunate and happy are those who are in a good and mutually supporting marriage. One might question, asking those couples why their marriage is a success. Maybe it has worked because that original love was deep and profound enough to get them through all the trials that may have presented. And they might say that they couldn't imagine themselves with any other. However, lucidity about one's expectations from a life-partner may only come in hindsight. So wouldn't it be great if subjects like 'the psychology of the marriage commitment' was taught in schools. It's the biggest decision, who we are going to share a life with if we choose to marry, that we are ever going to make.

That would be good, and very practical, home economics - for Life.

© Acoustic Eagle

Book Review: How the Rich are Destroying the Earth by Herve Kempf

2009-08-26T05:07:00.000+10:00

A book for all the rest of us, the title hardly appealing to a 'ruling class' or oligarchy, which the author so astutely describes in this timely essay-styled 105 pages, with a forward by Greg Palast and a preface in which the author presents the correlation between a capitalist-driven world economy and how the earth suffers with gasping from its excesses.

The book describes in plain language and examples, ways in which the earth is being plundered by the rich, the world powers that be, under a widely promoted assumption that economic growth – capitalist-driven to replace the democractic – is the sole means to social problems. Australian and US citizenry have only recently discovered how persuasive this tries to be with their respective 'stimulus' packages.

In Chapter 1, 'Catastrophe. And then What?', the author discusses the need to be awake to what is happening to a planet that “behaves like a self-regulating organism” with issues like global warming, its rate of species extinction, air, earth and sea pollutants and how the human populations of the world are consuming more of its land mass for development for capitalist/consumptive purposes. It also discusses the future of oil.

From there, the reader is taken into enclaves of the poor, some of whom are left to live in shantys and forage on garbage heaps to survive – and onto statistics illustrating the widening gap between rich and poor. Highlighted are some of the most greatly disadvantaged where those areas of the globe are having their resources extracted at risk to the environment.

From page 44: “The dictionary defines oligarchy as '1. government by the few 2. government in which a small group exercises control, esp for corrupt or selfish purposes; also: a group exercising such control.” Explained concisely are what the greatest money-making concerns of the world amass and the big pay-offs to retiring company CEOs. Also how “hereditary capitalism is regenerating itself” into a new aristocracy: “...capitalism doesn't know how to do anything except celebrate itself.” (P58)

Kempf draws from the writings of economist Thorstein Verblen who “reasoned that the principle of conspicuous consumption governs society”. In this, every successive lower strata of society imitates the one above it. The borders will necessarily close around the mega-wealthy and the poor shut out – material wealth and extravagant affluence becoming the all important life-boat security of them who would dwell in 'gated communities'. And this not only to an actual way of 'lifestyle', but in the pursuit of continued wealth, walling out in self-interested disregard what excessive consumerism, promoted by these money-making elite, extracts from the earth and on to its “torrent of waste” (P.63).

A very intriguing chapter is 5, Democracy in Danger, in which issues such as, the 'terrorism alibi', security – including increased surveillance implementation, increases in prison populations as a means to control the poor, criminalising political protest, and a self-censoring media, that in itself is tied well into interests of a mega-wealthy. What the global oligarchy seek to do is not create a new dictatorship, but seeks the “bastardisation of democracy”, with a “unconscious desire” for 'catastrophe' through which it can increase consumerism. If the YK2 was any 'test' of what might be possible, then a lot of people were buying and stocking up big (as this reviewer remembers) as a just-in-case the beat-up had any substance about it.

“...what makes the new despotism possible is individualism, self-absorption, and obliviousness to one's fellow citizens. That's precisely what capitalism promotes: its ideology exalts each person's pursuit of his own interests, claiming that the sum of individual behaviours leads by a sort of magic – 'the invisible hand' – to an overall optimum.” (P95)

This concise book is reading for anyone interested in these socio-political times with its eye-opening expose of a world being structured to care primarily for those at the top of the hill to the increasing hardship of the rest and the detriment to the natural world. I couldn't recommend it more highly.

“If humanity takes the planet's ecology seriously, it must put a ceiling on its overall material consumption and, if possible, decrease it.” (From page 73)

From the back cover: Herve Kempf is the environmental editor of Le Monde, France's most influential daily newspaper, and the founder of Reporterre, a Web site devoted to discussion about the environment and social justice.

How the Rich are Destroying the Earth published by Chelsea Green 2008.

Cads at Cadbury's

2009-08-26T04:52:00.000+10:00

I doubt very much that the company heads at Cadbury's had 'if it's not broke...don't fix it', in mind when they recently decided to change their recipe of their famous and highly favoured chocolate block range.

The change was two-fold, first the decrease of cocoa butter in its product for an increase in palm oil – thus changing the taste and texture of their chocky – and the decrease in size of their block size.

The tamper-proof packaging was ok from it's usual foil and paper wrap to a thin cardboard box, I think consumers can get used to that, but what buyers of this most popular Aussie and New Zealand-made chocolate couldn't take was the change in the taste. Myself included.

Chocolate,
a simple pleasure,
something wonderful,
even addictive
and 'bling' for the senses.

Cadbury's has always been the best tasting chocolate around. I've tried all kinds, recently Whittaker's, which I found bland by comparison, some varieties of Belgian chocolate including supermarket-branded ones, and Nestle's, that I have found equally as good in taste, though slightly more expensive to buy and a tad sweeter.

This week I bought a block of Nestle white chocolate, instead of buying the usual Cadbury's block of white, as I was 'fed up' with the way the Cadbury one had ended up with a gritty texture and fatty after-taste. As soon as I put the Nestle white in my mouth, no grittiness at all, just a good flavour (the extra sweetness I could live with, but I prefer the original-recipe Cad's).

Well, due to the popularity of Cadbury chocky in Australia, people immediately noticed the change in the taste – and started to mightily complain and the company began to lose sales. Lo and behold, the company have taken a back flip on their spin along the lines that they had changed the recipe as their customers had been demanding a 'smoother chocolate'. Smoother? Get real!

And when the Australian public complain about something, things usually start shaking. From an article from the Herald Sun one reader said:
"Why do Cadbury imagine we would prefer an adulterated, second-rate product?"

(Here's Cad's reason for it...) “Rather than a money-driven decision, the company insisted it was adding palm oil to make the chocolate softer to bite.”

Really?...were Cadbury lovers going to stomach that? That was only Cadbury's story – but the proof as it is said, is in the chocky pud.

For decades, big manufacturers have been cheapening their ingredients, and reducing the sizes of their products, in the effort to make larger profits. Food manufactures make an art form out of it. I remember once complaining to a multi-national about a variety of plum sauce, saying their was less 'plum' in their product. They, not long after, sent me out a box of goodies, a very nice 'thank you for your interest' letter – and another bottle of their second-rate plum. I guess there were not enough people to complain about that product, unlike the dearly-loved chocy one.

I doubt if Cad's would have made much of a success of the change to their product when it got more widely known, by those concerned for of endangered species, that palm oil production infringes on the natural habitat of the orang-utan. Profits before orangs? NO. That once sumptuous chocky treat would never have passed my lips again.

Some profit-making concerns wouldn't have a bothered conscience, but if it hurts profits, well it's put-that-thing back-how-it-was – and cease the tampering. And that's precisely what they are in the process of now doing.

"We are removing palm oil and returning to a cocoa butter only recipe for Cadbury's entire moulded block chocolate range, including our flagship Cadbury Dairy Milk brand and product lines such as Old Gold and Dream," Cadbury Australia managing director Mark Callaghan said yesterday.

"We will soon commence the production of a cocoa butter only recipe at Claremont in the coming weeks."

Cadbury is even more well-favoured in Tasmania as there is a manufacturing plant in the suburb of Claremont. People can go there and buy bags of their goodies, seconds and the like, for reduced prices. There used to be organised tours through the plant but no longer. I don't know why this is, but tourists still go and buy chocky cheaper at the plant. I haven't been yet, but I guess it's a place one would find easily enough by following one's nose.

One more snippet from the Herald Sun article about the recent choc-o-folly:

Hobart chocolate lovers Maggie Abraham and Nina Middleton-Tubb yesterday hailed Cadbury's backflip as a sign of people power.

"If people can change chocolate, they can change the world," joked Miss Abraham. Miss Middleton-Tubb said: "It is good that they listened to the fact that people didn't like it."

The Herald Sun article:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25955202-662,00.html

Thoughts on Marriage Part 5

2009-08-16T08:06:00.000+10:00

On Fidelity

There's a movie, based on the true story of The Duchess, starring Keira Knightly, about Georgiana Spencer, the Duchess of Devonshire who lived in the 18th century. She was raised in fine manners, responsibility and was vivacious. The Duke of Devonshire (played by Ralph Fiennes) desired a high-born wife so to procure a male heir.

She entered into the marriage, regardless of his main objective, fully expecting her new husband to honour his marriage vows. However, catching a maid exiting his bed chamber in a state of undress, the look on her face said it all. It came as a blow, you could see the shock of betrayal, and the resignation to terrible and lasting disappointment. Later the Duke slept with his wife's best friend taking her as mistress and keeping her in the home. The Duke, a very powerful man in the British realm at the time, could suffer no gainsay, and when his wife proclaimed her love for another man, he raped her to get himself a son – no heed to her argument of his hypocrisy.

It reminds of Princess Diana, another woman who was betrayed by her husband's infidelity. These were women that desired to be loving and dutiful wives with the expectation of their husbands' reciprocations.

How many marriages have ended over one partner having an affair? Many women, who have desired to be cherished by her husband, or vice versa, have discovered to their horror, their husband's of wife's unfaithfulness – ie. the husband says he needs to spend more time at the office, or he needs to travel for work. She may not have any suspicion of what he's really up to. And when he's home with his wife he's a good actor, even very attentive, to defray all suspicion of his adultery.

But what of what marriage really means?

Somewhere along the lines of John Gray's Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, that, in a love relationship, a woman desires to be cherished (to care for tenderly – nurture), and a man desires to be adored (to regard with esteem, love and respect).

You could say that there is not a lot of difference in those two words, and both partners need to be loved in these ways, and the words, pertaining to 'love' are similar but slightly different in dynamic. Her need is for emotional security – well, both sexes this is naturally applicable to, as is being adored. But a woman needs that security in love as part of her make-up. If you were to look at it biologically, then her need, in that life-pairing, is so she can have the security required to bear and care for offspring. The man needs to be adored as a manner of his reward for his efforts for keeping her in that love/security. For this to work, the marriage partners need to be exclusive to each other.

Meaning is lost with adultery:

'Kim' worked in the decorating industry before she married and there were two company representatives, both young married men, that used to come around fairly regularly to the place she worked. One of these chaps had an infant daughter. One of them (the one with the child) made it clear to Kim that he wanted to take her somewhere for the weekend, much to her disgust. She didn't think the other one was like that until she found out how wrong she was. He too liked to have dalliances. Kim was sickened by this, and ever after, when they came into the business, she would shun them. My thoughts on Kim's experience were for their young wives and what those women would think if they knew their husbands were only too keen to sleep around behind their backs.

I think if a married person is going to carry on like that, it might be sooner or later, but the truth will out. I am supposing that both those marriages didn't last. For every woman (or man) that finds out that their spouse has been unfaithful, the shock of discovery can be devastating. Not only to the spouse, but to their children. To discover one's parent has been sleeping around outside their parent's marriage bed can be devastating. The betrayal affects the whole family.

One of the main marriage vows is "forsaking all others". Why marry at all if one partner knows that they are going to find other women (or men) to gratify sexual lust and neediness for self-gratifying romance? I think this is because people with adultery in their hearts have probably found the one woman (or man) they want to remain with, but they will not give up the desire that the feelings of perusing and having sex with other women/'men that that gives to them.

To some, it's a thrill, an addiction. They like the high they get from the romantic/sexual high. I've heard some men even justify themselves by blaming biology, saying that it is 'abnormal' for men to be faithful to one woman, and to mate with as many women as possible. So who might they be fooling? I think in the world of mammals with smaller brains, this might be so. So what are men doing when they attempt to justify themselves with this excuse, is bringing themselves down to an order of species of less intelligence, putting body gratification before their human morality, conscience and reason. Yes, it's a joke.

Maybe they are adulterous because their fathers were, and having being raised this way, they might even expect their wives to understand this. These are the people who are not worthy to enjoy the benefits of marriage because they will not honour their original vow 'forsake all others' and the responsibility to that. Surely temptation might come for some, but if a person doesn't want to ruin their lives and the lives of them that love them, why risk it? There's also the risk that one partner will bring a sexually transmitted disease into the marriage bed. Also that of irreparable emotional harm to the wronged partner. How can adultery in the heart ever be justified?

When a person swears allegiance to a flag of a nation, then goes and takes up with an enemy nation, that's called treason. Well, in a way similar, adultery is the high treason of marriage – the ultimate betrayal in marriage of trust and faith.

A married man finds a woman who responds to his interest. There's thrill for the adulterous spouse when he is able to have a sexual relationship with another woman. The feelings and the spark he might think are missing in his marriage are thus met in affairs. His romantic interest in the other woman, therefore, might be strong indeed for it encourages those endorphins that the body releases when so aroused. And, like I said earlier, he will go home and be attentive to his wife to cover his transgression. It might seem good to him, but I can't help thinking, whenever I hear of someone caught out in adultery, that 'what goes around comes around' – really bad karma, in other words.

And of women who have affairs with married men. What's going on there?

The woman who knows the man she's sleeping with is married is only fooling herself, particularly if she thinks he will give up his wife for her, like he may have told her. Some, of course do leave their spouse for the other one, some don't and wouldn't dream of it – even though the woman they are sleeping with has formed an emotional attachment to them.

And some spouses have affairs because there is no love lost in their marriage, it might be all but dead that way. But if a marriage is so emotionally dead that a person must have an affair while still being married, then they are going for the weak option. If someone is going to fool around behind their spouse's back then they would be better to be honest with themselves and leave the marriage if their thoughts turn to adultery. I think it is, however, that some men (or women) like the thought of the security of one partner, but without all the responsibility that entails.

There are other forms of adultery too that don't require another person. Someone can be married to their job, or have a hobby that takes up their time, or have friends that seem more important than their husband/wife does. If someone is like this, then the other spouse in the marriage naturally suffers from the lack of attention/nurturing. What a sad thing marriage can be sometimes. Better off without it than with it. Marriage for some can be like a habit. For the very weak, the forsaken marriage partner is regarded a bit like Mum and Dad, someone to come home to for security, regardless of the transgression. People like this haven't grown up; they haven't taken up adult responsibility.

One more thing I would write on and that's about bucks and hens nights. It is a tradition, with some, that the groom, the night before the wedding, have drunken parties with their friends in which strippers perform, some spending their wedding eve in the arms of a prostitute. Hens parties too can be lewd. The justification for this wild revelling is that once married, they won't get the opportunity to regard other women, or men, in sexual familiarity. If a groom succumbs to this temptation to have sex with another woman on the eve of his wedding – he's fooling himself.

So when one person decides they want to marry another, have they really decided to forsake all others? Are they really willing to honour that all-important marriage vow? For without the mainstay of fidelity in marriage – the forsaking of all others to the inclusion only of the two – marriage loses all its integrity, honour and meaning. It's a travesty of what it should be.

Part 6 (End) For All the Right Reasons.

Thoughts on Marriage Part 4

2009-08-15T06:07:00.000+10:00

The Wedding...and After

After the big wedding with all the trimmings, a four-tiered cake, limousines with ribbons tied to their hoods, the fitting of matching bridesmaid's dresses, mother-in-law ensembles that co-ordinate so one matron doesn't appear to outdo the other, and the white dress costing a tidy sum, there comes the actual settling down process.

The whole issue of weddings can be a fashion statement in itself. I look at pictures of wedding parties and think, well, that's a lot of outlay for one day. While the traditional wedding festivities are costly ordinarily, it costs even more for those want to make an even greater impression in elaborate fashion.

Some go so all out to impress their guests, that those who have planned a perfect day in which to make an impression – and brides who hanker to be the day's whole focus – can get in a real state of emotional distress. They make movies and sit-coms over the sometimes ridiculousness of one day to celebrate a (supposedly) spiritual and legal union. I knew one bride that got in that much of a tizz over her day (it had to be just right) that she broke out in a huge cold sore on one side of her nose. Apparently she got cold sores only when under great duress. The make-up artist needed to perform a miracle that day.

With tradition with impression meaning a lot to some, it's what many expect from their 'big day'. It makes me wonder that with all the money spent on one day to make it so special, how better a big outlay could be more wisely put towards the nest egg – towards more practicality of living for the future security of the couple. That a wedding party would still be a wedding party, but less overt consideration given to external form of gratification to what is more heart-felt. Somehow the wedding traditions are so entrenched in many that if the white wedding with all trimmings isn't forthcoming, then something might be wrong or missing. This is where traditional/cultural expectations could be seen to override, for the brief period of the wedding time itself, the truest reason for people wanting to marry in the first place. The bigger and grander the wedding, the greater the marriage's expectations, one might ponder.

Marriage is about that right person to share the rest of one's life with. The person to share dreams with – not merely have them about – not merely to have expectations of the other that might never be fulfilled. It's about experiencing together, growing together (not apart) and sharing everything for better or worse, richer or poorer in sickness and in health.

Even writing the above words in the more traditional wedding vows, sounds a bit hackneyed (all it needs is ….wedding march..tar dah!) but really. Those words...

better or worse
richer or poorer
sickness or in health

...are far from mere oft-heard words.

For those words are about the reality of living. They are about potential set-backs to perfect bliss imagined in one's youth or one's dreams – the perfect wedding as being the fairytale consummation. They remain about the things that may come for two people with the best hopes, but may, through a downturn in fortunes, experience. And this is where some marriages are sorely tested. A fairytale wedding may not end up the happily-ever-after. For instance, a couple may not stay together because one of them is infertile. Another couple may not stay together because of some tragedy to do with the health of one or the death of an offspring.

I wouldn't judge anyone for tragic things that could come to drive people apart. For even couples that begin together well, and who find that they still desire to be together even though it may have fallen into a routine or habit, could find that some circumstances can so overwhelm as to make staying together seem like an impossibility. In that way, could divorce be seen as failure?

That's why I wouldn't judge. It is my belief that no one should stay in a marriage that makes one miserable, or that a circumstance has arisen that one's character/personality is not well equipped somehow to keep trying to endure.

And sometimes two people find that they have grown apart, for instance, one embarks on a spiritual journey, or at a place of emotional maturity, that their partner does not share. People can grow apart. Other reasons may be for ill health, or financial circumstances that are too trying and overwhelming to either or both individuals.

But on the other hand, marriages can endure through circumstances and situations that might otherwise try it. For if the foundation, the origin of that marriage, was love, then love as a power should be sufficient to carry the two enduring hardship to weather storms. And it is through the storms that that love is put to the test. How true, how deep and real was that love? Experiencing trials are how that is discovered.

Pic at right: Now, here's a bride that went 'all out' for her big day - in the best possible taste!

Next Part: On Fidelity

Thoughts on Marriage Part 3

2009-08-15T05:57:00.000+10:00

For All the Wrong Reasons
Many years ago I knew a girl who was planning her wedding. She was the sort of person that needed to be the focus of all attention and provoked in her best girlfriend, a girl with less overt personality and looks, quite the air of competitiveness. Her girlfriend also had a boyfriend but this couple had an on again, off again relationship, but referring to each other as 'fiancé'.

But their soon-to-be-married girlfriend was so overawing them with her neediness for attention, that this horribly unsuited couple were talking about their own wedding. I hope they didn't end up getting married for the reason of being 'fashionable', like this girlfriend of theirs seemed to provoke in them. It would have been for totally the wrong reasons.

And here's the strange thing, young adults marry, with the hopes that they will stay together and become a family with their children. But people can grow apart, and what might begin in the best possible hopes and dreams, may end sometimes tragically, especially with children involved. The stats of divorce in Australia is around 40%. Thinking practically, I think a prenuptial agreement is a reasonable thing in a fast-paced world, and some couples probably should have one. But some would put heart before head and think that the person they married and themselves would never break up. Doesn't everyone think that when they get married?

And some might want to marry someone based on the other's physical attraction or charisma. One young girl I knew, no two actually, with a similar tragic tale, married the wrong men because they had been seduced by them. Of the first woman, well, she'd had other suitors, attractive good men eager to marry her, but instead she married the 'bad boy' (why do some women do this – even some men marry the 'bad girl'? - are they getting what they think they deserve?). Anyway, the marriage lasted two years, with the girl heartbroken, the man off with a 'younger model'. For ever after she couldn't forget the impression this charismatic man had made on her, he had spoiled her soul somehow.

As for the other person I once knew, he pursued her because she was a person with an aloof yet alluring personality, and he saw her as a conquest. Well, she must have been flattered by this, she had a strong-willed personality herself, and I remember her telling me at one point that she had no interest in getting married. Anyway, having won and married her, he not long after lost interest and blew fidelity to the winds. After the divorce, the girl decided she'd had enough of men and entered into a long-term homosexual relationship.

One might ask oneself why these people married in the first place. What expectations did they have? Were their heads in the clouds? Just what were they thinking?

Neediness Does Not Make For Good Marriage

There are people that enter into marriage because of their needs for emotional nurturing/attention, financial support and the security of having one partner. But their neediness is so great, they give little thought to what value their neediness brings. A person with a lot of neediness is like a person standing on one leg for a long period, in the end, the other leg – the strengths ie. self esteem, creativity, personal drive/motivation/working in all ways for the future – may be too weak to make the marriage of partnership of equals. One partner can end up being all the strength that the other lacks, some to the point where it is like a parent/child relationship. Or one stronger personality can overwhelm the other until the weaker partner loses sight of their own individuality and creative personality-energy.

Neediness doesn't...and neither does dreaminess. For dreams of multi-coloured rainbows and flowers won't pay bills or do the housework or be there when children need time with their parents.

It would be interesting to be able to talk to young people, older teens maybe, on how they view marriage. In the days when the thought of being married at marriageable age was seen more in terms of expected 'norm', views might well have changed since I was that age. For there are a lot more single-parent families now, and with possibly more disillusionment, and more fear of the commitment of marriage. According to stats on one website about divorce, one third of children in Australia are born outside the traditional marriage.

If one party goes into marriage with self interest, for whatever reason, without thought to what it really can mean, then it's going to be a relationship thwart with problems through negatively expressed emotions, unrealistic expectations, one person carrying the other, or with ongoing problems and conflict, making the marriage like something made in hell, and not the other place.

There are many people out there seeking a life-partner, yet they will, through not looking at themselves with honesty, bring into that relationship their evident weaknesses and faults because of not dealing with their issues through pride and selfishness. And while they are behaving badly, they are fully expecting their partner to put up with their faults, weather it be withholding of affection or financial support, laziness (ie not helping with chores), withholding of sex, moodiness, stubbornness, or any of the gamut of character failings.

For the selfish, familiarity can breed contempt. And someone who is a bully of a marriage partner will arrogantly expect their mate to put up with all their tantrums in the attitude of 'taking it for granted'. There are marriage partners who take full advantage of that legal document of marriage and see it as a licence to behave in all ways bad, in the awareness that there's a lot to getting a divorce, a long of time, effort and emotional distress. And while it might be one thing to go through the legal requirement – from separation to divorce on paper – it is harder to divorce oneself from the intimate influence of the other that has made their lot in life miserable.

Next part: After the Wedding

Thoughts on Marriage Part 2

2009-08-12T07:00:00.000+10:00

Reasons why people want to marry:

Not all reasons why people want to get married are for true love with the 'right' one. I read a survey in a magazine where women filled out all the questions and replied back to the editor. I was surprised (or maybe not so) by the results. So why did you marry?

1.for love
2.as a means of getting away from a bad home situation
3.it was arranged
4.for convenience
5.because of loneliness/companionship. There were many women that wrote back that they married to get away from a bad family/home life and some married for convenience, maybe not for love, but saw it as a means to solving their own situational problems.

There's some horror scenarios in this lot. For instance women who get themselves pregnant so to trap a man into marriage. Or girls who will marry the man that is an abuser, or someone they have reservations about because they think they are getting what they deserve due to the poor self-esteem they might have through being abused emotionally or physically in youth. These are the ones who have made the bar too low for themselves.

There are people that want someone to look after them, and so, they become a marriage predator – they look for someone suitable to catch so they can use that person for their own selfish ends. Marriage predators can be middle aged and older. I knew a woman who was targeted by a man, not long after her husband died, because he was looking for a woman to take care of him for his old age. He turned out to be a mean, lazy and selfish person, a user with no thought to giving anything to their pairing. (As I speak in this context of pairing, I'm also referring to common law marriage – marriage not signed over a legal document). There are also people that marry for the security and attraction of wealth, forsaking the honesty of real love in wealth's favour.

Another story. I once had a friend who had seriously counselled his brother not to marry a girl with a sociopathic personality. The girl became pregnant and this young man married her. She compelled him to overextend in debt. This young man, overwhelmed by the manipulations of his young wife, ended up killing himself. I've seen some marriage tragedies: this is the worst to memory.

There are also some people that seek marriage very early in young adult life, as a means for that partner to take over from the work of dear mum or dad. These ones may not realise what it takes to have a successful marriage, something I will look at again in this series.

As far as marrying young goes, well, pairing with more guarantee of success is less likely to predict than to people who are older and more mature through greater life experience. Most people marry while they are still young, before they have had a lot of life experience, but while they are in that state of physical youth that is more facilitating to producing healthy offspring. As youth is said to be wasted on the young, could marriage also be regarded in that light, considering the divorce rate?

There's also pressure put on people to get married. A person may feel they are not ready to settle down. A person may still be finding out who they are, forming as a maturing personality. Some people know what they want early, whereas with others, this could take more time. But as all one's friends are doing it, it seems the thing that some need to do to appear more socially fashionable. Or there are friends and family members who put the pressure on.

Some also want to jump into marriage before they really know what it is they want from life. It's like taking a jump into a pool without knowing how deep the water is. I think it's a good thing that couples have counselling and group counselling sessions in which the issues like division of household duties, finances, children are discussed. For people who even experience that first thrill of attraction and the feeling that the other person must be 'the one', can discover later, after the happy endorphins are not so brightly thrilling, that the ordinary business of living together will take over from the initial throws of bliss.

And then the couple will discover, outside of attraction and the honeymoon period (let's say this is a period between one and two years) that they will need to learn that to be a couple they will also need to be the best of friends. Can they talk about all issues openly? Are their expectations of each other realistic? And what do they hope of their relationship for the future, what goals are shared – all the practicalities besides.

And while considerations of practicalities seem to get in the way of the happy romantic dream, they are nonetheless vital, particularly with the arrival of any crisis that might arise. And while, for the young couple in love and plan to marry, they might now be able to tick every box in optimism, the trials of life can put any marriage to the test.

Love must therefore be more than feeling, more than euphoria of early thrill, it must be the love that 'does' and continues to do, not just feel.

Next part. For All the Wrong Reasons.

Thoughts on Marriage Part 1

2009-08-12T06:49:00.000+10:00

A new blog series, one that I have had on the back burner for sometime – and one not to make anyone feel bad – for this topic may stir up feelings for some that have had contrary to the good experience of being married, myself included. What I'm presenting are just my own ponderings on the subject of the union between a man and woman, two people who have decided to share a life together, a home and maybe procreate.

Of course I invite comments, but as this is a series, you may which to comment in a less general way in this first blog and address each part separately with your own views and observations. This first part deals with the matter of what draws two people together to marry – the rest of the series will go through the 'motions' of that process, why marriage might work for some, ie. why for others it has failed sometimes very miserably. And so, I present a non-judgemental view of my own, drawing from personal gleanings of information and observations on the subject.

Except in some minority societies where male/female union can be polygynous, the institution of marriage between two individuals is a common one shared between all races and cultures throughout the history of the world. If it could be split apart as to 'why marry?' well, it could be looked at in a historically cultural context, western civilisation custom of marriage coming from the Judeo-Christian heritage of our ancestors. As I'm not familiar with the customs of other cultures in a historical context, it will be the western marriage custom I will be drawing from. The other reason for marriage stems from the mammalian drive to mate, pair off, and then on to produce offspring. There's another reason, which sounds a little pithy by comparison to the first two (that are integrally linked) and that is as a fashion statement. I will deal with this last reason later.

What makes one look at another person, when one is single, and decide that the person on the other side of the room at the party is worth talking to? As that person takes the step over to the one who's looks attract, could it be that they are having a meeting with fate? In the tv series, The Human Face, host John Cleese suggests that there is something within us, some receptors in our brains, that respond to the looks of another person ie the curves of their face, their eyes or smile, along with that how that person might move, their gestures, the sound of their voice, the way they might even smell. Some wiring in our brains is responding favourably to the stimulus of interest in that person of the opposite sex. And so to...

…Physical Attraction.
Some years ago I was watching a documentary about the lives of a pair of otters. The narrator was speaking about a female otter of mating age. Otters mate for life, like humans who also have this mammalian programming – if it may so be called. Anyway, the female otter had made a home base in a certain part of the river and had the same drive in her that the unmated young male otters had – to pair off and reproduce. She met up with one male otter and together they swam around in the water and played, that is, until another young male otter came into her part of the river and they checked each other out. What happened was that she ditched the first otter she had played with and decided to settle down with this new male, going on to produce little otters. The narrator spoke of the curiosity of this, for what was it about this new male that made the female to choose him over the other? He said that maybe this new male had a shinier pelt, or that he had demonstrated more verve in his ability to hunt food. Possibly.

But it is much the same with humans, except far more complicated. For appearance and mannerisms may not not be absolutely indicative of someone's marriageability. And if the male, for example, doesn't have a job or one the female doesn't like, then she might find another male (like the female otter!) that better suits her expectations of making a home and producing offspring.

Physical attraction is the first thing to attract to a potential mate. The second is...

Personality Assessment
Few people are interested in another unless the looks of that other is pleasing. Sometimes looks can be secondary to a very pleasant personality. Many women I've heard say things like, “I don't care if he's the best looker in the world, that he's losing his hair or has the best job, just as long as he makes me laugh and will talk to me”.

By the way, why would so many women say that she would like her mate to make her laugh? The reason is this, because making someone laugh is a way of getting their attention. If a man makes a woman laugh, it means he desires her attention, and he is giving her his own. Perfect – and that (attention) is what a woman wants. And continued attention/communication and sharing. Mel Gibson, in that movie with Helen Hunt, had to learn the hard way.

I cannot speak on behalf of males, not being one, but much goes through the mind of a single, unattached female, when she meets a single, unattached man – especially if the girl/woman is at an age when something in their mind/will emotions (the three collectively I refer to as 'soul') is telling them it is time for them to settle down with one partner. Her mind might go through some very quick assessments, project to a future place in the wondering if the man is good marriage material ie “what sort of job does he have?”(she might ask him early in their initial conversation as well as other questions like if he has a girlfriend). In this way, he's already being sized up. It's a start. After all, if a girl is at a marriageable age, or a woman seeks to remarry, then she needs to find ground reasonably quickly. After all, and especially for young singles, there's a lot of fish in the sea there, and she needs to find the right one to hook up with.

I knew a girl, when I was an older teen, who told me about a guy she met that had a good job and was himself seeking to settle down. Something within that guy desired to have a wife. She liked him, but it did not click with them. They went out a few times and decided they weren't suited for the long-term. It wasn't long after that she heard he had become engaged. He'd been on the earnest search for a life mate.

On some guys, well, I think I've watched too much bad tv, for guys (sometimes say,or maybe it's mythology) they are not interested in a girl in the long-term, just as long as it takes to 'mate' with her. Well, that's very crude and base-animalistic – anyone, male or female considering forming a relationship, now matter how it's done, as a way to have sex, is not seeking marriage, of course. So someone who feels that they are ready to settle down needs to be on the alert to the personality that's going to be in it for the long-term, and not fall for the one who isn't.

The Deeper Things
For the finding of a partner, one that one is going to spend the rest of one's life with (well, that's the plan anyhow) needs to be the proverbial Mr or Ms Right. This is the 'big one' and a mistake one really can't afford to be make. The person chosen will be such a huge part of our own lives that choosing a partner for life is really the biggest decision for life that one will ever make, far more than what career path to follow and what make of car to own.

And so, from the initial assessment of the (1) physical and (2) personality, the next is the other's sphere (3), all the the things pertaining to the 'world' of that person like his/her family, personal interests (ie how they like to spend their time AND how they actually do spend it – not how they say they might spend it), how they might see money -a big issue in marriage, sex, fidelity and children. Wider and deeper things.

One of those wider things is the chosen one's family, their parents particularly. I think the fear of the in-laws can more more than just a fear. In-laws can turn out to be out-laws. The parents of single and marriageable aged offspring must themselves be prepared to accept their son's or daughter's choice in a mate. Much strife within a marriage has been caused by troubles when a mother in law does not accept her son's choice in a wife; a marriage with rejection in its peripherals is one that is going to have to be more carefully nurtured. Maybe that daughter-in-law is stealing her son's time and the attentions that she, the mother, once thought she only possessed. Or maybe that daughter-in-law doesn't flatter her in ways she wants to be according to the older woman's own emotional insecurities.

It would be easy to think, for the fiancé of either sex to think, 'I'm not marrying his/her parents, just him/her'. But in all reality, the parents, other relatives and fiancé's friends are a real part of that person's sphere, and therefore integrally linked to that person.

I've read and witnessed hopeful stories of girls, who have future mothers-in-law that haven't liked them from the onset, but went on to marry the son anyway, hoping for the best. From the onset there has been friction and a bumpy ride. This is just one of the factors worthy to consider when choosing a mate for life. And so sometimes the saying 'when you marry a man, you also marry his family,' can unfortunately be all too true.

In the old traditional wedding ceremony rite the words go, 'for this reason a man leaves his father and mother' Thus he has launched out on his own to begin his own family unit with all the emotional, physical, financial and spiritual maturity he must take up to begin this new responsibility.

Next: Reasons Why People Want to Marry.

Review: Dead Like Me Season One

2009-08-05T15:49:00.000+10:00

I had never heard of this dvd series until someone recommended it. It's a strange concept of death and afterlife, as there are people called 'Reapers' that have themselves died and have been commissioned by 'Death' to reap or 'pull' the souls of people, who are about to die, from their bodies before the moments preceding death. The show's main character is 'George', Georgia Lass (played by Ellen Muth), who at age 18, gets struck by a toilet seat that has fallen from the MIR spacestation. She herself has been 'reaped' and is then commissioned to become a Reaper herself.

The Reapers appear as ordinary people, but can speak to the living and the dead. To themselves, and their fellow Reapers, they look as they did in their former lives, but to the ordinary people around them, their appearance is altered so they will not be recognised by people that may have once known them.

George is mentored by Rube (Mandy Patinkin), the head of a group of Reapers who process murder/suicides and other violent deaths. Rube passes out post-it notes to his group that tells them which souls they are to reap on a certain day. The others in this reaper group are: Roxy, a tough girl who has a day job as a meter maid; Mason, a scruffy but likeable young Englishman: Betty who loves people and takes their photo before they die, but she gets taken to the afterlife and her position is filled by Daisy, an ex movie star who has many stories of her sexual conquests with the male movie stars of earlier in the 20th century.

The other characters in the series are George's family: father, mother and younger sister, who struggle to cope with the death of George. George makes appearances at her old house to visit her family, in the appearance as 'Millie' and as herself, to the audience, spies on her family and grieves over their loss, as they do over her.

George (Millie) works at Happy Time Services as an office temp and is taken under the wing of Delores, a perpetually happy and uplifting encourager who has lots of quirks. There's also Crystal, the dour and terse office secretary that George finally works out a strange friendship with.

The strength of this series lies in the characters – they all have whole likeable personalities with wit and pathos, while all showing evident and comedic flaws. In this respect each individual is highlighted as being special somehow – the writers have brilliantly displayed how each life is important and valuable within the theme of 'death'.

The reapers are not supposed to interfere with someone's appointed time of death, but nonetheless sometimes, especially George (a very reluctant reaper), they must take the eternally souls out of the body so it does not end up 'rotting and withering' in its corpse.

It's a very whacky concept, and a maybe a little difficult to understand in the pilot episode, but it's a fresh production with a lot of humour and philosophy. One episode that I found particularly memorable is where they are collating information regarding the death of all their reaped souls. Part of that collated info is to record all the last statements of them who were about to die. Daisy muses that most of them, from their last words, have died with much regret, and keeps a personal sadness about her own life. Mason understands her sadness when he discovers that Daisy's last words were, 'Why has no one loved me?'

This is a wonderful series and I enjoyed it so much I'm looking forward to season two and the movie made after the two (only) seasons.

So, it you want to treat yourself to something fresh and different, I can recommend 'Dead Like Me'. It's chockers with rough language, but you cannot help but like all the characters and the stories in each episode. I found the character of Delores particularly amusing.

The opening credits feature Reapers in black cloaks with scythes, but aside from the opening, the Reapers are just 'ordinary' but very different people with a very, very odd job to do. Just loved this series – very entertained by it.

Review: Supernatural Season One

2009-08-03T06:53:00.000+10:00

A really popular series that's still on tv, unlike how most hour long tv series usually end up these days, axed after half a season is played, only to be replaced by some bizarrely-themed reality show.

I bought this series on dvd as I had some problems seeing it on tv as it was shown only on a digitally televised station, and I did not yet own a set-top box. What I did see of it, pre digital days, was hard to actually see, this is because it is filmed in high contrast and blue cast – a lot of it in darkness (for that's when most of the spooks come out!) and so it's one of those tv shows you really have to concentrate on or else you might miss something. But that's my only complaint. For it's very entertaining, attention grabbing with all the shocks and sudden appearances of nasties, two good-looking, chick-magnet guys and one hot car.

The show, for the most part, is directed at older teens and young adults, for there's a lot there to interest that demographic in the characters in Dean and Sam Winchester (played by Jensen Ackles and Jared Padaleki respectively), two brothers on an across America road-trip in a 1967 black Impala. With Dean's with love for 70s and 80s rock and metal songs that he plays on cassette as they drive, they sometimes adopt the names of famous rock band members to assume as aliases in the towns they visit. All their scary adventures usually involve great risk to their lives, so it's a masculine kind of adrenalin rush.

The season begins with Dean as a boy, and his brother Sam, a six-month old in his cot. Their mother is violently killed by a demon that sweeps her to the ceiling of Sam's nursery and sets her alight. Because of the mysterious and violent death of his wife, their father, John assumes a duty of being a killer of demons, a role which his sons adopt. Dean is the eager brother, with a sarcastic wit but tender heart, while Sam is the reluctant but caring brother, who forsakes a promising college scholarship to take to the road to hunt and try to track down the whereabouts of their father who's gone missing.

Dean and Sam scour the internet and newspapers looking for clues to the activities of demons in mysterious deaths so they can destroy them. They meet up with supernatural beings, much the stuff of urban legend, and living people that have become hosts for them. Along the way they get in trouble with the law, and a particularly vindictive demon that is the cause of their mother's, and one other girl's, death, which their father has been hunting since they were boys.

So this is a continuing thread of theme throughout, and many episodes concern the hunting of this powerful evil spirit, while other episodes are encounters with other lesser demons and vampires.

What I like about this series is that it combines some really horrible scares but real feeling/empathy with the characters, particularly between the brothers and their father, and then that care for the people they are trying to help rescue from evil. Things are not all sweet with them, though, for they have their share of family squabbles and misunderstandings, and the demons play upon that.

Two notable episodes: Bloody Mary. This one reminds of the movie The Ring – but I won't say any more unless you haven't seen it, but trust me, it's a scare-fest. The other one involves a painting of a family from early the previous century, and images within the painting change as the demon goes on a rampage of killing. The brothers need to work through the clues to get to the bottom of it all.

Sometimes when watching this show the viewer needs nerves of steel; nail biting stuff, and it can be a little frustrating when Sam and Dean's efforts at the end goal seem so thwarted. But the script writers, the cinematographers, and the producers have done a fabulous job with this series. And it's worth a ride in the Chevy, just for the thrill.

Thy Germs to Thyself

2009-07-30T08:43:00.000+10:00

Ha! I found this very illustrative pic and while saving it, the box comes up and says 'scanning for viruses'. I couldn't help but laugh. Anyway, today I'm braving, yes braving, a trip into the city for an errand and some shopping.

But this takes forethought and planning. For out there, in the middle of the Tasmanian winter, is a sea of germs floating airborne (yes, the pic is a good one, isn't it?) waiting to find new hosts in which to breed and make them cough, sneeze and blow noses. A trip down my own local shopping centre is like navigating a germ obstacle-zone.

Take the local post office for example. It's a small shop with poor ventilation and super-heated air. Why it is always too warm in that shop, I don't know. But it makes me a trifle concerned when the person before in the line is barking a cough. This young woman was using a hand to cover her face. But many don't.

Later, I was in the library. Another big barker I noticed, with a hand poised to select from a line of shelved books. No hand over the mouth there. Another person using one of the library's computers. Well, I always remember to wash my hands when I come home from shopping, and my mum tells me to always do it if I have been using supermarket trolleys.

A recent report on news tv says that the forecast for people contracting swine flu in Tasmania is one in five, that's 100,000 Tasmanian citizens. Bleak! One reporter, in optimistic mode, says that maybe swine flu is just like every other sort of flu, and it's not going to be all gloom and doom like reports have said...?

My local doctor's clinic has signs up saying 'toys and magazines have been removed during the swine flu pandemic'. The other thing is that they have face masks anyone can use. There's boxes of them on the receptionists' desk. And when you front up to a receptionist, the first thing they ask is 'Do you have any flu like symptoms....?'

They're taking it seriously, and the government have ads on tv telling people to:
1. cover their cough
2. dispose of used tissues in a bin
3. wash hands regularly

This is all well and good. But many people are still so casual about the spreading of their germs that they will not do the above, not even to put a hand over their mouths. At the sound of a barking cough, I want to run (a friend said to me the other day to just turn away your face and hold your breath - yes, I do that). At the sight of the woman coming out of the toilet cubicle before me, forsaking to wash her hands and leaving the ladies' room, I ask myself 'whyfore...thou stupid?'

Stupid, selfish, yes selfish. One look at the above image and you can see that people take for granted that their germs are not going to be imparted to anyone else. That's what they might like to think. But I reckon, they just don't think.

Here's what I do to prepare for a trip into a public place - including the bus I'm going to use this morning:

1. Make sure you have your annual flu shot. The one I had didn't cover for swine flu, that vax isn't available yet. But it does cover for other strains, and who wants strain upon strain.

2. Carry a travel-pack of antibacterial wipes in your bag or pocket. That way you can wipe your hands before you eat.

3. I also suck on a strepsil on the bus or in any tight confined area. Germs don't stand a change via mouth entry, but the nose still has to breath. At least it's something.

4. Avoid - like the plague - being in close proximity anyone who is obviously sick.

5. Don't go out and 'share' yourself if you're that sick.

6. Wear enough clothes for cold weather so as not to contract a chill.

7. Tank up on Vitamin C beforehand. I make sure I have a super-hit C Berocca before I go anywhere public. Get the immunity up.

Last week I was at the supermarket and a chap and I were deciding on the prepackaged salads. As he leant over to chose one, he coughed (hand over mouth) and he apologised.
I would have too.

I think that the more social conscience a person has, the more sensitive that person will be to the fact that, if sick, there's a possibility of that contagion to be passed on to someone else. I think it's getting to the point where people, who are really obviously sick with the tell-tale wracking barks, are getting looks by others. It's that look that says, 'well, thank YOU for sharing'. By golly.

Moonlight tv series

2009-07-29T04:38:00.000+10:00

Moonlight begins reasonably well with a ready audience of those who love a good anti-hero themed series. Creators Ron Koslow and Trevor Munsun, have cast Australian born actor, Alex O'Loughlin, as Mick St. John, as the handsome vampire/private investigator. The series had all the elements of promise, building the relationship between Mick, a very reluctant vampire, and Beth, played by Sophia Myles, reporter for the smaltzy-titled 'Buzzwire' a television news broadcast service, and then making interest in the histories of both characters and why they enter into a relationship.

When Mick arrives on the scene, Beth is already involved in a relationship with Josh, a district attorney, who, in comparison to the dynamic and alluring Mick, seems dull and bland.

The series carries the continuity of their relationship, hindered at every turn, at first by Mick's continual resistance of being what he had become, a vampire turned into one by his ex-wife, Coraline, played by Shannon Sossamon. The subplot of Coraline involves some European history of of 300 years past, but the producers don't know whether to make her scary or just misunderstood.

And so, these subplots are introduced, with the hopes of providing more fodder of interest in the show, but much was upturned and 'revamped' mid-season as the plots continued to lose the spark of the first episodes, the best of which is episode four, where Mick is caught in the desert and almost perishes – sunlight not being good for vampires, of course.

After that, the viewer is left thinking that 'Moonlight' might be more aptly titled 'Moonlighting' (after the popular 80s show with Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd) as the settings are very cosmopolitan and 'slick' – but fails to draw the audience into any real emotional identity with the characters and also to thrill due to predictable plot lines.

The series goes through a total shake-up about two-thirds of the way through with uninspiring characters being bumped off, and more being made of Joseph Kostan, played by Jason Dohring of 'Veronica Mars' fame. One of the better characters in the show, even his interesting performances fail to rise this vampire yarn back from the dead that the producers allowed it to fall.

I was amused to see the introduction, at this point, of product advertising; some injecting of funds to boost production and revive the series. In one episode two vampires, eternally young men, are seen talking to Mick, one of them smoking a cigar. Not bad to get the tobacco industry a look in and promote it towards teens. But that must have been ok, because the teen was 'living dead' anyway!

The series ends where it begins to get interesting again, with Mick declaring his love for Beth. I felt like I'd had a lick of the ice cream cone, but not the full dessert. Even though Alex O'Loughlin plays the part of the vamp detective well, and some of the stunts are good, (i.e., with vampire powers, he drops into a square stair well, down to the bottom floor,) Sophia Myles tries hard, but sometimes it seems as if she's choking down incredulity when asking the man of her dreams things like, 'So, what's it like to be a vampire?'

Even though Moonlight has its moments, and Mick St. John is a very good character in true anti-hero style, it's a very confused series due to bad production planning and was cancelled after a 16 episode season.

Madness in Obsession

2009-07-28T07:56:00.000+10:00

And murderous madness at that. I was reading an article in the Mercury last Sunday about death threats towards two junior league football players via computer printed letters and thought to myself, now, just what sort of sick parent would do such a thing?

(Click on image to read the text.)

Of course the letters were printed and not handwritten, the bogan parents of a rival team's little league football players, have used that much intelligence not to be detected. But really? How much is obsession about a junior team can some idiots have? But it's more than idiocy, these letters were not mucking around, there's a handful of them, as you can see from the picture. Some of the swears were blanked out by the newspaper. The threats against the lives of the boys in the Under 10 club have been reiterated.

The club is the Southern Tasmania Junior Football league and apparently, the two boys that are being victimised are very good players and therefore a pose a threat to some sickos' obsession with their own offspring's club winning the season. The article says that the boys don't know about it, and the parents are reluctant to take their sons out of the club because of their sons' love for playing.

From the article, police have persons of interest for questioning in this extreme form of bullying. Who would know though, that this obsessed parent(s) would follow through with threats to 'break arms and legs' -- who knows how far this madness would go? The letters are enough to want any concerned parent to pull their children from the field, but there's the dilemma. For if they do that then they are giving the terrorist(s) what they want.

It's astounding. This is probably the worst case of parental junior sport nutcase I've ever heard. I've seen stories on current affairs shows of parents going berserk, screaming at their own children, the rival team, and umpires like they are possessed, even to some physical violence. How about 'get a life'?

But what sort of mind thinks that a junior league sport - or any sport - is worth death threats over? I know some people can be very obsessed with their team, but these are little chaps playing a game, not gladiator gore-festing. There's a real warped psychology going on there.

One parent 'John', who's been receiving these letters, says:
"This is under-age football for goodness sake -- it's about having fun and learning the game."

Anyway, the terrorist, madly obsessed parent, or people involved, like I said, are not as smart as they think they are. As if they will get away with it. I'm sure they'll be caught. If someone's that hot blooded, a bit of heavy questioning by the police and all will probably be revealed. If there's that much passion in it.

Article from the Sunday Mercury 26th July 09:
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/07/26/86821_todays-news.html

Strongholds Through 'Culture': The Death of Drew Grant

2009-07-16T06:20:00.000+10:00

In the Sunday newspaper was a front page report about the death of Drew Grant, a worker at a gold mine in West Papua, that had been killed by gunfire while driving with some friends to a gold club. He was the only one killed.

My Mum phoned me last night and told me that Drew was actually my Dad's brother's grandson. He was just 29 and had just been back to Australia to see his infant daughter. From the photo, you can see he was a very good-looking young man, and with a bright future ahead of him, but now his life has been tragically cut short.

It's been many years since I've seen my uncle and I've never met this grandson of his. I didn't think about it when I saw the name of the murder victim was 'Grant', being my own surname, so the news came as a shock. Now I look at the photo, there's the family resemblance, shared by male members of the Grant clan.

It's a politically hot area, Papua, and I'm sure the people that go there to work are told about potential threats. Lots of unrest and fighting. Maybe Drew had the attitude that it would never happen to him, maybe he had got to know the natives and had made some friends. But he found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, and these incidents of people being killed in places were there are guerrillas with arsenals keep being reported.

From the online Herald Sun article:

West Papua police chief Bagus Ekodanto said rebels using military-issue weapons planned the ambush that killed Mr Grant, a project manager at Freeport, reputed to be the world's biggest gold mine.

"The shooting was planned," he said. "(It's) clear they were using weapons belonging to the police or the military."

I've given thought to this sort of terrible occurrence over time. Stories of missionaries and medicos, people with 'good intentions', going into places where certain factions of people there, don't think or believe the same way others do. Maybe there's a naivety with people who have the conscience of human kindness with them, people that want to help the less fortunate, and people like Drew who have left wife and family for a time, to take on work in a place of some adventure, only to become of victim of a factional group that have thought nothing of taking his life.

And so, it's been one of my ponderings that while people can be of a different culture and dwell together in one place, they may not well be integrated for them to coexist.

Dict.def of the word culture (in the context of my commentary):
Sociol. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings, which is transmitted by one generation to another.

Note that I'm not using the word 'race' here, for I'm talking about how people BELIEVE, and what their driving purposes are. Can you imagine what it must be like, to be encompassed by these men with guns and trying to reason, while the rebels' every thought is for their own ends, on what they will achieve by what they will decide to do with someone that they may have waylaid or captured – someone who they would not hesitate to kill if it suited them? It is pointless to have a naive attitude about people such as these, with thoughts of trying to sway them to mercy or kindness – if the hearts of those men (and sometimes women) are hardened through what they believe.

For it is hard to break through tough mental strongholds when a belief or beliefs are entrenched and are reinforced by those that they are with – and the things in which they they have been immersed, indoctrinated. A mental stronghold may take more than a plea for 'mercy' to breach.

And sometimes I have thought that this is the problem with societies that call themselves 'multi-cultural' (a catch cry often heard in Australia). It's more than eating the same ethic foods, it's not about cuisine, for goodness sake, or dress, or interesting and varietal customs. It's about how people think and what they really believe.

One of my best friends from, and after, high school was a Moslem. He looked after me and we were the best of friends. He went heavily into his family's faith in a sudden turning place in his life, and from then on I never knew him. Instead of looking at me as a 'friend', someone he cared for and was protective towards, he instead began to see me as a 'woman' or 'female'.

One night I needed a place to stay after work as my car had broken down and was at the mechanics. He allowed me to stay at his rented house, but only with the objections that came from his Islamic faith. I knew then that our relationship had been broken, beyond all repair – there wasn't any point to thinking benevolently about it. Now I was a 'woman' to him, a single female under his roof and alone with him, and I wasn't going to ask him about that part of his belief system, I just tacitly understood it.

I still remember him fondly, we had had some great times before his decision to really embrace and take on this faith of his. But from that time on, we couldn't 'meet' anymore. We were thinking two different ways. Culturally divided.

My poor uncle. It is a very sad time for him and his large family. Like I said, I didn't know Drew, but still, the Grants, and the world, have lost a son.

Article about Drew's killing from the Herald Sun:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,27574,25770254-2862,00.html

The Optimum Population Trust

2009-07-14T05:30:00.000+10:00

I don't know how many times I've watched David Attenborough's animal programs - I have The Trials of Life on DVD - and thought, how marvellous is the natural world, and how intrinsically animals are incorporated into their native habitats. And how fine that balance can be and also the preciousness of those unique species, many of which the world is losing and in danger of losing forever. So much of this is about how, in certain parts of the world particularly where tree-felling, sea-polluting and animal-killing is rife - man is ever in 'conquest mode' for the sake of economic gain through 'ownership'.

I have to laugh at this, for here we are, a little globe in infinite space, with an amazing blue and green appearance from space, the 'blue' and the 'green' pictorially speaking of what that globe contains - waters, fertile soils, rich diversity of plant and animal life, as well as everything mineral. The globe that feeds and sustains all that it contains. The world that should be able to support all life in it.

But then comes in the human factor...and the greed of man. Then I have another laugh because of man's transient visit on that globe - one lasting the 'three score years and ten' - and then he is gone. Well, I hope he had a comfortable life, that greedy and ownership amassing one, I hope he had a big house and plenty of corporate interests to keep him amused. For there he lies in a plot of ground or as a pile of ashes, going back to dirt, from whence he came.

What can man own? Can he own this old globe, or is he merely a custodian of it? If a man travels in wisdom in this life, and recognises the futility of amassing mega-wealth at the cost of a fragile ecology and the starving of millions, then he has been no 'custodian' of something we might regard as existing in infinite time and space (The Earth) but more as a parasite, a consumer, a user, with all self-justifications as to why he took and took, and why the world with that fragile ecology is depleted for it.

David Attenborough is a patron of a trust, in Britain, called The Optimum Population Trust. That doesn't mean that he wants the world to be filled with human population - no - what the Trust is endeavouring to do is to make known what the Earth is capable of sustaining and to educate the world to keep its population to two offspring per couple - the replacement of the parents or 'breeding couple' - looking at man in mammalian terms.

Attenborough says:

“There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago,” he said, after becoming a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) think-tank.

“It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of ecology, atmospheric pollution and in terms of the space and food production.

“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people.”

Anyway, it is worthwhile reading the whole article. To be found here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6087833.ece

The rest of what I'm saying here is now devoted to my own opinion.

I was a youngster at a time when there was not what I see now as 'the urban sprawl', and it seems governments are doing very little to address the increase of human population and what that means to this planet. In Australia, girls have an encouragement to have children, tots not raised by their fathers, so they can draw from single-mother's pensions. Some of these girls have children to more than one father, sometimes several. With all the freely available education and birth control, some females are working on their base-animal nature side to breed like heifers, to satisfy their own baser/selfish desires. And why not, for them, if that's the way their brains are wired? After all, they get paid for doing that.

I suppose to better support my opinion I could produce stats, but let's just say that a child is challenged, from the beginning of that begetting, by not being raised by a consistent paternal influence, that could potentially lead to drugs, alcoholism and antisocial behaviour. Please don't get me wrong here! I'm not 'saying' that all children of this style of parentage is going to end up like this *sheesh*, it's just that, well, children from less stable backgrounds have been statistically shown to be those who will go down those paths. So I'm talking in a broader sense here.

The other thing that comes to mind is China. China have a one child per couple policy. It's a big country, China, but the population there is 1,306,313,812 (on and on, 12 million more per year).

And so my train of thought is this, a little aside, if you will. With such an enormous population in just one country, and everyone selling manufacturing interests offshore to China, sure it keeps the Chinese employed. Good for them. But, because it is a far greater profit margin for retailers to have their goods made in China, China's economy is burgeoning. Where could this lead? I remember being taught in high school that the Chinese have a philosophy called 'The Long View'. Population does mean a lot to them, for it's People Power, and those peoples are in a controlled regime. So China will happily trade with the rest of the world, and become a economic power (pow!) in these contemporary times, and maybe a force to be reckoned with in the future.

Other countries, western and third world, also increasing.

So, why should western nations actively seek to control their populations, given all resources freely available for it to do so? Why encourage young girls to have children that might grow up fatherless? Why? Well, say if China's population (for eg) is growing, then western nations' populations will have to grow as well. We will have to keep up, somehow. Because it's all about The Economy.

The world's economy. What's good for the economy, so it is said. What is good for those that keep the economy the inflationary, monetary wise, and population wise, way it is.

But stuff the world, the planet, the globe in space. Just use, it abuse it, eat it up.

'Some rich men came and raped the land, nobody caught 'em'

A line from the Eagle's song 'The Last Resort'

Relationships - For Life

2009-06-27T07:21:00.000+10:00

In aftermath of the passing of Farrah Fawcett, star of the tv movie, The Burning Bed (1984), the following is on the matter of relationships, that between a man and a woman/husband and wife/ boyfriend and girlfriend. I have been reading a book, But I Love Him – Protecting your Teenage Daughter from Controlling, Abusive Relationships by Dr. Jill Murray. The author is a psychotherapist and speaker who has made appearances in high schools in the US on the topic of abusive teen relationships. Upon reading this book, and also inspired by the memory of the movie starring Farrah, I present some views on how the love/romance relationship should be one for life.

By life, I do not necessarily mean forever because a relationship may not necessarily last. But how, if a person, whether female or male (for males can also be abused), desires to be fulfilled in life, with part of that fulfilment met through close intimate relationships, then it could be said that the people that we share most closely with – especially a partner – should give enhancement to that life. This, rather than the relationship being of such negative force and character that being, or remaining, in that relationship can potentially lead down a path that is contrary to living life in a fulfilling, abundant, enhancing way.

In the movie, The Burning Bed, Farrah Fawcett plays the role of Francine Hughes, a woman who was brutally battered by her husband over ten years. Hughes was tried for the murder of her husband who she did kill in her utter desperation. It's been many years since I've seen this movie, but I remember at the time how truly confronting it was, and how Fawcett was an advocate for women in continued publicity for the cause of making the issue of battering and spousal abuse more public.

You know, it truly is amazing, and it does continually amaze me when I consider it, that people begin a relationship with the hope that being with that person of choice and desire will make them happy. Does anyone chose a partner without this thought? The person that one decides to stay with will be the one to requite the heart of what it desires for love, care and nurturing. But why is it that many girls, even older women, chose boyfriends and men that prove to be anything but life enhancing?

Looking at possible reasons:

Lack of parental love, guidance and nurturing:
In other books I've read, I've noted that fathers are an important role-model for a girl's ideal in a boyfriend and husband. If the father himself has been an abuser of the mother, an alcoholic/drug abuser/has been absentee, whether in a physical sense or distant in an emotional sense, then the ideal of what would pertain to suitable life-partner material can be very marred or skewed. If a young girl is used to seeing or being involved with abuse at home, she may not have a healthy image of what would a good boyfriend or husband. Also being in an environment where abuse occurs, whether physical, emotional or financial, will all contribute to a lowering of expectations in the partner she might pick.

Teens are learning though experience, both positive and negative, and guidance may be needed. As teens are growing they are finding out, through experiential and experimental behaviour, more about the world and how they see themselves in it. It is important for the psych to grow healthy to meet the need for what is fulfilling and nurturing. But within a formative history that has already been immersed in anything but a life-enhancing situation, the requirement of a healthy self-esteem so the bar, for the expectations from life, is raised, it may be a lot harder to see themselves as worthy to receive more of what is good and positive, and less of what negative and life-draining.

Physical developmental and social:
Teen girls are also at an age where they are going through hormonal changes, and the human biological/psychological makeup is in preparation for home-making and child rearing. It is only natural for youngsters to pair off. And so dating is a way for the mating 'ritual' to be experienced, thus to finally be able to settle on the life-partner of choice. Moreso in this day and in our culture than in days of yore and in other cultures, where there were and are arranged marriages. So the need to pair off in teens may be strong. Also, being in a relationship in teenage years may be seen as something of being in a situation of peer-esteem success.

A Suitable Boy:
It may also be a sign of success for teen boys, many of them unsuitable boyfriend/husband material because of the reasons of poor upbringing. But, nonetheless, and Dr Murray writes about this in her book, there are males who will chose a girlfriend and proceed to abuse her, whether by controlling behaviour (ie choosing her friends, checking up on her, even the way she dresses, making her wait for his phone calls, demanding sex) and physical and/or emotional abuse. One of the ways these toxic chaps may go about this is initial contact. This may occur at first through the macho 'show' – the preening of the rooster to attract the hens – making some impression on the girl's interest in physical attractiveness, or by telling her early that he “loves” her – thus inspiring within the breast of the girl an appetite for emotional stroking.

I had a friend in high school who was 15 and whose 16 year old boyfriend made her miserable. He had a Jekyll and Hyde personality. One day he would be all attentive and tell her of his deep affections, but the next day he would give her the cold shoulder, even allowing his friends to tease her, and she would be torn to the point of distress. She did not know on what day she would see the Jekyll or the Hyde character come out. Realising that he was tearing her in two, she broke it with him. But she had been damaged by all the ways he had manipulated her feelings, especially creating in her the need to be romanced on a faux-emotional level.

Also it can be that the boy himself has a poor self esteem and externalises his need this by behaving in ways that are abusive.

A bad relationship for a girl is a trap, to be sure, and something to be careful of for all parents. There are ways and ways for one human being to manipulate another, and the abuse may not be physical, but take an emotional form, until the girl's self esteem is attacked and she begins to live just for the boy, his attentions and approval.

Many times I have spoken about issues that involves a fuller need of life-application of the parent towards the offspring. I personally grew up from a generation of people that were not socially in tune with the need to be aware of emotional health and self esteem. There was a stoicism from that generation and people didn't talk about their emotional issues and needs. But in this day, there are books, counselling services and avenues available by which anyone, parent or child can seek help with things pertaining to happiness, health and wealth – all things that pertain to a good life and the continued raising of the bar for good expectations.

A boiling frog situation:
It is therefore a tragedy that some girls and women are ensnared by relationships that would lead then down a path that is contrary to all of the human heart's desire for good. Sometimes it can be like the boiling frog. The frog is in the cold water, but the water heat up over a long, simmering time, until the frog finally boils (never having made the decision to jump from the pot) and dies. Some can enter a relationship and the partner beings to show another side after a while but it seems too late to extricate easily from the soul-tie to that person. There could even be financial considerations and children involved.

People in bad relationships can die by degrees. Life is too important to spend with someone who needs to work out their own issues, thus making themselves too burdensome for their partner to bare or cope. And while some girls, and women, may think they will change a partner who is not good for them, I have found that, unless that man is desiring himself to honestly reform – and without lip service – then there lies the choice to leave the relationship, seeking healing for past hurts and move on. One life is for good and worth living in peace and safety. And each moves down a stream course that is flowing with waters that can either sustain or poison. The choice ultimately lies with each individual.

Farrah Fawcett (Feb 2nd 1947 – June 25th 2009)

Farrah was nominated for an emmy award in her stunning performance in the role of Francine Hughes in The Burning Bed.

The picture shows her in the red swimsuit and was a popular poster in the 70s. She had that amazing hair and smile.

Movie Review: Twilight

2009-06-21T03:23:00.000+10:00

Last year I read Stephenie Meyer's novel Twilight and, after reading several authors of the paranormal genre, I did not find it one of the most entertaining I'd read; drawn out and even dull at times, though I thought that Meyers did have a way of depicting character. This is particularly so in the main character of Bella Swan, a teenage girl who goes to live with her father when her mother and mother's new husband are travelling. Bella is introverted and the novel is written in the first person which gives the reader deep insight into her character and thought processes. I thought the subtlety in the novel was a bit overdone, but after seeing the movie adaption, I would read the sequel New Moon – soon to be released in cinemas – with a fresher appreciation.

I don't think that Meyers, when she wrote Twilight, had the goal in mind that her story would be made into film, as some authors do when they write their novel. But I would have to say that it was one of the best film adaptions of a novel that I've ever seen. The director, Catherine Hardwick, has handled the story with such a gentle, yet powerful touch, that the novel is completely brought to life, minus any waffling flat-lined narrative. The novel appeals to teenage girls, but the movie is so enthralling and wonderfully produced, that an any-age audience would enjoy it. And if anyone has read the novel previously, like myself, then the movie has a way of enhancing all the characters and I think, completely would satisfy a reader with its faithfulness in sticking to the original tale without the director taking their own artistic licence with the plot.

It is basically a love story with teenage boy and girl falling in love. The 'supposedly' 17 year old boy, Edward Cullen, at first rejects Bella who he has to sit with in science class, much to Bella's confusion. She wonders how, just by her presence at the school, she has offended him. Edward stays away for days, though his foster brothers and sisters are present at school. When he returns he tells her, in an enigmatic way, that he has tried to stay away but has resigned, but in a mysterious self-control, as to his attraction for her. From there, their relationship begins and it is revealed that Edward is an immortal, a vampire, along with the other members of his family.

I found Bella's introversion at times wearing and the girl that plays the role continually euphemises, uttering quick gasps and making gestures of hesitancy that I felt were overplayed. But there's real chemistry with Bella, played by Kristen Stewart and Edward, Robert Pattinson, which makes their intense relationship very convincing.

As well as really concentrating on this romance, of extraordinary but gentle nature, the story involves incidences that are going on in and around the town to do with some deaths and something that puts Bella's life in danger. There's also a mystery involving the local native American tribe and, while the ending is satisfying, there's room for more with the sequel.

This is a quality film worth seeing and the intensity of the love story, which seems so at odds with the circumstances of Bella and Edward, is moving. I bought it on DVD and have watched it twice.

Jeans On & Off: Calvin Klein

2009-06-16T07:11:00.000+10:00

Was watching the American news and an article on the latest Calvin Klein advertising campaign featuring a huge billboard of a teenage girl and three young lads doing some serious partying.

The billboard is in New York in So Ho at the corner of Lafayette and Houston Sts. Hardly something anyone would be able to miss. As you can see by the image, it's what some have called, by news reports, "borderline pornographic". This has happened in Australia too with billboards with sexually charged content. There was one I remember, in a central Victorian city where I used to live, that advertised a brothel. So lots of people complain and these things, a lot of the time, get removed.

With this billboard, CK has certainly got people's attention. So if people are driving, they're concentrating on that and next thing the synapse connections in the brain start travelling to nerve synapses that connect to more primal areas. So what happens if there's a collision in the street (as well as pedestrians not looking where they are walking). Who do they sue? There well could be a precedent if anything untoward happens.

A psychologist on CBS Early show said words to the effect that, it's not like the tv where you can pick and choose by changing channels: this billboard is confronting, you can't turn it off.

A quote from nydailynews.com:
Asked about the message in the ad, a Calvin Klein spokesman said the "intention was to create a very sexy campaign that speaks to our targeted demographic."

Targeted demographic? Teens -them with disposable income for fashion.
Speaks to? How about, teenage 'orgy'?

I have given some thought over time to how the teenage mind is affected by sexuality in advertising. Common consensus, in defining what constitutes morality, is what the wider public finds acceptable - particularly evident in public areas. What structures and edifices that make up community - city and townscapes - are architectural expressions of society. Now, sex is a private thing, something wonderful, precious and something that shouldn't be sold down the river. Why cheapen sex constantly for the almighty buck and the 'look at me, not my competitors' ad campaign?

People are minding their own business in the places where those billboards are and bam! sudden confrontation with a kind of sexual image found in certain magazines. If these images are found publically acceptable then, could it be that in the mind of teens (who are emerging into adult sexuality and have pressures to buy clothing to have a certain look), that such images relay subtle messages re the manege a quatre (go one better!) in the image? The teen and the risqué. Previously adult territory.

How does the mind work here? Advertising: clothing displayed via sex images. Does the person influenced have the feeling of being in that foursome? Is this how it should make one feel?

There's a difference between imagery and reality and need I say it? Klein is relying on imagery to sell the jeans. Klein ads say this: Put our jeans on now, get 'em off, and your rocks, later...

The best thing I would suggest is discussion. Youngsters see these publically-displayed images and so, because they can hardly be ignored, they might be rationally talked about for a bit. Actually it would be interesting to hear what teens of both sexes would have to say about it. The alternative to open discussion is for the images to stay within the youthful imagination and that could end up taking some flight of fancy there.

Ps. Last year I was helping out in the 'clean up Australia Day' and it was noted on the summary form that the most interesting piece of rubbish found by collectors that day (by yours truly) was a pair of sexy but dirty black Calvin Klein Ys. I had discovered them caught in a shrubbery. Landfill now.

Buried Things: On Guilt Part Three (End)

2009-06-11T08:01:00.000+10:00

Why is it important for people, who might, at some point in their lives, realise that there's repeated behaviours in themselves that they would otherwise no longer live with – things they do and ways of thinking that are holding them back? Well, I think you only have to bring to mind people that you may have known that continue to show negative traits that not only affect themselves but others in real time or online.

Guilt and its effects can be a very hard emotion to deal with, as I said in part one, because its nature is one of self-blame. In Kathy's story, her brother was telling her to forget about what happened when they were children. For the person with submerged long-term guilt, even though they may finally be able to see the reason for it, it will take acts of effort by will, like self-forgiveness, to then progress and see that they can open out arms to then receive more from life. I'm of the opinion that anyone with wounds of the soul can be healed if they first choose to be set free from them over time and effort. And for those who may think that no one would understand, well that's just a plain fallacy.

It's true that one that seeks deliverance from a wounded past could not go to just anybody and open up. For the person with the wound might be feeling that keenly and deeply, while the wrong person on the receiving end of the confide may wonder what all the fuss is about. The person seeking may hear things like, 'the past is the past, leave it there and move on!' or 'don't live in the past' or 'stop feeling sorry for yourself!. Meanwhile, while the hurting one is seeking healing from a long-term wound, they are not being validated for having something that is still in need of healing. So it's important to seek the right ear, whether through someone trustworthy or professional help.

A list of approach towards self-atonement of long-term guilt.

1. Like in Kathy's story from Part One, though it may be very painful, the incident when the guilt first arose can be revisited in a more objective light rather than in one big emotional fuzz ball. In this one may see where actual blame may lie. I'm not using the word 'blame' in a negative connotation here, but in an objective way. In Kathy's situation back then, she knew her kid brother was too close to danger, but she also saw that her parents had given her more responsibility to look after him than what she was, with a child's immaturity, able to bear. As a result Kathy stopped seeing herself as worthy of shouldering all blame and chose to forgive the child, that she was then, for the mistake.

2. Acceptance that the past cannot be altered. Time spent in rational thought about this will bring about mindfulness of present negative-impact behaviour. No behaviour, that the one seeking change can do, will change the past. In other words, the past cannot be revisited in present behaviour that is producing negative results.

3. Acknowledgement that wounds and deep feelings of pain are shared by others. One's situation is hardly unique, just the circumstances that brought the guilt-wound about. Also, there will be someone with the suitable ear that can understand and help.

4. Prayer, or invoking a higher power. This 'higher power' approach is adopted by 12 step programs. No one has to face any situation alone, no matter how humiliating. Faith is a good key.

5. Realising that other people involved at the time of the guilt-causing incident may not be thinking bad things about the one feeling the guilt in the present. In Kathy's story, her brother felt no hardship towards her. One person will think differently about a situation than another person, yet there may remain the erroneous thought that other people are still projecting blame. I think it is so that other people involved may have well forgotten the original incident anyway.

6.Taking the 'guilty' sign off the head – stopping wearing it like a crown. Working on self-pity.

7. Self forgiveness. This can be a conscious choice, like any act, and need not be emotionally driven. Conscious choices lead to conscious acts.

8. Making amends with the person that one may have wronged to bring about the original guilt onset. This may not be appropriate or possible, but if it is, then seeking forgiveness for anyone wronged may be a course of action. In fact it can be liberating.

9. Giving oneself time to work through the healing process. Also, being mindful of negative pattern behaviour and exchanging long-term irrational behaviour for more rational behaviour by being more conscious. Continued emotional pain, no matter how subtly felt, will serve to tell you that something is wrong – that there's something inside that's in need of healing.

Of course, in all this, there are degrees and degrees of guilt depending on the personality ie an introvert may experience more pain over a similar cause incident than someone with a more extroverted personality. But on the other hand, an introvert may find it easier to reach a state of mindfulness enough to deal with what's going on inside of them more readily than someone with a more extroverted personality might do.

Yes, guilt is a one tough emotion, but it's not a life-sentence. A little humility and a realisation that we are 'only human' might well be the first step to being set free from the ball and chain of it. And to embrace more of what life with all its riches can offer.

Buried Things: On Guilt Part Two

2009-06-10T05:48:00.000+10:00

It's easier for some, but not others, to recover from situations that may bring about feelings of guilt. While some might recover quickly, put things down to 'experience' and leave the past where it can stay, it is harder for others to do so – especially when guilt may become somehow woven through a person's behaviour, sort of like a weed vine that's grown from a bad seed at the base of an otherwise healthy tree. Like any 'bad root' that's stubbornly entrenched, even if the gardener chops a bit at it, it may still crop back up if the root source itself isn't identified, dug and pulled.

In Kathy's story from Part One, she had burdened herself with all the blame of her kid brother's injury and had, through her behaviour, to keep the basement door closed, while it still remained inside, undealt with. In Kathy, long-term guilt manifested in avoidance of taking responsibility. In others, a fear of rejection, played out in behaviour, might be the result. Feelings of fear of rejection and actual rejection can be strong emotions. Because they can be strong, they can lead people to behave in ways that show poor self-esteem and feelings of not being 'worthy' enough to expect and receive good things in life. Some people might even reach out in self-depreciating behaviour in an effort to make people confirm their 'worthiness' ie approval seeking.

In can be often be that guilt can take root in the younger years. Youngsters are learning about the world and are liable to make mistakes. Children learn to grow into maturity and learn by mistakes. When I have listened or read true stories of guilt that has stemmed from childhood experiences, there are many that have involved sexual experimentation or the child bearing guilt from the sexual abuse (and erroneously taking the blame) by someone that should have been otherwise trustworthy.

However it is a fact that bad things can happen to people of all ages, that humans will make mistakes after all, and that life goes on. One cannot change the past: fact! The other thing is that sometimes circumstances can come along and they seem, given human mood and frailty, that have, looking back seemed somehow strangely inevitable. It is one thing to think, 'if I could only go back and change things', but that thought can only be just that, a thought of no reality consequence.

Sometimes people feel guilt and think that they are the only ones that could understand how they feel. The hurt is so personal and there's a total reticence of disclosure to anyone, even someone that could help them. Guilt is a common enough human feeling but who wants to feel it? It's a bad one. I knew a man whose way of dealing with guilt for repeated acts of selfishness was to put the blame on others or just 'the circumstances'. His way of dealing with his guilt was to make someone else look responsible and a total reticence to deal with it. Of course, in this man's situation, he would have had to change from being overtly selfish, to thus end the cycle of behaviour/guilt/behaviour/guilt etc.

Another sort of person will, instead of dealing with feelings of guilt, will have callousness in their personality somewhere. For many, guilt stays locked in 'the basement' while yet it remains one of the most painful human emotions! One might see callous behaviour, in someone with buried guilt, is that person's way of revisiting the place where they first began blaming themselves. Thus the behaviour which manifest as callous is trying to sort out a self-justification for the original mistake. This I call returning to the scene of the 'crime' over and over in attempt for it to get resolution. Do those who may behave this way know they are doing so? No, for the behaviour has taken root from a time past, and the reason for the original guilt-wound may have been forgotten and buried. Even purposely.

Strange how the human soul goes about things sometimes, isn't it? While people work on keeping their bodies healthy, their minds exercised, it can be the that emotions can be sorely neglected. I think this is because bad emotions are so tied into how a person sees themselves – in self worth. One may think one sees others, but it may be oneself that just might be the hardest to find.

For those in need of a permanent cure, take 20mg per day from the bottle marked 'self-esteem' along with your daily vitamins! If I was a doctor, this is what I would advise patients!

Buried Things: On Guilt

2009-06-09T05:52:00.000+10:00

The following is a mini-series dealing with submerged guilt, causes, effects and self-atonement. I've found the issue of guilt is a tough one and one of the most painful things the human psyche will ever have to deal with. But actually dealing with guilt is sometimes something that is not ever done. This is because it can be felt, possibly through a memory trigger, to raise feelings that one would not otherwise choose to feel, and thus be submerged again. That's why this series, in three parts, is called 'buried things'.

Here's a story to illustrate how submerged guilt can operate:

Kathy has problems relating to people in the respect that she does not like ever having the thought of taking care of others, or having anyone rely on her. She never feels worthy of someone leaning on her for help and though she has friends, she opts out of situations when she feels she's put on the spot to take any responsibility for the care of others in any respect.

One time, a good friend asked her to pick his children up from school as he had something most urgent to attend to. Kathy, though her time was free, said she would like to help but made an excuse not to. Another time she was asked by a friend, who was getting married, if Kathy would help arrange for the bridemaids' dresses to be measured and ordered. Kathy declined, saying that that was not something she was good at. Her friends came to understand that if they put Kathy out of her comfort zone by asking her things that other friends would gladly do for them, that Kathy would drop her eyes and make an excuse. It made Kathy unhappy, but she was used to the way she was and felt she didn't need to explain why she couldn't be relied upon. She also felt she let them, and family members down, but that was the way things were for her.

Kathy needed to be in hospital for several days. She had two cats that needed looking after. She knew that because she had not been there for the people in her life, she wouldn't impose by asking someone to take care of her pets and bring in her mail while she was in hospital. She phoned around for a cattery and found one miles out of town and the price she had to pay was currently out of her budget, especially with hospital bills. While she was a patient, Kathy worried the whole time about the welfare of her pets and she couldn't relax. Later, when she told a relative about this worry, her relative said that Kathy had been very silly: why didn't she ask herself, a neighbor or friend to help for those few days? Kathy wondered herself. Looking at it, it did seem silly and hardly worth the worry she'd gone through.

She sat down to think about it. Why was it that each time someone would call and ask her to help out with something or some duty that involved responsibility that she would feel first a feeling of pain and then a feeling of running away? She found this strange, but this was how she had been feeling for the longest time, since childhood actually.

A week later she met up with her brother at their parent's house. She noticed again the burn on his arm. Her brother looked at the burn and saw the sadness in his sister's face. 'Oh this,' he said, with a chuckle, 'do you still feel guilty about it? Oh, c'mon sis, get over it, we were both small children. That was so long ago!'

Right then and there, Kathy realised the reason for all the avoidant behaviour. It was a wound of an incident of the past she had chosen to bury in her memory.

When she was just on nine years old and her brother was a toddler, her parents had left them alone in the house for a couple of hours. Her mother told her to look after her brother until they got back. Well, Kathy was feeling angry at her kid brother because lately he'd been getting all the attention; she felt he was being too coddled. Her little brother, while her parents were out, could look after himself! She'd made some hot chocolate for herself, which her brother had wanted. He was straying too close to the bench where the hot drink was. Kathy didn't stop him and he had reached up and pulled the mug down over his arm, burning himself. Instantly Kathy's spite vanished and realised that she never wanted her brother hurt – never had any real intention of wish-fulfillment harm coming against him. And when her parents got home, they blamed Kathy.

And so, in remembering the incident, too painful it had been always to recall, she had buried it in the basement of her psyche and realised that her avoidant behaviour was a means to opt out on accepting responsibility that could mean something could go wrong.

Later, when she talked to a therapist about the matter, he suggested she replay the childhood incident in her mind again in an attempt to see it in a clearer light. In those memory pictures he made her see that Kathy had been a child, and had, at the time, the immature emotions of a child. She accepted that, and also that the past could not be changed or altered by her present avoidant (of responsibility for others) behaviour. He also told her that she was shouldering the full blame for what happened to her brother, whereas her parents had left two very young children home alone, and, in their reactive anger, had blamed their older child for the younger child's injury, whereas they had been parents with their own responsibility of caring for their own children.

And so, the incident was dissected in Kathy's memories. In appreciating what happened in light of it, she was able to finally put the past away where it belonged and see that, in her own way, she had been doing penance over the years with self-blame and a whole lot of guilt, played out in interactions with other people close to her. She saw that she was not a child anymore to ever feel the same childish feelings. She also saw that her parents, in their reaction of anger, had made her feel all responsible for the injury and in so doing had left their daughter to bear the emotional burden of what had happened.

As she grew, the incident of her brother being burned faded from memory, but the pain of that incident had stayed buried within in the form of guilt. It had become so entrenched that it had worked its way into her personality without her realising it had.

It had taken Kathy a trip to hospital and a lot of stress to see that it had been time for the long-buried wound to rise to the surface, for the source of her guilt to be identified, and for the work of healing and self-trust to begin.

I've used this this story as an illustration to discuss how it can be that behaviour stemming from guilt can come about: behaviour that would otherwise limit a person's emotional capacity, and for a soul to become inhibited in some way, including social ineptitude and feelings of low self-worth.

The Grey Areas & the Galactic Traveller

2009-06-03T02:16:00.000+10:00

The following is one of my ruminations on the subject of relationships that I've been working on for a while and I've used a metaphor of 'space' and of 'planets' by which to illustrate.

People invariably interest me, and as a species, we interest each other – if that were not so there wouldn't be so many reality tv shows. I find differences in personality, backgrounds, nuances (etc) fascinating. I consider myself a bit of an 'observer'. This also helps in my fiction writing, and I've quite often said that fact can be stranger than fiction – real life stories regarding human interaction can be strange in their actuality. Why is this? Well, this blog explores the question.

I'm going to be using the picture of the planet that I've used in some other blogs: planets, orbiting around on similar courses. We share common experiences, while having our own profoundly unique ones. Out in space, the big wide universe of life, we are with the other stars, but we are also on our own, occupied by our own thoughts, emotions, motivations, heart's desires. And while we 'serve' others, as we do with family, friends and community, what we do we must also do for 'ourselves', thus to provide personal fulfilment in life. In a way you could say this is a noble selfishness.

I use the word 'noble', why? One of the reasons is that we give the highest regard and sometimes honour to works and character that, in our perception, excels. High ideals are good ideals and they are like the mountains to which to aspire where all around might be what is merely the normalcy of our usual being and how normal time is spent.

On all the 'planets' in the universe, the terrain varies. There are high places and low places. But a planet is a surface, what you see, then there are layers, depths and a central core (the heart).

Norms of behaviour are so there's peaceful coexistence with others. Each nation has a culture by which societal behaviour can be understood so it can flow. When one person meets another for the first time, there's a way of greeting that may involve a visual assessment of the other's appearance (or their blog site), their way of speaking (or their blogs/pms), and their manners. In that way the planet's 'surface' can be appreciated. You might know where, on that other planet, due to the time spent in interaction with them, the good places in which to identify to form a relationship with them. Some planets are inhospitable to some but not to others. Never mind, the galactic traveller – in real or on the net – will find compatible planets with which to orbit with for whatever duration of time.

When we meet someone for the first time, expectations are high. Relationships online can be formed very quickly and there's an expectation of maybe this new contact will prove to be a faithful friend. Now 'faithfulness' is one of those noble ideals, so is 'honesty' as is 'trust'. One hopes for the best in the other. Some set their expectations in others very high indeed, and, if the other shows themselves with an area of personal weakness, then that may not be a favourable thing for the person that has expected a sort of perfection from them in a sense that maybe the one expecting will hope they will fit into a desired perception.

Another question. Why is it that people expect others to be 'perfect' for them? It's true that at times we sometimes need another to be the stronger one and carry the burden for a while to help lighten our load ie to be an 'ear' when we need hearing – to be a confidante, (and what an amazing thing is a true confidante! – someone who will keep one's trust.)

And so, in requiring that the other planet's surface prove a hospitable place to land, there might well be disregard for the places on that 'world' that aren't as favourable. Who wants to visit that one's trash heap, lost baggage centre, and the place were sewerage collects (and sometimes gets processed)? Nonetheless, under the crust are places that are not too hospitable to others, they may be places like ice cold crevasses or places where magma forms from melting rock. You could say in my analogy to people being seen as a 'planet' that every planet has them, places that cannot be seen on surface impression. They nonetheless exist. There's 'fault lines' too, cracks that could possibly make for earthquakes. The world, for all it's strength of matter – of being – can also be a fragile place.

While there's an appreciation of the strengths of character in others, there, on the other hand, can likewise be an appreciation of what the other has endured in life. There may be understanding into why the other person has a weakness because of some negative life experience and this may be shared. The intergalactic traveller can assess a planet's terrain from a place of observation. But what about those grey areas, the areas in the human psych that beg for a greater understanding? Who knows what motivates another person to do and say what they will, but the person who owns the heart and keenly feels their own desires? It may not be even obvious to the owner, what motivates them, but surely the desires of the heart, though sometimes in a repressed state, will nonetheless exist. It all depends on how self aware one is of these motivations and desires.

I have been pondering that there is a very high expectation of others that exists in our society. This is because we would rather traverse the universe in a state of safety and live is made easier as a result. If expectations are high then behaviour of the other person is expected to be manifest accordingly. However, it is sometimes that, upon landing on that planet (ie forming relationships) we find that those higher expectations are not being met.

Think about how some people who may be an influence in society, like politicians or sports stars may be promoted. Sports stars are reported in newspapers, for the sake of a headline sometimes as 'heroes', someone to look up to – role models. Politicians are promoted as sterling citizens, (certainly not someone who has ever smoked pot!) and someone promoted to us in whom the public should place their trust.

But what if that one-time 'hero' is discovered to be an adulterer like an popular Australian cricketer was exposed for infidelity whilst overseas with the team. Or the politician has been up to tricks?

I think this is where so much hypocrisy lies. If the expectations are high in that person it makes way for the judgement of base hypocrisy. It can therefore be deceptive to elevate someone very high when the 'planet' the soul, is a such complex creation. It has its grey areas.

By this I'm not saying that things like adultery are 'grey areas' no...what I'm saying is that expectations can be built so high as to when someone is revealed to the other person as less than perfect (for example, as a 'friend') then it can make way for disappointment that could otherwise have been avoided by acceptance of areas in someone that would take a greater time to get to know and understand - instead of a polarisation of impression.

Maybe this comes from childhood where, as children, we had every expectation of our parents – to provide for us, be there for us, no matter what. As we grew we had to take up our own burden, but that maybe expectation of the 'very best' remained ingrained.

When a person therefore fails us, ie does something hurtful to us, our ideal of that person is marred. To us they have become a hypocrite. But that should not stop the outer space journey from continuing and finding other people to hope in once we are past the wound. It is my opinion that there is not enough appreciation of a person's grey areas, places in someone's personality that won't always fulfil our expectations of them. But nonetheless these grey areas exist in everyone.

Quite often it is that a person can put on a face and even a persona that is contrary to how they really are for fear of being exposed for weakness or the thought that they won't be understood and appreciated. The person wants to be accepted, fearing rejection, so this strategy is taken. Unfortunately this happens on the net, people putting on a persona, even very nice ones, and while they will discuss more obvious wounds – sometimes for the sake of gaining attention and pity for themselves – they are all too shy of revealing personal ordinary weaknesses or failings (and aren't we all on a journey?) for fear of being rejected for them.

And this is the rub. When it may be revealed that someone may show that they have areas that may not be 'attractive' there's the risk of rejection. The trouble is that by that time it may be too late, the veneer may crack to show the weakness underneath and so the relationship may end up being a disappointing one given a situation where this might arise. Wouldn't it be better, therefore, in a spirit of humility to say 'I am human and capable of failings – just like you, this is my journey and it's not my intent to build your hopes up too high in me, for (you might think) I may fail you.' It's not that some intend to fail others, it's just their grey areas showing. Others may suddenly show these 'flaws' in bad behaviour, because they've been busy living behind the veneer, the face, and not being who they really are deeper inside, a place of more honesty and openness.

I think it is that some with continue on in 'their own orbit' in disregard of the real reasons for their bad behaviour, the words and actions that are like meteor shower in their wake. They will continue to crash into others and not deal with issues.

And so it must come down to the individual to seek wholeness within themselves in the journey, whether it be by dealing with issues/weaknesses or repenting of bad behaviour that wounds – thus to better appreciate the weaknesses that are like the 'grey areas' in others, those places that may not present as perfect and thus may leave one open to possible rejection – the things that make us commonly needful of more gracious understanding.

Indeed, when someone outwardly expresses themselves as 'super nice' this behaviour the expectation for 'perfect' is fostered. And it's not going to show 'grey areas' or anything like what's really real about that person. While an outward 'pleasing' faultless kind of image is suitable for mere acquaintance to thus create a favourable first impression, it's merely a doorway of 'openess' in itself by which to forge a more realistic friendship. To borrow from the Beatles, the face might be kept in the jar by the door depending on who it is for. But the more time one spends with another, the in the hopes of a relationship of understanding, the more room will be made for honesty and trust.

But no matter, the truth will out eventually, and if the relationship is to go the test of distance, this is a natural progression.

On the images used in this blog. Clicking on each image will bring up the larger res picture. If you have a pair of 3D glasses you'll see more than just colourful pictures of planets.

Lady Gack! and the Paparazzi

2009-05-31T15:01:00.000+10:00

The following was prompted by a music video I watched this morning on the news of the new song, 'Paparazzi' by Lady GaGa. These days if a pop performer makes a video that has controversy to it, it will make the news shows. Watching this video I could see why.

I could say that Lady GaGa is striving to become this generation's version of Madonna, in shock-pop princess style. Over the past years there has been a trend in video pop for young starlets to be in boudoir fashion, their body language decidedly soft porn.

This video was of the kind that has a bit of a story to tell. It begins with a palatial, opulent house on the Continent somewhere. The 'Lady' herself is in bed with her beau, getting it on. They end up pashing on the balcony outside. She's hiked up, legs wrapped around the beau, played by Peter Sarsgaard. The paparazzi are snapping away madly at this scene from below. She realises he's sold her out and resists her lover, who forces her to remain straddled. She promptly bonks him over the side of the head with a champagne bottle. He pushes her over the balustrade and it looks like she's taken the gong. Lying on the ground below, there's blood around her head, and sexy pearls draping from her mouth. Big news for the press.

Earlier in the video, there's wads of cash shown. The face featured on the dosh is her own. The film-maker is telling you that she's the pinnacle of fame and money-making success.

The rest of the 'story' involves her comeback from recovering invalid and returning to worldly success. The end involves her poisoning her beau to death and phoning to say that's she's killed her boyfriend. This is spite because she's read in the paper of a rival starlet moving in on her fame territory. At the end of it all, she's got away with it.

Now, precisely, what is age group is this video intended for? The song itself is the current vogue pop sound, not too racey, just one of those tunes that you'll hear often on radio in the peripherals if you care to listen. Undoubtedly it will become a big 'hit' because of the video.

How's that for advertising to sell music? Not too shabby, for the clip would have cost a fortune to make, it's big budget, full of shock content, showing lots of suggestive sexuality and women who look like they have been brutally murdered. The images shown and Lady Ga's outfits, except maybe for the beginning of the clip, change every five seconds with garish attention-deficit. Afterwards I thought that Ga is trying desperately to do Madonna's thing – make impact for doing the push-the-boundaries of the current 'state' of morality, which the queen of pop, Mad, did in her younger days. It just might work too, for Madonna with her sexual/pseudo religious shock-pop approach, established an niche for herself in pop culture.

Can't say that I'm too impressed with Lady Gaga. I'd like to know what she really looks like underneath that generic fake hair colouring and eye gunk. When I see images like these I want to go take a walk in the bush somewhere, eat 'slow' food and de-tech for awhile. Pop techno sick?

In another blog I wrote about which one came first, the chicken or the egg? These days, it seems that whatever the pop machinery and economic interests take on as 'viable' they first make famous. If something straight off is promoted as famed and popular (as GaGa first seemed to hit the screens and airwaves) the 'this is the latest thing and you will buy the music' approach seems to work.

If you ever saw the movie Josie and the Pussycats with its satirical plot, then you might appreciate that this is the way promoters of pop culture, for economic gain, go about things. Years ago, before such high-powered economic rationalism, a singer/performer was, to a much greater degree, popular by the strength of their individualistic talent. Ga, I've discerned, has a similar timbre of voice to Madonna's and her songs don't bling me at all, from the several I've heard. She actually could be any skinny curvaceous female, especially with all the clown make-up on. Maybe later in her career she'll re-invent if she wants to be seen as a serious performer and go more natural. 'Tis imagery afterall.

As a comparison, the film clip of a David Bowie song 'Heart's Filthy Lesson' was filled with horror-style techno imagery, but there's something of the artistic in it, as there is in Bowie's appearing in the tv horror series The Hunger. As I am entertained by the horror and crime genre, I found I was not entertained by the Lady Ga extravaganza video. It was not what I'd call artistic, just overdone crassness.

The paparazzi itself: Remember how the world was in shock over the death of Princess Diana? Well, there was a public backlash here in Australia and some magazine titles in popular tabloid press avowed to not show the more blatant paparazzi-taken pictures, being bad for the images of those magazines. People knew that the publishing of those images fed the avidness of the grubby 'cash for photos' paparazzi 'profession' -those people with cameras competing with each other for the big bucks to be made. I don't know how long that good intention lasted. A question to the local newsagency this morning confirmed that their biggest selling magazines were the tabloid, 'stars being human' celebrity content.

At what point did the whole industry, (coming first with interest stories about lives of the celebrities, then personal pictures of their daily lives, then chasing cars through underground tunnels – a car crashed – annoying/irritating and riling famous individuals like flies blowing about a carcass,) cross the line from common human decency and the transgression of a right to every individual's privacy to justify their actions in the attempt to sell photos to the highest (tabloid magazine) bidder? The magazines would tell you that it was 'the chickens', the consuming public, that want this content.

I have my own theory, however, and it is this. In the self justification of the whole industry of 'candid photos for cash' the boundaries were pushed more and more. The public then fed off those more personal pictures. But was it the public who first crossed that boundary line, the line of good human conscience, or was it the egg – the produce (those photos)? If ever I was to read that the magazines are only giving the public more of what they want, I will only believe that to the point that they are giving the public that because they first created the desire through the open-slather releasing of those pictures. In my opinion the egg wins the debate for this one.

Question. Just because someone is famous, does that make them public property? For some self-interested parties would argue that point and say that they are. If an actor (a real profession) is a movie 'star' ie made popular by being in movie(s), then they are receiving public attention and fame by being in an industry and art-form that is released as mass media. Nonetheless, they are in a real profession. Someone has to do the acting.

Fame – and paparazzi – come with the territory then? Well in every city you'll find the colonies of rats and the buzzy humming of blow flies busily getting about, being major pests. The avarice gaddings of industry low-lifes. The rats will keep hunting for eggs to devour. The chickens, in the meantime, will continue to be assured that everything is as it should be. It's just the way things are.

The pic (right) shows Britney copping the usual.

My Novel Now Available: The Guitar Pin by D.M.Grant

2009-05-28T16:08:00.001+10:00

The Guitar Pin by D.M.Grant:

Meet Justin LeFevre, a man of half-French, half-Australian descent – a good-looking, part time rock guitarist, surfer and university drop out living in an inner Melbourne suburb. But he's not what he appears to be, because he's from another dimension. And like his two best friends and sister, he's got wings...and he knows how to use them!

He's been sent on a mission to save Amy, a chick with a very unusual piece of jewellery. She's in trouble from something very nasty going on at college and Justin finds himself up against an elite society that are into serious black magic. There's also the matter of another college girl who's missing and the police have no leads left.

Along the way he gets some help from some 'Royal Trouble Shooters' who get around in all black and dark sunglasses and they're spoiling for a fight. And Justin, along with these others in the King's service, better do the job quick before all hell cuts loose...

The story of one man's journey within a paranormal urban adventure. Reflective with elements of crime, horror, humour, romance, – sometimes erotic – it will have you reading to see what happens next.

The Sugarbird Lady

2009-05-25T06:42:00.000+10:00

A tribute to Robin Miller (7th dec 1940- 7th dec 1975), who worked for the Australian Flying Doctor Service as a pilot and nurse.

I was watching an episode of Australia Story on the ABC tv station and I was surprised that this was the first I'd heard of this most remarkable woman.

Looking up information on the net I discovered there wasn't very much to be found and only a few pictures. The Australia Story episode was very informative and host George Negus presented quite a bit of footage and images of Miller on the job as a flying nurse, along with some interviews with people that knew her.

Robin Miller was the daughter of aviator, Captain Horrie Miller (see picture below) and Dame Mary Durack, the famed Australian author. While training as a nurse she obtained her private and commercial pilot's licence and applied to the Western Australia Dept. of Health to work in a program of vaccination for people to receive medical treatment in remote communities.

One of the things she did was provide the Sabin vaccine (polio) to Aboriginal children in these areas. She ministered the vaccine by sugar cubes and the Aboriginal people grew very close to her and coined her the 'Sugarbird Lady'.

In the Australia Story episode, one of her friends, Nancy Bird, related how Robin would fly out in all sorts of weather conditions for all kinds of medical flight emergencies in a 'second nature' attitude. Robin would pilot her small craft while ministering to sick patients. She would have wailing children on her lap while at the wheel, changing nappies and once delivered a baby after putting the controls into auto pilot.

Aside from working for the Flying Doctor Service, she gained much experience as a pilot by trans-continental flights. She once flew solo from Paris to Australia, flew the Pacific and was a co-pilot across the Atlantic. In 1973, she married Harold Dicks, director of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Her friend, Nancy Bird, said that Robin was, most often, attractively presented in the short dresses of the day with her hair in a fashionable bun style.

Robin Miller developed cancer and died in December 1975 at the age of 35. A short life, well lived with dedication to nursing and to a love of flying. Indeed an inspirational life and one person who made a difference.

A memorial was erected at Jandakot Airport in Perth in 1978 of a replica aircraft, a Mooney Super 21, and her husband established a memorial foundation to help nurses get flying licences. There are two books about her life: 'Flying Nurse' and 'Sugarbird Lady'.

Coldplay's Life in Technicolor II

2009-05-23T07:06:00.000+10:00

I enjoy music film clips and I particularly liked this one by Coldplay for their song from their album, Prospekt's March, 'Life in Technicolor II'. This week I bought a double CD album of their's which has Viva La Vida and Prospekt's March on it. It's a rare thing that I will buy an album on the strength of one good song, but listening to both CD's I'm now a fan.

From my first couple of listens, Coldplay have a melancholy acoustic sound with some poetically poignant lyrics. Below is the video to the song.
The band are represented as marionettes on a small puppet stage performing the song. Being a fan of 'The Thunderbirds' from the 60s, I like marionettes.

This film clip really is something. I'll see what I can make of this with Derrick, the black Takamine.

Life in Technicolor II

 F#m       D
There's a wild wind blowing,
     A
Down the corner of my street
  F#m             D              A              (E)
Every night there the headlights are glowing

     F#m      D
Theres a cold war coming,
   A
On the radio I heard
E                   A
Baby it's a violent world


--------------------CHORUS-------------------
F#m        D      A             (E)
Oh love don't let me go
      F#m               D            A             (E)
Won't you take me where the streetlights glow
    F#m     D
I could hear it coming
    A
I could hear the sirens sound
   E                    A
Now my feet won't touch the ground
---------------------------------------------


F#m         D
Time came a-creepin'
   A
Oh and time's a loaded gun
  F#m       D       A              (E)
Every road is a ray of light
    F#m  D
It goes o-o-o-on
A
Time only can lead you on
E                           A
Still it's such a beautiful night


--------------------CHORUS-------------------
F#m       D       A             (E)
Oh love don't let me go
      F#m               D            A             (E)
Won't you take me where the streetlights glow
    F#m     D
I could hear it coming
   A
Like a serenade of sound
   E                    A
Now my feet won't touch the ground
---------------------------------------------


F#m       D
Gravity release me,
     A
And dont ever hold me down
   E                    A
Now my feet won't touch the ground

Euro Pops: The Eurovision Song Contest 2009

2009-05-20T18:00:00.000+10:00

Pop music is alive and well and living in Europe on happy endorphins. This year, this huge event was held in Moscow.

An Australian tv station, SBS, sent two of its presenters to Russia to report and it was broadcast on the station over three nights. Many countries were represented with their own brand of pop: some power/love ballad, rock, some with a mix of pop beat and orchestra and some with a mix of pop and cultural music. The stage is huge with a overawing use of digital effects. The camera work on all the acts shows off the performers, the stage and the huge crowd in the best possible display. The audience is made up of people from the represented countries, many waving their national flag. Everyone is bouyant.

Aside from the professionalism of the staging of the annual event, Eurovision is cheesy fun. European popular music has never forgotten the 70s, and the contest remains in the amateur writer class with simple rhymes in the most basic of lyrics. But that's all part of the charm, the weird enjoyment of it.

Here's an example of the offering from Azerbaizan. A guy and a girl named AySel and Arash (this pic of them is not from the show) sing the lyrics of a song entitled 'Always' to each other to backdrop of surreal digital imaging and swirling backup dancers.

Guy:
“I've been waiting for you, night after night/Like a shadow staying close to the light/ I believe I'm addicted to you/ In your eyes I see dreams coming true”

Girl:
“Finally I've found you and I'll never let you go!”

Both together in refrain:
“Always on my mind/Always in my heart....”

Yeah, that's easy enough to remember in the shower.

The song ends with with the refrain and then with the girl singing out, “Almost, all the time!”

...catchy song. Of all the songs this was the one I enjoyed the most as it atypified the contest. I was singing it out in the kitchen later and thinking how duh that was, but I couldn't help feeling good. Well, that's the magic of Eurovision.

Each countries entry is preceded by a visual 'postcard'. A moving collage of images is shown with scenes of the nation and ends with a beautiful model wearing a hat that has cultural architecture on it! Naturally the hair needs to be big to have lots of buildings piled on. The whole show is really a visual feast.

One of the most spectacular was the Ukraine entrant. Dishy 'Svetlana', a big hair blonde appears in a fiery-red, flouncy, almost-a-dress and is surrounded by wildly dancing, scantily-clad in silver costumes, Roman centurions. She does a little drum solo at a drum kit. This was eye-popping for three minutes.

The winner of the contest was from Norway. A gorgeous looking 23 year old violinist/vocalist by the name of Alexander Rybak (pictured) with a song called 'Fairytale' (see youtube video below). Again simple lyrics, but this guy really put this twee little number across. I would have voted for him too.

The presenters are part of the entertainment in their own curious way. The Russian couple had been so very well rehearsed in English and French. The girl with big hair – lots of hairspray – says “Hellooo Audience!” Her co-compere, a shorter, smiling chap in a dinner suit says, “How arrre you enzoying ze show sofarrr?"

He ends the last show with, “Bik crown dof aprawz! Europe sart votink nowwww!”

Another chap, a singer, shouts out to the audience, “Hey, whazzup Europe?” (It wasn't the words, just how he put them).

One of the funniest ones was the Greek entrant. This was one that the Australian tv hosts made a fuss of because the song was penned by two Australian songwriters. The song was called 'This is Our Night'. It so reminded me of Hugh Grant singing 'Pop Goes My Heart' in the movie Music and Lyrics that I cracked up. This gorgeous guy even did the leap with a raised fist when he sang the refrain out. In the last bit of the song he was on top of what looked like a giant stapler, a thing that rose one of its ends up on hydraulics or something, he and his dancing team were dancing on it earlier.

It's over for another year but I'll look forward to next year's big show. I taped some so I'll watch that again. Yes, it's that much fun.

Movie Review: The Strangers

2009-05-17T07:58:00.000+10:00

As I had not seen The Strangers before, I bought a two pack with the horror movie Silent Hill, which is one of my favourites in the genre as it has some great cinematography and special effects and was based on a video game.

The Strangers, as writer/director Brian Bertino, says in the extras reel, isn't what he would classify as pure horror but more of 'terror', and after watching it, I would have to agree. For one can watch a horror film, like Silent Hill, and process the horror one sees in it as 'fantasy'. In The Strangers, however, the horror is more chilling because it is not fantasy, but fiction of something that could be possible.

The story was inspired by an experience Bertino had as a child, when, after answering a knock on the door by a stranger asking for someone who wasn't there, found out later that thieves had been busy in his neighbourhood and had been casing houses. Bertino took this true incident further by writing a horror tale that involved three thrill-terrorists who, at an isolated house, torment a young couple who are staying in it after attending a friend's wedding.

There is already a deep sense of sadness and a kind of darkness with this young couple played by Scott Speedman (James) and Liv Tyler (Kristen) as Kristen has refused James's proposal of marriage and they are breaking up. When he leaves and she is left alone in the house, the terror gradually begins to build with noises of all kinds in and around the house. The terrorists are hugely menacing in their calculated subtle appearances, they are biding their time and very quietly are they. When finally the couple are seated in front of their attackers (see image), the answer to Kristen's question of 'why are you doing this to us?' is chill to the bones.

It reminded me of the atmosphere created by the killers in the movie biopic Capote, or any news story I've heard or read about in the Manson murders: these killers are the sort that what could be described as demonic. I'd like to go into this a bit more, but to do so would be a spoiler if you haven't seen the movie. For the full spoiler, all the information is on wikipedia. All I will say is that these 'terrorists', for want of a better adjective, go the step further than what would be in any sense regarded as human, while still being so. The end scene is decidedly chilling.

Overall, a well-made movie that you really have to be in the mood for watching. It may, like me, make you wonder just how 'evil' evil could possibly get in a world that contains people with severe psychological dysfunctionality. To me, this movie is one that makes you think about it long after you've seen it.