SketchRant: Test scores over the years

By Kat

Things have changed over the years as a student transcends primary school. Attitudes to test scores, particularly.

SketchRant: Leadership Candidates

By Camoron

Why leadership candidates are annoying, and why votes are misdirected.
No more luck wishing please.

3 things Fairytale Princesses could have done

By Kat


Sure, I liked them when I was a kid. They were among the first story forms I was introduced to, and I would be enchanted by their characters and happy endings. But now...fairytales are tedious. The characters are boring, predictable, and unreasonably flawless. The girls are portrayed as dainty and in need of rescuing. The only solution? Let's revamp these archaic stories, and bring badass-ness (and a moderate amount of violence) into fairytale town.

Snow White:
Evil queen on the hunt for you?
1) Wait for huntsman. When he takes pity, brainwash him to do your bidding. Send him as an undercover agent back into the queen's court to assassinate the queen.
2) If Step 1 fails, hide at the dwarfs' house until queen arrives, disguised.
3. When she offers apple, realise the dodgy nature of the situation and appear as if you are going to eat the apple, before promptly throwing right back into her face. Once knockout is completed, simply capture to claim your captive.

Sleeping Beauty:
Cursed by an evil fairy to be destined for 100 years slumber?
1) On the day of inevitable spindle finding, judge the situation and realise that no matter how pointy the spindle is, one cannot die from being stabbed with a spindle.
2) With this knowledge, turn the spindle around and drive into fairy's finger.
3) Either proceed to knock the confused fairy out, or if taking more drastic measures, proceed to throw out of the castle window and into the bushes below.

Cinderella:
Trapped in a cellar and unable to go to a ball?
Solution is simple.
1) Find small pin, needle or paperclip.
2) Lockpick your way out of cellar, ensuring to pick up a broom along the way.
3) Sabotage stepmother and stepsisters' transportation.
4) 'Borrow' fancy clothes from nearby closet.
5) Make your way to the ball. If stopped by evil relatives, do not hesitate to knock out with acquired broom.
6) Arrive at  the ball, ditch broom, and await inevitable 'love at first sight' with prince.
7) If Step 6 fails, knock out the Prince for being so ignorant of your indisputable superiority.

Potentially life-threatening situations? =avoided.

Move aside, boring antagonists

By Kat

All forms of stories are pretty unique. They have their plot, and in media forms, their visualisations. Everything contributes to the storyline, which is what I love about all forms of storytelling. But I think one of my greatest pet peeves lies in people not paying as much respect to the quality of their antagonists as those good ol' villains deserve. 

Let me present to you...Exhibit A. 

Avatar. No, not the movie, the cartoon. It's beautifully written, brilliantly executed with revolutionary ideas...and yes, there are good antagonists, such as Zuko and Azula, who through their different paths turn out to be amazing characters...but my point at hand here is the central villain, Ozai. He's described as the 'Phoenix King', he plans for world domination and generally you get the same old bad guy vibe from him throughout the whole series. It's one of the reasons that I sometimes favour the newer series- Legend of Korra- because every single one of these villains has never failed to please. Despite the fact that so many elements of the older outweigh the new, the one part that I just love is the fact that all villains are multi-faceted. They're not just bland and apathetic- they feel and display emotion and each have a motive- whether it be equality, spirituality or freedom. Which brings me to my first statement: A good antagonist is one you can feel empathetic for.

Exhibit B: You can see it in the famed Joker, you can see it in The Prestige...guys who give off bad vibes have a past. They don't just appear out of nowhere, like the author decided "Oh hey, I haven't written a villain for my story yet. Better just slot one in here"...They are circumstantial, created by their past and shaped by their actions. They have motive and that motive is justifiable, making us all think for one second about whether their actions were warranted, or even some form of pity for their depressing pasts. Conclusion? A good villain has a backstory.

Villains are often what can make or break a story. They can build up atmosphere, and they can give stories- whether it be on pages or the big screen- a sense of depth that is lacking in many. Characters should be multi-faceted, they should be comprehensive, and by no means should they be an emergency character pasted onto the page with little explanation and/or exploration of their person.  

So often stories get all caught up in their heroes. You can find great epics about the romances, the drama, the brave rallying of the troops to fight against the evil forces as they struggle with whatever obstacles they are to face...and what I've said here goes for them too. But antagonists deserve more credit for the great contributions they bring. After all, what would be a story without them? 

All protagonists must have their dark side, as all antagonists must have their light. But let's face it- nobody wants a world that's strictly black and white.

Why People Suck: Part 1

By Camoron

Ok, try to exercise a little bit of self-control here, because I’m about to get racist. That’s right; I am going to be getting angry at the entire human race.

Where to begin, where to begin... There’s just so much that we have done to kill everything else! So much so that this shall become an ongoing series on why people suck.

Anyone who has seen ‘The Matrix’ will know of Mr Smith’s awesome quote, ‘Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.’ Ok, so while I don’t feed of human energy by keeping them in pods, and I am pretty sure that I am more than just computer code, I agree wholeheartedly with the honourable Mr Smith.

Okay, so I think I know where this rant will be heading, and it’s a pretty obvious direction. Wherever people go, they domesticate what they can, and kill everything else. When Julius Caesar said “I Came, I Saw, I Conquered”, he was pretty much summing up the human race. Throughout history, whenever we discover a new land, we have gone in, mapped everything, made friends with the locals and taken back some plants and animals to study. Then we come back with ships full of people, chop down the natural environment, force the indigenous population to abide by new laws and customs, and basically try to make it is similar to the urbanized wasteland we have come from.

Throughout history, there have been periods of mass species extinction. Previously, these have been caused by giant meteors hitting earth, huge changes in temperature or environment, or even global volcanic eruptions. We are currently in one of these periods. That’s right, the human race is as devastating to the natural environment as an asteroid hitting the earth, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. So yay us!

How did we manage such an amazing feat? We are so set in our view of how the world should be, that we get rid of anything native to replace it with something we recognize, hence the feral animals and weeds that ran rampant all over Australia. Developed countries where people have enough money to get any house location they want are experiencing urban sprawl to the point of running out of space fit for living, and coincidentally, running out of habitat for many species. Our everyday lives revolve around power, whether it be heating, lighting, cooking or reading a blog online. We are constantly pumping gasses into the atmosphere, and waste into our river ways. And if an animal is rare or endangered, what do we do? We go out with our guns and we hunt it down. The less there is of something, the more we seek to destroy it.

Okay, so what about the animals we don’t kill? Chickens must be pretty happy with their lives, right? Cows wouldn’t be living like they do without us, would they? Pigs must prefer the safety of their pins to the dangerous wild, surely? Well yeah, all these animals wouldn’t be able to survive without us. But they weren’t always like this.

Let’s start way back, before agriculture was a thing. People roamed around, hunting and gathering. The earliest known animal to be domesticated was the dog, and they roamed alongside man, flushing out the wildlife for their masters to kill. Let’s move forward a bit, and now we have started keeping cows for their milk and meat. Sheep and pigs are also starting to be used. Further some more, and people are riding horses, using donkeys and oxen to move and carry, now are able to get wool from sheep, and have dogs cuddled up with them at home. But all these animals didn’t start like this. They became these slaves of human want and need through a process of artificial selection.

We all know and love the process of natural selection, or evolution. The individual animals more able to pass on their genes have more children, and therefore the traits they possess become more common. People have their own spin-off of this called artificial selection, where we choose which traits we like, and get rid of the rest. Originally, horses weren’t the hulking beasts that they are now. They were small, and pretty much useless. So the ancient Mongolians who found them were like, "Hey! Check it out! If these things were big and stuff, we could use them to carry our things!" So they took the biggest ones they could find, and started breeding them. Each generation they would keep the biggest ones to breed the next generation. Guess what happened to the ones that didn’t get better. Yeah, back then they didn’t care whether it was horse meat or cow meat in their meatballs.

And this isn’t an isolated event either. Throughout history, we have bred animals to be easier to command, larger, woollier, and more or less fatty, you get the idea. We actually change the genes of an animal species to make it suit our purposes, without any concern for the ones that don’t. And the repercussions extend further than the animals that die. The animals that live are never the same either.

Multiple studies have shown a few things in common in all domesticated animals. Ears get floppy, they are born trusting humans, and here’s the killer, their brains get smaller. So domesticated animals? We kill their family, limit their freedom, and decrease their intelligence.

We are the worst plague ever to sweep the globe. It is my view that the world would be far better off if we had never evolved from monkeys, because the human race is the greatest monster of all.

For more information about animal domestication occurs and its affects, I suggest the Stuff You Should Know podcast, which did a great episode about just that topic. 

SketchRant: Indeterminate Weather

By Kat


What it looks like to live in a place like Melbourne with indeterminate weather. 'nuff said.

Catwoman: the 'Grey Area'

By Rae

Firstly, I would like to point out that this evaluation is based on only some of the character which is Catwoman, mostly from Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises, purly because I thought she was the best Catwoman yet, probably because unlike the first few Catwomen, she was not portrayed as a ‘bad, bad kitty’.

Catwoman is one of the most realistic characters I have ever come across, or at least stands for something quite realistic. Yes, she is at a disadvantage to the other characters I like because she doesn’t fight with a Katana (which automatically gives any character a massive plus), however I do like how she is portrayed.

Catwoman, for those of you who have been living under a rock, is the costumed alias for Selina Kyle, and is a supposedly ‘reformed’ cat burglar. She is a very strong-willed and independent woman who is morally conflicted with her past.

The reason I like Catwoman has to do with what she stands for. If I had to describe her in one word, I would say ‘opportunist’. She is not generically bad, not a psychopath like some of her fellow villains - *coughcough Jokercough* - and is not a villain for some dull reason like getting back at someone or even just getting back at everyone because they were bullied as a child – Alex Cross’ villain Herod Sayle is guilty of this. Catwoman is seen to be good when it suits her and not so good when she has to be, not letting any opportunities to allow for her or her sister’s survival escape her, making her seem like a real character fighting for survival, whether that is burglary or helping others. Also, the fact that she made her own luck and did not let any opportunity get past her which allowed for her survival instils a sense of admiration in me.

So, because of this, she can be seen to be in the ‘grey area’. Too often the character’s in movies and other media are seen to be distinctly ‘good’ or ‘evil’ with no area between, which is where virtually everyone in the real world is located. Because of this, I find Catwoman as a character and as an idea very refreshing.

Although, one of the things I CANNOT stand about her is her on-again, off-again relationship with Batman. Ok, I can see why you may seduce him for personal gain – which would fit with her character – or be drawn to him because of how he represents what she wishes she could be, however I cannot stand it. I may like Catwoman, however Batman is another story: and do not even get me started on Robin! Also, the fact that in some versions she is a prostitute irks me a bit, furthered by her choice of costume...although I can also see the practical side of wearing a skin-tight black suit in burglary and fighting.

All in all though, her portrayal as the ‘grey area’ between the normal strict good and bad is quite refreshing.

The Stupidity of Double Letters

By Camoron

I respect language as one of the pinnacles of human achievement. It’s what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, and it is the reason people have been able to become the dominant species. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think the English language is incredibly stupid, or at least the rules they insist on teaching us in class.

My first issue I would like to raise with English is double letters. In small doses, they are ok. Sometimes it makes sense to use them, and the word would look stupid without them, or be pronounced completely differently. But isn’t having two double letters a bit greedy? Balloons may seem innocent, but you can’t trust them. Ordering a Cappuccino is indulgent, or any kind of coffee really. Getting a tattoo is something you will definitely regret. And don’t get me started on bookkeepers! (or what about the underling of the bookkeeper, the subbookkeeper? Now that’s just disgusting!) The list goes on, and gets more and more ridiculous.

Now while this words are kind of fun to play with, they are hell to spell. Even words with only one double letter can be hard to spell, because where do you put the double letter? It’s just unneccesary! Double letters are stupid, and don’t deserve a place in the English language.

Next on the chopping blocks is ‘these’ ‘little’ ‘things.’ While they are great for conversations, the use of the humble apostrophe for shortening two words into one is not something I am a fan of. It is not fun to try to fit the apostrophe in to this sentence. Do you write it isn’t fun? It’s not fun? It’sn’t fun? Actually that’s kind of cool, everyone should use it’sn’t. And that’s not even mentioning they bring down the word count on your essay by one each time you use one! Keeping your words whole, instead of chopping them into little bits and then stitching them back together like strange word-Frankensteins is just wrong, and should not be something English teachers force you to do. Words have rights too!

Finally, colons and semi colons. We were taught how to use these last year, or at least, the teachers attempted to teach them to us. While they look cool, and save you a full stop by sticking two full stops together (how counterproductive), they are the blight of an eighth graders grammar life. Not only do they look similar but have different purposes, they each have multiple purposes! I’m not going to try to explain all their purposes, because despite the efforts of my English teacher, I don’t remember squat about these stupid little grammar monsters.

Once again what was supposed to be a rant spiralled into a conversation about nothing (there it is again, the stupid double letter. Without words autocorrect, that would be spirraled). But hey, if nothing else, I hope at some point you use the word subbookkeeper, or it’sn’t. Because dayum those should both be words of honour in the dictionary.

3 reasons why the Beep Test is rage-inducing

By Kat


Most of us would know the feeling. If you've ever attended a school that runs the Beep Test as one of its fitness testing components, you would know how excruciating and angry the system makes you. It seems as if the entirety of the test is just designed to make a student rage. For those who don't know, the Beep Test consists of a 20m stretch where a runner progressively increases speed while going back and forth- this determines aerobic capacity. Without further ado, here is 3 reasons why the Beep Test is rage-inducing:
1. Increasing speed.
With other forms of exercise, such as cross country running, it almost seems as if all the worries simply drift away. Because then, you aren't under the pressure of constantly increasing speed, worrying about falling behind even the slightest bit because that small bit could be all the difference. Increasing speed tires you out so much faster, and because it starts slow, you are just getting into a comfortable pace when the narrator tells you to speed up.
2. Turning around.
It's enough to make people run over a kilometre while speeding up the pace. You have to have the agility to actually turn around to go again, and again, and again...the infuriating thing is that with most races, you have a clear goal. A finish line, which you can look at and say to yourself, "run faster, you're almost there". With the Beep Test, this is not the case. You just run and keep running, continuing to turn around, and just as you've settled into a smooth sprinting glide to one end, you have to be jolted roughly out of your gracefulness into a much less graceful spin and skid.
3. The noises.
It's different to going on a Sunday jog through the park, with your favourite music blasting in your ears. When you do that, it's casual and it's fun. You actually enjoy the sounds of nature all around you and the tunes you hum along to. Beep Test? Not so. Instead, you find the chirping of birds replaced by the exhausted huffs of tired kids, the echoes of a stadium taking over what would have been a sway of wind in the trees. And above all, that lovely track of yours has been taken over by a narrator who states numbers you can't even distinguish from one another. It was different in primary school, when the stadiums were smaller and the sound was better quality. But in high school, the blurred and muffled tones of our dear friend made conversation difficult.
He begins with his first famed sentence:
"The test will begin in twenty seconds."
The tone sounds, and the students are off.
When I was watching a run that got far longer than I would ever get to, the numbers became hazy. It sounded a bit like this.
"Level eleven, ten. Level eleven, eleven. Level eleven, twelve. *insert musical tone* Start level schwetvewun one. Level wutschweshelve two."
It almost sounded like the hard-working athletes had been demoted to level seven- it was that incomprehensible.
I hope I have made my points clear that the Beep Test is utterly rage-inducing. But that doesn't mean I can't end on one of those notes, in which I say that despite all it's intricacies that makes a person want to walk up to the speaker and unleash all fury on smashing it to pieces...it's still a part of school, and it's still a part of the good ways in which we can improve ourselves, and seek to improve ourselves in the wider scheme of things. Despite everything, it's still worth it to try your best and do the best you can achieve, no matter how much tension and annoyances begin to settle.

Zombies in the Media

By Rae

Constantly in the media, the names of myths are not used in the genre of the myth. Vampires, ghosts, mummies, werewolves, the list goes on. However, the one which really gets me is zombies. I am a major fan of zombies, which is probably why the different names for them bother me the most, although vampires are up there with ‘annoying’ as well. It is constantly irking me that the writers of these movies, TV series and books won’t call them by what we all know them as.  

In The Walking Dead, it is set out that the characters have never heard of a zombie apocalypse before, so I can forgive them a bit. I must admit, some of the names they come up with are pretty good. Most commonly the ‘zombies’ are walkers, as well as biters which is what the Governor calls them. However the names get better: a walker in armour is a ‘tin can’, a bloated zombie is a ‘swimmer’, ‘roamers’, ‘monsters’, a particularly decomposed one is a ‘rotter’, a hiding zombie is a ‘lurker’, ‘lame brains’, ‘creepy crawlies’ and an assortment of other names.

The other day, I read a book called Forest of Hands and Teeth. I found it quite disappointing, particularly because the protagonist drove me insane. But the names they had for the zombies were some of the strangest I had ever come across: the Unconsecrated and Mudo. In Immortal Rules, the zombie-like creatures are called ‘rabids’. In the Mortal Instruments, the creatures which share common properties to zombies are called, ‘The Forsaken’.

However, there are an assortment of stories where the zombies have been recognised as zombies, such as World War Z, Warm Bodies and, one of my favourite zombie comedies, Shaun of the Dead. Although, in Shaun of the Dead, there is one exchange which I enjoyed very much regarding the naming of the creatures as it showed humans' lack of comprehension of the situation and general unwillingness to accept the situation and recognise the myth:

Ed: Are there any zombies out there?

Shaun: Don't say that!

Ed: What?

Shaun: That.

Ed: What?

Shaun: That. The Z word. Don't say it.

Ed: Why not?

Shaun: Because it's ridiculous!

Ed: All right...Are there any out there, though?

- Shaun of the Dead

Gay Marriage in Australia

By Slothful Snorlax

Get your shit together, Australia. It’s shameful to say that we are one of the last few developed countries to legalise gay marriage. Undoubtedly, the support for same-sex marriage is ever-growing and it is evident now more than ever that something must be done. Despite this, the current liberal government refuses to change legislation and consequently restricts the rights of 10% of the Australian population.

So even with this obvious ongoing backing, why haven’t we done anything about same-sex marriage? In the following I will identify some common arguments in the case against gay marriage and tell you, the reader why they are completely inapplicable in today’s society.

1.       “It’s not natural”: First things first, what the hell does natural mean? Because, in reality can we really consider marriage itself natural? “The natural world didn’t create marriage, humans did” (Lipp, 2013). The argument suggests that those who oppose gay marriage do not see gay marriage as unnatural; it goes to show that they think that homosexuality in itself is.

2.       “But… religion”: Many argue that same-sex marriage is a religious institution and goes against the Bible’s definition of marriage. This is completely incorrect. Marriage is very much secular, controlled by our governments, thus religion should play no role. Heck, even atheists get married.

3.       “Procreation though”: Humans are at the top of the food chain, and there is an exponentially growing 7 billion. We certainly are not cavemen, where the survival and continuation of the human species relies on reproduction. Marriage is not only about having children. What about marriage for the love, friendship and companionship? If marriage was only about procreation, we might as well discontinue the marriage between older couples who are no longer able to bear children, or stop marriage between other heterosexual couples who don’t want to have children.

Tony Abbott has continued to assert his ideals of what a traditional marriage should be – exclusively between a man and a woman. In his own words: “There is no doubt that homosexuality challenges, If you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things”. Tony Abbott, the prime minister, a man responsible for reflecting Australia’s views, a man whose sister is gay, insinuates that homosexuality is unnatural and goes against ‘the right order of things’. No wonder gay marriage hasn’t been legalised.

Australia prides itself on its highly successful democracy, our freedom of speech, our majority rule. The growing support for gay marriage, 67% and increasing as the younger generations are better educated and are more accepting of our diverse community, is indicative of an inevitable change in legislation. The question is when? How much longer must we wait? Australia, you are already too far behind, embrace marriage equality, and we will be one step closer to our ideal society.

The Issue of Homelessness

By Kat

105,237.

Currently, 105,237 people are homeless in Australia. 105,037 people lacking basic foundations for life. 105,237 people with no home to return to.

The concept of home is something that we often take for granted. It is what we have always had, it is something that has been always there to the point we give little thought to what life would be like should that liberty be taken away from us. The truth is that it is difficult to imagine, and yet the reality is imminent as it faces us everywhere.

Dank streets. The cold wind beats down on their faces, and their environment is relentless to them- people who lack the ability to feel safe, people who lack easy access to basic physiological needs that are so foundational on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. With all the spotlights on 'first-world problems', the harsh reality of the rest of the world doesn't always hit us as hard as it should.

Afraid of the rain tonight? We don't often realise how much more fear would sink into the hearts of those sleeping on the streets, hearing the cars moving past them as thunder crackles in the open skies.

Can't find a comfortable position to slumber? Try sleeping on the cold hard ground, with sounds of the city all around you and threatening to close in.

Perhaps money doesn’t make the world go around, but neither does being poor. It’s easy to say that money doesn’t matter, when we aren’t faced with the unfair truth of society.

But what can we do?

So often, people walk past the homeless on the streets without a second glance. Parents usher their children across the sidewalks at the very sight. We view them as 'hobos', as people who don't care where they end up and deserved their position. We view them as scum, dirt-marked souls who don't know how to do anything but beg. 

What a load of nonsense.

Many of the homeless sleeping out tonight are mere children. Mere children, too young to understand the weight of their situation, with parents desperate and hard-working, trying to get their lives back together. Homeless people are just that- people. Nobody wants to have to beg for the rest of their lives. But some people have no choice. They try endlessly to turn their lives around, and the least we can do is stop, and contribute one small act of kindness to a more accepting and supportive society.

In the end, change is not a responsibility, it is a choice. But this choice is the thing that helps people and societies move forward, and drives our wills to create and spread positive differences. 

Social injustices such as homelessness are not things that can be eradicated in the blink of an eye. Awareness is a growing thing, and the more people who begin to learn about and value change, the larger our potential for change as a collective society. It takes time and effort to move towards the ideal we strive towards, but in the end, it is something worth striving for. 

11 Things I would do if I was an Evil Mastermind

By Rae

It is forever frustrating and infuriating to watch the ‘masterminds’, ‘overlords’, ‘arch enemies’ and simply ‘villains’ of movies, because they all seem to be stupid, or make stupid mistakes. Honestly, the amount of times the ‘hero’ has been able to escape a nasty situation through getting the ‘villain’ to spill their entire plans when they are located at the epicentre of the ‘villains’ lair and the ‘hero’ escapes to save the day is beyond me! So, to ensure no more bad movies end in the hero’s survival through stupid mistakes made by the villain, here is:

11 Things I would do if I was an Evil Mastermind

1. I would not hold my hero prisoner at the epicentre of my complex, nor would I tell them my plan.

2. I would not make my attack or defence progressively harder, with my weaker minions attacking first and ending with my most difficult minions. They would all attack at once, together and overwhelm the enemy. 

3. I will keep track of my children and my enemies’ children. I would not allow my enemies’ children to live through their parents’ deaths and harbour revenge, thus creating another enemy for me when I am old. I would also keep my children close to me and make sure that they are aware they are related, so as to avoid awkward situations… 

4. If I wanted a door to stay locked, I would make sure it stays that way, and will not open if someone hits the control panel. Also, I will be the only one who can open it: I will not give the ‘key’ to every low-level guard in my facility.

5.  I would not have an evil machine or space ship which can be destroyed through hitting… I would also make back-ups of any data or systems which could be destroyed to impede my progress. I would not have a self-destruct button, and if I did, it would have a clear sign saying “DO NOT PUSH”. If someone pushed it, they would be immediately sprayed with bullets for their stupidity.

6. I would listen to my advisers, as they are there to advise. Not kill them when they bring bad news.

7. If I have captured the hero and are about to kill them, and they say anything along the lines of “I have one last request” or “Don’t you want to know…” I would say “No” and then shoot them. Actually on second thought, I would want no error as to whether or not they are dead, so they would be in an incineration chamber, and I would press the button to begin incineration, then say “No” in response to their request.

8. I would have a good fashion designer who does not allow capes. Also, I would wear bright happy colours to psych out my enemies, and a bullet proof vest, instead of relying on a well places badge or time piece to save me. I would carry more than one weapon as well.

9. If somebody, especially the ‘hero’, says “Put down your weapon and fight me like a man” I will promptly use the weapon to end their life.  

10. If my plan involves a countdown of any kind, especially a digital countdown, I would set the countdown to end at 142, rather than 0, so that the hero is still trying to implement a plan when the countdown ends, because we all know that the hero’s plan will only work/stop the countdown if it is at below 10 seconds and causing climax.

11. I would only hire henchmen and minions who can actually aim at targets AND HIT THEM. If they cannot, they will promptly find themselves on the receiving end of the bullet.

So there are some of my words of wisdom for becoming a ‘villain’. If you have any other suggestions, please share!

Evolution is Cruel to Nerds

By Camoron

I’m a devout atheist, and as prepared as the next man to argue the case of evolution. But have you ever stopped to think about what makes evolution work? Basically, the traits which allow you to have as much sex as possible are the ones that pass on, and as a nerd more interested in reading about evolution than making it happen (if you know what I mean) my genes are going to be getting a bit lonely.

A common misconception is that the genes you get are about 50/50 from mother and father and completely random as to whom you receive them from. Any Year Ten student could very quickly debunk this; it’s all about which gene is dominant over the other one. But this is wrong as well. As evolution would have it, some genes know whether they came from a mother or a father.

The gene that controls the limbic system in all cases comes from the father. For those of you who don’t know what the hell a limbic system is (I didn’t either until a couple of days ago), it controls your emotional reactions. Why would you get this from your father? Because when we were basically monkeys, wore no clothes, and smelled way, way worse, whoever was willing to get in a fight was more likely to get the girl, and evolution thought that if the angry guy was winning, his children should be angry as well! Basically, the way evolution saw it, the respectable, smart and fight-avoiding monkey-man in the corner had no chance of getting into a relationship.

So what about female genes? Well, as well as always getting the angry gene from your father, your mother gives you your neocortex gene. Ring any bells? No, I didn’t think so. This is another confusing one, but I’ll do my best. The neocortex is related very closely to social skills, the idea being the females who had a strong social group would be more appealing to the guys, and have more support from friends. Once again, evolution is picking on the nerds, and deciding that the annoying, gossipy girls with over five hundred Facebook friends are far more likely to get a partner. By the way, I hope nobody reading this has over 500 Facebook friends, because the human brain only has the capacity to support 150 friends, and that has been constant throughout history.

I know that this hasn’t really gone anywhere, hasn’t really proved anything, and probably isn’t technically a rant. But hey, I guess what I’m trying to say is, Evolution if you are listening, give nerds a chance!

For more information about evolutionary psychology and other riveting stuff, read How Many Friends Does One Person Need by Robin Dunbar.

The world needs more kindness

By Kat


It is a very sad thing to note the extent to which people go out of their way to help others these days. And it is because, as I have mentioned previously, our world revolves around personal gain. While it is true that our world cannot function without the concept, a large part of giving happiness to ourselves is giving happiness to others, yet so few make a point of achieving this.

The world needs more kindness. It needs more people who take the extra minute just to open a door, smile at a stranger, or help someone with fallen bags. We need more warmth in this world over the increasing effect of coldness and hostility towards each other based on ridiculous grounds. In a world where there are so many sources of aggravation, and people are 7 times more likely to be susceptible to negative emotions, it's become so impossible for us to display kindness even as it is so necessary to a human society.

As humans, we have our flaws. We have the parts of us who will always turn a blind eye to injustice, or even go to cause it. But it is worth it to have the right mind to at least try to put in the effort for creating happiness and gratitude.

You can always see the examples of lack of empathy and kindness everywhere you go- whether it be in the bullied child at school that no-one bothers to stand up for, the insult, the fallen books or shopping bags...it's everywhere, and yet we do so little about it.

I propose a challenge to you all- I wonder how many occurrences the average person walks past each day that they could change for the better? The next time you go out, purposefully try to find the will to discover the possibilities for change, the times where you have the opportunity to show the world what you are capable of changing in our society that will result in a shred of happiness being introduced to the world.

The fact is that in the end of the day, we may admire the rich person who has risen to power but chooses not to partake in charitable measures, but only because we want to be in their shoes. We want to have the control of personal assets and the ability to wield finances so easily. But we will never admire them or cherish their actions or smile at the thought of what they've done as we do to the people who offer even the slightest form of basic human kindness- an ability to give with no strings attached.

The Mistreatment of Books

By Camoron

We live in a society that revolves and intelligence and education. Now, while the vultures of schooling like our education minister Christopher Pyne get my blood boiling, it is everyday mistreatment of the book that gets me really pissed off.

We are one of only a special few who get access to books and technology. We have textbooks at school, novels at home, and a menagerie of literature masterpieces at a selection of local libraries. We can walk into one such library and be exposed to a huge selection of fantasy and nonfiction, long and short, mature and childish books, each with its own story to tell.

One of my earliest memories is of banging at the door of my kindergarten, yelling ‘Book!’ for across the road was my favourite place on earth, the library. Along came primary school, and with it mornings spent crashing into trees due to being nose-deep in a book. I started collecting books, and in my final year I donated the two hundred books I had collected to the school fair, and stated all over again. Now in high school I download books onto my iPad to read on the bus, and still have weekly visits to the library I have been visiting since before I could talk. My book collection has reached new heights, and I now own over three hundred books, all of them alphabetically ordered in the book shelves around my bed. I have a deep respect for books, and for the people who put the effort into their creation.

So when I see a carefully crafted piece of literature art, face down, open and spine bent at an uncomfortable angle, it’s fair to say that I am a little bit annoyed. Books deserve to be cared for! And if ever one should develop a crease in the spine, it should be as a result of countless readings, pages turned gently by the reader’s hand. It should be something beautiful, instead of mindless destruction of something so perfect! People who leave their books like this are the rapists of the literature world.

And so I have started carrying around bookmarks and rubber bands and cards, and just about ANYTHING to mark the place before closing the book, picking it off the floor, placing it carefully on a bench, and glaring angrily at whomever dared to mistreat such a delicate and beautiful thing. Because they have just done something that cannot, and will not, ever be forgiven.

Religion Vs Science

By Slothful Snorlax

Disclaimer: Before I begin, I would like to stress that this rant is in no way intended to attack or offend anyone. The following rant is about a highly controversial topic and so, there will undoubtedly be some opposing positions. I am very open to discussion so if you have anything to say do not hesitate to comment below.

I’m an atheist. There I said it.

I was born into a somewhat religious Christian family. I was baptised and I still attend church on the rare occasion. For a large majority of my childhood, I believed in the existence of some greater being, that our world was created within a week and Adam and Eve were truly the first humans. Today, while I no longer accept these as truth, I maintain my respect for all religion, its great values and community.

In recent years, the ‘Religion vs Science’ debate has been dominating all kinds of media. And in all honesty, I think it’s a waste of time. Neither side will prevail, especially if we are insulting one another while we’re at it. Why can’t Religion and Science coexist? No, I am not saying that we have to agree with each other. I am suggesting that we should listen and instead of casting aside the opposition’s ideas, gain a mutual understanding or at the very least accept that ultimately, human society is one in which there are going to be conflicting views and stop trying to force our beliefs upon others.

Let’s think here. What is the goal of science and all religion? I believe that they aim to understand our world and to progress human society. Yes, how we got where we are now matters but people should be able to freely choose what they want to believe. What’s more important is where we go from here. So what is our future?  No one knows, but hopefully it’s a great one. This value, I believe, is a universal one, applicable to all of us despite one’s religion. So let us all accept each other, walk hand in hand to where, regardless of our beliefs, we all want to be, a world with one less conflict – a better tomorrow.

Please be aware this is certainly not the end of my discussions, simply an overview of my views and nowhere nearly as complete and substantial as I want it to be. Let’s just consider this a part 1 so stay tuned for more, Slothful :D.

Do the best things in life come free to us?

By Kat

We live in a society that revolves around money and materialistic possessions. In an age where little comes free, whether the best things in life are free comes to question. 

The concept of the best things in life can vary, whether they be the essentials of life that can sustain us or experiences and feelings of happiness or hope. The definition of ‘free’ does not simply revolve around money but also emotions, as everything that we do is based around sacrifices and the hard work we invest in order to achieve our goals.Therefore, it is actually very difficult to determine what truly is free, because whether it be materialistic possessions or emotional connections, there is always a journey to reach the end destination.

Nothing is truly free. Everything comes with a price, whether it be material or figurative. The journey to the best things in life, such as freedom, are only achieved through hard work, determination and sacrifice.

Some people may contend that money cannot buy the best things in life, as they are not material. However, central to the point at hand s is the fact that despite it being true that money can often not buy the most treasured things in life, that does not necessarily deem them free. To achieve those ideals of the ‘best things’, people must be willing to put in the effort and time it takes to get there.

There is always an element of sacrifice in every form of good thing, always a step to get there that enforces the argument that nothing actually is free. The best things in life certainly aren’t- they are things to strive for and remain determined to have. Money also does not necessarily buy material things, rather it can buy experiences to treasure that create long lasting memories.

Despite popular opinion, happiness can be achieved through money to a certain extent, and monetary value can be a great saviour in difficult situations. It's true that this world is one that revolves around money, so at a survival-based level, money does bring us financial security, but on the other hand, it can bring us experiences that are irreplaceable. Studies have proven that buying yourself an experience, or purchasing something for others can heighten an individual's overall happiness. 

Wealthier countries were shown to be happier overall, because they are able to seek greater pursuits where others were still unable to support themselves.

Conclusively, nothing in life comes free, and certainly not the best things. As a species, we must work towards the best things, both monetarily and philosophically.

Gender-specific advertising

By Kat

Marketing directed to children is one of the strongest aspects of commercial sales today. Children are under constant exposure to marketing in an ever evolving society where advertising is experienced through many mediums. And one of the most dangerous elements of this form of marketing is gender-specific advertising.

Gender specific marketing targets the developmental vulnerabilities of young children, and as a result encourages social conformity. Just because boys and girls have different interests, does not mean that companies should target these stereotypes. There is always that one child who has different interests- the issue with such marketing is that these children are made to feel alienated, and are less likely to pursue what they truly take interest in. 

Advertising is everywhere in modern society. It can be as subtle as a brief cameo in a television show, or as obvious as the great billboards that line the walls on shopping trips, boasting products with great qualities that you will certainly need.

Children are the most susceptible group to advertising. Today, children are bombarded by pressure to conform with gender roles, with the advertising that promotes gender-specific toys affecting career decisions and furthering close-mindedness of children to other work opportunities or hobbies. The stereotypes of toys can be seen to be reflected even in adulthood- we can see stereotypes surrounding girls going into less active and hands-on work, reflective of the dolls and toy sets that they are offered to play with as children. Males are seen to be built for the nitty-gritty work, such as construction, even when many have different interests. 

Despite a large variety of people going into different fields, the truth is that perhaps the reality differs, but the stigmatisation does not. I wonder how many girls or women were insulted with the phrase 'go back to the kitchen', which is shown in the kitchen sets and household toys that the toy industry insistently markets to them. I wonder how many boys were criticised when their peers realised they were more in touch with their artistic side than the physically strong and tough portrayal that they were encouraged to pursue in their constant inflow of trucks, robots, and construction sets. 

The rights of children to grow up and the rights of parents to raise them without being undermined by rampant advertising and consumerism is at stake, and while eradicating gender-specific advertising is not the instant solution to our everlasting problem of gender stereotyping, I believe it is certainly a large step forward into reducing gender stereotypes and social conformity.

It is the responsibility of this society to protect children from the repercussions of commercial marketing and advertising of gender specific toys. In light of all the marketing and advertising directed towards young children, it is only fair that children be given some room to make their own choices about who they are and what they can be, without the pressure of gender-specific advertising.

Body Image

By Kat

It's a sad thing that today's society is focussed so heavily on outward appearance. 

Every day, children look at themselves in the mirror and believe that they are less than the role models they strive to be.

I will be discussing how children are influenced at a young age to consider themselves less than what they are, how the media affects this, and what beauty really is.

As young children, girls are exposed to false body image even in the toys they play with.

Barbie dolls, for example, have twenty to thirty percent less body fat than the standard healthy body weight. A variation of Barbie was even sold with a handbook on beauty advice, with one of its primary points being “don’t eat”.

Our obsession with outward appearance roots back children aged as young as three finding themselves on stages across the globe competing for a title in a beauty pageant that they believe to represent what beauty is, thus leading to eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia.

The example children follow today is so heavily influenced by the media’s depiction of what beauty is, and what the majority of healthy people will never be. The society of today has to stop believing that to be beautiful, they must look like those advertised on buses and magazines, television and websites, because that is not what beauty is.

There is something beautiful about each and every one of us despite what we see and hear, despite all those who tell us that the image of ‘desirable’ are thin-waisted girls on magazine covers, unblemished and toned men, airbrushed girls under years of plastic surgery and a special kind of beauty treatment…Photoshop.

Beauty is not something founded on the exterior values, the rosy lips, the striking figure or the size of waists. It is not something that can be measured, nor something that can be defined by stereotypes or wildly unjust perceptions. 

And all exterior beauty is and ever will be is a perception.

There is something beautiful about each and every one of us, and that beauty lies in who we are and what we are to be. It lies in the eyes with which we see ourselves and develops as those eyes find the little things we never noticed that makes you unique. Markus Zusak once said, “Sometimes people are beautiful. Not in looks. Not in what they say. Just in what they are.”

Deadlines

By Kat


Whether its in the workplace, school, or set by yourself for a personal goal of yours, deadlines are tedious. They hold you to a set time, and they enforce upon you a strict ruling that you ache to break. And though deadlines can be the topic of many a good rant, they are as important as they seem.
It's true that people work better under a deadline, because there is something to hold them to and it is easy to pick out the people who haven't done their job properly. And yet, as a deadline-enforcer, it is even more tedious when other people ignore your requests. One of the best qualities people can have when they want to get into other peoples' good books is to stick true to their word. So even if you are facing a deadline, hold yourself to it and talk to others about it so it isn't just you who is placing the deadline upon yourself- you will have other reminders as well! (That way, maybe some people wouldn't have to get extremely flustered when their teammates don't perform...)
Daily life is largely comprised of completing task after task. But it is often the large tasks that many people leave to last. Procrastination is an issue sweeping the nation, and deadlines are a proven solution- set yourself small deadlines in  order to combat 5am sleep-times and 6am wake-ups (I know several people of this calibre). I admit, I myself do find deadlines difficult. Perhaps I'm not as extreme as some of my compadres, but I get a fair 1am sleep-time for weeks on end during stressful times. Having been on both ends of the deadline-spectrum, it is extremely hard to be satisfied no matter which side you're on. When you've spent all night studying or finishing a project, you find yourself going to a restless sleep in which you feel as if you haven't done enough. And when you are a project manager or something of the sort, you (usually) find yourself preoccupied with chasing up loose ends, trying to fix up half-hearted efforts and trying to nudge along those who are taking just that bit too long with their portion of a project.
There's all kinds of excuses people make to avoid deadlines. For example, there's the old "my dog ate my homework" strategy, but let's be honest here, that is practically medieval in the modern world of deadline excuses. Nowadays they are somewhat true, for example in high school you can constantly and consistently encounter the homework or exam study excuse, which is basically the person saying, "Yes. Yes! Indeed I am busy with my homework and exam study. I will return home at 4:00pm precisely, then proceed to do 3 hours of aforementioned work, then I shall have dinner, then 3 more hours of aforementioned work. Never in by 6 hours of work do I ever have the time to spare 15 minutes or an hour for this project. I do apologise greatly."
Ultimately you can find all different kinds of people and their various excuses. No-one likes deadlines, but it gets frustrating for both parties.
In the end, there's only one thing to say- just get it done.

'Burqa ban' and the concept of a free country

By Kat


Following the ISIS threat in the Middle East, Tony Abbott has raised the terror alert to high and then went on a rampage to state that he finds the burqa 'confronting', and 'frankly [wishes] it were not worn'.
Now there are multiple sides to this argument. There are people like Jacqui Lambie, who in her ranting proposed that the burqa poses a security threat because you can, supposedly, never see who (or what) is underneath the burqa. She then proposed a string of questions involving a concern about the gender of the individual wearing the burqa. The Muslim woman she was debating with was laughing by the end.
There's people like Andrew Bolt, who choose to acknowledge the 'confronting nature' of the burqa as a symbol of oppression and a shame to a country that practises freedom of expression and interaction.
And then there's logical people, like Dr Ghena Krayem and Dr Helen McCue, who write that the government lack the ability to make choices towards social cohesion, and the recent arguments against the burqa that have shifted to security concerns are unfounded.
Read it here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-02/krayem-mccue-the-burqa-ban-call-only-creates-division/5785318
Firstly, let's just dismiss the security threat argument, because that doesn't need to come into play here. Clearly, if one were to be worried about identification, Muslim women are not immune to simply raising their headscarfs, as written in the aforementioned article. The idea of such attire being a security threat is largely unfounded- many other forms of clothing that are far more common than the burqa can mimic the way in which the burqa is seen to be worn- in a baggy fashion. The idea of any kind of threat is simply paranoia- for this is just a form of discrimination. People don't need to wear the burqa to conceal things within their clothing, and even so, how many Australians actually choose to wear the burqa in the first place?
The substantial point here, in my opinion, is its description as oppressive to women in a society. Some people may consider it to be a symbol of inferiority as well as a woman being shrouded and shielded away from societal interaction- and while it is true that the older roots of the dress do have such connotations, it doesn't matter to the issue of the ban, because in the end, we all have a right to believe in what we want and practise religious freedom and personal freedom of choice over the freedom that society inflicts. Perhaps the burqa is unusual and subject of scorn, but in the end, it's their choice, and there is no reason why it should be banned altogether.
Very few people actually wear the burqa, rather, they simply choose variations of the Muslim headwear. Furthermore, the people who do wear it wear it out of choice, not because they are subject of oppression. Though we can have our criticisms for this minority group, we all have to learn the value of respect for other peoples' beliefs, lifestyles and choices.

Technical core subjects, careers, and annoying maths problems

By Kat


There's always that one teacher who gives you work one or two years ahead of where you're supposed to be working. And often, this is a good thing, because in the long run, you'll be better off and have taken quite a few large steps ahead of all those you are competing with. But in the moment, these situations are a-g-o-n-i-s-i-n-g.
I'll admit, circular functions do get easier when you get the hang of it. But when you don't...

I've spent the last few hours machete-ing my way through 3 chapters of this stuff.
Anyway, this brings me to the topic of the day- core subjects. Maths and science are subjects that are heavily valued by schools, and it really shows. This is also reflected in the workplace, where the majority of jobs that society considers of the 'highest value' are those related with technical work involving mathematical or scientific skills. But often, this can be a large hindrance, especially when one considers that some people can invest their heart and soul into a profession that they believe is truly where their aspirations lie, but be pushed into a job they aren't interested in, whether it is by their parents or by their own need to earn money over real interest. On the other hand, they can remain without the attention to their work that they deserve. This leads to a society that 'does its job' but never dares to go beyond that.
Being an arts and humanities person myself, I am all too aware of how infuriating it is to find interesting subjects or careers that others frown upon in society. It's strange, how the 'core subject' system in schools work, because in truth, nowadays culture and creativity is more important than ever. It is important to foster a generation of open-minded, logical yet creative children, who can 'complete the task' as technical careers request and have requested since the industrial age, as well as 'think outside the box', and feel passionate enough about something to bring their own flair and unique ideas to it, to expand their knowledge and foster their ability to innovate.
Of course, some children really do enjoy technical subjects like maths and science, and this is great- but what we need is a variety in our society, a will for talented students to go into currently underestimated professions and thrive, and a leveling of the playing field in which we give students opportunity.
It it vital that we change our mindset- in the 21st century, there are many more professions opening up, and more opportunities that are both valuable and not labelled with the stereotypical set of subjects. We will truly reach a quality level of national and international employment when the system itself is changed- when money and skill are synonymous.

Classic literature and the changing English language

By Kat


I'm a bit of a writing nut, I must admit. I source much of my information from the classics I've encountered, which is why even I sometimes notice the archaic nature of my fictional prose...in terms of reading, however, I do indulge myself in some nice modern books every now and then, however I am perfectly happy with my collections of novels like Jane Eyre, 1984, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and the like, all of which display writing in brilliant and eloquent styles, something which is sadly lacking nowadays. I hope that modern literature will take some form of appreciation to its older counterparts, and return to its roots more so than it has in past years.
Ernest Hemingway is one of my favourite writers. He revolutionised prose (which led to what defines the vast majority of novels today), but the problem is this- Hemingway's prose was considered 'hard prose', but it still managed to hold something that so many modern novels lack- substance. I've given some of these books a go, and I then chose to promptly retreat into my hidey hole of old books, content in distancing myself from literary change (A Series of Unfortunate Events was recommended to me in high school. Ack.). Today's fiction is so heavily focussed on action, excitement, and punchy dialogue that I find myself deeply missing the descriptions and the artful language that usually accompanied such writing. We can weigh up the two: modern prose has drive, classics tend to linger; modern prose excites; classics inspire. It's true, many can cross over and not follow their stereotypical images. But the newer generation that is left with little good choices is left reading meaningless action after action.
Language is a beautiful and flexible thing. Especially in a language that is rooted from Romance languages such as English, there is so much that you can do to evoke emotion or to change the mood. It happens less and less nowadays. Even in acclaimed books, where the book is set on a good foundation, we find sentences that are often bland and rather uninteresting throughout. Unlike the great works of James Joyce and his famed 'stream of consciousness' style, the modernists choose to keep their language uniform. Unlike Daphne du Maurier and her flowing description of Manderley ("Time could not wreck the perfect symmetry of those walls, nor the site itself, a jewel in the hollow of a hand"), modernists lack a sense of poetry.
Language is an evolving thing. The way people write has changed for millenniums, and it is impossible to ascertain an idealist style, for newer people will always prefer different things. But it is rather pleasant to encounter a writer who writes with all the drive and pacing of modern prose, while still remembering the genius writers who took symbolism to their work, and utilised the very fashion of writing itself to manipulate the emotions that were evoked on each stage of the novel, on every page turn and every skimming of eyes over interconnected words. It is rather pleasant to encounter a writer who chooses to learn from their predecessors, and creates something that is not merely prose, but artwork.

East West Link- #trainsnottolls and the importance of public transport

By Kat


I think a lot of us would agree that sustainability is of more value than short term solutions. The logic behind this leads one to wonder, why on earth has Denis Napthine allowed the East-West link project to go ahead?
Under the basis of arguing a need and demand for a link between the east and west of Melbourne, the project of creating this road has been planned and invested into. And yet, what we need is not and will never be the short-term solutions this would provide. The total estimated cost for the project is up to 15-17 billion dollars- money that could potentially go to improving the current state of our public transport system, inefficient as it is. If we return to the topic of budget cutbacks, it is evident that the money allocated for this expensive band-aid fix could go to so much more worthwhile affairs. Surveys conducted show that public transport is becoming a more important part of the lives of many Australians, with increasingly more people taking it to work or school. It is evident that the demand for efficient transportation is paramount- when roads become increasingly congested, what other plan does the government currently have to revert to?
It is essential that we focus on sustainable developments such as the construction of the Doncaster Rail- the suburb is a location from which many workers take transportation to the city, and yet, they find themselves hindered by ineffective systems. It is clear that we are not giving public transport the attention and funding it deserves for both the present and the future.
Statistics show that a rail would remove up to 800 vehicles per peak hour train. The rail would be built at a mere fraction of the East-West link project. It seems that, once again, we need to reassess demands. Despite the acknowledgement of public transport's superiority in usage over motor vehicles, especially in urban areas, projects are not being carried through, and many could be delayed as a result of the road.
The future of the East-West link is a glum one. The road is expected to cause congestion at certain points, as well as an inflow of large trucks that only add to the high levels of pollution already occurring on busy roads.
Clearly, public transport is our only viable option for the future. It is smarter in every way- the cost of the project itself, the cost of using the service, environmental factors, as well as Melbourne's rising culture of connectedness and increased acceptance of public transport as a vital part of our society. It's time for the government to open their eyes and recognise what people need, investing the money they have towards projects that will maintain its significance in 50 years time.

Against euthanasia- 3 reasons why mercy killing should not be legalised

By Kat


Euthanasia is a controversial point of discussion nowadays. 3/4 of Australians now support euthanasia- in fact, increasingly more of the public have formed this opinion in recent years. Especially on heavily ethically and morally weighted topics such as this, it is important to view all perspectives. In this case, a multi-faceted issue such as euthanasia must be examined far deeper than its surface answer entails.
Firstly, we have to consider the cases themselves- specifically in relation to families. In an article on euthanasia, Doctor Graeme Duke wrote that upon listening to dying patients, what patients fear was found to be “loneliness, pain and indifference.” Instead, they valued time spent close to loved ones and not machines. When weighing up the fear of pain and the importance and strength of being able to experience love with those closest to you, I ask you- which is stronger? Of course, pain is a heartbreaking thing to see your family members go through. But 95% of cancer pain has been proven to be controllable, and the remaining 5% can be reduced to a tolerable level. In the modern age, it really isn't hard to produce quality anaesthetics that can dull pain, if that is what patients fear the most and would hate to experience. This is not euthanasia. As Duke wrote, "this is simply good medicine".
But let's just say, for instance, a case is uncontrollable- that it is beyond the bounds of medicine.

Thais, the mother of palliative medicine professor, Baroness Ilora Finlay, was 84 years old upon requesting euthanasia to end her bout of advanced breast cancer. She was determined, and Ilora had almost given up on persuading her otherwise. It took the hospital chaplain to convince her not to lose hope. It took carers, radiotherapy, and time to see Thais on her feet again. But she went on to live four more years, which she described as the happiest years of her life. In these years she witnessed the birth of two great grandchildren that she thought she would never see. In her final days she said that “And so [my] wish to die resurfaced; yet [my] ability to live resurfaced, too. It is only being surrounded by those that love each other that can sustain life itself.”

 Secondly, consider the possibility of false cases. Seen most clearly in the famed Kevorkian cases, there have been examples of cases of euthanasia in which the diagnosis was wrong and the sickness treatable. Imagine how many people might have still been alive today, if they had sought a second opinion, or if they had not been so rash in deciding to consider euthanasia.

Rebecca Badger, a client of imprisoned doctor Jack Kevorkian, partook in assisted suicide after being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. It was only later on that her daughter Christy discovered the diagnosis was wrong, and if her mother had only sought a second opinion, she might have been alive today.

Finally, let us consider this topic from an ethical and philosophical point of view. Because some people argue for the case of mercy. Believe me, mercy is a concept I understand and believe in. But the case of euthanasia is an exception. I support the capability of people to choose- but I would like to bring to light that choices are complex mechanisms. Physical pain dulls the mind- mental pain clears it. By this, I mean that the sorts of pain that one experiences to view the world in such a manner as to consider ending it can come from different sources. Euthanasia is not something that gives a person time to perceive as clearly as they might when not so severely sick. If we return to the case of Thais, it is clear that pain is synonymous with the existence of happiness. How would one even begin to imagine the moments that would dispel the grief and suffering, even for a moment? Take Mrs Dubose from To Kill a Mockingbird. She chooses to endure pain rather than choosing morphine, and as a result she experiences human connection that would not have been possible otherwise. I in no way preach that pain should be felt in all its extremes, but I do advocate that life deserved to be lived to the full, where one cannot even begin to dream of the gifts of the future- great-grandchildren, for example.

Euthanasia is not worth it, for the people from your past, the situation of the present, and the possibilities of the future. 

I would like to hear your opinions (and I am absolutely open to debate), but for now I leave you with a quote. Author Alexandre Dumas once wrote, “He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what it is to die, that we may appreciate the enjoyments of life.”

East West Link- Comic

By Kat

The future of Denis Napthine and the East-West link. Written rant tomorrow.

Optimism is Overrated

By Kat

You always find people giving out their little snippets of wisdom to those who are feeling blue. Often you hear advice like "be positive" or "find the silver lining"!

I guess it works for some people. But to be quite honest, optimism isn't always the way to go. Of course, I'm not promoting that we all become pessimists and mope around about how we won't ever achieve anything, but all things are dangerous when they are performed to the extreme.

Overestimating and reverting back to a depressed state can be dangerous for people, as optimism can only last so long. Andrew Solomon displayed poignant insight when he said that depressed people do not feel like their view of the world has been clouded by a veil, but rather feel that the veil has been lifted and everything is suddenly clear. 

(Watch his Ted Talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_solomon_depression_the_secret_we_share?language=en)  

Perhaps optimism can make you feel better temporarily, but the end result is the same. It's one of the most extreme forms of deception- because one can only persuade themselves to be happy so long before they give up on lying to themselves. And when they do, it is often where they fall the hardest, because its the moment where we go from euphoric highs that we have persuaded ourselves to trust in, to an overwhelming and hazardous epiphany.

Failure- it's a crushing thing, especially if someone has already invested their heart and soul into optimism. When I was in primary school, I considered myself a mighty optimist. My friends would propose a question: what would happen if I failed to meet my expectations? And I would reply smugly that the nature of optimists is to feel alright about themselves even then, and continue to find the bright side. But nowadays I find myself drowning beneath waves of workload and exams that won't be resolved by simply being optimistic anymore. In other words, it isn't primary school, and life won't wait for you to console yourself by being optimistic all the time.

The world isn't built for optimistic people. It throws too much rain in the path of an individual before they can even begin to look up at the clouds and find the silver lining. The world we live in is neither a utopia or a dystopia. Despite all the injustices that we face each day through corrupt governments and inequality in all its shapes and forms, we are still lucky to be in a world where people can still smile at each other, be generous and kind, have friends who truly value you and have the capability to change.Ultimately, the mental note to take down for the future is to know your own limitations- think neither with the mind of a optimist or the mind of a pessimist, but rather think with fair judgement,  striving for the best, and being thankful for what you can can achieve.

Siblings

By Rae

They are your confidants and your biggest rivals. Your best friends and worst enemies. Siblings sometimes take the cake, either figuratively or literally. But I ask you, which sibling is it best to be? Oldest, youngest, middle or being an only child?

NOTE - the generalisations which are about to be made about siblings are just that: generalisations.

The oldest sibling leads the way. They get first shot at all achievements and so everything they achieve is praised by the parents – most of the time. They also have the power as the oldest, supposedly the most mature, responsible and the ‘leader’ of the siblings. But on the flip side, they are expected to be mature, responsible and a role model for their younger compatriots.

The youngest is usually the ‘baby’ of the family, following in the older siblings’ footsteps. They are allowed to be more immature and take on less responsibility. Also, from my experience, they can more easily weasel out of taking blame, with the older siblings not ‘being good role models’ being the cause of the issue. However, they must also try to make themselves stand out after already having other siblings forge a path, making their role harder in that respect.

Only children are alone. Forever alone, without the company of siblings and thus never knowing the power of the sibling bond. Never having the constant friend. Though many siblings often dream of being an only child: the peace and quiet, the attention, and the second best bedroom in the house without having to fight with siblings to get it. Plus, there is no one to steal your cake (unless your dad or mum do).

And then there is the middle child. Ever heard of ‘middle child syndrome’? Being middle child means you aren’t seen as the baby of the household, but you also are still below your older sibling so will never be ‘in charge’ if your parents leave you alone for an evening. Your older sibling has already set the bar and you have to try to at least meet it. However, you do get the advantage of being close in age to both of your siblings which can make it easier to connect.

There are all kinds of siblings, many of them not falling into the above outlined roles perfectly. As put nicely by Jane Mersy Leder, "Our siblings push buttons that cast us in roles we felt sure we had let go of long ago - the baby, the peacekeeper, the caretaker, the avoider.... It doesn't seem to matter how much time has elapsed or how far we've travelled.”

Most parents do the whole, ‘I don’t compare my children, they are all individuals,’ but as children we know, even if they don’t do it intentionally, they are still constantly comparing. Or maybe that is just what kids think. Regardless, leave a comment on which child you think has it best, and if what you are – the baby, the peacekeeper, the caretaker, the avoider, or something else entirely.

However, the timeline of the siblings is easily broken by being an individual. And so despite all of their cake stealing antics, the bond siblings share is unique. As said by Erica E. Goode, "Sibling relationships...outlast marriages, survive the death of parents, resurface after quarrels that would sink any friendship. They flourish in a thousand incarnations of closeness and distance, warmth, loyalty and distrust."

Cultural Differences and Racism

By Kat


Enduring the full length of the film "The Gua Sha Treatment" was difficult, to say the least. But despite the stupid characters (I mean, who climbs up the side of a building in a Santa suit??), and all the completely illogical court cases (no good lawyer uses violence in video games and a Chinese folktale to prove their points...), the movie does present an important discussion point- cultural differences.
The presence of cultural differences is extremely prevalent in Australia, where multiculturalism is a defining feature. Only recently, the government almost passed a 'Burqa Ban' law. Religious headwear is a defining part of these cultures, and through news like this, it is increasingly obvious that we all need to be more open-minded about other people and their cultures.
I have heard claims that Chinese people are generally more rude in comparison to Western people. But it is generalisations like this that I find inherently dangerous in our society, because as much as it's completely unjust and preposterous to call all Muslims terrorists, it is unacceptable to make presumptions of individual people based on their mannerisms and background.
I am someone raised in the Western world (I have been for all my life) but with a 100% Chinese background. I would say I have a fair knowledge of both cultures, and because of my constant exposure to the two, I think I can say that peoples' perceptions of what is rude or polite, or what is acceptable in society and what is not, is determined not by the thickness of moral and behavioural fabric, but the changing fabric itself.
You can take inviting a guest over to dinner as an example of cultural differences. In this situation, a Chinese person typically ushers the guest in, then during their meal, the host is possessed by a need to scoop more rice or stir-fried vegetables into their guest's bowl. Once they are nearly done, the host will continue to shovel tofu, fish and braised pork, until the poor guest is overwhelmed by their endless input of delicious delights. After dinner, the host will typically invite the guest to stay a bit longer as is Chinese custom, expecting the guest to thank them, but politely refuse...unless, they happen to be a poor Western person caught in an unfamiliar sea, in which case the guest may accept, thus beginning an endless cycle, until finally the guest must leave the host's abode. In this circumstance, the guest will leave pondering why the host would keep him back so rudely, whereas the host will muse about how rude his guest was- how could he overstay his welcome like that?- and make a mental note never to invite him to dinner again.
A bit extreme at some points, I admit, but you get the gist.
You can't say that an entire culture is inherently more evil or rude than another, because the very behaviours that define 'rude' in one culture may differ drastically to the next.
It's not great to be in a position where we still can't call ourselves tolerant. Australia is considered one of the most racist countries in the world, grouped closely with the US and the UK. It's the 21st century, and you'd think these sort of injustices would have gone by now. But even now, we see that so many people discriminate against other races. One could say we belong to one race, being that we are all equally a part of the world, and the colour of our skin does not determine what group we belong to. But somehow I believe that the presence of different ethnic groups and different cultures is necessary for a society- we learn and we grow from how we are different, rather than how we are the same. But it is only through acceptance of other people without immediately drawing extreme and unfounded correlations that we can find ourselves in this position.

Work for the Dole

By Kat

As of July 2014, 1,472,000 Australians are unemployed, surging above the ten year high. It is clear that unemployment is an issue that needs to be addressed, and addressed soon. In response to this, the government has reintroduced work for the dole as its latest political initiative. But it is painstakingly clear that this is not the solution to our problems.

The program the government proposes is one in which workers over the age of 18 and under 30 are required to, essentially, work for their welfare payments through a mandatory 6 month work experience program.

Despite this, there are many flaws to how the program runs, for example the work experience that the unemployed must endure is often community work that is the equivalent of work completed by criminals. 

Another element of 'work for the dole' is in its job quota, where all participants are forced to apply for 40 jobs per month, often knowing they will not be able to receive the employment due to a lack of qualifications or skills, yet applying out of necessity to receive welfare. The vast majority of job-seekers are not reliant and lazy, but rather are trying desperately to find work.

Once again, Abbott impresses me with how well he understands the needs of the people. 

Work for the dole has repeatedly proven itself ineffective in providing any useful experiences. Instead of utilising more efficient manners of stabilising an economy, the government offers menial work that does not aid participants in gaining employment. In fact, a study showed that only 7% of a focus group believed that work for the dole helped them find a job. 80% of participants were left jobless after the exercise. 

This issue needs to be addressed through other angles such as private sector wage subsidies or TAFE programs. The unemployed are being victimised by this program through the clear factor that the majority of the jobless population cannot work under no fault of their own. Carers, disabled, those with a poor socioeconomic background are all targeted, as stated by our second speaker.

Unemployment has not been this high in Australia in a decade. And yet, the solution found is only a band-aid fix. To progress from the current economic state, the answer is all too obvious. Let us eradicate futile programs like ‘work for the dole’ and progress into real solutions.

Honesty

By Kat


It's always tough to be honest, especially with people you care about.
A difficult part of belonging to society is your obligation to criticise. Many will be asked this on a daily basis, and often it's hard to ration out criticism in a way that is appropriate and where no-one is offended by your truthful comments.
I'm experiencing this at the moment, where a friend of mine believes himself to be set for a career, where he really isn't great at his 'hobby', to say the least.
It goes both ways too, because commenters can be too harsh yet people can be too sensitive in general. The truth hurts, yet it's an arduous task to try and balance yourself between giving helpful and constructive criticism without hurting anyone.
You can see the extremes play out so poignantly. On the one hand, we have people raving, raining their words of praise- "You're great at this, keep going!"- but of course, that can get out of hand and then before you know it, you'll be trapped in a web of lies. On the other, we have the coldly honest, who immediately offend with their harsh criticism. Either way, its a lose-lose. So breaking news to someone isn't the greatest way to spend a day.
I'm planning my honesty right now. I aim for subtlety and suggestion for improvement, although I can't say that all people take improvements willingly. But some of his other friends have taken it too far, I think, because their egging on has led to a potentially embarrassing situation that is inescapable. There's a point where we have to accept our strengths and weaknesses. And I think that the best people to ask if you want a reality check are your family, because they aren't afraid to be brutally honest- after all, you are stuck with them. For many others, its all about walking the tightrope. Obviously its not good to offend, but I see way too many people openly showering their admiration where it really is unwarranted. These situations are practically as dangerous as full-on insults in the long run.
I believe that it's important for both critics and subjects of criticism to realise that sometimes, they just need to take a step back and take a long look at themselves. Often, we don't realise when our words of wisdom may come off as pretentious, or when our goals are unrealistic based on our skillset and personality. Doing so every now and then could save a lot of trouble later on.