Recent Posts
British naturalist and television presenter Sir David Attenborough revealed that he receives hate mail from people telling him to “burn in hell”.
But why? Sir David seems like a fairly mild mannered and polite fellow so it is only natural to ask what would lead people to send hate mail to an 82 year old man. The answer is this – David Attenborough believes in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
David stated the he is often asked by people why he doesn’t give any credit to God in his wildlife programmes, David said his belief in evolution became cemented when he saw a worm burrowed into the eye of a small child in Africa.
Sir David said that the worm is unable to live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs so he finds it hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.
So there you have it, another reasonable and polite explanation for something as we have come to expect from Sir David. This is also a view that is generally shared and backed up by the scientific community as well. Apparently the fact that a naturalist, a man whose profession is grounded in explaining the natural world through logic, reason and scientific principles is of some surprise to a number of people. But really, what else were they expecting?
I find the whole “intelligent design versus evolution” argument distasteful and redundant. The theory of evolution is grounded in science, it can be quantified and studied and evidence can be provided to support the theory. Intelligent Design on the other hand is not based on any evidence whatsoever, it is theologically and ideologically based and cannot be supported. You would think that we would simply ignore the Intelligent Design movement once it had been discredited and get on with it.
Unfortunately not, the intelligent design theory has been helped in its cause by a number of high profile people who have said that they believe it, among them George Bush and Sarah Palin. There was some impetus a while back in some US states to teach it as an alternative theory to evolution in science class. As far as I understand this didn’t pan out but the fact that it was even discussed amazes me.
Now I don’t care what your religion is, if you want to believe in God or Buddha or Chewbacca I really don’t care as long as you keep it to yourself. Religion and belief is an independent and personal choice. When you try to confuse religion and science, politics or anything else that involves society at large it doesn’t work. You end up in a situation not dissimilar to missionary work, your goal is to convert by subtle infiltration into regular society. This erodes the principles of a free and tolerant society as well as the freedom of belief that we pride ourselves on as a modern civilization.
At least Attenborough is consistent, one thing that always makes me laugh (and chills me with horror at the same time) is the inability for some of these religious radicals to see the hypocrisy inherent in their reactions to things. A loving God generally wouldn’t accept people telling others to burn in hell for a start and nowhere in the Ten Commandments do I see a “Thou shalt not apply scientific principles”. You could at a stretch argue about worshipping false idols, but it would be a big stretch since science is not an idol nor do I see anyone praying to it. One part of the Bible that often gets forgotten is the “Turn the other cheek” bit or “Thou shalt not kill”. The only reason I pick the Bible and Christianity is simply because I’m more familiar with it than any other.
Also to say that Intelligent Design is the way that the world was created and to teach it in class would denigrate the beliefs of other religions. It is a somewhat narrow view to believe that your belief is the only true and correct one and that everyone else’s is wrong. If we were to allow for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools then it would be only fair that we taught all the other explanations of creation from all other religions.
We also need to be aware that religions are not static so aren’t inherently true, other than in terms of their truth in their application to our daily lives on a personal level. Once upon a time most of the major religions we had to day didn’t exist and polytheism was the order of the day, the wheels of history turned and monotheism became the order of the day. So the number of gods we had suddenly shrunk.
Where did they go? Why did they stop being true? Perhaps Thor and Zeus took off and retired early and may now be at your local downing a few cold ones and telling stories of the good old days. This will probably be indicated clearly to you when there is thunder and lightning together, only inside the building rather than out.
Religion is a fine way to explain the way we live but it is not able to explain how we came to live. We should not confuse the two. I know if I had a worm burrowing through my eyeball I’d be kind of pissed at God if I thought he created it, especially if it was supposed to be “intelligent design”. I’d be thinking “it’d be more fucking intelligent if you created a worm that wasn’t lodged halfway between my eye and my brain you jerk”. Attenborough pointed out that most of the time when people talk about Intelligent Design they only mean nice things like hummingbirds or flowers rather than parasites or lawyers (actually, did I just say the same thing twice there?).
The point of this article is not to say that religion is wrong or that one religion is better than another, or even that science is better than religion. Both have their place and uses, the difference between science and religion is that religion is a personal thing and is best kept to oneself.
Foreword
I thought that since the economy and the global financial crisis is the big topic of conversation it would be remiss for me not to at least do something on it. Today I came across an article by Malcolm Turnbull that was published in the Sydney Morning Herald, which outlined the rationale behind the Coalition’s oppostion to the economic stimulus package proposed by the government. It was an interesting read for a number of reasons and I thought for a nice change of pace I’d dismantle the arguments made in each paragraph to see how valid the points raised actually were.
I’ve attempted to be reasonably objective, but having said that you may not agree with the views put forth, which is absolutely fine. I have endeavoured to approach the arguments critically and examine each on their merit using my knowledge of economic theory and politics as well as the opinions of other economists. I hope a fairly balanced and well informed view (as well as an entertaining read) is the result. It could all end in failure but I thought it might be a nice change from the usual spiel.
As for my own political inclinations, I tend to think party’s are a waste of time and one should always apply their conscience as opposed to toeing an ideological line. I’m neither Labor or Liberal or any other party. I like to examine the issues and come to my own conclusions when I go to vote. Sometimes its Labor, sometimes its Liberal and sometimes its neither. I don’t think we ever have good government, only “less bad” government. Just putting it out there to reassure people I try to be as impartial as the arguments will allow.
What I find most interesting about the whole article, from a deconstructive point of view is the amount of rhetoric and spin that is woven into the arguments. Personally I think it reduces the credibility and strength of the good points that are raised in the article and only further serve to highlight the weaker parts of the argument. But I’ll let you read on and come to your own conclusions.
Rudd's splurge is too much too soon
The Coalition will vote against the Rudd Government's latest $42 billion expenditure package because it is poorly targeted and unnecessarily large.
Perhaps not perfect but nothing is, it is however sound and responsible economic policy to run a deficit in times of surplus. Deficit has been turned into a dirty word by the Howard government, who used it to scare voters into thinking that Labor can’t manage the economy. A deficit does not necessarily mean that the government goes into debt, it simply means that they are spending more money than they have budgeted for.
If the government has been running surpluses in good times and saving that money (and not throwing it away on pre election spending sprees) then a deficit is not going to put them into debt. A series of successive deficits might but even then a little debt isn’t a major issue. The US has been running up trillions of dollars worth of debt and they haven’t collapsed in a screaming heap yet.
It is being jammed through Parliament with unseemly haste and, together with the cash splash of last December, amounts to the largest real increase in Commonwealth spending in 35 years.
I would agree with Turnbull on this point. While Rudd has been politically very savvy with his tactics it might not be in our best interests to rush through packages like this one without proper scrutiny. None of these measures are going to have instant effects, economies don’t work like that so rushing it through seems more of a tactic to bully the Opposition rather than an urgent and necessary move.
Turnbull has taken the tougher side in this debate for it is very easy for Rudd to use the guilt angle with arguments like “Go explain to the people of Australia why they aren’t getting any money, new schools etc in the middle of a crisis.” or “The Opposition are stalling for cheap political purpose during a time where decisive action is needed. Unlike the government the Opposition wish to take part in partisan nonsense.”.
Both of these criticisms have been levelled from the Labor camp and while it is politically very smart its also not very helpful. While I disagree with Turnbull’s opposition to the package I do agree that Labor’s steamrolling tactics are unproductive and cheap.
As for the “cash splash” of last December, that was designed to do two things. Firstly to inject a little more money into the economy and secondly to provide a little bit of financial insulation to groups who would be hardest hit by the crisis.
It is tempting to get annoyed when cash handouts occur and you don’t benefit from them but that doesn’t mean its bad policy. The government’s job is to look after everyone in general, not you specifically. First priority is usually those least capable of looking after themselves.
We know this decision will not be popular or earn us good ratings in the opinion polls, but it is the right decision for Australia.
Agreed on that one, it won’t be popular, but the Opposition stance isn’t the right decision for Australia. Perhaps Labor’s isn’t either, but in principle it’s a lot more sound and on that basis is less wrong. I don’t think politics allows for right decisions.
Too many compromises have to be made to get legislation passed. The parliament system is set up so most of the time no one party ever has total control. This is healthy and debate is a required and essential part of the democratic process, however one of the downsides is that sometimes good ideas are pushed and pulled and twisted out of shape so that they come out tainted and not quite as good when they were first conceived. So bearing that in mind I think Labor’s package is the least wrong decision for Australia.
The objective of any package at the present time must be to protect and create jobs, support small business and strengthen our economy. But we see scant evidence that it is the most efficient way to underpin Australian jobs.
The package will create jobs, Turnbull knows this and would be a fool if he didn’t. The massive spending in infrastructure will create jobs and stimulate demand in the construction industry, arguably one of the hardest hit by the crisis. In addition there are proposed cuts to company payroll tax which will help to reduce employers labour costs and perhaps prevent some job losses. Then there’s the cash handouts, and while some might save this money, the greater majority will inject it back into the economy which will give a boost to the retail sector.
It’s not so much a case of creating jobs as it is a case of keeping the economy running at a fairly even keel and letting the increased demand create the jobs. It is not productive to simply create jobs when there is no demand for it. As one of the core tenets of Liberal policy Turnbull should know better.
There is no evidence the Government's $10.4 billion spending package before Christmas created the 75,000 jobs the Prime Minister promised - the only objective measure he provided to judge its success or failure.
Assigning a certain number of jobs to a spending package is stupid but then again so are a lot of people so generally if you throw in a nice high number it tends to satisfy the masses. 75,000 jobs don’t simply appear because you give people money and no one can ever put an accurate number on it. However more money means more demand and more demand can create jobs, or at the very least protect existing ones. Politically, Rudd isn’t an idiot for saying a spending package will create x number of jobs. But logically he is as there is no way of working out how many jobs will be created by a spending package.
Likewise, there is no indication this package will maximise job creation. Perhaps this is why Wayne Swan's claim - that it will "support" 90,000 jobs over two years - is so modest considering the vast cost. Each job apparently requires an annual outlay by the Commonwealth of $233,000.
Again, assigning exact numbers to something that is not measurable. Naughty naughty Mr Swan.
Most of December's cash handout was saved by households, acting entirely appropriately given the Prime Minister's dire rhetoric and their own circumstances, whereas permanent tax reductions are not only more likely to be spent, but increase incentives.
There is no proof that this claim is correct, in fact after Turnbull claimed the handouts hadn’t worked retail trade figures for December showed spending increased 3.8 percent, which was the highest monthly increase since August 2000. Epic fail on that one Mr Turnbull.
Household saving is prudent - and represents a return to values of thrift that eventually need to be restored in any case - but if everybody saves, the stimulus will be diminished.
Absolutely correct on this one, saving is integral to an economy and goes a long way to reducing debt, however in a downturn spending is required to prevent the economy from slowing or stalling. As job security becomes less certain people are less likely to spend their own money, so you end up in a catch 22. So where will the spending come from? I’d say that people are more likely to spend free money as it doesn’t impact on their budget..
Too much of this package involves commitments delivered through … incompetent state Labor administrations. Does anyone really believe this money will be spent in a timely, efficient fashion? Can Nathan Rees really get it done?
The only state Labour government that makes the news is NSW. The others don’t appear to be overly troubled nor accused of incompetence on a daily basis. A state government doesn’t require Labor or Liberal leadership to be incompetent. It simply requires the wrong people.
I would think that the public pressure and federal government scrutiny would ensure the money is spent quickly and efficiently. Certainly the NSW government, who are under fire would be keen to make sure the money is used right as they need all the runs on the board that they can get.
As for Mr Rees, I don’t think he’s particularly incompetent. He probably has one of the hardest jobs in Australia right now and he walked willingly into it, even after knowing he’d inherited a world of trouble so you have to give him a little credit. He also seems to be leading from the front, accepting responsibility for things and not beating around the bush very much, unlike his predecessors. I’d say Rees has the old “wrong place, wrong time” problem. I think he might do a lot better in different circumstances. This package might be a good chance for him to prove himself.
There are legitimate questions about the scale of the deficits and borrowing being contemplated, given the uncertain economic outlook and federal Labor's track record.
I get particularly tired of this argument. It’s not that Labor can’t run an economy or that Liberal can. It’s mostly about who is in power and their approach to economic policy. George W Bush is a Republican and an arch conservative, if he were to jump into Australian politics his feet would be firmly planted in the Liberal camp and as we have seen he couldn’t manage an economy to save his life.
Obama now has to run further deficits to help the economy survive through the downturn, the only difference is that Obama’s policy is responsible and Bush’s wasn’t.
Paul Keating arguably has one of the sharpest economic minds (and tongues) ever to grace Australian politics and he had the misfortune of coming to power around the time Australia went into recession. Recessions aren’t good for a government’s popularity and keating did himself no favours either. That said some of the things he introduced were very forward thinking and while they didn’t help him to retain government they did lead to the period of stabilty and prosperity that the Liberal party coasted by on.
He did the Liberals a big favour by breaking the laws of politics and thinking long term but he also did Australia a favour. I’m sure that won’t make him happy, the cranky old bastard that he is but it should give him a little bit of satisfaction.
Long and short of this is that this is one case where you should blame the man, not the party.
Almost all economists agree this downturn has a long way to go, but the Rudd Government is firing all its bullets at the first engagement. Labor is good at getting into deficit, but not very good at getting out. The Keating government left behind $96 billion in national debt, and it took the Australian people a decade to repay this debt. Now, Mr Rudd has asked Parliament for permission to take us $200 billion into debt - $9500 for every Australian.
Keating left that debt because of the recession and as we’ve discussed before deficits are the responsible thing in times of recession. He wasn’t very good at getting out of the debt because he wasn’t in power long enough to get the chance to do so.
The government isn’t firing all its bullets in its first engagement either, it can run a few successive deficits before its in a bit of trouble. As for debt, it may have taken us a decade to pay off the debt but most of us don’t realise that we are paying it, it doesn’t impact on our daily lives and if taxes go up a little when things settle down it still won’t have a major impact on us. Sure we might not be able to get that 62 inch plasma we wanted but we’ll hardly be destitute. Everything comes at a price and all things need to be paid for eventually, anyone with a credit card knows how that works.
By increasing the amount the government is able to borrow and setting a limit at $200 billion the government is showing forethought and care and giving themselves plenty of room to manoeuvre if needed. 200 billion minus 42 billion equals 158 billion, which is hardly firing all your bullets at once. The impact of repaying 200 billion would only be a minor portion of our GDP and will hardly break the bank. If the US can function will a debt of a few trillion, then Australia should be able to manage a much more modest figure like 200 billion.
It is more important that Australia are able to make the repayments, which we can, its not really a major issue at his point.
Mr Rudd says our deficit will be lower than that of other countries. But unlike most other large industrialised economies, we depend heavily on foreign savers to finance our current account and do not possess a reserve currency supported by global investors regardless of domestic economic policies. And we face substantial intergenerational fiscal challenges. This is why it is so important that the Commonwealth borrow with great care.
Australia does depend a lot on foreign savers, mainly because we are so awful at doing it ourselves. That said domestic savings don’t necessarily translate into economic success. Japan has one of the highest levels of domestic saving in the world, yet their economy has been troubled for several years now.
Our intergenerational challenges stem from an ageing population. This is an issue, the best solution for this is to get people to save. This may require some re-education as saving is not ingrained in the national psyche. The changes to superannuation have definitely helped out but we will still face significant challenges as we age.
It is important that the Commonwealth borrow with care, but the same applies to everyone. We should have borrowed with more care when trying to buy property and the banks should have loaned with more care. They didn’t and now the government has little other choice but to borrow to keep the economy afloat. This plan would have been discussed wit ha number of economic experts before being put into action so I’d hardly say that they are borrowing without care.
Even after all the free spending, the package still forecasts that unemployment will top 7 per cent in just over a year - another 300,000 Australians out of work. Given uncertainty over the economy this year, we believe a package of between $15 and $20 billion is more appropriate. If the situation deteriorates further, more can be done, but it is impossible to undo a one-time stimulus once spent.
Unemployment rising during a recession is no surprise to anyone, what is surprising is why Turnbull would suggest that if unemployment is forecasted to rise to 7 percent with the Government spending plan, why you would want to spend less, potentially sending unemployment rate even higher.
We propose the permanent tax cuts scheduled for 1 July this year and 1 July next year be brought forward, backdated to 1 January this year. By the middle of 2010, this would leave a two-income household earning $80,000 about $1700 better off.
Tax cuts are the worst piece of policy ever invented and are the reason our public transport, schools and hospitals are in the state of decline that they are now. Taxes are a necessary evil and should be used to support and pay for infrastructure.
When we receive a tax cut we’re happy because we get more money in our pocket, which we then have to spend on increased train ticket prices, private school fees and private health care. That tax money we just got paid out came right out of the budgets for the things we need most and we’ve just been slugged for what we got back plus interest.
A tax cut is ok if your infrastructure is sound and your economy is booming. When both of these conditions aren’t met its cheap, populist politics designed to fool the majority of the population.
Second, perhaps the largest gap in the Government package is the lack of measures that directly and broadly support employment - particularly employment in small business.
Agreed, and this is one area where the government could improve its package. Better for Turnbull to engage and work with the government to come to an agreement than to nix it outright. Also better if the government allow him appropriate time to do so.
Accelerated depreciation has some merit but there are measures that would immediately improve the cash flows of small firms and protect jobs, such as the Commonwealth paying a portion of the Superannuation Guarantee Levy on behalf of small employers. This would directly cut the costs of employment, and preserve jobs.
Not a bad plan at all. More of this and I wouldn’t be picking so many holes in his arguments right now.
Third, we support infrastructure spending but smaller, better-targeted programs will be more cost effective.
Better targeted than what? Schools, transport and hospitals? They are your biggest, most crucial and obvious targets. As for the insulation thing, it is a little haphazard but I picture that the goal in mind is to reduce our carbon emissions, reduce the drain on our power grid and to reduce people electricity bills. It’s not such a bad idea in principle its just the application of it that might be an issue.
Unlike the Prime Minister, we do not believe there is no alternative to our approach and we invite the Government to sit down and discuss alternative stimulus measures, which would be responsible and allow sufficient capacity in public finances to meet emerging challenges.
Labor and Liberal definitely need to work together. I will keep score and minus a point of each side every time they try and score points against each other. Forget about who is in power and ideology based arguments. All parties need to get involved and engaged.
It is up to the Prime Minister to follow the lead of the Obama Administration and engage in a discussion about how to confront the crisis, rather than deriding any alternative opinion to his own as "neo-liberal extremism".
Obama’s approach has been much more inclusive than Rudd’s so Turnbull is correct, however the basic components of the package are very similar, so I’m confused a little. Why is Obama’s policy ok and Rudd’s not ok when they are largely identical bar a few minor differences..
Conclusion
Both Rudd and Turnbull are pushing the ideology wheelbarrow too hard. Rudd also has the upper hand so he’s using the opportunity to soften up the Opposition with a few stiff jabs to the political jaw, knowing that the position Turnbull has put himself in doesn’t allow for much in the way of counterpunching. Essentially both sides have some valid points and some areas where they are just wasting our time and trying to score points against each other.
Fact is we need to run a deficit and for the most part the government’s proposal is solid and responsible in principle. It simply requires some ironing out and ideally all parties will join together to make sure that the package delivered is as good as it can get. Share your expertise and wisdom Mr Turnbull, an outright nixing is unproductive and won’t win you any friends.
Seven diners in Northern Japan have fallen ill after eating blowfish (known as fugu in Japan) testicles, improperly prepared at a restaurant that did not have a licence to serve it.
The group of men ordered sashimi and blowfish testicles at the Tsuruoka City restaurant and soon after developed limb paralysis and breathing difficulties which are typical signs of blowfish poisoning before being rushed to hospital.
One of the men remains in a critical condition while another two were reported to be in a serious condition.
Blowfish contains a poison called Tetrodotoxin, which is highly poisonous – 100 times more poisonous than potassium cyanide. Careful preparation is required to ensure that the blowfish served to consumers isn’t poisonous. Blowfish is considered a delicacy and is popular among more adventurous diners.
This story could only happen in Japan, where order, discipline and politeness go hand in hand with kooky, zany and off the wall. Only in Japan would it be possible for a highly poisonous fish to be considered a delicacy. Honestly I wonder who the hell thought that blowfish might be tasty, it flies in the face of nature and evolution. I mean blowfish are hilarious to poke with sticks and watch them puff up but the bloody things are covered in spikes, which is nature’s way of saying “piss off”.
My theory is it was discovered during a segment of some bizarre Japanese game show, where the prize for winning was life. There was a round called “Bite the chunk out of the fugu” and some lucky bastard just happened to clamp his teeth around the tiny part of the blowies balls that didn’t result in excruciating death and then reported that they tasted amazing. I don’t think that fugu is actually all that tasty, it’s just that when you’re a centimetre of scrotum away from death, everything tastes like applesauce and rainbows when you narrowly avoid it. My bet is if I put a loaded shotgun next to your head and told you that you had to choose a hamburger off a plate and all of the hamburgers except one were laced with razorblades, when you picked the correct hamburger it would be the best damn burger you’d ever eaten.
The scary thing is that in 2007 three people died and another forty four people became ill from eating fugu, most of these incidents occurring when people caught fugu and attempted to prepare it themselves. This means that forty seven people decided that eating fugu was a fantastic idea and that the training required to prepare it properly wasn’t necessary. I’d say that the odds on surviving a game of Russian Roulette would be a safer bet. At least we know nature still has some very effective was of teaching stupid people a lesson.
The other thing I can never understand is why people would want to have a fishes testicles in their mouth in the first place, first of all I don’t think that a fish dangleberries are particularly large. For a start the poor fish would sink to the bottom in sheer exhaustion if it had to lug around a set of wrecking balls.
Painful death aside I still couldn’t do it. I just wouldn’t know what to say after I’d had another animal’s bollocks in my mouth. I’d be uncomfortable and things would be awkward.
Me: “So…..”
Fugu: ……
Me: “You want to go, see a movie or something?”
Fugu: …….
Me: “ Look, that was a one time deal, I was drunk, I didn’t know what I was doing OK.”
Fugu: ……
(In case you didn’t work it out, fish are unable to talk rendering the whole conversation an exercise in futility, guilt and sexual confusion)
The other issue I have is one that is close to all men, The Brotherhood of the Balls. Men are quite sensitive about any abuse to the crotch region and psychically feel echoes of pain anytime balls are tampered with. Why do you think it’s considered a crime in cricket? Sit down and watch an episode of Funniest Home Videos, there will be at least one video of a guy copping a shot to the love apples. Look around and see who is laughing and who’s cringing with their legs crossed. Guarantee it won’t be the guys laughing, especially not if they’ve been on the receiving end of one of those shots before.
Knowing the sickening pain of testicle trauma I cannot fathom why we do not extend membership to this brotherhood to other species. Does a hyena not stop laughing when you kick it in the nuts? They share our pain and I could not bring myself to inflict testicular manslaughter on another living creature, no matter how small the crime might be (especially if its fish balls). I used to have a moral issue with eating fish balls until I was told that they weren’t actually a fishes balls, rather they were balls made out of fish. It should be a crime to attack another living creature’s knackers.
Long story short if something has a 99% chance of killing you if you eat it you probably should order something else on the menu. Secondly testicles are sacred and should be treated with the proper respect – TLC to the T-bag.
It could be reasonably argued that communication is the core of civilization. Without a shared system of meanings we could not have developed into tribes which further expanded and developed into nations. We wouldn’t have the same level of technology, science or medicine that we have today as ideas and advancements could not be shared and we wouldn’t have the level of international economic activity that we have enjoyed (or not) either. I would also add to this that without communication we would be at war all the time, certainly much more than we are now (which is already too much).
War can be considered a failure to communicate, it is the point where communication stops and there is only violence. Any attempt at communication is usually hostile, dogmatic and laced with rhetoric and is thus doomed to failure. Communication relies on flow and the result of attempts to communicate in the abovementioned fashion cause immediate constriction of this flow, which is the intended purpose anyway, so you could call a lot of wartime speeches professional fouls
[ Click here to read more ]
Hi all,
Just a quick message to let everyone know that after a long period of inactivity, this blog is back in action
[ Click here to read more ]
It is said that denial is not just a river in Egypt, and indeed peoples capacity to deny things even when said things are for all intents and purposes staring them in the face, breathing down their neck and doing their taxes for them is something which I find truly amazing.
There are many examples of people totally ignoring expert opinion, fact or even the bleeding obvious when it doesn’t tally up with our preconceived ideals of how things are
[ Click here to read more ]
Fashion is an odd thing. Who and what defines something as being fashionable? Does anyone even know? Certainly fashion designers would purport to know what is on the cutting edge of fashion but one need only to look at photos of a fashion show where models are wearing dresses made out of old tea bags while wearing a television as a hat to realise that most fashion designers are full of shit. I often wonder what the purpose of having those weird and wacky shows is since I have never seen anyone wear anything remotely like any of those bizarre concoctions that are trundled out at these “fashion shows” except for maybe those funny old ladies that live amidst mountains of garbage and are liable to throw a cat at you if you so much as make eye contact.
That’s not to say that I know anything about fashion. Personally I couldn’t care less about fashion. I figure I know how to dress myself after 24 years of life and the fact that I’m not a complete social outcast would suggest that this holds true. While I’m no expert I think I could apply a phrase that is similar to one commonly used regarding art “I may not know fashion, but I know what looks shit
[ Click here to read more ]
Has there ever been an invention in human history that has been as divisive as the internet? It’s difficult to accurately describe the internet, but some words that spring to mind are; double edged sword, schizophrenic, melting pot.
For me and many other Gen Y’s its difficult to imagine life without the internet. Our lives are inexorably tied to email, online gaming, and social networking and were these things to be removed from us, I’d imagine that at least for a while, we’d be quite lost
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by Nathan Glover
on Darwin Vs Stupidity
Words Of A Sane Man In An Insane World
Darwinism caught in a trap of its own making?