Howitzers!

Yes, finally FF can deliver on one part of its blurb highlights (methinks Buenos Aires & the Tango will have to wait a while). So here's a story about howitzers.

I recently visited Salisbury Plain to see a bunch of rocks. Of course these weren't your ordinary, garden variety pet rocks but big ones, really big ones arranged in a circle. I am of course referring to the World Heritage listed site of Stonehenge. Anyway while walking around these rocks and taking a few happy snaps I heard a couple of loud banging noises. It sounded like somebody taking a piece of metal and hitting something with it. At the time I didn't think too much of it. I also noticed some smoke in the distance.

Later our tour guide revealed that the loud sound came from British Army units on exercise. I presume the sound and smoke was from artillery pieces (possibly AS-90 155 mm self-propelled howitzers) as opposed to small arms fire. Apparently the army has extensive exercise grounds and firing ranges on Salisbury Plain. I did notice on our way there and on the way out, signs for things like tank crossings, and overhead I saw Lynx and Sea King helicopters fly past.

Disfunction In Modern Life

This piece is the last of the 3 part series on Modern Life. I've been putting it off for a week or so as it is perhaps the most complex of the 3 parts and I want to present a better, more coherent argument than in the last entry.

Many of the difficulties in modern life stem from human disfunction arising from maladaptions of human psychology and biology to the modern environment. This has occurred because human beings, although having developed sophisticated cognitive and adaptive traits, nevertheless still retain many traits & functions which were designed to operate in more primitive environments. Primal responses such as fear, anger, & propensities to violence which served adaptive purposes in the pre-historic times are not so helpful in modern life and in many instances cause serious disfunction in individuals and society.

To understand how humans maladapt to modern living one has to examine the evolution of human existence and the development of the human brain. According to Professor Paul D. Maclean's 'Triune Brain Theory', the human brain is not a single entity but rather one made of three distinct parts or sections, which were developed at different times in the evolutionary process to serve different functions. These three parts are the neo-cortex (sometimes called the cerebral cortex) which deals with higher order processing and thought, the limbic system (the emotional & memory centre of the brain) and the R-Complex or reptilian brain. The reptilian brain is the most ancient of the three brain sections and deals with the most basic, primitive emotions such as fear, anger and the fight or flight response.

Maladaptation and disfunction in modern life occurs when human beings ancient, primitive instincts and responses clash with the challenges of and complexities of modern living. A simple example is the fight or flight response which was designed to ensure short term physical survival in pre-historic times. So for instance a cave man would have been walking along and then he'd see a saber tooth tiger. In a split second his pulse would race, and he would fear, which would prompt him to run, or alternatively if he was cornered he might feel anger and a surge of adrenaline to help him fight. If all went well he would escape or fight off the saber tooth and survive for a time. Notice how in the ancient scenario there is a clear and immediate resoultion to the situation that triggers the fight or flight response & the fear and the anger. The cave man either succeeds or fails in fleeing or killing the saber tooth.

In contrast, in modern scenarios there frequently is no immediate resoultion to stress inducing threats and events. The stresses tend to be lower (you usually don't have to fear for your life) but nevertheless significant e.g. job insecurity, credit card debts, mortgage repayments, overwork, work politics, and relationship difficulties. Yet in many of these cases our ancient fight or flight responses are activated and cannot be shut off because there is no immediate resolution that a person can effect. For example, an important project at work could be delayed by various factors, interest rate rises could send debt repayments skyrocketing, your job might get outsourced to India. You can't run from these things nor can you necessarily hit back at them. As a result there is continuous stress and a feeling of loss of control. This can lead to wide ranging damage both physical (heart attacks, stroke) and mental (anxiety disorders and depression).

In the areas of anger and violence, ancient hard wiring, causes particular problems in modern life. This is because many if not all of us still possess ancient responses of anger and agression to threats real or perceived. As in the saber tooth tiger example this would have been useful. However it is a destructive response in modern situations of frustration & threat like traffic jams, or annoying neighbours and school/workplace colleagues. We can see this in such examples as road rage, school and post office massacres.

Wider social disfunction can also occur due to maladaptions of human psychology to modern sociological, political and demographic conditions. Take the example of ancient tribalism which served the purpose of fostering team work and cohesion which helped early humans survive in difficult prehistoric environments. Its modern form exists today through primitive tendencies to nationalism, racism and xenophobia, which do not adapt well to a modern world of diversity and interdependence betwen persons of different 'tribes' within pluralist, multi ethnic socieites, and a world which is increasingly interconnected. If you doubt this take a look at the holocaust and soccer violence.

Human biology is also maladapted to modern dietary and lifestyle conditions. The physiology of human beings and their adapted preferences for food were designed for a physically arduous and calorie scarce environment. Hence humans are hard-wired to like high calorie, fatty food, and sweet food as these high energy foods would have been useful in pre-agragrian society. However the 'sweet tooth' and taste for fat does not serve humans well in a modern world of abundant high fat, high energy food and beverages. The result of ancient preferences for high energy food in a world of fast, convenient food and a sedentary lifestyle is the modern epidemic of obesity and its attendent complications.

In summary, human disfunction as a result of pre-programmed ancient responses that are inappropriate to modern environments is the source of many individual, social & health problems in the world today. How these disfunctions arise environmentally and psychologically must be researched in order to devise methods to reduce their incidence.

Disconnection In Modern Life

One often hears stories or reminiscences of 'the good old days' and this no doubt has an element of inflated and exaggerated sentiment to it, yet in some respects it is apparent that aspects of modern living compare unfavourably with those of the not too distant past. While mobility and opportunity whether it be economic, social, geographical or cultural has expanded exponentially in the more 'developed' nations of the world, some of the benefits of a more patient, humble and connected time have been lost, particularly in terms of connection between persons in their day to day lives. By connection I'm referring chiefly to those bonds of acquaintance, friendship, and community formerly experienced by most people in society. While in the past these connections came freely and easily in the more communal settings of village or small town living, today's experience of modern living is decidedly different.

In the pre-modern, pre-urban, rural condition of living, people had low geographic mobility. They would be born, live and die in the same village without having travelled much at all. That would perhaps be considered today to be somewhat of a disadvantage. However, the denizens of small towns and villages also possessed the advantage of a greater familiarity (though it may be considered a disadvantage to those of a particularly private or reclusive nature) and connection with their families and neighbours, all the while enjoying greater living space with lower population densities. I know this probably sounds a little idealised, like a scene from a Jimmy Stewart movie but some of it was and is true. The stories about people knowing everybody and leaving their doors unlocked at night were true. The rates of crime (particularly property crime) were far lower in the 1st half of the 20th century in the United States and Britain.

In contrast the experience of modern life in the city is radically different. The modern urbanite is likely to live in a shoe box, crammed into districts with population densities far higher than those in rural and pre-modern society. This experience will also include such negative externalities (as the economists would put it) as crime, pollution, queues and the general rudeness of stressed out people. The modern person is also likely to come across hundreds of people in the course of an ordinary day (as opposed to the few in the pre-modern/rural person) yet his or her connection to each person is likely to be negligible or non existent (which may be a good thing for misanthropists). Ironically it may be that the modern person has fewer (in absolute and not just relative terms) connections, friendships and acquaintances than his or her pre-modern or rural counterpart.

Our economic, social, geographic and culutral mobility is far higher, and that's great. Yet often this mobility means we will lose our connections to friends and family as we all pursue our different paths in life. How often have even close relations, brothers, sisters, parents and children drifted apart not through any break down of affinity but just through the effect of geographical and social distance?

Modern living as we all know, also places greater pressures on time. Ironically even with all our improvements in labour saving devices and technology, it seems that we have even less time to meet with friends, family or even say hello to a neighbour or the doorman. Instead we are in constant state of 'on demand' through the technology that was supposed to save time and make life more convenient.

What does the future offer in modern living? It seems more of the same. An ever faster pace of life, 24-7 news, communications and commerce hand in hand with the increasing atomisation of society into a mere aggregration of isolated and self-interested individuals subject to and creating the will of the market which of course is the will of society ... or at least that's what we're supposed to believe.

Dissatisfaction In Modern Life

In November of 2004 Prince Charles came under criticism for comments from his diary that were leaked to the press, which included: “What is wrong with everyone nowadays? ... Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? ... People think they can all be pop stars, High Court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.”

It seems the Prince's comments were unpopular because he dared question the popular notion that people with enough vision and hard work can succeed in achieving anything that they aspire to. This popular idea is a relatively modern one, and perhaps is found in its strongest form in America and the concept of the American dream. That is the idea that anyone can make it big if only they work hard enough in the land of opportunity.

Someone once said that happiness can be measured or defined by the following simple equation: Happiness = Reality - Expectation. I think that was/is a pretty accurate assessment. It helps explain one of the more curious aspects of life in modern advanced economies & societies; and that is that although living standards have risen exponentially in the last 50-100 years it is doubtful that levels of happiness have risen substantially and in some regards may have decreased.

This seems rather incredible in light of the developments that have made modern living conditions far more comfortable than those enjoyed throughout most of recorded history. In just over 100 years the list of improvements has been nothing short of breathtaking; including electricity, running water, motorised transport, reliable food supplies, literacy, television, vacuum cleaners, computers, mobile communications, birth control, antibiotics, travel and leisure activities which have become available to a majority of persons living in highly developed modern economies.

While the reality of modern life no doubt reflects the incredible amenity and convenience of modern living compared to life in the hard labour of the agrarian economy that is of course only one part of our equation for happiness. The rapid growth in living standards has been more than matched by the rapid growth in people's exectations. This is where the Prince of Wales made a very salient point. People's expectations are unrealistic. A Gallup poll in 2003 found that 31% of Americans believed they would become rich one day, and amongst 18-29 year olds it was 51%.

Now in a very real sense most Americans, British and Europeans are rich compared to the majority of the world's people who live in less developed countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. They are also rich compared to their predecessors in the developed world. But this is not the type of rich they're thinking of. What is the definition of rich? In the past for many people the farmer next door with a few more acres and bullocks would have been the standard. However in the modern world because of the pervasiveness of media such as television, print and internet, the definition becomes more skewed. No longer is the average person looking next door to keep up with the Joneses but he/she is looking through the pages of Forbes 400, or lifestyles of the rich and shameless for an indication of what level of wealth is to be desired.

This reality-expectation gap not only exists in terms of wealth but in other areas such as relationships. Modern men and women no longer compare their prospective partners with average joe or the proverbial girl next door but with reference to the übermen and women of celebrity, fame and fortune. Their imagination thanks once again to modern media images leaps to near impossible ideals (or at least statistically improbable ones) of Vogue/GQ model looks, and the easy style and confidence of Hollywood millionaires. It's like a seductive dream that seems almost within in reach because of the pervasiveness of its presence through television, film and trashy magazines to the extent that we now to celebrities by their first names e.g. Tom, Nicole, Jen as if they are people we know. As the philsopher Alain De Botton puts it, "One often leaves the cinema after seeing an enjoyable Hollywood film thinking, My life is terrible. I want to marry a princess and live in a castle or something. The work of art was enjoyable, but it was a fable—a fantasy—and it makes us dissatisfied with our own lives."

In the movie Beautiful Girls (1996) Michael Rappaport's character captures this essence of fantasy: "Supermodels are beautiful girls, Will. A beautiful girl can make you dizzy, like you've been drinking Jack and Coke all morning. She can make you feel high full of the single greatest commodity known to man - promise. Promise of a better day. Promise of a greater hope. Promise of a new tomorrow. This particular aura can be found in the gait of a beautiful girl. In her smile, in her soul, the way she makes every rotten little thing about life seem like it's going to be okay. The supermodels, Willy? That's all they are. Bottled promise. Scenes from a brand new day. Hope dancing in stiletto heels."

The upshot of all these unrealistic expectations is of course dissatisfaction. Most people in modern economies while enjoying high standards of material comfort will never become millionaires (at least in 2006 US dollars) nor will they marry a supermodel, Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt. They will instead have to deal with such things as job insecurity (if not unemployment), mortgages, failed relationships, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and the vague sense that some of the promise in life that they had been lead to believe in was a lie.

Essay On Love

I've come to a rather novel but nevertheless important realisation about something generally considered extremely important, that is the topic of love and in particular that subset known as romantic love or true love (however misconceived). Avid readers of FF are no doubt aware that the good doctor has been generally suspicious of the whole romantic love concept or movement (yes it is a movement that feeds the wedding, chocolate, greeting card and trashy novel industries).

The reasons for Dr K's scepticism are founded in science, observation, a little experience and philosophy of late. On an appreciation of the insights found from these sources he concludes that romantic love is neither rational nor is it really love in its true or best form. In reality it is a biochemical state induced by biological drives of the human animal designed to get the male and female of the species together for you know what. These imperatives do not necessarily conform nor are they congruent with motivations of love or the basis of love in relationships between humans. It is not an exercise of an informed or rational decision. This is probably the underlying reason for a great deal of broken relationships and unhappiness amongst people.

To recapitulate earlier posts on the science of love in a nutshell: in the state of romantic love, the participants (or less kindly, the victims), are subject to an extremely potent cocktail of neurotransmitters, phenylethylamine, dopamine etc which produce the powerful feelings of attachment, attraction, euphoria etc. So basically science tells us that when people are "in love" they basically lose their minds so to speak in a similar way to people on cocaine. But let's take a step back to the beginnings of this state. What causes attraction? What brings two people together in the first place (apart from a chance meeting in a supermarket or a cafe in Marrakesh or a carriage on the Orient Express)?
Why do two people like or love each other?

On the basis of self reporting we would get a range of answers to that question. Most of which would have some element of reasoning or good sense to it. Like the two people have common interests, they like each other's sense of humour, their personalities and outlook are compatible, or she liked his nose, he liked her hands. Well you probably won't get anybody to admit the last two (because it sounds too superficial), but it may be that they are the more telling factors, in so much as they speak of the unconscious biological forces at work, which are bringing the two people together.

Although the frequently reported personality/character/lifestyle factors make a lot of sense and probably do help in maintaining good relationships they in themselves are not enough. It would seem that many if not all of these factors could be found in one's friends and the platonic relations between friends. What is the difference for romantic relationships? It's sex. Even in the absence of lust. By that I mean, even if the attachment or attraction is not primarily of a sexual nature, what is happening is that the biological programming of the persons is nevertheless trying to steer them into such conditions for sex. This is perhaps what the 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer described as, Wille Zum Leben - the 'Will to Live', the unconscious drive to stay alive and reproduce.

This drive or will to live being based on such raw biological goals therefore does not operate on the rational level. It does not necessarily factor into account those qualities which make for a good, sustainable relationship between two people. It instead focuses on socially superficial but biologically significant factors such as appearance which on evolutionary grounds provide indicators to health and fertility. Basically this is why guys are attracted to supermodels (hmm probably not catwalk models because they are too skinny) and girls are attracted to rugby players (they probably most resemble the pre-historic alpha male).

If romantic love is a biological game is it really love? The emotional response to this question is probably - of course it is! But why? It's because it feels like love. But feeling and reality do not necessarily meet. As mentioned earlier, in the state of romantic love, the brains of the afflicted persons are bombarded with so many feel-good chemicals that it's almost impossible to think otherwise. In this heady state, the 'loved' person is never too far from one's thoughts, and their mere presence can make one feel suprisingly good. This powerful state of addiction is nevertheless no more than that. A great feeling. Can this be love? One loves because of how one feels. But why does one feel? How long will one feel the same way? What happens when we no longer feel the same way? What if he or she feels different? You see not only how superficial but how tenuous and capricious these foundations are?

The biological factors of attraction that bring people together in the state of romantic love do not necessarily keep them together. This is as we have learnt because the factors of attraction being biologically based ignore those personality/character/lifestyle compatibility factors which help make good relationships. So after the initial heady days of attraction pass, and two people settle down, perhaps have kids, the 'spark' dies. Biology has triumphed in so much as the couple have had children, so it doesn't really give a shit whether the people are happy or not. Meanwhile the husband and wife start having to deal with the realities of work, the enormous drain on energy, time and money that children pose. The chemical highs of romantic love have long since faded into at best a comfortable but boring routine of familiarity and at worst a jaded relationship of mutual indifference or barely concealed contempt. These outcomes are apparently not uncommon (statistically tends to kick in after about 4-7 years) and would perhaps go towards explaining the current divorce rates of 40-50%.

What then is love? Dr. K would say in its purest form, that it's caring, a deep valuing of a fellow human being or human beings. It's something that's far more generous and not a selfish or possessive thing in the way that romantic love is or can be. We don't love just because the other person makes us feel good. Here at FF we're not too big on religious themes but this time I think I we can borrow a line from the so called good book (1 Corinthians 13:4-8):

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

The Noodle Nadir

For many years I've consumed the leading brand of instant packet noodles. However in the past year or so I've noticed something disturbing. No it's not the msg. It's the noodles, their texture. Something's gone wrong. They're too hard and when you cook them for 2-3 minutes they're all stringy and stick together in clusters. It's all really f---ed up.

I've had to switch to an alternative brand. However the seasoning sachet for this brand has like double the msg, so I still use the sachets from the leading brand. This means I have to buy both brands of noodles. One for the noodles and one for the sachets. Gee what a waste!

The End of MAD: America's Nuclear Supremacy, Part 2

Ok I'm scratching my head (figuratively) trying to remember the whole gist of the original article behind this post. Ahhh yes, Schwarz argues that the dominant position of the US will lead to a dangerous environment whereby China and Russia will seek to offset American power by taking their own measures to strengthen their arsenals and in doing so increase risk and create conditions for miscalculation. Unfortunately that's a very vague argument, and it may be that my memory is a little vague regarding the article, but I think that was all Schwarz offered.

Schwarz's argument about competitors reacting or responding to increased US military power by shoring up their own capabilities is not particularly original. It's just the old concept of the security dilemma: any effort by one side to increase their military capabilities will lead to a counter effort by their rivals, so each is back to square one.

The real issue here is that this common security dilemma may not run to its usual course. This is because America's relative position re China and Russia is so far ahead. Even if Russia and China want to compete in a new nuclear arms race they simply don't have the resources to. Well at least Russia certainly doesn't and for China it would take at least 25 years while having to deal with other problems of rapid economic development, environmental management and social cohesion.

The US will remain in its hegemonic position (at least with regards to nuclear and conventional military power) for the foreseeable future because of its current absolute capabilities and the relative weakness of its rivals. This is not to say that the US can always get its own way (as seen in the Iraq Quagmire ... yes it's a quagmire) but simply that it is and will continue to be the leading power in international relations.

The End of MAD: America's Nuclear Supremacy, Part 1

I read an article by an ex-Rand Corporation analyst Benjamin Schwarz in the January issue of The Atlantic. It basically argued that with the erosion of Russia's nuclear arsenal and continuous improvements to the US arsenal, the Cold War foundation of strategic stability through the prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was now at an end.

For those of our readers who are a little rusty on their Nuclear weapons strategy, basically how MAD works is that neither side dares to launch a first strike against the other. This is because there are enough nuclear warheads in the opponent's arsenal to survive any first strike which of course means a devastating second strike can be launched in retaliation against the aggressor. For years this strategic condition underpinned stability within the superpower rivalry between the US and the USSR.

What has changed since the end of the Cold War and the bi-polar order which disciplined great power conflict and rivalry, has been the preponderance of American power in what some have called a unipolar system with the United States as hegemon. This all pretty old news I admit, however Schwarz's article is the first that I've seen to suggest that the logic or order of MAD is now in jeopardy.

The reasons for the erosion of MAD are to be found in the respective decline and improvement in Russia's and the United State's nuclear and technological capabilities. Russia's arsenal is a fraction of it's size in 1990 (appx 3,800 warheads and forecast to decline to 500), and more importantly has not been maintained or upgraded. The Russian strategic forces lack the funds and resources to maintain readiness and technological capacity, such that the traditional strengths of the old USSR such as the nuclear ballistic missle submarine fleet have deteriorated markedly. Much of the sub fleet is permanently in port thereby eroding their crews' skills while also being highly vulnerable to attack.

Meanwhile the US arsenal while also smaller (5,200 warheads appx) than its Cold War levels is however more effective due to improvements in technology. The technological improvements to US forces since 1990 have given it a tremendous edge over any major power. New missile technology has increased accuracy thereby requiring a smaller of number of warheads to ensure successful strikes while new satellites and sensors increase the ability to find targets. Advanced technology as seen in the B2-Stealth Bomber, Sea Wolf class nuclear submarines, and GPS satellite guided munitions have given the US a capability edge over all rivals not seen since the peak of relative American power in 1945. Military and strategic analysts conducting simulated wargames conclude that the US could prevail in a conflict against any nuclear rivals by wiping out their entire arsenals in a first strike.

What of China one might ask? Despite the emergence of China as the next superpower rival to the US, at present and for the forseeable future, its military and strategic nuclear capabilities will remain far behind that of the US. The Chinese nuclear arsenal is even smaller than that of Russia's at appx 2,000 warheads, with only 18 warheads capable of striking the continental USA.

Of Toothpicks & Turkeys

A week or so ago I purchased some toothpicks and had occasion to take them out recently. I must say that I was somewhat disappointed in their design. I suppose it is curious to say that one could be disappointed in toothpick design as there doesn't seem to be so much to it at first glance. Most of our readers are probably familiar with standard toothpick design i.e. basically a double pointed toothpick, so perhaps they can appreciate my suprise when I discovered that my toothpicks were only single pointed. Yes it's incredible, single pointed toothpicks? What a stupid design. As the reader appreciates this is one of those instances where no thought whatsoever has been undertaken into the interests of efficiency. You get one point therefore 50% of the usage potential. Talk about a waste of that precious natural resource, wood!

Now, lest the reader think that it was mere economy or laziness on the part of the manufacturer of the said toothpicks, I found evidence to the contrary. On the opposite end where the second point would usually be there was instead a flat end but also a number of uniform sized u-shaped grooves made as a form of styling. Talk about a waste of time and effort not to mention the ultimate example of form over function!

Yesterday morning after doing some tidying downstairs I returned to this room around midday to see out of the corner my eye outside a rather novel apparition. It was a turkey. Yes one of those big black birds with the red head. It landed on the right fence of the backyard/courtyard. Suprisingly, despite its considerable size it was able to balance on the thin wooden fence. I looked at it for a few seconds and then reached for my camera on the desk, however it flew away before I could take a shot.

This turkey sighting has in a way resolved a mystery for me. Late at night I have occasionally heard the sounds of an unseen creature. I had suspected that either somebody was keeping a pet pig or else it was a scrub turkey.

I Take It All Back ...

It appears that I have been mistaken. The stove fan actually works. After getting a bit frustrated with it, I started poking & prodding around and discovered that it only powers up after you extend it. Yes it did seem curious to me that it only covered half the depth of the stove (it was in a retracted position) which would make it pretty ineffective at fanning the steam & smoke. So I take everything back I said about Italian kitchen appliances. Yes sometimes even Dr. K gets it wrong.

Does The Truth Matter?

Ok we're on a bit of a roll here aided by the good doctor's insomnia. I realise that the above question seems all too obvious. Of course the truth matters. Sure, we are taught from a young age that being truthful and not telling lies is the way to go in terms of ethical and moral conduct. However I don't mean to ask the question from a normative perspective. Specifically I'm interested in truth and or the search for truth and whether they have any relevance as driving forces for what occurs in the world today. Has truth become a victim of expediency (if it wasn't already throughout history)? I would suggest that as an independent motive or object for guiding behaviour and conduct it has become secondary (probably always has been) to set preferences and agendas. I will aim to illustrate this through a number of examples taken from different spheres of human activity.

Let's take the Anglican church in Africa for example. Now the 9th Commandment in the Bible is "Thou Shalt Not Lie" which seems to suggest that the truth and being truthful is of value in itself. It doesn't say that you can lie in certain circumstances to forward what you believe to be a good cause (though I'm sure we could all quite imagine certain circumstances where it might be necessary). But the general essence of it is, the truth matters. So it suprised me a number of years ago watching a documentary about how an Anglican bishop in Africa (can't remember the country or diocese) was urging his parishoners and fellow Africans not to use condoms, not only because he prefered abstinence, but because in his educated view, condoms were too unreliable and dangerous. He said something along the lines of "they are full of holes so AIDs can spread through them". I'm no expert on the physical properties of condoms and the relative chances of transmission but I do feel very much that the good Bishop was exaggerating the danger if not OUTRIGHT LYING to further his agenda - more sexual abstinence, less promiscuity.

Now if the Lords spiritual do not value truth what about the secular leadership i.e. politicians, policymakers, and Statesmen (well yeah they are mostly men)? Let's look at the Iraq campaign. Oh yes I can hear the collective groan from the audience. I'll be brief. The whole Iraq campaign was a done deal, even before the charade of going to the United Nations. So the truth of whether there was WMD did not matter one bit at all. Nor did it seem the truth of the prospects of success for the Western alliance. There were many voices of great learning and experience, analysts, academics, diplomats, military commanders even (like General Eric Shinseki - the then US Chief of Staff, General Anthony Zinni - immediate predecessor to the Central Command Chief Tommy Franks) who warned that the whole endeavour would likely f**ck up. Now they were much closer to the truth but were ignored. Why? Because the people with power and authority couldn't give a crap about truth, they were furthering an agenda.

Now let me pick a another example or examples of where truth does not matter. In many realms like advertising, or even general relations between people in certain social settings, appearances & presentation far outweigh the matter of truth. It matters not whether one has the best product or not or whether people even need it, what matters is that people believe that it is the best, and that they believe that they need it. So for example you have a powerful pharmaceutical industry in the United States hawking 5 zillion drugs for many illnesses which don't even exist like "Social Anxiety Syndrome" (I think we used to call it shyness), or doping children with dextroamphetamines (a.k.a. "kiddie speed") because their parents couldn't discipline them. Then you've got people who enter reality TV contests because they believe that if they win the grand prize of a nose job it will solve their problems with self esteem and relationships.

Harking back to one of my earlier posts about occupational status we see that the appearance of the person as seen through this prism also distorts or devalues the truth. The measure of a person is not in "the content of their character" as the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King would have liked, but in the outward trappings of their job, car, suburb, social set, breeding, or looks - or at least that is the measure as the world sees it.

So what does one do in this morass of powerful agendas, and endless superficiality which so routinely discard the truth that it almost seems natural? What does it profit a person to value the truth or even trouble him or herself to find out about it if the truth ultimately cannot prevail ? Is it better to avert one's gaze, avoid asking the difficult questions, when ultimately it seems that when push comes to shove, power, delusion and expediency trump all? Do we seek the enlightened life or the comfortable one and might it be too much to hope for both?

Eurotrash Kitchen Appliances

Yes it's rare that I venture on such culinary adventures as cooking a steak but tonight (well technically last night since it's am the next day now) I gave it a go. So you can imagine my shock horror to find, as the hotplate was heating up, that the stove fan, or whatever the heck you call that thing which usually has a light too, did not work. It didn't even switch on. Nada. Nothing. What a complete piece of crap! It's like the first time it has been ever used and is only 2 years old. What happened to all this crap about quality European kitchen appliances??? This thing is a fricking lemon! Ok, note to self for next time (if there ever is another occasion), Italian food & German appliances, Good, Italian Appliances & German food, Bad. Actually German food's not that bad.

Goldilocks & The Air Conditioner

It's summer and I live in a hot climate. Furthermore I have a penchant for sleeping during normal business hours. Accordingly I need reliable airconditioning during the day. Instead I've been getting hit & miss. I turn the air conditioner on and it's too cold, so I wake up shivering. I turn it down on fan option and it does nothing. I turn it off and it's too hot so I wake up in a sweat and more often than not a headache. This is a most frustrating state of affairs.

A Tennis Fairytale - Daniela & A Delayed Match Report

Yes we're running a bit behind here at FF as you've no doubt noticed. But hey that doesn't mean we can't dredge up old sports news! Your correspondent was fortunately able to attend parts of the 2006 Australian in Melbourne, whereupon he had the pleasure of viewing a number of matches featuring the 'Slovakian Swan', Daniela Hantuchova.

The first round was a rather untidy affair taking 3 sets after our favourite dropped the first carelessly to a Japanese player of little renown. In the 2nd round she faced a player from Uzbekistan, Akgul Amanmuradova, who I had never heard of. Amanmuradova is big. Yes quite big. Big as in 6'2"and broad shouldered to boot. In fact when she first came onto the court (in a men's shirt and shorts) I thought she was a man. Unfortunately for her, her size proved to be more a liability than an asset as Daniela was able to move her around the court more than she was comfortable with. Despite her opponent's big 1st serve (avg 175 km/h, max 185 km/h) Daniela was able to win quite comfortably 6-4, 6-1 with quite a few winners and not too many unforced errors which in the past has been a problem for her. I detected a greater use of topspin in her groundstrokes, particularly off the backhand and this has evidently increased her margin of safety.

Now as enjoyable as all this was, we were in for a much greater treat albeit your correspondent wasn't there in person for this gem. The Princess next faced the Darth Vader of Women's tennis, Serena Williams. Having seen quite a few of Daniela's matchs against both Serena and Venus Williams I had little hope that the result would end favourably. What has hitherto happened the last 5 or 6 times is that the Sisters Williams have basically smashed our Daniela off the court and Daniela not helping things by gifting a bunch of points away on unforced errors.

Yet for some reason on that special night things were different. Serena wasn't quite in rhythm, playing loose shots and lacking the incredible speed she possessed in prior years; while Daniela was hitting lines instead of errors. The ferocious Wiliams serve was strangely quite vulnerable with Daniela making 4 of an incredible 16 break point opportunities! The 1st set was over quick with Daniela taking it 6-1. In the second Serena launched a comeback midset and manged to break Daniela. I must confess at this moment I had my doubts. Could she overcome this setback or would she falter like so many times before?

Well, the match line read 6-1, 7-5 Hantuchova. Truly a most improbable, unexpected yet wonderful result to savour. Now the fairytale had to end at some point, and it did against the It Girl of the WTA tour, Maria Sharapova. Nonetheles, Daniela ended a good Australian Open campaign respectably, giving Sharapova a bit of a fight before going out 6-4, 6-4.

The Anniversary Party!

For those of you who haven't been reading this blog often and I count myself among you, it may be appropriate to serve notice of an important milestone. Yes, it's amazing but true. FF is one year old today! In the past year every one at FF has worked feverishly to bring you stories, insight and analysis on the widest range of possible topics without any coherent thread whatsoever. It is my hope that it may continue to be so.

Since FF has not received the updates it has deserved of late, I will endeavour to add several entries in the not to distant future.


Sincerely,


Dr. Kananga


The Mansion On The Hill, St Kitt's

God Save The Queen!

According to a story from The Times, 14 November 2005, Queen Elizabeth II has been identified in an al-Qaeda video as "one of the severest enemies of Islam". In the video issued after the July 7 bombings in London, Osama Bin Laden's deputy, Alman al-Zawahiri allegedly holds the Queen as being responsible for Britain's "crusader laws" against Muslims.

If these views were not those of such a sinister organisation they would seem so laughably absurd as they reveal a colossal ignorance of the Queen's role (or non-role to be more accurate) in the policymaking of the British Government. Al-Qaeda's masterminds obviously have difficulty in distinguishing between the Queen's formal role as head of state and head of the Church of England, and confusing the role of Her Majesty with Her Majesty's Government. On the face of it the constitutional role of the Queen can be a little confusing. Yet if they spent 5 minutes reading a booklet like "The Westminster System 101" or "Constitutional Monarchy for Dummies" they'd realise that the Prime Minster, Mr. Blair directs British policy when he "advises" the Queen. It's not that difficult. This stuff can and is taught to primary school kids.

So who else is on their list of "severest enemies of Islam"? Ronald McDonald? Colonel Sanders?
The Queen's "Crusader Corgis"?

But seriously, it's very disappointing when so much hate & resentment appears to be based (or is at least marketed) on fundamental misapprehensions. For example al-Qaeda viewed the US forces intervention in Bosnia as prima facie meaning that - the US wanted to crush Muslims. Similarly the Australian intervention in East Timor was seen as another example of Western oppression of Muslims. Once again conveniently ignoring the rescue of the East Timorese being slaughtered by the Indonesian backed militia. Now no doubt in both cases there were strategic interests for the United States and Australia as with all deployments of armed forces but that doesn't mean they were out to oppress Muslims.

Now I'm not so sure that the al-Qaeda leadership actually believe their own propaganda (then again anything is possible)* , but it's really quite shocking that they can gain converts with this dodgy reasoning and interpretation of events. But I guess it's also quite shocking to think that voters in America were suckered into the strategic disaster of an invasion of Iraq, by Bush's conflation of 9/11 with Sadaam's dictatorship.

*According to the al-Qaeda manifesto, one of the great sins that Western countries engage in is usury i.e. the lending of money for interest. WTF??? Haven't they heard of the concept of the time value of money or the credit multiplier theory?

Iraq, Terrorism & Excess Sodium

Seems like every second article one reads is either about terrorism, and or the war in Iraq. So in the finest traditions of "me-tooism" I'll just kick in my two cents worth.

I was reading an editorial in the Times recently. I found it particularly insightful (yes I know this is a rare phenomenon). Finally somebody had stated the bloody obvious. That is, that terrorist organisations on the whole will always be able to strike soft targets in big cities like London despite military interventions by the West in Iraq.

This is the case because the operations in Iraq do not damage/disrupt in a material way the ability of violent radicals to engage in terrorist activity. This should be obvious in so much as it doesn't take millions of dollars, or a mass army to construct home-made bombs or improvised explosive devices. So all the effort and cost spent in invading & occupying Iraq doesn't in the end stop your local radical from going to the hardware & fertilizer shop and preparing his own local Jihad. Indeed it would seem the most important element in this dangerous mix is the human one, the existence of individuals filled with enough anger, hatred and delusion that they would be prepared to kill themselves and others.

Not only has the campaign in Iraq failed to make the West safer it appears to have boosted the terrorist effort. A recent report from Chatham House (Gregory & Wilkinson July 2005) states
"There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism. It gave a boost to the Al-Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al-Qaeda linked terrorists, and deflected resouces and assistancethat could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government and to bring Bin Laden to Justice."

To say that the Iraq campaign was a mistake for the coalition is to acknowledge these realities no more or less. It is not as politicians such as messrs Bush, Blair and Howard would have us believe a declaration of surrender or appeasement. It simply means that the effort against the terrorist threat needs to be directed in more productive as opposed to counter-productive ways. Like a good prize fighter the coalition needs to pick its shots instead of swinging wildly and leaving itself vulnerable to a counter attack.

Now about Sodium ... In today's health conscious society, the obsession is with fat. So there are all manner of reduced fat items in supermarkets, low fat drinks and even fast food chains market low or reduced fat products. But there is something missing here, and it is low sodium products. High sodium diets are linked to such conditions as high blood pressure (increases chance of stroke) and stomach cancer, yet this danger barely registers on the radar compared to the fat obsession. Heck at least with a high fat diet you can at least burn it off by exercising more, but what are you going to do about excess sodium intake?

This whole sodium issue is vexing, if like me you are a heavy consumer of convenience products i.e. packaged, prepared, processed meals which are universally high in sodium. Show me true low sodium ham, fish fingers, processed pasta and noodle soup and I'll show you the promised land.

Of Cat Piss Shampoo and Other Annoyances

I've been sleeping odd hours of late which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing but what I do find particularly annoying is feeling tired even after sleeping for a while. It's like the normal restorative process of sleep has suddenly been transformed into an energy draining exercise. That's just not normal.

I opened up this new bottle of shampoo. It smells like cat's urine. Seriously it does. Supposedly it contains sugar cane, apricot extract and citric acid amongst other ingredients. I'm suprised nobody at the laboratory didn't happen to notice the pungent aroma. Maybe they're all cat people and the scent has just become so normal to them.

Dear oh dear I've just ended two paragraph sentences with the word normal in them. Surely this is not normal.

Federer's Feet of Clay

To those of you familiar with tennis please excuse the pun. I just watched a tape of the Roger Federer v Rafael Nadal semi-final at the French Open. This was the match that everybody had been anticipating. The world's undisputed #1 versus the 19 year old clay wunderkind.

The result was a rare defeat for Federer who had been 46-2 so far this year. Nadal was just too consistent, hitting the lines with machine like precision, while Federer hit 62 unforced errors to just 32 for the Spaniard.

I'm disappointed. Perhaps one expects too much sometimes of Federer. He possesses such a sublime, rarefied talent. Watching him play tennis must be like having heard Mozart play the piano, his talent and skill sometimes seems beyond that of a mere mortal. But alas he too has been stopped on the slow red clay of Roland Garros like other great tennis virtuosos before him such as Sampras and McEnroe. The game on clay is so different. The power of the serve is dampened and many groundstrokes that would have been winning shots on another surface are readily returnable .

Credit must be given to Nadal. He combines not only the consistency that is traditionally rewarded at Roland Garros, but also a shot making talent that sees winners flow from his racket almost as easily as Federer's. With the weight of great expectations already on his young shoulders he took his opportunities and converted them without succumbing to nerves or the pressure of the occasion.

The Politics of Being Hit In The Groin

I was walking through a shopping arcade this afternoon minding my own business. A woman was walking along holding the hand of what looked like her 6 year old daughter. As I walked past to the right of them I felt something smack me in the groin. The girl had just swung her arm out as far she could and whack! I reflexively doubled-over though fortunately it wasn't painful. My immediate reaction was of just complete, utter and total disbelief. I mean what the f--ck just happened???

I straightened up and turned to see the mother and child just walking along oblivious to the whole incident. I probably should have ran after them and scolded them off (yeah and then get accused of harassment), in particular the mother. But I had to get a phone and it was nearly closing time at the shops, so I just went on about my business.

Now I feel a sense of why people vote conservative. I mean yes I suscribe to liberal values and all but when you see things like undisciplined children out of control it makes you angry. I'm tired of old conservative platitudes like 'back to basics', or 'family values', but if it helps discipline the little savages then it's not all bad.

Just the other day I read that in Britain there is this phenomenon of "Happy Slapping". Basically children and teenagers go around slapping adults on the back but in some cases they just attack adults and take videos and photos of these attacks to share with their firends. Yes this all sounds a bit like an urban myth, but people especially the fringe elements of progressive child-rearing need to understand an important point. CHILDREN ARE NOT INNOCENT.

It's shocking but beyond those angelic faces lie crude and primative beasts capable of all manner of deceit and manipulation. I became aware of this ironically enough when I was a child which is not to say I was cunning or manipulative, but in so much as I realised that some children could be. You know the type of kids who harass other children, but only when the teacher isn't watching etc. These are probably the children who grow up to become corporate psychopaths and politicians skilled in the black arts of duplicity, spin, shifting the blame and bastardisation.

This Is A Day That Will Be Long Remembered

In the immortal words of Lord Vader (SW EP IV: A New Hope) "This is a day that will be long remembered", for it has seen the release of Episode III, the final instalment in the Star Wars saga. I elected not to attend one of those 12:01 am screenings for the die-hards and settled for the more leisurely 3:30 pm session, which ended up pretty full for a weekday matinee. But I still got a good seat in the center back row.

I'm still sort of digesting the film so haven't really drawn any definite conclusions other than it is not as some have said the greatest of the six movies; Empire still sets the standard in that regard. It most resembles Attack of the Clones mostly in terms of sets and a certain feeling of sensory overload. There are just so many battles, chases, explosions, fire, etc that you feel like you are not watching a story so much as a series of CGI scripts. The highlights are as ever the light saber duels, and there are more of them than in the other Star Wars films.

The pacing of the film suffered from a relatively slow first half, which then accelerated a little too quickly in the second half. Fortunately there was a reduction in some of the appalling dialogue reminiscent of EPI & EPII, but there was still some particularly in the Anakin-Padme storyline.

After I got out of the cinemas it was raining and relatively cold. As if in some strange way commemorating this momentous day, there had been a hail/frost storm of such magnitude that the ground along the river bank & particularly in my suburb was covered in so much ice it looked like snow and the carpark in the local shopping centre was flooded too. I think this is probably a fairly rare event for a sub-tropical city. Walking back home I saw dense fog leading up the street which looked eerily like the foggy dark street in the "Exorcist". As I trod on the ice I was surrounded by the strong scent of eucalyptus from the leaves that had been scattered on the road by the hail.

"Downfall" Film Review

I saw the controversial movie "Downfall" yesterday. It is a painstaking depiction of the last chaotic days inside Hitler's bunker as the Nazi state collapsed in April-May 1945. The film impresses with its commitment to detail and realism, having been based on a book by the German historian Joachim Fest and the recollections of Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge (played by Alexandra Maria Lara). The filmakers' efforts in this regard are seen in the fine attention to detail (down to the Nazi ashtrays even) and the nuanced characterisations of the protagonists.

Bruno Lanz's portrayal of Hitler is brilliantly crafted as he displays the different aspects of his character seemlessly. As to be expected there are the violent outbursts and rants of a man filled with hate, and losing his grip on reality, defiantly rejecting the bad news he receives from his Generals. There is however and more controversially the genial Hitler, who shows affection for his dog, and is nice to his secretary & cook. This depiction has been criticised for supposedly lending some degree of sympathy to a man responsible for so many atrocities. This criticism is I think unwarranted, firstly it probably is accurate, people even at the extremes are not perfectly evil or perfectly good 24 hrs a day, and secondly you really don't feel any sympathy or sense of greater identification for Hitler.

The characters in Hitler's inner circle are also fleshed out well. We see a range of personalities including the chillingly fanatical Nazis Dr Goebbels & his wife, the dapper architect Albert Speer, and assorted Generals, and aides. There are some who maintain their belief in Hitler even as all crumbles around them, others who start looking for a way out, and some who continue doggedly fighting a losing battle.

The film is long at 156 minutes, and even though I knew from history what was going to happen (well obviously in terms of the result but also some of the fates of the individuals) it still managed to keep my attention. The first rate performances, excellent production values and cinematography, combined made it well worth watching.

Scrupulousity

Yesterday I checked my mail box at the post office. For the umpteenth time I got the previous person's mail. I've chucked that mail back so many times marked "NOT AT THIS ADDRESS!" but the stupid jerk's bank & credit card statements keep getting sent.

Afterwards I went to the newsagent and bought two newspapers and a magazine (some dog magazine with a Great Dane feature in case anybody is curious), and yeah I shelled out $2 extra for the Star Wars pin that is available if you buy a certain newspaper. I can't believe I'm getting suckered into buying a newspaper that I don't even read (it's a Murdoch/Newscorp paper).

Anyway to the point of this whole post. I took the stuff to the counter, fiddled for the right amount, and the girl says $11.45, which was a little more than I expected but I forgot about the $2 pin. So I handed over a $20 note & a 50 cent coin. In a second afterwards I did a quick mental calculation and determined that the total should have been $12.45. So she ended up giving me too much change. For some reason I was annoyed (probably because of the mail) and was thinking "Last week I had to remind you guys to charge me $9.70 instead of $5.70 for the papers and now I have to do your job for you again. Fuck it I 'm just going to pocket the difference."

But no of course, a short while later I kept thinking, I shouldn't have kept the extra $1, but I was carrying a lot of crap & a roast dinner so it was impractical to go back. So today when I went to buy the papers I paid exact change and gave the girl ( a different one) an extra $1 explaining that I'd been given too much change the previous day. You should have seen the look she gave me. It seemed to say something like "WTF??? Are you nuts???"

An Evening With Diana Krall

About a month ago (yes I'm slow) I attended a Diana Krall concert. It was a pretty full house, perhaps 88-90% full. My silver reserve seat was reasonably positioned facing the stage and a bit more than the length of a basketball court in distance from the stage. It was better than the crappy gold seats that were available.

My overall impression was mixed. She sounded every bit as good as advertised, a wonderful vocal talent & pianist, with a lot of range and good improvisation. I was disappointed I guess in that her performance was relatively short. There was a support act, Mark Scholtes, that went for perhaps 30-35 minutes (guessing as I didn't have a watch) and then there was another 30 min wait for Ms. Krall and her trio which had the natives restless. They got stuck in with gusto performing a few brassy upbeat numbers, and then some of Diana's own recent compositions & some from husband Elvis Costello. In between there were a few pauses as she spoke to the audience (she has an alluring slow, soft, husky voice) recalling a few anecdotes, a joke about Canadian Geese, green bananas etc. After what seemed to be a little over an hour, she said something along the lines of it's been great and I was thinking "What? You're finished already???" She played the last piece. Then there was the obligatory standing O and they left the stage. Then of course the obligatory encore and she returned sans the trio (who were pretty good) to perform one more song.

Perhaps it was just as well it ended rather soon. To be honest I was getting a bit sleepy during some of the numbers, particularly the blues pieces with extended double base sections . Yeah I know, sacrilege! I am a jazz philistine! But on the way out I overheard some guy saying to a friend "gee I was getting a bit sleepy" and his friend goes "yeah that type of music tends to make you a little too relaxed". So I guess I wasn't alone.

Danger@The Street Crossing & Pavlovian Conditioning

The other day I was waiting for the traffic/pedestrian lights before crossing the road. Upon hearing the sound of the pedestrian meter I was about to cross, until I realised it was still red. This has occurred on frequent occasions owing to the association between the pedestrian meter sound & safe passage to walk (because the the sound is emitted when it's green lights for pedestrians). It's analagous to the experiment with Pavlov's dog, he rang a bell whenever it was feeding time & so the dog salivated in anticipation as soon as the bell was rung. Whenever the pedestrian meter sounds I begin to step forward, which can be somewhat hazardous, as often the sound is coming from another meter in close proximity rather than on the actual crossing in front.

Eva Green's Freckles: A Film Review

Yesterday I saw Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" starring messrs Bloom, Irons, Neeson & Eva Green. This film is basically of the historical-action flick genre as popularised by "Gladiator" & "Troy". It boasts copious amounts of melee violence, elaborate sets (filmed on location in Spain & Morrocco) & production values with dramatic visuals of massed horsemen and armies. Oh and close ups of the lovely Eva Green.

The film is set during the 12th century Crusades and depicts a mixture of factual/fictional characters & events; a Christian King (Edward Norton) of Jerusalem who practices tolerance & tries to keep the peace between Christians & Muslims, a blacksmith/knight (Orlando Bloom) who plays the upstanding (& unbelievably self-denying) hero, and a bunch of evil scheming religious fanatics who want to start a holy war (hey it was the Crusades right?). Oh yeah and there's the obligatory love interest, Eva Green as the King's sister.

The plot is fairly predictable, and basically there's a lot of violence although the film does try to communicate the message - tolerance: good, fanatacism: bad. Hence Mademoiselle Green's comment:"It's not like a stupid Hollywood movie". Overall I enjoyed "Kingdom of Heaven" for what it is, a competent, visually impressive, historo- action flick, and umm yeah ... Eva Green's freckles.

The Pity of ANZAC Day

Yeah I know ANZAC Day is on April 25th, but I'm a little tardy here. For any overseas readers - ANZAC stands for Australian & New Zealand Army Corps & ANZAC Day is a national day of remembrance/holiday commemorating the efforts and sacrifices of the armed services. In particular the ANZAC myth or legend focuses on the hardships, heroism & efforts of the ANZAC soliders or ANZACs during the Dardanelles Campaign of the First World War, fought on the beaches and hills of Gallipoli, Turkey. Every year thousands of Australians & New Zealanders flock to the shores of Gallipoli to commemorate this day. There are marches of veterans of other conflicts (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf Wars) in cities across Australia.

It's good that people remember these sacrifices made during past conflicts. What is bad is that beyond the flag waving, & solemnity, there is virtually no thought, consideration, or reflection as to why these sacrifices were needed in the first place. The original ANZACs at Gallipoli were tough & courageous yes, but why were they invading another sovereign country? Was it actually about freedom, democracy, protecting Australia & NZ or rather allegiance to the British Empire & its geopolitical imperatives vis a vis the central powers, the European Balance of Power & the prevention of German hegemony? Who knows? Moreover it seems, who even cares? There's a scene in Peter Weir's movie, 'Gallipoli' where the ANZACs are asking themselves why they are over there. One of them says something along the lines of "Gee I dunno, some guy shot some Archduke or something."

I remember reading about an old WWII veteran and his granddaughter who attended an ANZAC Day march together back in 2003. The old vet was of the opinion that Australia shouldn't be involved in the war in Iraq on the grounds that it was outside Australia's sphere of interest, we had no beef with Iraq, and it might make matters worse - fair enough, some geopolitical & ethical considerations there whether you agree or disagree. However his granddaughter, though admitting to not understanding the issues supported the decision to send troops based on faith in the Prime Minister. This is the pity of ANZAC Day. All that time waving little flags, not enough time to think issues through & to become informed, but just enough conditioning & blind faith so that whenever the brazen trumpet sounds, there's an almost pavlovian response along the tired lines of "It's our patriotic duty. We've got to fight like the ANZACs did. They did their duty & so must we." If we really do value the sacrifices of the ANZACs don't we owe it to them & ourselves to become better informed about issues surrounding conflicts? Shouldn't we try to learn from the past. Shouldn't we know why we employ force and for what purposes, objectives, and prospects?

There is also another disturbing aspect to ANZAC day of late. In recent years the 'dumbing down' & commercialisation of ANZAC Day has become particularly pronounced. The younger generation have taken to it with a collective gusto. Visiting ANZAC Cove at Gallipoli has become the new must-do pilgrimage almost as obligatory as the extended backpacking holiday to the UK. There were proposals to fly over the singer John Farnham to give a special 'ANZAC Concert', then there is the annual 'ANZAC Day Australian Rules Football game', the other day I saw ANZAC commemorative coins at the Post Office. ANZAC Day is good business ...

Indecision

I was shopping at Kmart last week for amongst other things tea towels. Thereupon I was met with the frequently recurring problem of indecision. I must have spent at least 8 minutes trying to decide which tea towels to purchase. They came in different sizes, colours, patterns, and materials. Should I get the 40 x 50, 45 x 50, 50 x 70, check pattern, dark green, maroon, lightweight, thick, hand wash, or machine wash etc?

The Girl On The Train

I was on a train back to civilization after the previous unfortunate incident mentioned in my last post, when I noticed a young woman sorting/fiddling with/playing with/straightening (whatever - the appropriate verb escapes me) her hair which was an uncommon shade of dark auburn (can auburn be dark?). She was rather attractive, and it reminded me of the scene in that awful movie 'Indecent Proposal' (1993) where Robert Redford's character describes his ideal love as being some girl he saw on a train 30 yrs ago. In a similar vein there is apparently a best-selling novel in Japan (purportedly based on a true story) called 'Train Man'. It tells the story of this guy who saves a girl from a bunch of thugs on a train, falls in love with the damsel in distress, but loses or forgets her phone number, and spends years via the internet (where else?) trying to track her down.

Is it just me or has anyone noticed there's a real trend of putting "Girl" in titles of books, movies and albums? There's the film "Girl With a Pearl Earring", Diana Krall's album "The Girl In The Other Room", and and ... well I'm sure there's more that I just can't recall.

A Day I'd Wished I'd Stayed Indoors

Despite waking up at 5am on 1 1/2 hrs sleep and taking 3 hrs to travel to a place at the end of the train line I was in a suprisingly good mood. I walked out of the station to find a pleasant locale with a little marina and clear skies.

I was supposed to go to a meeting for 10 am in a small industrial complex that according to the map was no more than 200-300 m walk. Somehow I got lost, possibly because of my crappy 'net printed map, sleep deprivation or a combination of both. Then I began walking down this long road lined with a shopping centre car park, to the right, a few small shops to the left, but then stretching on into the distance with nothing but condiminums and seeminly no end in sight. I started to the get the feeling that I was heading down the wrong street ...

The footpath terminated on the left so I crossed the median strip to the right side of the road, stooping below some low hanging foliage. As I emerged I noticed at first a brown substance, and then a liquid-paper white streak on the right sleeve my black suit jacket. Presumably an inconsiderate avian life-form had just defecated on me. I was not amused ...

Oh and later that day I went to McDonald's. I picked the queue on the right. The guy at the till was taking a while to take down the lady's order. Then while doing so he had to go and take out an apple pie to somebody sitting down. After returning he was still taking a while with that lady's order. Meanwhile on the queue to the left, three people had been served.

McDonald's Deli Choices

I had a sandwich roll from the new McDonald's 'Deli Choices' menu on Thursday. It was an italian something (strange that I can't remember since I usually remember everything). Basically an 8 inch roll stuffed with bacon, onion, lettuce, tomato, cheese, and mayo. It wasn't bad. In fact it fills a gap between the Subway 6 inch and 12 inch subs, and at $4.95 is probably better value. It does however retain that unique McDonald's chemical taste/aftertaste which may not please all palates, but I like that. Meanwhile Subway has already launched a counter campaign on TV lampooning an unnamed fast food restaurant that has attempted to go down the same healthier sub sandwich line.

Chinese Restaurants & Seating Positions

I had dinner at a Chinese restaurant the other night and it occurred to me that whenever I do so I always end up with the crap seat. This is the seat that the waiter always leans over to bring and serve dishes. Accordingly I end up with an arm or elbow in the face several times during the course of the meal. It always happens to moi! Porquoi? Porquoi?

This reminds me of another unfortunate phenomenon. I go to McDonald's and am faced with three queues of roughly equal length, so I just pick one at random. More often than not this turns out to be the slowest queue of all whether as a result of inexperienced crew or customers who take longer than they should.

Returning to Chinese restaurants ... After you have a meal at any Chinese restaurant there's this cooking smell which sticks to your clothing. This doesn't happen in other restaurants. What the heck is it? Too much msg?

James Bond Killed Off In $42 million Contract Hit

It appears that the reason Pierce Brosnan is not starring in the next James Bond movie, is because the producers thought he demanded too much money. Too much money being $42 million. Brosnan was said to have been "surprised, disappointed, and saddened" by the decision, adding that he felt the fee was fair as it represented "an honest fee in terms of how much blood, sweat and tears I put into the role".

Hmmm ... perhaps Mr. Remington Steele needs a reality check. Talk about blood, sweat and tears, there's no way a real MI6 agent would sniff $42 million even if he/she sold nuclear secrets. Furthermore I think Pierce may have an inflated opinion of his marketability. Much as I like him as Bond, he simply does not occupy a position in the higher echelon of movie stars like say a Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt or Keanu Reeves, guys who can carry a big budget film, and $42m is a little on the high side even for them. At the end of the day audiences will pay money because of the Bond franchise and not because of Brosnan as good as he is as 007.

Robots: The End of The State & The End of Democracy

I read an article on the development of robots in the US Military by Tim Weiner in the NY Times yesterday. These robots at present consist of not much more than a gun, camera , sensor mounted to a motor on a track, and are capable of performing simple tasks like hauling ammunition & searching rooms. The Pentagon, however, envisages a far greater role for them in the not too distant future. With advances in technology and the high costs* (monetary, & political) of deploying soldiers in harm's way, the future seems to point to combat robots, capable of performing a variety of tasks including autonomous killing, that are currently performed by human infantry.

Gordon Johnson of Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon, describes the advantages of robot soldiers, "They don't get hungry. They're not afraid. They don't forget their orders. They don't care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes."

The advent of the robotic soldier raises a number of issues regarding the effects of artificial intelligence. Safety & control is an obvious concern as envisaged in Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of robotics: Do Not Hurt humans; obey humans unless that violates Rule 1; defend yourself unless that violates Rules 1 & 2. These types of issues are concerned with the management of the technology itself however there may be broader conseqeunces for society.

The potential ramifications of a robotic military/security apparatus may also challenge currently existing political structures and the distribution of power in society between the state, corporations, and citizens. The power and authority of the modern state has its foundation in the state's monopoly of legitimate means of force or violence. At the end of the day if you don't pay your parking fines or state taxes, the boys in blue (or black) will knock on your door and you will end up in jail (after a fair trial of course).

Throughout history, the state's (and any political entity's) source of violence has been human. This necessitated a degree of legitimacy in order to demand the loyalty of the security forces. Even despotic regimes had to at least look after their own band of henchmen & cronies in order to have that pool of potential violence available. Furthermore, at the end of the day it was always a game of numbers. Kings, tyrants, and oligarchies eventually gave way to more powerful political entities that could mobilise larger bases of support i.e. the modern state which claimed the allegiance of not just a single class of people, but all citizens.

Now try to imagine a world where people power, or the weight of numbers is no longer necessary. That is exactly what a robotic security force can provide. It would be a dictator's dream. No more doubts about the loyalty of one's henchmen, no doubt that the robotic troops would mercilessly fire on the protesting citizens when given the order. No need to pander to any support groups for legitimacy. In short a recipe for total power without qualification.

Let's imagine a variation on this scenario. Instead of say a dictator controlling a robotic army, perhaps it may be a more novel actor, the corporation. In the same way that the military could be robotic, the police force could also similarly be automated, but instead of human officers swearing an oath to serve and protect we could have robocops (yeah like the movie) instead. But who would control them? The government? No, it would be the corporation that developed them. But of course there would be laws governing them right? Ummm yeah ... but what good would the laws be if they couldn't be enforced except by robots built by the corporation. See where this is all heading? I suppose it could be worse, we could head down an even starker future towards the plot of another bad movie - Terminator, where instead of crooked military-industrial corporations taking over, the robots do it themselves.

"You Can Be A Doctor, A Lawyer, Or a Piece of Shit"

The above quote comes from the movie "Thank God He Met Lizzie" where Cate Blanchett's character explains how she decided on a medical career with that piece of advice from her father. In today's world law and medicine are commonly thought of as highly prestigious & well paying professions. This no doubt explains the enormous student demand for law and medicine at university. I mean it's not like people are queing up for these courses because they like performing bowel surgery or reading 32 volumes of stamp duties law.

What it all boils down to is the desire to reap status & money (which in turn enhances status) is and probably always has been paramount. In effect we are a society of STATUS WHORES. Our entire identities as people have been reduced to our place in the social hierarchy which today is primarily determined by our occcupation. Whenever we meet people for the first time we or they immediately ask "What do you do?" If you say you're an investment banker, a diplomat, corporate lawyer, or plastic surgeon you will get far more kudos than if you say you work in a bookshop, pick fruit, or are a school teacher.

Why is it so? Well it's meritocracy stupid! But who defines merit? Does a $10,000 a day supermodel or a celebrity hairdresser perform a more socially meritorious function than a school teacher? What of toilet cleaners? They perform what I'm sure everybody would agree is a vital task (next time you complain about the state of public restrooms think about it) but does anybody appreciate their contribution? Hardly, they have all the prestige of fresh monkey shit.

At the end of the day we are asking the wrong question, making the wrong judgement. We are not our jobs nor our bank balances ...

Mr. Sinatra You're Wrong ...

I'm a big fan of old blue eyes, the chairman of the board, but I'm afraid I just have to disagree with the sentiment expressed in one of his most popular songs "You're Nobody Till Somebody Loves You". It's just so representative of the unhealthy essentialism that characterises popular notions of romantic love.

What is romantic love? The meaning of life ... oh give me a fricking break!

It is I'm sad to say (well no there's nothing to be sad about, it is what it is), just chemistry. No, not chemistry as in "We have great chemisty". It's real chemistry ... you know, that subject that used to make your brain hurt at school (or university if you were a masochist). Essentially all those lofty feelings of passion, euphoria, sleeplessness, attraction, attachment, warmth, blah blah blah are the result of biochemical highs associated with the neurotransmitters phenylethylamine (PEA), dopamine, and norepinephrine. The effect of these chemicals have been likened to the addictive properties of cocaine ...

Accordingly the idealisation of the romantic ideal seems to rest on tenous foundations i.e. the fickleness of chemical mood swings. Millions of people have been suckered into this romantic ideal and are caught in a cycle of romantic addiction, seeking forever to maintain or recapture romantic highs which inevitably dissipate in every relationship as the novelty wears off and the chemical resistance kicks in.

In light of this it would perhaps be better to take the advice of one Alisha, "If you're nobody untill somebody loves you, love yourself, it guarantees your ability to be somebody."

St Valentine-Hallmark's Day

Another Valentine's ... I mean Hallmark's Day passes uneventfully. Well not really, I mean hey this day marks the inaugural post of "Fascist Fantasies"(henceforth to be referred to as FF), but I'm sure you all knew what I meant. Actually you probably didn't and you're probably making some incorrect inferences. Let me pre-empt you all. In this world or should I say society (it may be different in some other places like outer Mongolia) it is pre-supposed that a person cannot be happy, fulfilled, content or just plain normal without the validation, esteem, status, (and of course loads of free sex) associated with being in: love, a relationship, marriage, de facto, co-habitation, just fucking, whatever ... Thus an uneventful Valentine-Hallmark's day is associated with the absence of a validating relationship and therefore it is to be presumed that those outside of this validation must be feeling sad, lonely and pathetic. BUZZ! WRONG ANSWER!

I am alone on Valentine's Day and I feel fine ...