This article was first published at The National Times

As our lives become increasingly saturated with technology, digital media and the internet, it’s no secret that our younger generations are spending less time in the great outdoors. Whether it’s hours spent in front of the TV, surfing the internet, playing on a games console or a combination of these, kids today seem far less inclined to enjoy the natural world than in previous generations.

While older generations have long bemoaned a decline in the time spent outside, there has been growing speculation that such a shift might also have negative health implications for those involved. According to Dr William Bird, health adviser to Natural England, a lack of exposure to nature has the potential to adversely affect the mental health of society’s youngest members.

But while Generations Y and Z are more likely to spend time playing video games than recreating the adventures of Enid Blyton’s ‘Famous Five’, they are not without inspiration when it comes to enjoying what nature has to offer.

Bear Grylls is a former member of the British Special Services and has carved a place for himself in the popular consciousness through his TV show, Man vs. Wild. In the show, Grylls encounters various types of hostile terrain and places himself in stressful situations in order to demonstrate survival techniques.

The show has attracted some notoriety due to Grylls’ willingness to subject himself to otherwise-repulsive scenarios – eating unappetising critters for example – but it’s his passion for the outdoors and an unbridled sense of adventure that has the potential to inspire younger viewers to get off the couch and head outside.

As well as his Man vs. Wild adventures, Grylls has had a leading role in a number of truly impressive expeditions. In 2003 he led the first team to cross the North Atlantic Ocean in an ‘open’ rigid inflatable boat, in 2000 he led the first team to circumnavigate the UK by jet ski and in 1998, at the age of 23, he became the youngest Briton (at the time) to reach the summit of Mt. Everest.

But if Bear Grylls has the potential to motivate otherwise-sedentary TV viewers into action, then the efforts of Ed Stafford should be enough to spark an adventuring revolution among our younger generations.

Earlier this month the former British Army captain became the first person to hike the length of the Amazon River. The epic trek took Stafford 859 days to complete in which time he faced hostility from local indigenous communities, the constant danger of not finding enough food and unwanted attention from all manner of creepy crawlies.

Stafford’s journey began in April 2008 when he reached the summit of the Nevado Mismi, a peak in the Peruvian Andes which is widely credited as the source of the Amazon River. At that point Stafford had the company of friend Luke Collyer but after the two had a falling out and the latter left the expedition, Stafford continued on alone.

Five months into the trek, Stafford was joined by Gadiel ‘Cho’ Sanchez Rivera, a local Peruvian who planned to accompany Stafford for five days. When Stafford reached the mouth of the Amazon two years later, Cho was still by his side.

While it’s pretty hard not to be inspired by Stafford’s efforts, not everyone is going to find the idea of a two-and-a-half year hike all that appealing. In fact, only a small percentage of the population would even consider embarking on such an expedition.

According to to Dr Brad Wright, a lecturer in the School of Psychological Science at La Trobe University, it is a sense of ‘hardiness’ that sets the likes of Stafford and Grylls apart from the majority of the population.

‘Hardiness is defined by higher levels of commitment, challenge and control’, he said.  ‘Those with a drive to push themselves to achieve often gain immense satisfaction from achieving their ambitions.’

Sure, the efforts Bear Grylls and Ed Stafford might be beyond the reach of most people, but that’s not to say they shouldn’t be cause for inspiration. And, at a time when our younger generations are spending less time outside than ever before and the average Australian adult spends 90 per cent of their time indoors, there are certainly worse people we could be looking up to.

I was always taught that it’s important to respect other people’s cultures and ways of life, even if we don’t fully understand them. That great biblical phrase says it all – ‘don’t judge others lest you be judged yourself’. And with the percentage of foreign-born Australian residents rising steadily, there has never been a more important time to be respectful and understanding of foreign cultures. But it got me thinking – where do we draw the line?

In parts of the Eastern world, it is normal to clean one’s backside with the left hand and a splash of water as opposed to the toilet-paper method favoured by citizens of ‘the west’. While the idea of cleaning one’s backside with an uncovered hand isn’t all that enticing, I certainly don’t feel compelled to label the method’s users as filthy or uncivilised. In fact, the concept is cause for great curiosity – has this method been proven to be any less hygienic than using toilet paper? How do proponents of the hand-and-water method view us toilet paper users?

In much the same way, seeing footage of a Tibetan sky burial doesn’t invoke feelings of outrage or disgust, merely curiosity. I’ll admit, the idea of being torn apart by vultures upon death does seem quite alien, but it also makes quite a bit of sense.  Burying bodies in Tibet is a virtual impossibility given the lack of soft soil in the upper Himalayas. Furthermore, Buddhist teachings rather convincingly suggest that the body becomes an ‘empty vessel’ from the moment of death – the time at which the soul leaves the body. By feeding the unneeded body to waiting vultures the energy that was on loan to the individual while living is returned to nature in the form of sustenance for the Gyps Fulvus.

But before I suffocate in a cloud of my own self-righteous congratulation, let’s tackle some cases where cultural understanding might not come as easily.

One of the criticisms that is most commonly levelled at Islamic society is that its religious teachings call for the systematic oppression of women. Verse 34 of Surah An-Nisa, the fourth chapter of the Qur’an, reads ‘Men have superiority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.’

To a lot of people in ‘the west’ this view would seem to clash quite significantly with the notion of gender equality and the advances made by the women’s rights movements of the past century. The office of French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently said that the face-covering niqab is an ‘attack on women’s dignity, and it is not acceptable to French society.’ Consequently, Mr Sarkozy is pushing to ban French women from wearing the niqab in public, much to the disgust of some commentators.

While it’s not completely unreasonable to argue that Islam does promote the systematic oppression of women, there is also a reasonable counter-argument to consider.

In August of 2008, Andrew Denton’s sublime interview programme, Enough Rope, featured the brilliant Waleed Aly and his wife Susan Carland. Ms. Carland converted to Islam as an adult and on the program she described the frustration of being a Western woman wearing the hijab.

‘Imagine if pretty much every day someone said to you “So Andrew, you know a lot people find that shirt oppressive…Does your wife make you dress like that?”’

As an obviously-intelligent and well-spoken woman, isn’t Ms. Carland able to decide what items of clothing she wears? Isn’t it also possible that she might even enjoy wearing the hijab? Are we really in a position to start telling Muslim women that we know better than them?

But even if we respect a Muslim woman’s right to wear the hijab, there must surely be a point at which our respect for foreign culture must stop. Would we be as willing to respect the process known as ‘Female Genital Cutting’ (FGC), for example?

FGC is common in parts of Africa and in some parts of the Middle East and, according to the World Health Organisastion (WHO), ‘comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.’

Sure, I can understand that FGC is an ancient tradition that, according to its adherents, ensures a young girl will be wholly pure at the time of marriage and her subsequent defloration. However, I can also understand that it is an excruciatingly painful ‘procedure’ that usually happens without the use of anaesthetic and which renders the unwilling participant unable to urinate,walk, stand or even sit without extreme pain.

Is it even possible to construct an argument which holds FGC as a cultural practice worthy of respect or even understanding? And if FGC is indeed a blatant example of humans rights abuse, as WHO argues it is, where do we draw the line? At what point do we have the right to say ‘I do not respect your way of life’?

You see, there’s nothing black and white when it comes to cultural relativism. How are we supposed to measure the objective ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of a various cultures? What makes the practices of one culture ‘right’ and the practices of another, ‘wrong’?

Having said that, there are some cases in which finding cultural truth might not be that difficult.

According to seismologists, a number of the earth’s tectonic plates happen to meet under the country we now know as Iran. This phenomenon has resulted in a number of deadly earthquakes in recent times, not least of all the 2003 quake that killed 25,000 in the ancient city of Bam.

According to one Iranian cleric, Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediqi, Iran’s relationship with earthquakes is not due to the country’s proximity to various fault lines, rather it is the direct result of Allah’s disapproval of immodestly dressed women in Iran.

‘Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes.’

Leaving aside the extremely questionable suggestion that it is a woman’s fault if a man acts inappropriately, are we really to believe that Allah would kill thousands of people just because women decide not to cover their arms? What kind of loving God would do that?

While I respect Mr Sediqi’s right to believe that Allah kills thousands in the name of modesty, this particular culture clash might be rather simply solved – either it’s true that earthquakes are caused by immodest dress, or it’s not.

Prove to me that a causal link between a lack of clothing and the movement of tectonic plates exists Mr. Sediqi, and then I’ll try to be understanding. Until then, you will have to forgive me if I’m a little hesitant…

I’m not a huge fan of being stuck at home for two weeks due to illness. That said, my recent bout of ill health did give me time to do some important things that I usually don’t get time to. Playing Playstation, for example.

As well as completing the breathtaking Uncharted 2: Among Thieves in two solid days, I was also able to spend some time with the relatively-recently-released Heavy Rain, thanks to the generosity of a work colleague.

The game is essentially an interactive mystery/ thriller film in which the player gets to control four characters in their separate but intertwined quests to learn the identity of the Origami Killer. The game is groundbreaking for a number of reasons, not least of all due to its branching storylines.

At many points throughout the game the player has genuine control over the way in which the story will progress from that point. Want your drug-addicted FBI agent to succumb to his cravings? Sure, but the choice will have real ramifications later in the game. In a similar vein, if you manage to let one of the main characters die then the remainder of the game is played out with the rest of the dead character’s scenes omitted.

I could spend a great deal of time talking about the merits of Heavy Rain as a demonstration of progressive video game design but, in the interest of brevity I will leave such discussions to the experts.

The lovely folks at the ABC’s Good Game describe Heavy Rain as ‘a very adult game…with plenty of high definition nudity’ and they are right on both counts – the game is both unsuitable for children and replete with well rendered depictions of the naked human form.

On at least two occasions the player is able to witness the token hot chick in a state of undress – the first time as she takes a shower and the other time as she strips for some sleazebag called Paco. It’s worth pointing out that both instances of nudity are justified by context and do not feel like they are there simply to titillate male gamers. That said, I’m genuinely surprised that there hasn’t been a significant moral outcry about the adult content in this game.

You see, a video game that contains sex or nudity is kind of like an episode of Today Tonight that doesn’t feature a story about a dodgy tradesman, the latest advance in brassiere technology or grocery prices. It just doesn’t happen that often and when it does, it is cause for genuine surprise for the viewer. Think about it, how many video games have you played that contain nudity or sexual activity? Now compare that to the number of video games that you’ve played that contain graphic violence. See what I’m getting at?

One of the few games that has featured nudity in the last few years is the ‘action role-playing game’ Mass Effect. In an ‘optional romantic subplot’ the main character is able to participate in a romantic union with a humanoid alien who happens to have shiny blue skin. The sexual encounter lasts less than two minutes in a game that has an estimated play-time in excess of 30 hours and the nudity in the scene is limited to a fleeting shot of the female character’s backside and some badly obscured ‘side-boob’.

But of course we can’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. When Fox News found out that the game had an element of sexuality to it, no matter how minimal, they took the story and ran with it. In this laughable attempt at considered journalism one panellist seems to describe Mass Effect as ‘Luke Skywalker meets Debbie Does Dallas’. And then there’s the intro to the story, delivered by host Martha MacCullum;

‘It’s a new role-playing game that’s leaving nothing to the imagination…In some parts of this you will see full digital nudity…and the ability for the players to engage in graphic sex. And the person who’s playing the game gets to decide exactly what’s going to happen between the two people if you know what I mean…’

Even if this intro wasn’t a complete fabrication in order to create hysteria, I would still struggle to see the problem. It’s believed that around 90% of the most popular video games feature violence of some kind and yet the moment that nudity or – god forbid – sex finds its way into a video game, all hell breaks loose. I mean, it’s not like nudity and sex are natural components of every day life.

Take the infamous ‘Hot Coffee’ mini-game from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as a further example. In the ‘normally inaccessible’ on-screen liaison, the game’s main protagonist engages in sexual intercourse with his girlfriend, demonstrating proficiency in several different sexual positions.

Even though the ‘Hot Coffee’ mini-game was only accessible by using third-party tools to modify the game from its intended form, its discovery created a significant outcry around the world. In the US, the game’s rating was changed from ‘Mature’ to ‘Adults Only’, a rating bestowed on only 25 games in 15 years of the current classification system. In Australia, the rating for San Andreas was reassessed in light of the ‘Hot Coffee’ mod and the game was consequently ‘refused classification’. A ‘Hot Coffee’-free version of the game was eventually re-released later in the year, prompting the Office and Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) to reinstate the MA15+ rating.

Let’s be clear here. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a brutally violent video game in which the player is able to kill innocent bystanders in a multitude of gruesome ways. If mowing someone down with an AK-47 is a little bland for your liking then why not take a chainsaw to their face instead? Bored of blowing people’s heads off with that sniper rifle? Why not whip out the old katana and get chopping instead?

I’m not saying that violent video games shouldn’t be available for adult gamers, far from it, but where’s the consistency here? 15 year old Australians are allowed to buy San Andreas and murder innocents in a variety of ways and yet it is a badly rendered, fully clothed and animated sex scene that forces the game into the land of the banned.

What kind of message does this send to fifteen year old kids that play the game?

‘It’s ok to run down the street, shooting old women with an Uzi but having sex with your girlfriend, well, that’s totally unacceptable. ’

Granted, there has always been significant opposition to the Grand Theft Auto series on the grounds that the games are too violent and that they have potential to cause lasting damage to young gamers. But all of that protesting and lobbying never managed to convince the OFLC that the game should be ‘refused classification’ – no, only the power of sexual behaviour was able to convince the powers that be that San Andreas might not be suitable for 15 year olds.

And while we’re on the issue of games classification, it would be remiss of me not to mention the recent retirement of Michael Atkinson from his role as South Australian Attorney-General. As I wrote in an article for The Age late last year, Mr Atkinson had single-handedly been able to stall the discussion about an R18+ classification for video games. Under the current system, a unanimous vote from all Attorneys-General is required in order to introduce an R18+ rating for games and, due to his personal convictions, Mr Atkinson refused to support a push for the new rating.

But now, with Mr Atkinson out of the way, the R18+ issue on the table for the next Attorneys-General meeting in May, and Mr Atkinson’s replacement apparently being an R18+ supporter, Australia’s classification system might finally be brought into line with the rest of the developed world…

Without trying to sound overly patriotic, we Australians are a pretty lucky bunch. Our public education system is one of the greatest in the world, our economy is one of the strongest in the world and our national life expectancy is one of the highest in the world.

We aren’t embroiled in a decades-long turf war, we aren’t likely to get killed while voting in a federal election and our news isn’t exclusively supplied by a government-owned agency. Furthermore, HIV/AIDS affects far less than 11% of our population, we have nowhere near 70% of our number living below the poverty line and members of our gay community aren’t at a significant risk of being killed as a result of their sexuality.

Despite all of these factors, there are still those that believe that life in Australia is far from perfect.

One such detractor is a regular customer at my place of employment – an extremely friendly and opinionated gentleman who frequently regales us with his vision of a less than perfect world. In his eyes, the concepts of democracy and personal freedom are both completely misunderstood by citizens of the first world. That is, we think we are ‘free’ but in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. His argument runs something like this;

As members of a capitalist society our collective livelihood depends on our ability to cultivate personal wealth. If we aren’t making money then we will struggle to live and function as members of our society and as a result, a significant portion of our adult lives are dedicated to the accumulation of wealth.

To play down the significance of money in our society is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of our society. In this way, those who suggest that ‘money isn’t everything’ and that ‘money can’t buy you happiness’ are either completely naive or have significantly less wealth than they would like. Sure, it’s possible to be happy without owning an island in the Pacific, but how many people would be less happy if they happened to win Tattslotto?

To paraphrase my friendly interlocutor, any claims to personal freedom in our democratic society are undermined by the workings of the capitalist machine. We have no choice but to spend our lives earning money just so that we can get by in this world and, worst of all, we do so willingly.

As bleak as his line of reasoning is, my opinionated acquaintance seems to have made a fairly good point. One need only imagine living without a cent to one’s name in order to grasp the enormity of our love affair with money.

But of course this sort of argument is far from original. Groups like Socialist Alternative have been channelling the spirits of Engels and Marx for decades now, claiming to ‘lead the fight against capitalism and bring the working classes to power’. The conspicuous absence of a working-class revolution in recent times would seem to suggest that Socialist Alternative et al. still have plenty of work ahead of them.

But if we are talking about ambitious attempts to drastically alter the make-up of Western society, we need look no further than works of Jacque Fresco and the so-called Venus Project.

The Venus Project came to greatest prominence through the documentary/conspiracy theory films of Peter Joseph, his 2007 effort Zeitgeist and the 2008 sequel, Zeitgeist: Addendum. In the first film Joseph posits a rather sinister and, as some have argued, rather flimsy connection between Christianity, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the Federal Reserve System in the US. The following film sees Joseph, among other things, arguing for a complete overhaul of modern society in order to combat the great evils of the world. This overhaul goes by the name of The Venus Project, an endeavour which ‘presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture.’

Successfully integrated, The Venus Project will confront issues such as ‘unemployment, violent crime, replacement of humans by technology, over-population and a decline in the Earth’s ecosystems’.

It sounds like an ambitious undertaking, and it is. At the core of The Venus Project is the desire to replace capitalism with a so-called ‘Resource-Based Economy’. Where capitalism sees privately owned ‘goods and resources traded in markets’ in an attempt to generate profit, a resource-based economy ‘is a system in which all goods are available without the use of money’.

Under this proposed system, all of the world’s resources would be ‘held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people’, allowing a high standard of living. With the decline of big business and the ‘bottom line’, technology could be developed with the sole purpose of increasing the standard of living for people the world over. The development of Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) as a viable means of improving personal transport is one example of the advances that should be possible under a new system.

But let’s be realistic here. As comforting as it is to think that there might be an alternative to spending our lives in jobs that we hate, a socio-economic change of the magnitude forecast by The Venus Project is virtually impossible. Sure, 50 million people might have seen the first Zeitgeist film but it’s going to take a lot more than that to convince billionaire bankers to give up their fortunes in order to preserve the future of humanity.

For some utopian model like The Venus Project to take hold, it will take many lifetimes of focused campaigning and gradual change. And if that’s true, what hope is there for us, the tiny cogs in the massive capitalist machine that currently holds sway? What can we do in the meantime?

Well, we could do worse than to work in jobs that we enjoy.  At least that way our lack of freedom is partially enjoyable…

In the world of five-star hotels the serving of breakfast seems to be inextricably linked with the serving of breakfast television. Until a few weeks ago our news-tainment provider of choice was Channel Seven’s Sunrise, hosted by dynamic duo Kochie and Mel. Nowadays, at the behest of “the man”, we fill our restaurant with the sounds of Karl Stefanovic and Lisa Wilkinson of Channel Nine’s Today. According to the powers that be within our reputable establishment, Nine’s breakfast offering is “better” than Seven’s. It isn’t exactly clear what “better” means in this context but I’m willing to hazard a few guesses.

Perhaps the celebrity gossip on Today is “better” than the gossip featured on Sunrise. Perhaps the advertising spots on Today are of far greater quality than those seen on Sunrise. Or maybe it’s Today‘s ability to sensationalise recent news stories better than Sunrise that makes it the pick of the breakfast viewing.

On yesterday morning’s edition of Today the team ran a story about the recent stabbing death of 12 year old Brisbane boy Elliot Fletcher. The story began with several parents discussing the apparent increase in violence in Australian schools before cutting to host Lisa Wilkinson reading through a list of incidents that demonstrated such an increase. As if Today‘s angle on this story wasn’t clear enough already, they concluded the story by “interviewing” Norm Hart of the Queensland Association of State School Principals.

As a journalism student I have been taught that interviews should consist largely of “open” questions rather than questions which lead the interviewee to a specific answer or force a simple “yes” or “no” answer. In the case of the story in question, something like the following might have been appropriate;

“What does the recent stabbing death of Elliot Fletcher tell us about safety in our schools?”

But no. Apparently that line of questioning is a little too boring for Ms. Wilkinson who decided to go with something a little different;

“Should parents be worried as they send their kids off to school this morning?”

To Mr Hart’s credit he participated in the interview as well as could be expected given that he need not have been there at all. I mean, why would you bother inviting someone to give their expert opinion on an issue if, when concluding the interview, you are going to completely disregard everything that they’ve said thus far?

“Understandably a lot of parents (are) not feeling that’s the case today but we do thank you very much for your time this morning”.

Sure, you could probably argue that Lisa Wilkinson isn’t technically a journalist in her role as co-host of Today but if you are presenting news items and interviewing relevant authority figures related to said items, then surely some minimum standards of journalistic integrity must apply? You know, like presenting information in an rational and objective way rather than trying to sensationalise important issues.

Let’s keep things in perspective here – a 12 year old boy getting stabbed to death while at school is truly horrific and of real concern to parents and teachers alike but that doesn’t mean that kids around the country are suddenly unsafe at school. There are a lot of kids going to a lot of schools on a lot of days of the year, I hardly think a couple of isolated incidents of school yard violence are cause to keep the kids at home.

But it’s all about the kids. The mainstream media loves nothing more than a “kids are at risk” story but most of the time such stories are dependant on deliberate scaremongering in order to provoke emotional responses from concerned parents. That’s not to say that the issues at hand aren’t important, they should just be dealt with rationally and in a considered fashion.

Speaking of fashion, most people know of Miley “Hannah Montana” Cyrus but far fewer would be aware of her younger sister, Noah. Nor should they be because Noah is a little girl of 10 years old – not that you would know it from her choice of attire.

In October of last year Miley’s younger sister “made headlines” when she donned a “dominatrix-inspired” costume for Halloween celebrations and in the last couple months there have been rumours circulating of a lingerie line being released by junior Cyrus and her friend Emily Grace Reaves. Thankfully such rumours appear to be false and the clothing company in question, Ooh! La! La! Couture, seems to make tutus with tanktops rather than girls’ lingerie.

Noah Cyrus is only one example of an apparent shift toward the sexualisation of young girls and social commentators like Mia Freedman have written extensively on this issue. To a significant percentage of the community, young girls dressing and acting as if they were far older results in the corruption of childhood and the premature loss of innocence. “They are growing up too fast”, the older generations often remark, with advertising, the media and the internet often copping the blame.

Regardless of one’s own thoughts on this issue, it’s hard to deny that it is an issue that a lot of people feel very strongly about. While the solution to the problem isn’t as easy as banning the sale of lingerie for young girls, for example, it’s clear that parents have an important role to play. If you are concerned about your little girl growing up too fast then it’s probably not a good idea to let them watch Beyonce film clips at six years old.

The mainstream media has an important role to play as well. Rather than the aforementioned scaremongering that the commercial networks love to fill their “current affairs” and breakfast shows with, there should be a greater focus on programs that facilitate meaningful discussion about serious issues. The ABC’s Q & A is a perfect example of such a program and it makes for brilliant viewing.

The weekly show features a panel of expert guests who discuss topical issues as directed by the audience and moderated by one of Australia’s greatest interviewers, Tony Jones. Of course he isn’t “Australia’s best interviewer” because that mantle belongs to Tracy Grimshaw of Nine’s A Current Affair. Step aside Andrew Denton, stop tryin’ Kerry O’Brien, Ms. Grimshaw has you both covered…

Catching the train home from work at around 11pm is always an experience. If it isn’t boozed up teens sharing stories of their sexual conquests it’s drug fuelled maniacs trying to start fights with ticket inspectors. Tonight was a little less extreme, but no less fascinating.

As I boarded the 10:41pm Hurstbridge train I became aware of a younger gentleman sitting a couple of metres away from me. As we started our slow journey into the ‘burbs this gentleman started making eye contact with people as they boarded the train. After a few stations he struck up conversation with one particularly attractive young female who happened to be fiddling with her mobile phone; “How much do you pay for that per month?”

A rather unusual choice of pick-up line, I thought to myself, as I waited to see how quickly she could deflect his advances. To her credit though, she played along, answering his questions generously for a few moments before deciding it necessary to make a phone call.

After the lady had left the train, receiving a friendly smile and a wave in the process, the charismatic gentleman set about searching for another person to befriend. Turning to a female backpacker who had sat beside him he indicated to her large pack and asked “Have you got a dead body in there?”

Whether or not this woman didn’t speak English, didn’t understand the joke or just didn’t want to talk to strange men late at night on public transport, I don’t know. Either way she uttered some non-commital response before turning to face the other way.

As the backpacker left the train and Mr. Charisma began to scan the carriage again, I thought I had it figured it out – he was just some lonely dude trying to make the most of a boring train ride home by chatting up attractive girls, albeit unsuccessfully.

As we pulled out of one of the many stations between the city and home Mr. Charisma turned to a rather portly gentleman and, pointing to his dreadlocks asked; “How long did they take to grow?”

Well there goes the attractive girls idea. But then again, maybe he was just a lonely dude who felt the need for some human contact on his way home. Following discussions about the demise of the Glaswegian shipping industry and the merits of international postage insurance the topic of conversation turned to familiar territory – “Are you on pre-paid?”

That’s when it clicked. The lonely gentleman in the corner wasn’t lonely at all – he was a phone salesman looking to makes some commission in his downtime. Sure enough, when Mr. Dreadlocks asked what his inquisitor did for a job;

“I’m a door-to-door salesman, I sell mobile phone contracts for Optus. I’m not getting enough sales during the day so I thought I’d get on the trains and try to sell some phones that way.”

It made sense. I mean, why else would someone ask a complete stranger how long they had left on their phone contract, out of the blue? It also explained the sales and marketing book that he was reading while he wasn’t busy accosting tired commuters.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t really care that he was trying to sell his wares at 11:30pm to people who just wanted to get home. After all, it’s easy enough to say “no thanks, I’m not interested”. However, one of his final comments to Mr. Dreadlocks got me thinking. Namely, “you can never have enough iPhones can you?”

Now I must confess a certain desire to join the iPhone flock but the last couple days have had me questioning the merits of such desires.

In an attempt to escape the hustle and bustle of our busy lives, the lady-friend and I headed up to her family’s property in Tolmie, a town 30 kilometres north-east of Mansfield. The property is home to a converted machinery shed that is effectively a house without many of the modern conveniences – electricity, running water and mobile phone coverage, to name but a few.

Sitting down on one of the couches that adorn the shed I faced a crisis of sorts. What is there to do when there is no electricity?

When your whole life is dependant on the constant use of electricity, taking it away does funny things to you. Take this blog entry for example. It’s 3:00am, pitch dark outside and without electricity I would be relying on candles to create enough light in order to write these thoughts on a piece of paper. I take it for granted that I can sit here on my couch as late as I like and that the lights, my laptop and the internet will be at my fingertips as long as I need them.

It all sounds a little dumb – of course we need electricity to power our 21st century lifestyles – but a weekend of tank water, longdrops, citronella coils and no Facebook was enough to give me a bit of a wake-up call.

Having said that, the feeling of being completely disconnected from the outside world is an extremely liberating one. I was able to break out of my busy routine and just sit back, smell the fresh country air and appreciate the simpler things in life. Like the fact that daylight is fairly important when you don’t have electric lights all through your house. I was certainly less inclined to wake at noon than I am when I’m at home, that’s for sure.

So, what does this have to do with iPhones and the selling thereof? I’m not quite sure to be honest. Maybe it’s the idea that the iPhone – and the rampant consumption and consumerism that it represents – is somehow at odds with a simple and naturally fulfilling lifestyle. Or maybe someone just needs to invent an iPhone with solar panels on it. The best of both worlds, and all that…

Christmas is a confusing time for us non-believers. It’s hard to know whether or not to boycott the usual celebrations in protest of the continued influence of ancient religions or rejoice in the fact that the day has lost the greater proportion of its aforementioned influence.

Everyone knows the story of Christmas – some dude called Yeshua was supposedly born in Bethlehem on December 25, the son of God, a virgin mother and a father who allowed his wife to get knocked up by some mysterious entity known as the Holy Spirit. The new born was hailed as the Messiah, the individual prophesied in the Jewish Pentateuch as being responsible for reunifying the tribes of Israel and leading a peaceful world into the “Messianic Age”.

Even if we allow the generous assumption that an individual named Jesus actually existed at the time he was supposed to, it is almost certain that such an individual was not actually born on December 25. According to Luke 2:8-12 there were “shepherds living out in the fields” on the day of Jesus’ birth but, being in the Northern hemisphere, Palestine is well into winter by December 25 and well out of shepherding season. It is therefore more likely that Jesus’ birth, if it even occurred, did so somewhere between March and November. Some Christians believe that he was born on May 14 6BC, others believe he was born in September 5BC and some others believe he was born on August 21 7BC.

For those that find this argument about Jesus’ date of birth a little weak, it might be worth pointing out that such reasoning has been appropriated from an article on the accurately-titled website allaboutjesus.org.

Jesus’ birthday was not initially set aside as a day worthy of celebration and when it eventually was, it took until the 4th century AD for the powers-that-be to decide that December 25 would be the day in question. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that December 25 is just any old day, picked at random.

Much like the tradition known as Easter, Christmas day just happens to coincide with one of the most important days of the solar calendar. While the winter solstice occurs on December 21 or December 22 in the Northern hemisphere these days, 2000 years ago it fell on December 25 and was believed to be the day of the sun’s rebirth.

It sort of makes sense, in a cute kind of uneducated way – light and darkness are locked in a year-round battle for supremacy and at certain times of the year one of them is stronger than the other. At the summer solstice light is far stronger than darkness and the day is significantly longer than the night but at the winter solstice the tables are turned and the majority of the 24 hour cycle known as the “day” is bathed in darkness.

Indeed many of the “pagan” religions featured such a myth, with a sun god in the role of light.

So what do sun gods have to do with Christmas? Well, it is generally accepted that authorities within the Church appropriated December 25 for Christ’s “birthday” in order to make it easier for “pagans” to ditch their primitive ways and jump on the Christian bandwagon. How very thoughtful of them.

Given that I’m in no hurry to board any sort of religious vehicle, how can I make sense of the unavoidable beast that is Christmas? Well perhaps I can embrace the secular meaning of Christmas and rejoice in the giving and receiving of presents.

It’s no secret that the “primary gifting period” is the most lucrative time of year for the retail sector. It’s also no secret that people are more than happy to contribute to the consumerist machine that kicks into overdrive in the month of December. Sure, the feeling of buying someone a present that they like is quite satisfying, and receiving presents is always good, but feeling obliged to buy presents for anyone remotely important to you seems like a rather unnecessary burden to bear. One of my Facebook “friends” put it most eloquently when he quipped; “most people on Facebook seem more excited about finishing their Christmas shopping than Christmas itself”.

And then there’s Santa – an overweight, ageing gentleman with abundant facial hair and a penchant for little children. The jolly red and white fellow that we know today has evolved from and been influenced by several historical entities including a 4th century Greek bishop called Saint Nicholas of Myra, the Norse god Odin, the mythical English gentleman Father Christmas and the drawings of the German-American cartoonist Thomas Nast.

Setting aside the assumption that it’s ok to lie to children about the existence of fictional characters, do we really want to set children up to expect gifts every year? Do we really want to promote the idea that Christmas is all about receiving presents?

As I am wont to do, I shall close today by defaulting to the wisdom of Tim Minchin and in particular his song “White Wine in the Sun“.

Do you ever get the feeling that things are going backwards in this country? You know, the feeling that, rather than making progress on important social issues, we are heading back toward the dark ages?

For those that missed it, the Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls announced yesterday that a compromise had been reached over the proposed changes to the Equal Opportunity Act, striking a balance between religious freedom and freedom from discrimination. It sounds promising, I mean, we like compromise don’t we? The proposed changes to the Act will prevent religious groups from discriminating against an individual “on the grounds of race, disability, age, physical features, political belief or activity and breastfeeding”. Again, that all sounds fairly positive to me. But wait, what’s this?

“Religious groups would continue to be able to discriminate on other grounds including sexuality or marital status if it was in accordance with their beliefs.”

And here I was thinking that we were talking about the Equal Opportunity Act – silly me. Seriously, how does this even happen? I’m all for religious freedom – you can believe whatever you want to believe – but not if it’s going to be at the expense of other people’s job prospects.

Let’s keep things in perspective here – we are sacrificing the modern ideal of equal opportunity for the sake of religious dogma that was written between 4000 and 1500 years ago, depending on your monotheistic doctrine of choice. Isn’t the idea of giving everyone a “fair go” one of the foundations of our national cultural identity? 91% of Australians seem to think so, according to a Roy Morgan survey.

Where do we draw the line here? If I am an employer in a “religious group” and it is my opinion that Ephesians 5:24 should be interpreted and adapted for use in my workplace, am I justified in employing women only in the lowest-ranked positions within my company? After all, women are always subordinate to men so how could a woman ever be in a position where she might be in charge of men? I don’t wanna hear about Women’s Suffrage or anything like that, I can do what I like because my actions are in accordance with my religious beliefs.

Sure, it may be a pithy example but the point should be fairly obvious – if “religious belief” is justification enough for actions that might be contrary to the values of our secular society, hasn’t something gone wrong with the system? Let’s shift gears a little.

The other night after work I flicked the TV on and switched to SBS. Being after 10pm I was fully aware of the risk I was taking – chances are I was to be greeted by some ultra-weird Swedish arthouse film or some thinly-veiled soft-core pornography. It happened to be the latter, a Spanish film named Cachorro, translated into English as Bear Cub. The film followed a “bear” who assumed responsibility for his young nephew after the nephew’s mother was imprisoned for drug smuggling. The film’s opening five minutes contained the most graphic gay sex scene I have ever seen on Australian television and the following 90 minutes were littered with many more such scenes.

I’ll admit that I found the sex in the film a little confronting – not because of the explicit nature of the scenes and obviously not because of some philosophical or religious objection to homosexuality but because, well, I’m just not used to seeing gay sex scenes. It’s probably the same feeling I had when I saw my first heterosexual sex scene in a film.
As I discussed some months ago, it is pretty clear that our society is still not used to seeing displays of affection between gay couples and more often than not, such displays of affection are cause for major controversy. In fact, in spite of the concerted efforts of the last few decades, western society seems intent on forever ostracising members of the gay community.

Having experienced the ins and outs of “working class culture” in a cricket club environment over the last decade I have it on fairly good authority that being a “poofter” or a “faggot” is pretty much the worst thing you can be. You know the sort of guy I mean – the bloke that doesn’t smash a slab of VB every weekend after playing footy with his mates. Oh, and the guy that doesn’t slap his mate on the arse after kicking a goal? Gay. The guy that won’t shower with the boys after a win? Must be a homo. And don’t get me started on the guy that won’t let his team mates piss on him in the showers after the game – what a faggot.

I wish I was making this stuff up, but if you head to the change rooms of any football or cricket club in the country you will soon see what I mean.

I know I’m being overly idealistic in my attempts to foster a greater sense of respect for the gay community, especially among footy and cricket players – it’s a far bigger issue than a semi-informed rant can hope to deal with. On the flip-side I also know that there is not nearly enough positive exposure to gay culture in the modern media and that SBS should be commended for having the balls to run films like Cachorro. Finally, I know that in the struggle toward equal opportunity for all, regardless of sexuality, the decision to prioritise religious freedom over freedom from discrimination is certainly not going to help…

I don’t spend a lot of my time thinking about issues like animal rights but lately there have been some things that have forced the issue into my mind. Take this ongoing news story for example. For those that missed it, the Australian Racing Board announced back in March that as of August this year, a whole swathe of new regulations would be imposed on Australian jockeys. Some of the more controversial changes state that only padded whips are to be used when whipping horses, that a jockey must not raise their arm above shoulder height when whipping a horse and that a horse must not be whipped more than five times in the final straight, before the 200 metre-to-go mark.

Following the announcement in March there has been significant backlash within the horse racing community including a half-day strike by jockeys last week which allegedly cost Tabcorp $2.5 million. Since the strike there have been talks between the Australian Racing Board and the Australian Jockeys’ Association resulting in a compromise between the new regulations and the status quo.

To be honest, I couldn’t care less about horse racing or about Tabcorp’s daily takings. I’m more interested in the fact that there is an issue of potential animal cruelty here that is, for the most part, completely ignored. Who knows, maybe horses don’t feel anything when jockeys whip them, but good on the ARB for having the balls to bring the issue out into the open.

It got me thinking – surely there must be other issues of potential animal cruelty that are often overlooked, and then I remembered – Tim Minchin’s “Bears Don’t Dig On Dancing”. The song might be a little silly but the point seems to be pretty clear to me – sure, making bears dance is pretty cruel but what about all those other animals that are used to attend our every need? Coal-mine canaries for example? Or packmules? Or those poor horses that drag tourists up and down Swanston Street in those fancy looking carriages?

I’m not really saying anything new here am I? I mean, animal rights organisations have been preaching to us for years about how animals should have equal rights to those of humans, that we shouldn’t eat meat, that animals shouldn’t be used for scientific testing and so on. Part of me jumps up with fists in the air and yells “yeah, right on!” while another part of me can’t help but recommend this article to all and sundry, Seriously, “better dead than fed”?

I guess the point that I’m trying to pull out of this convoluted mess is that the animal rights/cruelty debate isn’t a clear cut one. Sure, I can fully appreciate that testing medicine on animals poses serious ethical considerations. On the other hand, without the knowledge that thousands of years of animal testing has uncovered, our understanding of disciplines such as biology, microbiology, toxicology and a whole lot of other -ologies would be severely restricted.

Something that has never really made sense to me, and something that is particularly relevant when talking about animal rights is the issue of de-sexing. Specifically, how is it that the process of neutering a pet is so widely accepted in our society? I’ve never met a single person that has decided not to neuter their cat or dog because they thought it would constitute an animal rights abuse.

Does the excuse “we can’t afford to have a litter of dogs running around” really justify taking a knife to your pet? As I mentioned earlier the issue of animal rights is a contentious one but surely your desire to only have two dogs rather than eight is outweighed by your dogs’ desire not to have their reproductive organs chopped out? What gives us the right to jump in and control the reproductive cycles of our pets? Oh yeah, the same rights that let us breed cats and dogs as domestic animals in the first place, resulting in out-of-proportion monstrosities like the British Bulldog. I’m not convinced that the positive health effects are justification enough for neutering our pets either. As this irrefutable source shows, the negative effects are equal, if not greater in number than the postive effects.

I might be missing something here – maybe there are genuinely good reasons for forcing your beloved pets to part with their reproductive organs. Either way, there is not nearly enough discussion about this issue in our society at the moment and it’s a real shame. All we need is for some psycho-parent to crack the shits at their teenage son for banging every chick in site, castrate him in order to prevent the advent of multiple grandchildren and then justify their actions by saying “but it worked on the dog”. Now that would generate some discussion…