I'd like to discuss a variation of perception with you; Interpretation. The way we interpret the world around us dictates how we interact with it, and the experience we will have. But I'm sure you already knew that. What you may not have known however is that individual interpretation applies to everything we personally come in contact with. Lets take for example reading text. The way you interpret what I write in this blog may differ quite dramatically from how I intended it to be interpreted. But to apply a good example we'll use a simple sentence.

Lets take the sentence "The quick brown dog jumped over the log". Every non conjunctive word (ie. "the" in this case) in that sentence is open fully to interpretation. Your idea if constitutes "quick", "jumped" and "over" will most likely differ from mine. As will your interpretation of what sort of dog it would be and the size, type and description of the log. In this way there are an endless number of combinations in which to interpret that sentence. Lets for this example focus on the word jump from that sentence. A jump to one person might mean that the dog only just clears the log, to another person it could mean the dog almost just walks over the log, to another person the dog could comfortably clear the log and yet again to someone else it could mean the dog was quite high in the air indeed. The variations of this one word alone are quick numerous, having not listed them all here; but only a select few.

In this same way we interpret everything we see, hear, feel, smell and taste, entirely in an individual way, with endless combinations on how to interpret the event. Our memories of prior experiences play heavily on our interpretation of things, but are not in any way the only ruling factor. Our personality, current mood, the terms of the social situation we are in at the time, the context of the event, the environment we're in all play heavily amongst other factors on our interpretation. For this reason, not only does our interpretation of an event end up individual to us, but also to the moment in which it is interpreted. For it is likely, with a variation in some of the contributing factors, such as current mood, our interpretation of the same event will change.

Now lets apply this to real life situations where interpretation may have considerable effect. The legal/justice system comes first to mind for me. Take the written laws and the process of enforcing those laws through the judicial system. Each individual judge, being a living being; is subject to this same individual interpretation as everyone else. The way a judge interprets a certain law can not only vary from others in the court room, but indeed from how the law was originally intended to be interpreted. In the same way, the judges interpretation of a law is subjective to the same factors such as mood as everyone else. On top of that, the exact same influences affect what the judge views as a fair punishment. With all that in mind is it any real wonder why we have such huge variation in who is punished for what and in sentencing?

It is because of this individual interpretation that juries we formed. But the jury itself can become subject to influence of interpretation. If a half of the jury members, being vocal agree on an interpretation of an event, their vocal nature of this fact can influence the interpretation of other members of the jury. So if for example you have 3 or 4 members of a jury who feel that the defendant is guilty because of A, B & C and theses jury members are very vocal of their feelings and dominant in the group the rest of the jury members will change their interpretation to fit. Remember humans are herd animals, we instinctively slot into dominant or submissive roles when placed in a group situation. Does any of that sound like justice to you?

Another example is rental housing; through inspections. What the real estate person feels is appropriate will depend on their mood, their personality, how they feel about the tenant, etc. What passes one time, could not pass the next even though the same person from the real estate does the inspection. In fact third party interpretation can positively or negatively influence every aspect of life. Whether or not you get that job, whether or not you keep that job, all comes down to interpretation. Arguments you have with friends, family and spouses come down to interpretation. Even whether you have religious faith is a matter of interpretation.

In this way our reality is as individual as our interpretation of it. For this reason it could be argued there is a distinct absence of absolutes. That while facts exist, such as the sky most commonly looks blue through-out the day; there is a lack of absolute. That is to say the shade of blue for example is a matter of interpretation.

I've been thinking lately about getting some life insurance quotes, see what it would cost me to be insured. I think it will take some looking around though and a lot of reading of "fine print" before I decide on one. I often wonder if it's even really worth it, I mean lets take funeral insurance for example. I know that $5000 worth of cover costs $2.30 a week. If I assume, like the insurance company does that it's most likely I'll live on to at least 86 then I can produce the following equation.

$2.30 per week times 4.3 weeks in a month equals $9.89 paid per month.
$9.89 per month times 12 months in a year equals $118.68 paid per year.
$118.68 per year times the expected 60 years of life left equals $7120.80

That means if I simply put the same insurance fee away in a bank account every week (I could set it up to be automatic for example) for the rest of my life and I did live an extra 60 years then I'd have $2120.80 EXTRA then if I'd gotten funeral cover. I wonder if it's the same sort of savings with life insurance? Never know until I find out I guess. And I suppose there is the fact that I don't know how long I'll live, I could drop dead tomorrow. Hrmmm... lots to think about, best get those quotes.

Yes you read the title right, being a vegetarian is bad for the environment. I've long stated this fact to any vegetarian and vegan continuing their doctrine that it's better for the environment. Well now I have scientific back-up in this department by way of a study commissioned by environmental group WWF; but more on that later.

The vegetarian/vegan argument goes something like this. 1 cow used to produce meat will produce [x] amount of methane and consume [y] amount of food and take up [z] amount of space. On contrast vegetarians argue that a wheat plant takes up [a] amount of space and doesn't produce methane and doesn't eat food.

This on the surface when said quickly and not thought about to much might sound like a reasonable statement. But just think about it for a moment, actually read over it again and think about it. It's actually a rather illogical statement, in that you're comparing a whole cow which will feed 20+ people to a single wheat plant which will feed, wait for it... NOT EVEN ONE (1) person. Add to that the pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals required to grow any large sized crop and it quickly becomes clear that, being a vegetarian is more harmful then good.

While you're at it take this on board as well, it takes 14.5 KILOGRAMS of broccoli to equal the same amount of iron content as 500g of steak. Not only is it near impossible to eat that amount, but can you consider the amount of land it requires to grow 14.5 KILOGRAMS of broccoli? Let alone enough for everyone in a country to eat that amount of broccoli every day! But there is more and this is where the study kicks in.

UK's Cranfield University was commissioned by the WWF to conduct an independent study on the effects of a vegetarian or vegan diet on the environment. The study found that meat substitutes such as soya, chickpeas and lentils where MORE harmful to the environment because they are imported into the UK from other countries. This is also true for countries like the USA, Australia and New Zealand. The study found that the carbon footprint left by importing these products was far greater than the environmental harm caused by livestock.

The study, agreeing with my argument also concluding;

"A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK."

and went on to say that meat substitutes are often highly processed foods, requiring vast amounts of energy to produce. Energy which runs on coal power. So here you have a raw product which was imported from overseas, was then processed using vast amounts of energy, and it's apparently meant to be more environmentally friendly then a cow in a field? A cow which I might remind you is an animal which is meant to exist. When you really think about it, it's laughable that anyone ever really thought being a vegetarian or vegan is better for the environment.

So now with the claim about the diet being beneficial to the environment gone, and piles of other evidence that the diet is also really bad for your body; one can only wonder why anyone is continuing this diet, let alone promoting it. I've included some interesting links at the bottom of this post which may help you to see clearly when next a vegetarian friend tries to guilt you into their way of life.

Links;

Telegraph Article on WWF study
The Independant Article on Vegetarianism making you ill
29 Common Reasons Why Your Vegetarian Diet Isn't Working
Beyond Veg
Pavlina: Why Vegetarians are unhealthy
Disadvantages of going Veg

As a growing number of elderly and obese people purchase mobility scooters one can't help but notice the extreme public nuisance and safety risk they cause. Here we have vehicles which have some pretty powerful electric motors in them these days and are built very sturdy; mix that into a pedestrian situation and you have a recipe for injury.

I've noticed a growing trend of those using mobility scooters to both hog up the entire foot path. In addition the trend includes have no consideration or regard towards the safety of those of us who aren't so lazy as to be using one of these vehicles. There have been many times when I have been walking along the foot path, or even at the store when someone in a mobility scoot will come hooning along full pelt and force me out of the way unless I want to be run over. There has even been an incident when such a person clipped the side of Dee's pram.

These are vehicles plain and simple; anything capable of moving faster than the AVERAGE person can walk shouldn't be allowed in pedestrian situations. Any vehicle capable of moving faster than the average person can walk should be confined to ones personal residential property and the bike lane. Honestly the only thing that has stopped me from punching some of these people square in the face is the fact that the ones I've come across are elderly. I was always brought up to respect elders, so I have no choice but to just

What's even more concerning and somewhat puzzling is the looks people using these things give you. It's like they look down at anyone who walks. It makes you wonder if we're actually developing a society which far from wanting to slim down, actually looks down on people who live active healthy lifestyles.

When it comes to the health of your unborn baby you want to do everything in your power to ensure nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately there is so much confusion out there these days about food, that it's hard for most people to know if they're doing the right thing; nutrient wise for their baby. The good news is that most nutrients the baby needs will go to it, before they go to you. Your baby is also capable of stripping nutrients from you body to ensure it has everything it requires. But there are some nutrients which your body may not contain enough of that the baby will suffer for.

Nutrients like folic acid are important for good brain and nervous system development, including healthy spinal fluid. Iron carries blood around both your and your babies bodies, of which without you're both doomed. Unfortunately most pregnant women are deficient in both of these nutrients. It is for that reason that all pregnant women are recommended to take prenatal vitamins. The old thing is however, even though doctors have been giving out these recommendations for years the rate of uptake aren't anywhere near where they should be.

It's very telling to note that by taking a simple vitamin tablet daily the chances of your baby developing a birth defect such as autism drop to incredibly low levels very close to zero percent. Yet still we have percentages of these birth defects which show people simply aren't taking the medical advice to take a vitamin during pregnancy. It's almost unfathomable to me that anyone could be that careless in today's world.

As the number of obese and morbidly obese persons begin to rise and the United States of America even have to create a new category called SUPER morbidly obese for those people who weigh in the vicinity of a TON (that's as heavy as a small car!) you have to wonder, does the government have a roll to play?

While we all like to think we're in charge of our on destinies, our past influences our decisions far more then we'd like to think. If for example you grew up in a household where it was junk food every night and sports weren't encouraged, then guess what you're likely to be like as an adult? Even more so, guess what you're likely to be like as a parent?

I do agree that the individual needs to make their own decisive changes in their life. Over weight and obese people need to exercise, with an active lifestyle. If you feel self conscious about exercising in public or like Sarah you have in your head that walking places is "scummy" (which of course it isn't, I walk a lot and I'm certainly not scummy) then you could always buy a treadmill or other at home exercise equipment until you feel more self confident. The families of Morbidly and super morbidly obese people; people who can't even get out of bed due to their shear weight; need to stop enabling their food habits. If you can't get out of bed then you'll eat what you're given. People need to get up and move around, they NEED to exercise, daily and develop an active lifestyle so that exercise becomes a part of every day things instead of a chore they have to schedule in separate to everything else.

But I also think government has a role to play. It is clear at this point people are NOT going to change on their own, they need a good hard kick in the right direction which is where government comes in. There are several measures governments in the western world need to take.

(1) P.E. before school for pre-school, primary school and high school students. That used to be a part of schooling in the 70s and it worked well. Governments cut it to free up money, but it was actually a very valuable tool. Not only will it mean every child exercises daily, but it means they will be able to concentrate better in school, be more confident and are far more likely to carry on the approach into adulthood.

(2) The development of more Parks and sporting fields. There are some areas where there is a distinct lack of these sorts of facilities and without them people are unable to include certain activities in their lifestyle which would aide in the weight-loss problem. Sports are a major part of combating obesity, so without a facility to hold sporting events people can't expect to be healthy for very long.

(3) Proper dietary and exercise education. For far to long people have been going on about diet. About cutting foods out and limiting calories. This is a MAJOR factor in why we have the obesity problem the western world is facing today. Our bodies have evolved in a way that requires us to move around and use energy. But our society has evolved in such a way that we don't really move around and use energy anymore. This is the BIGGEST systematic problem of all and the REAL cause for the obesity problem.

You can attempt to blame fast food all you like, but the fact of the matter is the average diet in the 50s contained FAR more calories and FAR more cholesterol then we consume today. Our lack of movement is the huge problem. Food isn't the enemy it has been made out to be, it's simply food. ALL food is perfectly find in MODERATION. Too much of anything even carrots will cause you problems. In this way government should educate at the primary school, high school and adult levels about the importance of MODERATION and ACTIVE LIFESTYLE.

(4) Legislation making it a crime for gyms and weight loss services to give INCORRECT information on weight loss or to misrepresent the facts should be brought forward. It should be a crime for a weight loss service to continue the lie that it's all about diet and you need to cut out foods and calories.

(5) Cooking classes should be reintroduced to schools. One of the biggest reasons fast food has become so popular is people have lost the skill of home cooking. If we teach it to our children in a proper way they are more likely to make good food choices.

(6) Amendments to the child protection laws to include obesity. Children can only become obese through ineffective and neglectful parenting. If you are teaching your child the correct eating and exercise habits then there is no possible way you child can become obese.

(7) Legislating more strongly about the advertising of food. NO FOOD products of ANY kind should be advertised during children's television viewing times for example. Children shouldn't be in the drivers seat, that's the parents job, therefore children shouldn't be advertised to.

(8) Parenting classes, perhaps mandatory, for people with new babies. These classes would address general issues like diet and exercise, conflict negotiation, basic first aide, child development, looking at things through your kids eyes on their level and ideas about games that can be played with your child at different stages of development.

(9) The banning of gastric bypass surgery. It doesn't do anyone any good in the long run and is bound to have some undesirable long term side effects.

The Queensland state government has now lifted a ban on Homosexual couples and single people accessing surrogates. Apparently it's the state governments policy that everyone should have a baby, regardless of nature. Perhaps they should just send out roving vans handing out free babies or something? What part about a SINGLE person, that is someone who has no relationship, being able to have a baby does Anna Bligh think is logical? Do we not have enough out of control kids living with single mothers as it is, that Anna Bligh feels she needs to give them access to more, without needing a man or even having to go through pregnancy? That is TOTALLY INSANE!

Contray to what Anna Bligh seems to think it isn't backward to not want to give single people the ability to have babies; that's something called common sense. I know it seems to be something that is very thin on the ground now days and a concept that is certainly new to Anna, but common sense is this magically thing where you actually use your brain to figure out that your actions are going to have negative consequences before you do them, and then decide not to.

How is the state government going to justify the removal of this ban to all the children who result? Children born into a world with only 1 parent, ever! Doesn't matter which gender the parent nor the child is, it's a proven bad idea. If the government actually knew even the slightest about child psychology they'd know just how bad an idea this truly is. They'd know that children model behaviour from both gender parents, as well as learn how to function, interact with the opposite gender and even gather part of their self identity from BOTH parents. That is to say a MOM and a DAD are both EXTREMELY important. You only need to look at the last 30 years worth of psychological data, psychologist reports, medical intervention, suicides, crimes and other statistical data which stem from children of broken homes to see my point made. But perhaps and far more likely, they do know that, but simply don't care.

This is clearly a bid to grab some minority votes by a government which have burnt more bridges than you can poke a stick out. Anna Bligh is undeniably the WORST premier Queensland has EVER had. This is just another in a long line of REALLY bad decisions that the Bligh government have made, crushing our once great state into the ground. And what a waste of time and tax payer dollars the 3 days of debates over this issue where, when the Bligh government always had the majority of the house so it was always going to be passed. What was the point? To make us think like it was debated and this was the best idea that came out of it? Or to give an illusion that Australia still operates democratically? All I can hope is that the Bligh government will be voted out at the next election and the resulting new government will have enough sense to repeal the new law so that no more children will be hurt in this sick political game.

I've embedded using YouTube this week to see how well it's received. I want to see if more people will watch and share the video if I embed with YouTube instead of vimeo. If you like this video, please be sure to rate it 5 stars and pass it on to as many other people as you can. Thanks

Have you ever noticed that everything in our increasingly overly capitalist society can be assigned a monetary value? If a fall over in the street and break my ankle I can sue the council for money. If at work I lose a finger I can sue for money. In fact there is actually a list which the courts go by stating how much you can get for different injuries.

We buy and sell other animals, assigning them a dollar value; when lets face it they're actually another intelligent (much more so then most of us give credit for) sentential being. Heck we even assign our own lives a dollar value through life insurance and funeral insurance. It seems nothing is without a dollar value these days, think about it.

But how can you assign dollar values to some of this stuff. I watched an ad on TV for funeral insurance that said if your "loved one" dies in an accident you'll get $45,000 extra to "ease your pain and suffering". Yep, even your pain and suffering has a dollar value now days. But lets be honest, if you just lost you partner, the mother or father of your kids, they're dead, gone forever. Is any amount of money, let alone $45,000 going to ease your "pain and suffering"? It certainly wouldn't mine.

If Sarah died I can tell you no amount of money is going to make that good with me, nor should it be able to. Sure with Life Insurance the money helps you survive, but lets be honest here...if you have kids and a mortgage even half a million dollars isn't going to last you to long. No matter what, if you lose the bread winner in your family, your lifestyle is going to change. You will eventually need to go out and work, the amount of life insurance you receive only dictates how long you can delay it. It certainly doesn't ease the pain of losing your "loved one"!

So why do we do it? Why as rational but emotional beings do we attempt to assign a dollar value to everything in our world? And more importantly how do we expect that our children will grow to have good morals and values, as well as being emotionally well adjusted if they live in a world were everything is defined by how much money it's worth? What do we think happens to our attachments to each other, our attachments to the environment, our self value and emotional state if we have money attached to everyone? Together, we as a community design our own society, so we need to start asking these questions of ourselves before it's to late. Remember, extremism, regardless of it's reference is always a bad thing.

What is wrong with vegetarians? They're like the bible bashes of the food world. It's like they feel, quite irrationally, they've found the answer to all their problems; and so they in turn feel (I suspect to cater for their own insecurities) that they have to force everyone else they come in contact with to be the same way.

And in much the same way as my soul isn't going to be saved by some moron who took a 2000 year old story book a little to literally, nor will my health be helped by turning into a bipedal cow. Indeed I find the "logic" behind a lot of vegetarians to be just as irrational as our Christian door knockers. Christians believing against all the evidence that Humanity is somehow special and separate from all other animals to me seems linked to the rather illogical belief of vegetarians that we shouldn't eat meat because killing animals is wrong?

Well I'm sorry to burst every bodies bubble but there is nothing special about humanity. Humanity isn't smarter, cooler nor endowed with special bits that other animals aren't. Humans are simply chimps, nothing more, nothing less. The sooner you get that, the better off the whole planet will be.

Now with that in mind, please take this into consideration. EVERY organism on the planet owes it's life to anothers death. Yes, even as a vegetarian you are feeding from death. Not only does the decay of an animal feed the soil and thus help plants to grow, but plants themselves are living, breathing organisms.

Plants breath Carbon Di-Oxide and exhale Oxygen only during the day. Upon night fall the process is reversed with plants breathing oxygen and exhale Carbon Di-Oxide. In addition plants move daily! Sure they can't uproot and go for a walk, but their extremities do ever so slowly move all day, every day. And the big one, plants have a nervous system. Now while there is no centralised brain, this does NOT rule out the chance plants could feel pain. There is certainly some evidence (such as reflex response; where by a plants pores close in what would be thought of as painful situations) that supports the idea plants could feel pain.

Just because you can't hear that carrot screaming as you gnaw on it doesn't mean it feels any less pain than the cow did. Indeed given the plant is often alive when it's eaten means if anything, it would be feeling far more pain. I don't know about you but I sure as heck wouldn't like to be alive when someone ate me. Face it, you aren't special. And face it, extinguishing life in order for you to live is what life is all about. It's just how it's meant to be. Deal with it

Now I'm sure there will be some vegetarians whom will point to health benefits. But fact of the matter is there are actually no proven health benefits to a vegetarian lifestyle. While there are some studies that show a longer life expectancy from vegetarianism; others clearly show a decreased one. Certainly as a vegetarian you are extremely likely to be deficient in many essential vitamins and minerals. If you're thinking multi-vitamin tablets then I should warn you that the good ones are made from killing animals and harvesting the minerals from the waste product. The synthetic made ones, well they usually just give you really expensive pee as your body can do little with them.

And while of course there are vegetable proteins available, your body has to work much harder in order to use them compared to animal proteins. Protein of course is what our body uses to regenerate cells and to create new ones. Proteins make up our RNA and DNA structures, as well as form enzymes for the processing and absorption of food. That is to say, they're incredibly importable to your diet. Not only does your body use animal proteins easier but it simply can't perform some of it's functions at 100% without them. In addition, did you know that there are some medical conditions that ONLY affect vegetarians?

Now none of this would bother me anywhere near as much if vegetarians kept their eating habits to themselves, and more over didn't feel the need to comment on mine nor anyone elses. I mean sure I think you're a bit of a brainless twit for being a vego; but I'm not about to shove my beliefs down your throat. I could, in the same way vegetarian protesters dump blood on people eating meat; dump soil or more over sap on them. But honestly other than a really funny video I wouldn't have much of a lot to show for it. Fact of the matter is what I eat is my business and not the business of anyone else.

Fact of the matter is there is no reason to turn into a vegetarian, be it morale, health related or otherwise. Fact of the matter is that as you can see from the teeth of every human, you're built to eat both plants AND meat. Fact of the matter is that the reason you started to feel better when you went on your health binge has more to do with the daily exercise and active lifestyle you now lead than how you've changed your diet. And the same being greatly responsible for all that weight you lost. Look sure, if you still want to be a vegetarian regardless of the facts that's fine, your choice. But please, give me and everyone else who isn't a vego the same respect we afford to you and spot ramming YOUR CHOICES down OUR THROAT! Make sense?

And in the same spirit, please do us all a favour and stop making stupid TV shows that attempt to make people feel bad and skew the facts in an attempt to push them into a vegetarian lifestyle. Because look, fact of the matter is, being healthy and being vegetarian have very very little to do with each other. Instead how about we make shows which encourage people to use common sense when eating and establish moderation. Because at the end of the day, moderation, linked with an active lifestyle is the true key to a healthy and happy life.

I subscribe to a number of Skeptic publications; and over the last year I've seen quite a number of articles published in those publications. I consider myself to be a skeptic, but I feel that perhaps there are a few people out there whom claim to be skeptic when really they only stand to debunk anything that threatens the status quo.

To me a skeptic is someone who doesn't just take what they're told by someone and accepts it. Instead, a skeptic will investigate, research and come to their own independent conclusion. To enter a situation with an unbiased and open mind, weigh up the facts and come to the simplest, most logical conclusion. But it seems to me there are quite a lot of people whom call themselves skeptics but really should be better known as debunkers. These are the sorts of people who go out of their way to try to prove that certain phenomenon, be it UFOs, ghosts, other paranormal, spiritual or mystical events, or things like swine flu vaccine being unsafe.

They're the sorts of people whom, instead of digging for the truth, will accept official versions of events from government organisations or other persons whom are invested in the cause. Debunkers are the complete opposite of a conspiracy theist, basically doing everything in there power to convince people that the status quo is the only logical answer. It's almost as if these people were employed by some interested party in order to persuaded the general public there is "nothing to see here". Of course I'm not actually suggesting this is the case, merely using the euphemism to highly how these people operate.

Increasingly I'm finding these sorts of people being published in one skeptic publication in particular; that being Skeptic Magazine. You may have heard their ad play on TopHogg FM from time to time. I am also finding these sorts of people representing skeptics everywhere on all manner of documentaries into the paranormal. Frankly, as an intelligent, well educated person, very capable of critequing and making up my own mind about events, I find some of the things these sorts of debunkers say offensive. They give the skeptic community an unwarranted perception of close minded, illogical fools.

Sometimes for whatever plausible reason, (for example the event happening as so often it is, a surprise and thus there being no camera handy) there may be little to no physical evidence. This however doesn't mean that it never happened, it just means further investigation and research may be warranted should the anecdotal evidence suggest so. This brings me to 2 quite major points.

(1) Science is far from having all the answers, regardless of what any scientist might suggest to you there is still a great deal about ourselves, our planet, our co-inhabitants and the universe around us that we simply don't understand, nor have come anywhere close to it. While humanity has spread to much of the earths land mass, we still find somewhere around 1000 new species a DAY! Most of them being insects sure, but there is still the odd larger animal in there. There is much that happens on the planet that humanity still has no answers for.

(2) Debunkers like to ignore anecdotal evidence all together, stating that it is often fraught with unreliability and thus can't be trusted of given any weight to. But I counter that statement with this simple fact. Very often our legal system uses anecdotal evidence as either part of, or even sometimes as their entire case against crime. While I concede that there are cases in nwhich due to this evidence innocent people are convicted of crime, but this is in the grand scheme of things quite rare. So thus I submit this question to you. Courts demand a high amount of reliability from the evidence they receive on a case, there are plenty of new technologies which are inadmissible in court because they aren't proven to hold high levels of accuracy. It, for example, took over a decade for DNA evidence to become something which was looked at in a court with weight. Yet anecdotal evidence has remained weighted and relied upon. If such evidence is anywhere near as unreliable as debunkers suggest, then how is it our legal system still uses it?

The fact of the matter is that there are SOME cases which debunkers dismiss due to anecdotal evidence and the lack of much in the way of the physical which do indeed warrant additional research and investigation. There are (while fewer still) some cases which while having the same amount of evidence as the previously mentioned, in their own right suggest through the anecdotal something extraordinary happening.

I am offended when debunkers try to pass off phenomenon as mass hysteria, collective imagination or some sort of psychological disorder. All too often I hear so called skeptics using such arguments to explain away UFOs for example. Trying to pass them off as a mix of collective imagination and mass hysteria. While I'm not going to say that little green men are flying all over the planet; I do find it insulting to my intelligence to be told these so called UFO phenomena are in the same category as "monsters" and "demons" as popular fiction.

To me communities telling stories about monsters between themselves or to their children, as well as stories about demons to help explain their world and scare people into a moral life; are completely different to someone telling me they seen a UFO. Now there might be a million other explanations for it beyond alien beings, but to rule it out as ever happening simply because it's only anecdotal in nature is very very wrong. A true skeptic would listen, look at how believable the story sounds and then, if believable perhaps investigate further, setting up equipment, tests or whatever is appropriate to document some form of physical evidence. I would suggest to you, never accept someone as a self professed skeptic if their mind is not open to possibilities.

So, you're a smoker and you've realised it's a bad idea. "Therapeutic" nicotine manufacturers such as nicobate would have you believe their products will help you achieve your goal of quitting. Thing is however, their products will do nothing to aid the quitting process and indeed in most people will actually hinder it.

These are products which claim they can help you "step down" by slowly lowering the dose of nicotine. The problem with this idea is smoking is an addiction, no different to being addicted to alcohol, heroin or any other drug. As a result you need to look at quitting smoking from this realistic point of view. Would you seriously suggest to an alcoholic that they should start the process if giving up by drinking a little less each month? Of course not, nor would you suggest a heroin addict should shoot up a little less each month, or a gamblaholic should enter casinos a little less each month... you get the idea.

In the same way this wouldn't work with those addictions because it continues the addiction and chemical dependency, drastically greatening the chances of "falling off the wagon". But above and beyond the chemical dependency, it continues the mental imagining which is most important to chance in order to shed an addiction. That is to say, while you continue to see yourself as a smoker, then you will continue to have cravings and thus will never be free.

Nicabate have recently brought out a new product called "pre-quit", the therapeutic nicotine to take while you're still smoking. Products like these clearly have an interest in keeping you addicted to smoking. There is of course a finite amount of smokers in the world and with levels of new smokers dropping, if companies like nicobate actually helped you stop smoking then they'd collapse as a company. They'd eventually simply run out of customers and no company, especially publicly floated companies are interested in such things.

Quitting smoking is surely a must, but products like nicobate aren't going to aid you in any way. Instead, the only true way to get over your addiction is to go cold turkey. Yes, it will suck, but no where near as much as if you continue smoking. Cold turkey will work, especially if you do it in such a way as to develop a view of yourself as a non-smoker. That is key! Without changing your view of yourself you'll never be free of the smoking bug and will eventually start again, even if you manage to stop for a period of time.

As the year draws to a close we start to reflect on what that year has brought; and one can't reflect on such things without realising a considerable amount of the individuals privacy has been lost. So the question draws, will history hold 2009 as the year privacy was lost?

Facebook and Twitter and of course the Google machine have been the big violators of our privacy in 2009, gathering wads of data on us. This year Facebook made no less than 4 changes to their privacy policy, each one inching just that much more of your privacy away. As a result not only is everything you place on facebook up for documentation and collation with them, but so their privacy policy states, so is every other website you visit including how you interact with every site you visit.

Facebook also teamed up with Microsoft to place facebook on the Xbox 360, automatically updating your facebook status with what games, movies and music your using, as well as various other detailed information about them. Of course once the data is on facebook they file it away to make just that much more of an accurate picture of you. The world went twitter mad in 2009 as well, updating each other with their smallest, most tedious of actions. twitter itself; with a very facebook like privacy policy violated our privacy collating all the data we unwittingly delivered to them.

But it doesn't stop there, facebook took our twitter content and got us to stream it directly from twitter to them where the data could become facebooks to gather as well. And all the while the google machine gobbled up data from facebook, twitter and every other corner of the internet. Google's privacy policy shifted this year to allow for the collection of even more data. Your name, age, date of birth, the school you went to, your medical records, your likes and dislikes, your ex's, school grades, the games, movies and music you involve yourself with, your marital status, your credit rating, how much money you make, how much you paid for your house and how you paid for it...it's all their, publically viewable through google if you only know what to search for.

But where facebook collate each piece of our data as their policy allows for more collection, google play a more shifty game. For google the game plan is to creep through gathering more and more data, but to wait until the time is write to change the policy on collating the data.

But make no mistake, the time WILL come, after all Google are a targeted ads company, gathering data about you and collating it is what their business model is made up of. And with new services like Google's Public DNS and comments from Googles CEO Eric Schmidt on CNBC like

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

the stage is certainly set for a future where google know and collate EVERYTHING you do online. And what's more, knowing google; it will all most likely become publically available as well. The thought becomes even scarier when you consider that more and more devices are moving online.

The future see's devices like the Television and Radio, the telephone, the washer/drier and even the fridge all moving online. Even the video game console seems set to be replaced by a Set Top Box to link into a virtual unit. In this future one can expect your weekly shopping list, your phone calls and even how often you wash your clothes and how much water you use to added to the list of google indexed and publically available content. A wise man once said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The big question now becomes, where do we go from here? Knowing what has happened to privacy through 2009 do we allow our privacy to further unravel or do we steal it back from the fingers of sleazy two faced advertising corps, back into our own control?

I know humanity loves to think of themselves as these higher beings that are so entirely over complicated and all, but seriously that isn't the truth. Sex makes the world go round. Sure great, humans can make art, build rockets and cheat death through medicine. But without sex, it's all really kinda pointless.

You exist because of sex, and in your life, while you probably won't notice it, sex will be your biggest driving force. Think about it, why do men want high paying jobs? Sex. Why do people want to be famous? Sex. What's the most popular use for the internet? Sex; or more over sex related activities. In fact, we spend the bulk of our lives trying to find and then keep a mate. Why? Sex.

So it honestly shocks me to the core that so many people deny their partners sex, put sex off and so forth; then can't understand where things went pear shaped in their relationship. Lets think about this logically here for a moment, how does a "romantic relationship" differ from an ordinary friendship? Sex. So without the presence of sex how does it continue to be a "romantic relationship" ?

Fact of the matter is from sex our brains are flooded with a few different chemicals, which in turn cause us to feel more "in love" with the person, to be more tolerant of their behavior and to be more willing to go out of our way to help that person. Sex relaxs our bodies and decreases the chances of heart attack or stroke. 20 minutes of sex is the same as an hour of high energy exercise in the gym, so it's great for keeping us fit and healthy.

Now, without sex those chemicals don't flood the brain. So over time those annoying little habits your partner has can break the relationship. Couples who have a poor, or no sex life fight in a more hurtful and long lasting way. This is why when you first met your partner and you were having sex like rabbits they seemed great but now you can barely stand to stay in the same room as them.

So what about before you had sex you ask? Anticipation is a beautiful thing. The idea of having sex with someone is a powerful motivator and causes amounts of the same chemicals to be released into the brain. In short, you get almost the same effects of having sex (in brain chemistry) without actually having it yet. But of course this only happens if (1) It's someone you actually want to have sex with and (2) see there being a high chance of that action coming about.

So, with keeping a relationship relatively happy, generally coming down to how much sex you get, and more over the perceived readiness there of, why is it that after a certain period of time most people forget to have it? Suddenly things you were doing while you were having loads of sex in the beginning, become a reason not to have sex anymore. It's the biggest mistake. When you're in a relationship GOOD sex should be up their on your priorities list, along side eating and breathing. That is of course assuming you don't want the relationship to end. But I mean if the case is that you do want it to end, then isn't it far better for you both to just end it, instead of subjecting yourselves to the slow painful death?

Yes, sex makes the world go around. So why do so many people forget it?

The Rudd government is one step closer to realising their dream of having an CPRS in place before going to Copenhagen next year. The government announced changes to their proposed CPRS today after talks with the Coalition. While some Liberal front benchers still don't back the CPRS, the wider Coalition now seems too which means it is likely to be voted through when it is next introduced to parliament.

The government promises the new changes should mean individual Australian's who volunteer to cut their carbon use will "be rewarded". It furthermore goes on to promise Industry will be compensated. Hold on a moment, what? More tax payer money promised to be forward to privately owned companies? I get they're trying to protect jobs here, but seriously you're either going to do something about climate change (which means massive lay offs in certain industries, or you're not going to do anything which is basically what this CPRS does).

The big thing I can't get my head around is what the labor parties rush to have an CPRS through is. What is so important about having one in place before Copenhagen? Seriously, does Kevin Rudd think the rest of the world leaders will see it and go, oh yeah Ruddy you're awesome?

Passing an CPRS through before Copenhagen is an idiotic move. No other developed country is doing this, so why is Australia rushing? Climate change can not be fixed by one (1) nations actions. Australia having even the most stringent of CPRS policies in place won't really have very much of a lot of an effect on climate change, unless all the other nations follow suite. That is the whole point of the Copenhagen conference, to discuss what we as a planet will do to stop climate change. And here Kevin Rudd goes rushing his CPRS through before Copenhagen. This could be very easily seen as arrogance on Australia's behalf viewed from the world stage.

We need to discuss the issues as a planet and come up with a global decision. Anything less than that is simply wasting time and money. I mean lCPRS think about this, we get the CPRS in place, industry start spending money, tax payer money starts following into these privately owned companies. Then Copenhagen comes and goes and we find the rest of the world is doing something else. Oh great one there Kevin Rudd, now industry will have to pay even more money to change over yet again, even MORE tax payer money will pour into these companies and you'll get even more job losses.

Yeah, this sounds like a seriously terrible idea to me

It's a relevant question; what happened to horror films? Once upon a time, good nature slashers with oldly little blood and psychological thrillers filled out screens. It was the age of classics, the age of masterpieces, when horror was how it should be. Sure they weren't always realistic, but that was part of their charm. Part of what made them greats; that separation from reality which reminded you it was just a film.

Cinema was created for escapism, a means for the common person to take an hour or two out of their lives and escape to somewhere else. For horror, this was a change to get a good, fun scare and have a giggle about it after the movie. Sadly, cinema seems to have lost it's way. The ideals which addicted us to film in the first place are lost or waining, and this is none more truthful than with horror.

Today's "horror" films have removed the safety net. They have chosen not only to turn their films more realistic but to ablitterate the classics as well. Gone are the cinematic greats, the super killers. Originals like Halloween, Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, ruined. Turned from horror to snuff.

And that is all horror has become; snuff. Filled with torture, gore and rape. The viewer is placed in the thick of it, close up, unable to turn away, unable to disassociate it from reality. Gone is the laughter from viewers when the movie ends, replaced by a sickening feeling and slight guilt, like perhaps you shouldn't have just witnessed that.

True horror, as the past has proven does not require gore. It should have a healthy balance of comedy, suspense and death. But it seems the new generation of horror film makers have failed to learn the principals of a good horror flick. Borrowing a classic title and a character may be a guaranteed way to generate some box office dollars, but turning it into these monstrosities only serves to annoy and frustrate people.

It is almost as if, somewhere in Hollywood 2 bets were placed, one for who could make the most horrific film and another for who could screw up a classic the most. Irreparable damage is being done to people by watching this new breed of horror. Their brains are literally being physically damaged! Will it be that at some point, someone will be able to sue the writers, directors, produces and studios behind these films for the brain damage they've caused? Will these films one day serve as reason enough to get someone off murder?

We need to remind ourselves what the purpose of cinema is, to escape reality. It is not, and should never be, to watch mindlessly as a freak realistically kills people in the most horrific ways imaginable. Horror has become sick, ill and twisted. A perverted version of the glory it once held. For what the slasher film did to revive the ailing horror genre, the staged snuff is reversing. All in the name of a quick buck, but I ask you, if horror dies, where will the next quick buck come from?

The 48 Hour Rapid Detox by HiLife is promising you can drop weight in just a weekend and be magically fit and healthy.

The diet consists of drinking nothing but their Acai & Goji Juice drink for 48 hours. The drink which comes in concentrate form; and thus removing large amounts of any nutritional value they had to begin with; is claimed to detox your body from "toxins" and make you lose weight.

Their website goes as far as claiming;

"With 48hr RAPID DETOX, time is not an issue any more. In just one weekend, you can flush away all the toxins that build up in our systems. These are toxins that make us lethargic, that take all the life out of our skin and hair, that make us bloated and unhealthy, toxins that make us gain weight."

These claims aren't just false, they're dangerous and here is why. With any detox diet all you do is drink only their "magic" drink for a set time period, but these drinks can cause kidney damage and failure. They can also cause liver damage and failure. As with everything in life too much is definitely a bad thing.

These isn't to say that by doing a detox you're guaranteed to go into liver or kidney failure and die, but the risk is there and it is VERY real. At the very least, whether you notice it or not, you will have caused yourself slight kidney &/or liver damage. This occurs because of large amounts of specific enzymes entering your body which your liver attempts to remove. Your kidneys also become over worked during this process, coupled with the excess fluid.

The "toxins" they claim to "flush" from your system simply don't exist. There is no scientific or medical evidence to suggest that any of these detox diets have any beneficial results on the body in any way. Detox diets are a scam, plain and simple. And they can cause you to DIE! They can also cause you to be on dialysis for the rest of your life.

The 48 Hour Rapid detox diet shares these same high risks as other detox diets. It to is a scam! So what about the weight loss? Is that real? Sure, you will lose some weight by drinking nothing but acai and goji berry juice; but this has nothing to do with any special properties of the berries.

The problem with this diet from a weight loss stand point is clear, you lose weight because your body is starving. The juice being a concentrate has little to no nutritional value, you might as well be just drinking water for 48 hours, it would probably be healthier. You lose weight because your body starts to run on your fat reserves as you aren't eating anything.

This on it's own is quite dangerous as it can cause a number of different life threatening conditions, including a heart attack. Beyond that the most disheartening part of it all, if you are lucky and don't end up with a serious health issue as a result of these diet scams, you will put the weight straight back on, and then some

Why? Well it goes back to the fact that your body went into starvation mode. While your body is starving it does what it can to survive, and makes the assumption that food is no longer plentiful. You lose weight for the period that you starve yourself. Once you commence eating again, you body then tries to store as much energy as fat as it can in order to prepare itself for the next time food isn't plentiful that you just told it would happen. This is why people yoyo with their weight.

It isn't your body doing anything wrong, bad genes or anything of the sort making your weight yoyo. Fad diets like this 48 hour Rapid detox diet are the cause. This is why when you yoyo, you end up fatter than you where before! And the sad thing is, the more times you starve yourself the worse it gets! The feeling of being more alert and energetic is actually a symptom of starvation.

If you have been considering getting this detox diet, of have even purchased it, I urge you to reconsider. The risks are to high for something that will give you know benefits.

Links;

48 Hour Rapid Detox
Acai Berry Scams (Google Search)
Acai Berry information
Evolutionary Minds (The smart way to lose weight)

I was thinking this morning about the idiots who stand outside abortion clinics shouting about the babies right to life. I was wondering if they're hypocrites or if they truly believe that all creatures have a right to life.

See being that these people are usually hardcore scripture bashers, I was thinking that perhaps they believe only humans have a right to life? I mean I'm sure some of them will contribute to help save fluffy cute animals, but what about the rest of them? How about bugs? I mean these people stand outside abortion clinics all day shouting about life, but if they see a cockroach or a spider what do they do?

If they were suddenly confronted by a snake or a crocodile, perhaps a hyena, what then? Indeed, what do these people eat? Last time I checked beef, pork, chicken, fish and lamb all come from living things.. but this is the big thing. If everything that is living has a right to life, then you can't eat plants either. Plants are living. Yep, your salad died for you!

What about vego's and animal rights advocates, how do they feel about these things? If these people are so passionate about the right to life, why don't they picket supermarkets? Manufactures of mouse traps or bug spray? Heck, the military kill people and other animals alike, why don't right to lifers picket military bases?

I'd love to hear from some right to lifers about where they stand on these things. I think it'd be interesting. So if there are any right to lifers who have pulled themselves away from the abortion clinic picket long enough to read my blog, comment me and let me know how things are from your side.

Oh and for the record, I don't agree with abortion, I think it's murder. But on the same accord I neither picket people, trying to ram my judgments down their throat nor am I hypocritical about it. I believe all life has a right to live, so I don't kill anything. Including bugs.

The consumption of goods and services, even when they are unneeded and sometimes even completely useless to us has steadily increased since the 1940s. As media has encroached ever more into our daily lives, so forth has advertising. The first major revolution in advertising came with the introduction of Television.

Suddenly with a television or a "TV", advertisers found a direct route into our living rooms. By linking their ads to popular TV shows or personalities, advertisers caught us while we had those warm fuzzy feelings associated with something we like. In doing so, we then associated their products and brands with those same warm fuzzy feelings. And so was born the age of the consumer, and we were set on a path which would have implications for social structure, mental health and even the environment.

With this new found power to creep into our homes, advertisers managed to con us into some pretty dodgy deals over the years. But as the years have moved on from the introduction of television, so has legislation and indeed the consumer. When advertising first appeared on TV, merely being associated with a program or personality was enough to send thousands running for the nearest stockist. As immunity to this approach grew, advertisers changed tactics, instead listing on the neat things the product can do or how great it will taste. We were shown fake images and told things which boarder on fraud. Again, the consumer changed, and so did the advertisers tactic.

Today, we find ads which instead of insisting a product is brilliant, we're simply told it will make us "cool", more popular or happier. These claims again are of course untrue and it is again only a matter of time before the consumer becomes impartial to such advertising campaigns and things have to change once more. But no matter how these ads are delivered, the core message is always there, and has been since the word go. It is the core message which ultimately drives consumerism; that being one needs all this "stuff" to be happy. That your life will somehow go unfulfilled without these products, and you will struggle to ever find happiness. Indeed we know this to be a complete and utter lie, and yet still the mass population fall for it.

In sheep like behavior, the mass population simply follow directions and purchase what they're told to. But indeed this is having the opposite effect than had been intended. There is much evidence to show consumerism actually decreases fulfillment and happiness, for it is simply an incarnation of materialism. Through consumerism we are fostering an "I" society; that is to say, a society focused inwardless in selfish need to make their own pile of "stuff" larger. We have a society which has over complicated itself in the aid of gathering said "stuff". Think about it, we go to work daily, to earn enough money to buy the never ending conveyor belt of "new stuff". We do this without thought or wonder, indeed like a trained monkey we feel happy about doing it.

The costs of which are our sanity and the environment we live in. For the many of us incapable of buying the "coolest" new toy, we feel less of a person, incomplete, after all that is the message the advertisers would have us believe. These feelings can lead to depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, even obsessive compulsive behavior. We are bombarded to buy ever more "stuff", to the point that obesity has hit epidemic proportions. It is strange to think, but the very thing that keeps capitalist economies running could, through over indulgence, break the economy all together.

But perhaps before that even occurs, our environment is at the brink of collapse through pollution caused by consumerism. Our waste has caused the environment to wither and die. The only solution for which is to cease our consumer behavior, and removed the products from which, from our society. But, human behavior what it is, I can hardly see that happening. Greed runs rampant in this modern capitalist world. If you are what you buy, then truly, what are you?

--edit--
Part 2 in this series will appear on Friday the 21st of August 2009. I apologise for any confusion

Consumerism. Marketing teams and companies alike would have us believe it will make us happier; that it will somehow improve and fulfill our lives. But deep down I think we all know that is an outright lie. Yet for some oddity, some of us, nay most of us, get sucked into the game. We consume at ever greater rates, products and services which fill us with empty promises of better, more exciting lives. Of more friends, a better job, more sex appeal, the list goes on..

Why do we do it to ourselves? What tricks are used on us? And is this limited to just adults? How much of a consumer whore have you truly become? These are just some of the questions I hope to explore in this multi-part series on consumerism. Expect the first addition to be released 6pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (GMT+10).

There has been much discussion on whether amalgam fillings are safe or not due to their mercury content. The fear is that the fillings which contains about 45 to 54 percent mercury are poisonous, causing all manner of medical problems; and this fear is causing Americans to flood into dentists to have them removed.

Many people, even some dentists themselves question why amalgam fillings are still used, as such a wide variety of other materials to use, but for many people it comes down to price. Amalgam fillings are cheaper and quicker than other composite dental materials. The American Dental Association (ADA) insist that amalgam fillings are safe, and pose no health risk as elemental mercury is used.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) have also offered a report which references anecdotal evidence (from dentists) to state as a matter of scientific fact that amalgam fillings are not harmful. But the question is, with this claim resting on anecdotal evidence alone, where is the science? When tested dentists who work with amalgam fillings are found to have raised levels of mercury in their blood/body, but this is not thought to be at the levels of toxicity.

There is however a difference between handling the stuff for a few moments and having it installed into ones mouth. Proponents of amalgam fillings site that while the fillings do release a small amount of vapor it is not harmful when swallowed. But those on the other side of the argument site how easily element mercury is able to convert into methylmercury under conditions inside the mouth. Methylmercury is a highly poisonous substance, and while there is much anecdotal evidence from dentists that the fillings are safe, there is also a similar amount of anecdotal evidence from patients who have suffered illness since having amalgam fillings.

It seems we have a situation here where a health organisation is putting their bottom line, before the science and before patient health. Amalgam fillings may, or may not be safe as anywhere in medicine we find anecdotal evidence that tell of illness after treatment. The problem with anecdotal evidence is it is often misguided, and unrelated. People go to the doctor and receive medicine and become ill, failing to take into account something they have done earlier, or later in the day.

Anecdotal evidence in science is not to be relied on and it is amazing to me that organisations as highly respected as the American Dental Association and the Federal Drug Administration would rely entirely there on. The bottom line is, where is the science? Where are the tests, the short and long term studies? There is no scientific research here to definitively say, yes these are or are not safe. Until such a time as actual scientific research has been carried out and we can say conclusively that they are or are not safe, I personally would suggest opting for the more expensive composite fillings if you are able.

We need tests done on mercury levels found in dental patients with amalgam fillings, who have had them fitted over the short, medium and long term. We also need to see tests done which monitor what health affects might occur from exposure to small levels of mercury. A study should also be done on the affects of amalgam fillings in pregnant women, on the development of the fetus. Indeed there are many more things which need to be tested, and we should not constrain the testing solely to physical illness; as mercury is known to affect mental health (thus the expression mad hatter). The health and well being of the community should come far beyond the bottom line, yet sadly in a capitalist society it does not.

As we take on greater amounts of technology into our everyday lives, are we losing our ability to interact socially? With a vast number of people globally having access to the internet and the never ending flood of new mobile phones, it seems an almost obvious question to ask. With their billions of users world wide, are social networking sites, designed to bring people together; having the opposite effect on social interaction?

For generation Y, the first generation to grow up with these kinds of technologies automatically around them; this is certainly seeming the case. We have a generation who have not had the fortune to have grown up learning physical social interaction, and as a result we are seeing not only people incapable of physical social interaction, but criminally anti-social behaviors as well.

That isn't to say that all Gen Y's are displaying these traits, but the numbers are certainly going up. I remember a time when children, teenagers and adults alike, knew that destruction of public property was a boundary not to cross. Knew that you should keep your hands to yourself and not harm anyone else, at least not without a really good reason. In todays' world, destruction of public property and Grievous Body Harm (GBH) are both done "for kicks".

Similarly there are suddenly people without any mental defect incapable of understanding how to interact appropriately with others. These people make up the majority of anti-social traits in modern times. Of these people the vast majority have problems even speaking to another person face to face, reduced to a tongue tied mess. These are people who are suffering; can you imagine not being able to walk into a shop and ask for help? Or the loneliness associated with such a condition.

But is it really their fault? Or is it down to technology? As humans, we learn to socialise through experience. Children play freely without care of consequence and speak their minds. It is from this that we learn social boundaries and thus become socially capable and confident. But as technology powers forward children are losing their chances for physical interaction experience. Lets take video games for example.

Before video games where invented, children used their imaginations more to play. This lead to adults who were capable of effective problem solving skills, and of course better social interaction skills, as children played outside with friends. Enter video games, and while they reduced the need for imagination, they were and remain more fun playing with friends. Up until recently however, to play a video game with a friend, they had to physically be in the room with you, this still gave one the opportunity to interact socially, and thus learn much needed skills. With the utilisation of the internet for gaming however, the need for physical presence for multi-player gaming has vanished and it's social interaction along with it.

Similarly social networking, with it's massive databases of users have done away with the simplest of social interactions. We now have a generation who have friends that they have never met and probably never will. And yet a vast friendship has formed. There are people in the world where their entire friend base can be described in this manner, and those who can be described that way are growing.

What is the solution, I haven't a clue where to begin short of pulling the plug on the whole thing. But what is certain is that if the trend continues within a matter of generations that can be counted on 1 hand, the ability to interact, socially, face to face may be lost entirely. And I think THAT is a real shame, sure to bring with it, endless problems.

It is rare that I come across a modern day movie that I like, but french film À la folie... pas du tout (He loves me, he loves me not) certainly makes the cut. It is a movie that is well thought out, leaving plot holes tiny and scarce. The clever script is taken to another level both with insightful direction and divine acting on behalf of the lead roles.

À la folie... pas du tout tells the story of waitress/student Angélique whom is madly inlove with Cardiologist Loïc and plans to run off with him. Almost needless to say Loïc is married, and his wife is pregnant with their first child. Add to the mix, student doctor David whom himself has fallen for Angélique and you have a mature paletted thriller. The exploration of Angélique's erotomania indeed takes this film to another level.

Audrey Tautou plays Angélique exquisitely with her odd, but innocent look barely hinting at the world that lives inside her mind. The film is of course in french and thus subtitled, but I hope that will not put you off this masterful work. It plays in two halfs, first telling things as Angélique see's them, then once more from the perspectives of everyone else. Writer/Director Laetitia Colombani has certainly out done herself with this film, it will jerk your heart strings then send you on a white knuckle ride.

Links;

IMDB
Cinephilia

You're born, stay a "child" for 18 years then you become an adult? But is this really how things are, or is it just another ego fed delusion of humanity? Lets look at the evidence.

In biology; which is the science to study and explain all known life, once an animal reaches sexual maturity it is said to be an adult. Therefore biologically speaking humans reach adulthood somewhere between 13 and 15 years old. Even this is back tracking somewhat in the modern world as children go through puberty at evermore earlier ages. But even that said, 13 to 15 years is still a very long time to reach adulthood, when you consider that 13 to 15 years is the life span of the average domestic cat or dog.

Another crucial change in humans happens between 15 and 16 years old, but this one happens in the brain. At this age, hormones are released which change the very structure of the brain, and thus the way we think about the world around us. It is at this stage that our brains have matured and we are more likely to think about responsibility, right and wrong and think in an "adult" way. It also allows us to look at problems in a different way, and is usually the point in time when we start to figure out the world doesn't revolve around us. So from a brain structure point of view and a thought processes point of view, 15 to 16 years old is adulthood.

But socially, it's not until 18 in most of the western world, in some countries even 21! But this hasn't always been the case. Up until a couple hundred years ago it was common place to consider an unmarried girl of 14 a spinster. Girls were generally married at 11 or 12, and were considered adults and fully expected to run the households daily tasks. Indeed in some cultures this practice still continues and it does seem to work to a certain extent. I'm of course not advocating you marry off your daughters asap, just that it did seem to work quite well for a very long time, and still does in certain cultures around the world. Moreover, that society used to look at people as adult by 11, being that the age of consent.

Something is certainly a miss somewhere in our system though, for we have teenagers struggling with their biology which cries out for them to reproduce, in a society which has ill equipped them for the task and condemns their thoughts. In a youth focused society, are we attempting to artificially prolong childhood? At 26 people still think I'm very young, and that it's extraordinary to have achieved all I have. But in the natural world at 26 I would be coming close to my death. That's why babies born when the mother is over 35 have high risks of deformity and disease. I do not consider my achievements extraordinary, only that most people are to concerned with "childhood" to bother getting on with life.

I have friends in their 20s who tell me they aren't "ready" for marriage and children, but what they're really saying is they aren't "ready" to let go of their childhood. They aren't ready to be responsible and adult. Their biology is ready for these things, their brain and thought structure are ready, their certainly capable of doing it. So what is it that causes people to hold onto their childhoods for dear life? Is it their morbid fear of old age and thus death? Is it social structure mixed with laziness? or is it something else completely?

While I am aware I am going to get a lot of abuse over this post regardless of what I say here, I would like to make it clear the intention of this post is NOT to link Homosexuals and Pedophiles, or relate the two in ANY way at all. The use of Homosexuals in this post is merely to illustrate how the rights process historically works.

A mere 30 years ago coming "out of the closet" meant not only complete social suicide, but there was something dreadfully wrong with you. Up until the mid 1970's Homosexuality was considered a mental illness and was described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual which is published by the American Psychiatric Association and recognised in the western world as the document to use in Diagnosing mental disorders.

At some point in the mid 1970's our morals and values changed and while homosexuality was still a dirty word, it wasn't quite as bad. From here, there were slight reductions in how badly homosexuality was viewed right up until the mid to late 1990's where the Gay Rights campaign really took hold of societies collective heart, and the oppression of being "politically correct" set in.

Today, in 2009 not only is it socially acceptable to be Gay, but it's cheered. Gay pride echos through out society, it touches everywhere, from our schools to our grocery store. Now what once was considered a mortal sin, is now a celebrated part of culture. It took 25 years to happen, from the inception of the Gay Rights Movement.

Enter pedophilia, which is currently still considered a mental disorder and is socially morally reprehensible. The passion of hate conjured up in some people at the mere mention of the word is almost indescribable. But now, pedophiles are starting to demand rights under the law. You could say, historically speaking they're now at the same point Gay Rights way in the early 1970's.

The big thing that kept the progress of the Gay rights movement back was tolerance, and a society unwilling to tolerate new ideas. The problem today is the oppression of being "politically correct" has got society to a stage they'll almost tolerate anything. It is for this reason a properly organised, backed and pushed Pedophile Rights campaign wouldn't take anywhere near as long as 25 years.

The concern here is, will at some point being a pedophile be considered just another sexuality, just as homosexuality is today? Organisations such as NAMBLA certainly hope that one day they will be able to walk down the street with their child lovers, pride beaming on their faces. I on the other hand, want to gag at the thought.

But still the Pedophile rights movement is there, fostering in the background, readying itself to hit the mainstream and go live. There is little stopping it, our culture as programed us to tolerate everything. So the real question is, when pedophiles get their way, when they have legal rights. Will you still protect your children? And if so... how?

Links;

NAMBLA
Free Republic
Volconvo Forums

In a world where Obesity is still on the rise, could anorexia be becoming the next fad? Disturbingly I've found evidence this could well be the case. Anorexia is a condition by which the person continually views their body as fat and disgusting. By this means the individual starves him/herself dramatically dropping body fat to below dangerous levels. Indeed many persons have died from Anorexia.

I've joined Yahoo Answers which is a part of the Yahoo! network where people ask questions, and those capable of answering are able to do so for points. Those who answer the best, get voted for and earn even more points. There seem to be an alarming number of Teenage girls on the site aged between 13 and 15 who are dramatically under weight and searching for ways to lose even more weight.

It is evident from their questions that although in actual fact they are underweight, they still feel as if they are over weight and will be judged poorly if they don't lose it. This is classic Anorexic thinking, so my question is where is this coming from?

Could it be that the overwhelming number of obese people now days is simply beginning to put people off? Or could it be that with the urgent push from governments and food companies to tackle the obesity epidemic their messages are wrongly being picked up by those who are of healthy weight or below? In our rush to help the obese, have we forgotten that everyone hasn't taken to gluttony?

Flip through any magazine now days, turn on the TV, surf the internet, the message to lose weight, because you're too fat is EVERYWHERE! We are saturated with this message, it's even taught in schools! Is it any wonder then that young impressionable minds are developing Anorexia? I fear we are heading for a tidal wave of underweight, body dysmorphic persons in the near future; by which we have only thus far seen the tip of the iceberg.

Links;

Yahoo Answers