Why Oprah is now on my shit list

We live in a world filled with problems. There are people who have recently lost loved ones, who are suffering from illness, who live below the poverty line, who have nowhere safe or warm to sleep tonight, who don't have access to clean drinking water, who are affected by mental illness or have to look after loved ones who are.

Thousands of people will die from suicide or from relatively easily prevented illness. They will dies because there wasn't enough food to go around, because they couldn't afford to go the hospital or because they were born into a country where they were practically doomed from the start. They will die at the hands of violent criminals or by corrupt governments with draconian laws.

The world itself suffers from a lack of resources, a lack of affordable housing, a lack of hospitable temperatures for humans to easily exist in. We have to deal with rising temperatures, future pandemics, overpopulation and an increasing disparity between the world's richest and it's poorest. We have countries run by religious lunatics or power hungry politicians, neither of whom care one iota for the people who they are supposed to lead.

Every day millions will be bullied, molested, abused, attacked or just made to feel like shit just for being themselves (or for no reason at all). We have conflicts over whose god is better, which country is better and whether women or gay people count as human. There are billions of people on this world who live pretty horrible lives, and if we could I think most of us would do as much as possible to help them out.

If Oprah, a woman with billions of dollars to her name and millions of loyal followers could give one gift to the world, what would it be? Why, the ability to stand still, of course. Who needs food, water, safety, health, love or happiness when you can just stand still?

So fuck you Oprah, fuck you Deepak Chopra and fuck everyone who wants to pretend that sitting still will do anything at all.

Apologies + MAURY

Hello everyone. Why, it sure has been a while since I've been on here hasn't it? But hey, what better time for my triumphant return than the night after the Oscars. Actually, since everyone is just talking about The Onion and Anne Hathaway's nipples there may be a decrease in attention towards me. Oh well, nobody giving a shit hasn't stopped me before.

But where have I been? Why, Twitter dear friends! I've been tweeting up a storm, as these blogs take ages to do and twitter takes about 8 seconds. TIME IS MONEY, and I am poor. In fact, I just added a delightful twitter widget on the side of the blog right there, so you can see what I'm saying. I'm sure all zero of you who read this blog will enjoy that. 

So maybe I'll post more, or maybe I won't. Seriously though, like half of my posts here are apologising for never posting. I'm sure you appreciate that. No wonder I don't have a loyal readership.

I beg for your forgiveness with two great videos, both of the infamous Maury paternity tests:

In this video, after hearing that he is not the father, the man throws his hat in the woman's face. A master of classy behaviour.

I love how he doesn't just dance, he takes out a fucking tissue and waves it at the audience. It's a pretty distinguished dance for a show like Maury.

再见

A Good Day

Ah, what a wonderful day. 


Actually, I should explain why this day is good first. Something about me is that, while I love Australia, I love it more when Australia fails in sport. Australia prides itself on being a 'sporting nation', and so professional athletes are lauded to almost hero status in the media. So whenever an Australian wins something, you never hear the end of it! When Cadel Evans won the Tour de France a few years back someone who had the audacity to suggest that he was not a national hero was flooded with hate mail. Yes, because being good at riding a bike certainly makes one a worthy role model.

So whether it's Australia failing at the swimming in the 2012 Olympics or Australia ever losing a tennis match, you can be sure that I'm there, laughing at the sidelines. I seriously cannot remember the last time that I have wanted an Australian to win a sporting event.

So you should realise just how pleased I was today when Australia lost all four of the tennis matches they played in the Apia International. Yes, even Aussie icon Sam Stosur lost to my new favourite tennis player (as if I had an old one) Zheng Jie. And two of them they looked like they were going to win. Ha ha ha.

If schadenfreude is the lowest form of pleasure, I don't want to hear about it. Because this certainly made my day. 

Thank you for giving the media nothing to report about tomorrow.

Have a good one. 

Cost of life

Let's face it, life is pretty expensive. Just think about the amount of money you've wasted in your life on things that aren't necessary. But that's not even the end of it, there are huge amounts of money spent on things that people would consider compulsory life events. I don't actually care what other people spend their money on, but considering that I am a person who will be going through life and may go through these events, the social norms as to how much I should spend do affect me. LET'S GO!

Being born: I'm going to skip conception, since all that takes is a bit of alcohol. Being born is very expensive, not for you (obviously) but for your family and society at large. Ignoring all of the costs associated with pregnancy, your very existence is a drain on the world. In Australia, parents get paid $5,000 to have a baby. Yep, you get paid to have children. Firstly, we do not need to incentivise people to have children, biological necessity already has that covered.

Secondly, all this does is make people have babies before they are ready. Considering the number of hoops that one needs to jump through in order to adopt children, having your own child is remarkably simple. It then follows that people will not always plan out their pregnancies, especially with this subgroup that consider abortion some unforgivable sin. Then we have people who are not ready to have children who now have children being given a huge amount of money. Brilliant idea, government.

Having children should not be rewarded. It's not just because I hate children (which I do), but its because we have too many people on Earth! We are running out of resources, and we cannot afford to keep shoving out babies at this rate, especially considering how long people are living for these days. We are fine for people at this point.

Plus, people with children are horribly entitled, as if the fact that they are a parent makes them special or deserving of extra credit. Nope, sorry. You chose to have kids, you don't get a cookie for raising kids. You are doing what is expected of you when you take on a task that billions of people throughout history have also completed. There is no reward for that.

Going to school: A proper education is of the utmost importance, if we're going to have all of these kids running around we'd better make sure they're good for something. But unfortunately school is full of things that are a huge drain on time and money. Primary school goes for ~7 years, and some people spend thousands in order to send their kids to a private primary school. But did you know that there is absolutely no way that anybody would be able to tell what sort of primary school an adult went to? It's true! Primary school is about counting and learning how to draw the letter 'a'. It does not matter where you go. And don't get me started on Catholic schools.

Secondary school is also largely pointless. I remember hours wasted on things that had no practical application to myself or society at large like: What happened in WW2, how to take photos of things, how to make pots, watching the Shawshank Redemption and watching Michael Jackson music videos. We seriously do not need to subject kids to 13 years of this crap. If school wasn't obviously just to keep children occupied until they get old enough to be useful, we could get rid of it. Reading Romeo and Juliet has not helped the anyone ever.

Going to University: This follows on from school. There is so much to do at University, and most of it is totally useless. Read: almost all social sciences. I did a semester of Sociology, it is literally just observations that everyone makes anyway, but with longer, unnecessary words. Many people get degrees and proceed to do nothing with them.

The problem is that society pushes young adults to go to University without knowing whether University is right for them or what they're good at. So many people I know had no idea what to do until right before they forced to make a decision, and how many of them will regret picking what they picked? The amount of time and money that one spends on money seems even worse considering how little degrees seem to be worth even 10 years after one gets one.

Getting married: What's the average amount that people spend on their weddings? I heard that it was around US$28,000. It boggles my mind that people would spend that much on one day. I saw a comment and somebody was implying that their $10, spent was considered cheap. They spent $3,000 on alcohol alone. What the fuck.

Maybe I'm just the wrong person to ask, as I don't see the point in getting married (or dating, for that matter). But spending tens of thousands of dollars on one event is extremely over the top. This is a problem in our society, that people can justify this sort of money sink. I would hope that the zeitgeist would shift towards more simple marriages (or none at all), but it appears that we're moving the opposite way. There should not be any way to rationalise spending this much money. No, I do not care that it is your special day. What a shit life you must have if only one day has this much worth, and considering that you'll probably get divorced anyway, what's the point?

People apparently have hundreds of people attending their weddings. Seriously, who has this many friends? The actual answer: nobody. At most one could really only a dozen or so good friends, and then a handful of family members who you actually care about. But no, for the wedding you must invite as many people as you can afford. Family members you haven't seen for years, friends you sort of know and see occasionally, plus ones and your weird step cousins who you've never seen, nobody is off limits. Is it just a need to show off, to make your big day as special as possible by having as many strangers as possible watching?

And please do not get me started on proposals. Yes, it's cute when your boyf gets a whole restaurant to play along in some stupid song, but it's annoying for everyone else. And why can't women propose, again? You know that your relationship will fail when instead of just talking about marriage like adults you resort to lame fucking hints and passive aggression.

Having your own children: I touched on this before, but one spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on children in their lifetime. Now, this isn't really a problem if you want children, as you would view the benefit as outweighing the cost, and anyway, that cost is spread of over decades (unlike a wedding, where the cost is spread over... a day). But what about those who don't really want children? Well, guess what? You get years of people asking you when you're going to be having children/why you won't be!

Luckily I am way too young to be hearing this stuff, not that I don't already know people who have had children. But I know all the stories. It's probably one of the things that I am dreading the most about being in my 30s, which I am otherwise looking forward to. Actually, I love confrontation, so it won't be so bad. I have no fear regarding telling people that their baby looks ugly.

    Sidebar: I also have no problem telling people they picked a stupid name for their child. Most of these kids will have to change their names if they ever want to be taken seriously. Calling your kid Blaze or Storm is cute when they are one year old, not so cute when they are twenty five.

 So my problem with pestering your friends to have children is that it is probably the biggest money/time sink in one's life. At best they will feel like they have to have children due to social convention, and that's certainly a good recipe for a loving family. If you want to spend your life creating other lives which will almost certainly be as futile as your own, be my guest. But please shut up about your children. Nobody cares that your little shit can read and he's only four. Go away.

I mentioned this before, but why is it so hard to adopt when it's so easy to have your own children? Anyone can breed, anyone at all. We should encourage adoption, as you could probably argue that with our lack of resources and the number of children without homes is is selfish to not adopt. Why is there such a stigma against telling people that they are not fit to be parents?

Being old: Yes, being old is a waste of money too. Realistically, there is no reason for the government to support seniors. One could argue that the government should only assist those who can benefit our society, and seniors have nothing to add. Of course I believe we should support our senior citizens, but is there really a rational reason for it? When we start going into debt, senior benefits should be the first thing we cut, but of course no politician would dare say that, due to the huge backlash. Another problem with democracy - it gives all the power to the uninformed majority.

Dying: Dying is surprisingly expensive. Have you seen the cost of funerals? Being cremated alone costs over $2000! You're just throwing a body into a furnace, where does all the money go? There are these ads on TV for funeral insurance, and apparently they cost so much money, even the flowers cost hundreds of dollars.

Now, I do not see the point in spending this much on funerals. Just like with weddings, I refuse to go into debt just to bury someone in a hole. Giving them a fancy funeral will not bring them back to life. My mother has said that they only have insurance in case of an accident, I told her that if she dies she's being chucked in the river. Sorry Mum, should've gotten a more comprehensive plan, eh?

Personally, I don't care what is done with me after I die. I'm dead, it doesn't matter. I won't know. I would get insurance if I had any dependants, because I wouldn't want them to deal with hassle. But I have no requests otherwise. Play whatever cheesy shit song you want, bury me whereever you want. I see it as more about helping the loved ones deal with the death rather than what the dead person wants. Seriously, they're dead. They will not know.

It's strange how that once someone dies we somehow treat them differently. I think I'll talk more about this later, maybe after some really famous person who I don't care about dies. But for the moment, I don't see why someone's death changes their status. If someone was a jerk alive, they're a jerk dead. While I celebrate the death of my enemies, I do feel for the loss of those who lost them. But come on, every one of those crazy evangelists who carks it is one less person to spew garbage in this world.

So there you are, there are the costs of living. I really just scratched the surface here, anyway. I don't think there's a lot we can really do other than trying to change the social conciousness, and what better way to do that other than writing a blog that nobody reads! Eh, it's just fun to get my feelings out there. But this is why I won't be able to have a political career, I'm just way too much of a maverick.

Have a nice day.

Uninformed TV Show Reviews #1: Don't Trust the B---- in Apt. 23

Television shows typically don't last too long these says, as with the sheer amount of shows that debut each year only a few typically get to make a second season. I am, personally, a big fan of shows that only ever lasted one season, but sometimes I need to bite the bullet and watch a TV show that lasted longer than one season. 

After watching three episodes of this show last night, I feel that I am sufficiently informed to comment on this exciting new(-ish) TV show: Don't Trust the B---- in Apt. 23. 

My first question is this: Why is bitch censored in the title? This is probably everybody's first question, but I think it's a legit point. It's 2012, and we're not allowed to put incredibly minor swear words in out television show titles? I don't know, it really irks me. And if you can't say bitch, then don't put it in the title! Change the name to something else! I'm docking points right from the start here.  -10 points

The series begins with June moving to New York from somewhere. She has an exciting new job in... business and a sweet NYC apartment to go along with it. You see, the only important thing for everyone is to move to New York and make your life as much like Friends as possible. -5 points for setting it in a city that has been used so many times before. If you must set your show in the US, why not Pittsburgh? I don't know, I always had a soft spot for Pittsburgh.

But it all goes wrong for June, as her company has been closed down for corruption or something, and she now has no job or apartment (for some zany reason that only ever happens in TV shows). Stuck out in New York with no job or place to live, she decides to turn to Craigslist and find a roommate. 

We get a hilarious montage of all the zany roommates that June could choose to live with (and, personally, I'd take the fat guy. He seemed entertaining), but eventually she decides to live with Chloe. This is unsurprising, as this characters face is all over the promos and whatnot. However, it turns out that not all is as at seems, as even though Chloe seems like a very nice girl, it turns out that she is really a BITCH WHO LIVES IN APARTMENT 23!

Oh, and there is also this woman who lives next door who is in love with Chloe or something. -3 points for being unable to feature an asian woman in a sitcom who is neither extremely bitter/sarcastic nor a total weirdo. Sorry, thems the breaks.

Anyway, it turns out that June lives in a world or lovable lunatics. Like every sitcom ever. There's the guy next door who watches them do stuff! Apparently he's a pervert or something, but he's too over the top to be realistic or entertaining. True perverts should be subtle. -5 points for being to OTT.

Okay, now here's another pet peeve. Why is there blurring? On a parody documentary show blurring makes sense, particularly if it's really over done (like the huge blue circle in Arrested Development), but on a regular sitcom it sort of undoes the pace. I don't know, I prefer fancy camera angles or well positioned flowers and whatnot. -10 points because I don't like the blurring (and it's not just because I'd like to see whats-her-faces nipples).

Oh, and it turns out that James Van Der Beek is in this show, playing HIMSELF! I don't actually know who James Van Der Beek is, but it turns out that he was on Dawson's Creek, a show that is a little old for me. Now, has the whole 'celebrities playing an exaggerated version of themselves' thing been overdone? It was good in Extras, but I'm not sure if we need it anymore. It's just a lazy attempt to make your show seem cool or edgy. -8 points

It turns out that Chloe's goal is to make June want to move out after taking her rent in advance. She does this by inviting her to foursomes and giving her masturbation tips. But June gets revenge on Chloe by selling all of her possessions. Yep, that's definitely a fair trade.

Some other crap happens, but I'm going to skip past it.

June is engaged (which I probably should've mentioned earlier) to a guy whose name I forget and is ultimately unimportant. I think he's a teacher or something, and he has a kid who follows him around and some other helper woman. I don't know, I wasn't really paying attention. Chloe gets the kid drunk and it is revealed that June's fiance is having an affair with the helper woman, the helper woman's sister and some other women as well. It's just like a soap opera.

In order to prove to June that her fiancee is cheating on her, she seduces the fiancee and they are about to have sex before June walks in. There's yelling and stuff and someone throws a lamp. June and Chloe have a heart to heart and we are set up for many more episodes of comedy with these two ladies.

Also, +2 points because I liked the multiple mistresses thing, +2 points because I like the slow kid with the glasses, but -5 points because the end scene was stupid and cheesy. And -5 points because I can't figure out Chloe's motivations.





MISC. THOUGHTS OF EPISODES TWO AND THREE

June has a life plan that includes being married by 26 and having two children, named Mary and Chris. Life plans NEVER work, you always end up disappointed. I think the straight man being a bit neurotic and being devoted to family is a bit overdone, personally. She's like a female Jason Bateman. -2 points

Chloe sets June up on a date with her father. I'll be honest, I liked that little twist. +3 points

James Van Der Beek runs his own acting workshop, but can't detach from being Dawson. The whole 'celebrity hates being known as that one character' thing is a little tired, but the JVDB subplots are usually the funniest bits of the episode, so I can't hate it too much. -3 points for being overused, but +5 points for being used well.

June works at a coffee shop with a guy who I have yet to mention. Good on him.

June is one of those sitcom characters who doesn't have sex for ages or uses euphemisms for genitalia and whatnot. Again, these characters are used too frequently and she isn't taken in any directions or whatever. Booooooring. -5 points

Chloe pushes her dad into a cyclist. I know I skipped ahead a lot, whatever. You don't want me to spoil everything, do you?

Chloe works for the UN or something. I liked the Tagalog reference. +1 point





Chloe adopts a child to be her assistant. Child labour laws be damned!

There's a bunch of story that is theme based, about June taking on too much responsibility and Chloe not taking on enough. I'm not sure what the moral is, but I'm that the characters will all quickly forget it in order for more hijinks to be raised next episode.

I actually like the assistant girl. I'm going to dock points for not including her as a main cast member. -10 points

Other stuff happens too, and James Van Der Beek is still the best character. +5 points for his scenes in episode 3. 

So, that's it for my DTTBIA23 review. It managed to gain a handsome negative 53 points. That sounds bad, but the aim is really to lose as few points as possible. If I do anymore of these, we'll see how this show adds up. But overall I liked it. It's pretty formulaic and it doesn't really add anything new but it follows the guidelines pretty well. It's never going to be a classic but I didn't feel like I'd wasted time after watching it.

See ya.