The House of Good & Evil

Politics is about a conflict between ideas. We get used to only two such ideas in the Westminster system so popular in the English-speaking world, because that's what is encouraged. Us & them. Left & right. Progressive & conservative. We tend to simplify this to good & evil. One side will do me good, & the other will not, therefore it's evil. This is simplistic & works for sound bites & broadcast advertising. With the rise of targeted advertising & unregulated information sources claiming to be informed when merely opinionated, & the general echo chamber of your corner of the internet, the game has changed a little. Some political entities have used this for good - focusing on an issue - while others have used this new media for evil - focusing on people. I was just reminded of that quote usually attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt: small minds discuss people, larger minds discuss events, great minds discuss ideas.

We often talk about the lowest common denominator, & it's a sad fact that compulsory voting in Australia means that those who don't want to vote will happily be swayed by a message that resonates with their own attitude towards elected politicians ... by believing one elected politician over another. Sometimes the purpose is to create an elected politician from a humble millionaire.

The environment has, however, created an atmosphere of true good & evil. In the past, election campaigns have been run on promises, & they've been relatively positive ones, with the hope of capturing the 'middle ground' of the electorate from whatever side of the spectrum a party has started. Each party has had a core 'location' on that spectrum, but has tried to broaden its appeal. This is a situation that the older voters, in particular, are used to, & sometimes it frustrates the younger ones.

Times have changed, though, as I said. Rather than seeking the middle ground, new forces are trying to polarise the electorate beyond mere differentiation. Instead of making different promises on how much will be spent where - which generally has a positive outcome for someone - new parties stand on a platform of punishing voters. This is beyond mere carrot-&-stick tactics, & it's not limited to a single party. It's never met with success so far, but you never know.

For years, the Greens have been demonised as a party that was 'anti-progress' (usually claimed by conservatives) for standing in the way of development, by curbing pollution & greenhouse emissions, & wanting to 'punish' the businesses that rape & pillage the landscape at no cost to themselves. Businesses, however, don't vote, & this sounded like a soft target, except that business investors can afford to throw cash into advertising & then rally their employees, who'd rather have a job than a blade of grass to admire all day. Punishment isn't an effective political campaign.

For almost as long, an anti-immigration party in various forms has raised its ugly head to claim it would punish the migrants from a number of undisclosed countries that arrived after some undisclosed time from reuniting with their families. The soft target here is a steady stream of non-voting visa-holders that are generally grouped under 'backpackers & students', but also includes (genuine) refugees, overseas seasonal workers & some skilled workers. None of these vote unless they get permanence. However, the institutions that benefit from the income from students, & the farmers that employ the workers do vote, but have less individual power than, say, a mine owner.

Now, I'm not suggesting that broken promises & outlandish claims of how much better off we'll be under one government or another is a situation I want to return to in a political groundhog day from which I can't escape & don't even learn anything from, but I much prefer to be told how much better things could be if I vote one way over another, than be told how much worse it will be if I don't. I've never been swayed by such political wrangling & I'm unlikely to be swayed by the new jingoism, because, fundamentally, I believe too much in absolute democracy, which allows for - indeed encourages! - idiots to be represented by idiots. You can see the concentration of idiocy reflected in who they elect, & this is not necessarily a comment on American politics.

Full disclosure: I have belonged to two political parties in the past. In my youth, I was a member of the left of Labor who voted consistently with the right, & many years later I was a member of the Greens who had no real interest in environmentalism. I have voted for local independents in most elections, in safe electorates where my vote 'won't matter', because I still believe in democracy, &, in general, so do those who run as independents.

As much as I can dream of a government made of a coalition of issue-based parties that collapses only to reform at the next election, as seems common enough across Europe, I suspect it will never happen here, & as a result we are unlikely to get 'interesting' politicians beyond the occasional former sportsperson, which seems appropriate given how many former politicians end up heading sporting bodies.

The only real way to solve the issue of politics is to take the power away from the Parliament & give it to some professionals who merely need oversight from independent - elected - officials who themselves have no agenda & think of their role as fulfilling a civic duty for a fixed term. The only problem with that is the complete lack of 'leadership', because we all need someone to look up to or else blame. 

This is why I have always preferred the concept of benevolent dictatorship, effectively what the Greeks called a tyrant. Look it up.

DNA tests are bunkum

I'd like to believe that DNA testing, in the sense of determining the mix of your ancestry, is based on something scientific. It's not. It just isn't. It's more related to a statistical analysis of the similarities of test results, factoring in the likelihood of more intermediate generations connecting any two results by guessing at the possible variations, then logging the geographic locations of the participants. Thus, if the only people on a particular Greek island who have done a DNA test are people from England who've moved there for tax reasons, you could find yourself with Greek ancestry even they didn't know they had.

I have tried to defend the process. A work colleague from Brazil (with a Portuguese mother) wondered about her Irish ancestry, & I flubbed on about how Northern Spain & Portugal have old cultural links to the Celtic nations, so it's possible.

My cousin's daughter had a test done & was told she's 60% Scottish. That would only make sense if her father (who I don't know) was 100% Scottish (which I know he isn't), because she's got less than 10% from her mother's side.

It could be suggested that the above is based on personal opinion, & that's all well & good.

DNA tests are still bunkum.

To prove a point, I read somewhere that a particularly well known conservative red-haired Australian politician had taken a DNA test & been told she was 59% Northern European, 39% Eastern Mediterranean, & 9% Middle Eastern. That's a big number. One of her Great-grandparents must have been an Arab. No-one mentioned that in the article. My own Arab ancestry is so diluted that people laugh at me when I mention it, so I won't.

I'll also leave aside that politician's bland acceptance that one of her Great-grandparents had inexplicably been an Arab - & another 3 were Greek (or Turkish). She trusted 'the science' in the same way she'd been trusting her advisers for decades, I suppose.

Bunkum.

It just so happens that the lady in question has a well-known enough ancestry that it's on the web, & I've just trawled through 7 generations of her forebears, & I've discovered that she's about 25% Irish, 20% Cornish, & most of the rest is from Southern England. It's one of the least-travelled genealogies I've seen in a while. 

Admittedly, one of her Great-grandparents is a bit of a mystery to me, having been born in London, where his father is listed at his wedding (in Brisbane), but not his mother. Maybe she was an Arab. More likely she was a common Londoner with a name like Mary. Her Irish ancestry becomes a little patchy prior to 1800, but that's what happens when records get destroyed.

Her ancestry includes no grand ambassadors to foreign lands, soldiers who brought back native wives, or adventurers who rambled the colonies seeking fame & fortune. 

Not one.

Her paper trail of ancestry explains why she has red hair. No question. I'm unsure if the DNA test mentioned that.

By all means, spend your shekels on the test, just for fun, but don't expect science. It's a commercial contract you're entering into, & it probably means you've sold your own DNA by buying into the idea of 'finding something out' about yourself. Don't expect to be told you're the last Plantagenet (which is the Earl of Loudon, from memory) , or descended from Cleopatra's hand-maid. Expect nothing, & you'll be happy. Anything else might upset you.

One of your great-grandparents may have been an Arab, & now you have to work out which one.

Tax reform (sorry)

The Australian Federal election has just happened. I know it happened, because the advertising is being pulled down. Nothing else will happen. It's not just because the government was returned, it's because, quite frankly, it's better if they do nothing, & people tend to close their eyes & ignore things if they do something.

No matter how many promises are made, delivered, or broken, these will come down to spending more on one thing over another, or else spending less on many things. There are no other options. As an economic genius once told me: there's only so much pie. Yes, you can increase the size of the pie by raising taxes, but there's still only so much you can do before the peasants revolt, so nobody wants to bake too much in.

I digress.

Tax reform.

The last time this country had any - real tax reform - the government's income was radically shifted by the introduction of GST. Any value-add tax changes the shape of both how we pay tax & how it is provided to the government. The first is seen in, say, lower taxes & higher prices, & the latter is seen in public servants chasing recalcitrant corporations for an extended grace period, followed by referrals to paying fines, & a convoluted redistribution mechanism because the consumers congregate in cities.

Before GST, we had two basic types of tax: income (direct & capital gains) & indirect (import, sales, excise). After GST, we got consumption, which is effectively direct, because, not only could we see it, as the consumer, but we could reclaim it under certain circumstances (especially tourists!).

At the time, I loved GST.

It's a matter of perspective. I was married. We both had high-paying jobs. We had no kids. We lived a quite frugal life. Thus, we invested in real estate & also benefited from low capital gains. An ideal world.

Now, I am married. We have a single income & one child still at home, & frugality seems to not be a watchword because one of us has time to do online shopping at home. We struggle - with a similar income.

Someone's going to say "that's your choice - having a family, not working, etc". No, that's a political view. Oddly, it seems to be the same party that wants to encourage family values - mum at home for the kids - & 100% employment with more places in childcare. I won't dwell on it.

The economics doesn't work. GST will always favour childless working couples, & no amount of family benefits & tax-time dependents will compensate for that. In addition, you have the full range of single-parent scenarios from the classic welfare cheat (someone who relies entirely on social services, so they must be a bludger) to the struggling working parent (who relies on childcare).

So, what does 'fair' tax look like? That depends on which side of the great political divide you sit on. One side would suggest that, in the best possible case, the family that shares one income should be taxed less (overall) because of the basic spreading of that income across more consumers (citizens, potentially voters). The other side suggests that every voter already has (or should have) an equal opportunity to make the life they wish to lead; thus, the only fair system taxes equally based on the (individual) income, & consumption (in terms of value) is commensurate with income.

Obviously, neither side is right. In fact, those two extremes would introduce such chaos into a social system that democracy would be at risk. Either the upper echelons would refuse to contribute, seeing it as supporting the ne'er-do-wells, or else the peasants would revolt in starvation. Historically, we have used a few levers to compensate larger families - & even encourage them - & encourage people who can afford to to spend on luxuries (with very limited success).

So, what does tax reform look like? It depends on who you are.

Those who are on welfare - the unemployed, pensioned, & those with a health status precluding them from working - don't pay taxes. They should essentially be allowed to live in dignity. How much dignity depends on your politics, but they should be excluded from any tax system. GST doesn't do this. Welfare already takes into account some levels of co-habitation (pensioners) & dependence (family benefits, carers' income).

Those who are living on annuities or investments & are entirely dependent on market vagaries should only be taxed by what they consume, because this is all that they control. Their consumption is set by them - the rate at which they would like to use their invested funds.

Those who are mega-wealthy (a very small percentage) simply don't pay taxes, on the basis that they can afford to hire people to make it impossible to prove that they should, so the taxing is done on those employees. Some have called this trickle-down. Consumption is fine for them, too.

That leaves everyone else, where income is based on goods & services provided. A fairer relationship between household income, dependents & household tax-rate needs to be calculated such that the nuclear family isn't even mentioned. If there's one income across two people or ten people, it doesn't matter what those relationships are.

However, it gets muddy when you have multi-generational co-habitants that mix pensions & income, because you just don't know whether all money goes into the household pot, or else is allocated in some other manner. This kind of trickiness is exactly why we never get tax reform.

Even the smallest of reforms seems unpopular. 

For example, a working parent - either single or second - needs childcare. This should be considered equivalent to a fringe benefit of working, & have a tax assessment commensurate with the household income. If the cost of childcare exceeds, say, 20% of the pre-tax (household) income, then that benefit (the price of the childcare) should be excluded from the household income (tax-free threshold) - not a fixed dollar value. This is unlikely to encourage people to pay more for childcare.

There, I finally found something tangible that could be done.

We are what we write

 Given the title, come up with five different sentences using those same five words.

Although rearrangement might be your first recourse for solving this conundrum, you don't need to go to such extremes, because the sentence itself allows for emphasis on each of the words, giving sentences that really have different contexts or meanings, proving the point. I know this sounds like another 'he made her duck' scenario, but this is different, because it is reflective.

Each of the five nuanced statements leads to the one conclusion - the written word defines us, & yet we limit ourselves thereto, as if by choice.

Is there a way to escape what we write, or differentiate who we are from the resultant text? That is not an existential problem so much as a technical one. The language that we use is almost always that which comes from within us. To channel another - such as writing in first person - is hard work & rarely successful in creating a distinct personality, due to your own upbringing, etc. You can estimate reactions, gather up opinions, formulate thoughts, but the puppet-master can only give so much life to their puppet. The rest would require an injection of Disney.

The technology exists - & is used! - to determine authorship in reality over tradition. Thus, we now know a lot more about Shakespeare as a writer who co-authored plays than we do about the glove-maker himself. To misquote: the fault, dear reader, is not in our words, but in ourselves.

No mere pseudonym can hide the true author. No amount of linguistic jiggery-pokery will give the illusion of not-self-ness, unless we make the language so bland that it masks intelligence as much as it does upbringing. We can be empathetic, blustery, obtuse, outlandish, simplistic, or take on any other approach character formation or representation, but, when it comes down to it, it's us taking on that role, & then being the author from that aspect of us, not through creating a new 'ideal' writer with such attributes.

.tuo teg t'nac I & edisni deppart m'I pleH

I remember even defining a reverse font so that that looked better. The writer is trapped inside the writer. The brain that powers the pen, the inspiration that drives the content, are all trapped within the history that made the writer themselves. There is no escape. That which makes someone a writer, or makes them write, is what also defines what they write. The closest thing to an exception is fifty monkeys on typewriters for a millennium, or else a classroom full of naive students told to write about a war. The former might get Shakespeare, & the latter might get nowhere.

It would be unusual for me to whine about problems without offering pat solutions, so I'll start with this: we need to change how we represent ourselves. This has multiple aspects. The first is the written word, which, as a concept, needs a refresh, because we've hardly done much since the introduction of spaces (with the possible exception of punctuation). Written language does not reflect spoken language, still, because it was once a rare thing to attempt, whereas we now have fiction (& gossip). 

To jump out of text, vlogs & podcasts allow for the opportunity to express ourselves, as long as we're not following a written script! Poetry slams, being the equivalent of beatniks & modernism in the art world, allow for expression to manifest.

It is not until we understand how our internal language is reflected in the result, that we can do something about it. We can already generate soulless text using AI (& probably trace the output back to its training). We can use this approach to learn how to not be us in what we write. You can't necessarily be someone else, specifically, but you can be a construct. That's what AI is all about. Deep-fake text happens, I'm sure. I'm just waiting for Shakespeare's lost work to resurface.

The only danger is that we will at some point go so far down this road that we will have forgotten where we started from, as a writer, & that negates the need itself.

We write 'what are we?'

Culturally Misappropriated

I have often had problems with the simple question "Where are you from?", because I sound funny, not local. The follow-up of "OK, where were your parents from?" doesn't add any information. Similarly, when I fill in a survey question that asks me to identify my ethnic origins, or worse, indicate which single origin I most identify with, then it causes a mild state of panic that, in the first instance, I don't forget any, & in the last, that I can show my preference appropriately.

You see, cultural identification is just not simple for me. Seven of my eight great-grandparents were born here in Australia, yet I would never say that I was 'culturally Australian', because that has no meaning to me, even if my upbringing was in the vicinity of a hills hoist. The eighth great-grandparent was born in England of predominantly Irish ancestry, & obviously at a time when Ireland itself was under British rule (note how I switched terminology). The Irish are distinct people from the English in so many respects, but there was also a lot of migration both ways. I have Irish ancestors of English heritage, too.

I identify more with my Scottish ancestors, though, & prefer to note my ancestry as 'Anglo-Celtic', rather than British, because the former is cultural, ethnic, & shows a mix, whereas the latter is somewhat geographical & also implies the Empire. There is an idea that my (Scottish) family name, however, had its origins in an English trader of Norman origins nearly a millennia ago.

Don't even get me started on my German heritage.

I am surely not alone in this confusing ancestry. I may have grown up in Sydney suburbia surrounded by people who looked like me (a long time ago, trust me), but scratching the surface quickly revealed the Catholics of predominantly Irish background, those other Celts called Mac or Mc, the rangas, & other little differentiators that showed how the majority of my classmates were, like me, ethnically from the British Isles rather than Europe, with the occasional noteworthy exception. Of course, it's possible that German ancestry, in particular, might have been still considered unfavourable.

I was thinking all this when I stumbled across historical controversies over Gwen Stefani's catalogue of pop songs. I don't mind her music, but she jumps around quite a bit, so I never noticed just how broad a range of topics & styles she covers within pop music. She is often 'inspired' by a culture or sub-culture. To me, that's the definition of pop music - reflecting popular culture.

However, as an Italian-American (not  my designation), she's been lambasted for using the style of ... well, so many different groups it would be hard to list, but this would include native American, African American, Latin American, & Japanese. Even those labels show a kind of cultural imperialism that befuddles me. We're back to Celts in the British Isles (nomenclature which dates back to Roman times) being called 'British', regardless of their current location or language, for example.

To me, Gwen is doing what the music industry has always done - adapt something for popularism. Pop, born of rock, born of blues, has taken something once close to the hearts of a sub-culture - ordinary Afro-Americans (I won't define that), & made it shiny & exciting & acceptable to Euro-Americans (see what I did there?). However, the 'owners' of the cultures she is representing in her music - probably not anyone in the music culture of that designation - project on her the crime of cultural appropriation. Let's face it, she's got Italian heritage. How dare she advertise a perfume with a Japanese name!

WTF?

Surely, as a perfume, the company that created it has an intended market & a branding, & only it (& its advertising campaign managers) knows whether Gwen best represents their concept of the product. The product itself is not cultural. There is nothing intrinsically Japanese about the concept of perfume. Most perfumes are designed with a primary market in mind, & a company can decide whether to take that global or not, because it's their product. To see a perfume & think that it's Japanese because it has a Japanese name is also a form of cultural appropriation. You're making an assumption on behalf of the perfume manufacturer.

It reminds me of (Euro-) people who would get tattoos in Sanskrit or Kanji or something as abstruse, claiming to know what it meant. The equivalent was seeing Tshirts in China or Japan with a few words in English that didn't make sense (because they're too clever to be tattooed). Is this cultural appropriation? You could think of it as a counter-culture or else tagging the morons to make them easier to round up when the revolution starts. It doesn't matter. There's nothing wrong with it.

What am I saying? Chillax. 

By all means, embrace some cultural heritage - yours or someone else's - & keep some tradition alive if it makes sense, but don't judge others for doing likewise. Genetically, there are almost no Afro-Americans who aren't marginally Euro-Americans (similarly Latin-Americans), so the whole seething mass on those two continents, with the exception of a few pockets of first nations people, are effectively related & share a culture - both in the past, & in the future in terms of world-culture (exemplified in pop music).

We are one, but we are many. I am Australian.

Everyone's a Critic

I used to love watching Margaret & David tear into new movies like a comedy duo. That's entertainment in itself. I was young & foolish, though, & didn't understand the nuanced message, merely accepting that their role on media was to critique ... or criticise.

As I wrote more, I started looking into what was in my writing, how to improve it, how to make it more ... something. I worked on different aspects like relevance, factual content or believability, insight, & also flow, from episodic chapters to longer stories, arcs, multi-book development, etc. It's easy to read your own work & do cursory criticism to define an improvement & refine the content. In my case, it was somewhat iterative, but I believe that's usually referred to as 'drafting'.

That makes me a better writer. However, the consequence of being a better writer is expecting more of others, the published. In believing that my own work was publishable, I started making comparisons, not just to fiction, but also to the scripting of movies & series, on the basis that some of my stories 'could' be viable movie subjects.  It wasn't just book adaptations, though, because they're sometimes 'difficult' by definition, where you have to cut corners to tell a story within a time limit. I'm OK with that.

The holes I had seen in my own work - missing sequences, illogical consequences, unbelievable events - stood out more glaringly in the work of others. Those deficiencies must have always been there. I know I would once burst out laughing at the worst such, but simply accept that's how things went & move on, drinking in the entertainment value. Now, my attitude towards watching was slowly changing. I don't think my tastes had, though, because I sought comfort in what used to sate that need for light entertainment. I wasn't looking for intellectual stimulation, although I still appreciate it.

Maybe it came of bingeing on Flixnet & the like, watching whole series over a weekend, getting frustrated with bad acting ruining a story. Mysteries are worst, because you can't tell if someone is acting badly or else acting really well to give you a clue that they are performing a bad act. You know you're in trouble when you watch Nicholas Cage play Nicholas Cage & realise that he's quite good at it - but he's still acting!

It comes down to quality. Being more introspective makes you see quality as a thing, without going all Zen Motorcycles. It doesn't make you expect better quality, as such, but it allows you to see beyond the superficial, the gloss, the expensive sets & clothes, to recognise quality, sometimes in attention to detail or depth in representation. I remember watching a sumptuous Turkish series set in WWI that let itself down with a character who was supposed to be a British General, but he wore the rank of a Captain, because someone had confused British & American insignia. That's minor. However, it makes you pause & look at the rest of the setting. Was that music appropriate? Anachronisms are easiest to pick. When it comes down to it, if getting the rank insignia wrong was the worst I was to see, then they did a pretty good job of a period piece. The story wasn't too bad, either.

I'm a critic! I should have just enjoyed the original story, the cultural references that somehow came through with the dubbing (I don't speak Turkish), & the historical context I knew so little about ... causing me to read a book on the birth of Turkey in the modern sense. That's surely a good outcome - it made me want more.

The question remains, however: do we, in general, get more laser-focused on detail with age or exposure, or else is it a consequence of self-criticism?

Choose your words carefully

I have been accused of shooting from the lip & not thinking too deeply about what I say. I've also been accused of hiding salient information in a tightly-packed sentence that covers the full intention if you pore over it word for word. You can't win. Don't try.

However, that's a matter of personality or style.

When it comes to word choice, I like to think I have a reasonable vocabulary & I'm not afraid to use it. If I use a word out of place, without being intentionally ironic, I can often get away with it - & bank on it! - simply because common usage isn't.

There are some words, though, that I simply don't use.

My wife looked down on the dog the other night, who she'd managed to disturb from sleep just by breathing heavily or whatever, & she asked "Why do you look at me like I'm your enemy?"

There's a word I don't use: enemy.

I don't have one. I can't remember having one since I was, say, five, on the basis that I don't live in a cold war drama. As an adult, I don't make enemies. I wouldn't know what to do with one. As a result, no-one can easily become my enemy. I think that's a good thing. You can upset me terribly by forgetting my birthday or suggesting I should seriously consider not playing bagpipes, but that doesn't make you my enemy. That's a temporary state of not as much a friend as I'd hoped.

A word that popped up from social media popularity is 'frenemy', meaning someone you superficially treat as a friend, yet act towards as an enemy (usually behind their backs). As cute as that sounds, it's dumb. It's definitely not clever. The dumbness doesn't come from the juxtaposition, but the idea that you, as a person, need to label someone in your network of acquaintances as someone you'd prefer you didn't know. You even have the modern option to 'unfriend' that person, which doesn't make them your enemy, simply not your friend.

Once you label someone as an enemy - or a frenemy - there is an implication that you should do something about that state of the relationship. No-one ignores the existence of enemies. Some people obsess over their enemies, fearing attack or else plotting to attack such people. You don't 'let sleeping dogs lie' in that case.

Having an enemy takes effort. Admittedly, many people think I'm essentially lazy, but I'm sure that's not the reason I don't have - or make! - enemies. It's because the word is simply not in my active vocabulary that I prefer to not put in the effort to see someone in such an adversarial light. 

As usual, language gets in the way of describing language. An adversary is simply someone who, at some point in time, has goals which oppose yours - like a football team. They are not the enemy. The two of you share a passion for being present on the field, share a respect for the rules & system of adjudication & enforcement. There is simply an unfortunate alignment of those goals such that actions to your relative advantages oppose. Your gain is their loss.

If you don't see any action as leading towards labelling someone as your enemy - even in jest - then I believe you will have a happier life. You don't have to focus on making only friends, but you can focus on things that bring you joy, as opposed to focusing on bringing despair to someone else. 

There's another word I can do without: despair. I don't like feeling it. I would prefer to never feel it. When I do feel it, I would like very much to stop doing so as quickly as possible. That's probably just me. Is that laziness again? Despair is usually about wallowing, which doesn't sound like it requires much effort. There's a counter-argument. Despair must be a lazy activity, then, which you foist upon your enemy with some effort on your part. 

It certainly sounds like an easier life to skip all of that & let everyone else work out their own level of laziness.