Women are raised prepared for the possibility that they will be expected to change their name upon marriage. Men are free to not even consider it unless their future wife brings it up, as the odds of a wife politely suggesting to her husband that he takes her surname instead are still low. This seems unfair for two reasons:

1. Intellectual women agonise over whether to keep or change their name while men do not have to worry

2. It would be regarded as “wrong” for the wife to expect (let alone simply suggest/ask that) her husband to give up his name, yet the man expecting the wife to give up her name is fine.

(a 3rd reason I could put in here as a humanist is that it’s also unfair that men are not given the option of changing their names, and that they are unsupported if they want to.)

While most intellectual women surveyed (on websites such as offbeatbride.com and apracticalwedding.com ) have no tolerance for being called Mrs. HisFirstName HisLastName, and I personally have no tolerance for being called anything other than “Ms.” (or Dr. once I get my PhD) (thank you to Ms. Haupt my married French teacher who pointed out that she didn’t see why it was relevant to employers/electricity companies/students whether she was married or not), there are reasons for: keeping your own name, taking his name, hyphenating, or making up a new name altogether (my prefence). (Although to keep things even simpler, I’m going to try my best to become the next Cher or Madonna [no last name necessary].)

I’m going to skip the obvious reasons against taking his name: it’s a remnant of women being considered property, and it means that matriarchal names die out (and are therefore counted as of secondary importance to the male’s surname). An argument against this that I agree with, is that if you keep your maiden name, at some point you are taking a patriarchal name anyway, and as a sociologist at uni suggested: “To me the choice was between my father’s name (whom I didn’t choose) or my husband’s name (whom I did choose), and I decided to go with the name of the man I chose.” However it still annoys me that women are expected to choose while men don’t.

Keeping your own name also runs the issue of what surname to give your kids, and hyphenation runs the risk of two kids with hyphenated surnames marrying (it just delays the problem). In an ideal world, if I was unable to convince my future husband to come up with a new name for our family, I would like to think that I would give the kids his surname to symbolise his equality as a parent (even if he didn’t carry them around for 9 months). Similarly if I was in a lesbian relationship, I would give the kid the surname of the partner whose eggs weren’t used, to again try to equalise the parenting situation.

However my ideal world situation is that when you marry you and your husband pick a new name for your family. It could be a mixture of your names, mixture of ancestors names, or a completely new name. Then when your kids marry they too pick a new name for their independent family. That way your family unit is being defined by you, not by what worked in 1901. I know a couple that gave themselves the surname “Pixel” due to their passion for graphic design. I also have heard a few rare stories of those brave men who take their wife’s surname because, you know what, it just worked better for them.

In response to the objection that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, unfortunately while genetically you will be the same person regardless of what name you are given, environmentally you will be treated differently depending on what name you are given (ie. you will smell the same but people will act as though you don’t). When you are given the name of only one parent, everything you do (good or bad) is credited to only one side of the family (my preference would be that rather than one side (or even both sides) of the family taking credit, that your decision only reflects upon you as an individual rather than on an identity external to you). If surnames are not important to you, but extremely important to your family, then it becomes even more important that you don’t play their game or you may find your surname being given far more importance than you’d wished (whereas if you choose your own surname your name-worshipping family will want to downplay the importance of your surname).

In response to the wanting to honour your family objection, I don’t think it is fair to only honour your father’s line, while your mother’s, grandmother’s, et cetera lines are completely unacknowledged even though they too are half the reason you are who you are. If you can’t honour everyone who is equally worthy of having their names carried on, then it is only fair to honour no one (and just remember to thank them in acceptance speeches). That way as well, your decisions as an adult reflect on you only, and your family get thanked for the good things you achieve but don’t feel they have any responsibility over choices you make that they think are mistakes (you can’t be guilt-tripped by “bringing shame on the family name” because it won’t be credited to them due to the new surname so it won’t reflect on them at all, it will only reflect on you [as in the end it is your life and thus your final decision]).

To give the child the mother’s maiden name as a middle name is a nice lip-service gesture but is NOT equality. The middle name is rarely referred to in our society, so the above issues will still occur. And sooner or later this obsession with keeping genetic surnames for more than one generation (if you want to be equal about it) will result in some names being dropped as dealing with 5 or more names becomes almost impossible. The Spanish system of mothers giving their daughters their surname and fathers giving their sons their surname is fantastic, but inappropriate for Australia because it is not retrospective (it is however still a step towards equality and better than nothing, but because it is not retrospective it will not result in complete equality).

So what you can do:

1. When you talk about your decision to change/keep your name, make it clear that it was a couple decision not a female decision. “My wife/husband and I both decided to keep our own names” “My wife/husband and I both decided to make _____ the family name.” It makes it clear that both of you thought about changing your name, not just the feminine partner.

2. If you can, refuse to use “Miss” or “Mrs.” unless the woman directly insists on it, always use “Ms”. Otherwise you are helping perpetuate the myth that a woman’s maritial status is relevant to judging her worth as a citizen. (Note that we get along just fine in society despite the term “Mr.” not revealing a male’s maritial status.)

3. Never assume. If a friend is getting married, ask, “So are you and your husband/wife changing or keeping your names?” Even if they respond with, “Huh? Him changing his name? He doesn’t have to,” at least you have put the possibility in their minds for them to consider.

4. If you are male, don’t get offended if your wife doesn’t want to take your name (or even dares to discuss that you change your name), or if your wife is hesitant about giving the children your surname. That same offence that you feel that someone would ask (let alone assume) that you would give up your name is the same offence women originally felt when this tradition was invented (and most women have learnt over the years to not be offended despite the original hurt of the suggestion, so you too can learn how to respond with dignity and openness).

5. If you hear of a male changing his name in marriage (whether it be to a new name or his wife’s name or a combination), encourage and congratulate him on being brave enough to take a step forward for equality (and try to behave like this is a totally normal, rational, reasonable and understandable decision - because it is). He is still a pioneer in this area (one of the brave few who do what they think is right, rather than what is popular, and thus are helping to give others the confidence to step out from following the crowd so that tomorrow’s world will be even better than today’s.)

If women still choose to change their name to their husband’s, it should be an informed choice where they have considered all their options, not a default one.

(As a result of this article Kieran has agreed that we will both change our surnames upon marriage so that we will be Kieran and Naomi Web [no need to change internet or twitter handes].  Even if you disagree, please be kind rather than critical towards him, as I think it is brave that he is daring to take a concrete action towards demonstrating equality despite having a strong Italian Catholic family.  Also we want to break it to them gently and slowly in our own time in stages so that they get used to it.)

But it remains to be seen if Facebook will be the goldmine some imagine. The problem with any website is the low barriers to entry for competitors. It only takes some geek with a computer to set up another website with better functionality and people can switch. Just ask Rupert Murdoch, who bought the rival site My Space in 2005 only to watch Facebook’s meteoric rise.

Another problem is that Facebook users, such as myself, are highly suspicious of any attempts to milk them for money.

Now, she uses some economic phrases, but clearly doesn’t understand economics and the internet thoroughly enough for her opinion to be trustworthy.

Facebook has monopoly power because of its network, as does MySpace and Twitter. The low barriers to entry (low initial fixed start-up cost) are why BeBo, Hi5 and who knows how many other sites exist (economic term is “substitutes”), however they are struggling to gain significant profitable market share and thus the true reason for Facebook’s success is network. Thus these substitute sites are imperfect as while they offer similar service, they do not have the user base for me to connect with socially.

Also she was saying that users (including her) are highly suspicious of attempts to make money and that this would deter them from using Facebook. Well, no, because while it is a good thing to be suspicious of ALL internet sites (because the majority are trying to make money off of you), most internet users just accept that as the nature of the internet. People don’t stop reading the Sydney Morning Herald just because they (God forbid) include space for advertising not just the news.

Anyway lets summarise today’s teaching:

Economics

To have monopolistic market power you need just one (but not all) of the following attributes (this list is not comprehensive):

• large upfront fixed cost investment (eg. power station) as a barrier to entry with low variable costs (powerlines) to achieve economies of scale
• network: your product’s value increases with the number of users (eg. Microsoft Office)
• lack of available substitutes (in the case of Facebook it is the fact that the substitute sites do not have enough other users that I want to connect with) - related to differentiated product (customers can only get that type of product from you)
• patents (technology)/copyright (music)/licences (eg. taxis)

Note that only two of the above circumstances require a barrier to entry.

The Internet (obviously anyone reading this blog is a bit more savvy than Ms Irvine and doesn’t require this section)

• Hosting a good internet site costs money. Therefore most internet sites advertise wherever possible to cover not just their explicit costs (time, effort and technology) but also their implicit costs (the opportunity cost of their next best alternative to running that website) to make it worth their while to continue offering that service to you. If Facebook did not try to make money, you would find after a while it would not be able to continue offering its service to you due to the increasing variable costs (compared to the low fixed cost of intial market entry).
• Of course you should be suspicious of all internet sites, but if you use “trying to make money off of me” as a criteria for no longer visiting a site, you will find the list of websites that you can visit dwindle to zero. There is no such thing as a free lunch - someone has to pay for it somewhere.
• The attractiveness of social networking sites lies in the people that use them. If my friends/family/coworkers are not using the substitute site, I have no incentive to change. And they individually face the same situation I do and have no incentive to change either. Facebook was initially compulsory and composed of Harvard students and alumni who had good reason to want to connect with each other, and then good reason to request that their friends and family outside of Harvard be allowed to connect to Facebook. A social networking site beginning with trying to entice strangers to connect with each other is not going to work unless it focuses on dating and romantic functionality and layout rather than a general platonic friendship catching up scenario. Classmate finding sites are also successful because they give people a common unique reason for joining and design their functionality and interface accordingly.

By the way, I got a High Distinction in Microeconomics (and everything else this semester) so that’s my credentials for this post.

In response to an ambitious girl who has fallen in love with her married boss:

Early on he told you he was committed to his wife. He’s not going to leave. So rather than feeling terribly guilty about what you were doing to her, be selfish and ask whether this relationship will be enough for you? Are you happy knowing that you will always take second place?.

See what I mean? Instead of just immaturely saying to this girl, “No, you’re wrong, Stop it right now,” (like most self-righteous people [who don't actually care about the welfare of "sinners"] would say) and naively expecting that advice to actually be followed, Bossy approaches from a different perspective: Be selfish. This guy is not going to leave his wife, so their relationship does not have a future, and this girl is risking her future ambitions by wasting her time on him.

In response to a girl wondering how to be assertive (without being impolite):

Essentially you need to work out your value. Don’t let other people do that for you. Decide on your value and people will step up to meet that. If you set your standards too low, people will have to step down to meet you. And in the process they walk all over you.

This is advice I need to take. Although I’m not sure how to go about figuring out my value. I guess a good step would be treat myself the way I try to treat others (a counsellor once said to me to speak to myself the way I speak to the best friends I love). Treat myself the way I want to be treated. Even if that confuses you, it makes sense to me.

I think I’ll update this post periodically when I come across other statements that stand out to me.

Rene Descartes, George Berkeley and David Hume are three of the bravest philosophers I know. I don’t agree 100% with any of them, and that not the point here: they deserve their arguments to be given proper consideration by all of us. We should put aside our popular prejudices and consider their points of view so as to expand our own minds and our perception of the world (agreement is unnecessary and irrelevant, testing out their theories will improve your mental abilities regardless).

Clear translations (that you can read for yourself) of their Meditations, Three Diologues and Enquiry: Human Understanding (respectively) can be found by CLICKING HERE

Here is my attempt:

Part 1: Descartes

Descartes dared to question every opinion he held (including his own existence) in order to find truth, at the expense of mental comfort. It was such a monumental task that he waited until he was comfortably retired before he decided to let go of every opinion that had some reason for doubt, in order to find out what opinions he was left with that were impossible to doubt.  This included giving up his religious belief in Christianity (how many Christians would be willing to do that for the sake of finding out what the real truth is even if it turns out to be different from their current opinions?!), and his belief in the existence of the sun, of his hands, etc (called “Cartesian Scepticism”). If he could find something that was impossible to doubt, then he could start rebuilding his beliefs about the world from that unshakeable foundation as opposed to the untested opinions of other people who appeared authorative.

Descartes arguments for why we can’t trust our perceptions (Meditation 1):

1. we could be mad

2. we could be dreaming

3. an evil demon more powerful than ourselves could be deceiving us

We have no way of proving whether our perceptions are caused by the physical existence of the objects themselves, or by one of the prior three situations. When we are insane or hallucinating we don’t realise it at the time. Same with dreaming. A modern version of these arguments is a brain in a vat, being stimulated to give rise to different thoughts or visions or feelings that don’t actually exist in real life. We can’t prove that we are not a brain in a vat.

Thus Descartes is filled with DREAD in Meditation 1, but he bravely persists in meditating on this idea the next morning, hoping he might be able to find one thing that he cannot doubt.

Meditation 2 deals with the worst case scenario that there is an evil demon trying to fool us by making us think that we actually exist. However, in order for the demon to do this, it requires us to think. And conversely, the demon can never fool Descartes and make him think that he is not thinking or that he doesn’t actually exist, because again it requires thinking. Thus Descartes realises that he can claim that he exists as a thinking thing, and the demon can never fool him otherwise. We must exist as a thinking thing in order to be fooled or acted on.  Clearly he is not certain of anything else here, so it may be better to phrase the argument as “I doubt, and so I am”. And that is what his existence is limited to.

Meditation 2 also deals with “the wax argument” (or “what we could know for certain about the properties of the external world if it were to exist somewhere”) as a side tangent. He considers a piece of beeswax, notes its properties (solid square shape, yellow, smells like honey etc) then he puts it close to the fire and notices that its properties have now changed (liquid, clear-colour, smell has changed etc). Yet we would say it is the same piece of wax, so what is there in it that has remained the same? He decides that though our senses can give us different information about the same object (and thus cannot be trusted), the object still has extension (it takes up space, and exists at a particular point in time). Thus objects are known for certain through the mind (extension cannot be grasped through the senses). Descartes does not yet trust the external existence of wax, all he can say for certain is that if it were to exist in the external world, it would have extension as its primary property (sensory perceptions of the object are considered secondary properties as they are changeable and thus not to be completely trusted).

Meditation 3-5 blur into each other as Descartes considers the idea of a God existing. His overall argument is summarised by:

1. I have this idea of a supremely perfect being (”God”).

2. Supreme perfection requires existence.

3. Thus, God exists.

Before you freak out like the immature 18-year-olds in my class do, this is not an argument for Christianity (we are not there yet and Descartes never gets that far in his arguing). At the absolute most this is an argument for monotheism but it does not involve you accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour (and furthermore, nothing in this argument states that this God wants to have anything to do with you, let alone have you as a follower).

This argument hinges on point 2. If point 1 is changed in the slightest we are no longer talking about a God in the “omni” sense but some lesser being (god with a little g) that does not deserve to be attributed the definition of the concept of a God argued here.  Why is existence required to be one of the many perfections of this supremely perfect being? Firstly Descartes realises that nothing in him is able to prolong his own existence - ie. he is mortal. For a being to be not only more perfect than him, but supremely perfect, the being must be immortal. Descartes also defines God as the first primary cause (if God has a cause then he is not God and whatever the ultimate cause of gods is God), so if God is to be the ultimate cause of Descartes existence, God must contain even more existence in himself than Descartes. Essentially, God, by definition, must have perfect existence (immortality), and thus exist supremely (even more so than Descartes himself).

In talking about things “by definition” Descartes mentions how if the external world was to have mountains (highlands) then by definition valleys (lowlands) must BY DEFINITION exist there also. Mountains by definition involves the existence of valleys. God, by definition, involves his supreme existence.

Is this right or wrong? I don’t really care, it’s just impressive to see someone arguing for/against God from REASON as opposed to referring to popular opinion (given that he has no opinions or premises or prejudices other than the most basic of all: his own existence as a thinking thing). I’m not trying to convince you of God’s existence, I’m trying to convince you of Descartes’s genius. So please don’t be like the 18-year-olds in my class and shut your mind off the moment someone mentions the concept a God (thinking that it must be the Christian God and thus if he were to be proven true he might actually care whether or not you follow the narrow set of rules parroted by most Christian churches).

Meditations 4-6 deal with the idea that God is not a deceiver. If God is a supremely perfect being (supremely powerful, supremely immortal [existing], supremely true/right) then he will not want to deceive us. Thus things we perceive existing vividly and clearly through the mind (such as extension) must really exist. And things we perceive vividly and clearly through the senses (though not as perfectly) must also exist (though perhaps not exactly as we perceive them). He also questions that if God is supremely true/right, then how can he create us in such a way that we could be deceived at all (by dreams/hallucinations)? Well firstly Descartes says that perhaps we are created in such a way that our imperfect mistakes are just a small part of a big overall-perfect picture when placed in context of the whole of creation. Secondly, God (being a non-deceiver) has given us the faculty of doubt, so whenever we make mistakes it is purely due to not exercising our thinking faculty to its fullest.

I also just want to mention Cartesian dualism. External world objects have extension only (no mind). Humans have extension (corporeal bodies) and minds (thoughts/emotions). God is mind only (thus he is not limited by the properties of extension: mortality, being in only one place at one time, having to take up space etc). Descartes actually used the word soul, but by the word soul he meant “mind”.

Descartes was then brave enough to mail out his Meditations to every learned peer he could think of, including those in the church, begging them to try and find any flaw they could in his reasoning. They wrote in their Objections, and Descartes wrote back Replies, and then the whole lot was published along with the Meditations. The seventh set of Objections by a guy named Bourdin, while published, highlight his refusal to properly understand or consider Descartes arguments in order to come up with valid objections that actually apply to the content of the Meditations, and thus are ignored by many later publishers due to their unhelpfulness. The two most well-known criticisms are as follows:

While I avoided mentioning it, Descartes went so far in his scepticism so as to throw up even mathematical proofs (2+2=4) into doubt (his demon argument where the demon could just be fooling him into thinking the answer is always four). Thus while the thinking argument is reasonably demon-proof (the demon can’t fool him about the fact that he thinks no matter which way you twist it), his thoughts themselves are not demon-proof. And because the God argument requires logical thinking steps, yet mathematical proofs are saved from the demon by the later argument of God-is-not-a-deceiver, it is unfortunately circular (and thus invalid). And Descartes’ Reply to that particular Objection (by a guy named Arnauld) didn’t really solve the evil-demon-interfering-with-logical-thinking-processes problem. Another objection was by Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (though it was carefully disguised by flattery so as to lower Descartes defenses) where she stated that if humans are both mind and extension, she couldn’t understand how something that is a mind (without extension) could act on something with extension (I think she was getting at how does our thoughts make us move, though her objection is difficult to be clear on given all the cushioning she uses so as to not offend Descartes).

I hope however that I have demonstrated just how courageous Descartes was to let go of all the prejudices he held dear, to try to build a philosophy from the foundation of only what is absolutely certain (which at the beginning was nothing at all), and to argue for the truths he discovered no matter how unpopularly received they would be, and then to encourage his highly-educated peers to try to find any faults with his reasoning. Unlike most people today, he didn’t start out with a comfortable popular opinion and then try gather any arguments he could to prove it right. Descartes method of scepticism as the only valid foundation for truth made him a pioneer in philosophy, daring to actively tread where other humans would not even dare to go with their thoughts. This also shows that not all Christians are incapable of suspending their prejudices and thinking logically/scientifically. Descartes never believed the religious bullshit that God should be a matter of faith alone, not reason/proof.

Also a tip, if you want to object or refute arguments. NEVER argue against the conclusion (unless there was an error in the logical step taken from the premises to the conclusion, and thus the premises lead to a different conclusion). ALWAYS refute the premises the conclusion is based on. For example, if you want to prove Descartes wrong about God, it doesn’t disprove it by saying: Descartes concludes that God exists, and only crazy people think that God exists, thus because Descartes must be crazy his conclusion is invalid for that reason alone. Whereas if you argue that Descartes’s second premise (for example) about existence being a perfection is not true, then Descartes’s conclusion (about supreme perfection [God] requiring existence and thus existing) no longer follows and can also be considered to be untrue, because the conclusion is now based on a false premise.

I will try to do justice to Berkeley’s philosophy next time I have the spare time to continue this entry.

“Ramblings about my plans (academic and employment) for the future, including Teach for Australia and the philosophy of Ian Hinckfuss, and a critique of UQ’s academic tutors (everything else about the uni is fantastic).”

However due to lack of sleep and lack of Kieran to talk to I am pouring out my ramblings here (instead of keeping this journal [I hate the word "blog"] exclusively for treatises, for example “On . . .”) but I’ll try to make sure my next post is back to my usual higher standard.

There is apparently an Ian Hinckfuss prize for the best grade in introductory philosophy courses (which is what I’m doing). For purely economic reasons I of course want to get not just a 7 but the highest mark in the class, and thus perhaps I will get money. (I also, as stated previously, believe that the harder I work now to understand introductory concepts, the less hard I will have to work in the future to understand advanced courses).

However now that I realise that (the late) Ian Hinckfuss agrees with my earlier entry (On Economics) I want the prize even more just because it would feel like a fantastic economic philosopher has given me his blessing. Or something like that. In fact, dammit, why wasn’t I enrolled in Arts: Philosophy at UQ from the moment I left high school, that way I could have met Ian before he passed away in 2007.

Luckily intro philosophy is awesome. The students are not, but those that are not true philosophers will not pursue future philosophy subjects so putting up with their refusal to open their minds to arguments that contradict their beliefs (yes, atheism is a belief, as is agnosticism which is simply the belief that you cannot be sure). And luckily I will eventually only have to put up with students that are like those of my second year philosophy subject (I’m doing a second year subject because it doesn’t mention requiring any pre-requisites) who are diverse, thinking, challenging, mostly-humble, open-minded, articulate, courageous, non-conformist etc. Anyway intro philosophy is awesome because the lecturer Thinks For Himself (surprise, surprise). Instead of trying to justify department-regulated cover sheets or attendance at recorded lectures or bibliographies and referencing (he says they are only necessary when you are not stating an original idea and he wants our essays to primarily be filled with original ideas thus a bibliography is unnecessary), let alone flowery language or writing it in a certain way because that’s how other people approach it. He cares about our essays being clear and easy to read.

So far the UQ tutors are . . . lacking . . . with the exception of my ECON1010 PASS tutors. My intro philosophy tutor thinks popular empirical arguments are valid when they are not (which is primarily a major issue because she’s meant to be explaining the principles of cartesian scepticism and Berkeley’s idealism, let alone when we get to Hume’s criticism of inductive reasoning). I had to correct a diagram of my ECON1010 official tutor, who always sounds uncertain about the concepts she’s trying to teach us anyway.

My PHIL2330 (second year political philosophy) tutor doesn’t get that our class is very involved and thus we are all already very confident in the principles of Rawls from our intensive questioning of the lecturer prior to the tutorial and thus the question we really want answered is not the factual “remind us what is Rawl’s original position again?” but the complex reasoning one of “how might Rawls define ’self-interest’ from the perspective of the original position, given that the premises of the original position (as we already know) include mutual disinterest, motivation of primary goods, veil of ignorance etc., and with respect to his requirement of the inviolability of the person, and how does this differ from any ’self-interest’ present in utilitarianism (if it is present at all, given that the theory emphasises overall collective good even if that requires sacrificial expense on the part of individuals)? Are there any problems of altruism or selfishness that arise from his theory? If one of the conditions for applying the maximise the minimum (worst off) allocation requires the absence of knowledge of probabilities (part of the original position), does this limit its scope and usage in the real world, and thus if so is it ultimately a valid distributitive justice principle?” etc etc. As you can see, the second year philosophy students in my class win at not just memorising information but at actually engaging with whether or not the information is valid and where it can and can’t be applied.

And as I said before, the class is so Diverse, which I love because while I don’t fit in, no one else is trying to fit in either (ie. there’s no stereotype, everyone looks like an individual). There appears to be an equal spread of all ages from 20-50, about 3/4 male and 1/4 female, no one looks particularly privileged or spoiled, there are plenty of students of different racial backgrounds who freely and regularly contribute their thoughtful opinions, and I guess the main thing is that everyone is actually treated equal. Because we are so different, there is no majority that can silently judge whether we have a right to give our opinion based on how we look on the outside. Hence why I feel so at home the moment I walk into that class and are surrounded by its members.

I realised the other day that my course load this semester can be described as PPE (philosophy, politics, and economics), though that was not intentional, which is what young British aristocrats traditionally study at Oxford, and thus a course of study that tends to result in them becoming involved in politics. I just chose them because I thought it would help me help the world, which I would like to believe proves that a significant number of people end up as politicians because they have the most noble ideals (they are not all just wealthy power hungry individuals).

Once I finally complete my degree I am going to work for Teach For Australia (no education degree necessary) for two years, and as a result if I do end up officially lecturing the next generation of philosophy students (I still haven’t heard what other jobs philosophers can do other than become part of a seemingly-pointless cycle to teach the next lot of students who will one day become lecturers to teach the next lot of students . . .) I should be able to make it both interesting and motivating for them to truly understand the material.

Anyway I have to go to bed ASAP because my tiredness is rendering me incapable of writing anything more that even remotely worth reading so I’ll do a proper “On . . .” entry once I’ve gotten a sufficient amount of my uni work out of the way.

Labor lost me on two key issues: removing the children’s hospital from the Royal Brisbane, and persisting with the travesty of Traverston dam. Not to mention that they are prepared to keep running Queensland into debt (hey we need some savings for the yearly cyclones and floods that always seem to take the QLD Labor party by surprise and they react to them as a “disaster” instead of already having emergency money set aside) and their answer to when they think they will start paying back their billions of debt is “when we can” (how many banks would accept such a vague answer?). Essentially they are taking a dangerous childish approach (an approach that gets many young people into financial trouble in the first place before they learn to save and budget): spend, spend, spend even though our state is already in debt (What if those in our society already struggling under debt took that advice? They will be even worse off and have less of an emergency savings buffer). (I am so against their policies that I am not even going to tag Anna Bligh or Labor in this post.) Also, why doesn’t Anna smile in her posters?

Springborg had pages and pages of itemised budget showing exactly how and where he was going to cut costs to save Queensland a billion dollars each year and get us both out of debt, and with a savings buffer to survive recessions and disasters. Springborg talked to economists who told him that the predict the recession (and people unlike what Labor scare-mongered you into thinking, right now unemployment is at 5% whereas in the Great Depression unemployment was at 40% - so yes it’s a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but it’s not an absolute disaster) to last three years, and his plan is four years long.

I’m going to start reading Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson all the way through (instead of just stopping after the first part that tells the lesson) as apparently the following 25 chapters each deal with a different economic fallacy. In fact, I am seriously considering co-majoring in economics at UQ (otherwise I was considering history), so I can do an honours project researching the effects of how I think people should be taxed in order to get them to spend their money in a way that benefits everyone (that sounds horrible unless you read my post On Economics where I explain what I mean).

OK, now I’ve got my economics comajor all mapped out to be as generally helpful as possible (as opposed to specialising in a few areas and being ignorant of the rest):

• *ECON1010 Introductory Microeconomics (doing it this semester already)
• *ECON1020 Introductory Macroeconomics (doing it next semester regardless of whether I decide to make economics my major)
• ECON2100 Philosophy of Economic Thought (how can I resist?!)
• ECON2010 Microeconomic Theory
• ECON2020 Macroeconomic Theory
• ECON3010 Advanced Microeconomics
• ECON3020 Advanced Macroeconomics
• *ECON3600 Australian Economic History

The ones with stars next to them I have no choice about within the major, but as you can see rather than choosing subjects like “Business Economics” or “Environmental Economics” or  ”China as an emerging economy”, I am going to be extremely gounded in the overall basics of economic thought that can be applied to anything and everything and thus once faced with China even if I haven’t studied it I will be able to analyse the situation competently and make some good recommendations.

Back to Politics (after that little how-I-might-be-able-to-save-the-world detour). I think everyone needs to understand how the Queensland voting system actually works (and I wish it was advertised better, and I should try to get a job in election administration so that I can educate the public. You can fill in as many or as few boxes as you want. If you vote 1 for Greens, and don’t put a number 2 next to anyone as a second preference, then if the Greens aren’t in the top two highest voted candidates, that’s where it ends. I misunderstood and thought it was more like the federal Senate elections where you either vote 1 and leave the rest blank (and whoever you voted 1 for chooses whom to give their vote to if they’re not in the top two contenders) or you fill in all 26 boxes preferentially. So while I am more than happy for Liberal to be my second preference, and Daylight Savings to get in above Labor, had I known that I did not need to fill in all four boxes, I would have left Labor off of the voting card completely as I did not want them in under any circumstances (I am also the kind of person that does preferentially vote the Senate and order all 26 boxes).

I think the Greens have to be really careful. If I thought that Labor and Liberal were as bad as each other, I would have been happy to let the Greens decide my second preference for me based on their environmental policies (this is back with my old thinking that it was like the Senate). But because I assumed it was like the Senate, I guessed that the Greens would give their second preferences to Labor, so I made sure to preference Springborg second instead. However it seems like a completely valid comment for political analysts to say that Greens preferences in general go to Labor, instead of saying that Greens preferences go to whichever party has the best environmental policies.

For example, the Greens (and doctors and nurses) have been protesting the hospital for about six months now (the problem is that the womens and childrens hospital is one of the best in Australia at the Royal Brisbane, and if a mother gives birth to a baby in the maternity ward that has a problem and needs the attention of a paediatrician, well the children’s hospital and the paediatricians are just next door and the baby gets immediate care. They want to move the children’s part to the Mater, which means that the newborn that needs immediate paediatric care will need to be transported from Bowen Hills to Woolloongabba, and may die on the way if the birth issue is serious enough). In the last few weeks leading up to the election Springborg has jumped in and declared himself the saviour of the hospital. Instead of welcoming his support, some members of the Greens feel resentful that he is taking the spotlight from all their hard work. (As a member of the Greens, my reaction was just gratefulness that with his help perhaps more sick babies will live - so long as the life of newborn babies is saved, I think it is a secondary issue as to who gets the credit.) So I was surprised to hear that some Greens candidates were suggesting their electorate give Labor their second preference - um . . . I thought the hospital and the Traverston dam were two issues that you guys were really really against?

I am sick and tired of everyone I speak to believing that rudeness, lies, insincerity, money, power, etc is all an accepted part of being a politician. There are plenty of politicians (Peter Jaremijenko, Laurence Springborg, independents or Ronan Lee, for example) who only decided to run because they wanted to improve their community. And I think it is completely possible to be a politician and be polite and friendly to the person who is running against you (instead of rudely ignoring them like Bligh and Springborg did when seated next to each other at dinner). I think it should be expected that in Question Time you not only find the manners expected in kindergarten (most of the behaviour accepted in Question Time would not be accepted within a kindergarten classroom), but also the higher-level manners expected of you as an adult in decent society. If I became a politician, I would not assume it was my right (let alone part of my job description) to stop being a kind, friendly, polite, tolerant, empathic, ethical person. I think that “well I behave like that during question time ’cause everyone else does” is a weak, childish, sheep-like excuse. I’ve heard that Obama (for all my preference of Al and Hillary) has been meeting with republicans to discuss his financial policies with them and get a more well-rounded ideas base with which to use to effectively fight the financial crisis gripping the people of the USA. Like I said about the hospital, who cares who gets the credit for the idea, so long as the result is that more households can feed their family, profitably run their businesses and pay for their children’s healthcare and education?

Anyway, so far I love being a part of the Greens (all two weeks of my membership). I feel like such a Citizen - not only am I consciously, carefully, preferentially voting as I always have done in the past, but now I am involving myself in the political process and trying to help bring about the changes that I’m voting for.

I loved watching the people come to vote on Ann St as I handed out Greens voting cards - it is the best concrete visual example of equality of human rights that I have ever seen. Rich, poor, young, old, immigrant, asian, disabled, transgender, goth, homeless, crazy, etc - everyone was equal, and everyone’s vote was counted as equal value regardless of the way they chose to live their life and regardless of what judgements people would usually make about them. On that day, no one was more important (of more intrinistic value) than anyone else, and the highest person had as much political saying power as the lowest.

I am however a bit concerned about the mother-daughter groups I saw going in to vote. I hope to God that the daughter made up her own mind on who to vote for independently of her mother’s wishes (even if they ended up voting identically). Otherwise the mother just got two votes. Also the daughter might be a little less swayed by arguments such as “but that’s the way it’s always been, and it’s not that bad so why change it for the unknown”. Anyway. . . .

I guess you could say that I love the theory and ideal of politics. I love the idea that everyone’s vote is of equal value and essential to decision making for our state. I liked it that I could make friendly conversation with the Labor supporters - so what if politically we supported different policies, their opinion today was of equal value to mine, and it doesn’t make them a bad person just because they have a different idea of what will help Queensland (and more importantly, what will help their own families). I think the politicians that chose politics as a wanting-to-help-people-and-fight-for-their-rights career rather than a good-pay/prestige/power career should be admired for being willing to actively do what other people are only willing to complain about.

I hope that those who voted Labor are happy for Queensland to experience more of the same policies and consequences that we’ve been putting up with for years now. I’m not going to be sympathetic to your complaints as our state goes more and more into debt (especially with regards to trying to get the Traverston dam up and running, which is currently responsible for 40% of QLD’s debt), has no savings leftover for helping families struck by emergency situations, has years and years of endless roadworks ahead for building overpasses and underpasses killing traffic instead of improving our public transport system where the infrastructure already exists and/or is cheap/easy to build in comparison, and wastes unnecessary money moving a state-of-the-art medical research hospital which is only going to result in more deaths and inconvenience for pregnant women and the health of their newborn babies.

I will however keep helping the Greens to try and educate communities so that hopefully we can help people pick up the pieces and prepare themselves for the problems that are going to occur with Bligh’s policies. I wish Springborg hadn’t stepped down because after three more years of Labor disaster, Queensland will be ready for a leader with ideas like his, and unfortunately a new leader is going to now have to earn everyone’s trust in order to put an end to more of the same problems.

Still keeping my fingers crossed for Ronan Lee in Indooroopilly electorate. And congrats to the Greens for making sure they had a candidate in every electorate and for campaigning well enough to get significant percentages of the votes.

The advice I absorbed (whether it was directly spoken to me or not) was that you should get into the best course (ie the course with the hardest entry score requirement) that you could with the entry score that you got, regardless of whether or not you were sure about it would truly capture your interest (after all, it must be popular for a good reason, right?).

Thus when I got an OP 9, I selected Business at QUT (Queensland University of Technology) which required an OP 10. To me, it would have been a waste of an OP 9 to do Science (OP 12 at QUT) or Arts (OP 13 at UQ [University of Queensland]). Similar to Kieran, who got an OP 3 which meant that he could get into the “hardest” (and thus most prestigious) courses QUT offered (Law/Engineering) so to him it would have been a waste of an OP 3 to do anything less than Law at QUT. Of course, when university is self motivated, the promise of making lots of money as a lawyer is cold comfort to the hours of boredom those that are not interested must endure both at uni and then also once they start working (if they actually manage to plough their way through).]

In the case of myself and Kieran, we both wasted 1-2 years of our life trying to do what we were told we should want to do, instead of what we actually wanted to do (and our GPAs, time management and finances took a massive blows as a result).

I also, as a year 12 student, did not believe any of the snobby propaganda that UQ was the best (not to mention that the propaganda itself did not give any good reasons for its assertions other than prestige). A degree’s a degree, and surely employers don’t look at where it came from. John Quiggin also tried to convince me that UQ was really good, which held a little more sway (because he is a rational, balanced, calm, reasonable economist) although I had been convinced by QUT that it was for “the real world” and UQ was for “the ideal world”.

Anyway so this year I went to UQ purely because it was the only university that offered the subject I really wanted to do, and also partly to make the Quiggin family like me more . . . and I found out that it is unfortunately, objectively, slightly (but significantly, for me at least) superior to all other Queensland universities.

Essentially if Australia had a “Ivy League” of universities (and - I was surprised to find out - it does, they are called Group One institutions, as opposed to Group Two institutions) it would consist of the following institutions (due to their being “research-intensive”):

• University of Adelaide
• Australian National University
• University of Melbourne
• Monash University
• University of Sydney
• University of New South Wales
• University of Queensland
• University of Western Australia

Any university not in that group is a Group Two university (I am disappointed that Macquarie University is not on that list because I like what I’ve read about their approach to study), and so any studies undertaken at a non research-intensive institution are not weighted as heavily.

Eg. A GPA of 5.8 at one of the previous mentioned institutions is worth an entry score of 99, whereas that same GPA from QUT would be given a score of 97. Subtle and definitely not life-destroying, but there you go (and this is something that might matter to someone who wants to change course, or in particular has to significantly change their living location and thus resume a similar course at a different university).

My economics course tried to convince us that we cannot pass economics at UQ the way we passed school. At school you would have been above average, because you must be above average to get the minimum entrance score required for UQ (a 13), here at UQ everyone was above average at school, so now you are probably average or just below average (because the people with average or below average school leaving scores were not offered enrolment places). And so, unlike school where the lessons were catered to average people and thus you could pass without trying too hard, at UQ the lessons are catered to above average people, you will find that to pass you have to actually make considerable effort. I know this sounds like a harsh and tactless thing for the lecturer to say, but I am finding that the standards at UQ are distinctly more academically rigourous than at QUT. One good thing, however, is that unlike my experience at QUT nothing is bell-curved. If every student scores above 85% then every student gets a 7.

Superficial benefits about UQ versus QUT (the only other university I’ve attended in depth): the food - their main refectory has pumpkin and sourdough bread sandwiches with ingredients like camembert, brie, eggplant, sundried tomato, rocket etc, and it also sells kebabs (but not your ordinary kebabs - but varieties such as pizza, mexican, etc) and Mr Beans Coffee sells flavoured coffees such as cinnamon-and-hazelnut, coconut-and-walnut, butterscotch, macadamia, alpine [white chocolate] etc. QUT’s refectory has the normal packaged sandwiches (but not those ingredients or bread types), hot chips and the other normal hot dishes, and that’s it. I guess I like the snobbiness when it’s applied to what food is being offered.

The main benefit I found about QUT was that it was in the city and thus central to everyone in Brisbane no matter where they lived. However the cost (both financial and time) of transporting to UQ every day is still worth not missing a lecture or a tutorial.

So now my advice to year 12 Queensland students (which I wish I could have taken when I was seventeen):

If you would prefer to study at uni rather than TAFE (bear in mind that TAFE is like school and I’ve heard that they make you show up five full days a week from 8 or 9 am onwards as opposed to first year uni with its 9-15 hours of actual contact time) and rather than just entering the workforce (if you just want to make money then bank, office [admin or data entry - particularly for the government]and inbound call centre jobs are what I recommend - you can earn up to $45,000 for unskilled labour which puts you in a good position financially once it does hit you what you would like to do with your life [scuba diving in Africa perhaps?]), try to get an OP 13 so you can study at UQ St Lucia.

If you don’t get a 13, that’s cool, just make sure you put UQ Ipswich (or even UQ Gatton) as one of your lower down preferences. I know, it’s Ipswich (pain) but if you complete your first four subjects with a GPA of at least 4.5 (means you must get 2 Credits [>65% = 5] or 1 Distinctinction [>75% = 6], and then just Pass the two/three subjects that remain [>50% = 4]) then you are automatically transferred to St Lucia for all your remaining semesters.

What should you study? Arts. Why? Because Arts at UQ covers almost EVERYTHING offered at UQ. Even if you know you want to do Mathematics, well fantastic. Put Mathematics as your first preference on QTAC, and then Arts as your second. That way, if you get into Arts you just start doing the subjects for the first year Mathematics anyway (because an Arts degree allows you to major in Mathematics, or Economics, or IT, or . . . etc.) and put in an internal application to change as soon as you’ve passed enough Mathematics subjects to improve your entry score.

And if you don’t know what you want to study, then doing Arts is fantastic because you can look through the hundreds of subject areas (some of which you may not have even considered due to not knowing they were offered within the Arts faculty) and then just pick introductory subjects that you might be interested in to figure out your major (or what degree program you should change to in the future).

For the few things that UQ Arts does not cover, within an Arts degree you can enrol in those subjects anyway (first year Law or first year Chemistry, for example) since you are allowed four electives as part of any course, and if you do well in a years worth of subjects you can then change your course and get academic credit for having already done all the first year subjects for your new degree (and thus resume the new degree at a second year level like any other student who had directly entered the course from high school).

Apply for every scholarship you qualify for (doesn’t matter if you don’t get it, although statistics say that the majority of those who actually bother to apply do receive some compensation).

DO NOT buy textbooks - try to cope with the library’s versions, at least until week 3. There is no point spending $100 on something that you will only use for one semester which the library has free copies of. Especially do not bother to buy any study guides or workbooks associated with text books - these are usually not prescribed (and usually they will have an occasional error in the answers they give you for an exercise, which causes hours of confusion and frustration until you finally take it to your lecturer and he tells you that that part of the book is wrong), and worse yet they have no resale value if you write in them.

Any lecturer or course-compiled notes are fine to buy because they will usually be at cost price not publishing retail price, and usually you cannot find copies of them elsewhere.

How many subjects should you do? No more than three, at least for your first semester anyway (unless you are at UQ Ipswich and want to get out ASAP). It gives you a chance to get used to the workload, it’s still counted as full time for Centrelink purposes, you will have time learn all the foundational subjects more thoroughly (and while the prestige of good grades may not be important to you, all future subjects will be taught at a level as though you understood everything about the preceding subject forwards, backwards, and in your sleep), and you will have more spare time to earn cash at your casual job or simply enjoy what uni has to offer (clubs/societies, extra-curriculars, nightlife). You can also give your GPA a good head start.

If after the first semester you truly feel you would have no trouble completing a fourth subject to the required future survival degree of thoroughness, then enrol in a fourth subject for your second semester but be prepared to drop it by the end of week two (the financial penanlty cut-off) and even be prepared to drop it by the end of week 8 (the academic penalty cut-off). A lower HECS debt is not worth a lower overall GPA - your HECS debt will be significant even if you don’t drop subjects after the financial cut-off however it is the only interest-free loan you will ever have and you won’t have to start paying it back for at least a few more years so make the most of the Government’s money and focus on keeping a good GPA. The immediate and longterm benefits and opportunities that come with a good GPA far outweigh the longterm eventual cost of dropping a subject (there is no immediate cost of dropping a subject).

If you do really well in subjects you can get money as well, and you can apply for scholarships to offset your HECS debt or your cost of living. But the main benefit is simply that if you work hard at understanding the foundational subjects, you will have to work less hard (significantly less hard) at understanding the future subjects that build upon them. And even if you realise that you don’t want to continue with the major/course that you selected, if your marks are good you will have no problems moving to what you do want to do, and those subjects can count for your electives if you wish.

Why do I say all this? Because I wish I’d gone to UQ at the start. No matter what your GPA, once you are in a particular uni they are usually fairly accepting of any applications to change to a different course within that institution.

Whereas if you try to change to a new university you will be subjected to harsher criteria - your good OP score will no longer be relevant if you’ve done a year of study, and instead they will judge you on your GPA (and in my case, just to be on the safe side, I decided to pay $100 to do the STAT test [an adult version of the QCS] because I had no idea whether or not my GPA would be good enough).

This is why getting a financial penalty added to your HECS is better than failing one subject (and inadequately passing three others) because it can be difficult to recover your overall GPA from a single low fail mark (if you incur the financial penalty but not the academic penalty, you will also also have the time to properly study your three remaining subjects and do well in them) and a low GPA may make it more difficult t0 enter a different tertiary institution if you later on realise that the course you really want is offered elsewhere (as I discovered).

In conclusion, UQ is unfortunately, objectively, the best out of a good range of Queensland universities (I would not say that any university is bad - QUT and Griffith [and JCU, and UNE, and USQ, and ACU, etc, etc] are good and have varying benefits depending on what is important to you from a uni, however UQ is just slightly superior overall from an academic point of view and thus will put you slightly further ahead competitively than students from Group Two universities).

Also, just because you get an OP score that allows you to get into the most competitive courses, does not mean you should choose those courses just because you are one of the few people that has the opportunity to do so. The OP score requirement for acceptance does not guarantee that it is a good course to do in and of itself, let alone a good course for you personally as an individual. If in any doubt, try to get into Arts at UQ because you will be able to study whatever you want within that degree and try out different subject areas that you think might interest you. Even though it only requires an OP of 13, you may waste less time than trying out a course requiring an OP 1 purely because you achieved an OP 1 and you feel its something you “should” do (and not because it is something that you are passionate about).

If you want to read a more professional opinion (from a successful university academic who initially failed year 12), Clive Hamilton (professor of Public Ethics, associated with various Australian universities) appears to agree with some premises that I may not have emphasised enough in this blogpost. His article reminds society, parents, teachers and students that:

• just because you get top marks at school does not mean you should force yourself to do something competitive like dentistry, law or engineering if a less competitive course (or TAFE, or the workforce) will make you happier
• a GAP year (or two) before starting further academic study may be helpful in clarifying what career path actually interests/excites you
• within the first two years of university a quarter of students change or leave their degree (much better to do this as early as possible rather than trying to force yourself through three years of a degree that doesn’t truly interest you at the expense of your time, money and GPA/future entry score)
• mature age students with so-so entry scores often outperform school leavers with top marks - because they are clear and confident on why undertaking further study in a particular area is the right decision for them

This does not mean I agree with all of Clive Hamilton’s views on everything (in fact it would be impossible for me to find this kind of total consensus with anyone on the planet, and vice versa them with me). So even though some of his opinions seem wrong to me, this does not mean that I shouldn’t also fairly acknowledge where I think he has spoken some important truth that society needs to hear.

I also just this second decided that the word “hate” is not a bad word, even though I’ve heard Christians in particular tell me it is. God uses it all the time in the Bible, and sometimes it is the only word to describe the appropriate (or emotional depth of my) reaction to evil behaviour (but NOT evil people). (Evil behaviour is probably very subjective and not black-and-white however, so its possible that I will see the evil in something where other people don’t, and vice versa, and that’s OK).

Anyway, on values (all credit here goes to Real Education) . . . my life coach gave me a list of about 50 fantastic values. Such as love, fun, adventure, family, peace, truth etc. And instructed me to pick my top ten. Then we ordered my top ten by saying “OK, now you have to give up one of these values in order to save the life of a loved one, which one do you pick?” (This is not because the real world requires you to let go of your values, but because it is a quick way to figure out which one is more important to you) .

Eventually I was left with the number one value of awareness, which excited me. I was left with awareness because even if I had to temporarily let go of growth/learning, appreciation, and compassion etc, if I only had awareness sooner or later I would naturally be learning, growing, appreciating and experiencing compassion, so simply practising awareness would lead to my other nine top ten values.  This simplified my life. Now when I’m wondering about “what is the right path for me to take”, all I have to ask myself is “which path encourages more awareness?” and then I can rest assured that by simply taking the path that is most in line with my number one value, my other nine values will probably be met by that path as well. It is a tool for quick, confident decision making. Family was not in my top ten values. This doesn’t mean that family is not important or valuable, but simply that there were at least ten other values that my heart desired more.

Because everyone is different, everyone will choose a different top ten out of the hundreds of wonderful values out there. Kieran’s top ten included things like flexibility and adaptability and creativity. This means that when Kieran and I are faced with a choice over two options, because we have different values we may choose differently to each other. And that’s OK, otherwise we would be following the same life path and having the same experiences and that is less useful and interesting and also unnecessary to have more than one of each individual.

Example One:

My friends A and M share the same Seventh-Day Adventist belief that Christmas should not be celebrated. Both of their families (whom they love) asked them to spend Christmas day with them. What should A and M do? Their love of God says don’t celebrate Christmas, their love of family says be there anyway.

In this situation, A decided to go spend Christmas with her family and M decided to not spend Christmas with his family. This was the right decision . . . for both of them.

In A’s value structure, family comes above truth. So she decided to spend time with her family on Christmas, because it was important to them, even though she made it clear to them that she didn’t agree with the idea of Christmas itself.

In M’s value structure, truth comes above family. It was unacceptable to him to spend Christmas with his family if there was any risk of them translating his behaviour as condoning the occasion. He opted to see them the day before and the day after, just to make sure that his value of truth was being respected and given priority.

This example is not here to discuss whether or not Christmas should be celebrated at all by anyone. It is also not my place to decide for A and M whether they should put their family or their belief first. As their friend I encourage them to go with their highest value, I don’t tell them what their highest value should be, nor do I judge or lecture them for having a different value system to what I do (because it was God who decided what values to put in their heart to guide their behaviour, and it doesn’t help the world if everyone makes the same decisions I do).

Example Two:

S was out bike riding with her two sons. Then she had a significant fall, and found herself lying on the road with various aches and pains. The decision she faced was whether or not to get back on the bike. S is clear on her highest value, which is fun and adventure. So she asked herself, “What would fun and adventure say that I should do in this situation?” She decided her highest value would want her to get back on the bike, so she checked her injuries and found that aside from some bruises and scratching, she was capable of getting back on the bike. She got back on the bike and ended up having a fantastic afternoon with her sons.

Society often tells us to put family as our highest value (particularly the Christian parts of society, vocalised best by the slogan of a radio station that I won’t name). Had S gotten back on the bike for the obligatory reason of “I want to be a good mother” instead of the heart reason of “I will follow whatever my highest value says”, she admits that she would have had feelings of resentment, not enjoyed herself and felt grouchy towards her sons, and even possibly made statements to her sons to the effect of “See what a good mother I am?” or even deep down blamed her sons existence for why she “had to” choose to get back on the bike.

If S’s highest value had been different, for example relaxation, calmness, peace, or healing then perhaps the best thing she could have done for her sons was to retire to the couch with a cup of tea. If her sons indicated to her that it was important to them for her to complete the bike ride, she could have negotiated a compromise that still ensured her highest value would be respected.

I guess you could say that in my opinion, if you want to be a “good mother” then one thing you could do is be an example to them of how to stand by your highest values, instead of following whatever value is fashionable for society to promote at any given time.

Some How-tos:

Do not be restricted by the label nor the dictionary definition. Love is not in my top ten, because the word compassion for me far better describes what the value means for me in my life. My idea of peace may be different to your definition of peace, and that’s OK. Just pick the word that best encompasses what the value means to you.

The best way to approach this is to quickly brainstorm until you have an imperfect list of 50-100 concepts that you think are desirable (for example, I actually don’t see relaxation as all that desirable, but someone else might and so they should include it on their list).  Then pick your top ten, then prioritise them in a life-or-death way: “If you could only have nine of these concepts as a part of your life/personality, which one would you let go of?” or, “If you have to give up one to save the life of the person you love most, which one would it be?”. Once you have your number one, whenever you are unsure of what course of action to take, see how the two options measure up against your highest value. For back up check how the two options measure up against your next highest value, and your next if necessary. And if made to choose between two concepts, don’t feel guilty for respecting the one that is higher when you decide what to do.

This also works fantastically for goal setting. Do a goal purge (which essentially means without judging write a massive list of everything you could possibly ever want no matter how crazy). Then out of the three hundred or so wants (some of which you may not even be sure if you really do want them but it doesn’t matter), if you could only achieve ten of these in your life, which ten would you pick. Then if you could only achieve nine of these ten in your life, which one would you let go of first? And so on, until you have your top ten goals prioritised - you might be shocked to realise what actually turns out to be your number one goal. Then figure out what the first step is (no matter how small or insignificant) for the first five goals. And in a week, take that first step. Then figure out what could be a possible next step for each of your top five. If any next step seems too hard or intimidating, make it smaller (eg. maybe make one phonecall instead of three). All that matters is that you maintain a tiny motion forward no matter how slow.

And the shocking thing is that when you do this, within a month or two I had my top five goals done and had to rewrite my whole top ten again. Even though I took baby steps (and I never worried about anything more than just what was the next smallest motion forward I was capable of taking), I achieved more than all the years that I’ve spent not doing anything because the goals I’d written down all seemed too hard and too much work. It doesn’t matter how small you make each step, you will be going further by setting yourself tiny achieveable goals then by not doing anything because the goal you set was too big and intimidating.

I thought I would enjoy the process of going wedding dress shopping. Nevermind that I normally hate trying on clothes (let alone metres and metres of fabric), finding a fairytale dress is the dream of most little girls. We went to The Bridal Centre in Queen St Mall (I am not going to link them as I do not recommend them). I said I didn’t want a strapless dress, and they behaved like I was almost asking the impossible. I found a style of dress I liked, asked how much it would be to order it in, and they told me they couldn’t order it in.

Finally I tried on a fairly simple white dress, and it just did not suit me at all. We then went to Elizabeth de Varga in Broadway on the Mall. I tried on the first dress that fit my criteria, and it was perfect. Having realised that I was not having fun shopping, I was sold and had no desire to try on another dress. Elizabeth de Varga I do recommend because the price includes everything (they do six fittings and alter details of the dress in any way you like) whereas some places you order the dress in in the closest size and then pay hundreds extra to have it altered to fit. It is cheap compared to the dresses in wedding magazines, but you can definitely find dresses for a lot less.

Then thanks to God my path crossed with Definatalie who recommended that I visit the website OffbeatBride.com and, now having been there, I will stay as far away from other wedding sites as possible. And if I ever find out a friend is engaged, I will tell them “before you do anything else, visit offbeatbride.com” and I’ll buy them Ariel (the site owner)’s book. I am not exaggerating when I say (in agreement with other regular readers) that Ariel’s site set me free.

Offbeat Bride has a massive variety of ideas for everything, and even if 99% of them aren’t me, I’m so glad that there are other valid options out there to consider. Ariel features a proper variety of real weddings for inspiration in all shapes and sizes: budget, costumed, DIY, spiritual, eco, LBGT unions, and more.

What it really does is save you from is thinking that you need to have something included just because it’s a wedding. If something is not important to you, don’t spend any money on having it. The most important part (and the only essential part) of your wedding day is exchanging your vows in front of witnesses to your partner. Everything else is just decoration for that moment. So, decorate that special moment however you like – impressing or pleasing outsiders should not ever form part of your agenda. (There is a difference between being a thoughtful considerate host who tries to make her guests feel as comfortable as possible within her choices, and wasting time/energy/money on things that don’t fit in with your values just because it’s expected.)

The biggest challenge for every Offbeat Bride couple’s wedding featured in Ariel’s blog appears to be family opinions. The problem is that you can’t please everyone even if you tried to – its two families with two different backgrounds stating what they want. Which is why if you’re going to upset them regardless (and you can’t ever perfectly please them without losing yourself in the process), you may as well just have the wedding that you want and be criticised for something that makes you happy rather than something that you tried to compromise over.

What this means is that even if I still wear a white dress, I’m doing so because it fits my highest values. My second highest values would say that my wedding dress should be green (see below). I’m putting my bridesmaids in antique pink because again it fits my highest values, otherwise I would probably put them in a less childish colour - probably green because I just love the look of it for a wedding day:

Today I came back from a bridal expo. Again, I assumed it would be fun to look at different dresses and stationery and venues. It wasn’t, perhaps partly because I saw it as pointless (other than entering competitions) since I’m so specific on what I do and don’t want (and most of what I saw did not fit my values). 99% of bridesmaid dresses are unfortunately either above the knee or floor length, not to mention strapless. I’m looking for cocktail/tea length, with thickish shoulder straps. Also, worse yet, my bridesmaids and foster mum have completely different taste to me, and so I had to nod politely at what they said they liked, while trying to figure out if there was any way I could compromise their ideas with my own.

Planning a wedding is not at all as fun as I thought it would be. Firstly because of how I hyped it up in my mind throughout growing up and the reality is, of course, tedious compared to that. Secondly because everyone wants something different for your wedding, and you can’t even begin to please all of them (I’m still trying to figure out polite ways of saying “that’s a great idea in general but it doesn’t feel right for me personally”, or worse yet, “that’s a great idea, but I was probably going to skip that element and not even have it”.)

Some ideas (thanks to Offbeat Bride) that I like:

centrepieces for tables made from old classic books (ties in with Kieran being a writer and myself being a philosopher)

 and if it rains on my wedding day … not a problem in the slightest – atmosphere, romance, drama all topped off with a cute clear colourful umbrella like this one!

Some recommended Offbeat Bride links:

Why Offbeat Bride is worth reading

Your wedding is not a contest

Engagement/wedding ring alternatives

Bouquet alternatives (if you choose to hold anything at all)

Advice on how to handle difficult situations

What her readers have to say

You know you’re an Offbeat Bride when . . .

I am a fan of philosophy because it encourages questioning what you are told, rather than just blindly accepting what “everybody knows”. Galileo, Copernicus and Einstein would have all been labelled as crazies simply for having questioned “science” and come up with a different conclusion that has more evidence behind it than the current accepted answer. Over time the majority have accepted their conclusions as truth, and the next person who dares to question their premises and discovers overwhelmingly contradictory evidence will again be labelled as a lunatic until people are educated in a new way of thinking.

This irritates me no end. Rather than labelling anyone who dares to question something accepted as an idiot, particularly if they’ve bothered to do some research and are happy to provide their evidence and logical reasoning for their opinion, perhaps we should pay them enough respect to question our own beliefs along with theirs.

I love economics but I unfortunately can’t think rationally about whether or not any of these handouts are a good idea now that I’ve been told that I might be receiving $900. I think I’m scared to question this policy because I sense deep down that it might not be in line with my economic values of the past, when all I really want to do is be grateful and celebrate free money (compared to the amount of work I’d normally have to put up with to make $900). Before anyone jumps down my throat and declares that because the government came up with the idea it must be more right than my opinion because they’ve had more formal training in economics than I have (without even bothering to question the government’s idea), well I recently read Henry Hazlitt’s famous Economics in One Lesson and was relieved to discover that his opinion is what I’ve always suspected was the real truth:

The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.

The distinction may seem obvious. The precaution of looking for all the consequences of a given policy to everyone may seem elementary. Doesn’t everybody know, in his personal life, that there are all sorts of indulgences delightful at the moment but disastrous in the end? Doesn’t every little boy know that if he eats enough candy he will get sick? Doesn’t the fellow who gets drunk know that he will wake up next morning with a ghastly stomach and a horrible head? Doesn’t the dipsomaniac know that he is ruining his liver and shortening his life? Doesn’t the Don Juan know that he is letting himself in for every sort of risk, from blackmail to disease? Finally, to bring it to the economic though still personal realm, do not the idler and the spendthrift know, even in the midst of their glorious fling, that they are heading for a future of debt and poverty?

Yet when we enter the field of public economics, these elementary truths are ignored. There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: “In the long run we are all dead.” And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom.

But the tragedy is that, on the contrary, we are already suffering the long-run consequences of the policies of the remote or recent past. Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore.

However at the moment I would say that the worst action the government is taking economically is to spend so much money on filtering the internet when public opinion (just read the comments on news.com.au) clearly doesn’t want it (only 3% of households downloaded the government’s free filter). The other reasons it’s a massive waste of money is that its clear its not going to solve the problem of child pornography (it drives it underground, you can get around the filter through VPNs and most CP is distributed through P2P channels) if that truly is their reason for persisting with a filter. Not to mention if parents want their internet filtered at an ISP level, well there are ISPs out there that already do it. Or better yet, they can install Integard (like my fiance and I have) and customise it to their own needs (we unblocked Shakespeare but blocked a seemingly harmless G-rated site that otherwise would have distracted Kieran from his work).

Moving on to a different part of economics, I’ve always agreed with my friend Miles that there is a much fairer and simpler way of taxing people than income tax. It’s always bothered me that my employers are probably thinking “I pay her $2000 dollars a fortnight, that’s heaps” and yet I’m thinking “My employers are only paying me $1500 a fortnight” because $500 has paid the government for my work instead of going to me (these numbers are obviously very approximate and for illustrative purposes only). It gets even worse once you start earning so much that they take 48.5% of your income before you even see it. Now I don’t have any issues with the government receiving tax money (I want roads and hospitals and medicare etc). However it would be fairer that rather than taxing people on how much they earn (especially if their earning economically is a reflection of how valuable their work is to society), income tax was completely eliminated and replaced with a blanket Goods and Services Tax of say 30% (no idea whether that percentage is high enough) for everyone.

What this means is if I want to live a frugal environmentally-conscious lifestyle where I try to minimise my consumption then I won’t pay much tax because I’m not as big a drain on our resources (which at the moment are finite until they start putting some solar panels in the empty desert etc). At the same time, if I want to live large and lavish and consume lots of energy and resources, well that’s fine but I’ll be paying more tax because I’ll be buying more goods and services which have the tax automatically factored into the price. It means that while I will get paid the $2000 (and my employer and I will have a similar view of how much I’m being paid), the cost of living will be significantly higher and it’s up to me at the end of the day as to whether that leaves me as wealthier or poorer. I know the government wants people to spend, not save, at the moment, but my tax idea would protect against inflation because it encourages people to live frugal environmentally-conscious lifestyles (and will probably mean they have savings to combat unemployment, retirement etc) but at the same time it doesn’t mean they can’t splurge if they don’t want to, as long as they’re aware that the more they consume, the more tax they’re paying in their purchases. It might also protect against obesity in a small way, again because it gently discourages unnecessary consumption. Though as I said, if someone wants to consume lots and splurge all their money, well go ahead and by the way, thanks for making such a big contribution to our roads and hospitals.

As Kieran put it (though I’m unsure as to whether he officially agrees that this is a better way of taxing people), right now we tax people based on their economic merit to society (the more you are paid for your service, the more you pay in tax), when we could be taxing people based on their drain to society (the more you pollute, the more space you take up, the more energy you consume, the more you pay in tax).

Anyway, that’s just my opinion. If you’re interested in reading the thoughts of a real economist I recommend the prolific Dr John Quiggin (professor at University of Queensland and columnist for the Financial Review). I know him personally and he spends all his time writing and speaking wherever possible to educate people and is focused on finding solutions that will actually work to improve the quality of life for all Australians. He is also philanthropic, an environmentalist (he practises what he preaches), and he even has a personality.