It's fascinating, and a little bit strange, that when I learn to play and/or sing a song, I seem to connect to it so much better than when I just passively listen to it.
I think it may have something to do with me actually actively feeling the lyrics and the music. It just all seems to mean so much more. I kind of start understanding the lyrics, and seeing all the little nuances and subtleties in the music.
This bout of reflection was brought about by me learning how to play 'If I Had A Gun' by Noel Gallagher earlier today.
The structure of the song, in tandem with the arrangement of the lyrics, is actually quite different and clever. Very subtle stuff going on.
I've heard the song quite a few times. I just never really actively absorbed.
On that note, some of my favourite lyricists:
Noel Gallagher
Chris Martin
John Mayer
Jay-Z
Coincidentally, they also write nice melodies (except, obviously, Jay).
Their lyrics are very clever, subtle, and take a few listens to understand what's going on. I'd like to contrast them to, say, Eminem, Lil Wayne, Green Day, and Bruno Mars. While their songs may be ok (some more ok than others), their lyrics are somewhat plain and blunt. James Blunt.
Back to real life.
So yesterday, I went to see Victory play Gold Coast at the AAMI.
The stadium was quite impressive, but practical at the same time. Quite modern, but not ugly modern like Fed Square. The seats were much, much closer to the action than at the Etihad. Made for a much better viewing experience.
The game itself was a thriller, but a bit disappointing from Victory's perspective. Any way you look at it, conceding two while being two up against the team that's propping up the bottom of the ladder is poor, even if you only have 10 men. Anyway, they got there in the end, which I guess is a positive.
They also played a lot better than I expected they would. Very little hoofball, and they actually passed it along the ground.
All in all, a pretty enjoyable afternoon out.
Also, Arsenal drew with Fulham, and van Persie didn't score. Coincidence? Maybe. However, the winning streak and the scoring streak had to end sometime. I just wish it wasn't at the same time.
Despite that, I'm not actually feeling all that down about anything really.
It's been a pretty good week, all in all. Been having good times, spending too much money, moving firewood, so on and so forth.
But yeah, it's just always something at the back of my mind, which I think I've canvassed enough here. It's just really annoying. So much so, that sometimes I lose concentration at inopportune moments, such as when I'm driving, and end up doing something stupid like going over a roundabout instead of around. At least it wasn't a cat or something. That'd be really bad.
Then, after I do that something stupid, I berate myself, and tell myself to concentrate. Don't know why I've started doing that. It's just plain weird.
It always gets kind of like this during holidays for me. I think it's mostly to do with having lots of free time to think about random things that make me somewhat unhappy.
To finish on a random note, I need more business shirts. Actually, just shirts in general. But I am too poor/frugal to pay a lot for them.
Irene's 21st on Friday night really compounded my hatred for this 'song':
I already had pre-conceived hatred towards it, mostly because it's stupid, inane, repetitive, ear-hurting, and stupid.
Friday night took it to a whole new level, because it was only then that I grasped the full import of the song's power.
It makes it mandatory for everyone to shuffle. Everyone. At the same time.
Of course, poor little me can't shuffle. Well, I can't do many things. Including dancing. Except maybe a moonwalk, and Usher twirling. And then, only in socks.
So yeah, I can't shuffle.
And, of couse, I just happen to be friends with super talented people like Zara, who, of course, can shuffle, and everything else, and whatnot. While I flail around like some kind of Official-Pokemon-League-cap-wearing fish on dry land. Ironically, kind of like a certain type of Pokemon.
Me: I flail at dancing. And many other things besides.
Yeah.
Good times though. Oddly enough, one of the better twenty-firsts that I've been to, despite the fact that I pretty much didn't know anybody that I talked to there apart from Zara (and sort of John Razos, who came dressed as a 90s auditor. Good old John Razos). It may have been the 90s-style costumes, it may have been the company (such that it was), or the ambience of the place. The hallowed complex where I also had my 21st, albeit in the inferior room. Or maybe it's because one high-quality companion is equivalent to many mediocre ones.
Also, Pikachu plushie is a good wingman. Or, at least, conversation starter.
"So, I heard you like the Pokemons?"
"Evidently."
"How good was [insert appropriate colour of choice] version? Ah, those were the days. Wait, I still play."
An interesting thought just occurred to me while I lay here flinging a variety of virtual avian fowls at a miasma of assorted objects.
Well, more accurately, I just recalled an interesting thought that I've been harbouring in my brain for a while.
We all know girls (or maybe even guys) that always set really strict criteria for what they perceive to be absolutely essential in a member of the opposite sex in order for them to be attracted to said person.
What I find most interesting about this is how often these criteria are fulfilled, even to a mild extent.
Take, for example, one of my friends. Either implied, or through explicit statement, a guy she would consider going out with would have to be:
1. Awesome at life i.e. working in a Big 4 accounting firm or a law firm of similar standing (her words, not mine)
2. Hot
3. Not from the west side
4. Pretty much just be awesome.
The guy she's now dating, and has been for a while, fulfils maybe Number 2. Probably the most subjective criterion there.
There is no meaning to what I'm writing right now. They're just submerged random thoughts emerging to the fore during some midnight thinking.
But I do find it interesting how people often persist with these 'criteria', despite the evident uselessness of them.
They're pretty fun to come up with, but not really the most productive use of time. They're more of an idealistic representation of what we would like that special person to be. Someone that we will probably never meet.
And that's probably for the better. It seems to me that people can learn a lot through learning to cope with other people's faults, which might then help them identify and rectify their own.
Through this inane discussion of nothing much, it has also become apparent to me how love transcends all barriers. Even though we often attempt to construct materialistic, vain, arbitrary barriers in an attempt to stagnate its progress, it almost always manages to surpass these constricting ties.
In the words of my t-shirt, "True love will find you in the end."
Sorry for taking so long constructing this post. I was busy trying to study for exams.
Which is massively ironic, in light of everything that I'm going to discuss.
Anyway. Let's do a fun little exercise that The Age did. It's called 'stereotyping'.
People love it. Makes things a lot easier, when you can categorise people based on race.
Disregarding the fact that *shockhorror* not every person in each race is the same as each other, let's do a bit of stereotyping and generalisation.
White people love footy and beer, and not going to uni is ok. In fact, it might even be encouraged.
Asian people, not so much. There's a pressure to actually go to uni and complete your degree.
For white people, not having a high paying job or a successful career is ok.
For Asians, not so much.
Let me reiterate, I know that this isn't the case for every single person in every single race. But let's just play The Age at their own game.
So if we go with the assumption that people can be stereotyped as above, then why would it be surprising that Asians 'dominate' selective-entry schools? If Asians, as The Age so eloquently state, have pressure from their parents to achieve at school, while white people don't, then why would it be absurd that there are more Asians at an elite school?
What worries me more is that the contention is not so much that it's absurd. What worries me is that the contention that The Age is making is that there is something wrong with this. That white people have some divine right to be the dominant race at a selective entry school.
Simply put, nobody was complaining when it was mostly white people at Melbourne High and Mac Rob a few decades ago.
There's no rules forbidding anyone from taking the exam, doing well enough, and getting in. In fact, I would argue that it would, or should, be easier for home-grown Aussies to get in, for reasons that I don't think I need to go into.
Let's just assume that there is something wrong with having too many Asians at selective entry high schools (whatever that even means. I mean, for the purposes of this argument, am I Asian? Certainly genetically. But, for all intents and purposes, I am an Australian.) What is the proposed solution? Prevent Asians from caring about their education and their future, and hence, stop them from studying as hard?
Andrew Bolt, for once, quite nicely summed it up.
There's no distinction for students at those schools. We don't go around not talking to white people because they're white. We just have fewer white friends mostly because it's a cultural thing. We tend to do different things in our spare time. Have different family values. In sum, not so much to talk about. We still have white friends though. Just less of them.
I mean, the whole thing is stupid. Most people never think about these things in terms of race. I, for one, don't look at someone and go, hey, they're white, must act differently towards them.
Anyway, whatever. Work hard, or be born smart and work a little bit, and you'll probably end up at a selective entry school (if you're even aware of their existence - I know most people aren't), regardless of your race.
The topic of working hard to get further in life is a nice segue into my next little topic.
Some of you may have noticed this thing taking place. It's called Occupy Melbourne (or insert any other city in the developed world).
If this were happening in any other city, I could understand.
But this is Melbourne.
The same Melbourne that has a real unemployment rate that economists consider to be zero.
The same Melbourne where you get free education, and get paid by the Government if you're out of work.
The same Melbourne that my father came to, twenty years ago, with no money, no relatives, no friends, and no understanding of the language or culture, and managed to make a living, and eventually afford a house, a car, and schooling for his children.
He's not the only one. Probably 99% of my friends are the children of immigrants. And they're doing alright.
If someone like my father, and countless other immigrants, who have nothing when they come here, can more than make ends meet, I think there's rarely an excuse for people that grow up here not to.
Granted, my dad is a man of incredible drive and dedication. He worked, and still does work, 9, 10, 11 hours a day, often seven days a week. With maybe a 15 minute lunch break. Sometimes with no lunch break.
He is also smart. The work he's doing now is experiencing a shortage of people that will probably not reverse any time soon.
But that didn't happen straight away. He also experienced many setbacks, times when he didn't know whether it would all work out. There were times when he worried whether he'd make enough money to put food on the table for dinner that night.
Just as an aside, I don't think I'm anywhere near as good as he is. For one, I think I'd find it very hard to leave a place that I'd called home for 30-odd years, to go to a place that I knew nothing about, in search of a better future.
While I know that not everyone is as determined, driven, smart, or brave as him, a lot of it is down to hard work. So, I guess, mainly determination.
Yes, I know that some people experience bad luck. I also know that not everyone comes from an ideal background that's conducive to being educated, or getting good jobs.
I know that, because my father came from a similar background. So did my mother.
But, conversely, many people at this Occupy Melbourne thing have a much better foundation than he does. 99% of it comes from the fact that they grew up here. They're native speakers of the language. They were educated until at least Year 10. They have a safety net to fall back on.
Let me make it clear what it was like when my parents came here, just after I was born. They had nobody to rely on. Nothing. If they starved, they starved. The Government offered no assistance. When they arrived, it was during the worst recession since the Great Depression. And they managed to get through all that.
Yes, corporate greed is excessive sometimes. Was, is, probably always will be. It's human nature. Put yourself in their position. Would you take more?
I'm not saying it's right, but what it seems to me is that all these people ranting against 'capitalism' in favour of 'socialism' (as an aside, I doubt many of them know what either of these words actually mean) are only against it not because there's anything intrinsically wrong with capitalism, but because capitalism isn't handing a job to them. Or whatever they want capitalism to hand to them. I'm a little confused about that point, but whatever. Put another way, they'd be perfectly happy if capitalism were to give them a house, a car, and no mortgage to pay.
The most profound moment, for me, in this whole saga, was one of my Facebook 'friends' harping on about how he'd spent the day at the protests.
He'd just come back from a trip around Europe. Last time I checked, airfares alone were around $4000.
How hypocritical is that? There's nothing wrong with going to Europe. Australia's a liberal democracy. Do whatever you want with your money, as long as it's not harming anyone. But please, don't then turn around two weeks after you come back from your sojourn around Europe, and complain about your lack of money/job. Money needs to be saved. Nobody owes you anything. If you decide to spend it on a trip around wherever, don't go and protest about how corporate leaders are taking your money. They're not. You're spending it all away.
I know this doesn't apply to everyone there, but it seems to be a common theme. Not just at these protests, but just around the place. People spending all their money, having good times, getting wasted, whatnot, then complaining that they don't have enough money to do it all again.
It's clear that most people protesting don't see the apparent contradiction in their actions. Otherwise, they wouldn't be protesting. The whole thing is just one, big confused mess. What it seems to me is that people are using this as a way to vent their frustrations. Any frustrations. Not necessarily anything to do with anything.
Again, I acknowledge the fact that there are genuinely unfortunate people out there. They deserve our help. In many cases, we do try to help them. What's distressing, at least in my mind, is when people go and blow probably close to at least $10 000 on a jolly holiday, and then complain about their lack of money.
Of all places, Melbourne is the last place you'd expect something like this to happen. The very fact that you have time and energy to camp in the city for a week, and not starve to death, or have to worry about actually getting that food that you're lacking, is testament to this.
Further, the corporate 'fat cats' didn't just become fat cats overnight. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, many of them worked hard for it.
Lindsay Fox dropped out of school because he was no good at it. He started driving trucks. He eventually saved up, and bought one. Then several. Eventually, he built a company out of it.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jay-Z, similar stories. Often coming from less-than-ideal backgrounds.
Yes, there is an element of fortune to becoming a bazillionaire. Probably a large part of it.
But do you think they just sat there, and it just happened for them, with no work on their part?
Very rarely do fat cats become fat cats for no reason. While what they get paid, and what they take, seems, and probably is, excessive, it didn't just happen either.
Also, fat cats employ people. Topple big corporations, and you'll lose more jobs.
I'll give you this awesome slogan from the movement.
GREED IS OVER. REAL DEMOCRACY NOW.
What. The. Hell.
The two things aren't mutually exclusive. There are greedy people in democracies. Actually, I would contend that greedy people make up the vast majority of any society, not just democracies.
To summarise, I find it genuinely amazing how people are so self-entitled, and think that they deserve to have money handed out to them, especially in a place like Melbourne, where money is often handed out to them. While I know not everybody there is like that, many of them are.
I think I'll just leave it there. I feel a bout of compulsive head-banging on the table coming on.
