Search This Blog

Saturday 23 August 2014

A long short story called "A Day"

A Day

Enormous blood-red numbers shone through the dark, a screeching buzz rang in his ears.
God that fucking noise is annoying – he lifted his heavy arm and thumped it down on the alarm clock – that’s better.
The man was staring into the darkness around him.
I just had a dream. But what happened in the dream? I can’t remember. Well, there was white, I remember white. All I can remember is white.
He looked at the clock: the numbers were swimming around, inscrutable. His eyes felt sore and dry; he blinked to moisten them. The numbers remained blurry. He blinked some more and suddenly he could read them! – it was 6:00AM.
It’s 6, I have to get up, 6:01, I really have to – 
He closed his eyes and when he opened them it was 6:15AM. “Shit” he whispered loudly. He felt his eyes drooping again – he needed to turn on the light.


In the mirror, the man saw: a wrinkly and jowly face, rheumy, droopy eyes with big dark puffy bags under them, and a general appearance of enormous dilapidation.
Who is this? I look ugly, I look old, I didn’t used to be so old and ugly.
When he looked down at the bench below his mirror, he noticed a large brown cockroach crouching behind a ceramic cup.
He resolved himself to murder it.
It was hideous and deserved no life.
He began to search for an implement of death, feverishly scanning his eyes over the messy bench. Eventually he decided on a shaving brush. He picked it up brush end first.
But how to get the cockroach to move out from behind the cup? He decided to poke the wall just above where the cockroach sat. It immediately sensed the danger of the situation and responded exactly as he had calculated by scuttling out from behind the cup. He pounced. He smacked down on its exposed back as it ran towards the sink, depressing a part of its skeleton and crippling its right hind leg. Incapacitated it still clung onto life, limping and lurching on with three working legs. So he smacked it again! – it was immobilised and its tiny spindly legs twitched feebly; its body was almost entirely squashed but it was clearly still alive. He smacked it again and it completely burst; a bit of orange fluid squirted out onto the bench.
“Fucking cockroaches,” he muttered. “They deserve to die.” He continued to stare at the cockroach’s mangled remains. Suddenly, he was overcome by doubt.
But what if I’m not meant to kill things? Killing things is bad, they deserve life, they are alive; alive things deserve life. But no, no they are insects, they have no idea what’s happening, they have tiny brains, so tiny, their heads are so small, how could they fit brains? And animals don’t think like we do, they’re not conscious of their own existence. They might be actually. But they’re not. But they might be. But no, they’re not. But what if god judges me for killing them? No, I’m an atheist. Or am I?  But yeah, killing is wrong. But is it? Maybe that’s not the truth, maybe that’s just what they teach us, killing is natural, evolution, it’s a dog eat dog world out there, the big fish eat the little ones, survival of the fittest. I’m the fittest. Not really I’m unfit, I have a big gut.
He looked down at his belly; it was very bulbous. He looked back at the cockroach.
I wish I was a cockroach – it would be such a simple life. It would just be scuttling, nothing else, imagine that. No nothing. 
He looked in the mirror again. He stared at his face for a long time, noticing more than he had the first time: now he saw its generally elongated shape, its blotchy complexion, its upturned nose, its stupidly despondent expression. He decided to change its expression to a smile, just to lighten the bleak morning up – he looked happy, sort of, coz it was fake of course; he accentuated the grin by straining his cheek muscles upwards – he looked maniacal, crazed, like a bloodthirsty serial killer; he shifted to an expression of terror – he looked as if there was the bloodthirsty serial killer standing in front of him, armed, say, with a huge rusty machete. He returned to his neutral expression coz there was no time for such games: he would have to shower and shave and eat breakfast and brush his teeth before 7:05 am and it was already 6:30!


He walked into the mostly-white typically modern-looking kitchen; a fridge was on his left; he turned towards it and he stepped forward and bent down and opened the freezer door (which was on the bottom, not the top as is usual), feeling the freezing escaped air on his face, and he pulled open the top rack of the freezer and looked for the packet of normal brown bread and he located it and picked it up and placed it on the polished grey bench top next to some letters and various pieces of paper, and he located the blue plastic bread clip and took it off and allowed the plastic to untwist and he put his hand inside the opening and felt under the end-piece to collect two pieces of normal bread, and he carried them as he walked towards the toaster, feeling their coldness and stiffness in his hands, and he placed them inside the toaster and he adjusted the dial so it was just below 3 minutes (it had only changed because he had made raisin toast yesterday and that toasted quicker for some reason) and he lowered the plastic knob, watching as the bread dropped into the abyss and as the heating elements reddened, and he stood for a second just in front of the toaster, and then he began to walk towards the toilet which was in the laundry at the back of the house, and he arrived at the laundry and he opened the door and he opened the toilet door on the left and he walked into the toilet-room and he lifted the lid of the standard-white toilet and he lowered his cotton pyjama pants and there was his penis and he grabbed hold of it and began to urinate, noticing the water making a noisy trickling sound, lasting for a fairly long period, and then he pressed the small flush button, noticing the sucking and trickling sound the flushing made, and he pulled up his pants over his penis and walked out of the toilet door and out of the laundry door and back towards the kitchen and towards the sink and he arrived at the sink and he turned on the ‘cold’ tap with his right hand and the water streamed out of it and he put his hands under it and rubbed them together and around each other and he turned the tap off with his right hand and then he walked over to the tea-towels which were hanging off the handles of two of the white-painted cupboards below the kitchen bench and then he began rubbing his hands on the right tea-towel and he did this until they were dry (enough) and he stood around and walked into the dark pantry and turned on the light-switch on the left and the light turned on and he walked forward a step and then looked to his left at all the cereal boxes and he stared at their names – Weet Bix, Crunchy Nut, Sultana Bran – and then he heard the springy sound of the toast going up to his left (now that he was facing left) and he began to walk over towards it and on his way he opened the cupboard to his right and bent down and grabbed a small white ceramic plate and stood up and placed the plate on the bench and then he continued walking towards the toaster and arrived at it and grabbed the two pieces of bread, feeling how hot they were in his hands, and then he hurried back and deposited them on the plate and walked to the fridge and opened the door and looked around and saw on the second-from-top row, on the left, was a jar of mixed berry jam from that brand with the sort of gourmet authentic look (as opposed to the supermarket-standard or mass-produced look) and he grabbed it in his hand, feeling how cold and hard it was, and he placed it on the bench next to the plate with the toast on it and he slid out the top drawer which was just to the left of the plate with the toast on it under the bench, noticing the sound of metal being rubbed, and he grabbed a butter sort of knife from the third slot of cutlery where he kept the knives (it went spoons then forks then knives from left to right) and he lifted it up and put it down on top of the toast on the plate and twisted open the lid of the jam jar with his right hand and placed the lid on the bench to its right and grabbed the knife again with his right hand and dipped the knife into the jam and lifted it and quickly lowered it on to the top piece of toast and steadied the toast with his left hand and began spreading the jam with the knife in his right hand, and when it was sufficiently coated in sugary fruity syrup he lifted the bread and fed it into his mouth and began chewing, noticing the crunch sound it made as well as the flavours – the robust flavour of the brown bread contrasting nicely with the sweet tangy flavour of the jam – and when he had finished chewing it he swallowed it, noticing the ever-so-slightly sharp sensation in the throat that resulted from ingesting dry bread, and then he started spreading jam on the second piece of toast and he noticed his mouth felt dry and he turned around in the direction of the stove and the cupboard above the stove and he walked towards them and then reached up and pulled open the right door of the cupboard above the stove by its grey metallic handle, noticing the way it creaked, and he grabbed a glass from the many in front of him and he took it towards the tap and he held it under the tap with his right hand and he reached awkwardly to turn on the cold tap with his left hand and he watched as the water filled up, noticing that it made a sort of soft-fizzing sound and that bubbles were temporarily created, and then he turned off the tap with his left hand when the water was at a desired level; and as he walked towards the bench on which sat the plate with one piece of half-jam-spread toast on it and the jam-sullied knife next to the open jam jar and its lid, nothing of significance happened.


When he entered his car, the dashboard clock read 7:07 – 9 minutes to get to the train. Marius Benson was on the radio.
“Professor Stefan, the climate commission is no more, now there is a climate council; what exactly are your plans?” 
He had reached the end of the driveway and was beginning to drive up his street, Bond Street.
“Well, we’re gonna take up where the climate commission left off by taking exactly the same approach we did then, uhh, we aim to provide an unbiased, authoritative, independent voice on climate change issues, uhh, communicating with, engaging with the Australian public, so we’ll have, uh, hopefully the same six commissioners we had before as councillors now with the, uh, Australian Climate Council, uhh, we’ll do similar sort of things in ter, in terms of producing reports that are, uh, easy to understand, easy to get your head around, uh, making presentations at various events, and of course doing a lot of media; so basically it’s business as usual for us.”
That’s a relief, I actually thought they had been obliterated by Tony, evil Tony, Abbott the abhorrent, goddamn cover-ups, I hate climate change denialists, the arrogance to go against all the scientists, the stupidity. Actually it’s always for financial gain, always about financial gain, that’s the way the world works eh.
“But you won’t have the resources that the government previously provided.”
Yeah financials.
“No we don’t and so, uh, the six of us are starting out volunteering our taunts –
Taunts? No must have said Talks –
“so we won’t get any, uh, payment for this, uhh, we’ve got some very modest start-up funds to get us back on our feet but we’re, uh, looking forward to getting widespread community support to allow us to have some, uh, researchers, to some, to have some, uh, professionals to help us with the media and so on.”
He was now travelling along Norton Street over one of those truly irksome suburban speed humps.
“Greg Hunt, the Environment Minister, has actually welcomed this change, he says That’s exactly what you should au-always have been, you are a lobby group, the Commission as it was should never have been funded by taxpayers.”
Greg Cunt.
“Well, I was, I would put a quite different slant on that we were, we were, never a lobby group, uh, in terms of being an advocacy group, uh, we had a very specific remit, and that was to provide unbiased, authoritative, independent information on climate change, not push any particular position in terms of policy, and we’re gonna continue that strongly apolitical grole, uh, role; we’re not a lobby group, uh, we’re a group that’s out there to engage Australians on one of the most important issues of our time.”
What a reasonable thing, just goes to show how screwed-up Liberal priorities are, it’s a farce, they’re a farce.
“But you will now be just another voice in the mix with no particular standing in government, does that mean you’ll be a less powerful voice?”
 I bloody hope not.
“Well we hope that by the nature of what we do we will continue, uh, to have, uh, some important, um, influence and emphasis in the whole climate change discourse. By st-sticking away from advocacy positions, by staying away from the political positioning, by staying away from commenting on-on policy, uh, we wanna maintain that role as ah-an independent voice that does provide authoritative, trustworthy information; we strongly believe there’s a, there’s a, very big role for such an organisation and that role, uh, continues.”
Too right.
“But Greg Hunt says that when it comes to advising the government you have no particular role there; that role is played by the Bureau of Meterology with seventeen hundred staff to do it.”
He was now turning left into Cartwell Road.
“We’ve never had a role, uh, as advising government, we didn’t in the previous, uh, incarnation of this climate commission, it was quite clear in our remit, uhh, that we were not to take any direction from government, which we didn’t, nor were we, uh, to provide any advice to government, which we didn’t; we’re apt to provide, um, public good in terms of providing this authoritative, independent information; now, as a scientist, I can see we relied strongly on the excellent, excellent w-work done by the Australian scientific community, including researchers from the CSIRO, researchers from the Bureau, and certainly, uh, the outstanding observational record that the bureau provides, but a lot of the information isn’t easily accessible to the public, and we’ve found over the past two and a half years that we are providing, I think, a very valuable service, in working closely with the scientific community to ensure that we have absolutely accurate, up-to-date information but, very importantly, making that accessible to the public.”
Good on you.
“There is renewed debate about climate change at the moment in anticipation of the official release of the IPCC’s report on Friday Australian time, and the suggestion is that it’s finding that the rate of increased temperature is not that that was projected in previous reports; the fulleh, the full report’s not out and people are cherry-picking perhaps; what’s your reading on the information out so far on the latest report?”
He was still in Cartwell Road, passing all the local shops – cafes aimed at rich old people, roast chicken shops, newsagents – and he was approaching the car park near the train station.
“Well let’s wait and see what comes out, ah-as you’ve said, uh, that’s a draft, uh, obviously some people are leafing and cherry-picking, uh, I’m not going to say anything on the content of the report until it’s actually out; there is a meeting in Stockholm, oh-of lead authors of that report and they’ll be going through making their, uh, final, uhh, modifications and touches and so-on to the report, uhh, I will say that we can anticipate that it’ll be a very comprehensive report, it’ll go far beyond just looking at air temperature, it looks at the entire climate system, how it’s changing, what the reasons are for the, uh, those changes, and what risks w-we might see into the future, so let’s wait, hold our horses on this, ah-and get a more comprehensive look when that report is officially released.”
He was steering the car in between the white lines.
“Professor Will Stefan, thanks very much.”
The interview had been perfectly timed for the drive: he was just pulling up the handbrake now. Dashboard time: 7:12 – 4 minutes to walk to the station, buy a ticket – it was Monday, the day he always bought a weekly ticket – and get on the train. Now he turned the ignition off and the radio immediately died. For a moment it was deathly silent; then he opened the door with a big click and got out and stepped noisily onto some loose car park gravel. He moved with a couple of deft steps round to the boot, opened it and grabbed his briefcase. He slammed down the boot, pressed the lock button on the plastic car key and began to canter along the pavement towards the concrete staircase that led up to the station’s overpass. When he reached the staircase he quickly glanced down at his watch – shit three minutes – and with that encouragement bounced up the staircase two steps at the time, quickly ran along the overpass – passing the Chinese-lady-run kiosk to his right – danced adroitly down the stairs, ran straight along towards the ticket booth and machine – shit there were three people in the queue for the booth and one for the machine – and took the machine option. He waited behind a woman in her thirties wearing conventional female office garb, a skirt and whatnot, like what Margaret used to wear to work. This woman was really taking her time and she was pissing him off. He glanced down at his watch: one minute.
Come on come on come on.
She collected her ticket, she collected her change, she moved out of the way. Now this was it, his chance. He moved precisely and quickly, first Destination: scrolling down the square metal buttons – shit, where’s City? Oh there – then Ticket Type: shit, where’s Weekly? Oh there, and what was he? Yeah, adult. The price came up – $34 – they’ve really been increasing the prices recently – he could hear the train rolling into the station, he quickly took out his wallet and fumbled around until he grabbed a slippery $50 note, in the process dislodging a $10 which floated down on the ground – shit – he put it in the machine, the little light went green, it was working, it was processing but the train was stopping, it was making that squeaking noise, he clumsily picked up his tenner from the ground, he desperately grabbed for the coins and ticket in the metal tray, the doors of the train were open, his hands were slippery, people were funnelling in, there were only two who hadn’t entered the train yet, he had everything in his hands, he started running towards the nearest door, Stand Clear Doors Closing, they were shutting, mechanically, sadistically shutting, they wanted him to stay out, they were heartless, unfeeling, they were about to close, the world hated him, he jumped in between them at the last minute, he had done it!
It was the victory of the day. 


Only a few steps after he had gone through one of the ticket gates, he was weaving through the crowds in the station arcade. On each side of the grimy arcade, there were juice bars and take-away Indian curry shops whose pungent aroma of spices filled the air – and what of the hygiene, leaving them to go off in those metal trays all day? – and there was McDonalds and there was Burger King, already filled with people, at breakfast too – what of their health? – and soon he was on the street, the noisy, densely-populated street, with people going here and there and here and there, the pedestrian bipper going bipbipbipbipbip as a great crowd of people, mainly wearing office clothes like suits and ties and knee-length skirts and coats crossed the road to the other side.
He began to walk along the pavement. He passed a youngish attractiveish woman wearing bureaucratic attire, a very young man wearing a suit, a drug-addled stumbling middle-aged man wearing dirty and tatty clothes, a homeless person sitting down with a hat on the ground in front of him with a few meagre coins in it and a cardboard sign next to that reading “Need money to rent acomodation, desperate”, and a balding middle-aged man wearing similar clothes to himself. Then he saw CafĂ© Milan, which he entered. 
It was warm. There were two women and one man standing waiting. The baristas, both of whom he recognised, were a bearded man who looked in his early thirties, and a young attractive woman. As he looked at them, he felt around in his coin pocket to check if he had coins: yes, he did. He consequently pinched what he hoped would be an amount of at least the amount required for his coffee, which was always $3.50. He was rolling the coins around in his hand as he counted them: there were a few 20s and one 1 and there was another 1 and there was a 50, ok that must be enough.
“Next” the woman said loudly. He looked around at the other people near the counter; their expressions immediately conveyed the sentence ‘I have already purchased and am now waiting’. So he was next. He walked towards the attractive young woman, brushing past the woman who was maybe quite close to his age – he apologised quietly for brushing her and she said “It’s OK” quietly – and then he reached the counter. Now, as happened every day, he could see this attractive woman had slight skin blemishes. As usual he thought about how she wasn’t flawless after all, though she wasn’t too far away after all; her skin was just sort of bumpy that’s all, but so is everyone’s skin. She was still very attractive.
She was suddenly naked and having vigorous sex with him and screaming loudly
He decided to speak.
“One regular latte please.”
“Takeaway?”
“Yep.”
“What’s your name?”
“John.”
She wrote a J on one of the plastic takeaway lids.
“Ok, that’ll be three dollars fifty.”
The price wasn’t a surprise but he hadn’t been able to arrange the correct amount in his hand yet. He needed to move quickly. The coins had blurred into a metallic circly haze but they needed to be counted – and quickly – because she had a job to do and he was holding her up; that’s 1, 2, 2.50 obviously, ok there’s three 20s, and another and there’s the fifth, ok that’s it. He gave the correct amount to her and said, feigning more uncertainty in his voice than he really harboured, “I think that’s $3.50.” She didn’t trust him, clearly, because she started counting them in her hands. Then she appeared satisfied. She popped out the cash register tray and deftly deposited the coins in their respective compartments. He said thank you and she smiled at him, salaciously.  
He waited for his coffee. He got his coffee. He sipped it as he walked on, out of the shop, down the footpath and towards his office.


He was in the lift with three other people: standing next to him was an Asian female cleaner equipped with a blue bucket, inside which stood a big fluffy pink cleaning brush and various bottles of noxious cleaning products; In front of him – facing away from him, towards the door – was a balding gentleman wearing a grey suit about his age whom he, fortunately, didn’t recognise; and next to this gentleman was a lady around the age of thirty who worked on his floor, he reckoned, but whom he’d never talked to. They, like him, were all standing silently and with serious, professional looks on their faces – though maybe the thirtyish woman had a slight-smile on her face as she stared at her phone. He began to think about what they were thinking. Maybe they were thinking about what he was thinking. Or maybe they were thinking what he was thinking now about them thinking. Or maybe they were thinking what he was thinking now about them thinking about them thinking
Ha ha. This is so silly, this thought.
Suddenly the lift’s ascent halted, the doors opened and the robotic, female voice of the intercom spoke: “Level sixteen.” The Asian cleaning woman, appearing anxious to exit the elevator, said “Excuse me” in a Chinese accent to the thirtyish, possible floor-sharing woman; she stepped aside to let her and her cleaning implements through. The cleaner got out. 
It was just three of them now as the door closed; more space and the same silence. He looked at the level-number buttons just to see which ones had been pressed: there was his, 23, and there was only one other, 21.
So the thirtyish woman does work on my floor – that’s sorted. Unless it’s the balding man, but nah, it must be her cause I recognise her.
Seeing they were now hitting level 20 made him realise that he was almost at work. He started thinking about work things. Did Jane need that thing today or tomorrow? God, which one was it? The balding man got out. He was now standing in the lift with the woman only. It was silent. Today or tomorrow? The engine whirred. Did she say the 26th or the 27th? The display switched to 22. Argh, why can’t I remember? The display switched to 23. Oh either way, I haven’t finished it so I’ll have to do it today. Ding! The doors opened and he moved towards the exit, before noticing that the thirtyish woman was doing the same. Annoyingly, she also stopped. He quickly contrived a smile and spoke: “You first”. “Thank you” she replied with an insincere smile, then quickly left the lift. He exited the lift, turned right down the corridor, walked towards the big glass door at the end of the vestibule, and inserted his pass into the slot on the left. It buzzed and the light turned green.
He pushed open the heavy door and was immediately confronted with a wave of indistinct chatter. He gazed over the familiar bureaucratic scene: there were desks everywhere, most of them occupied, as a multitude of people typed on computers or talked on phones.
Why am I standing still?
He turned left and started walking towards his section. He first passed his junior colleagues on the project – the plebeians; haha – then, as he approached his office, passed the more senior ones, all of whom he said “Good morning” to, but with most ebullience to his sort-of-boss Jane because he also had to ask her whether she wanted that thing done by today or tomorrow. She said “Tomorrow”, which was a relief. He eventually reached his office, which was quite a large, enclosed one, with a large, perfectly-clean window over the desk and a vista over some tall glass buildings and some of the harbour, with the harbour bridge and Luna Park just visible way over on the other side. It was a big harbour in a big city, a massive city, and he was just one cog in an immense machine, now sitting down at his desk, ready for a day of working stolidly.
He reached down beneath his desk and felt around for the on button on the computer tower. He found it and pressed it. It began to whir with great effort as the Windows 7 screen appeared, then, slowly, the log-in screen with the blue background. He deftly typed in his password – SheepDude73 – and pressed enter. The screen said it was Logging in.
To his right on the desk was a pile of documents. He reached over, picked them up and began reading the top page. As he did, he noticed that the computer had finished logging in and was now on the desktop page. The mouse was still spinning around though. When the mouse assumed its default look, he clicked on the Folder icon on the toolbar on the bottom of his screen. He then clicked on Documents. He began to scroll through the multitude on the screen. Finally, below 5446376-v…reement.DOC, he found the one he was looking for – 5461930-v…reement.DOC, The Relocation of Utility Assets Agreement. He clicked on it: all 34 dense and abstruse pages opened up on the screen.
He scrolled down the document, admiring as he did the mesmeric patterns of his formatting. On page 26, he at last found what he was looking for. After the clause, The Insurer(s) hereby agree, subject to the limitations, Exclusions, terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned, that they will insure against all risks of physical loss or damage to: , there was blank space. He began filling it in.


He looked up at the clock on the wall above his computer: it read about twenty-three past twelve. 
Just a few more minutes.
He began to scroll up and down the document, absentmindedly looking for instances of awkward phrasing or plain-old errors. His stomach groaned with hunger. The words were beginning to blur.
Must keep working.
He stared at the screen:
9.5 -> The Principal has effected and will continue to maintain, from the Date for Commencement until the expiry of the Defects Liability period, Principal Arranged (“PA”) Insurance being contract works and third party liability insurance effected by the Principal in the name of the Principal, the Contractor and an approved subcontractor employed in relation to the Works for the limits of liability as stated in Attachment 4 to cover the Contractor’s liability to the Principal and to third parties.
9.6-> Blah blah blah blah
He didn’t know how it happened but when he looked at the clock again, it read about twelve thirty-two.
It’s lunch time.  
He sat up, stretched his legs, and walked off towards the lift


He returned to his office with a stomach full of curry. He sat down and awoke the computer. His Word document appeared on the screen, its rows and rows of words sitting dense and immovable. He began to type from where he left off. His fingers clicked and clacked on the keyboard, and the clock ticked away on the wall.
As he wrote a clause about the company being willing to insure damage to construction vehicles, he began to look around his desk. He saw the black, Toshiba monitor and the keyboard on which his two hands were working, his computer mouse sitting on its pad, his shiny metal lamp, three soft-cover books – two those ones about the Englishman who goes to live in France, the other that detective fiction novel called “Blood” with a sensationalised front cover and journalistic praise all over its back – that mug with a big, red number 1 and World’s Best Dad written on it, that picture of him with the kids in Tasmania, that picture of the kids posing together in the old backyard, that picture of him with Margaret back in 97 at the farm, and that picture of Margaret with the kids in the hallway.
Something stirred inside him.
“Fuck this.”
He stopped typing. He sat still for a few seconds, staring with a pensive expression into his screen. Then he shifted his feet slightly and allowed himself to rotate on his swivel chair ninety degrees to the left. Now he was staring at a white wall, at the millions of tiny lumps that had come into focus; the millions of tiny lumps on the wall that had appeared from far away to be flat and uniform.
There are so many lumps on the wall, so many lumps on the wall, why am I thinking about the lumps on the wall? I do that every day, it’s such a waste of time, it’s so pointless, thinking like this is pointless, it reduces my productivity so much. But maybe that’s a good thing, I mean I don’t want to be some sort of bureaucratic slave, some sort of servile robot in an Orwellian society; ha ha yes it’s good being able to think about the lumps on the wall because then I am not a slave to society anymore, no longer confined. No I should seriously get back to work, I need to finish work on the contract, the deadline’s tomorrow. But it’s so stressful, it’s so boring, I don’t want to do it, these days drag so slowly, look at the clock over there, it’s so mechanical, so-so inanimate, it just ticks and ticks and ticks, these days drag so slowly, I’m slowly dying in here this white office; I was going to become a writer, I was going to do something with this life, then I grew up; ha ha; maybe I should have been though, I still probably can, I want to write about thoughts, I want to escape my head, I really do wish I wasn’t stuck in my own head, I wish I wasn’t eternally alone inside my own head, how weird is it to think that I will never know what it is to be someone, to live like someone else, to think like someone else? it’s so strange. I should get back to work, it’s so boring, oh but I should, oh but this is all so pointless!
He started singing very quietly, almost in a whisper: “One day I am going to grow wings, a chemical reaction, hysterical and useless, hysterical and useless.”
“I love that song” he whispered.
He continued staring at the lumps.
After about a minute, he swivelled back to the computer screen and continued typing.


As he drove to the supermarket it started raining. It gradually intensified until it was splattering noisily on his windscreen and drops were streaming down. 
After a few minutes, he turned off the highway onto Juliet St. On his right was the huge, familiar supermarket, near the top of which was emblazoned in enormous letters, COLES. As he noted there were no spaces on the street, he drove just past the actual supermarket building and turned off into its driveway. As he descended the slope, he had a view of the whole, immense, black, rain-slicked square of the carpark: he immediately perceived that there were many empty spaces but that they were mainly for disabled people.
Why are there always so many bloody carparking spaces designated for disabled people? It’s got to be a massive superfluity.
As he reached the bottom of the hill he was somewhat mollified, as he spotted a spot without the annoying blue square very quickly. He dexterously swerved in between the white lines and turned off the car.
He opened the door and got out. He immediately started getting wet and noticed it was cold. He didn’t have a jacket on. He ran towards the supermarket, through the car park, becoming wetter and wetter, until he reached the brightly-lit shelter of the supermarket’s front entrance. He headed up the pavement towards the entrance. He walked into the supermarket as a woman with a young child and a pram walked out; they passed each other next to the automatic doors.
He grabbed a red basket and sauntered into the supermarket. He wondered what he would make for dinner. He decided: I guess I’ll just make Spag Bol. He went to the vegetables aisle first and collected some oregano and a handful of carrots and two zucchini. He next headed to the refrigerated meat section; after a bit of looking he found the mince section. 3 Star, 4 Star or 5 Star, that was the question. He chose 5 Star coz though he was dubious about the ratings system, the 5 Star one looked the most red and meaty, as opposed to the other slightly greyish ones. He then headed towards the aisle where he hoped to find both spaghetti and tomato paste; he first found a packet of spaghetti, then after much searching he found the tomato paste section. He chose the Dolmio’s flavoured one; it felt somehow wrong. As he began walking out of the aisle, towards the ice-cream section at the back, he suddenly recognised Michael whatshisname, the father of a girl in his daughter’s old soccer team. He quickly turned around, and began walking quickly the other way. When he had finally reached the ice-cream section, he found it difficult to choose which two Connoisseur flavours he would buy, but eventually decided on CafĂ© Grande and Chocolate Honey Nougat – assuredly two delicious ice-creams. Then he realised, as he delicately placed the ice-cream in the trolley, that he couldn’t remember what the last thing he had to get was. Or maybe he hadn’t forgotten anything. Suddenly he remembered: milk! When he reached the milk section, he made sure not to get a Coles brand bottle despite them having stacked the shelves full of them – those corporate cunts – instead choosing a Dairy Farmers two-litre bottle, as per usual. He then walked over towards the checkout, burgeoning red basket in hand.  
When he got there, he noticed the Express, 12 items or less, checkouts were closed. ‘Shit’ he thought as he looked at all the other checkouts, almost all of them populated by mothers with trolleys stacked to the brim. They all seemed like equal waits. After much internal deliberation, he decided to head towards the one directly in front of him, where a fat man with a fat child had just started purchasing his whole trolley-load of frozen food meals and junk. He walked in behind him and put his basket down. As his items were being scanned, he picked up the plastic item-ownership separator, placed it down on the conveyor belt, and started taking his own items out of the red basket and onto the conveyor belt, behind the separator. He was finished quickly. But the fat man’s items continued to be scanned. Bip. Bip. Bip. 
He turned his gaze upwards: on the wall just in front of him was a bright, vibrantly-coloured picture of Curtis Stone posing with a housewife. They were both replete with immaculate hair and wide smiles, and both of them were holding out for the camera bowls of steamy, brown, slightly diarrhoeal spaghetti bolognaise. There was a caption beneath it, in large letters: “Feed your family for under ten dollars”
Feed your family shit for under ten dollars; haha. But god advertisements are awful, they’re such terrible things. Except are they?; they are necessary things, certainly. I don’t know. Well I do know something: Curtis Stone’s a cunt.
 He looked back down at the checkout: a plastic bag of his had already been filled and deposited in the collection area. The checkout lady, whose name he could just make out was Sophie, was now picking up the Weet-bix, bip; now the tomato paste, bip; now the spaghetti, bip; now she picked up the full bag and deposited it in the collection area; now the CafĂ© Grande ice-cream, bip. He looked at her face: she was extremely attractive. And very young. Just older than Elizabeth. And extremely attractive.
All of a sudden she was naked, on top of him, feline in her pose, purring that he should make love to her; the room dark, ambiently-lit, candles to his left on a table, him on a lounge and her now 
“That comes to a hundred and thirty-seven dollars and thirty cents. How would you like to pay?”
‘God I’m a creep’ he thought as he replied “Visa”. It continued to bother him as she asked him if he wanted Flybuys. It continued to bother him as he swiped his card and as the transaction was confirmed. It continued to bother him as he picked up his bags, as the automatic doors opened onto the gelid night air, and as he lurched, bag-laden, embarrassed and unhappy, through the carpark’s rain and darkness, towards the metallic silhouette of his empty car.


He nudged open the door with his foot, shopping bags in hand. The house was dark.  He knew the light switch was somewhere to his left on the wall. He put down the two shopping bags in his left hand. He felt for the light switch; he pressed it and the room was suddenly lit-up. He walked forward, heavy-legged, towards the kitchen. There he lifted the shopping bags onto the bench, and stood, looking around at the space behind the kitchen: the furniture was disorderly, and there was clothing and clutter everywhere. It was also silent. 
It used to be so nice this house; so alive. It used to have a family in it. I raised two children.
“Life’s over now” he whispered. The kitchen remained impassive.
He stood, still staring, with a solemn look on his face.
“No, I can’t say things like that, no it’s not over.”
He bit his lip.
But it is, it is. What more can I hope for? There is nothing, there is nothing.
He sighed. He whispered again: “I still need to cook dinner. Life goes on… On and on.”
He turned around and cooked some spaghetti bolognaise.

It wasn’t fucking Curtis’ recipe, though. 

John was slumped on the lounge. He was staring at the TV. The program was Masterchef Australia.
This show is so trashy, so stupid.
Excerpts from John’s responses to the show: “What a ridiculous mixed metaphor”; “ClichĂ©”; “Oh no another one of them is crying”; “This is so contrived.”
The program finished. As soon as he realised he had lost the remote, the ads came on – the ones advertising “new”, “fast-tracked from the US”, “incredible”, “thrilling” crime dramas, with the deep, sensual, extremely irritating female voiceover who only speaks in superlatives. He was beginning to panic. The noise and images on the screen kept shouting at him.
Where is the remote? Where is the remote? “Fuck. Where is it?”
He stood up and wrenched away the in-built lounge cushion on top of which he had sat; it thudded softly onto the floor. Now the lounge was exposed in all its ignoble nudity.
He could sense the remote’s presence somewhere, somewhere concealed in the lounge’s frame. He reached his hand towards the back of the lounge, into the abyss where wayward remotes normally could be found. He felt around and felt nothing. Then, suddenly – yes he’d got it.
Mocking incantations were cascading from the screen:
 Down down prices are down Down down prices are down Down down prices are down Down down prices are
He turned it off; the ordeal was over… But no, he suddenly realised it was only 8:30; he would have to look for something else to watch until 9:30. It was too early to go to bed, far too early. He had to be exhausted when he went to bed, otherwise he’d think, descend into a thinking frenzy… No he hated those nights. He turned the TV back on. 
He watched a documentary on SBS about modernity and modern cities and architectural feats and how many people there are on earth; it was very overwhelming and there was something altogether frightening about it. And when it had finished he realised he felt queasy in the stomach.
He turned the TV off. He was tired and it was bedtime. His legs felt lethargic and his body felt stiff and unresponsive – old. He was old and he forgot go for a run today at lunchtime.
“Shit, I can’t believe I forgot that. I need to get fit.”
He switched off the light in the living room, then the kitchen, then began to walk up the staircase. One step at a time, his body drunk, his eyes bleary. He was not going to read a book tonight – he was too tired for that. He stumbled into his bedroom, then round into the ensuite bathroom. He flicked on the bright light; it startled him and he squinted. Everything had a surreally laboratorial look in the bright light – all the garish colours of toothpastes and toothbrushes and deodorants gleaming at him like surgeons. Slightly unsettled, he grabbed his toothbrush and the plumpest toothpaste tube and performed a task practised thousands of times before: squeezing-out a blob of paste onto the brush. He put the brush in his mouth and started brushing. He did it sleepily, absentmindedly; it took less than two minutes.  He flicked off the bathroom light.
He hobbled stiffly towards the left side of the double-bed, the side where he slept, and where his comical cotton pyjamas lay. He torpidly removed his work clothes, and hung up his shirt and tie and trousers in his wardrobe. He put on his pyjamas; they were snug. He climbed into the bed; the sheets were cold. 
“Shit, the light’s still on.”
He climbed out of bed, stumbled over towards the light switch and turned it off. He stumbled back towards the bed and once again climbed in. Thankfully he was too tired to think and quickly went to sleep.
He dreamt of walking alone down a never-ending white-walled corridor, getting slower and slower until he could no longer walk and then collapsing down and
Enormous blood-red numbers shone through the dark, a screeching buzz rang in his ears.


Saturday 16 August 2014

An Essay called "Politics and Bias"

Preface: Before you start the essay, I’d just like to admit that I’ve shamefully copied David Foster Wallace’s style of footnote use in this essay. When I started writing this, I decided that on no condition was I to use footnotes because then I’d look like a lame copycat of the Messiah. Unfortunately, however, I realised after about a page of writing that having all these brackets everywhere was really no fun to read and that footnotes were probably the only solution. From there, I went a little bit overboard. As I’ve heard the Great One say before, footnotes are addictive.
                        
Politics and Bias

Let’s begin by making something clear: there is no inherent, universal political ‘centre’. This is not a different concept to grasp. After all, nature didn’t provide us with an ideological spectrum. It’s not like along with the laws of physics that govern our universe, there are the laws of politics. It’s not like being, say, a feminist egalitarian who believes in small government and values industry over the environment means you are politically central. Yes, there is a spectrum basically agreed on by the majority of people which does allow one to classify political parties as whatever wing to an audience that knows what one’s talking about, but you only have to go onto any online forum where people are discussing politics to see how approximate and subjective that spectrum is.[1] And even if, hypothetically, every politician in the world agreed at some enormous global convention that the aforementioned unusual feminist egalitarian is the politically central archetype and then used that archetype to extrapolate an immutable spectrum of ideology on which they could place every person in the world, its immutability would soon make it utterly obsolete. Why? Because societies change and views change with them. For example, killing witches and slavery used to be the societal norms. For example, even a few decades ago, homosexuality was illegal and reviled by mainstream society, and the potential career and life aspirations of women were severely constrained.
And just as there’s no inherent, universal political ‘centre’, there’s no such thing as an ‘impartial’, ‘dispassionate’, ‘objective’ political authority either.
These are both really obvious facts[2] and should go without saying, but I just thought I’d make this simple clarification the beginning of my essay because so many people are talking about politics right now in seeming obliviousness to them. It’s like people are living in the Victoria Era, the way they’re talking about ‘bias’ and the need to eradicate it. And most of this anachronistic discussion is centred on the ABC.
But I’ll discuss all that later. For now, I’d like to talk about myself. [3]
I believe I’m politically central. And no, contrary to what you may be thinking, that doesn’t contradict what I stated in the first paragraph. Believing my views are central doesn’t mean that they are inherently central and – perhaps more importantly – it doesn’t mean they’re central in anyone else’s eyes. Indeed, I know for a fact that the majority of people who have identical values and beliefs to me would label themselves as left-wing or far left-wing, while the majority of people whose values and beliefs oppose mine would label me as an extreme left-winger, a left-wing radical or, if they were especially deranged, a leftist lunatic.[4] I wrote this essay partly because of a desire to highlight how goddamn weird this is and to hopefully persuade you that me calling myself ‘central’ makes sense.[5]
As I implied before, most of my values reside in the group of ideologies that are generally termed ‘left-wing’. If I was going to reduce these values into three categories and cram those three categories into one sentence, I would say I value the equality of all individuals, regardless of race or creed or class, the preservation of the natural environment, even if it is at the expense of large and lucrative industry, and the governmental subsidy and support of what you might call the humanistic endeavours, science and “art”. Of course this is extremely reductive,[6] and obviously in some circumstances I would be forced to compromise one of these values to fulfil another, plus I have no separate economic values[7] because I don’t really know anything about economics, but that’s them. Now to me, those values are tremendously and glaringly reasonable. They seem right. Importantly, however, I know there are many, many people out there who would think otherwise. I know there are many people who would look at those values, despite my cautious qualifications, with a deeply cynical eye. There are people who would have read this and thought something to the effect of “What a stupid idealist, a typical left-wing moron with no idea about the real world.” Despite my cautious qualifications about the very subject, there are probably also people who would read my values and think something to the effect of “How ridiculously reductive, you can’t just put in a little apology for that reduction of fundamental values on how politicians should exert their control on society, something vast, complex, involved and convolved, something which incorporates all the many intersecting, overlapping fields of the human study of everything, which, in the most reductive I’m willing to go, could be reduced to scientific and political and economic and geographic and anthropological and philosophical to one sentence, you facile-thinking fool.” That second response is totally unimportant for my argument, but I just wanted to include that to pre-emptively disarm any people who had a similar response to that themselves. Keep in mind the first response though.

(I stop talking about myself now.)

The problem with the way most of the population receives, digests and discusses politics is that they do it in the same way the majority of the population receives, digests and discusses professional sports.[8] ‘What?’ you’re thinking. Let me explain.
All serious sports fans have a team they support in every sport they follow.[9] It’s actually very difficult to appreciate sport without supporting one team (or player, if you’re watching a sport like tennis[10]), as the singular support significantly increases the excitement of the contests. If we don’t even subconsciously choose a team, we don’t invest any emotion into a contest, and without emotion, the score becomes inconsequential and the matches are reduced to their essence: people trying to be the best at doing acrobatic things either with other people in teams or just by themselves, either aided by implements or without them, and usually doing so on a visually unspectacular environment. Of course, the generality of that description and my deliberate choice of big, dry words were designed to emphasise the soul-crushing boredom of watching sport without emotion – but I hope you can accept the validity of the basic idea.  The totally reasonable thing I’m saying is that there is nothing super gripping about watching sport if you remove emotion from it. Yes, many sports fans watch matches between teams they don’t openly support, but in order to make it bearable to watch, they’ll usually[11] either subconsciously or consciously choose a side that they’d prefer to see achieve success.
But where does one’s preference for the one team they openly, quotidianly support come from? Well, it’s fair to say that all sporting team preferences come from one of three origins:  intuitive choice,[12] choice based on the team’s success or prestige, or conformity to culture and context – geography, family or friendship. And I think culture and context is the most common: people usually support the team from their city/region/country, the team that their parents/grandparents/cousins/spouse support/s or the team that their friend/s support/s.[13] The important thing to take from this is the idea of randomness. There’s no real reason why most people support a certain team. They weren’t destined to support them and there’s nothing special about them. Unfortunately, most people don’t maintain an awareness of this obvious fact: most people think of their favourite team as in some way godlike or holy or magnificent or infallible, and often lose sight of the fact that someone who was raised in a different household thinks the same thing about another team.[14] And let’s be honest, it’s hard to keep sight of that fact. Very hard. Plus, in any case, there’s no reason why we should have to – it’s just sport, after all.
The problem is what I said before: that many people treat politics like sport. Before I attempt to prove this proposition, I’ll try and figure out why this is the case.[15]
One reason that people treat politics like sport might be that politics does have many similarities to sport. Compare a sporting match to a political debate in parliament, for example: they are both traditionally about men, divided into two teams, with captains for both,[16] wearing distinct uniforms,[17] fighting out matters that concern the nation at large in an arena,[18] all of this presided over by a referee[19] who has the power to eject people and often makes heinous errors. And compare match fixing in sport to corruption in politics. And compare the exorbitant salaries of sportspeople to politicians. Yes, I admit these are kind of facetious… However, a similarity that isn’t and does warrant a comparison is how we, the audience, receive happenings in sport and politics. This comparison gets to the heart of what I’m saying.
As, like sport, politics is something that captures the attention of most of the nation, it seems – regrettably – that this means that the way most people receive, digest and discuss it is essentially the same. Just like in sport, a lot of people in politics pick a side. Just like in sport, the most common origin of that preference for a side is culture and context. Therefore, just like in sport, it is essentially random. And, regrettably, just like in sport, that random preference for a side colours how people view politics in general. That random preference for a side makes people think that all politicians on their side are principled, moral, rational and intelligent and the politicians on the other side are evil, scheming, greedy, duplicitous and unctuous. It makes people think that the policies the politicians on their side propose are right, good and noble and the policies the politicians on the other side propose are flawed, deleterious and extravagant. It makes people get angry or even furious when the enemy side proposes a policy they don’t like/think is bad for the nation, and makes people feel inspired and hopeful when someone on the supported side expresses their grand vision for the nation or (ostensibly) speaks from the heart on some issue that they hold dear. That random preference for a side gives the world of politics emotion. It makes it, well, enthralling. This is often what you might call ‘morbid enthrallment’ but it’s enthrallment nonetheless.
Do you want evidence for this? The reason I haven’t given any is that I don’t feel it’s necessary. And why do I feel this? Because what I’m claiming is something that is glaringly obvious in almost all the places where politics is discussed. Just go to any newspaper’s letter section. Or just read the comments on any online blog or any online newspaper article Facebook post about politics. Or just watch Q & A. Or just read the articles of most journalists in Murdoch newspapers and some journalists, like Paul Sheehan and Miranda Devine, in the other major newspapers. Or just listen to most peoples’ conversations about politics. If you do any of those things, you’ll observe outrage, anger towards people whose views are different from the person who’s speaking, hostility towards those same people, a disregard of the views of those same people, misrepresentation of those same people, effulgent praise of politicians and other commentators whose views are the same as the person who’s speaking, and, most of all, irrationality.
And it’s terrible. Politics is not like sport, really. It’s literally about our lives. Politicians, sadly, are people who have huge power over our lives. Surely it is imperative that we are able to try and consider political happenings rationally and calmly and methodically and come to conclusions based on that. I know I always try to do that, but I see constantly that other people don’t. Everywhere. On all those fora in all the different media I listed above.
Now don’t for a moment think I think I’m completely above this. Of course I’m not. As I’ve already explained, it would be impossible for me not to pick a side. Impartiality is impossible. I’ve already explained to you my political views. But, at the same time, I said I believe I’m politically central and I said I’d justify that later. Well, now is the right time to justify it:
I think I’m a moral, thoughtful, sensible, intelligent, compassionate, magnanimous, healthily sceptical person,[20] and a person who makes a conscious effort to empathise with the views of those I disagree with. Consequently, I think that my thoroughly considered beliefs are right. They are. Naturally. But not naturally. Annoyingly as fuck, I’m not inherently politically central, because no one is.

(But let’s not make this too bleak. Some are more biased than others.)

Some are more biased than others. If there’s one thing I can be sure about – absolutely 100% adamant – it’s that I’m less biased than an average politician (particularly Liberal party) and an average Murdoch journalist. I make no apologies for being so sure about this. I also make no apologies for that second-last sentence suddenly making this essay really political. After all, it wouldn’t make any sense for me to pretend I’m this ‘impartial’, ‘scientific’ observer of politics having ridiculed this very notion, would it? And, in any case, you shouldn’t be surprised: even though I said I identify as politically central, I already said my views are generally termed ‘left-wing’. And that reminds me: another justification for me calling myself central is that I’m less biased than most people. Again, like before, this probably prompts the question in your mind: ‘Is he going to provide any evidence to support this?’ Well no, again I’m not, and for the same reason: hugely biased people are glaringly obvious and I’m not one of them.[21]
Before I get ahead of myself though, I guess you’ll be wanting to know how I define bias. Well, I guess I define it according to The Oxford Dictionary, which states that bias is “Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair”. What’s fucked up and ironic about this is that the very notion of bias is caught-up with perspective, and, well, bias. This is because bias is bias if it’s “considered to be unfair”. Different people consider different things to be unfair, as we all know and I’ve iterated a million times already. Thus, for me to say that I’m less biased than others, you essentially have to trust my judgement: you have to trust that I’m a good judge of what constitutes an “unfair” “inclination or prejudice”. Of course, this begs the question: what is an “unfair” “inclination of prejudice” to me? Well, I believe it’s an inclination or prejudice based not on thought but habit, not on reason but passion and not on evidence but instinct.[22] And, as I – unlike so many others that I observe doing this constantly – am constantly thinking about how I feel about things – thinking about why I’ve had that reaction to this statement, thinking about how I can justify this idea – I feel I have the right to call myself politically central.
I mentioned before that I believe that I’m less biased than your average politician. Again, I’m not going to provide evidence for this but for different reasons. I’ll convolutedly explain these now.
In the Western world, where it’s uniform that there are two major parties that go in and out of power cyclically, if you want to become a powerful politician[23] either your own ideology must be exactly aligned with that of your party[24] or you must have few moral scruples about following policies that are not your own and parroting the same party lines. What this means is that politicians in power are either ideologues of some sort or, to varying degrees, morally corrupt. And that’s leaving aside the fact that I alluded to in footnote 23: they all must have a bit of egomaniac in them. This is relevant to bias because it means they think basing policies on “instinct” is fair, which I’ve already made clear I think is completely wrong.
Here’s where it gets really tricky, though. I’m going to get even more political than I was earlier. I’m gonna argue that Liberal politicians and supporters are, in general, more biased than Labor or Greens ones.
Now before I embark on this mammoth task of persuasion, I’d like to make it clear that when I say “in general”, I mean it. I know plenty of inveterate left-wing ideologues. Indeed, they surround me. As I liked a few left-wing pages on Facebook a while ago, namely Don’t blame me I didn’t vote for Tony Abbott, Keep Calm Abbott Won’t Be PM Forever and Kate Ellis’ page, my Facebook newsfeed is littered with tendentious political news. I reckon a lot of what they say is completely fair (as fits what I’m about to argue) but a lot of it is definitely unfair. Biased. And the comments are very often baseless, hysterical rants, vituperations or fulminations against the Liberal party, particularly directed towards its satanic ruler, Tony Abbott. I also have an aunt who very frequently posts on Facebook and almost solely about politics. She is constantly sharing links posted by the Greens or other left-wing pages about climate change, refugees or Tony Abbott and with all of them she writes these one-sentence captions, lamenting the “disgrace” that is this policy or apocalyptically despairing that “climate change action must be taken now or else we’re doomed”. Often her fervour is so great that she forgets basic syntax and grammar and I can’t make any sense of what she’s saying. I also noticed on the now infamous episode of Q and A on which a group of young people from the group “Socialist Alternative” hijacked the debate by unfurling a banner and chanting some slogans criticising university deregulation, that these Socialist Alternative people were totally unwilling to listen to anyone else’s opinion. Ironically, the dickheads seemed totally shut off to an “alternative” view.
So, yes, I clearly concede that there are certainly some biased Labor and Greens politicians and supporters. But they are far outnumbered by those on the right. I believe you already have to be severely bent to support the policies offered by a party like the Liberal party, let alone a group to the further right.  ‘Why? And surely that’s very hard to argue. And surely you’re not ever going to convince anyone on the right that that’s true’ you think. Well, in response to the first question: I’ll show you. In response to the second sentence: I know, but I think I can do it. In response to the third sentence: You’re right, but that’s also kind of the point.[25]

(Anyway, here goes.)

Let’s begin this task of persuasion by establishing what the contemporary ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ actually represent.
Among other things, the left-wing is tied to progress. That’s why us lefties[26] are called the ‘progressives’. The current policies of the left-wing in Australia reflect a more progressive view of human rights[27] (the current Greens view of the Labor and Liberal policies on asylum seekers is that they are despicable in many ways and must change, plus all of the Greens and many Labor politicians desire the legalisation of gay marriage), progress in the shift to renewable energy (Labor tried to tax carbon and set ambitious targets for the amount of renewable energy to be used by 2020), progress in technology (Labor was on track to transform Australia’s internet with the National Broadband Network), progress in education (Labor was on track to institute the huge, expensive and revolutionary Gonski reforms) etc.
Among other things, the right-wing is tied to stasis (and sometimes regression). That’s why they’re called the ‘conservatives’. The current policies of the right-wing in Australia are designed to maintain Australia’s white cultural traditions (Operation Sovereign Borders is supported by xenophobes; the Liberal party is in favour of the monarchy and Tony Abbott grovelled to Kate and Wills when they came recently; the Liberal party encourages patriotism eg through the changes to the school curriculum made by John Howards which placed more emphasis on white Australian history; the Liberal party fosters Christianity eg through the Schools Chaplaincy Program; the majority of the Liberal party is hostile to even calling a conscience vote on gay marriage despite a recent poll showing 72% of Australians support it) and, despite what they say, maintaining the status quo (the Liberal party want to tax mining as little as possible; the Direct Action policy of the Liberal party on climate change has been unanimously condemned by climate scientists for being weak; the Liberal party has commenced a review on the targets Labor set on renewable energy for 2020, headed by someone affiliated with the coal industry; and the Liberal party has made huge changes to welfare and placed most of the budget’s burden on low-income earners).
Of course, this is all incredibly simplistic. But notice that I said “among other things”.  I’m not suggesting that the Labor and Greens always promote progressive policies, nor that the Liberal party always promotes static or regressive ones. But I am suggesting that this is the general thrust of their current ‘ideologies’.[28]
So but why is this important? Well, because, essentially, it means that if you’re a progressive, you are, by definition, willing to change, and that if you’re a conservative, you are, by definition, unwilling to change in a lot of areas.  
Another interesting thing you may have noticed above is that a lot of these points are about climate change. Before you get ready to shout at your computer screen, no I’m not going to fall into the trap of suggesting that all conservatives are non-‘believers’[29] in climate change. I wouldn’t do that because it’s simply not true. In fact, Lord Deben, a former head of the Conservative Party who served under Margaret Thatcher, recently condemned Tony Abbott’s inaction on climate change.
But, let’s be honest, most of them are. Tony Abbott certainly is. That’s why he needed to be condemned.
The problem is that even when you leave aside their affiliations with energy corporations, it is an immutable[30] fact that conservative ideology encourages you to let your brain ossify. To be rigid. To be hostile to anything that doesn’t conform to your assumptions.  
And, therefore, conservatives are inherently more biased than progressives.

(a way a lone a last a loved a long the / riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.)

So you know how I made a comment about “anachronistic discussions” being “centred on the ABC” at the beginning of this essay? Well, now seems about the right time to elaborate on this. I’ll begin the elaboration by talking about myself (again).
I watch the ABC all the time and I fail to see even the slightest hint of left-wing bias. Indeed, it seems to me that the ABC often seems to try and compensate for reporting on issues or saying certain things that they know the right-wing lunatics will decry by, for instance, making some panels on Q and A three-quarters right-wing. Yeah, sure, there are also panels that are three-quarters left-wing – but fuck, normally that just means three-quarters smart and compassionate people. And I always get the sense that on that brilliant show Media Watch[31] Paul Barry is itching to condemn outright the right-wing journalists he’s constantly catching out for extremely poor journalistic standards. Hey, but you know what? He never does. Despite the fact that almost every episode features an article from the The Daily Telegraph or The Australian fragrantly violating some aspect of the journalistic code of ethics (which is not a fucking conspiracy, as people like Andrew Bolt would have you know, it’s because these newspapers are unbelievably tendentious and constantly demonise left-wing politicians and groups and, on top of all this, normally sound like they’re written by year 9 me) Paul Barry has never once made a general comment about how utterly contemptible these newspapers are…
And excuse my imminent French, but what the fuck would someone who complains about ABC bias by calling it a “Soviet-style worker’s collective”[32] know about bias? What the fuck would Andrew Bolt know about bias? What the fuck would anyone working for any Murdoch publication know about bias? Come to think of it, what the fuck would anyone who complains about ABC bias in general know about bias?
Answer: fuck all.
Of course, these nutters who constantly protest that the ABC is biased will never be able to see the truth, blind as they are to reason, but to me it’s clear as day: the only reason they think the ABC is biased is because they’re so biased they wouldn’t accept climate change if the sun started boiling their eyeballs.
Now I realise that accusing people of bias doesn’t get me anywhere: it only makes me the same as my enemies. Accusations of bias can be hurled back and forth eternally. They’re like that. It’s like an Israeli supporter accusing a Palestinian one of bias, or vice-versa. It’s only going to result in reciprocation. The thing is that we all form into camps, us human beings. We’re tribal creatures.
I guess the take home message of this essay is Try not to be.[33]




[1] ie Conservatives will always see people more progressive than them as ‘left’ while progressives will always see people more conservative than them as ‘right’. And, even if they don’t classify themselves as such, they’ll always both see themselves as in some way central, on account of their views being the most reasonable.
[2] Unless you’re religious in which case it’s possible you believe that certain values are right and holy and that they are the inherently central ones, chosen by God, and that if you have those values you are ‘objective’.
[3] Because I’m a narcissist.  
[4] Note irony of me calling them deranged when they think I’m a lunatic. This idea of conflicting perspectives is something I’m going to explore later.
[5] Though I know I’m only really going to be able to persuade people who don’t hate me, are open to the idea of persuasion and don’t have a completely different opinion on the topic, which isn’t really persuasion at all when you think about. This idea actually ties in with what I’m going to explore later.
[6] For example I’ve stuffed my belief in universally accessible healthcare and education into “the equality of all individuals” and I’m not sure if my belief in the ethical treatment of animals fits into any of those categories but I didn’t want to give it its own category because I thought I’d look like a loony.
[7] Though of course because I value the ‘equality of all individuals, regardless of race or creed or class’ I’m obviously going to have quite economically socialist ideas, like that government regulation of industry and the socialisation of healthcare and education and transport are good.  
And, according to Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist, having an equal society actually leads to prosperity! If that’s true, then the political right might as well not exist. 
[8] And if you’re thinking ‘You can’t just assert unequivocally that ‘most of the population’ has this identical and flawed behaviour, not only is it arrogant but you’ve provided no evidence in support of it’, my answer is I can and I did and I’m right.
[9] If we’re talking international competitions, this team is obviously just your country for all sports.
[10] For the purposes of concision, I’m just going to say team from now on and mean it to include player.
[11] I’m tempted to say always but I’m not sure that’s right.
[12] As in, it might be chosen because as a child you were watching a game and you really liked one player or really liked a team’s playing strip, and from that moment on you were a fanatic fan.
[13] Technically, the other two origins I identified could come under the umbrella of culture and context as that really includes everything. Everything you do is informed by your culture and context. If you think about it, even what is called ‘defiance of culture and context’ isn’t really defiance because it is provoked by your culture and context. A young person controverts the morals and beliefs of their parents not because they are naturally different but because they are a young person and spend most of their time with other young people living in a different world from the one their parents grew up in. And even if you don’t ‘defy your culture and context’ as part of a group (like teenagers), the reason you’re defying your culture and context is still always going to be a reaction against your culture and context, which ironically means it is still informed by your culture and context.  
Of course, when people untechnically talk about defying culture and context, they’re obviously using the meaning of culture and context that I used when talking about the origins of sporting team preferences: they’re talking about the prevailing paradigm/ideology/sporting team preference of one’s culture and context, not the culture and context altogether! 
[14] At this point, a comparison could definitely be made to religion. There is of course a great similarity between sports star worship and deity worship. I mean look at that word ‘sports star’ – it invokes the celestial already. On a serious note, though, athletes are often described as godly or superhuman, and that’s kind of why they exist: because they defy norms, because they achieve miracles, because, in running 100 metres in 9.58 seconds, they metaphorically turn water into wine.
It’s funny to think of this, but I fervently prayed that Australia would defeat Italy in their Round of 16 encounter in the 2006 World Cup while simultaneously reasoning that it would be difficult to choose the voices of praying Australians over Italians, especially when I considered that Italians have a more religious culture than Australians, symbolised by the Vatican. When Totti converted the penalty that had been won from Fabio Grosso’s infamous dive, I was distraught. But I didn’t feel god had committed an injustice against me – I just figured more Italians had been praying. .
Of course, this is basically irrelevant to my point and I only mentioned it because it had a tangential connection and thought it would be funny.
[15] Yes, I realise that’s the wrong order: you’ve got to establish something as fact before you try and analyse why it’s fact… Oh well.
[16] Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition. And I guess you could say the on-field players are the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet members, while the rest are the substitutes?
[17] This might be stretching it but, as we all know, men in the Liberal party wear blue ties.
[18] Houses of Parliament.
[19] The Speaker.
[20] Unfortunately, I couldn’t put modest in after all that.
[21] Another thing I haven’t mentioned is that, while it’s glaringly obvious to me and any other reasonable person, it’s not so to the actual expressers of the biased political commentary. To them, the absurdly tendentious and jaundiced things they say or write are the truth and the truth to any person is obviously not biased.
[22] I’d just like to use this footnote to include an anecdote that I will in turn use to lambast John Howard. Speaking about climate change at a gathering of climate sceptics in the UK in November 2013, our former Prime Minister continually compared the campaign for action on climate change to a “religion” and its advocates “zealots” and then said he “instinctively feel[s] that some of the claims are exaggerated.” If that ain’t bias I don’t know what is. That megalomaniacal ignoramus had the temerity to controvert the findings of thousands of industrious experts around the world, and did it based on what? Yes, that’s right, instinct. Oh, and that’s leaving aside he’s one of those numpties who calls science a fucking religion. Fuck I hate those dropkicks.
[23] On a side note, I think it’s fascinating trying to figure out why people want to do this. My consideration of this has led me to conclude that their motivations must be one or both of the following:
1.)     Some quixotic notion that they can improve the world they live in by imposing their own beliefs on how it should be (which beliefs, by the way, are in their mind totally correct and indeed the only beliefs a reasonable person can have on how to improve the world).
2.)     Egomania.
[24] If that means anything in a world where parties constantly controvert their putative core beliefs, which is either just because the party members have other views or because the public is vehemently against the policy their constitution would dictate they follow. Indeed, the latter seems to be happening all the time recently. Think of all the recent policies that have been reneged on because of public backlash, like the Liberals’ plan to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
[25] In case you’re wondering, I’m not being gratuitously cryptic – what I said will be explained in due course.
[26] Yes, I’m calling myself left-wing now instead of central. It’s just for clarity.
[27] In other words, they care more about human rights.
[28] In inverted commas because both parties are definitely influenced in a lot of their policy-making by public opinion.
[29] In inverted commas because using that word makes climate science sound like a religion. I could have said ‘non-subscribers to the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth’s climate to change’ but that would have been a waste of words that I can afford only in the footnotes.
[30] Notice my clever choice of diction there.
[31] Not sarcasm. I actually really like Media Watch.
[32] I’m referring to an article written in The Australian by this lady called Janet Albrechtsen. Funnily enough, this very woman, along with her fellow ABC critic and Australian column-writer, the former deputy Liberal Party leader Neil Brown, have recently been selected by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for the panel overseeing appointments to the boards of the ABC and SBS.
[33] Unless it’s sport we’re talking about.