A Novel Theory On America's Economic Power

Does anyone else find American spelling to be really annoying? If there are any differences in spelling between a word in American English and proper English, the American version is almost always shorther. This shortness is generally attained by hacking the 'u' out of words with and 'ou' in them (e.g. 'colour' becomes 'color'), replacing 'ph' with a single 'f' when in the middle of a word (e.g. 'sulphate' becomes 'sulfate') and other such dubious short cuts. I believe that this slight difference in spelling may very well be the cause of Americans' comical pronunciation of the English language.

Comical relief aside, the other benefit of the American spelling system is that it is more efficient due to its brevity. While typing/writing one less letter may seem to be trivial as far as efficiency goes, adding up the number of characters saved over the course of a year could amount to millions of letters and a lot of ink. But the efficiency not only relates to ink usage, it also flows into time expenditure. It saves time spent on trivial letters which can then be used for more practical pursuits such as planning wars and seeking new oil supplies. Or better yet, it saves time for more work which means more money which means a stronger economy (and also more nuclear warheads which are very useful when starting wars and seeking oil).

So you see, friends, the American system of spelling is not simply a matter of rebelling against the British (as is commonly believed) or a case of being a vastly illiterate nation (although this is probably true anyway if Hollywood scripts are anything to go by). It's all in the name of efficiency and a better economy/nuclear arsenal.

Ten

Mochas with just enough chocolate;
Tear-stained coffee glasses;
Sunshine and cool breezes;
Swans adrift in the pond;
Reflections of slow moving clouds;
Rainbow flocks pinned to blue skies;
A childish smile and a friend's embrace;
The lullaby of rocking train carriages;
Pianos conversing with violins;
Moonlit strolls towards home.

I Need To Start My Own Organisation

I was reading a newspaper article today in the SMH when I came across an article in the Eco pages. The topic of the article: how the extinction of the human race would be the best way to preserve life on Earth. This idea was apparently suggested by a group called VHEMT (Voluntary Human Extinction MovemenT) and while it sounds an "like some sort of Monty Python spoof" (SMH, 15/05/07) these people are dead serious about it and it seems to have a reasonable following with thousands of people subscribing to VHEMT's newsletter.

Now, I've been proposing the annihilation of the human race for a long time now as a solution to many widespread problems; most prominently war and our dying planet. But nobody has ever taken me seriously and yet when an organisation proposes something as absurd as this, people are willing to take notice and even subscribe to these ideas? I should go start my own organisation, call it ALAN (All Life Anihilated Neo-movement) and then make all sorts of insane proposals. And despite my extremist sounding organisation name, my solution to the threat of global warming is much less extreme than VHEMT's. Rather than wiping out all of human life, I propose that we simply annihilate all life in America. Remember, it's a good idea because an organisation said so ;-).

No Such Thing

After much deliberation (mostly during dull lectures as a way to prevent me falling asleep and drooling on the person next to me) I have come to a conclusion. There is no such thing.

There's no such thing as light; no such thing as darkness; no such thing as colour; no such thing as sky; no such thing as earth; no such thing as age; no such thing as youth; no such thing as joy; no such thing as melancholy; no such thing as love; no such thing as hate; no such thing as you; no such thing as me. But if there's no such thing as 'me', who is it that is writing this? Perhaps there is no 'me' and that I am simply a figment of my own imagination; a figment created by some consciousness somewhere with no form of it's own. A figment which is both existent and inextistent. And if there's no such thing as 'you', then who's reading this?

I suppose the point I am trying to make here is not that neither you or I exist (because that would be as possible as being able to eat yourself) but that our existence is entirely contingent - just as everything is contingent. We do not need to exist, yet we do. We do not need to feel or to care, yet we do. Why do we care? There is no moral imperative to do so nor is there anything to be gained. Do we care simply because we'd like to think that others would care about us if we cared about them? Are we so fickle that we so desperately need the attention of others just to reaffirm that we are not a figment of our own imaginations?

And so what if we are? Does it make the experience any less real just because we are not? Reality is an objective thing. Even if everybody in the world saw one event, not a single other person would have the exact same experience as you. And if there can be no consistency, then what does it mean to be 'real'?

But then again, I couldn't care less if I'm real or not. Nor do I care whether all the people I know or all the things I've experienced are real or not. As long as I'm enjoyig myself, I'm happy for the universe to be a dream.