My Thus-Far Unnamed Story: Part 2

I come to you today with exactly the same motives as i did when writing part 1 of this story. So exactly the same are they, that I'm actually rather scared by it. Actually i probably shouldn't be but i am, so, let us continue hearing of the tiny little ant.

There was a certain incident, on a certain day, that changed the lives of these five friends quite significantly. I have sworn to secrecy about it though, and it is with much regret that i can only continue this story by telling you one thing: there was a disagreement between two of the friends over a death. I shall leave the rest to your imagination (to my uttermost regret you must know) but please do not imagine that the two friends who had an altercation were the owl, tiny little ant or little robin, or that the death was any was the little robin's.
There is one more thing i can and must tell you. The tiny little ant may have once escaped a stereotypical beginning to his story, but there was no way to avoid a stereotypical beginning.
This much i may tell you and this much i have. I complete my tale with an urge to take pity on every tiny little ant you see, for as we may never be certain of whether our tiny little ant has begun existing, still is existing or indeed has shuffled off this mortal coil, any you see may be him, and the events of that certain day have left him in much need of any small amount of love you could possibly spare him - his mind has become much less than it once was.
Finally i beg you, do not judge him for becoming a stereotypical ant.
But you can judge him for pushing his friend out of a tree.

Well that's more than i thought I'd write. I want you to disregard any change in the writer's tone, because I'm sure there's been some, but I'm in a very 19th century mood today. Hey, sorry if you hate the tiny little ant know, but this is the Way it is.

Get over it.

And with that i bid you farewell after the completion of a story that was begun almost two months ago. Had anyone remembered it? I hadn't - until i remembered it :)

[Title Ommited] No seriously, thats what it called...

Not really I'm lying, i just didn't want to put it on for some reason. Putting this up was enough effort. I haven't forgotten my little non-stereotypical ant, but i figured you should have a post and this was already written up. A little story telling time. And if you don't like books, turn away!!


Emilia passed through the archway into a sphere of silence. Only the gentle rustle of a page being turned or a book being coaxed from its home disturbed the quiet. She breathed out slowly and took in the row of shelves stretching far into the depths of the room.
She would call it a room, but it hardly seemed to fit the description. The space was far too large, the ceiling seemed twenty feet high and the walls were so very far apart. It was just a space, filled with books. Emilia closed her eyes in pleasure before strolling down one aisle of shelves crammed full of the books.
“The reading of all good books is like conversation with the finest men of past centuries,”[i] she whispered, as she thought of all the great books that surrounded her, and all the conversations she might have. Name after name rolled by her on the spines and with them the brilliant minds which lived on only in print, but would yet share so much.
A title caught her particular attention and she slowly slid the volume from its place. Emilia let it fall open and breathed in the unique smell of an old library book, a much loved book. Its cover fell comfortably into place, and the pages were worn, there was the occasional dog ear, and tiny, scrawled notes here and there in the margin. It had certainly been read countless times and had filled many with borrowed emotions.
Emilia flipped through the book once more before placing it back in its rightful place and setting off again. If language were indeed the archives of history[ii] all one needed to discover the ages was a room full of words, and here she stood amongst centuries of the world, each one just waiting to be glimpsed. So many stories waiting to be told and so much wisdom longing to be imparted.
Emilia looked to the end of her aisle where a middle-aged man sat engrossed in a book. An elbow rested on the arm of the chair, hand thoughtfully stroking his beard, as his eyes made their way slowly down one page, then another - the movement of a hand - and another. Occasionally Emilia would see his beard twitch and lips curve in amusement, and just the once heard a quiet chuckle to himself.
That man was entirely absorbed in the world of that book, that conversation with a fine man, that acquaintance with a long-gone era. And in that man and his book, Emilia saw the essence of a library encapsulated: the quiet, the delight, the one thing holding so much. She allowed herself one more moment to take it in, then turned and passed through the archway once more.
Behind her, an inscription over the entryway to the silent room read:
“Here is where people
One frequently finds
Lower their voices
And raise their minds”[iii]
And on the other side, the world’s many voices grew loud once again.


[i] Rene Descartes
[ii] Ralph Waldo Emerson
[iii] Richard Armour


All the stupid formatting got stuffed up, it took ages to get it right at the end. But anyway. There you go.

I was really reluctant to put this up, so I'm schelduling it. Ill forget and then BAM it'll be up for all to see.

My Thus-Far Unnamed Story: Part 1

To continue in my avoidance of doing ncessary homework, I've settled upon writing you, my readers, a little story. With my keen foresight, i see it being absolutely terrible, having no plot line, and resembling my joke, the punch line of which was "I need a punch line" - or something along those lines. Feel free to discontinue reading, but without further ado i present [title to be inserted once story is complete, possibly never to be inserted due to lack of imagination].

Once there was a tiny little ant in existence. This tiny little ant was posisbly not in existence anymore - one can never know these things - but was, at his time of existence, very happy that his story had managed to escape a steroetyped beginning.
He was an unusual ant, not bent into the cliche form of living only within the world of ants, but rather, feeling himself not to be an insignificant figure in the world's history simply due to his size, had a broad world view and was a particulalrly opinionated tiny little ant. He had delved into the world beyond the anthill and no longer kept contact with his inferior peers, or for that matter, any of the ants he had once known.
The tiny little ant now lived in a tree, with an owl, as he had heard they were wise creatures (and many of them was called a parliament, so he had heard, and he thought if he could voice his opinions to one, then his illustrious career as an "agent of change" in the world might begin). There also lived in the tree a stick insect who would, along with the carmeleon which also lived there, provide the tine little ant with hours of amusement through their acts of ingenious camoflage. Lastly, there lived a little red robbin. Such animals usually lived in North America, but this was no ordinary little red robbin: she did not like to conform, and so had moved to the most extreme opposite she could bear. This happened to be Australia, where the owl with which the tiny little ant lived, lived. The tiny little ant and the little red robbin got on splendidly because of their mutual hatred of appearing to be a stereotype, but the red robbin had no other strong opinions formed, and looked to the tiny little ant for his inevitable opinion on anything for which the little red robbin thought he needed an opinion on.
All in all, this group of 5 very different animals got on very well, the owl keeping to himself in the topmost branches of the tree for most of the day, the stick insect and carmeleon coming up with new trickss involving ctheir camoflage with which to startle passing seagulls (whom they enjoyed teasing immensly) and the tiny little ant and the little robbin coming up with clever games with wich they pass the days away (for although the little red robbin had no strogne opinions, she was a very clever little bird).

Hope you enjoyed part oen of my story!! I've decided to publish it in instalments, whenever i run dry of material for blogging, but still wish to post. I envisage it as being very exciting to discover what will happen to the tiny little ant and his friends (of which the little red robbin is indupitably the most developed character thus far). Watch this space!
Alyssa.

Fact vs Fiction - A "politically Incorrect View" - Ironic? I think so...

Goodness me i just realised i have previously tried to explain my views of global warming on my blog, but did a rather dreadful job of it. Then i thought, just now, 'Ha i have a great piece of writing on just that that i did for English recently!' And so, here is my A grade piece on global warming. (not to boast or anything . . .) You'll be pleased to know, as an aside, that i believe all this blog writing has helped me in my already stronger form of writing: the opinionated piece. Much easier do i find it to compile a piece containing my opinions and beliefs than craft a good creative story.


Fact Vs Fiction - What Will We Risk Our Economy On?
Recent years have shown the development and climax of a Great Fear over the problem of global warming, carbon levels in the atmosphere and climate change. Already world and regional summits have been held and world leaders have promised to spend time and money on cutting national carbon emissions, while the individual tries to do their bit by planting a tomato plant or cycling ten minutes to work. And it’s all due to the environmental frenzy sweeping the world to become the greatest, most useful fad.
Sorry, did I say useful?
I do not by any means claim to possess All Knowledge attached to the subject, but I do mean to make the point that global warming fanatics - believers, call them what you will – need a closer look at the numbers and a nudge – no more of a shove – in the opposite direction.

“The normally begin thus: ‘How does this come about?’ But does it do so? That is what they ought to be asking.”[1]

Indeed they should, although our generation has already answered the question of ‘how’- or so they think – and now searches for ways to slow even stop global warming occurring, before we melt in 10 years time. However, they ought to be asking does it really, will it really, have the effect we think? No. Could you do anything if it did and you tried? No. The effort would be as negligible as an ant pushing against a concrete wall. You may as well just climb to the top and enjoy the view – the amazing view of carbon cycles and the atmosphere and what’s really happening to stop us dying.
I empathise with Michel de Montaigne; things believed because of the sheer number of believers, and those numbers made of ignorant fools, that we should be saying it is not like that, but that if we do, we will be seen as ignorant and it is hard to ‘stiffen your judgment against widely held opinions.’ People are opposing these views though. Over 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition urging the U.S government to reject the Kyoto Protocol because they believe anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes no catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s their basic reason, and it actually well sums up why we should be ‘stiffening our judgment’ against the view of the Earth’s catastrophic heating.
Firstly, how do I define this widely held view of global warming? From experience I have gathered that people believe i) the ‘greenhouse effect’ will cause the Earth to heat up to a point causing, eventually, death for its inhabitants; ii) that man-made carbon dioxide produces most of the carbon in the world atmosphere, hence anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect, and thus if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the greenhouse effect will be slowed and life on Earth saved. Problem found, solved and forgotten.
And it makes sense.
If we “conveniently” ignore the basic figures.
And basic scientific fact.
Let’ start out big and then hone in on the details.
Firstly, “Global Warming”, the process that supposedly spells Big Trouble for the human race, has actually been happening for ages – since the time of the cave men, more or less continuously and slowly. It is a normal state in the world that occurs between ice ages, and is exactly what should be happening. Be worried if it’s not - it more than likely means another ice age is on its way.
Secondly, the “greenhouse effect”, the process that is supposed to be causing global warming, helps to moderate temperatures on the Earth. In fact, the warming due to the greenhouse effect is limited mainly to night time temperatures; day time high temperatures are negligibly affected. Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature here would be minus 18 degrees Celsius – and we’d be frozen stiff. It’s generally accepted that the greenhouse effect is also the primary cause of global warming, but it’s not. The primary cause of global warming is instead, believe it or not, ‘orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the Sun’s output.’[2] Other main causes are atmospheric (i.e. the greenhouse effect: yes it does come in second) and tectonic.
Thirdly, carbon dioxide, known as the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, has had so many wrong things attributed to it, I almost feel sorry for the diatonic gas; I almost don’t know where to begin. Its main trespass these days is its position as the main greenhouse gas and the cause of all out problems.
Wrong!
Any scientist who tells you that is ignoring the 95% of the greenhouse effect that is the result of water vapour – and they’re probably not associated with climatology at all. Water vapour is the reason day time temperatures are so negligibly affected by the greenhouse effect. When held in suspension, water vapour (commonly: clouds) makes for good thermal insulation, but almost as good a reflector as well.
So how much carbon dioxide actually makes up the total amount of greenhouse gases? About 3.618%. How much of the atmosphere actually comprises of carbon dioxide? About 0.04%.
As an aside, carbon dioxide doesn’t actually stay in the atmosphere. It is continually being recycled by trees (which use it to make oxygen, without which we would cease to exist) and the ocean. (Without carbon dioxide, the trees would kick it off pretty quickly.)
The intriguing thing about popular greenhouse theory is that it states the earth’s temperature correlates directly with the amount of carbon dioxide. In the face of these statistics alone that fact is highly disputable, but historically there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than exists today, and if we follow popular greenhouse theory, in those times the Earth should have been exceptionally hot.
But it wasn’t – it was no hotter than now. (But alas, if we follow popular theory they’d have no reason to be hot – less man-made carbon dioxide you know!)
Which leads me to my last happy point about carbon dioxide: as humans we are sadly blamed for all of the supposed destruction that will one day collapse in on our once proud heads. Fortunately, if all that is generally believed - except for this last point - were true, it would not be our fault. You seem man-made carbon dioxide is in such minority that all the promised cuts in emission will do nothing to help the world and everything to damage our economy. The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide that actually contributes to the greenhouse effect is 0.117%. Next to nothing. And besides statistics, there’s other inferential proof. One is that after World War II, there was a boom in industrialization but – a global temperature drop. Another is that recently mid troposphere temperatures (the place to measure if you want to see CO2 having an effect) have decreased slightly as carbon dioxide levels increase. Another? Ice core records suggest that the correlation between temperature and CO2 is actually the reverse of popular belief: carbon dioxide follows temperature changes. If we believe our politicians and the media, something seems to be missing, but on the above evidence, everything fits. Carbon dioxide acquitted and cleared of all charges?
Catastrophic global warming theory is a product of our society and the power of a ‘multitude of believers’ swaying those few left undecided by sheer number. There’s so much proof to the contrary of what those people believe that no one could condense it into two pages (but I try to please). To all misguided souls in the world, please think for yourself and find out the facts! This Great Fear isn’t so frightening after all.

[1] “The Essays: A Selection” - Page 352 - Michel de Montaigne
[2] “The Global Warming Test” – http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A3b.html – Monte Hieb

Morals and Manners

In true essay genre style the ideas below were truly being tested out as i wrote. I picked a most confusing subject matter for use in my extension English assessment, which was meant to be in the style of first, self-proclaimed essayist Michel De Montaigne. Rebellious, frank, digressive Frenchman that he is, I've grown quite attached to him.

Morals and Manners
Since the late 18th century, rapid change has been occurring worldwide. The industrial revolution began shaping the modern world over 200 years ago – it divided city and country more than ever, started the exponential increase in pollution and set the world on a new course. The kids of today spend more time with machines than with the sunshine and people over the age of 50 – with some exceptions - are more often than not baffled by technology.
One change that’s been overlooked amongst all this though, is that of the decline of etiquette, courtesy and respect, along with the major morals upheld by society for so long. When we look back 200, 100 or even just 50 years, we’re often amazed at the way society demanded people to act. But I look at the world we live in and am shocked by the amount of tolerance granted an individual, and the things that are permissible. Of course etiquette must grow and change with the constantly progressing world – but the manners, respect and ideas behind it need not disappear or become an object of amusement. And in any case, I believe the morals should stay the same.
However, much etiquette has had to evolve to suit a changing world and society. The most obvious is that affecting the relationships and conduct between males and females: the necessity that a man not sit while a lady was standing has become somewhat of a nuisance in the modern age (feminism helped stamp it out too I imagine), and the ‘rule’ of husbands and wives not using each other’s first names in public is a bit much for our more laid back society – particularly in Australia. But however much things have had to change, there are some that changes that are regarded with a certain sadness by myself. Marriage was once held in respect– it was inconceivable that divorce would be relatively easy or even remotely respectable. Living together before marriage brought shame not only to you, but your whole family. Society’s newly developed non-committal, fast paced lifestyle has reduced these attitudes to horrifying memories for some, when we could really take a leaf out of the book of those times.
The courtesy and basic manners that were a part of old style etiquette also seem to have dissolved somewhat with society’s busyness. We don’t have enough time to do everything we need to anymore, so we rush and push and don’t think about anyone else in our haste to just get that next thing done. Of course, it’s not the people that have changed; there’s always been discourteous thoughts, to say the least, beneath every face, it’s just who we are. But I think that society has become more lax in permitting us to behave rudely – it’s not nearly as frowned upon if you don’t return a greeting civilly or speak coarsely (in fact, it’s perfectly acceptable; not like the days when use of the word damn had to be excused).
You see, the basis of etiquette is how to ‘rightfully’ behave in society. It all comes down to, essentially, the respect due to the various people and classes you could come across in life. This was usually applied to an association between people of relatively close rank, or respectable people of society relating to those of even higher rank. Of course the poor were able to be disrespected without any injustice being impinged upon (except that of ethics), but for the middle class and above, respect was expected in due form. Now that our world now much less divided by classes, such rules have virtually disappeared. Except for the odd occasion when we may meet royalty and even there etiquette has been slackening gradually.
I do love a more casual society. Formal and staunch do not suit me in the least and I’m rather glad most of the rules maintaining the old formality are gone. The problem is that the respect and general manners have gone with the rules, and formality does not come with them as a prerequisite. It’s just being polite! As the underlying principle behind manners and etiquette, what I really find sad is the loss in respect required of all. Of course the inequality that the class systems of years ago once imposed meant that anyone below you was worthy of nothing much (if anything) from you. A foolish concept, but I think that if we could somehow combine our egalitarian views with the respect of the past times, a pleasing result could be reached.
However great it would be though, I see this aspired-to, ‘pleasing result’ as nothing more than an impossible dream. The poor are still forgotten and lorded over, no matter how socialist we claim to be, and the rich are worshiped. It is nothing short of wishful Utopia. It is our selfish, self-centered society that is causing its own degradation.
Maybe there’s more behind it all than equal respect for every man. Maybe it’s all in the morals.
Society of the western world was once driven by Judean/ Christian Ethics. Christianity was the western religion, and so people held to the biblical values. But of course this had to change - “Love your neighbor as yourself” is now scoffed at more than ever by a world driven by the individual and the ideology that it is ‘all about me’ – because this was all before the mysteries of the world were unlocked by science and man came to worship himself and science. We knew how it all worked now – or at least would prove it theoretically using the scientific principals – and didn’t need God anymore. And so I believe that it was Christianity behind the older morals and values, because you can see how they’ve been less and less valued since the theory of evolution evolved. Even if everyone is thought of as equal now, I don’t believe it’s a practiced thought and the rest of the values held dear by the world of today are superficial and in a sorry state.
What society needs is to redeem itself. Not by returning to the days when chasing a dog down the street was worthy of a scolding, but by borrowing the simple courtesy or etiquette, respect and morals that were once common. We can make society much more attractive than it is now by combining what we already have in causality and egalitarianism and what we have lost in manners.