THE COLŁECTIVE CAT CON CONUNDRUM

This involves a cabal of cats, as many as seven (in our case) or more. 

The conspiracy commences over food, despite their usual disparate hierarchal infighting.  

On this topic they all agree. Nothing that their humans provide for them, unless it's hand delivered coconut oil or cheese, is good enough. And even then, some will balk at the delivery method of coconut oil on the hand, preferring to lick it off the spoon simply to ensure the humans have another washing up item with which to contend. 

The staff must earn their right to serve cats. 

One of the seven likes only the cheapie pellets and nothing else, another likes these mixed with a better product but only if served in her bowl - no other bowl will do despite impending starvation when that bowl is empty (read: containing pellets but bare in the middle section - cat empty). 

Yet two others will sit and stare longingly at the backs of the feeding cats wondering why the humans have chosen to feed only them and not us...until one of the humans scoops them up and deposits them in front of their regular unattended bowls just beyond the feeding cats where they've eaten for the last two years...

One snoozes contentedly on the humans' bed knowing he can eat at his leisure once the rabble have completed their stupid daily ritual. He's the leader. Even if the rest of the mob don't know that yet. He doesn't have to demean himself by showing a need for these human handouts. He will wait. 

And once it's all over and at least one of them has vomited (not on a wipeable tiled surface or outdoors - it must be on a carpet or rug - staff must earn their keep), the mob will engage in a range of activity that mostly involves - well - sleeping. Eating and puking is tiring work, don't you know. 

Once settled and the humans have embarked upon their own daily routine, any staff member alighting from a chair naturally signals a return of at least two or three expectant souls to the kitchen area just in case the staff have decided to replenish the (cat) empty (see above) bowls with new, decent food worthy of feline consideration. 

Collective coaxing and cajoling may produce handouts from the shiny cold box or not but the demands must be relentless and varied. 

Any other form of human movement, regardless of its non-feline intent, must be regarded as a potential feeding opportunity and the designated spokescat must meowl appropriately on behalf of the group. 

Worst case scenario, the staff will repeat the ritual at around five o'clock whereupon the idiosyncratic pantomime shall reprise. 

And that's why we love cats. 

THE TAO OF SOCKS....

My sister, Norma, dearly beloved - recently a very welcome visitor to our humble abode here in Antipodian Adelaide, will understand this comprehensively.
In fact, we spoke about it while she was here.
Socks - the singularity of those little foot wrappers and their necessary partnerships with like-fashioned companions - especially during the laundering process - is a topic upon which my big sister and I wholeheartedly agree. They cannot be separated during this process - it is a crime against some cosmic code or something and it jangles the sensibilities of the chronic process control freak who wants to see a beautifully ordered clothesline with socks pegged up in pairs, wafting in the tepid breezes of these fair climes.
Anything else simply breaks down that immutable cosmic order.
It must do, surely?
Socks should not be washed apart from their "sole" mates - that's wrong, that's just plain wrong...
My wife, through disbelieving eyes, sighs as I dump the single socks she's just washed back into the washing machine....
"But they'll be paired up when we do a third load," says she, quite calmly and unarguably logically.
Equally logically I counter, "There isn't space on the line for a third load, babe. That means two options face us - you (I'm not wrestling with the portable clothes line) will have to do the third load and hang the stuff on that infernal contraption or we simply leave the lonely single socks in the washing machine to be reunited with their partners when the current laundry is removed from the sensible outside, no-fuss clothesline. I admit that the socks currently reposing in the machine will undergo a further washing cycle thereby rendering them arguably cleaner than their temporarily displaced companions but that is infinitely better (to me) than having single socks drying in isolation and deposited somewhere (there is no feasible holding zone for them) before being reunited with their sole mates prior to rolling and placement within their designated drawer space - white sports pairs - top drawer, day-to-day lightweight working socks one drawer down and heavier winter socks on the top shelf of the closet adjacent to my tracksuit pants...."
I mean that's all perfectly sensible and normal isn't it?
My wife's eyes had glazed over at this stage and a slightly twisted, beatific smile creased her lovely features.
I could see that not only was she grappling with the prospect of tangling with the portable clothesline (only to be used in the direst of circumstances), she was contemplating whether or not she would ever understand the foibles of my domestic mind.
She said, "Okay."
That was that.
And thus these lonely, frightened, wet, cold single units repose at the bottom of the washing machine drum like inmates in a sterile prison chamber and this fills me no undue distress but less, I admit, than the prospect of dealing with washed and dried single socks reposing somewhere in limbo, unwearable and desolate, craving to be reunited with their rightful companions.
Is it just Norma and me or is there some form of feng-shui taoist sock code at play here that affects everyone other than my wonderful wife?
I'll wager she is alone in her disdain for forced sock separation through the laundering process.
I think I'll check in on the little guys when I make the tea just now. I'm not obsessing, you understand, but I do need to know if they're still okay...

HILLARY CLINTON - THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS

On being told that Hillary Clinton is a good choice for the US presidency and that I know so little about her...

It's a truly sad state of affairs when Americans are faced with a choice between Clinton or Trump and are blind to the fact that they do have other choices, not that the media ever talks about that.

Sharyl Attkisson, for example, a real journalist - not one of the corporate-owned media drones - has written some very insightful, factual, exposés on Clinton (among many other topics) and if anyone believes for a moment that Clinton isn't a sociopathic narcissist then I'm afraid her lobbyists (including most of the mainstream press) are right - we probably exist in very different realities.

Clinton's track record (sic) as secretary of state alone should give any rational person pause but there is so much more.

I have indeed looked at the background and the legacy of HRC (both mainstream and more honest) and the glib premise whereby people are lauding her against an unarguable buffoon like Trump as a yardstick and promoting her cause as potentially "the first female president" as if those are somehow legitimate credentials to enter the Oval Office, are facile and without any substance whatsoever.

It's like saying we should vote for the paedophile babysitter instead of the child serial-killer because at least then the kids will still be alive...

Not - fuck this, let's find a babysitter we know we can trust.

Is she a cunning, savvy, effective, manipulative, assured politician? Without question.

But is she a rational, even-handed, broadminded, honest, ethical and visionary leader?

Not even close.

She, like that teflon-coated tapdancer in South Africa going by the name of Zuma, manages to wriggle and squirm and stay one step ahead of prosecution, nefarious and unarguable criminality notwithstanding.

She's the worst thing imaginable that could happen to the US or the world right now.

And, no, I'm not a Trump supporter either.

There are other, better choices but the mainstream media has convinced Americans that there aren't.

Still, given the fact that they elected (albeit illegally on at least one occasion, it must be said) someone like GW Bush for consecutive terms, speaks volumes about the American ethos and in that sense, if they aren't looking harder and further than hyperbole and campaign circus rhetoric, I guess they and sadly - we - get what they deserve.

And to think that not being American disavows the rest of the world from having an opinion on this topic, I'd counter by saying simply that this is probably the election that prompted more global citizens to start looking into the background of US politics than any other. Why? It affects us all - profoundly.

Only time will tell.

If ever there was an instance when I'd love to be wrong - this is it.

I'm not holding my breath...

Dear, US of A

An open letter

The United States of America 

Any zip code 

Dear (North) Americans 

Although we may not always like the way you go about things, we cannot but acknowledge the principal role you play within the strategic global hierarchy. To pretend it's otherwise would be utterly nonsensical. 

Ergo: you wield enormous political and cultural power and you've produced some darn fine people, innovations and other neat stuff that influence cultures everywhere. 

We might not agree with your strange spelling and pronunciation but that's small potatoes in the scheme of the world AND you gave us this little old thing called the Internet and what's not to like about that doozie? 

So please tell us why in the "land of the free" you haven't seemed to realise that the corporate mercenaries who sponsor your major politicians also sponsor (read: own) the media which is why they persist in telling you that the two newsgrabbing clowns aka Clinton and Trump are the only choices you've got. 

They're not. 

And you should be mightily glad about that. 

YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM! 

Really. 

There's Johnson, Weld, Stein and other independent politicians who aren't psychotic, sociopathic megalomaniacs hellbent on a path of totalitarian insanity that's going to be bad for us all, campaign rhetoric (read: bullshit) notwithstanding. 

There are options. There really are. 

Stop reading the Washington Post and the other sycophantic media outlets that want you to believe this is all you've got. 

It's not. 

You've got the power. 

Use it. 

Please. 

Because frankly, we like you - a lot actually - but you're scaring the shit out of us... 

Sincerely 

A lot of us in the west

DECOLONISE THE WORLD - NOT A TERRIBLE IDEA - JUST BEING PRESENTED BADLY?

The current decolonisation of westernised ideology that's doing the rounds in South Africa and which is being ridiculed brutally (oftentimes understandably given the idiotic ranting that we see on social media and newswires) - is it such a radical and stupid concept in reality?
We must presuppose that the world in which we live is on the pinnacle of success and balance as driven by westernised culture and if that were the case then all well and good - no argument.
But it isn't. It's anything but and I can't believe there's anyone among us that would assert we've created a workable model across the board.
It's broken.
The decolonise concept is, for me at least, actually quite simple but is being perverted fad-like by those who seek to use this mantle for other agendas and/or those who misrepresent the ideology through ignorance.
The problems that westernised thinking and culture have manifested (and we must admit there are plenty especially through its colonisation model of "civilisation") have resulted in a polarised world that's poised on the brink of self destruction if we aren't very careful.
It's also pretty much been a my way or the highway state of governance and indoctrination that's been imposed from the get go.
I think any rationally minded person would admit that we currently exist in an unsustainable world model that's run by people we both distrust and despise within governments that feel exclusive and dictatorial regardless of this illusory concept of democracy which has been failing for a very long time.
It's paradoxically exploitative and perhaps that's being realised fundamentally by black people even though the present government claims to represent them despite being within this westernised construct.
The problem with all of these worldview models is that they tend to be exclusive and comparative and dismissive of any thinking or modality that doesn't fit the prescribed worldview. And they all rely on the premise that the majority are right and dissenters are fools, however, history repeatedly shows us that the Mavericks change the world not the majority despite the freethinkers being subjected to mass peer ridicule so much of the time.
Materialist science is a great example of this - it shapes everything in our current reality as it's the accepted norm even when much of this thinking is based on ideas and "laws" that emanated from the 16th and 17th centuries and aren't questioned especially by scientists when much of that thinking is merely a perpetuation of dogma and doesn't stand up to any real form of scientific scrutiny. The establishment is unyielding and the dogma is enforced almost militantly.
Check out Rupert Sheldrake's work in this regard - a scientist who continues to question everything.
I'm all for a return to traditional ways and values that engenders inclusivity and an unbiased evaluation of the plethora of cultures that make up the whole. The sum may be greater than the parts but every part is vital to the whole.
That isn't what the contemporary or legacy driven westernised worldview has created or perpetuates.
I agree. It needs to change but not to supplant one set of imposed dogmas for another.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT...

People (my generation and older) like to post memes about how hardy we were, didn't know about ADHD, autism, childhood allergies and how we played outside in the sunshine until all hours, messing about in dirt, soil, grass, water - you name it - and (pretty much) everyone was the better for it.
I remember those days fondly.
It's not just that we were stronger kids, it's more complicated than that. We weren't subjected to the barrage of toxic chemicals that now assail the current generation. We still bought organically farmed produce and the supermarkets stocked that stuff. It's all there was - thank goodness.
Chemical and factory farming was unheard of.
And we got maybe a handful of vaccines....no, this isn't a vaccine rant - nothing like that.
What changed to give our current crop of kids an autism rate that went from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 50 in the space of 35 years?
If anyone isn't disturbed by that, then they seem to miss the gravity of the exponential nature of that increase. If that were any other disease or condition, the world would call it what it undeniably is - a pandemic. Autism - meh - that shit just happens - bad luck - move on. That's the approach, I kid you not.
Astonishing. 
Two things become abundantly clear: first, the money the medical establishment is ploughing into autism research is going almost exclusively into genetics and by dint of the timing we've seen, this isn't a genetic or hereditary condition and if it were, genetic predisposition to a condition does not lead to epidemics. The numbers simply cannot do that in plain mathematical and statistical reality. It isn't a genetic problem.
Second: the suggestion that the diagnostical methodology has improved thereby identifying a lot more cases of people/kids on the AD spectrum also doesn't stack up in any way - it falls apart quite emphatically in fact when we suggest that the medical establishment has failed over a period of two decades to identify neurological developmental problems within the population to this degree that this would surely render the entire industry incompetent at best and downright dangerous and untrustworthy at worst.
Something this prevalent could not have slipped under the radar.
And it didn't. The fact is simply that the prevalence of the condition continued to grow - exponentially. 
Then there are the plethora of ailments that plague kids today - allergies, infections, digestive disorders even cancers, which are much more common in the young than ever before - the list goes on - things that we really hardly, if ever, saw when we were kids.
I'm no scientist or medical expert but I was always taught to follow my gut, rely on my instincts and apply my commonsense to life experiences and I've always done just that. A bit of research doesn't hurt either but there's always a little nagging needle when you know something isn't quite right. 
And something isn't right with our society, our system of food production and delivery and it certainly isn't right within our medical establishment when the very thing that's been fundamental in bringing this species to the point we're now at - i.e. maternal instincts - is ignored completely when a mother presents her thoughts to a doctor about her child. A mother knows when her child is well and she certainly knows when something is wrong. I challenge anyone to say otherwise. There are certainly exceptions but the motherly bond and instinct is a fundamental force of nature and nine times out of ten, mothers are usually right when it comes to their kids.
In the case of anecdotal evidence when something happens to transform a normally developing healthy child into a completely different and dysfunctional human being within the space of (sometimes) hours, days, weeks or even months - it's a good bet that the mother will be able to pinpoint what caused that change. But not apparently when it comes to autism and certainly not when they might suggest vaccines as a cause, even when the manufacturers themselves admit that this is a possible adverse reaction. Nope, again - not an anti-vaccine rant.
So if autism and all these other conditions aren't the result of genetics or superior diagnostical techniques, what causes them?
Why are there so many sick kids today? And there are more than ever before. We are the most medicated generation to have ever existed and although we have technology to prolong life, we should not be as sick as we are.
Stephanie Seneff, a professor of some renown at MIT, with hundreds of peer-reviewed published papers to her name has a very novel and, when you listen to her for half an hour or so, compelling case for causation that fits the current ailing society profile very snugly. (find her here: Stephanie Seneff home page) 
We are slowly but systematically being poisoned. Not in some grand eugenics conspiracy enacted by extraterrestrial shapeshifting reptilians but in the name of profit and monopoly.
If anyone hasn't noticed (and if you haven't, you're already in a coma, buddy) governments domestic and foreign are quite unashamedly implementing policies that seek to own us genetically and whether or not you think vaccination is a good thing (not the point of the discussion), mandatory vaccine programmes certainly play into that agenda. Informed consent and democratic choice over our own and our children's bodies is being handed to the state to do with as they see fit. That is a very unhealthy precedent to set and has potentially even more onerous consequences especially when it's being implemented through the machinations of playing on our fear.
In the US, viruses, diseases and unique human genetic sequences are patentable and many of them are already owned by pharmaceutical corporations. While it seems like a good thing that cannabis is being slowly decriminalised, the drug companies are synthesising the active cannabinoids that do the good work and you can bet your bottom dollar that the medical components of the plant will remain illegal and the public will be forced to purchase lab-synthesised medicinal cannabis from the industry at prohibitively expensive prices. In fact, it's already underway.
Taking a step back - we have to (if you're a true born cynic) admire the business model that's in play here. Not just from the cannabis perspective, which is unarguably an effective panacea for chronic conditions ranging from epilepsy to cancer - whether anecdotal or not, people have reported miraculous results all over the world. Correlation may not be causation as many a skeptic likes to spout, except of course when it is.
I'm talking about the business model that ensures a profit in every link of the circular chain we serve in modern society.
Seneff has conducted intensive research over the last 25 years into the pervasive chemical glyphosate which is the active ingredient in Monsanto's so-called herbicide, RoundUp. It's so much more than a herbicide. And it is everywhere. Especially in America. But it's commercially available over the counter in every country I know at any local hardware store and we're told it's harmless to humans.
It's anything but.
I'm not about to even attempt to explain what Seneff posits (google her - it's all there) but her studies have shown that this poison not only seriously damages the biology of the soil and the plants on which it's sprayed, it actually permeates the tissue of the plants and they cannot be cleansed of the toxin. When fruit, veg, grains (especially GMO ones) are harvested the glyphosate is liberally sprayed onto the grains again, this time as a desiccant to accelerate the drying process and the stuff is sent on for food production or delivery. The Round Up "ready" grains are also fed to livestock and they ingest the glyphosate which permeates the tissue (meat), the milk - everything. The livestock manure which is used to fertilise the land, is filled with the stuff and thus it gets mixed back into the soil, it pollutes the water - there is literally no escape from it and it's maintained in a horrible, toxic cycle even down to the rainwater - it's in that too.
Sadly, it has the same effect on the human biology as it does on the plant biology - it inhibits certain natural biological processes, bonds with metals, creates chronic deficiencies and through Seneff's analysis she concludes that it is so pervasive and biologically damaging that its effects could certainly be linked to heart disease, autism, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, cancer, obesity and a range of other (now) common diseases that are impacting our population - especially children. The evidence is compelling.
And with our ongoing exposure to it through processed and non organic foods, we just keep upping the dosage on a daily basis. The human body cannot rid itself of the glyphosate and when it crosses the brain-blood barrier, that's when the neurological damage begins.
Now the fact that so many vaccines are cultured using animal tissue such as bovine gelatine (fact) Seneff proposes that glyphosate contaminated tissue is often used to do this and, in fact, many vaccine samples they harvested, tested positive for glyphosate contamination.
Now when an industry is telling you it's safe, they don't see an issue with someone pointing out that their vaccine has the chemical in it but they base their safety findings on studies that show exposure to glyphosate for 3 months only. No statistically relevant damage occurred within that time - ergo, it's good to go.
But here's the thing - independent research that protracts that time and analyses results on rats exposed to glyphosate for longer than 90 days, found conclusively and repeatedly that tumours began to form in the fourth month and got progressively worse thereafter - particularly in the reproductive organs. 
Great when you can write the rule book on these issues though - no problem.
So in a nutshell, when in the late 70's early 80's we began chemical farming, the increase in all of these conditions began to rise in that hockey-stick exponential graph that dovetails so neatly with that great technological chemical farming phenomenon and more specifically the use of Round Up/glyphosate in our food chain.
Don't listen to me - do your own research - it will scare the bejesus out of you I can assure you.
And it's in the vaccines too, none of which are subjected to proper drug safety trials.
But everything is perfectly safe - the government and the drugmakers say so - so why worry? 
I noticed when I came to Australia how I began to have digestive issues which is one of the reasons I moved from a vegetarian to a vegan diet and I've just made the transition to a purely organic vegan diet and am feeling the benefits already.
It's the only way to avoid this shit until the world wakes up and bans this insidious toxin completely as should undoubtedly happen. 
And for the world to wake up - WE need to wake up and talk about this instead of imagining that it's someone else's problem and simply walking away.
For the record, research has also shown empirically that a change to a fully organic diet (doesn't have to be vegan) in kids that have autism (they also present with serious gastrointestinal disorders) has a profound effect not only on the gut issues but on the neurological symptoms and behaviour too and if this condition is indeed shown to be environmental as I too believe it to be, then it's not only something that can be managed, it can potentially be cured.
Literally - food for thought.