Finished the Neytiri drawing! It's my 6th drawing of 2010, so perhaps I'll make my goal after all (10 drawings in 2010). I'm really happy with how this use of oil pastels turned out.



Now I'm working on my 7th drawing, which is coming along ok, but was a lot harder than the Neytiri one. Hopefully it'll look right by the end...

In other random news, I'm thinking of moving this blog to WordPress.com...

Working again with oil pastels! Love working with colour and this one is turning out quite well. :)

Currently, any donated monies over $2.00 is tax deductible. Surprisingly, not many people actually know what this means. "Tax deductible" means that for the donated monies are subtracted from your income amount BEFORE you get taxed.

So, for example, you make a $2 donation and your taxable income amount is $50,000. You would only be taxed on $49,998.

Currently, only donated MONEY is tax deductible.

But interestingly, I believe in the USA, you can also obtain tax deductions (or payments) for donated goods and plasma donations.

Donated Goods

Apparently, the charity will take your donated goods and give you a receipt with an approximate valuation of the goods. So, say you give them a chair and table, they might give you a $100 tax deductible receipt.

Why isn't this implemented in Australia?

Although this would bring on a substantial administrative change etc, it would be nice for all those people who give away things to The Smiths Family, Salvation Army Stores, St Vincent De Paul's - to be recognised for their contributions.

Why are only monetary donations recognised?

Plasma Donations

In the US, I think you get paid (not a tax deduction) for making plasma donations. I've seen many a post about "easy ways to make money" about donating plasma. But, this obviously brings in possible issues of safety - if donors are desperate for money, they may be donating their plasma to the detriment of their health.

However, in Australia, it would be interested - what if you got a tax deductible receipt for donating blood?

I think tax deductible receipts are altogether different from receiving money as in the US. Individuals desperate for money wouldn't have to pay tax anyway - so tax deductions are largely irrelevant to them.

Volunteer Hours

So many people in Australia volunteer time with various organisations, that oddly - they are never recognised for. The only recognition, I feel in fact, is when corporate volunteering occurs. The workers still get paid for going to work, I believe - albeit, their work is "volunteer" work.

But what about everyone else who does NOT get paid or encouraged by their workforce to volunteer? It would be nice if they got recognised to some extent through tax deductions.

I mean, instead of going out and getting a job at McDonald's (earning $15 per hour?) - they decide to go out and get a VOLUNTEER job (earning $0 per hour). The work is the same - but where are the rewards?

I propose that volunteers be given a minimum $5 per hour tax deduction for their voluntary work.

On my recent splurge at the library (Ryde), Requiem for a Species by Clive Hamilton (details) has been one of the most unexpectedly interesting reads.

It is also incredibly depressing. Yet his writing is so compelling that I can't put it down.

Also randomly, he is an Australian professor at ANU - it's always nicer to read things that feel "local".

Anyway, key points which I distilled from the book are:

1. Growth is bad

"Reagan is saying that environmentalism is a threat to free enterprise because it requires people to act collectively to restrain the self-interested behaviour of others" - page 36.

"'only when we get sufficiently rich can we afford the relative luxury of caring about the environment'" - page 41.

Hamilton is blunt in this argument. Growth is in complete opposition to environmentalism - higher income, better economy, bigger houses, more paid work. All these things which the majority of the world strives for - if everyone achieved them - would doom the planet.

You have to consider these questions:

If everyone could afford and adopted my current standard of living (middle class Australian), we would need 3.5 Earths of resources to sustain us.

So where does this leave causes for improving standard of living and welfare in 3rd world countries? Is lifting people out of poverty essentially CONTRARY to environmental sustainability?

It is particularly ironic that the people in 3rd world countries are the ones that will be hit the hardest and suffer the most in the future - with changing weather patterns and melting ice etc. Think of it this way: even if we move everyone to a higher standard of living, we are simply substituting 1 problem for another (eradiate poverty and exchange it with climate change and resource depletion).

It is illusory to consider "causes" in isolation.

You cannot donate tons of money to assisting people in 3rd world countries - and claim your self righteousness - whilst still a lifestyle which is high. For example, donating $1000 to poverty, whilst spending $1000 on new clothes.

What is the solution?

Hamilton doesn't really point out solutions, so much as point out realities.

However, I think the only solution is that we either:

• EXCHANGE our high standard of living for increasing the standard of living of poorer people (even wealth distribution)
• DO NOTHING and leave people in 3rd world countries to live their current standard of living (their poverty is our sustainability)

Back to the topic of growth, Hamilton spends a whole chapter (The Growth Fetishism) explaining how growth (although damaging to the environment) is an insurmountable barrier:

• Growth (economic and otherwise) has become a mark of national and individual success (to be successful, you must be rich, you must have a high income etc) - it is synonymous with prosperity, development, modernity. We are obsessed with the growth of our economy, the national dollar and the GDP.
• To ask people not to "grow" - is to ask them not to dream, not to succeed. It undermines their values and their belief system.

Accordingly, asking people to advocate for environmentalism is MUCH more than asking them to support a cause - it is asking them to give up all that they believe and value.

Thus, as Hamilton concludes:

"Any challenge to the pre-eminence of growth is met with howls of outrage and suggestions that the alternative is to regress, to undo all that we have achieved, to remain in the caves... growth provides the raw material from which we increasingly construct our sense of who we are and to ask us to pursue goals other than growth is to ask us to repudiate the human being created by three centuries of industrialism, consumerism and modernity,"

Woo!

11,000+ views on TT on Sunday 17 October 2010 (day before HSC English Paper 2). Beat last year's views of 5,500 by more than double: http://whatnow73.livejournal.com/94028.html

During these days of no work and no uni, I'm often left alone at home to think. And what I've come up with - is a way to help myself be more frugal, save more money.

Essentially, I'm going to try a psychological experiment upon myself!

I will trick myself into thinking that I am poor. If I am poor, how can I spend money? I can't! This may be one way to stop myself from making unnecessary purchases (particularly of food).

How is this achieved?

STEP 1:
Emptied my wallet except for $30. Can I live on $30 in 1 week? Some weeks I can, some weeks I can't. So I took all that extra money (I think it was maybe $50) and put it into my pig.

That's the pig which holds my cash money.

Then I deposited that cash money into my bank account - then transferred it to high savings, where it is UNTOUCHABLE. Yes, untouchable - because, if you withdraw, you lose all the interest for that month.

STEP 2:
Convert my $30 into COINS.

Why? Why on earth would I burden myself with the incredible weight of mostly 50 cent coins...
These are questions I asked myself as I walked around the City.

The problem with money these days it that it is taken too lightly. We too easily hand over a $5, a $50, a $100 note without feeling its true value/weight. There's nothing to remind you of what you're spending, except for a difference in note colour, picture and numerals.

So by converting my money to purely coins, I deter myself from spending too much! The more I spend, the more coins I have to count out (this takes a while, as my math is bad). So in this way, I actually FEEL how much I am spending.

It's not just the difference between a pink $5 note and a blue $10 note now....no, it is a TWO KILOGRAM difference in coins I'm handing over.

EVALUATION SO FAR:

So how has it all turned out so far?

The positives are

• I am so much more aware of the money that I am spending
• I've gotten rid of a lot of coins from my house

The negatives:

• my bag is really heavy
• its awkward paying with so many coins, particularly when going out for lunch/dinner with friends
• sometimes I can't pay with so many coins, so I'm using my credit card more (which is actually worse in terms of invisible spending)

Why am I doing this?

This seems very odd. I know it does. But I have no work or uni at the moment - so give me a break!

• To eliminate the coins which are lying around the house.
• To decrease my spending.
• To increase my awareness of the value of money (like the poor and homeless, who value even $2!)
• To get more exercise (heavy lifting of coins), lol.

Ok, the last one's a joke. :P

Did half of her face yesterday - and I'm enjoying the challenge of drawing upside down! I think the skin shading is coming out particularly well.


Here's a close up of the completed right portrait.


And here's the completed double portrait!


And the reverse side up! :)

Must become a drawing machine!

Finished 4th drawing of 2010 now!

I quite liked this one because I've never drawn insects before.

Already started 5th drawing - but I doubt I'll reach my goal of 10 drawings before end of this year!

People get riled up when they hear the word "ban". I suppose because they start thinking about their civil liberties and the like.

But barring civil liberties, would a ban on private cars in the Sydney CBD work?

Well, this is what I would do:

1. STAGED BAN
I would have a staged ban of private cars in the CBD. If we just completely banned it tomorrow (Monday), people would go crazy. The fact is that people are opposed to change. For example, it takes 7 years to get a tax increase on cigarettes - even though it is the MOST obvious way to decrease cigarette sales.

Perhaps spread over 3 years, I would begin by banning it on certain days/times - then incrementally expand it until cars are completely banned.

2. BAN TIMES/DAYS
I would begin by banning it around certain times. Probably from 7-10am and 5-7pm weekdays. Peak hour times are obviously the most congested. I mean, I have TRIED to travel via bus from Central to Circular Quay during peak hour traffic in the afternoon. It is INSANE. The amount of private cars being driven by people going home, combined with the number of buses - effectively halts any movement in the CBD.

Eventually I got out and walked to Circular Quay - and hey, it took the same amount of time. In fact, you'll walk FASTER than the buses/cars.

3. T2 or T3
In addition or as an alternative, I would make (as part of the staged process) that only cars carrying 2+ or 3+ passengers are allowed into the CBD (T2 or T3). This would encourage carpooling and reduce the MASS of people I see who are driving alone their cars.

4. EXCEPTIONS
There would of course have to be exceptions. Besides buses and taxis, exceptions would be made for disabled individuals, who require private car transport.

Eventually, however, I hope that with more accessible public transport - even disabled individuals will take public trains and buses in preference to cars.

There would also have to be exceptions for residents in the CBD, who already own a car. It would make no sense to ban these individuals from driving their car out of their driveway! However, I assume that most CBD residents don't have cars anyway - and rely on walking or public transport?

5. CBD PRIVATE CAR TOLLS
As a disincentive for private car drivers, a entry toll into the CBD should be charged per car. Maybe $10 per car?



Likely arguments AGAINST the ban are:

1. People who can't take public transport

As above, exceptions will be made for disabled individuals.

Elderly/infirm individuals - if they are elderly or infirm, they shouldn't be driving anyway. Further, special seats are already available on buses/trains for elderly/infirm individuals.

2. Cost of public transport

Consider the financial cost of parking, petrol, tolls.
Then consider the environmental cost of carbon monoxide pollution, petrol usage.
Then consider the health cost of breathing in air pollution, lack of exercise.

With further investment and use of public transport - costs can decrease.

What are some other arguments against the ban (can't think of any off the top of my head)?