Shades of Grey

Sometimes people can be too literal, and other times people can be way too cynical, now and yes I know that, that sounds like stating the obvious but I have also just stated one of the constant human problems.  To change what Prince Hamlet says in Shakespeare's play, to believe or not to believe, now that is the question. Most people, (the sad souls who do not understand the awesomeness of Australian Politics) regardless of what any Politician says, will disregard the comments even before trying to comprehend what they are saying,  or will agree under the same circumstances, why? Either because they don't care, because they do not want to understand, or they have preconceived ideas. Well fair enough, if someone wants to be uneducated and base they sacred one vote come election day on hearsay or stories they have every right to, don't they. Just like someone can either pass or fail a driving test, win or lose a football game or, say yes or no to being an organ donor when they die. We make decisions, every single day that have consequences we must adhere to, depending on the choices we make, but is everything as clean cut as we would like? When we break up from our boyfriend or girlfriend, I'm sure we would all love to just completely forget about them and move on, likewise being able to forget about a really bad test, or sporting game would be wonderful, so why then, do we mere humans, complicate everything we do? I am sure I am not the first person to have laid in bed at night thinking about the 'what if this happened or what if that happens' questions I have, rolling around in my mind from that day gone by, and thinking about all the bad things that will be happening in the near future. Why? The idea that everything can have a yes or no, bad or good, happy or sad  or pass or fail answer or connotation is stupid because in most cases there are shades of grey, and after all it is with the grey areas that things become interesting right?

As I am quickly approaching the end of my schooling years, with 6 weeks to go, my Economics teacher has decided that he will begin classes with a question, to get us rolling. Said question is either to do with a piece of economic theory, like the theory of comparative advantage or else looks to examine a statement like 'Does free trade work in practice', and I can guarantee that nearly everybody in my class has a different answer, ranging from yes it always works to no never, and then the smart individuals (not me) will put up their hand and say, 'but, but what if it happens sometimes, like in some cases but not others?' and then my teacher smiles. Why does he smile? Well obviously I really cant read his mind but I can imagine and if I had to take an educated guess it probably would be because said student understands the hazy world of real life. When we are little we believe completely that our parents beliefs are true and accurate, even at school we take in the words of our teachers like they are the words of a god. But is this actually the case? Maybe but possibly not to the full extent that we believed it to be in our youth right? At some point in our lives, perhaps during our teenage years, we must come to the realisation that the ideals and concepts that we took on face value and for granted must be questioned, and examined for validity. At some point we stop believing there are monsters under our beds and see that the real monsters lay in the detail. Ever herd of the saying 'that the devil lays in the detail'? For me that means that sometimes when we take an issue and look at it on a micro level we see the flaws and impurities in what we are dealing with, rather than thinking it is smooth and great, like we tend to do, from a distance. However I am getting off the point I was trying to make, and that is some things are more complicated, or less complicated depending on how they are viewed.

The (semi) current Asylum Seeker debate which has plagued the Federal Parliament of late, on the surface, and to an outsider I think would look like a total misrepresentation of what can go on when the brilliant minds (yes I do see that i just called politicians brilliant, but just look at Paul Keating and Native Title, or Julia Gillard and NDIS) in Canberra work together. Why could the politicians not just be locked in one of the over 4,000 rooms in Parliament House and be made to sort it out 8 weeks ago before the winter break? That seems like a simple action which would eventually have produced some result right? Deprive them until a solution was reached? And then even after Angus Houston has presented his 22 recommendation which was basically covering all the ideas and picking the most able with reference to the others for future plans, so much more needs to be done before Asylum Seekers are able to be taken to Nauru and Manus Island, why? Complicating issues is what humans do most brilliantly, but why do we make it so hard for ourselves? The Legal System shows us, that the most powerful disputes arise from words, when there is a lack of clarity between the literal meaning and the implied meaning of words, which then creates room for interpretation, but then sometimes the interpretation is even more complicated to understand.

So it is important that we take the time to understand that in everything we do there are many ways in which to change, adjust or alter what has happened and what can happen because there are areas of grey wherever we look. Just because it looks like our parliament can sometimes look like a playground for 'big kids' looks can be deceiving in SOME instances and sometimes we must look into the shades of grey to find the real answer to the hard questions.