There are tides in the affairs of men
Tuesday 26 February 2013
Episode 18: The Pursuit of Fairness
In Australia and the United Kingdom in the court system, justice is paying for the crimes you have committed in the for of a 'punishment' ie incarceration or the payment of a fine. For example; if Paul were to physically assault Kate, he could potentially be sent to prison because it's against the law to commit assault. Kate is seen as a witness to his crime and not a victim of a it. Paul has committed a crime against the state and not Kate, despite infringing on her human rights to not be assaulted. There is justice for Paul, however, Kate doesn't not get justice for the repercussions as a result of her being assaulted. Justice for Kate is not seen as being a priority because the crime was not against Kate but the state in the eyes of the law. Despite this, judges are not robots, they don't operate on 'automatic pilot' with immunity to the pressure of values. Their job is not solely 'complete and absolute legalism', otherwise we would not need them, they judge and mediate on a case by case basis. The Hon. Michael Kirby after a lifetime of service to the pursuit of justice and devotion to the rule of law, said that being a judge is not simply upholding the rule of law and maintaining legislative integrity but to judge with values and consideration to the situation. All parties in a crime should receive their justice, not just the perpetrator.
Justice and fairness are not ideas easily carried out, there will always be a degree of unfairness, however, the law should work hard to minimize this. As humans we pursue fairness, but fairness and justice are different from a vendetta.
Saturday 2 February 2013
Episode 17: Penis Envy
~ Rebecca West
Today I would like to talk about something that really ruffles my feathers and as you may have guessed, it's feminism. This post is a partial response to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIdB4wS4MVU
Long story short this girl ^ believes that feminism should be taught in schools or at least woven into the curriculum. I don't know about all of you but I firmly believe that feminism is a belief that should be explored by an individual, schools don't teach people to be fascists or communists so why should they teach people to be feminists. People's beliefs are a personal thing that should be explored and discovered by the individual, children should not be branded feminists in the same way they should not be branded with a religion.
People often complain that, school does not teach enough about influential things women have done, well once again i don't know about you all maybe I went to some special unique schools but I have been to catholic, Protestant, co-ed, same-sex, primary and secondary schools and at all of them I was taught about influential women in history. I was taught about Joan of Arc as well as Alexander the Great, Marie Curie and Thomas Edison. Feminists complain that not enough important women are acknowledged in school for their achievements but to be perfectly honest there are not many significant women to recognise. Women were not commonly, play writes, leaders of armies, religious figures, and these are the people that we highlight in history, but if you look where there was a woman that stands out like, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, or Penelope (wife of Odysseus), she gets more than her share of recogniton.
Another point that many feminists get riled over is women in politics. In Australia as well as Britain and I'm sure other places, Member of Parliament are elected. As in chosen by the people, women run for these positions and sometimes they get them and sometimes they don't. To say that we need more women in Parliament is great, yes I am sure we do. How is it you propose to achieve that? Do you intend to go against the law and the people and appoint these women? The people chose the person they wish to represent their ideals and morals. If a woman does not hold those then she will not be elected, it's not because she is a woman. If you have read some of my other posts you will know that I am not a fan of Thatcher and her ideas but she had a massive following of people that supported her ideas, it wasn't because she was a woman.
Being a woman before now was a disadvantage but not anymore. There is no place for feminists!
Monday 12 November 2012
Episode 16: Christianity vs. Islam
This was when Islam was created. Islam was created from Esau, but Jacob went on a Jew and went west to Egypt. Later down the Jacob’s line Moses appeared and he led the people back to the Promised Land. However, God gave Moses strict instructions that when he and the Israelites were to get there they were to kill everything; women, children, farms, cattle, everything. But they didn’t. Later on again in the time after Jesus was born; I am unsure how the story goes but in that time there was a divide between the Jew and some went on as Jews and others became Christians and the Muslims came back to Israel in the time of King David and there was a war between the Muslims and the Christians. The temple of King David was a monolithic structure and it was the centre of the Christian faith. This is where the Israelites are punished, because they did not kill everything when they entered the promised land, the Muslims that were living in Israel at the time revolted and destroyed the temple of King David. Today in Jerusalem the synagogue, the centre of Islamic religion sits on the land where King David’s temple stood. This is the reason for the war in Israel, the west thinks of the war as 200 years old, a childish agitation. NO, it is a war over 2000 years old because the Israelites went into the promised land and they did not follow God’s orders. The land was promised to them by God, that is what the war is about. So when I see a post like this I am enraged. You would not compare Stalin and Churchill or Stalin and JFK, nor would you compare the Dali Lama with Saddam Husain. So do not compare Jacob and Esau. Islam and Christianity are not the same religion by any means and I am sure that my feelings about this are shared with people of Islamic faith.
Saturday 10 November 2012
Episode 15: Above the sound of Ideologies clashing.
Just because they're top of the pile
Doesn't mean their vision is the clearest
The voices of the people
Are falling on deaf ears
Our politicians all become careerists...'
Ideology ~ Billy Bragg
Today I want to rant about wars and particularly the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Recently I was on tumblr (yes I’m that hipster) and I saw a post about 'veterans day' a day in the US where they acknowledge the people that have died in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The post said to go and remember the people that have died for our country and the fight for Democracy. Most Americans or people would look at that and feel sad and be fully supportive. It makes me angry and be rest assured I'll tell you why. It's because the people they are remembering were not 'fighting for their country' or 'fighting for democracy' they are there as a part of the Bush administration's revenge for 911. His vendetta against the middle-east and Muslims.
Now I just want to pause and reflect on what it is that I just said. I am aware that it is highly controversial and I probably now have the whole Fox News Network and numerous Americans hunting for my body now. BUT, we have days like Remembrance day and Veterans day for incidents that people have deliberately instigated themselves. It taints the reason for Remembrance Day, ie the ANZACs and the people who faught in the Dardanelles in WWI, not a government's vendetta. The Americans DID NOT NEED to go into Afghanistan, but they did. I do not intend to undermine the lives that were lost in the incidents of 911, it was a tragedy with no justification, but it is not reason to start a war and loose more lives. A body for a body is vengeance not justice.
Thursday 25 October 2012
Episode 14: Who needs an education anyway?
In Britain they have a representative democracy/constitutional monarchy, much like in many other 1st world countries like the US and Australia. This system means that the people elected (key word) are the candidates that the people have chosen to represent their views and opinions. Which straight away debunks the theory that this boy has about people's opinions not being represented. This is a key element that he seems to have missed and basic knowledge that anyone prepared to comment on the due processes of the system should understand.
To my next point the Prime Minister's question time is an inaccurate view of the world of politics. The everyday business of governance is co-operative, this has to be the case, otherwise legislation and the everyday business of politics would never get done and there would be no point in having a government at all. Question time gives the view that politics is always contentious and nasty. That the politicians are children and are unable to co-operate. This is seen in question times all around the world. It is often seen in Australia, there are countless viral videos of Tony Abbott and his peers acting childish and disrespectful in question time.
My third point is that the questions addressed to the PM are often statements and attacks framed as questions in order to make the PM look bad, or in the case of Dorothy Dixes, make him look better. Yes there are constructive questions asked in question time and they are RARELY questions that can simply be answered yes or no. This is where people watching question time need to have a greater understanding of the world of politics to be able to understand what is going on and another reason why question time in an inaccurate forum to base all of your ideas about the world of politics on. It is not the whole picture!
Fourth point, the political parties are not fighting for the same things, this another inaccuracy that is reflected in question time. David Cameron is a Tory, which means that he is pro-privatization. The reason that Britain is falling further and further into the abyss. He means to increase the divide between the poorest and richest people in Britain, a theme that was reflected in the last Tory government (Thatcher and Major gov.). Prior to 1979, unemployment was on the decline and Britain was more prosperous than ever, until the Thatcher government destroyed the livelihood of at least half of the UK populace. Cameron also intends to get rid of the NHS which would prove to destroy the working-class further. This is a directly opposite view to that of the opposition leader Ed Miliband. How can they all 'team-up' if they have directly opposing views?
Fifth point. You are suggesting that these people are making issues overly complicated. This is true in some respects. However, overall these issues are complicated, they are not yes or no questions and there are many shades of grey. There is no one size fits all because of the massive divide between people in the UK and lack of empathy and entitled attitude of modern-day Britain. They are not arguing trivial issues, unlike the Australian government. Ed Miliband and the other opposing politicians are working to keep the government accountable and work to a more sustainable and equal Britain.
Sixth point, question time is NOT the designated time to be introducing legislation. There is other designated time where that is addressed. Question times is solely an opportunity for questions from MP's to the Prime Minister. Hence the name Prime Minister's Question Time.Question time is a debate and as for the people that are 'falling asleep' they need to show up to represent the views of their electorate/shire.
Seventh point, if you sir were leader, Britain would fall apart faster than it is now. Not to mention Britain does not have a democracy. They have a Constitutional Monarchy with a Representative Democracy! '10 of the best business minds', how do you intend to represent the views of over 60 Million people with 10 people. There are 645 MPs in the house of commons and they struggle to represent all the views of the people of Britain. You cannot possibly get a better result with 10."Alan Sugar and Richard Branson" represent 5% of the UK population.
In conclusion, get a civics education before you give people advice about politics and how it should be run.
Sunday 14 October 2012
Episode 13: Bring on the apocalypse! VOTE ROMNEY!
VOTE ROMNEY! Pass it on!
Now before you stop reading hear me out. Yes this statement was intended to be extremely provocative and no I do not believe that Romney should be president, well not really. I do however believe that there would be a great benefit to him serving a term and this is why.
Back in 2000 a series of mistakes led to the appointment of George W. Bush. When in power he made a series of further mistakes that led to things such as the US and others entering Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as certain perceptions of All Quaeda. However, these mistakes meant that global powers and the Americans were aware of the issues that stem from the US and they were able to act on that knowledge and vote in Barrack Obama.
Since the election of Obama into office he and the democrats have been working to patch up the US and the world after the mistakes of the last government. However the changes made are not as drastic as they should be due to the fact that Obama needs to maintain support with the public and public is less aware of the issues than they should be.
This is where Mitt Romney comes in. As many people know or should know, Romney is well, not the best character to be POTUS. However, I believe that if he was to be elected and make poor decision the public would become increasingly aware of the issues in the world and hence cause the public to reelect Obama and allow him to make big decisions without the level of critique that he is under at present.
And that's why everyone should VOTE ROMNEY!