Friday, October 31, 2008

Monday, October 27, 2008

And the RTA Cops Some More Flack

I thought of something today, and it struck me that i finally have something to post about. havign spent the day at a driver safety day, it's really inevitable that my post escape the topic so here it is: L-plater hours and their effect on reducing accidents.
I don't feel like writing much, so my basic idea is that increasing the number of hours you drive for on your L's does nothing - unless your learning as you do about safety. See, for young people, having more experience won't make them safer, it will make them more confident and more likely to crash i reckon. As soon as kids are alone in a car or with friends, they'll drive stupidly, unless they know the dangers and have been confronted with the possible consquences.
SO basically i reckon it's been a waste of everyone's time to increase the number of hours to 120 - driving more does not equal driving safely. Instead, the RTA would probably do better to invest in mroe of the safe driving programs liek the one i and my classmates did today. That and more rules that are effective - like the one pasenger after 11pm or p platers rule. Maybe it should be extended? I dunno. But what i do know is that more than doubling the compulsory hours just means people will lie i think and won't fix much of the problem.
I mean really, I do 120 horus on my Ls. If you crash on your green P's you've probably done 120 hours by then too - has it helped at all? The main factor is the supervised driver, which will stop the kids being so stupid. The hours thus have no effect cz you can still be supervised for only a year if you get your hours done. I believe that if the RTA really wants to address this problem, kids shouldn't be able to drive alone until they're like 19 or so. Really that's the crux i reckon.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


Welcome to the Freedom From Religion Foundation
The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.
In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.
The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.

I found just this part of the site interesting for a couple of reasons:
  • Moral progress is a subjective phrase and you can't say that atheists have therefore made moral progress because, for instance, I don't believe thatlegal abortionis moral progress. Just because they do doesn't mean it is. If you have no God, you should have no definate moral code. [editor's note: apparently their moral code comes from natue, but i'm not goingto go into that]
  • what do you mean by the ambiguous death with dignity? Euthenasia? Because i don't think that's moral progress, see above.
  • "Just as they were te first to call for an end to slavery." Its funny but all the big names in slavery abolishen that I've heard of have been christians, but you know whatever. Even if they were the first to call for an end to slavery, it means nothing if you don't take action, like Wilberforce did. Shall i quote James at you???
  • The cherished prinicple of state and church. You know, they should really make it clear that it is their cherished principle, because i don't liek the ambiguity of such a subjective phrase. Either be objective, or make your subjectivity explicit.

I read a couple of things on the site, or read a little bit of them. But i got so annoyed at them taking the Bible out of context and not trying to understand it that i gave up and am now about to go do homework. Think about it yourself, but it's no good me writign about it hear, you really need to talk to atheists and agnostics about your faith.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

With all the news about the recent financial crisis that's been bombarding our screens lately, i thought I'd chip in with my two cents worth on the whole situation. Even though i have the most limited understanding of how the economy (shares and "the dollar", banks and money in general) actually works, and that I've decided that money is stupid (ask for more details ask later) i thought of something even more ridiculous than the whole game of money in general. One of the great debate topics amongst politicians and political commentators appears to me to be how well a party is able to manage the economy. It was one of the strike zones the liberal party had against the labour party (and the only one i ever heard about) in the run up to the election late last year, with the claim by all liberals being that the labour party is incapable of keeping/creating/whatever-ring a stable economy. Now people nit pick about this and bring political history into it, but ultimately i think we need to be thankful for the fact that we have a stable government that doesn't change much whatever way the voting goes, and i believe that whatever party ends us running the country, we're in pretty safe hands economically (even with the labour party).
Let's think about it. Economic crisis hits (starting in America - interesting point isn't it? But i won't go into that now), everyone's (i.e. every nation's) economies fare badly. But Australias economy was pretty strong to start with (i heard stronger than Amercia's - i think) so we're actually not hit as badly, AND the management of our banks has been better. Something about an 80% cut-off and definately somethign to do with the more socialist way our country is run (i.e. gvernment owning/running of banks or the reserve bank or something) so that now, according to my dad - which is not the best source but you get the picture - the Australian and Swedish banking systems are the most stable in the face of this crisis.
So who cares which party runs the coutnry because they pretty much run it the same and either way i think we're lucky to be living in a country that has such good economic management - whether it be liberal or labour (and don't get confused byt he stupidity of the party's names).

Tuesday, October 14, 2008


Today I was placed in the difficult situation of trying very hard not to insult myself. I was (for reasons unbeknown to me now) talking to my sister about the book I'm reading, and mentioned casually that she probably wouldn't find it terribly exciting. As I was to learn, that was a wrong choice of words, because my sister immediately countered with, "Why wouldn't I find it interesting?" Because you just wouldn't. "But if i would find it boring why do you think it's interesting?" Just - Just - "Is it because you're boring?" No. Just - no. Shush now and don't ever speak of this again.
I really couldn't explain why she wouldn't find the book interesting; I could think of no answer that would satisfy her. I just knew she wouldn't. You know how that happens? I do only too well. It's like that incredibly frustrating situation of trying to explain the meaning of a word when you know what it means but you just can't put it into words. Gah it's so frustrating.
So I've decided to come up with a response to the questions whose rightful answers can't be formed into words. The silence of a telepathic trying to convey their thought shapes. That should work well enough, let me know how it goes!

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Lazy Iguanas

"Aw, Hey dude what's going on?"

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Angus Lordie's New Hymn

God Looks Down On Belgium

God's never heard of Belgium,
But he loves it just the same,
For God is kind
And doesn't mind -
He's not impressed with fame.

-Alexander McCall Smith in "44 Scotland Street"

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Books or Blogging?

Hi everybody, my name's a alyssa, and i'm the ghost blogger around here. It's interesting that all the blogs i'm part of/share an interest in (i.e. read) aren't being updated, ever. [Except for trifling facts cz that's easier] Well, i thought i'd just explain to you why the blogs aren't being updated - maybe you'll empathise.
Firsta nd foremostly, i'll explain myself away. Actually, i'll onlye xplain myself away - it'll probably answer for the others as well.

I'm Lazy
Yep, that's the number one unerlying reason. I can't be bother, because now i only spend 10 minutes a day on the computer (on average) and i can't be bothered to come up with a blog post, because i know there are much better and mroe worthwhile things i could be doing (primarily as no one reads this anymore). Some of these more worthwile things belnd into:
Shh I'm Reading
I enjoy reading more than blogging and these holidays i have about 10 books to get through. See where i'm coming from?
Exams and Study
I like to think exams kick-started this whole "not-blogging" thing, because a week before i simply didn't have time. That's when the computer lots its place in my life (which is very nice still thank you). BUT i think i probably would have stopped blogging anyway. Human nature and all that, eh Miss Marple?

So there you have it. My lame reasons for not blogging (except for reason two and three which i take as very valid, so really only reason one). Yes. Hope everyone is enjoying their holidays cz i sure am. I made cookies, and now i'm reading terry pratchett (which is always one of the best things about holidays). In fact, i think after these holidays, youc an probably only reasonably expect a post from me once a month at the most.
Good luck surviving Blog of a Girl.