My Dip into Politics

So I've started reading up on the cause for East Timor's independence. I (ignorantly) thought that Australia had simply always supported East Timorese independence. But on the first page of my reading I found that, far from that, our government had actually supported (morally and materially) the Indonesian government for twenty years in its brutal occupation of East Timor. I was a little shocked, and quite dismayed that the government considered good relations with Indonesia more important than human rights violations in East Timor.

Melancholy Musings on "Melancholy"

I have finally decided that I strongly dislike the word melancholy. The realisation came just an hour ago when I heard the word used on the radio and I suddenly realised how ridiculous the word really sounds. I'd been turning a blind ear to it for a while because:
For years well, since I was aware of the word's existence, I never heard it spoken out loud. Not once. So I of course developed my own pronunciation. I never tested this pronunciation verbally, but it sounded great in my head. In fact, I really quite liked the word. Then one day in a year 10 English class our teacher got a kid to read out a section of text, which had the word melancholy in it. I read ahead a bit, anticipating the word being pronounced the way I 'heard' it in my head and instead the boy comes out with, well how it's pronounced. Melon - Kolly. Right? I almost laughed out loud, But everyone else took it in without notice so I didn't. I went home, checked with the mum-who-happens-to-be-an-English-teacher-too and found out that my mental pronunciation (which is actually impossible to say out loud) was totally wrong.
"No way!" I thought. "Melan (long a) - chy. Not that hard. Sounds better. In fact, my way actually sounded melancholy, not like this ridiculous sounding word that had come out of nowhere and was not to be respected because it sounded anything BUT melancholy.
Since then, I've always been very dissapointed int he word melancholy, and when I read by myself, still relish being able to pronounce the word my way. But tonight melancholy crossed the line into that inenviable teritory of STRONGLY DISLIKED WORD.
I suggest you dislike it too.

Multiple Tagging Confuses Post's Meaning

I thought I would share something I learnt a couple of days ago - and I will say it objectively. But if that be the case i have to keep it short and simple.
I was talking to someone whose been through the American schooling system (yes, yet again it's about America. Sorry everyone). about the schooling system. So this is how their last two years go.
They have their final exams halfway through year eleven (SATs). Got that? Then, well i don't know quite what they do for the rest of that year but in year 12, apparently they don't really do much work because the whole year is spent doing univesity applications. I'll let you mull over that.
And their SAT's are well....this is what i understand. They have a lot of multiple choice I think, um and well they have essays!!! But they are a page long and the example given me of a question was a subjectuive question, not an academic one. Mum said then that she thought first year college must be like our HSC year that sentiment was affirmed by our informant.
My two readers, GO!

Define: Generous

As it's now holidays i have the (luxury) of being able to watch day time television. So yesterday, in the ads of Mary Christmas (which was substantially better than today's christmas movie but thats another story) i saw a little bit of The Ellen Degeneres Show. (Forgive me if I know not how to spell her last name). And on these kinds of shows (i.e. Ellen, Oprah, you get the picture) they always give away stuff. Every episode. But yesterdays was a christmas giveaway so everyone in the audience got like 6 presents all worth $2000 U.S. Crazy hey? And I heard this guy make a pun of her name on the show once (Ellen de generous, get it haha?) but really, I think its...wasted money. Instead of giving people who are well off like that thousands of dollars worth of gifts, give it to charity. Give it to some people who would really appreciate it, cos there's a lot out there.
Don't get me wrong. I know that she gives money to charity often (so does oprah). Like she had the whole dunk for breast cancer thing, but...that doesn't really justify throwing more money at people who are rich enough on a global scale. Even though it's nto her money she's using to giev the stuff away so if she didn't get the crystal watches there woudln't be the stuff/moeny anyway....Whatever. Scattered thoughts are brilliant hey? its someone's money and someone should be putting it to much better effect.
So that's it for today. Short and sweet. Any longer and you'd be as annoyed as alyssa when she sees people waste money that could go to people who need it.

President: Barrack Obama

I've decided that there is decisive problem with democracy. It's something that's obviously been recognised for ages, but it's what causes division, angry argumentsa etc etc. That's a bit pessimistic, and a bit over the top, but the thing is, people will never agree. And so what you get is a hosue full of representatives all clamouring for their view to be heard, who are then criticised because the people they're representing don't actually agree with them, and then ordinary people have huge political debates but...
People will have different ideas to you, and what i hate is that many people seem to be incapable of sharing they're own view (on anything) without trying to convert the person they're talking to. We need to be able to just throw ideas out there, into the big black vortex of 'maybe it'll chaneg their mind, but maybe it won't, and i don't mind either way, it doesn't affect me, i still hold my views.' People have different ideas and that's somethign that we all need to accept. Whatever it is that's created those ideas - a different life experience, belief system or simply personality - you can't change. You can add to it, maybe get them, to think but we all have to respect other people's views.
This comes particularly the day after the election in America, as indicated by my expectedly cliche title. I hold this position particularly after experiencing the effect an election campaign can have twice in one year. Parties and people have different policies they support, eys, but here's my take on it (after all that preamble):
We cannot force ourbeliefs and priorities on other people. We can't. And that's where i see slight issues with democracy. I have nothing againsta democracy, i do bleieve it is a good political system. The people vote in a praty/person and that party/person makes decisions about the country. I will be one of those people that says youc an't complain about a policy if you voted for the party, even if you didn't, because its a fair system. But in this system, you still have a group of people effectively forcing their beliefs and priorities on a whole nation.
I dunno, but it seems flawed in some major way that a small group of people can take what they see to be true and apply to others lives. True, it makes no great difference in countries like Australia and America who is in power, butas i say it's fundamental. Some religious people would say they have the right to enforce their world beliefs on others as they blieve that they know THE TRUTH. I am a christian and am tempted to say that soemtimes, but people would react the same way to me that i woudl to a .... another religion saying that. The person doesn't believe, they dont' have to live that way. Hey, i think the Bible is the truth, but i can't make everyone in australia live that way just because i think so. I can try to tell them why i think so and get them to think about it, but i will not enforce what i believe on others.
What has this to dp with democracy? Lots in the many controversial issues floating around. You all know what they are, i don't need to tell you. What i think is this: if everyone making the decision claims to believe the same thing (think Anglicans and minister appointment - we all claim to believe the Bible) go ahead and press your point, but if a collection of people al with different ideas about life, god, justice etc, (like government), just think about it. I'm not going to be president or PM ever, so what i propose that i will do is to simply hold my beliefs close to my heart and act on them when voting etc. Re-examine them yes, it would be foolish not to, but nto "Bible-bash" (in chirstian circles), only throw my ideas out there for considereation.
Hope i've been clear in what i'm saying. Just please don't get angry at people who don't think the same way you do. I'll just close with a quote, it sums this up nicely:

-Do not think of knocking out another person's brains because he differs in
opinion from you. It would be as rational to knock yourself on the head because
you differ from yourself ten years ago. -Horace Mann, educational reformer
(1796-1859)

I think this guy had a sensible head on his shouders.

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.

Interesting

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.

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).

And Now You Label me a ....

This post could be seen as following on from a previous post, written about two months ago. However, think of it as an entirely new one please (but i wonder if anyone knows the post I'm referring to. Probably not - sadly i have no scarily die-hard fans out there.)
Why did school have to go and ruin youths' perception of what an essay is? I'm not going to turn this into a hate post about school (hey i like school - well mostly) but i am going to again condemn society.
You (as in general 'anyone' you, not second person you) mention the word essay to another school kid these days and they go "oh that's so boring." Trust me i know. The various people I've told that I'm studying the essay this year in ext English and who are in school just reply with "oh.....how fun" and search for a new topic. Why did i limit that to school kids? A lot of people have a warped perception of what an esssay is. (For my problem with school writings click here). I'm not saying the things we write in school aren't essays, i just want people to know that good essays exist. As in, essays that are interesting to read.
Despite the fact that whilst reading Montaigne's works, they felt dense and difficult to get through (oh i now have to read 60 more pages of him, joy), i feel an affinity with the man (again, see our ext english class); same with Betty Churcher (i got quite excited when i met her again on TV the other night). Bacon is more like a trusted advisor (but nice all the same, just not as friendly) and the essays we read recently by ..... [name forgotten] were instantly likable (to me anyway, and as such i decided that the guy must be quite amiable [which is a much nicer looking word than amicable don't you think?]). I haven't forgotten James either. We just got to know each other better through the recent acedemic studies (i think i understand the book i little better too). The point is, however nutty you think i am from all this, essays are really ..... good things to read. They're not just what we do at school: they are an exploration of any topic the essayist wishes to explore, which actively engages with us, the audience, and allows us to get to know the author
Excellent.

A Load of Claptrap

Is our 'contirbuting' to global warming. Is global warming being a problem. Is the Greenhosue effect causing global warming. Is climate change a problem. Yep, all a load of complete and utter claptrap. And it greives me to see a world so misled by scientists who ar enot climatologists professing it all to be true. But alas, i am not one either, and i am not one known for expressing my thoughts the best way possible and always gettign it right. No, i shall leave it to the webistes below to convince yout hat global warmng warmign is part of a cycle in climate change and the greenhosue effect keeps us form freezing to death and that, low and behold, carbon has a cycle,a dn doesn't stay int he atmpsphere al the time! Yes, i may have got some minor details wrong just then, which is why i urge you to go to these sites!

• Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
• Global Warming is not due to man made cabron dioxide emissions
• Global Warming Petition Project
• The Global Warming Test

I bid you good day.

(TAKE THE TEST, IT CONTAINS USEFUL INFO!)

What Have We Become?

Hey guys - our society/generation isn't any more corrupted than previous societies/generations. They were just better at hiding it than us. If you don't believe me you need to read more, because as one of my favourite guys to quote has said:

The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest men of past centuries.

-Rene Descartes, philosopher and mathematician (1596-1650)

and any conversation is going to hint at some sort of corruption - it's impossbile to avoid it. Seriously though, if you don't believe me read books - the Bible is an excellent place to start but of course if you don't believe it that will be a problem so then i suggest you read Biographies on some historical figures. As an aside, biographies are not boring as i think they are stereotypically wont to be - not if you read a good one. Any way, they're my words of wisdom for the day. Have a good one!