Saturday, May 30, 2009
And until i have it would seem the creative urge has left me, and I'm currently boring and uninteresting anyhow *sigh*
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
But wait, God! That entity who we all call upon when frustrated, confused, upset, lost, desperate, or any severe emotion at all, or sometimes even when were not, sometimes simply to use to empathize our point. But we all do it, we all call upon him, this figure upon whom all religion of our modern world seems to be in some form or another based. And despite not truly knowing whether this entity exists or not, we have already gendercised (if that is already a word then I will be amused; how i mean it is that we have assigned a specific gender to this entity) it, and led human beings into battle with its name as a battle cry, and preached to the masses in its name. So what is this entity, why should we follow it, and is it really as all powerful as our religious fellow human beings would have us believe?
Gods in general have been around hand in hand with humanity for as long as we have been growing in intelligence as a race. Originally there were religions such as paganism, which is technically in itself not a religion, but a group of now long forgotten religions such as the old Greek and roman religions, and their many gods, the Greeks headed by Zeus, the Romans headed by Jupiter, the Greek gods seeming today to be more similar to aspects of nature, and the Roman ones seeming to be referring more to the Heavens, both in naming style and in placing of the various myths surrounding the various gods. Also in this category of long forgotten religions are the Druids of the Celts, who existed and practiced their religion for, evidence suggests, centuries, before the Roman empire swept through the country in the first century AD. Due to the thorough job the Romans did destroying the religion, as it would be blasphemous to believe that any God but their own horde existed, very little is left of this group in the way of information; we know they were recorders of history, to some extent bardic, and that they did not record the written word, but that they created rhyming verses to teach those who followed of their past.
Yet another religion that has disappeared into the sands of time is the Norse religion, that originated in Europe, mainly in the area of Germany, and again, very little evidence remains of these Gods. Interestingly, the Norse religion also follows a very similar story throughout as the Christian and catholic bibles; Ragnarök is the base story of the book we call the Bible, in which the world is destroyed by floods, and all the land is covered, then finally, the waters go away, and two survivors are left to repopulate the world. The only major difference appears to be that Christian and Catholic religions blame the sins of humanity for the floods, where is Ragnarök is actually described as a raging battle between the gods, and the fault of no human.
But I get ahead of myself here; currently we were attempting to pinpoint where, in fact, religion began to feature in humanity, and currently, the answer is that ti has always been there, a belief system of sorts has been in place, from the very first burials, through to current society. Never has it been directed at one single god for all people to worship, in fact often there has been a different god for every cause, from abandoned children, all the way through to the beloved tax collector. Don't believe it to be possible that the church would be so kind? Take a look for yourself.
The main point here though happens to be that no matter how advanced the civilization has been, all peoples who have existed on this earth have turned to the unexplained and unconfirmed 'God' when in need, and for a backbone upon which to base their society.
And most religions to date all agree on there having been an event in the history of the world in which the earth was engulfed in water, all the land was flooded, all life was extinguished, and then finally the waters receded and a small amount of the human race remained to repopulate the earth. The reason for the flooding varies dramatically from religion to religion, with the Christian bible giving the reason of human sin, the Norse mythology seeing it to be a war of the Gods, the Islamic belief, as shown in contrast to the Christian/Catholic religions in this article here, is that, like the Christian view, the world was over run with human sins, and god cleansed it via the floods. So we have here the example that despite the variation of the religions, they all follow the same story, which points to at least some basis for religion within them.
All versions of bible, unto a certain extent, agree on the major happenings in the natural world, and ergo we can conclude that all the religious texts, the world over, are to a degree historical records; also due to the variety of religions whom follow matching gods, we could safely assume that they all follow the same unknown deity. Now, right about here, I wish to make it clear that I am not trying to destroy faith with this rant; I in fact used to be quite a believer in the lord. But I am endeavoring to suggest that all of the various religions share a main god, and that possibly he is not as all powerful as priests and preachers and monks and nuns would teach us he is, but that in fact many of the occurrences that were marked to be acts of the gods at war, or the result of God's displeasure were simply natural events in the world, like the great flood from Noah's time, that is found also to be in Norse mythology, and Islamic and Jewish beliefs.
In some ways it is very similar, as an explanation, to the way we were taught it all in church as children. Basically, the priest taught that if you believe in God, then nothing bad will happen to you, and God will protect you. And for many years I believed this teaching, until one day I had a son, and no one could help him. Then, while he was dying, a priest from the hospital came up to me, and asked if I didn't want him baptized so the lord could take care of him? I was a little uncivil to that priest at the time, but basically, what I realized, and then told him, was that this is not an act of God, and God does not protect us all. We are not born sinners; we are born innocent and shaped by the actions of ourselves and those around us as we grow older. God does not protect us one way or another at all in our lives; he is just a name we can turn to for advice when we feel we need it, and a personage whom we can feel protects us.
Who knows, maybe there is a being out there who does fit the categories that we assign to God, or the various Gods that humanity follows. Maybe the various biblical texts are correct about how he or it acts. But most probably there is not. Most probably humanity simply needs someone to blame, or rather, a person to have responsible for past events, so long as they themselves is not that person. So the most likely answer here is that faith exists, and all of humanity believes, but God does not as such, exist as a real being, rather as some figment in our minds to whom we turn when in need, to whom we pray when lost. Humanity as a whole needs the idea that there is someone else other than themselves in charge of their lives, and so countless civilizations through time have again and again invented Gods to be the ones watching over their civilization.
The bare basic of the situation is that religion is real. Faith is real. Gods, on the other hand, are no where near as easily placed. Natural events of the past have been attributed to the wroth of god, one way or another, so the technicality of the situation seems to be that if something in our world, our lives goes wrong, as a race, we turn to someone else, blame someone else, and for this purpose, humanity invented Gods. As a race, we need to mature. We need to grow out of laying the blame for anything at the feet of an unknown entity, that most probably does not exist, and we have to realize that we, and we are the real creators of God.
Because I Can.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Police officers. In our society, their role is to protect, and aid those who need it, to maintain public order, to arrest criminals, to prevent and detect crime, or at least catch the criminals after the cause. In our society they are here to keep the peace, create order, and enforce it without violence, but do they really stick to that? Or mores to the point, how worrying are those who don't stick to the code, to us, the society they abuse? Lets have a look, and find out.
Today, as I was eating my sushi, don't ask why sushi, and going through coffee number three, I found this gem of an article on, yes, my favourite site, news.com.au. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25539347-421,00.html
A teenaged boy, apprehended for knocking another kid off their bicycle and punching him, so lets call it a school yard scrap, because i for one saw plenty of that sort of thing when i was in school, ends up back at the police station, alone, without a parent with him, which as we all should know is part of the legality, that he has the right to have a parent with him in the interview, with the police officer threatening him. Classy. Also highly illegal. But then again, who would anyone believe hey, the police officer, or the violent kid he arrested? Its obvious the officer will get away with this one...except for the minor detail that the kid had a mobile phone and recorded the entire thing, right down to the officer threatening to stick his baton so far up the kid's behind that he 'wouldn't know what day it was', quote.
Now fair enough, the kid was being violent toward another person, and despite not knowing the background to that, we all know that scraps should be taken care of in a little more of an adult manner. So we acknowledge that this child handled the situation badly to begin with. But by no means does the officer have the right to act the way he did in return, by threatening the kid with violence, and causing him to have a panic/asthma attack. So while both of them did the wrong thing here, and forgot all about using that thing in their head that we all refer to as a brain, the essential part of this article was that the police officer, who should know better and set the example, acted as badly as the child had; unpardonable. But I hear that's all OK, as I hear our friendly, though very scared teen, who incidentally said he 'feels abused', does not want this violent tempered officer to lose his job.
Luckily, that is not at all what was said by the victim in this particular case from late may last year, http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25276341-952,00.html
in which a man who had been attempting to break up an argument between friends was arrested in Queensland, cuffed, and therefore heavily lacking in defense, and then assaulted by the arresting officer. About half an hour later, or a little over, when he finally appeared in the station, his face had been smashed into the police car, he had been repeatedly punched and kicked by the arresting officer, and to add fuel to the fire, the officer had then proceeded to shove a fire hose into the man's mouth, and turned it on for a total of 90 seconds. Who knows how this poor man managed to survive, But i hear he pressed charges due to his extensive injuries, and that the case is due in court some time this year. My only words on this case are o for it, win the case, then hope, like the rest of us, that this sorry excuse for a keeper of the peace does not ever get the chance to do a repeat performance anywhere.
Now, just to make it clear that I am in no way picking solely on Australian officers, lets examine this video article, fresh from the US of A, in which the story of the officers, and the video evidence, are at complete odds and by no means have a hope of matching. Let me introduce to you Janet Johnson, a 62 year old woman who has recently been the victim on unprovoked police stupidity. http://www.policebrutality.info/
According to the arresting officers, Janet hit them, and they were acting in self defense. As we can all clearly see from the video of the attack, she did nothing of the sort, rather, they rushed her, and proceeded to attack for no reason that was foreseeable, and seemingly unprovoked. Janet is now suing for 8 million dollars, US, due to the damage they inflicted upon her body, and the treatment they dealt to her. And rightly so, as there is no way the treatment meted out to her was by any definition the duty of a police officer in society.
So what are our various police forces doing about officers like these? On the main, ignoring them. Or if it becomes public enough, they reprimand them. Or occasionally, such as with Constable Benjamin Thomas Price, they will fire them due to the severity of the publicity they manage to attract with their brutality. But on the whole, nothing is being done, and nothing will be, unless people such as the 14yr old boy who believes the officer who threatened him should not lose his job, change their tune, realize that the person who attacked, or threatened them is actually a danger to society due to their position of power, and make more of a fuss about their encounters, instead of being simply a doormat in the path of abuse in our society.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Warning folks, today's rant is personal.
Now, I am a mother, and I have/had one child, James, and everything about me is all about being the traditional, home maker, stay at home, look after the family type of mother figure. It is my job description, despite what the government may say about it, and it is my love. Now, I am more than aware that in today's society, all of those things that personify me are seen to be a little bit archaic, redundant, and pointless, and that, say, a career, is perceived to be more worthy and understandable, but that's forgivable as we all know that society forgot all about the children and childhood, and the security a loving caring well grounded family provides years ago anyhow.
Now, I've made it no secret over the years as I grew up, and throughout my life to date that unlike the rest of you who all want to have careers and be 'real' people and do grown up things like go to university, and all of that long list of stuff you all want to complete before kids and family and partner, all I aspire to do with my life is find that elusive, proverbial 'right one' that everyone swears exists, settle down, and have a family. Plain and simple. So needless to say I found it quite shocking last night when one of my closest female friends took it upon herself to tell me how she thought my sort of life style, that of the stay at home mother/wife/family carer, was a waste of my life.
Lets break for a moment and review the role of a mother and wife in a family. She is a home maker, a loving caring person, a child raiser and bearer, a wise person, someone to whom everyone goes when they need advice, sympathy, or just hugs. She is the person who makes the grazed knee all better, who bullies those who bully you, who stands up for you in any situation. She is the person who you can call, any where, any time, and ask for help, she is the person who loves you unconditionally, cares for you, and makes you warm, fuzzy, love filled memories. A mother is the one who is always able to tell you when you've done wrong, or when you're being a fool, and when she does, that means you really have.
A mother, and a wife, is the person who makes the household tick over, and keeps it working, and shes the person who is always there to sort anything out, and make things go smoothly. Shes an organizer, and she constantly works under chaotic stress. And when something goes wrong with her family, its her who feels she has failed, even if she hasn't, and its her who picks up the pieces, no matter how broken she herself is feeling. And it is she who has to take criticism from every other know it all in the world, and pointless advice on how to do things 'the right way' from all the busy bodies who think she really needs their nosy input. So in my eyes, her role is quite sizable. And certainly, I no longer have a child to represent my status as a mother, but despite that, I remain one, and I remain a wife.
I am in a role that I fit into like a hand to a glove, and I see no reason why I should change from that to something I fit like a hand to a shoe; IE, not at all. And yet many out there see people like myself as time wasters, people who live off society, and are putting their lives in to a waste occupation. Now, I can to a certain degree see where these ideas are coming from, because a lot of stay at home mums do a pretty average job. My own mother didn't do that well with myself and my siblings, but, you know, we worked out in the end, despite none of us keeping in touch with her anymore. And a lot of single parents just can not be assed getting up, getting off the dole, and getting somewhere with their lives, and I'm not advocating them in any way; I feel they do not deserve mention for their leech like behavior.
But in general, most of the at home mothers I know are brilliant. They're there, day in and day out, for their kids, their partners, and anything random that comes up with their friends where their help is needed, and not only that, they do a great job with their families. So I see nothing bad about people like myself, and personally I find it horrifying how some people, even those I have valued as friends for many years, are able to see my role in my family as useless. I see my life style as being as important in the lives of those in my family as those career women see their careers to be in their lives; I know I have no qualifications, but I have a home, not just a house for my family to come back to, and I have the ability to raise my children, and care for my group.
If I really was just sitting on my ass all day, doing nothing at all, wasting my time, my life, my partners money etc, then by all means, tell me what exactly you think of me. And if I had failed at motherhood when the chance presented itself, then again, I agree whole heartedly with you, I would now be wasting my life. But I made the best of my chance at motherhood, and I believe I make the best of being a part of a functional marriage, so from my view point, while I am not working my ass off furthering my education, or career, I am performing a role in my life that I fit, and that not only am I suited to, but I do well.
So to all of you out there, don't judge it until you try it, whatever it is, and in this case, motherhood.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Also, lets take a moment to look at these girls. Apart from being mercenary, what else is there to them? Well, teen number one, going through university, losing half her virginity earnings to taxation, and enjoyed it so much that she so thoughtfully decided to tell the world that she would willingly do it again with her mystery 45 year old for free. Nice sweetie, just nice; we'll leave you classified as 'mercenary'. Teen number 2, British, “wanted to keep my first time special and wait for the right guy.” and is “not like other girls who want rid of it from the word go.” I'm sorry sweetheart, you too count as mercenary; I agree you are not at all like other girls; no one else you went to school with saved it for the right guy only to sell it for university fees.
Now I know for a lot of people out there, sex is no biggie, but for me, my first time was special, and anything in the bedroom is special, and only done with special people. So I find it a bit odd, and not at all reassuring, that there are girls out there, like these ones, who are willing to just casually sell their first time to any random who can outbid the rest. Firstly, wheres the fun in it for them? And don't they think of how their partner feels after? Sure, the sex was awesome, but I now feel used as heres the 23 grand I promised to pay you for a casual fuck. I'm certain that would leave a warm, glowing happy feeling.
And I wonder how these girls feel about themselves after? I know I would feel cheap, but thats just me. But hey, its certainly a huge change from the times of our parents, in which sex came after marriage, and shopping round first, let alone selling your first time, was taboo. In some ways I think its fantastic that views on sex are a lot looser; you know what you're getting when you enter a relationship, you get some experience in life, and you have some fun, and get to learn a hell of a lot about yourself. On the other hand, STI checks are really not fun, a lot of the time situations arise that you wouldn't have expected and cant control, and when someone says they love you, how can you tell? So I guess good and bad still come hand in hand.
However, open mindedness toward sex in general is awesome. It means that society is willing to change its views, and maybe one day, it will all be OK, regardless of who you are and what/who/how you like it. But still, selling your virginity? Girls, thats not the way to 'find the right one to be with' or whatever you're aiming for, thats a way to get into a mess you're uncertain how to get out of. All I have left to say is good luck, and I hope that 5 years down the track you can claim more than just being 'that girl from 2009 who became famous for selling her virginity'. Special things should be given, not sold.
Man, I sounds like a dried up old prude today! :)
Homophobia is the intolerance and prejudice that some members of our society have, and seem unable to get rid of, that is primarily aimed at the groups of people in our society who are actively gay or lesbian, ie actively sharing their love lives, and therefore personal lives, with a member of the same gender as themselves. As far as I am aware, it is a fear of prejudice that they can not forcibly stop themselves from feeling, and generally it is one that is actively passed to them from their parents, or older influences in their lives. Now that we've outlined what exactly homophobia is, lets have a look into it. The fear of gay people is to my mind irrational; what have they ever done to cause fear and hatred? Been different? There appears not to be any other factor in the matter. So there is no rational explaination for homophobia.
Now, i have a large number of gay friends, many of whom I went through school with, many more of whom i have only met in the last 3 years since moving out of school an home, and the one thing i can say definitely about all of them as a group is that they are a lovely, gentle bunch of people. Theres' nothing different between them and i; we all have similar interests, similar likes and dislikes; we still sit down for chick flicks, talk about our partners, share tips on clothing and all that junk that we normally would. And i can still sit with my male gay friends and have a long convo about their car, or sport, so the way i see it, there's nothing different there to be seen. Yet these people can walk down a street with their partner in tow and be met with scowls, outrage, anger, and verbal abuse.
Why? Simply because by existing they scare the rest of society with their difference. They make other people wonder “Could they catch gayness too?” and “I have close same gender friends, what makes me different to these people?” The main reason these people ask these inane questions is obviously that they are ignorant, as we all know, and some times, in a small percentage, because they think really, they just may not be straight. The repercussions they deal to the gay populace are often inexcusable. Realistically speaking, the main reason for much of the homosexuality, at least for the male population, is that scientifically speaking, facts point to female being the default gender, and the fetus going through a battle in the womb to become male, as explained in this 1979 film, HORIZON: THE FIGHT TO BE MALE. The essence of the film is that basically those few who are born with both genders, and gender confused people, as society would love us to call them, are actually BORN that way; they didn't simply 'catch gayness'. So it would be logical to suppose that you cant help who you are anyhow, no matter if youre gay or straight, and that those who are against this group of people are ill informed and illogical, not to mention uneducated.
A large factor that appears to be working against society accepting gay relationships is parents of these people. For instance one couple I know are being forced apart because their parents found out they were gay. They are perfectly normal people, have been best friends forever, and yet...their loving, caring, supportive parents, who have always been there by their sides, are now claiming that the other child “corrupted” their innocent sweet baby. And that's only one of many examples. With supportive families like that, its no wonder no one else in society is willing to accept them being different!
Personally, I think the first step to acceptance in this world is taken in the home, in the form of baby steps. We are all equal, no matter our beliefs, or our loves, or our social background; we should teach this to our children, instead of starting their lives by telling them they will be normal, like all the other sheep like people in this world, because that is the only option. Wrong. Its a good place to start changing this world dont you think, the cradle? Who knows, those little people of tomorrow may just be the ones who make this a better place to be, for all of us...if their opinionated parents dont try to teach them what is right and wrong in society as well as ethics and morals!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Think about it for a second.
Out of 9 planets in our solar system, only one has managed to produce and successfully sustain life. Only our planet, from the whole of the galaxy, is known to have intelligent life forms. Now lets focus on those life forms. Is life easy to create? Some would say yes, but lets take a closer look. Women only succeed in getting pregnancy 30% of the time, and about 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Of those that carry through, theres a 30% chance the baby will have deformations, or birth defects, or mental problems, many of which impede the ability for the child to live a successful normal life.
So understandably the human race has evolved to treasure life and do anything within its powers to preserve it. But some of us would have to agree that in recent years, our medical scientists and our doctors have taken this desire to preserve life too far. In this I refer to many examples of people who are comatose, or vegetative, have no quality of life, and would be better off simply being allowed to let go, yet doctors, and our laws, world wide, are keeping them in pain and misery. A key example of the cruelty of our medical system is this poor family, torn apart over their child and sibling, being kept alive against his wishes, simply because we as a culture fear death and hence refuse to allow him the final dignity, and his final wish www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25498807-421,00
Yet another example of the inhumanity of our society is the case of 13 year old USA boy, Daniel Hauser, who has declined chemotherapy treatment for leukemia, and is currently on the run from authorities in the USA because a court has ordered that he see a doctor and receive treatment. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25515726-401,00.html Despite displaying his wished of receiving natural remedic treatments, and claiming belief that chemotherapy would kill him, the courts remain adament that Daniel will be found, and will receive treatment. What happens if Daniel is to die before they find him? His mother, whom is aiding him stay out of sight in America, will most likely be imprisoned. Are we so wrapped up in the preservation of life as a society that we would send a dying boy on the run and make him live in exhile rather than accept his choice and allow it to him?Are we as a society willing to disregard personal decission in order to make life continue? edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/19/minnesota.forced.chemo/index Now, if as this version of events is telling us, Mr Hauser really is severely lacking in awareness of his own situation, which, personally I find vastly problematic to believe, then it is understandable that there is considerable concern, and that the American Courts would want Mr Hauser to come back, and at least learn all the details about his condition. But it will continue to remain wrong that they have ordered him back for treatment, with no mention of simply allowing him to learn all he needs to know and making his own choice. In essence, the American Courts have taken this teenagers right to personal choice away from him.
On the note of lack of personal choice, lets also spare a thought for those people who are dying, or comatose, or vegetative, or any variation of those problems, and the fact that if they do not want to remain in the state they are in, they don't really have a choice at all. My husband and I had an extremely ill son, who we opted to bring home for his own sake, and ours, and also due to what we saw as his choice. James had no working pituitary gland, and hence no thyroid hormone to keep him awake and alert, and yet he managed to remove his central IV line from his body, then had to be sedated to prevent him doing this again. I feel greatful that we had the choice with our son to do for him what was right, but I know many parents whos children are worse off than our son was, who have no choice; they have to watch their children live out their lives, trapped in their own bodies, with no ability to help them at all. And if they do help them, as some have done and others will do, then they are charged for murder. So all in all, a no win situation.
I believe, along with many others who have all been in situations that have shown them the extent of disrepair our medical system is in, that our medical law system needs some urgent reviewing. Euthanasia laws need to be made. Doctors have to be able to realize when a patient is not going to get better, when the best thing for them is to put their life in their own hands, or if that is not possible, into those of their family. And most of all, regardless of whether the condition is treatable despite its severity, our governments and medical systems have to realize, that no matter what, the choice should ultimately be left in the hands of the person who's life they are treating. Because ultimately, personal choice should matter more in this world than maintaining life at all costs, even when there is no real life left, just a husk of a body, with a person trapped inside.
I tantrum from every day abnormalities or occurrences, all the way through to whats wrong with our world, and all that usual shite that every body and their dog rabbits about, but i also throw in research, fact, truth, and the unmentioned reality of how it all works and why its all so badly done. I'm a hot headed realist, and i don't sugar coat things for anyone; some of you out there wouldn't hesitate to call me a bitch.
My spelling leaves much to be desired, and my language boarders on crude, and it could be supposed that if i were saying any of this irl it would be a blur of noise often associated with the generic female in a temper.
Enough about me, enjoy the controversial.