So here I am sitting and watching old episodes of Media Watch, and there is a bit about how a news paper ran a retraction, on page 11, about a story they had run on the front fucking page the day before trashing someone.
So I'm thinking how the hell do they get away with that? If you trash someone and need to issue a retraction they should be forced to place it in the same location. Trash someone in the first 5mins of the 6 o'clock news, retraction in the same place, not after the weather when most people are switching to another show. Trash someone on the front page, front page retraction.
Bloody bullshit if you ask me.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Jobs Australians Wont Do?
Okay so I'm watching the Colbert Report, very funny as always, but something came up, the often repeated phrase "they do the jobs Americans wont" and it reminded me of something that is said in Australia a fair bit as well, the problem is it's total bullshit.
It's not that Australians (and Americans) wont do the jobs commonly done by illegal immigrants, backpackers, and new immigrants, it's that they can't do those jobs, it's just not possible. Now let me explain, speaking from experience from where I live backpackers often come in and pick up seasonal work that use to go to local workers, they work for cheaper as they don't have to worry about paying the rent, putting food on the table, making sure their kids have something to wear, no, they just want some extra spending money on their holiday, so farms employee these workers at less then what it would cost for an Australian worker, great for the farm in the short term, horrible for the local economy.
The same can be said of other types of migrant workers all over the world, they are paid less then what the local people would expect for the same job, because they have lower over-heads, often times working for cash in hand ($100 cash in hand is worth more then $150 paid correctly, after tax, super, etc is taken out), this in turn drives down what farms are willing to pay, why should they pay local workers what they need in order to live if they can get workers for cheaper? This leads to the expression "they do the jobs XYZ wont do", which is patently false.
Now I'm not against migrants picking up work (well I am against backpackers, fuck off you cunts, you're either here working, in which case you should be paying tax, or here on holiday, stop trying to have it both), I just think that in order for it to be fair for local workers, and migrants the governments of the world need to pull their thumbs out and sort out this problem, by enforcing minimum wage, by enforcing fair treatment, by stopping the exploitation of migrant workers; doing that will not only help the migrant workers, but the local workers as well, because pay rates will go back to where they were, allowing them to take jobs they currently can't because the pay isn't enough to live on.
It's not that Australians (and Americans) wont do the jobs commonly done by illegal immigrants, backpackers, and new immigrants, it's that they can't do those jobs, it's just not possible. Now let me explain, speaking from experience from where I live backpackers often come in and pick up seasonal work that use to go to local workers, they work for cheaper as they don't have to worry about paying the rent, putting food on the table, making sure their kids have something to wear, no, they just want some extra spending money on their holiday, so farms employee these workers at less then what it would cost for an Australian worker, great for the farm in the short term, horrible for the local economy.
The same can be said of other types of migrant workers all over the world, they are paid less then what the local people would expect for the same job, because they have lower over-heads, often times working for cash in hand ($100 cash in hand is worth more then $150 paid correctly, after tax, super, etc is taken out), this in turn drives down what farms are willing to pay, why should they pay local workers what they need in order to live if they can get workers for cheaper? This leads to the expression "they do the jobs XYZ wont do", which is patently false.
Now I'm not against migrants picking up work (well I am against backpackers, fuck off you cunts, you're either here working, in which case you should be paying tax, or here on holiday, stop trying to have it both), I just think that in order for it to be fair for local workers, and migrants the governments of the world need to pull their thumbs out and sort out this problem, by enforcing minimum wage, by enforcing fair treatment, by stopping the exploitation of migrant workers; doing that will not only help the migrant workers, but the local workers as well, because pay rates will go back to where they were, allowing them to take jobs they currently can't because the pay isn't enough to live on.
The Burqa is insulting to Men!
Recently there has been some debate, sparked mainly by that idiot in Sydney, about banning the Burqa (the Muslim full head covering worn by women). There have been many comments on both sides, very few worth the air used to voice them, but one thing that stands out is the woman who said that women who wear them are "liberated", it was that that incensed me.
It harkens back to the comments made a few years ago by the moron who said that women who go around uncovered are asking to be raped, both statements are very insulting not just to women, not just to Australians, but to men, the male gender, as well.
It implies that we are slaves to our sexual organs, that we can not control ourselves, that we do not know right from wrong, that we are one step above animals looking for a place, if you'll forgive my vulgarity, to stick our dicks, regardless of the willingness of our partner; and that it is up to woman, the smarter, fairer, gender to hide themselves lest we loose control of ourselves.
To that, I say Bullshit, yes there are men who can not control themselves, yes there are men who murder, yes there are men who rape, but you know what, for every single man who acts like that there are a thousand, or more, who do not, who could not imagine doing such a thing.
For every man that strikes his spouse there are hundreds and thousands who find the very thought of doing so repugnant; for every sexual deviant who can only get aroused by violence there are uncounted men who would rather cut of their own sex organs then even contemplate doing something so hideous, for every criminal there are many more who live their lives in peace.
So, stop using us as an excuse, any man who claims that women should be forced to be covered lest he be overcome with lust is not a man, and needs to seek medical help; stop using your own inadequacy as an excuse for this repressive "tradition", and women on the side of this debate, if you want to wear it, fine, but don't place the blame on the millions of good men around you.
It harkens back to the comments made a few years ago by the moron who said that women who go around uncovered are asking to be raped, both statements are very insulting not just to women, not just to Australians, but to men, the male gender, as well.
It implies that we are slaves to our sexual organs, that we can not control ourselves, that we do not know right from wrong, that we are one step above animals looking for a place, if you'll forgive my vulgarity, to stick our dicks, regardless of the willingness of our partner; and that it is up to woman, the smarter, fairer, gender to hide themselves lest we loose control of ourselves.
To that, I say Bullshit, yes there are men who can not control themselves, yes there are men who murder, yes there are men who rape, but you know what, for every single man who acts like that there are a thousand, or more, who do not, who could not imagine doing such a thing.
For every man that strikes his spouse there are hundreds and thousands who find the very thought of doing so repugnant; for every sexual deviant who can only get aroused by violence there are uncounted men who would rather cut of their own sex organs then even contemplate doing something so hideous, for every criminal there are many more who live their lives in peace.
So, stop using us as an excuse, any man who claims that women should be forced to be covered lest he be overcome with lust is not a man, and needs to seek medical help; stop using your own inadequacy as an excuse for this repressive "tradition", and women on the side of this debate, if you want to wear it, fine, but don't place the blame on the millions of good men around you.
Laws We Need (Part 1)
I've been thinking a lot lately about things that are fucked up in our (western) society.
You often hear people bitching about "fine print" with the reply "we'll it's your own fault you didn't read it before signing it"
Have those people tried reading some of the fucking "simple" contracts out there? They are about as easy to read as War and Peace, even signing up for a $2 a month service can have a 20 page long contract.
It's stupid and needs changing, I propose the following law.
All consumer contracts must have a correspondence plain text version written in such a way an average adult can comprehend what they are agreeing with, with a limit on the amount of text that can be used. I suggest the limit be imposed based on the value of the service, for example a mobile telephone service of $30 a month can have a plain text contract of at most 700 words.
The plain text contracts themselves must conform a set template and may not "friendly" up wording, if they can change the terms of the contract at anytime it must say that, not something about "in order to be serve bleh bleh bleh".
So what do you think?
Raise the legal drinking age to 21?
So the other night I was watching Q&A on the ABC where they had the PM Kevin Rudd being asked questions by a bunch of 16-25 year olds (I think that was the age group), and one of the questions was "should the legal drinking age be raised to 21" now he waffled a bit, saying there needed to be studies to see if it would have an impact on the road toll, good answer, but when asked his personal opinion if he wants it, he said "of course".
Now this yeah I'll be 30, so it has no impact on me, I don't have kids, don't plan on having kids, so again no impact on me, but one thing I would like to point out, is the double standard.
In Australia 18 is the age when you are considered an adult in all things, you can drink, you can drive (not at the same time you morons), you can enlist, or join the police forces, etc, etc. My issue with the idea of raising the drinking age, which for all I know might actually make an impact, is that it splits that, either you're an adult with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it at 18, or your not.
If you're not careful you'll end up with situations like they have in America where kids are fighting wars before their legally allowed to buy a beer, and frankly, that disgusts me.
Now this yeah I'll be 30, so it has no impact on me, I don't have kids, don't plan on having kids, so again no impact on me, but one thing I would like to point out, is the double standard.
In Australia 18 is the age when you are considered an adult in all things, you can drink, you can drive (not at the same time you morons), you can enlist, or join the police forces, etc, etc. My issue with the idea of raising the drinking age, which for all I know might actually make an impact, is that it splits that, either you're an adult with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it at 18, or your not.
If you're not careful you'll end up with situations like they have in America where kids are fighting wars before their legally allowed to buy a beer, and frankly, that disgusts me.
Is it time for new laws concerning journalists?
Over the last few weeks I've been considering a question, the question is is it time for new laws concerning journalists?
Journalists in most western nations have unparalleled freedoms when it comes to what they print, but increasing they are abusing those freedoms.
I'm not talking about journalists who publish exposes about war crimes, or dirty corporations, those journalists need those freedoms.
The journalists I'm talking about are the ones bombarding us with information about so-called "celebrities" private lives.
Just look at all the news coverage Tiger Woods has gotten in recent weeks, I'm not saying what he did was right, I'm also not saying what he did was wrong, it's not my place to judge a man whose claim to fame is the ability to play a really good game of golf.
For the most part defamation and libel laws only protect people from false hoods (and poorly at that), they don't protect people from having their private lives dragged out in front of the world. If he was a world leader or some other major figure whose ethics are vital to his job I could see it being in the public's interest to know, but he's not, he's a golf player, and he's just one example of the media dragging private lives of people into the public domain.
In my considered opinion the public doesn't have the right to know shit about him other then his latest score. It has been argued that they put themselves in the spot light so they're fair game... To that I say bull-fucking-shit. That's a watered down version of "she dressed in a mini-skirt so she deserves to get raped".
There is also the argument that they're "role-models" for children. Now as I've made myself known on a number of occasions I could give two shits about children or the catch-cry of "oh wont someone think of the children" but in this case it does have some merit, yes they are role-models, for how to sign or play a damn sport, not to be a perfect human being, these is no such beast, any more then Unicorns exist. Parents should be teaching their children how to live, how to make moral and ethical choices, not expecting sports players and artists to do it for them.
So with that in my mind, I think a new form of law needs to be introduced regarding journalists and the media in general, one that allows people to sue not just on the grounds of the truth of an article, but on one of the public's right to know.
The public has a right to know if some company is dumping toxins into their drinking water, undisputed.
Does the public have a right to know that celebrity a likes to have sex in a coffin? fuck no. And he/she should be able to sue a publication for making it known.
Now I know what you're asking, how would that help anything? the information would still be out there, well the first few times it wouldn't help, but after the first multi-million dollar judgement news papers and other media would start to think twice before publishing an article about someone's private life.
Well that's my 2 cents.
What do you think?
Damn the children. Damn them to hell
Damn the children. Damn them to hell.
I'm so fucking sick to death of the "oh wont someone think of the children" crowd. Screw the damn children, look after your own stinking kids you fat headed morons.
In case your wondering what brought this on, it was hearing from someone how his legally purchased copy of Left 4 Dead 2 was stopped by Australian customs.
If you've been living in a cave you might not of heard about how the game was "refused classification" or "banned" in Australia due to the fact that the fuckwits running the country have no fucking clue actually plays games... you know adults.
But oh no, games are for kids, so we don't need an 18+ rating, so anything that exceeds the M15+ rating is "banned". For the record from what I've seen of the game, it's not a kiddy game and does need an "adult's only" rating, you know if we had one in this country.
I'm not even interested in this game, hell I haven't played any of the "banned" games over the last few years, not because I respect the law in this case, or because I'm afraid of getting caught, but because I'm not interested in those types of games.
But even still, seeing stuff banned for "the sake of the children" just makes my blood boil, we have X rated movies, kids are allowed to read crap like twilight which is basically a how-to guide for setting up an abusive relationship...
Speaking of books, is there even a ratings system for books? I've got some stuff in my collection that has some fairly detailed bloodshed/sex in them and no sign of any kind of rating, all purchased in stores. The John Ringo Kildar (good story, horrible politics not even subtly hinted at) series for example has descriptions of people getting their limbs blown off, graphic depictions of sex, and that's just the fucking TAME stuff in them. If it was a movie it would be R18, easy.
But oh no, we can't shoot zombies in a video game. And everytime the hint of boobies comes out in a game (see Mass Effect) it's like someone set fire to their bibles.
The same rational is use to defend the idea of a national internet censor... how about parents actually freaking take responsibility for their spawn and look after them and stop infringing on the rights of adults.
I'm so fucking sick of this crap. I don't have kids, I don't want kids ever and all I hear about is how we need to screw over the adults for the sake of the children, but there is an easier cheaper way to deal with this shit, make parents actually parent their kids... rather then plomping them down in front of the computer, TV, or X-Box.
It's time like this I want out of this damn country, fucking moralistic hypocrites ruining things for everyone else, fuck you, fuck your god, fuck your holybook, fuck your moralising, I'm sick of you twats, live and fucking let live you cunts, leave us alone.
Come to think of it, all the name calling, swearing, and just plain ranting isn't like helping my case... oh well. Fuck 'em, they'll just blame it on all the video games I played growing up and ignore my argument anyway.
85 per cent support voluntary euthanasia
A new survey shows support for voluntary euthanasia is on the rise in Australia.
The Newspoll of 1,200 people indicated 87 per cent support in New South Wales, which is up 12 per cent on 2007 results.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/27/2725076.htm
I'm a bit of a contradiction on this issue, I'm a huge fan of personal choice, but I don't know if I could make that choice myself, I think so long as there is life there is hope, I'd like to think I would keep fighting until the very end, kicking Death in the nads with my last breath.
So as far as the law goes I'm in favour of it, personal choice is king.
Incidentally that's also my view on abortion, I stay out of the debate because I'm male and thus it's not really my choice, as it's not my body, and until such time as they make it possible for another option, I'll stay out of it.
Though I will say I fucking hate how men are portrayed in popular media (TV/Movies/Etc) regarding it, some bint drops a huge bomb shell on the guy and then gets pissed he doesn't know what they should do after 30 seconds, when she's had days/weeks to get use to the idea. Then he's the bad guy for not wanting to make a choice, because the smart guy knows he's fucked either way, suggest abortion/adoption he's a heartless bastard, suggest marriage and he's a clingy twat, walk away and he's a deadbeat. There is no way the poor guy can win.
Ladies you've got our support, but Jesus don't put it all on us, it takes two to tango, if you want our input fine, if you don't also fine, but don't give us the... oh fucking wow I'm really off-topic here.
Okay in closing, personal choice is king, just because the law says it's okay to do something doesn't mean you have too do it if it's against your personal lifeview.
British PM tweets bickie of choice...
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has finally crumbled and revealed his answer to one of the nation's most pressing questions – what is his favourite biscuit.
The PM was repeatedly asked to name his favourite bickie during a live online question and answer session with hundreds of mothers on the Mumsnet website last week.
Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had both answered the same question first time, with oatcakes and Rich Tea biscuits top of their lists.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/19/2717312.htm
And this is why the internet is perhaps the stupidest way to communicate with "ordinary" people.
They asked him that retarded question 8 freaking times. After the third time I personally would have told them to bog off and come back when they thought up something relevant to ask.
And then he obviously got smacked around by his PR team and was forced to go back and post an answer.
Of all the questions you could think to ask the leader of your nation... you ask him what his favourite biscuit is? What utter stupidity.
That would be like going back in time, having exactly one question to ask of Einstein and asking him "so dude what's with the hair?"
The PM was repeatedly asked to name his favourite bickie during a live online question and answer session with hundreds of mothers on the Mumsnet website last week.
Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had both answered the same question first time, with oatcakes and Rich Tea biscuits top of their lists.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/19/2717312.htm
And this is why the internet is perhaps the stupidest way to communicate with "ordinary" people.
They asked him that retarded question 8 freaking times. After the third time I personally would have told them to bog off and come back when they thought up something relevant to ask.
And then he obviously got smacked around by his PR team and was forced to go back and post an answer.
Of all the questions you could think to ask the leader of your nation... you ask him what his favourite biscuit is? What utter stupidity.
That would be like going back in time, having exactly one question to ask of Einstein and asking him "so dude what's with the hair?"
(Most) Prostitution is RAPE
Okay so last night unable to sleep due to a massive fit of coughing up my lungs I logged onto the cesspit that is IRC, I jumped into a random channel, in this case #politics on fuck... I forget the server.
Anyway there was a debate in progress about the legalising prostitution and after a rip roaring debate lasting a few hours I gave up in a fit of rage and logged off.
You see I just couldn't get a lot of the people claiming prostitution is a "victimless crime" to understand prostitution is basically rape in a lot, and I'd personally the majority, of cases (not that I can back up the majority part, I don't have numbers).
Okay here's a question, man attacks, holds down, and has sex with a woman against her will, clear cut rape right? (If you said no you're a dirty scumbag that I hope meets his end shortly)
Now, take the same man, same women, only now the man has a gun, unless the woman has sex with him he'll shoot her, is it rape? Yes!
The same thing is done a lot in prostitution, the woman (or man, it does happen to men, but I'll just keep using the female pronoun rather then he/she) in question has a choice between a) having sex with a stranger or b) getting the crap kicked out of her by her pimp or c) going hungry or having her family go hungry.
It's still a form of coercion, just not as overt as the gun metaphor. And that's not even taking into account the women sold into mother-fucking slavery in some countries out there.
Having sex with a prostitute is more then likely (I'd say something like 99 times out of 100) rape in today's world.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are prostitutes out there that are willing and not forced into it, by either a 3rd party or economic problems, and more power too them, their body do with it what they will. But those men and women are the vast vast vast minority.
Contrary to what you might think after what you've read above, I'm actually in favour of legalising prostitution, after all criminalising it hasn't been effective at shutting it down, there is a demand so a black market has risen to fill the demand, however in order for legalisation to be an effective solution you need to regulate the hell out of it, placing protection for the prostitutes as the highest priority and cracking down unmercifully on pimps (one of the lowest forms of scum around, just above paedophiles on my personal ladder of people who need to die a horrible death).
Incidentally the same approach would work well on illicit narcotics. Let's face it, there is a reason they call prostitution the "World's oldest profession", it's been around forever and not going anywhere, the only way to make things better is to regulate it.
Think it over people.
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
US President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for giving the world 'hope for a better future' with his work for peace and calls to reduce the global stockpile of nuclear weapons. The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Mr Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/09/2710141.htm
Okay before anyone starts calling me Anti-American or racist I'd just like to say to those people, fuck off and die a slow death you morons, you can disagree with someone without hating them.Onto the rant, it was my understanding that the Nobel prizes were given for accomplishments and not to hate on the guy, but he hasn't accomplished anything yet, he's made some pretty major promises that I personally think are awesome-sauce and made some moves towards things that make the future look less like the shit-hole it was even a year ago, but he hasn't actually done anything yet.
It seems to me like they are jumping on the "Whoa first black American president, better kiss up or we'll be called racist" bandwagon.
Oh and before anyone jumps on the "he's getting rid of nukes! it even passed the UN!" thing, let me be clear, nukes aren't that big of a deal anymore, they've been slowly getting rid of them for decades now, disposing of those evil things is a lot harder then making the damn things.
Frankly the fact the US/France/England/Russia have them doesn't worry me too much... okay Russia's internal security based on my limited understanding scares the fuck out of me, but the major powers having nukes over-all isn't that much of a worry, they've had them for decades and not used them, it's the nutjobs like India and Pakistan (fine countries and peoples) having them that worry me, and the really nutso fuckwits like North Korea and Iran looking at making them scares the shit out of me.
And I don't see NK/Iran coming to the table, they don't see the danger in nukes, only "ohh big boy toys!" appeal.
I'm trying to remember who said "I don't loose sleep over the man who wants a hundred nuclear weapons, I worry about the man who only wants one" I think it was in a movie, and it sums up the problem perfectly.
Anyway I've gotten way the fuck off topic here, back to the point, I think Obama is doing good and has the promise to do a lot more good, but honestly he's not really ready to be given such a high honour, maybe in a few years, but not right now.
Edit: Seems I'm not the only one, but the Wall Street Journal are a bunch of smary pricks who need to tone it the fuck down.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/10/2710482.htm