You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘politics’ tag.

Dear Julia Gillard,

I had a dream! A dream that one day I would wake up, look in the mirror, smile, and be able to say “Hallo, first female Prime Minister of Australia.” and my reflection would smile back at me and I would be pleased.
Thank you so much for stealing my dream.

That was a sneaky sneaky trick you pulled there on Wednesday night/Thursday morning (don’t point fingers, Julia Gillard, I care not for who started it! Only that you finished it!) and it shocked the nation. Julia Gillard, I was late to work because I was glued to that television, watching you become top dog. I was initially pissed off… but then I was so proud of you because I never quite understood anything Kevin Rudd ever said, I often wondered if he spoke a language known to man or if he was from a far distant planet. You, however, Julia Gillard, speak the plainest of Englishes and my initial anger towards you and your coup was quickly subsided by my growing love for you and your frankness.

Of course, you are only caretaker Prime Minister, and it is yet to be seen if the people will vote you in officially, symbolically (as of course, we vote for individual candidates who make up party majorities) because we can only vote for you in our minds… Which we do. Don’t fight me on this, people of Australia, I know you consider the party leader when it comes time to decide your vote, regardless of who your local member is. (Mine is Julie Bishop!)

Now Julia Gillard, I know it seems small of me to be angry at you for stealing my dream, as shouldn’t the feminist in me be rejoicing that you, a lady, has come to hold what is one of the most powerful positions in AUstralia? Well yes, I am actually. You may have stolen my dream, but I am pleased it is you, despite also being a little upset you are a dream stealer.

You see, Julia Gillard, I am a well educated voter, a swing voter at that, and someone who has had a deep interest in politics since I was a small girl of nine years old (I was a key player in campaigning for a republic Australia to my class mates in primary school.) and I have always taken a keen interest in the happenings of our nation. Infact, I have gone on to major in Political Science at University and I was always baffled by Kevin Rudd. As an educated voter, I had no idea what he stood for or anything policy-wise… but you, you have only been in power MERE DAYS and already I have a grasp on what you hope to do for our fair nation. Julia Gillard, if the people throw their support behind you (as I will also be doing), I will be glad to call you my Prime Minister. (However, as you are still only a mere caretaker PM, you do not gain my full respect yet… that coup was a bit shifty, whoever is to blame!)

Julia Gillard, you have the potential to be an awesome Prime Minister, please don’t let me down. Julia Gillard, I am counting on you! BE AWESOME! Do not become vague like Kevin Rudd, or creepily buff like Tony Abbott, stay true to you and I will love you!

Also I am really super impressed that youfrom are Adelaide, I too am from Adelaide (RADELAIDE!) and it is an awesome place! πŸ™‚

Love, Georgia
(also a future female PM of Australia, even though she now cannot be the first)

p.s. Ryan Seacrest, what kind of NORMAL eight year old boy plays on his mobile phone all day? BLANKET JACKSON IS NOT A NORMAL EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY! NORMAL EIGHT YEAR OLD BOYS DO NOT HAVE MOBILE PHONES! He is a VERY LUCKY eight year old boy in that he has a mobile phone. (Obviously in other aspects he has been quite unlucky, like losing his father, but that is irrelevant to my rant right now, as sad as MJ’s passing was.) RYAN SEACREST SERIOUSLY! I LOVE YOUR SHOW! (E! News is my guilty pleasure, I am addicted…) BUT YOU NEED TO GET BACK TO REALITY, BLANKET IS NOT A NORMAL EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY AND NEVER WILL BE! /endrant.

Last night I turned on the television to discover there was no Chaser! “WHAT IS THIS?” I exclaimed, outraged.
And then my sister informed me that it was not just cancelled this week, but also next!

HOW COULD YOU ABC? How could you, my favourie channel, deprive me of my favourite television programme for not just one week, but two?!?! And when I’d been so excited about their return to television only two weeks ago!

Now, if you’ve been living under a rock, you probably wouldn’t know about the big controversy over a skit the Chaser performed in their second episode in this EPIC series return to my absolute best and favourite television station!

Photobucket
fig 1: Georgia’s heros

The skit was a parody of the Make A Wish foundation, in which they referred to the charity as the “Make A Realistic Wish Foundation” and they sang a little song about how it wasn’t worth putting in alot of effort into making sick kid’s wishes come true, because they were going to die anyways. (If you haven’t seen it, I’m sure you can find it SOMEWHERE on YouTube, but it has been removed from the Chaser’s website.)

Now, there’s no doubt that the skit was in rather bad taste, and the Chaser has taken full responsibility, apologised and suggested everyone offended make a donation to the Make A Wish foundation. But really, isn’t that what we’ve come to expect from this amazing troop of soldiers?

So, did the ABC have to CANCEL the show for two weeks? Honestly, the Chaser has offended a million times before, made a million apologies and their criminal records put Voldemort to shame! They’re not going to STOP just because you pull them off the air for a few weeks! Hell, you could pull them off the air permanently, and they’d find a way to secretly broadcast themselves to the world!

So why make me suffer for two weeks without them? They are still going to offend, it’s what they do! They WANT to offend you, and the more you’re offended, the more ammunition you give them.
And by stirring up the public, they create debate, discussion and provide a public service by performing scrutiny upon all political and public sectors of society to “keep the bastards honest”, because seriously, the Democrats aren’t exactly doing much in that realm now days!

And sure, the Chaser may be doing it in the most offensive and vulgar way possible, but that’s because they were jaded law and political science students, much like myself, and I have long dreamed of joining forces with them one day in the future, in order to do my duty for my nation by making a public nuisance of myself, annoying the SHIT out of the pollies and earning myself a sweet-deal criminal record in the process. Because there is really no doubt that what they do is as fun as it looks on the telly!

But, all I really wanted to say was this: you can whinge and complain and rant about the Chaser all you want, but they are a force that are tough to beat. A force that will one day be invinsible! (When I join them.)

Until such a time,
xoxo
Georgia

p.s. geez KRudd, you’re no fun! We want a PM with a sense of humour! Or atleast one that’s fun to hate. We were so lucky to have someone who provided as much amusement as little Johnny, why can’t you be more like him? Huh, KRudd, huh? And don’t you dare try to use that $900 you just deposited into my bank account as some sort of bribe to get me to lighten up on you! BE MORE FUN!

Tomorow is a very important day.

Of course, whilst most of you know November 11th as Rememberance Day, aka the end of WW1, where we all stand for a minutes silence in the morning, for all the fallen soldiers of our wars, and whilst I do too, I also remember another very significant Australian historical event that happened on November 11th in 1975.

So I just want to get in first to wish you all a Happy 1975!

Photobucket

My favourite and yet saddest day in Australian history. Ok, so I wasn’t alive, hell my parents were still at school! (or, I think my dad was just starting uni…?) But Whitlam is the single coolest pollie we’ve ever had – seriously, he’s like 92 and he’s still cool!

For the ignorant, I’ll give you the VERY quick facts:
(if you want to know more, check out Whitlam Dismissal.com)

– Gough Whitlam was elected Prime Minister of Australia in 1972. The Labor Party had not been in power for like nearly 30 years. It was a pretty big deal.

– It was a very close win, and they didn’t quite hold a majority in the Senate – they needed other parties support.

– So the Senate was being a cow, and Whitlam’s government was unable to pass any bills because the Senate was a big poo and kept blocking them!

– In particular, the government was running out of money cos the Senate kept blocking various bills and the budget (and thus money flow to the government), and really, the Senate isn’t allowed to block the budget – it says so in the Constitution.

– There was a double dissolution (1974) – where both houses (House of Reps and Senate) go up for re-election. Whitlam was re-elected.

And from here on, everything happens in 1975:

– A senator died, a senator retired and a senator was appointed into another position. They were all replaced with people from other parties – despite convention that if you leave mid-term, you are replaced with someone from your party. Opposition held the balance of power.

– More problems, Senate continued to be a frigid bitch, so they had to hold a joint-sitting of the houses where they all sat down together and discussed some bills and passed them.

– So then the Opposition turns into a complete and utter cow and keeps blocking the supply until Whitlam calls an election due to the continued problems in the Senate. Whitlam is all like “excuse me, I am the mighty super Whitlam (because he is) and you are all dirty, corrupt pollies who want my job!” (which they were)

– Then there’s all these constitutional problems (you know, over how we elect government and the powers of the houses and conventions and such) and the whole parliament is messed up and it’s not fair because Whitlam was so what the country needed and it was all ruined!

– And then Governor General Kerr, who is the biggest villain in all of Australian history, goes and acts completely outside his powers and talks to Chief Justice Barwick (who I used to look up to, man!) and decides to take matters into his own hands.

– So Whitlam decides to announce a half-election of the Senate in an attempt to fix the problems once and forall and tells GG Kerr to go organise it.

– Kerr, the backstabber that he is, ignores Prime Minister Whitlam and then goes and DISMISSES (sacks) him from office! Because you know, he thought he could totally just act above the law and convention and ignore the will of Australia (who elected Whitlam) and just sack their saviour, even though this completely contradicts the whole idea of democracy and even though Whitlam was the reason Kerr-devil even got the job as Govenor General and even though it was clearly just the Senate that needed sacking.

And that final point happened on November 11th, 1975. Yes, on Rememberance Day.

And yes, my account is COMPLETELY and utterly bias, but it’s also pretty much factual as well, so whatevs in your face. Whitlam was amazing, and what he managed to get done was amazing and the people knew it, but the stupid snotty Liberal pollies were blind and didn’t know how to appreciate such an amazing political saviour.

In honour of Whitlam, please put some time aside to celebrate him tomorrow, maybe after your minutes silence, and maybe spare a moment or two for GG Kerr-upt, cos…

Photobucket

So here’s to Whitlam, the greatest Prime Minister of Australian history… until I get there.

And please don’t forget your red poppies (or your minutes silence) tomorrow for our fallen soldiers! They did us proud, no matter what you think of our involvement in the various wars of our history. (And let me tell you, I don’t agree to war ever, except maybe against Kerr-upt) I’ve already got my poppy attached to my bag.

The 11th of the 11th is a big day, you better go get a good nights rest.

Sweet dreams of Whitlam and poppies!

xoxo

Uni recommenced today, for me. Yesterday for everyone else. I don’t do Mondays.

HAPPY TUESDAY!

I currently reside in Contract Law – the most deathly of death classes that you could possibly take. Infact, it’s so deathly that if I talk about it any longer, death might just appear in the form of the GRIM REAPER and take me away to death land. Then I’d have to find my way out of hell, Bill & Ted style.

Having said all that, that does sound kind of:
Photobucket
figure 6: Bill & Ted & Georgia’s Most Excellent Adventure/Bogus Journey!

Anyways, as I have previously stated, I truely do not understand contract law. At all. End of story. Ok?

But hey, I had politics earlier. That was fun.

DVM (aka the most superior lecturer ever) discussed justice and how we create the most ideal ustice system. Apparently, if we sit behind a “veil of ignorance”, according to some philosopher man, Rolls, (he’s a-rollin’-rollin’-rollin’), where we don’t know our gender or race or class or talents or anything, we can think up the fairest justice system possible. This is because we don’t know where we stand in society so we have to decide what the best system is that will suit us, no matter where we end up.

The whole idea of this ‘veil of ignorance’ is that the most ideal form of justice will be created because we want to be in an ideal position no matter where we end up when we come out from behind thie ‘veil’.

Really, the whole thing just makes me think of Sirius Black from Harry Potter, falling through that veil in Order of the Phoenix and subsequently dying.

Do we die behind the veil of ignorance? Well, I believe so. Because our individual selves cease to exist, we don’t know who we are, what we’re capable of, we just know that there’s potential that we’ll come out the other side and fit in somewhere and we’ve got to work out the best system that will suit us no matter where we come out. Daunting, truly daunting.

And creepy how I can draw parallels between politics and Harry Potter. Man I’m a Potternut.

Anyways, I’m not convinced. I don’t think we can just work out the most ideal justice system if we are ignorant to ourselves. Cos we might potentially be ignorant to others then – which means we might be ignorant to all the possibilities of places we might end up, and then we’d just be screwed.

Alas, I must run. Places to do, people to go and things to see. I mean… whatever. I don’t know what I mean. xoxo.

We are once again discussiong abortion. Now, my problem with this discussion isn’t the actual topic of abortion itself. It’s the focus we put on abortion and the amount of attention it garners when mentioned.

My problem that, we spend so much time debating the issue of abortion and whether or not it’s right, we forget the core of the issue: unprotected sex.

Now, assuming that the unwanted baby is not the result of an act of rape, but rather voluntary intercourse, the question should be: Why wasn’t protection used?

See, we talk so much about the right to life and whether or not the mother has the right to abort the baby, and we push our views and we protest this issue so much that we forget about the basic education.

Shouldn’t we be protesting and pushing for the education of safe sex? Of the consequences that might occur as a result of sex, even with all precautions taken. It makes sense, really.

Of course, there’s still a slim chance that pregnancy will occur, but according to some arguments, the more precautions you take the less responsible you are. (Well, according to an argument from political philosopher Judith Thompson.)

Once again I’m not going to push my beliefs – I honestly don’t know if I’m pro-choice or pro-life, it’s a messy decision and one I’m not willing to make yet. But I never want to force someone into doing something they don’t want to, which means I guess I’m pro-choice.

Really, I’d rather just take the pro-education stance, however. Openness in discussion and easy access to proper precautions would no doubt make atleast some difference. Then maybe we wouldn’t have this issue and all would be solved.

Eh, in our dreams. πŸ˜›

I’m out.

p.s. Louise, shut up.

p.p.s. obviously my argument doesn’t cover all possible situations, like a severely deformed baby – do you abort or not? or again, in the case of rape, i didn’t delve far. that’s another post, another day.

I love dumb people. Of course, that results in alot of love for thyself, considering how dumb I can be.

But I am not so dumb to think that the police and nurses are independant from the state. Any crime you commit against a person becomes just that much worse when they fall directly below the state – as upstanding citizens of society such as the cops. Yes, they sit above the average person in the state – they have superpowers of arrest, so why mess with them? Also, fines and jail terms are just too hefty now days, especially with all these new laws in W.A.

But that’s enough of that, let us discuss something complex and contentious.

So here I am, once again in Political Science, talking about abortion. It’s a complex and contentious issue.

We are looking at the argument of Michael Tooley. He says if we look at abortion, we must look at infanticide along side that. He also says, that in order to make rights claims, you must have interests and desires to make them. Thus, you only have a right to life if you have an interest and desire to continue to live. And you must also have a self concious ssense of existence and have a memory and future projection of desire to continue to exist. (But what about goldfish who allegedly only have a 3 second memory?)

Of course, lucky for Michael Tooley, he is Canadian. This is because his argument is void in W.A. where infanticide no longer exists as a crime. Post-natally depressed mothers who kill their baby are now charged with murder, which carries a far heftier sentence.

I’m not sure I like Tooley’s argument, he says if you have desires and interests, you have rights. But see, animals have desires and interests (to not be tortured, to be fed, etc) and yet, we don’t give them any rights! Persons have desires and interests, and persons can be more than just human beings, the can be animals too.

So here we now have Tooley’s conclusions, which are rather interesting, and are as copied down from my lecturer’s notes:

1. All abortions are justified (as long as done painlessly)
2. Infanticide is justified
3. OK to kill babies with severe deformities
4. Killing adults that are not persons can be justified
5. Some non human animals may be persons and hence have the right to life
6. Have to accept these conclusions if argue that abortion is ok because the foetus is not a person.

Ok, so this all makes sense, but it seems a little cruel, no? I guess though, he raises a mighty complex question: if you are willing to abort a baby, are you willing to accept that the rest of the above list is fair? If you abort a baby, will you be ok with me killing an adult who has no interests or desires?

I’m baffled. Absolutely baffled.

And I feel incredibly pretentious and deep and intelligent after this little ramble. Hopefully this lasts awhile.

I should depart, and attempt to make up my mind on where I stand on Tooley’s argument.

And also, try and decipher Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument at the same time.

Farewell.

I am in Political Science: Contemporary Political Theory. We are discussing some very important things, such as human rights. Well, we’re only discussing human rights. We have decided that this piece of paper (which, as per my last post, may be that very important bit of paper my lecturer there was talking about) is full of lots of rubbish.

For instance, “Everyone has a right to take part in the government of this country.” Not true. As my very intelligent, best ever lecturer reminds us, fifteen year olds can’t.

I truly do enjoy this class, because we can openly violate human rights in here, like the paparazzi do.

And furthermore, why aren’t I on the committee who decides these human rights? From this lecture along, I surely have a better idea of human rights than say, anyone else on that committee. Most of these people are overly religious and narrow minded anyways, if this document is anything to go by. Seriously. I think, however, we should elect my lecturer to the human rights committee, he is awesome and knows everything and my best lecturer ever and Louise is laughing at me, but she’s really embarassing so whatever. Yeah, Louise, my god, you try being the best ever blogger. I dare you.

I should return my attention to my lecturer now. I just asked a really intelligent question about merit, who decides what it is o the basis of acceptance into higher education. Afterall, we’re not all good at exams – I suck at them.

Of course, I somehow managed to slip into higher education quite nicely and I’m smarter here than I was at school.

Yeah, eyes and ears and attention back to my lecturer, I know!

See ya later, alligators.

p.s. Lou, can I have your notes?