My Weekend Wrap will be posted Tuesday night to allow for the Melbourne Cup extended weekend festivities.
But the wait might be worth it!
How did my band cope with their second show of the 'comeback'?
Did Suicide Girl cause a scene at the gig?
Did I catchup with Obtusa again?
Who were those people exchanging bags of lemons at a Northcote Hotel?
And what of the drunken party at my house Friday night?
Will 'Leica Ding' win the Cup and make me rich?
These questions and many more will be answered on Wednesday morning.
In the meantime, here's one of my favourite ever songs, performed live. It's a good song to start the week with...
Showing posts with label The Big Questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Big Questions. Show all posts
Monday, November 2, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Heavy discussion for Monday
Ok, I have a moral dilemma question for you. Hypothetical, but one I recently had a discussion about with a friend of mine, and I wanted to get some other viewpoints.
Anyway, the situation is this. Say you and your partner are trying to have a child, but not desperately. You fall pregnant (or your partner does, whichever), and you have all the usual tests done to see if the baby is ok. Nothing is picked up. The child is born and is severely disabled to the point where he or she will require 24 hour care for the rest of their life and will never be able to do anything of their own volition, even with assistance. One of you (either you or your partner) knows they are not the sort of person to be able to deal with this situation, and knows they will just end up resenting the child and completely snapping in 10 years and smothering it with a pillow because you're/they're so frustrated at having to care for it 24 hours a day and having no life. There is also the argument that such a life is no real life for a child.
Is it wrong and completey selfish to give it up for adoption, knowing there are other people out there far better equipped to deal with such a child than you, but also knowing there is a very great possibility the child will never be adopted?
Alternatively, if the tests did find out the child was going to be disabled severely, is it awfully wrong to terminate it and try again (assuming abortion is legal in your state)?
Anyway, the situation is this. Say you and your partner are trying to have a child, but not desperately. You fall pregnant (or your partner does, whichever), and you have all the usual tests done to see if the baby is ok. Nothing is picked up. The child is born and is severely disabled to the point where he or she will require 24 hour care for the rest of their life and will never be able to do anything of their own volition, even with assistance. One of you (either you or your partner) knows they are not the sort of person to be able to deal with this situation, and knows they will just end up resenting the child and completely snapping in 10 years and smothering it with a pillow because you're/they're so frustrated at having to care for it 24 hours a day and having no life. There is also the argument that such a life is no real life for a child.
Is it wrong and completey selfish to give it up for adoption, knowing there are other people out there far better equipped to deal with such a child than you, but also knowing there is a very great possibility the child will never be adopted?
Alternatively, if the tests did find out the child was going to be disabled severely, is it awfully wrong to terminate it and try again (assuming abortion is legal in your state)?
Friday, May 15, 2009
IDAHO: not just potatoes
I turned on the TV in my room last night and discovered I had BBC World News. At first, I was rather excited that I had another option besides CNN, but that quickly turned to confusion and anger when I watched the first story presented.
A BBC reporter was in Moscow, where the Eurovision final is to be held on Saturday night. A gay rights activist had petitioned the city council for permission to hold a gay pride march, but had been denied (every application since the first in 2006 has been turned down by the mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, who describes the parades as ‘satanic’). However, the council is allowing “hardcore nationalists and religious groups to stage a counter-demonstration on the same day.”
Being gay is apparently not illegal in Russia, but there are many cases of gay and lesbians being the victim of violence from “neo-Nazis, ultra-Nationalists and Christian fundamentalists.” Including British activist Peter Tatchell, who was badly beaten in Moscow two years ago, and Irina Fedotova, one half of the first lesbian couple to seek a marriage certificate in Russia (they were denied), who says she has been beaten twice by extremists. While I was watching the story, she intimated that many gay people in Russia have to hide their sexuality for fear of violence against them, and that anti-gay activists will wait outside gay clubs to bash people leaving them.
Indeed, Mikhail Nalimov, leader of the United Orthodox Youth, has said there will be “a very tough reaction from a lot of [their] activists” and claims gay activists are “spiritual terrorists” and that the “aim of the gay movement is to destabilise the country and society.” Of course, it’s not possible that the aim of the gay movement is simply to allow gay people to have the same basic human rights as everyone else.
I am completely baffled by opinions such as this. I just don’t understand what people have against homosexuality. What does it matter what two consenting adults do in their private life? How on earth does it impact on anyone else? Why do religious people get their knickers in such a twist about it (such as the ‘God Hates Fags’ group in the US)? And not just religious people, but anyone? Why? I’ve heard of some people who are against homosexuality, and in particular same-sex marriage, bring up paedophilia as an argument, and say society makes it their business to prevent that sort of perverse behaviour, and claim that it’s no different to homosexuality. But that’s bullshit. Paedophilia is not between two consenting people, because one of the parties involved is a minor and unable to give consent. There is also the ridiculous argument that if we allow same-sex people to marry, what’s to stop someone from marrying their dog in the future? For the same reason – the dog can’t consent.
While I was watching the report, and listening to Nalimov say the church and his activists will continue to fight against gay activists (and putting aside the very important issues that those who call themselves Christians are hardly acting like Christians when they bash other people and act with such intolerance), I just kept repeating to myself, “But why? Why do you care if these people are gay? How is it affecting you?” Sure, you might think homosexual acts damn the soul and what not, but what does it matter to you if someone else is doing it? I hardly think bashing someone up is going to endear you to god, even if said person is doing something you think god doesn’t approve of. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all of that. Not to mention, Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality in the New Testament of the Bible. You’d think if it was really that important, he might have mentioned it once or twice.
I really don’t understand homosexual-hate. Anyone have a clue?
P.S. May 17 is International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO), so I thought this was a fitting topic.
A BBC reporter was in Moscow, where the Eurovision final is to be held on Saturday night. A gay rights activist had petitioned the city council for permission to hold a gay pride march, but had been denied (every application since the first in 2006 has been turned down by the mayor, Yuri Luzhkov, who describes the parades as ‘satanic’). However, the council is allowing “hardcore nationalists and religious groups to stage a counter-demonstration on the same day.”
Being gay is apparently not illegal in Russia, but there are many cases of gay and lesbians being the victim of violence from “neo-Nazis, ultra-Nationalists and Christian fundamentalists.” Including British activist Peter Tatchell, who was badly beaten in Moscow two years ago, and Irina Fedotova, one half of the first lesbian couple to seek a marriage certificate in Russia (they were denied), who says she has been beaten twice by extremists. While I was watching the story, she intimated that many gay people in Russia have to hide their sexuality for fear of violence against them, and that anti-gay activists will wait outside gay clubs to bash people leaving them.
Indeed, Mikhail Nalimov, leader of the United Orthodox Youth, has said there will be “a very tough reaction from a lot of [their] activists” and claims gay activists are “spiritual terrorists” and that the “aim of the gay movement is to destabilise the country and society.” Of course, it’s not possible that the aim of the gay movement is simply to allow gay people to have the same basic human rights as everyone else.
I am completely baffled by opinions such as this. I just don’t understand what people have against homosexuality. What does it matter what two consenting adults do in their private life? How on earth does it impact on anyone else? Why do religious people get their knickers in such a twist about it (such as the ‘God Hates Fags’ group in the US)? And not just religious people, but anyone? Why? I’ve heard of some people who are against homosexuality, and in particular same-sex marriage, bring up paedophilia as an argument, and say society makes it their business to prevent that sort of perverse behaviour, and claim that it’s no different to homosexuality. But that’s bullshit. Paedophilia is not between two consenting people, because one of the parties involved is a minor and unable to give consent. There is also the ridiculous argument that if we allow same-sex people to marry, what’s to stop someone from marrying their dog in the future? For the same reason – the dog can’t consent.
While I was watching the report, and listening to Nalimov say the church and his activists will continue to fight against gay activists (and putting aside the very important issues that those who call themselves Christians are hardly acting like Christians when they bash other people and act with such intolerance), I just kept repeating to myself, “But why? Why do you care if these people are gay? How is it affecting you?” Sure, you might think homosexual acts damn the soul and what not, but what does it matter to you if someone else is doing it? I hardly think bashing someone up is going to endear you to god, even if said person is doing something you think god doesn’t approve of. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all of that. Not to mention, Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality in the New Testament of the Bible. You’d think if it was really that important, he might have mentioned it once or twice.
I really don’t understand homosexual-hate. Anyone have a clue?
P.S. May 17 is International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO), so I thought this was a fitting topic.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Who Owns the 00s? Britney or bin Laden?
I've been invited to a '60's' themed party. The costume is no problem, nor I imagine will be the decor for the hosts. We all know the several variations of 60's 'looks' that we can use at a themed party, and the same goes for 50's, 70's and 80's parties. The 90's-themed parties are still a bit vague for the moment, perhaps because not enough time has passed for society and capital C Culture to decide what the hell the 90's looked like.
The 00's are even more an unknown. In forty years times when people are invited to 'noughty' parties, what are they going to wear, and how will the house be decorated?
What are the defining images of our current decade that can translate into decor and costuming? I have a few ideas to get started:
* Osama bin Laden costumes. Not joking either. You can hardly dress up as the Twin Towers, so this is the next best idea. It'll be the 2050 equivalent of dressing up as a Nazi now.
* Twin Tower cakes.
* I-Pods, which will no doubt by then be totally obsolete and a thing of the past because we'll probably have MP9 players in our earlobes or something. The party guests of the future will make I-Pods out of poly-styrene and paint them.
* Halogen downlights. Are they everywhere or what? Every shop and house built since 2000 has fucking halogen downlights in them. Little fucking bastards. Yeah, it's a nice light, but you have to focus them and move them about and shit and there's always dark bits.
* Zen-inspired front gardens with water features, bark and pebbles. Prevalent in all new estates.
* No undies for the girls, a la Lindsay, Britney and Paris. Must alight awkwardly from a car, or, as an alternative...
* Naked. Cos, you know, porn is everywhere.
That's all I've got. I don't understand fashion so I don't understand what look is going to be the 'flairs' of the 00's. All I see on the streets is a mish-mash of the five preceeding decades' fashion and I can't for the life of me see what's now .
Usually you can rely on the movies to capture the looks, but movies set in the present seem to be rarer and rarer, or if they exist at all, they focus in on the oddballs and zanies that don't represent nuffin'.
Any ideas?
The 00's are even more an unknown. In forty years times when people are invited to 'noughty' parties, what are they going to wear, and how will the house be decorated?
What are the defining images of our current decade that can translate into decor and costuming? I have a few ideas to get started:
* Osama bin Laden costumes. Not joking either. You can hardly dress up as the Twin Towers, so this is the next best idea. It'll be the 2050 equivalent of dressing up as a Nazi now.
* Twin Tower cakes.
* I-Pods, which will no doubt by then be totally obsolete and a thing of the past because we'll probably have MP9 players in our earlobes or something. The party guests of the future will make I-Pods out of poly-styrene and paint them.
* Halogen downlights. Are they everywhere or what? Every shop and house built since 2000 has fucking halogen downlights in them. Little fucking bastards. Yeah, it's a nice light, but you have to focus them and move them about and shit and there's always dark bits.
* Zen-inspired front gardens with water features, bark and pebbles. Prevalent in all new estates.
* No undies for the girls, a la Lindsay, Britney and Paris. Must alight awkwardly from a car, or, as an alternative...
* Naked. Cos, you know, porn is everywhere.
That's all I've got. I don't understand fashion so I don't understand what look is going to be the 'flairs' of the 00's. All I see on the streets is a mish-mash of the five preceeding decades' fashion and I can't for the life of me see what's now .
Usually you can rely on the movies to capture the looks, but movies set in the present seem to be rarer and rarer, or if they exist at all, they focus in on the oddballs and zanies that don't represent nuffin'.
Any ideas?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The big questions- Women's Weekly
I was flicking through a copy of Woman’s Weekly at lunch today, and I couldn’t help but feel sorry for the people responsible for writing up the articles. When they were young and idealistic, dreaming of breaking that one big story and the riches of journalistic integrity, did they think they would have to churn out crud such as “Prince Frederick and Mary, A Love Story”? Or “Olivia’s Love Match in Peru”? While I am sure most people are there just to pay the mortgage, am I being elitist and looking down on a job that makes a certain person happy?
As people enjoy reading this vapid shit I guess there must be people who enjoy writing it too.
But who?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
