MySpace


MySpace.com | rss | sign in
Mark



Last Updated: 11/19/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 22
Sign: Leo

City: Brisbane
State: Queensland
Country: AU
Signup Date: 1/10/2007

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Wednesday, December 30, 2009 

Category: Blogging
So, it is the last day of 2009

This year has been quite eventful. I went overseas, I got swine flu and I graduated! Nevertheless, 2009 wasn't a very good year for many people and in some ways it wasn't that good a year for me either, although I did very well in terms of academic courses. 

My personal life hasn't changed at all, and I'm beginning to go a little stir-crazy. Every day, the same thing, again and again and again. I can't say my life is bad, but I can't say it's very interesting. But I suppose I don't really want an interesting life now do I? Young people crave excitement without really understanding the problems that come along with an exciting lifestyle. I have always endeavored not to make that mistake.

Well, how does 2010 look like it will shape up? 

I predict more trouble for Iran - the Opposition rallies are aggravating the government tremendously, so much so that they are beginning to take lethal action against anyone who doesn't support Ahmadinejad. Although the police have opened fire on protesters, this hasn't stopped the demonstrations which are beginning to turn into full blown displays of civil unrest. 

I don't think the current Iranian government will fall - the will of the supreme leader and his circle is too strong, and he retains an iron like grip on the nation's military and police forces. This isn't like the Soviet Union in 1989 - Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah are not going to repeat the actions of Gorbachev. Both the Iranian President and Revolutionary Council understand that if they don't come down hard on these protests, the entire government will fall. For them to show leniency to the opposition would be the same thing as cutting their own throats, and they know it. They are not interested in peace and progress, like Gorbachev was. They are not interested in democracy or freedom - they just want to retain their power, and they will go to any lengths to do so. Iran is in for sad, terrible, violent times. 

The good news is that the Iranian government has completely de-legitimized itself in the eyes of the Iranian youth who will remember the deaths of their friends at the hands of the police. Currently the government is supported by the old, but the old die and the young take their place. The Iranian government will eventually fall. It is suppressing the anger, it is not address the causes. 

Perth is experiencing some bad bush fires. About 40 homes or so have been destroyed, but the good news is that I haven't heard of anyone dying. Seems like most people learned the lesson of the February fires and evacuated their homes, rather than stay on to fight the flames. That is the smart move of course.

Thousands of Hmong refugees are being taken out of the refugee camps in Thailand and are being deported back to Laos. Laos has said that they will not harm the refugees, but that is quite unlikely. Undoubtedly some will come to harm as a result of this. Indeed, this entire operation is suspicious - for instance, why separate the men from the women and children when they are being sent back? Why break up families? I have the feeling that many Hmong refugees will be greeted with threats when they get back to Laos, threats against their families if they do not confess or point fingers at suspected "security threats". I understand that Thailand cannot take care of the Hmong refugees forever, but they should have allowed them to immigrate to other nations instead of just shipping them back to a nation that tried to kill them.

In terms of politics, we will have an election at the end of 2010, most likely. Who knows, we might even get one at the beginning of 2010, although Rudd says that he is quite sure he will not call an early election. I predict Tony Abbott will continue to go on the attack, possibly gaining some ground against Rudd if he plays his cards right and keeps his big yap shut on certain topics. I still expect Labor to win big against the Liberal Party however, unless Rudd is caught eating children or something similar.

In terms of the economy, I think things will improve slightly. I'm not hoping for a major improvement, and who knows, maybe things will even get a bit worse, but the way things look, I can safely say that I can imagine things getting a bit better.

Overall, 2010 looks to be an alright year. 
2:18 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, December 29, 2009 

Current mood:  angry
Category: Blogging
If you know the consequences, be prepared to pay them

You might have heard that China executed a British man today for the crime of smuggling kilograms of
heroin into China, by flying from Tashkent into Urumqi. He was caught with the briefcase containing the
heroin and $250,000 USD.

Do I feel any sympathy from this man? Not really. I personally wouldn't have executed him - I would
have given him life in jail or worse, but I wouldn't have executed him.

But I do not care if China did.

Let's look at the facts shall we?

1) This man was broke and had grand, outrageous dreams of success and wealth. Sounds like motive to
me.

2) He was carrying kilograms worth of heroin in a briefcase, along with a load of cash. The briefcase was
in his hand. He claims he did not know what was in the case.
Now - imagine if you were a drug dealer. Would you give kilograms of pure heroin to a person you barely
know, along with the money, and not tell him about it? Drug dealers are NOT stupid. They are scum, but
they aren't idiots. They do not take unnecessary risks and they certainly would not risk giving someone kilos
of heroin along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash. Drug couriers on the other hand, ARE stupid
and are willing to take stupid risks, as we've seen in this case. It is far more plausible and likely that he knew
what he was carrying.

3) Anyone with half a brain in their skull knows that China, along with almost all other Asian nations, don't take
too kindly to drug smuggling. I don't know if you know much about China's history, but about 150 or so years
ago the British started selling opium in China. It was a disaster. Millions were addicted, hundreds of thousands
died and crime was rampant. China outlawed opium, which was pretty advanced at the time, but the British
started killing them until the Chinese government, weak due to imperial infighting and decadence, agreed to
accept British Opium, which ensured another few decades of misery for the Chinese people. You can understand
why they have such a harsh view of British Drug Smugglers.

4) His family claim he was mentally ill. Oh really? Then why wasn't he diagnosed? He has Bi-polar disorder, but
bipolar does not mean crazy. Bipolar sufferers have violent mood swings and can suffer from terrible depression,
but they do not hear voices, they do not have delusions, they do not have a diminished capacity to reason, and
they can tell right from wrong and understand the consequences of their action. Being bipolar does not mean a thing
in this case, any more than being depressed would have anything to do with this case.

5) Heroin is a dangerous, lethal, and extremely addictive drug. This isn't marijuana. This isn't ecstasy. This is heroin.
Which, if you don't know, is an extremely powerful form of opium, the same drug that caused all that misery to the
Chinese people one and a half centuries ago. Heroin is incredibly dangerous. It is absolutely addictive, it is very easy
to overdose on and I can't begin to tell you of the list of terrible things it does to a human body. It has ruined many lives
and if he had succeeded in his smuggling, he would have ruined quite a few more.

So to sum up: He almost certainly knew what he was doing, when he did it, and he knew the consequences. His
attempted actions are criminal, and downright evil. I wouldn't execute him myself, just due to the fact that I oppose the
death penalty. I oppose the death penalty out of practical concerns, not moral concerns. I have no qualms about this
man dying. He knew what he was getting in to. He knew the consequences. And he had to pay those consequences.
8:22 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, December 25, 2009 

Category: Blogging
Well well it's boxing day! And it's almost 2010! And it's almost the start of a new decade!

Actually that's not technically true. When the Gregorian Calendar was adopted, it started at year ONE. Which means that, for instance, the year 2009 doesn't mean 2009 years have passed - it means that THIS YEAR is the 2009th YEAR. So when 2010 rolls around, it would not have been 2010 years since the start of the calendar. ONLY AT THE END of next year would 2010 years have elapsed. So, technically, the start of the new decade occurs at the END of 2010, and at the start of 2011. It also means that the new millennium began in 2001, and NOT in 2000. Which is why the book "2001: A Space Odyssey" started in 2001 and not 2000, because Arthur C. Clarke knew that the new millennium really began in 2001.

But in the end it doesn't matter- people will ignore my babbling and the babbling of mathematicians and scientists everywhere, just like they did in 2000. "No", we said, "the new millennium begins in 2001, because there never was a year zero", but people just gave us funny looks at went to their new millennium parties. And so it is with this year - people will still state that the new decade begins in 2010, even though it doesn't. But in truth, it would have been 10 years since 2000. So why not just give in and call 2000-2010 a decade. After all, 10 years have passed. 

But it's still not right. If you called 1985-1995 a decade, people would give you funny looks. Same situation here. 2000-2010 is NOT a decade. 2001-2011 is a decade. 

Any way, what was this "decade" like?

Actually it was pretty bloody awful. For everyone. Except the Chinese. And even they had that terrible earthquake. The biggest Winners of the "decade" are:

1) China - For obvious reasons
2) India - For similarly obvious reasons
3) Australia - Because we avoided a recession and we're doing alright
4) The EU - Because the Lisbon treaty passed
5) Russia - Because rising Oil prices allowed the government to modernize the nation
6) The Computer Industry - Because computers are incredibly important now
7) The Oil Companies - Because of REALLY obvious reasons
8) The Electronics industry - Because we just got to have mobile phones (that's cell phones for you Americans)
9) Investors in Gold - Because that still retained its value even through the meltdown.
10) Israel - because once again, Israel has completely flouted the UN, the US, EU, UK and pretty much everyone else, and got away completely clean. It's the one nation that can do pretty much what it likes and never has to suffer consequences due to 1) You'll be called a Nazi if you DARE criticize the HOLY ABSOLUTELY PERFECT STATE OF ISRAEL AND THE HOLY PERFECT, DIVINE JEWISH RACE, who are oh-so-perfect and never do anything wrong, or so they want to believe, and 2) Because they have more guns, tanks, jets and gunships than the Palestinians. 
11) Australian Labor Party - out of the woods and what a strong showing. Under Rudd, the bitter infighting has ended (publicly at least) and the Labor Party moves as one well oiled political machine. 

The Biggest losers of this "decade":

1) The Middle East in General. 
2) The Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans and Iranians in particular - Palestine is essentially gone - it's lost too much territory to ever come back as an effective state. Iraqis are the biggest losers because more than half a million of them died and their nation is still in trouble (although it's getting better). Afghanistan is a mess, as it has been for the past 20 or so years. So, they're not really a "loser", because almost nothing has changed in Afghanistan, post 2001. I mean, Constant Civil War? Check. Tribalism and War Lordism? Check. Nothing being built or developed? Check. Afghanistan hasn't changed really. Iran is a big loser as well - it has been sanctioned to all hell, it's economy is imploding (due to falling oil prices), it has lost many international friends and its own people know the elections are rigged. The Iranian regime is in for tough times. It'll probably survive, but don't expect the protests to stop or their economy to get any better any time soon.
3) The UN - after Bush's invasion of Iraq, the disastrous Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, Israel's repeated flouting of all rules, Hamas's repeated flouting of all rules, and in general, everyone's flouting of all rules, the UN has been exposed as a complete joke. The Charismatic, some-what efficient and some-what corrupt Kofi Anan is gone, and in his place, we get the bland, characterless, virtually spineless Ban Ki Moon, a complete Bureaucrat if I've ever seen one. The UN still has a role to play, but it's far too large to DO anything. No one ever agrees with each other, everyone is just in there to wrangle the best deal for themselves. The UN has always been largely useless - but at least during the Cold War, when the world was split between East and West, it served as a confrontation point, where the two groups could size each other up. Now that the world has split into the EU, US, China, India, Japan, Russia, The Middle Eastern Nations, Israel, the African Lobby, and whatnot, the UN has just descended into squabble, squabble, squabble. The G20 and G8 Summits are more important for world affairs than the UN ever is or was, and that's the sad truth of the matter. The UN is composed of hundreds of nations, in which 5 or so have almost all the power and the others have none, but neither can DO anything without agreeing with each other, which they never do because the powerful want to keep their power and that means that the powerless have to go on being powerless, while the powerless want power but can't convince the powerful that they aren't just trying to knock them off their thrones and steal the power crown.  
4) US Republicans - they basically scared everyone and made themselves look like dinosaurs. 
5) US Democrats - they basically inherited a screwed up country that will blame them for mistakes they did not make, and they are showing their internal devisions over the Health-Care bill.
6) US Independents - because they are basically dead. The only independents who raised their heads this decade were Nader and Ron Paul. Nader is a pretty stand up bloke, but he's far, far, far too sensible and sane to ever be elected president. He's not a populist, and Democrats hate his guts for Bush (although I don't blame Nader one bit for Gore's loss. It was Gore's job to win over the votes that went to Nader and he didn't. Nader is not to blame). Ron Paul is just a complete lunatic who wants to go back to the Gold Standard and remove public education and return the US to a completely isolationist foreign policy. If those two are the best Independent candidates in a decade, the Independent parties are dead. One's too honest and the other's a loony.
7) Australian Liberal Party - Although they ruled Australia for most of the decade, their spectacular implosion has almost ensured that they will remain out of power for at least a decade more, possibly even longer. At the State Level, they continue to be a joke for most of the states, especially Queensland, although they won Western Australia and might get NSW. 


8:26 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Monday, December 21, 2009 

Current mood:  infuriated
Category: Blogging
Saints and Miracles

If I was a bitter person.... no, wait, that should be: If I was an EXTREMELY bitter person, I would gladly welcome the Sainthood-bestowing upon one Australian Nun. Want to know why?
Because if idiotic fundamentalist believers are stupid enough to think prayer can cure their cancer, maybe they will avoid the hospital, thus freeing up beds for more rational people and
reducing their chances of having children.

I don't believe that of course. Although I admit I have found myself entertaining that idea.

You might have heard recently that one (deceased) Australian nun has been declared a saint, for supposedly curing the cancer of a woman who prayed to her. If you read this blog (and
I have no idea why you would) you would know that I am a sceptic (or skeptic if you prefer) and an atheist and a rationalist and a scientist. Now that I have a degree I can official say that 
I am a scientist (although I am not a doctor.... yet). I do not believe in miracles, and I certainly don't believe in this "miracle".

First of all: Misdiagnoses is possible. She could have had a much milder form of cancer than she was lead to believe. Doctors are human beings. Just because a doctor says you are
going to die doesn't mean you are. Many cancer patients have been told that they have only a few months to live yet manage to hang on a lot longer than that. Medical science isn't exact
because every human body is different, and not all doctors are trained equally.

Second of all: Cancer can spontaneously go into remission. The body DOES have an immune system and yes, if you know a bit about biology, it can attack and destroy tumors. This can
happen. Cancer can be cured by the body itself. It's very rare, but it does happen. You just have to be VERY lucky. Which this woman was.

Third of all: How many people who prayed to Mary MacKillop are cured of their disease? You don't hear THAT statistic mentioned a lot do you? I have no doubt in my mind that MacKillop has
a 99.9% failure rate. Which means that the 0.1% of successes is very suspect and can probably be attributed to misdiagnoses and doctor error. If MacKillop-praying worked 100% of the time
or hell, even 50% of the time, I'd admit you might have a miracle going on there. But the fact of the matter is that prayer, as a form of cancer therapy, almost never works and any positive
benefits it has are statistically insignificant.

And predictably, Cardinal George Pell (who is a colossal idiot by the way), has said that cancer can be cured by prayer. Well, I hope his followers don't listen to him, or he's going to have a lot
of blood on his hands. But you know what? Fine. To all you religious fundamentalists with cancer out there, who hate science and believe in your fables, go ahead - don't go to a hospital. By 
all means, pray your cancer away. We'll see how many of you live.

By all means let them reject hospitals and doctors. I mean, what do we scientists know, right?! Go ahead. More hospital beds for those who appreciate what doctors are doing.

Of course they're hypocrites you know. I can't tell you how many "believers" out there will go to a doctor if they have cancer. Of course, if they die, it's the doctor's fault. But if they live, suddenly
Jesus is the one to praise. For once I want them to put their life where their mouth is - if they believe in a god, a benevolent all powerful creator with a plan, then ACTUALLY believe in him! If you
religion is so much better than science, then don't use our medicine, DON'T use our science. Don't be a hypocrite. Either trust in science or trust in religion. Go ahead.

It's funny how people change when the chips are really down.
6:09 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 

Current mood:  amused
Category: Blogging
Internet Filter - Good and Bad

As with most things, the proposed Internet Filter has good and bad points. Mostly bad points, but not everything about it is absolutely awful.

Good Points:

1) Blocking Child Pornography: This is undoubtedly a good thing. Child pornography is one of the worst things you can possibly put on the internet and one of the worst things you can get, 
no questions about that. And any attempt to block access to sites which are known to show child pornography is a good thing. I don't think anyone is really arguing against that.

2) Potentially limited impact on speed: The government is not doing what China is doing - not totally anyway. Rather than filter against certain words, the government is only emulated the
chinese filter 50% of the way by blocking only certain sites. As long as the list of those sites is small (a few hundred), then any impact on speed might be too small to notice. Then again, the
"report" to investigate any impact the filter would have on internet speeds was incredibly poorly done, even by govenrment standards, with extremely poor controls, small sample size and all
all it was pretty crummy.

3) It blocks other bad stuff, maybe: I don't think most people in Australia would approve of anyone visiting sites which dispensed information on how to build bombs or make drugs. This filter
might block access to this information. If you're dumber than a cucumber that is.

Bad Points:

1) The government gets to decide what is "bad": The government filter will ban anything that is RC'ed in Australia. That is "Refused Classification". A popular video game was RC'ed
recently, a video game by the name of Left 4 Dead 2. If you play games you would know that this is a ridiculous ban. If the government can make a mistake banning video games which it
deems to be "too violent" then what else might they ban? I'm all for banning illegal material, but what if the government decides to ban things it considers to be "morally damaging"?
I'll tell you what you've got then: China. Recently in China, they launched a crackdown on "morally harmful" websites. Sound a bit close to home? Not only that, the crazy christian right
in Australia are clamoring for the government to ban anything it personally doesn't like. This filter might be used to just ban illegal sites. But how do we know? That brings me to my second
"bad point" which is.....

2) The government's "blacklist" is secret and secretly determined: The government, and the government ALONE, has the power to "blacklist" sites it does not like with no public input.
What sites it bans and why it bans then, is classified information. Already, a allegedly leaked government "ban" lists have included sites which have no illegal material, and even completely bizarre
bans on sites like a bakery site or a dentist site, by accident. If this leaked list is true (the government says it is not), then that means that the government is going to become your nanny and
lean over your shoulder any time you use your computer and say "tut-tut, would you show that at Sunday school? No? Well BAN then".

3) It will probably slow down your internet connection: The test the government did was poorly done and with a very small initial list. Sure maybe the filter won't cause too many
problems when the list is small but what happens when the list (inevitably) expands to include thousands upon thousands of websites? What then?

4) It's bloody useless: Unlike many civil libertarians, this filter does not scare me. Because it is unworkable and useless and unfeasible. Even the Chinese government can't block people from
accessing what they want, and they are 1000 times more draconian and intrusive than the Australian government. Plus, if you haven't noticed, the internet is growing all the damn time. Hundreds
if not thousands of websites are created EVERY SINGLE BLOODY DAY. If the government is going to have a "site list" then that list will quickly become useless as more and more sites are
created. The only way to ever "police the net" would be to control what people can enter into search engines, and when you start to do that, not only have you become China, the effort will end in
tears as people will always find ways around the so-called "intelligent" filters. So the government has two options: It can try to ban specific sites, which it will be unable to do because hundreds 
of sites are created every day on the net, or it can try to ban content, which is illegal, unconstitutional and completely unenforceable.

How are they going to police the net? How many people will they employ to "monitor" all the sites being made every single day? How long will it take and how many resources will it consume
to process each site, determine if it should be banned or not, file and answer appeals from banned sites, monitor and update the list, and deal with the ISPs and the angry users?

This ban does not scare me, for the sheer simple reason that it cannot work. The Howard government tried to implement it,and they failed. This government is going ahead regardless of the
technical impossibilities, but they still cannot deny the reality of the situation. The simple fact of the matter is that unless you install chips into everyone's computer and enact laws that make
China look like a freedom paradise, you cannot control the internet. Hell, I know people who can easily find ways to get around it, right now. My brother knows how to thwart the filter,
undetectably and easily.

The Australian Internet Filter: Useless, Unwanted and Unenforceable. Conroy (our communications minister), you are an idiot. A certifiable idiot who knows NOTHING about the internet.

What a fool he is.

12:13 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, December 11, 2009 

Current mood:  lethargic
Category: Blogging
Another useless summit

Well another day, another useless UN sponsored summit. Frankly, I have no idea why leaders continue to go to these summits.
It's not like anything useful occurs at these meetings. It's just basically a talk fest, a "get-your-head-in-front-of-a-camera" opportunity 
by world leaders to show their people that, yes, indeed, they really do care about Climate Change. I watched some of the speeches,
and they consisted of the same dross that was spoken in 2005. "We must work NOW", "we must take decisive action", "we're all in
this together", "we can't fail" and of course "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"

Nothing ever happens, of course. What, did you really think you could gather the governments of hundreds of nations from all over the
world into one room and reach an agreement? They've been meeting with each other at the UN for years and they STILL never agree with
each other about anything.

You want to reach an agreement on climate change? You want an international agreement to stop global warming? Well here's what you
do:

1) Get the US, Japan, Russia, China, Germany, the UK, France, India and Brazil into one room. Those are the only nations that really matter. 
Sorry to all the other smaller nations, but those 9 nations alone account for the most pollution. They also have the most clout on the 
international scene. Forgive my arrogance, but I really don't think Angola or Micronesia or Switzerland are vital to stopping global warming.
The big nations caused the pollution and ANY useful agreement in regards to tackling this problem need to involve those nations first and
foremost. Getting other nations involved just complicates things. Don't think that for a minute the smaller guys can strong-arm the bigger guys.
It just doesn't work that way.

2) Make the four top economies of the World (US, Japan, China, Germany) agree to the same cuts. I am sick of China hiding behind the phrase
"developing nation". Anytime anyone asks for China to do anything, they jump up and scream "we're developing, DEVELOPING!" For Pete's
sake guys, you're the third, soon to be second, largest economy in the frickin' world, the largest polluter and potentially one of the biggest losers
if climate change is not bought under control. If climate change is as bad as they say it is, they are going to suffer more than the US if the planet
does warm by more than 3 degrees. I know that the US polluted a lot throughout history and it seems unfair that you have to deal with the problem
but the Chinese have a reputation for being practical and if they don't cut back on emissions they will be dooming themselves. Plus, it's just
shameful - come on guys, you want to be respected, you want to be recognized as being rich and powerful, but then you want to run away from
responsibility. That's just shameful and it will hurt you more than the US in the end. You can't view this problem as a way to leap ahead of the US.
Any solution to this problem will involve China having to make a significant contribution. This is an opportunity for China to show that it is willing to
lead the way and be seen as a world leader.

3) Stop the blame game. The blame game is fun, I play it all the time. It works best in groups of four or more. But this is not the time for the blame
game, so put away the board, the dice and the spinner. At the summit, half the speeches were delivered by poorer nations basically screaming on
about how evil the US is, how evil white people are, and how they caused all the problems therefore they must fix all the problems

While I'll agree that would be poetic justice, the universe is not poet and climate change does not possess a sense of justice or karma. Climate change
is not something that will solely affect the large countries, it will affect EVERYONE, and EVERYONE must work towards a solution. Should the
developed nations take on a larger role than developing nations? Absolutely. Should they shoulder the entire burden by themselves? Okay, fair's fair. They
made all that money polluting so they should have to pay for the cost of cleaning it up. Can you force them to do so?

Hah. Fat chance.

The smaller nations cannot push around the larger ones. It's a sad situation, but that's the honest truth. The US is not going to be pressured by PNG or
Honduras or Tuvalu. China is not going to be forced into an agreement because Angola says it should. Germany is not going to bow to Chile. It would be
NICE if that happened, don't get me wrong, it WOULD be justice to see the US, UK, France, Germany, China and Japan clean up the mess they created,
but let's leave the nice fairy tales at home where they belong. You are going to have to work WITH the big powers if you are going to solve a BIG problem.

That's just the nature of the world.

Oh and in other news, go to youtube or google video and type this in:

The Horribly Slow Murderer with the extremely inefficient weapon

Watch the video.

Laugh.

That is all.

12:40 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 

Current mood:  argumentative
Category: Blogging
....................

Another argument, another foolish mistake

I have really got to develop a stiff upper lip. It would save me a great deal of trouble.

I have really got to learn to stop correcting other people’s opinions.... no matter HOW STUPID they are.

Because people resent it. People don’t like being told that they are wrong, even when they are.

I got into a series of arguments recently. Who they were with doesn’t really matter I suppose, because everyone is ignorant about something. However, when rational people are ignorant about a topic, they don’t feel that they have the right to run their mouth off at people who know a bit more than them on said topic.

I think that anyone who is even remotely interested in international affairs knows about NATO. You know, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO was formed to act as a deterrent to any form of Soviet Aggression in Europe. The US thought that the combined might of Europe’s conventional armies might match the Soviet Union’s numerical advantage in tanks and soldiers.

The person I was arguing with said the following:

1) That there were more NATO soldiers than US soldiers in afghanistgan and

2) That China was part of NATO.

To anyone with even the slightest grasp of contemporary politics, those two statements are ludicrous. It’s as ludicrous as suggesting that Vatican City is on the UN Security Council.

First of all.... THE UNITED STATES WAS THE FRICKIN FOUNDER OF NATO. The US is the largest contributor of NATO forces. US troops are counted AS NATO TROOPS BECAUSE THE US IS PART OF NATO!!! And secondly, if you consult a map, you would quickly realize that China does not border the Atlantic Ocean. That is quite a problem if China wanted to join, since NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Against my better judgement I attempted to correct this person on their ignorance. I quietly said that they were mistaken and that yes, the US is part of NATO and that no, China is not part of NATO and has no troops in Afghanistan. I used a level tone of voice and I mildly pointed out that they were just mistaken factually.

I got yelled at. Not only did this person ferociously maintain that they were correct, but they accused me of being arrogant, stubborn, and wrong.

Yes, well, apparently being accurate is the same thing as being arrogant. Apparently, everyone’s opinion is just as valid as any other and it was oh so wrong for me to point out slight fact that THEY WERE HORRIBLY AND TOTALLY WRONG!

Ah but I have learned my lesson! I have learned once more that facts are not welcome if people don’t like them! I have learned that even if you are completely ignorant about a topic, your opinion still counts! I have learned that edu-cay-shun is just another elitist, liberal flaw that I have.

Never again will I correct anyone.

But now I get to take offense if anyone corrects me!

So without further ado:

·         Michael Jackson is not actually dead but has gone into space to negotiate with the lizard people of Krizpoon 12.

·         NATO is actually run by Russia and Australia has 500,000 troops in Afghanistan, and the US has about five because that allows us to criticize the US more if we take that statement to be true.

·         Evolution never happened because my 2000 year old book written by primitive dirt farmers said all animals were magicked into existence by an invisible sky god in six days

·         Global Warming isn’t occurring because 2 scientists were caught cheating. Ignore the thousands of other scientists who didn’t cheat and reported facts reliably, if just  TWO scientists did something bad, then the whole thing is wrong. Also, it was cold one day in my neighbourhood, so that means that Global Warming isn’t happening because apparently Global Warming = Neighbourhood warming, and if MY local area is a bit chilly that means that the world must be cooling. Right

·         The Sky is Purple-Blue. It is BECAUSE I SAY SO.

If you think I’m wrong, I will take offense. Because everyone’s opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s. To think otherwise would be elitist and for Pete’s sake we don’t want to acknowledge the fact that someone might be more intelligent and more informed then we are! I might have shelled peanuts for a livin’ on a dirt farm in Kentucky but ah’s reckon’s ah’s knows more about that there climate-y thingy then them egg-heads on they’s Ivoriee Towah!

5:55 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Friday, December 04, 2009 

Current mood:  morose
Category: Blogging
The Burj Dubai has been finished in two senses of the word

You've probably heard of the Burj Dubai - the world's largest building by far. It's an impressive feat of American Engineering (hey Americans designed and built it, Dubai just paid for it) and certainly a sight for the eyes.

Too bad no one wants to use it.

As it turns out, building the Burj Dubai has almost bankrupted the nation which had already lost a lot of money in the 2008 Economic Crisis. Also, the floor space price per square meter is ridiculously expensive, and there's no real advantage for having an office in such an absurdly large tower.

They really didn't think this through did they? Building a very large building in the middle of a major city can work. Building a very large city in the middle of a desert does not. To be fair, it's not exactly in the middle of a desert - it's in the middle of a half-finished city that is in the desert.

It's a very nice building and a feat of engineering. Too bad that it was built in the wrong place.
3:44 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Thursday, December 03, 2009 

Category: Blogging
Rees is out

Rees, the NSW premier, is now the former NSW premier. He got the sack today, thrown out by his own party who were upset at his performance.

I don't live in NSW. I don't really know much about Rees or his replacement. What I do know is that she was born in the US and has an atrociously fake Australian accent.

I wish Kristina Keneally all the best of luck in her new job, and I'm glad we have yet another female premier alongside Bligh. It's also true that NSW was, as a whole, unsatisified with Rees, and this change might save the ALP from losing NSW in the upcoming election.

But seriously Mrs Keneally - just speak with your normal voice. You were born in the US and you shouldn't have to hide that at all. I like American accents, and as a nation made up of so many immigrants, you should not be afraid to speak as you probably do at home.

Besides, your fake Australian accent is horrible. It sounds really wierd because your normal american accent keeps on breaking through, so you sound like you're struggling to speak at times.

There's nothing wrong with having an American accent. Just speak as you normally would.
5:43 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
Wednesday, December 02, 2009 

Current mood:  anxious
Category: Blogging
And now I get to really relax

Got distinctions for all my subjects for my first year of my master's degree. Which is pretty cool.

Honestly I probably did not deserve the grades I got. For one of my subjects, the assessment was basically just a re-hashing of the work I did for my Honours degree, which was very lucky for me. As for my paper review and my research proposal, I think my supervisor might have been a little lenient with me.

In any case, I get to relax. Finally. The stress this year was not too great, since I did well enough on my assignments to be virtually guaranteed a pass. I was a bit worried about the review I had to do though - since I wasn't allowed to give drafts to my supervisors, I had no idea whether or not my review was correct.

Turns out it probably was. Which is a relief. It confirms my suspicion that I'm not a complete moron! I have the astounding ability to recognise certain symbols of ink on paper and interpret those symbols into meaningful chunks of information which my brain can process! Hooray! I'm smarter than a sea sponge! I always knew I was at least as intelligent as a rather dim-witted bear, but now I'm at least as intelligent as a cuttlefish, possibly more so!

In other news - The ALP ETS was voted down. The Liberal party doesn't want to appear fractured, which means that for the moment they are co-operating. I don't think Rudd will call an early election - he knows that the public knows that the failure to pass the ETS falls squarely on Abbott. Rudd negotiated with the Liberals, granted over 200 concessions, and still the Liberal party failed to pass the bill, even though they said they would. This makes the Liberal party look like liars - why bother to negotiate with the Liberals if all they want to do is block it anyway? Plus, confounding expectations, many nations, including China, are actually going to propose significant carbon cuts at the next Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen. Rudd can legitimately point to the Liberal Party as the reason why Australia has fallen once again behind the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with atmospheric pollution. Again, this will make Abbott look bad.

Abbott has also proposed a Nuclear Option to deal with the Climate Change problem he only pretends to believe in. Actually I think this is a good idea. I have always liked Nuclear Power, and I have always been dismayed at the inaccurate portrayl of its dangers and benefits by popular culture. However, this is not a good political move. Many Australians, sadly, know nothing about how nuclear power plants work, and know nothing about the improvements to reactor technology that make present-day nuclear reactors extremely safe. All Rudd has to do is shout "Chernobyl" and Australians will panic. Australians do not want Nuclear Power, and Abbott has already made a serious blunder on his first day as Leader. How sad.

Obama has decided to send about 30,000~40,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan and has informed the Afghan government that he will start to move US troops out of that country by the middle of 2011. This does not bode well for Afghanistan. Little has changed since the 2001 invasion - still barely any functioning infrastructure, still no economy not based on heroin and opium, the population is barely educated and has no skills to maintain any of the infrastructure built by the US, and the situation on the border with Pakistan is still a massive problem.

This was always going to happen though - Afghanistan was and is a complete mess of a country. Fixing afghanistan, as I've said before, would take at least 100 years and trillions upon trillions of dollars, and possibly as much as half a million US and NATO troops. This isn't post-war Germany or Japan, in which the population was reasonably well educated, literate and had a structured government. Afghanistan is a decaying wreck of a country, its population are barely literate and the entire nation is about 200 years stuck in the past when it comes to women's rights and science and mathematics and religious matters. Afghanistan is nothing like a modern nation state, and to build it up from what it is now into a working, functioning democracy by 2011 is a fool's dream.

But don't blame Obama for that. In fact, don't even blame Bush. Blame Bin Laden and the Taliban for the US invasion and blame them even more so for the mess Afghanistan is in now. They are the ones who wrecked afghanistan. It was always a foolish dream to believe we could "save" that nation. The truth is that Afghanistan can only be fixed by two things:

1) The Afghans themselves
2) Time

Trying to build a nation from the ground up and impose a radically different culture from the one that is currently in place, is a project doomed to failure. It's not Obama's fault. He didn't start the war. It's not even Bush's fault - he didn't even want to invade Afghanistan in the first place (he always wanted to invade Iraq, however). It's not the Afghan people's fault either. If I had to pin it on any one nation, I'd pin it on the Russians. It's their fault the entire country was destroyed in the rather horrible Soviet-Afghan war in the 80's, and it's also their fault for attracting all the radicals to that region.

Then again, maybe the US does share some of the blame, for giving the mudjahadeen the weapons necessary to drive out the Soviets from that country. Had the soviet union taken over and retained control of Afghanistan, maybe things would be better by today.
7:08 AM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate