Gay Marriage

What is the big deal? I just don't get it. I'm not religious, so I don't subscribe to any 'bible's' version of marriage. I'm not a politician, so I don't have to worry about what anyone else thinks. I don't think marriage should just be between a man and a woman; I think it should be between two people who love each other and want to make a committment to each other - regardless of their sex.

Do 'they' really think that heterosexual couples are the best role models for what makes a good marriage? Look at the divorce rate in virtually every developed country. Obviously, we straight people have no idea what marriage means and the 'tradition' of marriage has been ruined. Don't forget, too, that traditional marriage did not include divorce. It also did not include any rights for women. Or rights for children. Father knew best; he was the head of the family and he ruled the roost. Those that talk about tradition need to look how those traditions have changed. Marriage used to be for property and alliances, not love. Is that a tradition we want to keep? Just because something has always been one way, does not mean it has to stay that way. We've moved forward in so many areas of life, particularly in women's rights and minority rights; surely this is the next logical step.

Maybe our gay friends can show us what it really means to be married. Let's face it, they couldn't possibly do worse than us straights.

Revenue raising

They're at it again. Tonight, the ad for Today Tonight on Channel 7 showed a story about police being made to fill quotas for speeding fines and the like. A very indignant voice-over stated that the government is revenue raising and they're after you! Well, here's the thing. There is only one way the government can raise revenue in relation to vehicle fines. It's not putting more police with radar guns on the road. It's not hiding them behind bus stops or underpasses. It's not mobile units following us. It's not giving the police quotas to fill. Are you ready for it? The only way the government can raise revenue is ...

IF YOU BREAK THE LAW.

That's right. If you drive within the speed limit, wear your seat belt, don't talk on you mobile phone, don't get distracted by the stereo or your passengers, don't road rage, you won't get a fine and the government CANNOT raise revenue from you.

And you know what? There's a couple of added bonuses that the tv shows usually leave out of their sensationalised stories. Driving safely not only helps you avoid fines; it also increases your chances of getting to your destination in one piece. Imagine if everyone drove like that, everyone would get where they wanted to go. No more death knocks on the door. The other bonus is the government would not need to raise revenue - revenue that goes to our hospital and rehabilitation centres, where the victims of idiots end up - because those costs would decrease. Win-win in my opinion.

The only time I want to hear someone griping about a ticket is if a genuine mistake has been made. I'm sure it happens, no system (or person) is infallible. Then, and only then, do you have the right to complain. Otherwise, shut the hell up, get a clue, and do the right thing. It might just save your life.

Twitter

I started a twitter account months ago and then promptly forgot about it. Last week, I found the username and password, typed it in, and found that I had 3 followers! Following what? I haven't sent one tweet yet! So, I decided to find some people to follow and started with Dave Hughes from The 7pm Project. Then I looked at who he follows and added a few of them. And so on and so forth. Suddenly I had 45 people I was following, from all over the world. All of them verified accounts of celebrities. Over the last week, I have been reading the pearls of wisdom these celebs have been tweeting - wow, there's minutes of my life I'll never get back. I still haven't posted a tweet myself, not even a retweet or a reply. I must do that though, see if the celebs really do write back. Interesting experiment at least.

I realise I haven't ranted about this topic, so here it is. I have no interest in tweeting anything, and I really don't care about what these people have to say. But, I can't stop reading them!! There's something appealing about being a 'fly on the wall', so to speak, in these people's lives. Why can't I stop? What is so fascinating about 140 characters of misspelled (due to lack of space, I'm sure), inane, and let's face it, totally uninteresting tweets? I can only hope that this is as far as the obsession goes. I don't know what I'll do if I start sending tweets of my own!

Another way of looking at climate change

I watched an interview with Stephen Fry today where he discussed climate change. I don't have a transcript, so this is not verbatim, but the gist of his view was this. Most of us live our lives as though there is a hell, even those who don't exactly believe in it. Just in case. When we die, if there is no hell, well then there's oblivion and we are no worse off. If there is a hell, then we've dodged that bullet.

If we live our lives in a way that will stop the effects of climate change, and it turns out that climate change is a myth, what will we be left with? A planet with less pollution, a smaller carbon footprint, and a nicer place to live all round! This is a fantastic way of looking at it. If the politicians made these goals the priority, rather than fighting over whether climate change really exists or not, we will all win. Surely that's more important than being right.

Idiots on our roads

I was watching one of those police reality shows the other night and they showed a man who, about 7 years ago, was driving drunk and killed a 10 year old girl. I think he went to jail back then for a short time, and one of his bail conditions was that he couldn't drink and they suspended his licence. On this show, he was picked up by the police - driving and drunk - three times over the limit. So, what did the courts give him? A 9 month sentence, suspended for one year. They also added more time to his licence suspension. BIG DEAL! This is a serial offender who has been caught driving many times before, and the cameras caught him driving again after his court appearance. To me, that's it. He's gone. Throw him in jail and throw away the key. He obviously has no respect for the law, no respect for himself and his family, and absolutely no respect for the rest of us. What's it going to take before the court gets tough on him? Does someone else need to die? Because it's for sure that he won't kill himself in a crash - that just doesn't happen.

There's another side to this story. If he's driving on a suspended licence, whose car is he driving? He should not be allowed to have a car registered in his name while the suspension is in place. In fact, I believe it should be taken off him completely. Either impounded or he can transfer it into a relative's name. Then, if he is caught driving, that car is impounded immediately. You can't tell me that his friends and family don't know he is suspended, and if they allow him to drive, they deserve to lose their car. Unless they can prove that they didn't know (which would be almost impossible to do), they should also lose the right to have a car at all. It's harsh, I know, but it seems to me to be the only way we can stop these dickheads driving on the road with me and my child. As I said in a previous post, if the reason they don't go to jail is because of overcrowding, then get the white collar criminals out and put idiots like this in.

Linguistics

I'm currently studying Linguistics at university and I've discovered something terrible! I love the English language and hate when people misuse it. But, as a linguist, I can no longer get mad when someone says 'yous' or 'I seen that movie'. It is seen as simply different ways of saying things. As a person though, I can still wince when I hear them. Until I actually work as a linguist, I will continue to despair at the way language is (mis)used. Once I'm qualified, I will grit my teeth and inwardly cringe.

Jon Venables

I know it's in England, not Australia, but this is a world wide issue. Why was Jon Venables face not able to be shown to anyone but the judge? I understood why they did that when he was first released from prison - I believe everyone has the right to a second chance. But that's it. If you blow that chance, goodbye, back to jail, never to be released. Jon Venables blew his chance. Child pornography is one of the most heinous crimes anyone can commit. It's right up there behind murder, rape and child molestation. If we're not going to throw them in jail and throw away the key, then anyone found guilty of this charge needs to have his or her face shown on every media outlet possible, worldwide. Their names should be immediately added to any sex offender register available. We need to protect our children.

This brings me to serial offenders of any crime. I believe there are jurisdictions where everyone has three strikes. Third strike, no matter how minor the charge, you're back in jail. I love it! As long as they stay in jail. How often does that happen though? Overcrowding is often cited as the main reason criminals are released early. Well, I don't know about other countries, but in Australia, there are people in jail for 'white' collar crimes - tax evasion, etc. Alan Bond and Glenn Wheatley come to mind. If jails are overcrowded, why are these people in there? They didn't physically hurt anyone. They may have defrauded the tax system or shareholders, but how is putting them in jail where they can't earn any money to pay it back, going to help anyone? Give them community service, preferably with the kind of people who were hurt by their actions so they can really see what they've done. Stop putting those like Glenn Wheatley in jail for two years, and letting idiots who drink drive or consistently speed, get suspended sentences, which means they're back on the road - the same roads I drive on. How is this fair? But that's another rant for another time ...

Fair pay for police

There's an ad on tv in Queensland about all of the public servants getting a 4% pay rise. All, that is, except for those who do the hardest job of all. No, I'm not talking about those desk bound jockeys whose biggest threat is RSI, I'm talking about the boys and girls in blue. Why is this even an issue? The answer is simple. These are the people that protect us - they are not the ones that put the assholes back on the street - that's the court system. Any time there is a pay rise for public servants, the police get the same rise ... plus another 1%. They're worth it.

Imagine doing your job every day, thinking that project was finished and you could move on to the next one, only to find that same project on your desk the next day, ready for you to start all over. Would you feel as though you'd achieved something? And that only affects you (and maybe your loved ones if you took your frustration home). Some of these assholes that the court system spews back into society, affect all of us in some way.

So Anna Bligh, when you finally realise your mistake and give the police the pay rise they deserve, how about you look into sentencing. Let's start seeing the punishment fit the crime.