btw, this is the result of me using a service called stumbleupon and fishing out articles that i think are worthy.
sorry if this offends anyone's sense of ... volume.http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html
I liked this interview.
I liked Douglas Adams.
I like slint.
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
[James Madison, 1803]
funny how americans only quote the founding fathers when they are talking about freedom and liberty, not religious freedom and liberty:
[laws establishing freedom of religion]..."were meant to include within them the Muslim, the Hindoo [sic], and the infidel of any sort."
[Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew, Dethloff, Henry C., ed. Thomas Jefferson and American Democracy. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co. 1971]
Its kinda interesting this one, because I (with my underdeveloped legal mind) actually thought
that when Ruddock brought this up, I thought that maybe this was okay. A bit dodgy, but okay. But I'm thinking in their terms - let's charge him any goddamm way we can, even if its a hodge-podge of civil, military and donald duck laws.
I say no more quack!
(from the article:)
The prior existence of a domestic crime applicable to civilians is quite irrelevant to this case. Hicks is facing trial for alleged war crimes that didn't exist at the date of his supposed transgressions and no amount of dust being thrown in our eyes by people in the US and Australia, eager to shore up this shameless kangaroo process, should disguise that fact.
The important question is: are material support for terrorism and attempted murder in violation of the law of war actually war crimes? In relation to the particulars of the Hicks case, the answer is no.
You only have to think of attempted murder in a theatre of war to see how ludicrous it is. Hicks was fighting for the Taliban which, whatever one may think of it, in 2001 was the government of Afghanistan. To take up arms and fight as a soldier for a government in a war is not illegal.
so it turns out that the flag was wrong anyway, as well as ... well, just kinda crap and overly anglo-centric.
From the article:
Anyway, the astronomer noted, the flag's Southern Cross is only a fleeting stellar feature. Three of its stars, hot giants, are doomed to burn out in a few million years.
So maybe we can replace the union jack with the stars?
Or maybe a picture of great fat wads of cash.
Greetings to you on this happy australia day, or rather, your own particular version of it. I just watched a particularly interesting australia day commentary on abc where the presenter went around to interview many facets of Australians: the convict descendents, the proud british descendents, the native aborigines, immigrant Iranians; the one thing that I found was that whenever the australian flag was involved, I invariably attached a dislike for the people involved.
For somehow, friends, I have become a card carrying flag hater. Never given to overt displays of nationalism at the best of times, I have become almost obsessed with the degree with which people misrepresent flags in order to rally around a particular idea. In this case, we have a flag which is basically a defaced version of the British naval ensign. Showing all of the verve and imagination which could have come from the same marketing genius who sold meat pies back in the 50´s (meat pies, they´re meat, and they´re pies, and they´re Australian... eat them!), we looked up in the sky and decided that the southern cross would be a great symbol of us. Don´t get me wrong, I think the southern cross is a great constellation, and worthy of much discussion, but thinking about it logically, ... pretty much all of the southern hemisphere could lay claim to it, so its hardly ´uniquely australian´.
Basically what the federation star being under the union jack says to me is this: Australians still think of themselves as being under the British rule. The southern cross is saying, yeah, we´re basically a southern hemisphere version of the British. This, considering all of our multicultural heritage, seems completely anomolous to where we are moving as a country, and to re-embrace a flag which holds those ties seems quite illogical to me, especially considering its exclusion of any non-british Australians (and yes, surprisingly, they do exist in much larger numbers than the White Australia policy could ever have imagined!).
So, historically, people say we´ve fought under the australian flag in World War 1, World Ware 2, all these wars, all these brave soldiers fighting under the flag. We can´t possibly change it, can we? WW1 we were fighting under the Union Jack. WWII we were fighting under the Union Jack, with a small portion fighting under the (then unoffical Australian Flag). Indeed, the Australian flag as we know it today was only ratified in 1953, a far cry from those who would have us believe that it has been a part of Australia since federation.
My beef is as follows:
1. The flag is divisive
2. The flag is not indicative of its population
3. It promotes an us vs them mentality
4. Its backwards, not forwards looking.
5. It offends me in its complete unoriginality.
There are probably people out there that will even hate me for holding such a harsh view on the flag, but this will just go to further my claim that its all about the us and them. And nothing about Australia and its future prosperity.
god save the queen!
See you all soon, I'm off to Melbourne for a few days, and then hoooome,...
cos its such a perfect day.
i'm glad i spent it with you...
Tue, Oct. 31st, 2006, 07:04 pm
emo me baby.
This one's for the emo's out there, just waiting to cry. :)