Cracks showing but no break
US Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has picked Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, as his surprise running mate.
BBC News - Read more ...
If she was picked primarily because she was a woman, then this is a step backwards from breaking that glass ceiling.
It will only truly be broken when real opportunities are available to women and when all achievements are recognised equally. Not because of some desperate tokenism.
Labels: pov
Sunday Paper Snippet II
DOCTORS say the State Government's decision to include a 24-week gestational threshold after which a woman will need the approval of two doctors in order to terminate a pregnancy creates an unnecessary complication in the bill to decriminalise abortion.
theage.com.au - Read more ...
After reading this article today, I couldn't believe that there a people who believe a woman can decide at any time to have an abortion.
The law has to specify a threshold to stop all but the absolutely necessary late-term abortions. I've never believed that abortion should not be available legally, but the thought of a woman and her doctor being able to agree to a termination of her pregnancy at anytime before the birth horrifies me.
Labels: pov
One rule for us...
"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people," said Mr Bush.
"Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century."
BBC News - Read more ...
So, was the invasion of Iraq okay because a) it wasn't a neighbouring state; b) it wasn't a democratically elected government; or c) it was unfinished business from the 20th century?
Labels: pov
All was well ...
.. until I read those lines.
I finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows this morning. A bit behind the times, I know, but the rest of my collection is in paperback so I waited until now. It's made me feel a bit emotional. Not balling-my-eyes-out emotional, but a bit might-cry-if-I-watched-Lassie emotional (the old TV series - not one of the later telemovies that was on 7 recently).
I think there's a few things at play here. I can't mention them all in case I spoil it for you. Actually, to hell with it. The book's been out for a while now and if Scott Mills reckons 24 hours is okay to publicly talk about a TV episode, then I reckon a year is okay for a book. But, if you are thinking you'll read the books later, then consider this your SPOILER WARNING!
So, I first noticed myself getting a bit emotional last night when I read the chapter where Snape is found out to a good guy after all. It was so good to see that because I'd always believed that he was and I was devastated (that may be a bit of an overstatement) when he killed Dumbledore in the Half Blood Prince. I read that scene several times looking for anything that could give me a glimmer of hope that he was on Dumbledore's side. But I still didn't guess the truth.
I suppose the hint that Harry must die also put me in a good mood - I've never really liked him.
Then, this morning, I read the rest of the book. There was some humour, loads of action, and Good winning over Evil. What more could you want. I was taken along with the whole of Potter's journey and was sad to see it end.
But I think the real reason I felt a little emotional is because - secretly - I wouldn't have minded being a wizard myself. And the final chapter means there is no more of that world to be revealed.
Labels: pov
Double Standards
The foreign media outrage over the limits placed on the internet — a bit self-righteous, but fair enough over all — and the suggestions that some in the International Olympic Committee had cut a deal to renege on the agreement to allow free reporting, seemed to set up a culture clash between a China paranoid about dissent and a West that values free speech, even when it's uncomfortable.
Sunday Age Editorial - Read more ... (probably for a limited time)
I'm pleased to see somebody else acknowledge that the calls from the world's media for unrestricted access to the internet were slightly over the top.
I do agree that there was a story here, because there was obviously a difference between what the journalists believed they were promised and what they got. But there seems to be demands called of China that we wouldn't make of any other country.
The editorial later says that the latest agreement is for only sites that are pornographic or deemed to be subversive to the Chinese national interest will be blocked. Which sounds fair enough to me.
I've always seen the Games as an olive branch to China to start having better relations with the rest of the world. It was never conditional of adopting western social standards, and it shouldn't have been. They've got a long journey to make, and we should fear the results if they go too quickly.
Labels: pov
Why?
Q&A is the australian version of the long running BBC show Question Time and, after a ropey start, it is beginning to become as enjoyable as its british counterpart. (Although I do wish Tony Jones would stop saying "We'll take that as a comment" whenever somebody in the audience makes a comment.)
This week, they took a question via a video submission that asked the panel (specifically a gay cabinet member and a prospective opposition leader with a large gay electorate) why they supported the ban on gay marriage. (Unfortunately, there isn't a transcript of the question, so I can't quote it.) The man didn't want to hear about the discrimination that had been removed, just why they supported the ban.
But isn't the removal of discrimination the key goal? So why try and remove it from the debate?
I think there's a need to rethink the many reasons why the state recognises marriage. Some benefits are granted to married couples because it is viewed as the best model for raising a family. With today's lack of respect for the institution leading to the high rate of divorce, I suspect that this argument has been lost. Some because of the recognition that a married couple live "as one" and share all that they have. This is where arguments for recognising close sibling relationships come in.
Essentially, society has moved on from the Christian teachings that our laws are based on. There needs to be a new model that respects the views of everybody. For those who want society and the law to recognise that they live their lives together and benefit from all the rights and priveleges that support the good that comes from it, to those who see marriage as a religious sacrament witnessed before God.
This can only be achieved if the Government replaces the Marriage Act with one that allows for different forms of recognised relationships. Whether they be called marriages, partnerships or unions.
Labels: pov
Should Politicians decide prison sentences?
I've just posted this message to the 'Have Your Say' section of BBC News Online
"How can politicians decide that someone deserves to be in prison for the rest of their life, without any hope of release, without hearing the individual case details? Prison should be a balance of punishment and reform, not a vote-winning policy. I certainly don't want my taxes paying for somebody in prison who has served their minimum sentence (the punishment) and is no longer a danger to society (the reform)."
Labels: pov
