Math-Tastic!

I have now spent a lot of time wondering what the hell I want out of my life. It seems that every time I start thinking about this extremely clichéd question, the problem becomes more confusing and more annoying to try and answer. This is why I am going to present for your evaluation, my life capacity equation. I should note that this is not for everyone, and it certainly isn’t my attempt to figure out the “meaning of life”, it’s merely an evaluation tool. The equation is as follows: W * H – S^2= L.

W

W stands for “What I want in life”. This can be as detailed or as simple as I want, but to truly work out this equation, it’s best to be as comprehensive as possible. For me, and the purpose of this exercise, I will enter in three items: happiness, a steady income, and close friends. In this instance, 3 items means that W = 3. So now the equation is as follows: 3 * H  – S^2 = L.

H

H stands for “How I am getting what I want”. Here, it is required that I be as honest as possible to accurately solve this equation. For H, I need to list the things that I am actively doing to get the things listed under W. I must remember to be as honest as possible, and ruthless too. For example, I have a part-time job, but this does not count towards my goal of attaining a steady income, purely because if my goal is such, then clearly my part-time job is inadequate in fulfilling this goal. For the purpose of illustration, I will note down that I am currently doing 3 things to attain W: studying at university, maintaining my relationships and ensuring that my hobbies are getting enough time. (note that I did not use separate entries for each of my hobbies – ruthless) The equation now reads: 3 * 3 – S^2 = L.

S^2

S is simple: “What is stopping me from achieving my goals?” It is important for me to list things only that I am actively doing to stop myself from achieving my goals. The idea here is that the capacity to which you live is not suppressed by something that is out of your control, because this is not diminishing your persistence in living. It may harbour your success, but it is not stopping your effort and desire to try. Examples here are being lazy, spending my money frivolously, and not taking advantage of my studies. This value is 3, I will now have the equation: 3 * 3 – S^2 = L

The Equation

L = (3 * 3) – (S^2)

L = 9 – 9

L = 0

This number (L) indicates that I am not doing anything to further my goals, but I am not doing anything to hamper my achievements either. The result is interpreted as follows: a negative value indicates that you are moving away from your goals and dreams, a positive value indicates that you are moving towards your goals. The number relative to either side of the scale indicates the intensity by which you are moving towards or away from your goals.

Had I only had a value of 2 in place of S, then the result would have been 5, indicating that I am slowly moving towards my goals.

However, this result is intended to show to what capacity you are living to. Therefore, if you have only one goal, you are minimising the potential for your result to be of a positive, or higher positive number. This reflects the idea that by only having few goals, you are not maximising the potential to which you are living.

This equation is in it’s infancy, therefore, imperfect. Feedback would be most welcome.

Attitude Adjustment

When I wrote this article, I was sitting in a small café listening to some intresting jazz while sipping my latté. The café I was in doubles as a shope full of nic-nacs, t-shirts and other little trinkets that are made by many native and poverty stricken people from around the globe. For a lot of people, the reason behind shopping here is that it’s a fair trade shop, one that supports the ethical treatment of producers and manufacturers that are all too often exploited by greedy and powerful merchants or traders. These customers shop here so that they can make a difference, so that they will be contributing to a noble cause, thereby playing an active role in helping those who are in one way or another under oppression. I think this is fantastic, and these people should be commended for making the effort.

However, and as usual, this is a dangerous however, I can’t help but think that there is something lacking from this type of assistance. It’s almost as if it’s counterfiet, when I think about it, and it’s unsettling to realise that what I thought was a fairly noble endeavor may not be so noble after all. It’s a mixture of an exchange and a removing of person that gets me, and I’ll explain exactly what I mean. First of all, the exchange. In “assisting” these impoverished people, you are receiving a candle, or cup of coffee, or whatever you decide you would like. In the moment you receive any material benefit from the people you are assisting, surely the selflessness is removed from your act. This is what prevents me from throwing myself to this cause: charity carries with it an attitude of selfless endeavor, one that drives a person to put other people before themselves.

Next we have removal of person. This problem arises when you “assist” someone who is thousands of kilometers away in Uganda or Mozambique. When I think about the people I know of that have made the biggest impact in impoverished or oppressed areas of the world, those people are almost always in the thick of the action. Mother Teresa, one of the greatest humanitarians this world has ever seen, was bathing the feet of the sick and homeless. Fred Hollows was renowned for restoring the eyesight to thousands upon thousands of people, the majority of which recieved the gift for free. His hands touched the faces of those he helped, and I am supposed to believe that when I purchase a fair-trade coffee I am really supporting a cause?

Maybe the problem is with my wording; perhaps “supporting a cause” is too broad a term. There are so many varied ways in which assistance is given to the people that need it, there may be some need of clarification. The fact is, that exactly what supporting a cause means, and what it incorporates coudl stretch forever. I could go to a Red Cross centre and personally deposit five dollars into the donation tin. I could hop on a plane and jet over to Africa, lending my hands to build an orphanage for the many starving children that have no where else to go. Where does my support begin, or end for that matter? Must my actions stretch on forever for my support to be legitimate?

The question is still in front of me, begging for attention: Am I really supposed to believe that my purchasing of a cup of coffee is what supporting a cause is all about?

Yes.

Trust me, I’m as surpised as you are. The fact is it does not matter what you do. It doesn’t matter how many orphanages you build, nor how many cups of coffee you buy. The level or degree has nothing to do with changing things for the people that are stuck in the worst conditions on the planet. If change is ever going to be accomplished, the first step is not with money. It is with attitude. Before any changes can be made, people must be inclined to make them, and for that to happen, their attitude must reflect the need for these changes to take place. So the real need comes from the education of the people, who can then make changes to their attitude based on that education. Even if they decide to continue on with their lives without changing at all, that’s ok. We cannot force people to make changes when it comes to humanitarian goals, for this would be counterproductive to the cause for which we are fighting for.

So, it turns out, I was right all along, buying a cup of coffee is not what is required of society to make real changes to the people who need it most. Neither is adopting a little African child. It is the attitude with shich these actions are made that needs to be replecated throughout all people. This is the basis of real support of a cause.

Mass action will come from a massive attitude adjustment.

Demo-crap-sy…(It was a stretch but I got there)

I know there are a lot of people out there that complain about the government. Whether it’s Labor or Liberal, someone around Australia will have the inner need to whinge about the current Prime Minister, or Premier, or whatever. I will admit that I am one of these people; anyone who knows me will know that I am an avid anti-Rudd activist. However, it is not the party, nor the decisions, nor the person in office that I am about to rail against. No, it is our entire system of government that I am up against, and even though the following will likely be an incoherent pile of words, I hope my point will somehow squirm out from the wreckage and be seen by all.

I think it’s safe to say that the race to become the Prime Minister of Australia is made up of a series of popularity contests, each becoming more important and meaningful as one rises up in rank. These contests culminate in the grand event, the Prime Ministerial competition, the grab for votes we know as the election. This is essentially an attempt to convince as many people as possible that your party, whom you represent, and your policies, are the most appropriate way of leading this country to growth and security for all. The winning candidate is whom the most people side with.

On the surface, this sounds like the most fair and balanced way for people to elect their government, and it surely is. However, is it really the most appropriate way to select our government? My issue lies first, with myself. I can honestly say that I don’t know how to best run this country. I can also say that the policies I agree with are what drives me to vote for whichever candidate promotes those policies. My final conclusion is that the majority of the population is just like me – voting for what appeals to them. So the situation arises: our country’s leadership is determined by a lot of people who don’t really know what is best for our country, and are voting based on conscience and personal opinion. This effect is compounded by something that disturbs me even more.

The candidates and their backing parties are out there trying to win votes, or approval. The more they cater for the needs of the masses, the more their approval rating goes up. So, the more that they bend to the people that don’t really know what is best for our country, the more votes they will get. I want to reassure you all that I include myself in the category of those who haven’t the foggiest on the best way to run this country. The fact of the matter is, what is best for our country is often unpopular and something that isn’t really what people want to vote for. Therefore, we have a system that encourages appeasement of the masses rather than a system that places community and economic security above the personal opinion of the people. I find that it’s ironic that the best way to protect and provide for the people is to disregard the menial and trivial opinions they have. Of course, important decisions require public input, but that’s what we have referendums for.

The most appropriate leaders of this country will never be in the hot seat. Far more frustrating than that is that people like Kevin Rudd no doubt had the best of intentions in mind when he first became involved in politics. The sad truth is that he no doubt had to compromise so much of his morals and values to get to where he is today. In order to ensure the public would vote for him, I have no doubt that Mr. Rudd had to display his support for policies that were actually conflicting for him.

I am not saying that I have a solution, the purpose of this article is merely to complain, not to solve any problems (I also note that I have previously written an article about words without action being pointless, but I intend to act on these words eventually). Though I do find that our best idea for fair and just government election is possibly one of the most damaging. Putting it bluntly, the majority of our population aren’t qualified enough to vote properly. Voting for government based only on emotion or on personal opinion can be dangerous, especially en masse; if we take into consideration some of the meaner characters in history, we can deduce that many of them gained power through swaying their people by appealing to their emotions and giving them a side with which to match their opinions against. These are fairly general comparisons, but the point remains the same: the public aren’t fit to vote.

My unfortunate conclusion is that we will forever have a race between what is right what is comfortable, and I cannot say that I would back what is right to take home the gold. I hope that every voter will one day be willing to sacrifice what they think is best for them, or what they want out of the government, for what is best for the entire nation. Unfortunately I can’t see that happening – ever.

Australian Media: “Indians Aren’t People!”

I am choosing to write about something controversial just because I want to.

In Melbourne over the last few weeks, there have been an inordinate number of media stories, complaints, opinions, articles, arguments and international discussions about the attacks on people of Indian appearance in the inner suburbs of Old Melbourne Town. Although, based on the wet-pants reaction that the media and government have had, I shouldn’t be using the word people. I am not intending to be derogatory when I say this, just hear me out.

The knee-jerk response to these crimes has been a lot of talk about introducing new laws that measure the severity of a crime by taking into account the prejudice against the victim when the crime occured. Bascially, we are looking at talks about hate crime laws. Nowm the reason I shouldn’t be using the word people. Apparently, and according to the government and the Indian population, these victims are different to anyone esle that has been brutally bashed in Melbourne. Again, I want to point out that my position is not at all in support of bashing anyone, I am simply perplexed at the excitement that this has caused.

First, we have an idea that Indian people being beaten up is something that has never happened before. It looks like it’s only a recent trend that is picking up. Secondly, no one else in Melbourne gets beaten up other than Indian people. We are looking at a media that is telling us how horrible it is that these people have been bashed by ‘hate-filled’ criminals, while they overlook the hundreds upon hundreds of people, including Indians, that have been beaten up in the past. Before I continue, I will acknowledge that there are horrible poeple out there that have beaten up others purely because they despise Indian people. However, I need to point out that there are also Vietnamese people who get beaten up becuase they are Vietnamese, Chinese who get beaten up because they are Chinese and Australian people who get beaten up because they are Australian. The street violence in Melbourne has become worse over the last few years, but it has become worse for everyone, not any single race in particular. Only now, apparently, it is being recognised only in part. The sad truth is, that this level of coverage about the issue of Australians being a racist people, and the extensive reporting on these seemingly-more-important-than-crimes-of-the-same-nature bashings of Indian people, have done nothing but exacerbate the situation. I promise you that there are sick bastards out their, who have never had the idea that they hate Indian people before, have now had it planted in their minds by the mass coverage that our media has thoughtfully provided us with. Let’s face it, the culprits of these crimes are more than likely a highly encourageable and easily influenced type of person, not to mention the flamable nature they no doubt would carry. So instead of letting the police force do their job, and catch the people who are bashing people, we decide that a huge middle finger to any potential, yet not active, threat to this sort of thing being blown out of control. Smooth moves there, media.

The biggest greivance I have with this entire issue is the one of the ‘Racist people of Australia’. Let me get this straight. You think I am racist, and so demand to have laws written into our country’s constution that apply only to a particular race of people, placing them in a different category to all other races within that country. Ah, I see now.  It’s less racist to perpetuate the idea that all Australians are racist than it is for a very, very, very small minority of Australian people not liking your skin colour. Not only are you saying that all Australians are racist, but you are also saying that all future Australians are racist. I’m sorry hate crimes advocate, but you simply do not make sense to me.

I really want to ensure that readers will receive this article as it is intended. The issue is not that crimes against Indian people don’t matter, the issue is that if we keep up this sudden burst of importance over an issue that has clearly been present for many years, we are only encouraging the ugly idea that Indian people are different to Australians. I’m sorry, but I simply won’t accept that fact. I will not seek to re-write my moral code to assume every Indian person I meet is un-Australian. These people that have been bashed are people. They should be treated like people. If you think about it, the more we embrace these people as our own, the less problems we will have with crimes of this nature. By singling Indian people out, you are perpuating and inflaming a situation that hasn’t even fully eventuated yet.

The law concerning these sorts of crimes notes them as “Crimes Aganst the Person”, for the law wishes despreately to assume that all people are equal. Why would you seek to change that?

Disfunction

Whenever I am watching television beyond a certain time, I am reminded of one struggle that man has continuously battled throughout all time. I am talking of course, about erectile disfunction. Yes this is the biggest problem we are facing today, with carefully worded ads on radio to avoid disallowance due to censorship laws, and time-slotted comercials with my friends the bedroom police reminding us all that our focus remains solely on pleasuring our partner. Surely there are bigger problems out there. Maybe not even bigger, but more important issues that we should be facing.

If you were paying attention over the last few years, this problem has apparently been getting worse and worse, with the reminders of this terrible condition becoming more boorish and blunt with every new billboard. Ten years ago, there would have been community uproar over a giant sign hovering over the highway with: “Want longer lasting SEX?” in five foot lettering. It apparently has become acceptable now that some time has passed. It continues to confuse me how time translates to tolerance of more depraved and previously unnacceptable behaviour. Granted there are necessary attitude changes that must take place, but those that are necessary often take a long time to change. Today’s changes are happening rapidly and are always of a morally implicating nature.

So who is to blame for this unblelievably pressing need for harder-for-longer penises? Marketers? Advertisers? Artists? Possibly the sex industry, televison or movies? The answer is much more simple. When does any industry grow the most? When there is a need. Simple supply and demand. Yes it is all our fault, us rotten people, for our growing need for more and more self centered and material things is driving the worst kind of progress for our country. Now, I suppose we aren’t completely at fault. Someone had to get the ball rolling, the first marketer, perhaps. You cannot, however, blame the shooting death of a gangster in New York on the gun-runner who supplied the weapon. It is the person who pulled the trigger that faces a life sentence. As this is true, so is the fact that we must accept responsibility for the materially dependent people we have become.

What bothers me most is that so many people are comfortable with how things are going. I think sometimes I am actually a physical anomaly, some sort of mutant who has the useless power of being uncomfortable with a society wallowing in the disgusting shite of deviance, self pleasure and pure material gain. I want to stress, however, that I am not exempt from these problems, and I am just as much to blame as the next person. This is my only medium of broadcast, and I know my audience is small, so I need to do the best I can with what I have got:

Look around!! What have we become? Why is our focus not on things like cancer research, solving homelessness, or building any infrastructure in third world countries?

I will leave you with this thought: If you took all the money made from sex, any kind, be it blatantly or with descreet subtlety, how many lives could you change? How many lives, could you sustain?

Pretty embarassing huh?

New Start

I was about to start writing an apology for not updating recently, but then I thought, why the hell should I apologise?

This blog, if you can even call it that, is something I do for enjoyment, it’s something i update when I want to express my view or position on a certain issue, or jsut explore different ideas. As soon as I start making it about shcedules and appeasing the masses of readers I have (cough, choke), I’m replacing the purpose of the blog.

I’m a big believer in doing things because you enjoy them, not because you have to. Of course, we must all earn a crust, and work hard for the things we want, but there simply must be enjoyment in all of our lives. I believe there is a desperate need in every person, a need to do something that is purely enjoyment, purely because it’s something you want to do to amke yourself happy, or satisfied. I don’t even know where I’m going with this, but you know what? I enjoy writing, so I’m going to keep exploring this until I am satisfied.

I take time to enjoy myself, I do. I don’t know, however, whether I am taking enough time. I’ve never been content witht he amount of time I’m taking for myself, and I’ve never felt I’m enjoying myself enough. On the flipside however, there have been moments where I have recognised as taking too much time out for myself, and not working enough, be it school work, paid work or any other kind of work. To me, there is never a balance, and I have never met anyone else who is balanced in this way either. I think even the richest of the rich end up making up chores to occupy themselves when they ahve too much time on their hands.

This is an interesting thought, for me anyway, because from my experience, and the few experiences shared with me by others, it looks like we are doing this wrong. Maybe we have all screwed up in the establishment of the average life, maybe we miscalculated the ratio of work to fun; worse still, maybe we made the mistake of assuming that the work we are doing is the appropriate method of gaining money. What if we weren’t actually supposed to be working crappy jobs we hate to make a terrible wage to spend on bills and have just enough left over to barely survive? What if we were all supposed to enjoy our work, and through that be content with the amount of money we make? I know that will almost certainly never happen, but maybe it could have. I like to think that there is a person for every position, that there is a perfect fitting applicant for each job in existence.

Now, I know as I’m writing this that it’s pretty meaningless. It’s not as if things could ever reach this level of utopia. The real reason, I think, for me writing this article has only now become clear, after I have left it for a couple fo days to brew. What are we doing? What are we doing with the life we have? This is probably cliché but I don’t care. Why are so many of us wasting so much of our time? So much of what we do is pointless, so many tasks we complete have the endgame in picture. We should be doing more to make life worth living, not experiencing more of life, but actively making it something we can enjoy.

I want to issue you a challenge, and not in a way in which you look at your life for 5 minutes and forget about what you have just read. I want to issue a real challenge for those that are strong enough to accept it. Do something. Do something, anything to enjoy yourself. Not just once, but ten times, twenty times, as many times as you need to change your life into something you enjoy. I know, I know, this post is going to sound pathetic to a lot of you. I hope, though, that the rest of you can see something in this, and can take some more enjoyment from the life you are living. Your life is your own, your decisions are determining your experience of it. So make those decisions count, not for wealth, not for power, but for yourselves.

Putrid Print – Update!

Ok, here’s a repost of my previous article on Australian media, with an important piece added in, which is boldened for your convenience. Enjoy!

The media is a powerful tool, allowing voices to be heard, information to be shared, and current events to be presented to the public with absolutely no bias whatsoever. Wait, I’m sorry, that last part doesn’t seem quite right. In fact, i’m starting to feel sick at the idea that I just wrote that. You see, the media, encompassing television, print, and radio mediums, is no longer a place where the facts can be laid out before you, with a fair and just argument about issues that require it. It is now a mutation of that ideal, a kind of, opinion-powered monster that spews forth lies, libel, and factless arguments, in a barbaric and disgusting parody of what was once a nobel institution.

There are so many problems with our media these days, it’s hard to pick which ones to compain about, but I’ll try. The underlying issue at work here is something that is nigh on impossible to fix: There is no accountability within the world of media. No one pays for their mistakes, and certainly no-one is held responsible for deliberate acts of mispresenting fact. The problem gets worse because it’s very difficult to develop and install a system of accountability that doesn’t take away from the very objective of national media network.

The slow invasion of the level and strength of opinions in news media has been a subtle and slow one. The cool, smooth way that clever-dick writers lace their articles with their own hidden agendas is a skill that has been cultivated over many years, and is now at an unbelievably sickening point. But how do we solve this problem? Take away the right for people to have an opinion? Never. Censor the opinions of writers? Hardly. The solution, in my eyes, is quite simple. Legislate over the use of the word “news”. Don’t allow people to present their views as fact, make illegal the inclusion of opinion columns in a “news”paper. All we have to do is make a clear distinction about what is fact, and what is personal opinion. At the moment, it is as if they are exactly the same thing.

One fantastic example is the Pacific Brands issue. So many reports disparaging the higher-ups of the company, calling them horrible, nasty pieces of work that have betrayed our countrymen. The general feeling is that Pacific Brands stranding over 1800 workers, with no way of compensating them for their loss. The failure of almost every news article to investigate the issue is appalling. After doing some research of my own, it turns out that Pacific Brands developed a redundency plan over 2 months ago, to assist and look after the employees that they knew would have to be let go. Millions of dollars have been planned for use to help these people, but do we hear this in the news? Do we hear the journalists praising them in the streets, throwing caps of gold coins into the air? I don’t think so.

This problem has also been displayed brilliantly in the 7:30 report. When I heard these words, I literally felt rage and nausea permiate my body. I will quote it directly, and post a link to the video at the bottom of the page.

“The 7:30 report wanted to interview the Bishop, but he imposed unnacceptable conditions. Written questions in advance, his answers to be broadcast in full, and the whole deal subject to a legal agreement.”

The reluctance of the 7:30n report to interview someone with these conditions in place, tells the world quite clearly that they are not in search for the real facts about the story they are creating. This is disgusting.

The trickle down affect that “facts” in todays news have is detrimental to society, to eveything from politics to court cases to health problems. Why we continue to allow our world to be shaped by the media in it’s present state baffle me. Something needs to be done.

By the way, this is my opinion.

To watch the video, go to the website and search for the Kalumburu story:

http://abc.net.au/730

Leftovers

If you pick any clip from a “tonight” type show (The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Late night with etc etc) you’ll notice that after each interviewy bit, Jay, or whoever it is, will lean over, away from their fake microphone, and talk into the ear of their guest. You never get to hear what they are talking about, you jsut see t movement of lips, and often some vivid hand gestures to make some important point. Whenever I see this, there is nothing I want more in the world than to know what they are saying. It seems that what they are talking about is so much more entertaining, so much more interesting, more important, more engrossing, than any of the crap that they just spent 5 minutes talking about. It’s like they are having the leftovers of the interview, but the leftovers look much more delicious than than what we just ate. Why don’t they share it, why don’t they talk about something that is obviously interesting enough that it can’t wait until the cameras have broken off their recording?

That’s all.

Putrid Print

The media is a powerful tool, allowing voices to be heard, information to be shared, and current events to be presented to the public with absolutely no bias whatsoever. Wait, I’m sorry, that last part doesn’t seem quite right. In fact, i’m starting to feel sick at the idea that I just wrote that. You see, the media, encompassing television, print, and radio mediums, is no longer a place where the facts can be laid out before you, with a fair and just argument about issues that require it. It is now a mutation of that ideal, a kind of, opinion-powered monster that spews forth lies, libel, and factless arguments, in a barbaric and disgusting parody of what was once a nobel institution.

There are so many problems with our media these days, it’s hard to pick which ones to compain about, but I’ll try. The underlying issue at work here is something that is nigh on impossible to fix: There is no accountability within the world of media. No one pays for their mistakes, and certainly no-one is held responsible for deliberate acts of mispresenting fact. The problem gets worse because it’s very difficult to develop and install a system of accountability that doesn’t take away from the very objective of national media network.

The slow invasion of the level and strength of opinions in news media has been a subtle and slow one. The cool, smooth way that clever-dick writers lace their articles with their own hidden agendas is a skill that has been cultivated over many years, and is now at an unbelievably sickening point. But how do we solve this problem? Take away the right for people to have an opinion? Never. Censor the opinions of writers? Hardly. The solution, in my eyes, is quite simple. Legislate over the use of the word “news”. Don’t allow people to present their views as fact, make illegal the inclusion of opinion columns in a “news”paper. All we have to do is make a clear distinction about what is fact, and what is personal opinion. At the moment, it is as if they are exactly the same thing.

One fantastic example is the Pacific Brands issue. So many reports disparaging the higher-ups of the company, calling them horrible, nasty pieces of work that have betrayed our countrymen. The general feeling is that Pacific Brands stranding over 1800 workers, with no way of compensating them for their loss. The failure of almost every news article to investigate the issue is appalling. After doing some research of my own, it turns out that Pacific Brands developed a redundency plan over 2 months ago, to assist and look after the employees that they knew would have to be let go. Millions of dollars have been planned for use to help these people, but do we hear this in the news? Do we hear the journalists praising them in the streets, throwing caps of gold coins into the air? I don’t think so.

The trickle down affect that “facts” in todays news have is detrimental to society, to eveything from politics to court cases to health problems. Why we continue to allow our world to be shaped by the media in it’s present state baffle me. Something needs to be done.

By the way, this is my opinion.

Laying Down the Law

I’ve been hearing a lot lately about the apparent need to slaughter the instigators of various crimes, and it has actually driven me to get off my lazy arse and write something about it.

The trigger was a message I received on Facebook, stating that if I didn’t pass the message along to absolutely everyone in my contact list then I was “F***** Up” It was related to the murder of James Bulger, a 3 year old toddler who was brutally tortured and killed by two ten year old boys. The incident was unprecedented, and the malicious and sadistic nature of the slaying rocked the entire world. The message was essentially a petition to have the identities of the boys, since suppressed after their release from prison, made known the the general public. The main driver behind this move is the sense of injustice that must be felt by many, but there is also no doubt in my mind that there are many who would have no qualms with killing the now young men for their crime.

Another example I have heard thrown around a lot lately is the men who started the fires that took so many lives in Victoria last month. Countless people have spoken to me of their desire for the pyros to have their identities released so justice can be done. The most common answer for these crimes is that they should either a) be killed or b) be handed over the public (presumedly to be killed). Before I continue, I should point out that my stance is not to defend the actions of any of these people, or to protect them in any way. The issue I am talking about here is a bit more involved.

In Australia we have a system of laws, courts and enforcers to ensure that justice is upheld and the rights of the people are protected. Sometimes these rights are taken away, and it is often very tragic when this occurs. The systems we have in place are there to deal witht he people that break the law, and dispense justice to them in accordance with the law and the severity of their crimes. Unfortunately, not everyone is vut out for the job of dispensing justice, as anyone who knows me will tell you. The unfortunate and agonising truth is that no-one really has the right to dish out their own justice to someone else. It is a very strange and often enraging truth to behold, but it remains there all the same. We may demand justice, we may desire for it to be dealt out with effeciency and punitivity, we may even suggest ways in which justice may be done. But even those who we elect to make these decisions are doing a dirty job, which they no doubt have trouble doing more often than not.

The real issue I want to explore is the extraordinary number of people I have overheard expressing their wish for death upon others for the crimes they have committed. I will not lie, there have been countless times which I have thought that Mr X deserves to die, or that Mr Y has no right to live, but I do know that I have always accepted the truth that I can’t make that decision. I’m actually worried that we as a society are moving further and further towards a world where rights are no longer guaranteed, that they are at the mercy of every whim and will of the public. This just isn’t right. It’s difficult because justice has become an action/reaction idea – that one act leads to a punishment of equal value or severity. But should people really have the authroity to decide whether someone else lives or dies? If you were to argue yes, then who gave them that authority? If they are given that authority then the peson who gave it must have retained it somehow, and that peson must have gotten it from someone else with that authority and so on. The fact of the matter is that we as human beings, as fellow members of the human race, cannot take away life as punishment for wrongdoing.

Our justice system is imperfect at best, and at worst it is a morally incorrect way of dealing with these issues. It is also the only way that order can be maintained. I hate to admit it as much as people hate hearing it, but we are doing things the wrong way, and it’s the best alternative we can find.

P.S I kinda get the feeling I made no sense at all, so if I didn’t, feel free to let me know.