No faith in faith? Doctors vs. God

Euthanasia has been a hot topic in the news lately, with parliament debating the issue once again. I also watched this week's QandA, the topic of which was also euthanasia. And I noticed something interesting ... the religious ethic in relation to euthanasia no longer seems important. When making the decision of whether to euthanize, we seem to put a lot of stock in what health professionals say, in what politicians say, in what kin and loved ones say, but not a lot on what the religious standpoint is. Now, I'm sure we've all heard the "we shouldn't play God" argument, and that's not really the point of this post. My point is more, does a religious view hold as much sway as it used to? Do we give any credence to a person's religious viewpoint? Have we lost all faith in faith?

The Shroud of Turin has been carbon-dated, and we now know it can't possibly have been the shroud Jesus reputedly was covered in. As more and more of the Judea-Christian myths are proven to be (surprise, surprise) myths, is it possible that we will soon reach a point where a religious belief will have no credibility whatsoever, to be sneered at and laughed off as ridiculous?

I should at this point state that I hold no religious beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu or otherwise. Yet I don't refute these religions outright either. I can't prove God exists (or Allah, or Buddha, or Zeus), but I can't prove they don't exist either. I'm what you might call a 'holy fence-sitter'. But I wonder, does a scientific belief outrank a religious belief, just because it's tangible? I can't touch or smell or hear or taste 'beauty', I can't prove scientifically that 'beauty' exists ... yet I know it when I see it. (okay, there's probably some experiment that shows that certain environments affect certain glands that release certain chemicals that give us a sense of beauty, but you know what I mean.)

Take, for instance, blood transfusions. Many religious orders have strong views on the transfusion of blood, and may refuse this treatment for themselves or their children in the name of their faith. Do they have the right? Does a doctor have the right to gainsay that choice? The same with euthanasia; does a politician or a health professional have the right to overule a person's faith when it comes to making a decision to euthanize? If I was a doctor, I might believe I am able to make a better judgement call. If I was a priest, I might believe I am better able to make a moral judgement call.

Guess it comes down to what you believe.

My Stills

Okay, so i've been under the scholastic pump lately, so all my written work is focused there at the mo, but i've got some great photos that I took whilst out on a walk with the boy.

 

AND REMEMBER, PEOPLE ... DON'T DRINK AND SHOP!!

NatashaJacqueline: Deeelightful

NatashaJacqueline: Deeelightful: "I thought I would post some of my band photography work. These are a few of my favourite pictures because of the energy captured, the bright..."

10 Things I Hate ...

Like Peter Griffin said ... "You know what really grinds my gears?"

1) Glee. You know, that awful musical show on tv? If you've never seen it, imagine High School Musical, but instead of original music, they perform (or "kill", as the case may be) covers. And they are all about token minorities. They have the token gay character, the token young pregnant character, the token black character, the token emo character, the token fatty, the token hottie, the token jock, and the token 'guy in a wheel-chair' character. Bloody awful.

2) P!nk. This creature has to be the worst role-model for human beings, let alone for women. She has absolutely no compunction about promoting getting into fights, calling people a tool, spending her rent money on alcohol, and feeling herself up like some nasty stripper. But 'so what'? She's rich, what does she care.

3) Old people. They're smelly.

4) Young people. They're young.

5) Children. Especially mine.

6) Static electric shocks. I really, really, really, REALLY hate static shocks.

7) Shopping trolleys. Not only do they never go in the direction you want them to go, they give you static shocks.

8) Bad spelling. It's amazing how many people pretend they're intelligent, and then you see their handwriting, and they have trouble spelling the simplest of words. And i'm talking about adults here. I have one word for those people ... READ A BOOK, YOU ILLITERATE MORON!

9) News reports about soldiers dieing in a war. Can you imagine that? A soldier going to war and dieing? Shocking, I know, but apparently it happens fairly regularly.

10) People who winge and complain about everything. STOP IT! That's MY job!

I'd love to see people comment and write their top 10 most hated things.

Have a nice day!

Anti-Social Networking

Everyone's on Facebook.

Seriously. The majority of everyone i've ever known is on one social networking site or another. It's almost as if our whole society can only socialise if they're in front of a keyboard.

So, i'm starting to wonder, is social networking creating an anti-social society?

Example: My daughter's on Facebook. It's not uncommon that she will send me a message or two. But from upstairs? Or in the same room? Surely it would've taken less effort to just open her mouth and speak.

Okay, so it's a bit of fun. I've been guilty of it once or twice. Commenting on someone's status when they're in the same room. But the problem goes beyond that.

The average user has 130 friends on Facebook (according to Facebook Statistics). I'd be curious to know how many of those 130 friends they speak to on a regular basis, and how many of them do they actually socialise with in the real world. Of the 87 friends I have on Facebook, I speak regularly to about 6 or 7 of them. Everyone I speak to have at least twice that many friends on Facebook.

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "Status Update". Do people honestly think that the more 'friends' they have, the more their popularity status rises?

My recommendation: go out and actually meet some real people. Make real friends. And socialise with them using your voice. You'll find it much more satisfying.

Excuse me while I share this post to Facebook.

Weed vs Booze

Okay, so i've been guilty of having a drink every now and then, and guilty of having a smoke every now and then. But today, I want to look at the pros and cons, and make an argument for the minority (just for the sake of argument, of course).

I've never been impressed by a drunk person, but i've had several enlightening conversations with a stoned person.

Ever heard a news report about a driver who got really stoned and drove his car at high speed and crashed into another car, killing all parties?

I've never seen anyone vomit from too much weed.

Too much weed can screw up your life ... oh, wait ... so can too much booze.

Cost? Weed wins that argument ('per cone' against 'per glass').

Drinking is socially acceptable (score '1' for alcohol!).

Marijuana is less toxic, and less addictive.

Long term marijuana use is far less damaging than long-term alcohol use.

Alcohol has been directly linked to most cases of sexual and domestic abuse.

So why is alcohol legal and marijuana is not? They're both mind-altering substances. And yet, whole buildings are dedicated to (and constantly occupied by) alcohol drinkers. And think of the money the government could accrue by making marijuana legal and taxing it (like they do with alcohol and cigarettes). Amsterdam seems to have the right idea. Has their society been damaged by their legalisation of marijuana? It's certainly improved their economy, especially when one considers the tourism dollar it's attracted. They haven't devolved into neanderthals by any means.

So, what do you think? Make it legal to smoke weed? Or make it illegal to drink alcohol?

Time to get rid of the double standard.

Our right to know what we don't ...

Okay, so i'm a bit of a conspiracy theory nut. I hate the term conspiracy theory, though; I much prefer the term 'alternate point of view'. Just because I don't believe what the media tells us, doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. It just means I don't take everything at face value. I'm a skeptic, and I enjoy playing the devil's advocate. This is part of my motivation to become a journalist. I feel that people have a right to the truth, whether they like how it tastes or not, and journalists have an obligation to be honest, and not just pander to popular opinion.

So i'd like to put a few things out there, because I have this motto - one i've taught my children from an early age. Question everything.

U.F.O.'s - If what witnesses have seen (I mean reliable witnesses such as highly ranked military officers and official government agents) are man-made, as the governments and their documentation would have us believe, then whatever powers these 'craft' would be highly beneficial to humanity, considering the speed these craft achieve, and the rate we're burning up fossil fuels. If they're not man-made, humanity should be made aware of this. Apparently the C.I.A. stopped making official inquiries into U.F.O. sightings after they closed Project Bluebook in the 70's. This is not the case, according to several foreign government sources. Why would the C.I.A. lie about this?

9/11 - Ahh, us 'alternative viewpoint' nuts love this one. But i'll just ask the one question ... Apparently a plane crashed into the Pentagon the same day. All footage from surrounding security cameras in nearby buildings that had a clear view of the crash were confiscated by the C.I.A. and still have not been released. If it was a plane crash - as the C.I.A. and every other government source claims - why wouldn't they release that footage? (Not to mention the fact that the debris left behind was NOT consistent with a plane crash)

Education - So, the state of public schools is pretty poor. But the government gets what the government wants. So, logic would dictate that the government WANTS a poorly educated populace. This makes complete sense, when you consider that educated people form opinions, gather in groups, and question authority.

I could go on and on, and form thousands of arguments for and against. But I won't.

Take a look at the film Zeitgeist. If you look at my video bar (to the left), you'll see a link to YouTube where you can find this film, broken into 3 parts, although i'd recommend you locate the film in its entirety (I wouldn't recommend you get BitTorrent and download the film for free - that would be bad). It covers the Christianity myth, 9/11, and Central Banking. I assure you, it will make you question everything you've ever thought you knew.

Question everything.

The Great Injustice

(Dedicated to Haley Nightingale)

Women in today's workforce are quite capable of performing the same tasks as men, yet there is still a large amount of discrimination and inequality in the workplace, both in Australia and overseas. A pay equity gap still remains, despite advances in women's rights. Today, women earn 84.7 cents in the male dollar when the average weekly earnings of full-time ordinary time workers are compared. When part-timers and casuals are included, this gap widens to 65.3 cents in the male dollar.

This is not only unfair, it is unjust.

What the hell is going on here? I get so frustrated when I hear these statistics (the above statistic is from a speech made by Pru Goward, Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner). I discussed this with a teacher of mine - a proud, modern feminist. I just couldn't get my head around the fact that many women are still not getting paid as much as men, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. Where are the rallies? Where are the protests? And the response I got from my teacher was, "Most women don't even realise it."

Wake up, ladies!

Talk to your male colleagues, girls. Make discreet inquiries. Find out whether your co-workers are earning more than you for doing the exact same job.

Get mad!!

I've always believed that this country stood for (amongst other things) fairness and equality, a fair go, etc. etc. Apparently i've been mistaken. As it turns out, Australia (like the rest of the world) is a well-oiled machine being run by a patriarchy ('patriarchy' meaning male-dominated) that resists women rising to positions of power, both in the political and social sphere.

In 2010, we have our first female acting-Prime Minister, and possibly our first female Prime Minister come late August.

Cleopatra was leading a nation 2000 years ago!

So why do women still earn less than men? Well, the following reasons have been given:

• More women than men work part-time and therefore earn only a proportion of full-time earnings
• More men than women work overtime because they work in areas where overtime is an option and women generally have more responsibilities at home
• Some occupations and areas that are dominated by women have been traditionally undervalued and tend to be lower paid
• Junior worker positions, which attract a lower level of pay, are filled by a higher proportion of women than men.

We have learnt these habits of gender construction throughout mankind's (and womankind's) evolution, yet this construction seemingly oppresses women throughout many cultures.

In 1969, the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) mounted a test case to get rid of the 25% difference that existed betweeen pay rates for women and those for men. The court ruled that as of 1st of October women would get at least 85% of the male wage; their pay would then go up in steps until 1st of January 1972 when they would be rewarded with equal pay - 100% of the male wage.

What's taking so long?

This is ridiculous. Women are being discriminated against in their sexuality, in their value in the workplace and in their right to dress as they please (i.e. Muslim women and their head-coverings).

Pull your head out, Australia!!

Red Hair vs. Red Budgie-smugglers?

Could this possibly be the most boring pre-election phase since ... ever? Gillard and Abbott aren't slinging thinly veiled insults at each other, their campaign ads are only slightly more boring than watching hair grow, and no protestors are throwing eggs!

Call this an election?!!!

What really sh*ts me though, is the constant reference to Julia's choice to not have children, choosing instead to dedicate herself to her career. I have two children myself, and I say ... "Good choice!" Stay thin and hot, Julia. You'll have more time to work on your personality.

And the hairy life-saver dude? Well, Abbott ... he's just a hairy Gollum, isn't he? I'm expecting one of his upcoming ad campaigns to go something like, "We'll stop the boats, preciouss." I'm assuming that, in order to stop the boats, he'll just hook those massive ears up to a radar tower.

Okay, so i've slandered 'em both a bit, and haven't mentioned The Greens, The Nationals, The Australian Sex Party, The Marijuana Party (do they still exist?), and the plethora of other political parties out there. That's probably because they're not worth mentioning. As per usual. When are these other parties actually going to offer something worthwhile? I'd give my vote to The Greens, but then my vote just ends up sliding to Labor or Liberal anyway, so what's the point? The Australian Sex Party? Austen Tayshus as representative? C'mooonnn! Only one thing to say to that ... ED2PS9FA2UUX ! (stupid Technorati.com claim codes)

I honestly think that Abbott has his work cut out for him, though. Without having to do anything, Gillard has the 'First Female Prime Minister' medal shining in her favour. Don't get me wrong, I think it's long overdue, but i'm a little worried that she'll get elected purely on that fact alone, regardless of her policies. When it comes down to it, I don't care if you're male, female or Lady Gaga - if your policies make sense, and you can get the job done, you have my vote.

So, who's gonna take the lodge? The hot back-stabbing redhead, or the hairy Gollum in the budgie-smugglers? Can't wait to find out!

Think i'll go watch my hair grow.

G'day World!

G'day and welcome to my first tentative steps in the world of blogging!

First, let me introduce myself. I am The Buzz.

From me you will recieve The Buzzwerd.

If you're lucky, you might even get a buzz.

So, what's The Buzzwerd? Well, quite simply, i'll be covering events - both from Australia and overseas - as well as giving my own special brand of insight into current affairs, the world of performance art and ... well ... anything else I care to get opinionated about.


I'm currently a student, returning to high school as an adult to get my Year 12 SACE certificate, and will be attending Uni next year to study Journalism. So, I figure I have to start somewhere, and blogging seemed to be the logical starting place.


Yeah, yeah, everyone's blogging, I know. And with sites such as blogger.com and mo'time.com providing tools that allow the mass amateurisation of social comment, blogging has almost become more of an online diary than social and political commentary. I, however, will not be discussing 'who i'm crushing on' or 'what shape my poo was this morning'. My posts may vary in importance from earth-shaking to completely banal and inane, but nowhere else will you get The Buzz on what's happening in Adelaide, across Australia and around the globe. So shut up, sit down, and listen!


Stay tuned, more to come ...