Well today I just avoided a fine.
I went and voted.
I know that the people who I voted for probably won't win, but who knows. All I will say is that I voted for 'S' (Nick Xenophon) in the Senate, and in the House of Representatives I put the racists (One Nation) before Footballers Wife (Labor, Nicole Cornes).
I won't really know the result because I will be at a party, but I have the feeling that our new leader will be called Kevin.
Saturday, 24 November 2007
Friday, 23 November 2007
The Cost Of War
The BABlog wrote two days ago that Americans seem to think that NASA gets 25% of the US Budget, when in fact it is only 0.58%.
More importantly (for this post) he mentioned that the US spends US$11 million per hour (And here is a source) on the Iraq war.
Hastily I calculated that ever 13.64 hours the US spends the same amount of money on Iraq that could be spent on a $150 million probe to explore space.
In 2005 it was said that about $22 billion would be needed to fight AIDS. This is the same as spending 2.7 months in Iraq.
In one hour the US spends enough money to buy and ship 18003.27 tonnes of food aid for developing nations (based on statistics here).
As I write this the US has spent over US$471 billion on Iraq. This could buy 3140 probes, help to fight AIDS for 21.4 years assuming that the price remains constant, or 770867430.44 tonnes of food aid.
Or if you know anything about the US state of health, some of the money that could be saved could have been placed in the SCHIP program and help those that cannot get health insurance.
I wonder what the Australians spend?
More importantly (for this post) he mentioned that the US spends US$11 million per hour (And here is a source) on the Iraq war.
Hastily I calculated that ever 13.64 hours the US spends the same amount of money on Iraq that could be spent on a $150 million probe to explore space.
In 2005 it was said that about $22 billion would be needed to fight AIDS. This is the same as spending 2.7 months in Iraq.
In one hour the US spends enough money to buy and ship 18003.27 tonnes of food aid for developing nations (based on statistics here).
As I write this the US has spent over US$471 billion on Iraq. This could buy 3140 probes, help to fight AIDS for 21.4 years assuming that the price remains constant, or 770867430.44 tonnes of food aid.
Or if you know anything about the US state of health, some of the money that could be saved could have been placed in the SCHIP program and help those that cannot get health insurance.
I wonder what the Australians spend?
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Why I Argue
I spend some of my time on the net arguing with CT's and Creationists. I do like a good argument though, but I think that I have come across the same revelation that pretty much all skeptics come across (actually I figured this out a while ago, but I want to write about it now).
We argue and debunk not to convert the person making the claim, but to prevent other people from falling into stupid beliefs.
We are the ones who present the counter arguments to stupid claims.
We are the ones who are labelled by those that we oppose.
I think that deep down we all know that for many of these people we can never defeat them in an argument, but we certainly can show others that they are the thieves, liars and charlatans that they truly are.
We argue and debunk not to convert the person making the claim, but to prevent other people from falling into stupid beliefs.
We are the ones who present the counter arguments to stupid claims.
We are the ones who are labelled by those that we oppose.
- We are government shills to CTs that involve any government
- We are soulless Atheists to the creationists
- We have "closed minds" for alternative theories and medicine.
- We are generally attacked when we present the "other" view, or disprove theirs.
I think that deep down we all know that for many of these people we can never defeat them in an argument, but we certainly can show others that they are the thieves, liars and charlatans that they truly are.
Monday, 19 November 2007
Readability
The Blog Readability Test says that this blog has a reading level of junior high school, whatever the hell that is.
I wonder if I was to add more technical words if it would change the rating? Maybe I should just learn to write better...
I wonder if I was to add more technical words if it would change the rating? Maybe I should just learn to write better...
Saturday, 17 November 2007
More on Stupid Stupid Hypocrsy
If you read the last post you should have noticed that I am a bit divided over this whole thing, namely because I have no idea when exactly the crime that she is being punished for occurred.
And now I have found many, many different articles all of which give different details.
The BBC articles that I posted yesterday just say that she was found in the car of a "strange man"
Other news sources say:
Fox News
This article is from March, and says that she was basically blackmailed twice, once by her former boyfriend and then by one of the rapists. She was abducted while in the car when it was stopped by two other cars. Basically she had broken the law before she was raped by the men, at least according to this article.
Knowing the well known criticism that Fox News has it may have been made up and attributed to The Scotsman (have to look).
The Telegraph
Doesn't mention blackmail. Says that she asked him to return photos because she was getting married.
Also says that she was in the car before the rape.
CBC News
Once again mentions her in the car before the abduction.
There is one common aspect to these other articles. They say that they were both raped. Now this may sound a bit wrong, but would it not have been better for the courts to say that the rapes were some form of divine punishment for the two of them breaking the law?
There is one thing that annoys me just a little, and that is that she broke the law beforehand. It doesn't really nullify the fact that she was raped, but it does somewhat damage the idea that her being in the car had something to do with her being raped.
Still, 200 lashes for telling her tale is still too harsh a punishment. And up to between 2 and 10 years for rape is too lenient. If Fox is right at least. then I would have to say good on the prosecution asking for death, I still think that the rapists deserve to meet the sword in a very intimate way.
And now I have found many, many different articles all of which give different details.
The BBC articles that I posted yesterday just say that she was found in the car of a "strange man"
Other news sources say:
Fox News
This article is from March, and says that she was basically blackmailed twice, once by her former boyfriend and then by one of the rapists. She was abducted while in the car when it was stopped by two other cars. Basically she had broken the law before she was raped by the men, at least according to this article.
Knowing the well known criticism that Fox News has it may have been made up and attributed to The Scotsman (have to look).
The Telegraph
Doesn't mention blackmail. Says that she asked him to return photos because she was getting married.
Also says that she was in the car before the rape.
CBC News
Once again mentions her in the car before the abduction.
There is one common aspect to these other articles. They say that they were both raped. Now this may sound a bit wrong, but would it not have been better for the courts to say that the rapes were some form of divine punishment for the two of them breaking the law?
There is one thing that annoys me just a little, and that is that she broke the law beforehand. It doesn't really nullify the fact that she was raped, but it does somewhat damage the idea that her being in the car had something to do with her being raped.
Still, 200 lashes for telling her tale is still too harsh a punishment. And up to between 2 and 10 years for rape is too lenient. If Fox is right at least. then I would have to say good on the prosecution asking for death, I still think that the rapists deserve to meet the sword in a very intimate way.
Stupidly Stupid Hypocrisy
An article from Thursday it is about a punishment for a crime.
The location is Saudi Arabia.
The punishment is 200 lashes and 6 months in prison.
The crime, breach of sexual segregation laws.
The offender, a 19 year old gang rape victim.
She was found in the car of a man who wasn't related to her. Now not knowing the full story it is a bit hard to determine why she was in this car.
Was it the car of someone who stopped to help her? Or was it the car of one of the people who raped her 14 times?
Either way she was sentenced to 90 lashes, and then when she tried to appeal it was increased to the punishment I mentioned above.
So you know, the seven men who raped her initially received a punishment of between 1-5 years, which was doubled, so I guess that would be a range of 2-10 years.
Her lawyer claims that the sentence is unjust and violates Islamic law.
He is facing a disciplinary hearing now for being a lawyer.
The view that the BBC presents is that the courts stepped outside their boundaries in sentencing her, and should not have treated her as the culprit.
There are a few things that have pissed me off about all this.
Firstly, why is it that the rapists seem to get off so lightly for such a terrible crime? Rape is probably far worse then murder, because a rape victim is still able to relive the horrible event while a murder victim cannot for obvious reasons. Why is it that the courts don't sentence them to death (although personally I would think up far more cruel punishments for them).
Secondly why is it that the courts seem to be treating her far worse then her rapists? The courts seem to be saying that even if you are raped you can still be punished for breaking the segregation law. I'm certain that works wonders right? A real boost for women standing up and confronting their rapist.
Finally why is it that for some reason the various discussion boards seem to be portraying this whole thing as a rape victim being punished for being raped? It wasn't, she broke a different law.
And in what could be seen as hypocrisy on my part I have to say that I can see where the courts were going with this. *Technically* she did break the law, and most likely has to face the consequences (again, please note that this is based on what I have gleaned here, not knowing all the facts means that I can't form a firm opinion on the matter), however it is as clear as day that the courts have failed in this case.
They have failed to take into consideration her circumstances. If this was almost immediately after the rape then they should have taken that into consideration, of course she would have been in an unrelated person's car, because she wasn't raped by her family.
Then to increase the punishment because they believe that she was using the media to influence the courts? I honestly think that says more about the court system then the girl. Perhaps it did work a bit better now, because they did double the sentences of the rapists. Although maybe the executioner should have sharpened up his sword/axe/beheading instrument for these men...
The location is Saudi Arabia.
The punishment is 200 lashes and 6 months in prison.
The crime, breach of sexual segregation laws.
The offender, a 19 year old gang rape victim.
She was found in the car of a man who wasn't related to her. Now not knowing the full story it is a bit hard to determine why she was in this car.
Was it the car of someone who stopped to help her? Or was it the car of one of the people who raped her 14 times?
Either way she was sentenced to 90 lashes, and then when she tried to appeal it was increased to the punishment I mentioned above.
So you know, the seven men who raped her initially received a punishment of between 1-5 years, which was doubled, so I guess that would be a range of 2-10 years.
Her lawyer claims that the sentence is unjust and violates Islamic law.
He is facing a disciplinary hearing now for being a lawyer.
The view that the BBC presents is that the courts stepped outside their boundaries in sentencing her, and should not have treated her as the culprit.
There are a few things that have pissed me off about all this.
Firstly, why is it that the rapists seem to get off so lightly for such a terrible crime? Rape is probably far worse then murder, because a rape victim is still able to relive the horrible event while a murder victim cannot for obvious reasons. Why is it that the courts don't sentence them to death (although personally I would think up far more cruel punishments for them).
Secondly why is it that the courts seem to be treating her far worse then her rapists? The courts seem to be saying that even if you are raped you can still be punished for breaking the segregation law. I'm certain that works wonders right? A real boost for women standing up and confronting their rapist.
Finally why is it that for some reason the various discussion boards seem to be portraying this whole thing as a rape victim being punished for being raped? It wasn't, she broke a different law.
And in what could be seen as hypocrisy on my part I have to say that I can see where the courts were going with this. *Technically* she did break the law, and most likely has to face the consequences (again, please note that this is based on what I have gleaned here, not knowing all the facts means that I can't form a firm opinion on the matter), however it is as clear as day that the courts have failed in this case.
They have failed to take into consideration her circumstances. If this was almost immediately after the rape then they should have taken that into consideration, of course she would have been in an unrelated person's car, because she wasn't raped by her family.
Then to increase the punishment because they believe that she was using the media to influence the courts? I honestly think that says more about the court system then the girl. Perhaps it did work a bit better now, because they did double the sentences of the rapists. Although maybe the executioner should have sharpened up his sword/axe/beheading instrument for these men...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)