Greetings,
Why is it that every time Australians decide to pay respect to their fallen soldiers some journalist has to jump up and down about war and what a waste it is? It happened on ANZAC Day, and big surprise there is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Peter FitzSimons doing the same thing, you can find the article here (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-the-incontrovertible-truth-about-world-war-i/ar-BBPxljn). Like most journalistic articles about the First World War it focuses on the loss of life during the war and the damage to the soldiers which existed long after the war. Well, the same goes for all wars before and after, including the ones which we are fighting right now as I write.
I have a family history which is somewhat connected with wars. My great-uncle fought and died in France in the First World War, and my grandfather fought in the Second World War. I also have a cousin who is currently serving in the Royal Australian Navy, and I could not be more proud to be related to all of them. Further, I have friends who are or were soldiers, and I am proud to call these my friends. Needless to say, when someone like Mr FitzSimons, who mind you makes part of his money selling books about war, goes and "reveals the truth" about the First World War in such a fashion it tends to strike a nerve, especially on this day of all days. It could have been left for tomorrow, but then it would not have caused an impact and that is what he was looking for.
A person does not write a book about the exact war he is calling a waste without knowing the details of it. What also needs to be known is that this Remembrance Day is not just for World War I, though today is special as it is the centenary of the Armistice, but it is for all wars. It is a time to pay respect for what our servicemen and women have done for us, and also for what our servicemen and women are still doing for us to this day and into the future. Any school-child who has studied their history, and who has sat through the lesson on the First World War knows that the tactics were not appropriate for the technology, and that the loss of life, on all sides of the conflict was severe. An entire generation of young men was lost, what more needs to be said?
To be sure there was a catastrophic loss of life between 1914 and 1918, and I am not sure whether we have really learnt the lessons which this war taught. It sure taught us some lessons which were taken in, but it also delivered some others which were to result in another war some 21 years later, that could be clearly laid at the feet of the so-called "victors" of this war. War and civilisation are something which go hand in hand throughout history and cannot be separated. We have the propensity for killing one another for one reason or another.
However, within that horrible story though, there are stories which can be told which were not even mentioned as they might have showed some level of achievement. There is one, toward the beginning. To put into contrast against Mr FitzSimons, there is another article, "Australian Diggers more likely to have fought as heroes for king than Allies, research shows" (https://www.news.com.au/national/australian-diggers-more-likely-to-have-fought-as-heroes-and-for-king-than-allies-research-shows/news-story/e26f51e39e6d9669ec5bb8eb21e2015f). It discusses how knowing that they were limited to 66 characters on their headstones, the families of the fallen Australians wanted them to appear as heroes, as according to a British study of headstones. To be sure the positive stories and the stories of heroes and self-sacrifice for another are the rare ones, but this is the same for all wars.
To put it in perspective, this day of all days, aside from ANZAC Day, is a day where the servicemen and women should be honoured. They should be placed in positions of honour. On these days servicemen and women should be thanked for their service. Thank for what they have done whether they have seen battle or not, because in joining the services they have committed themselves to putting their bodies on the line if called. This is what it means to be in the military and anyone who has not been in the same situation has no right to be saying anything negative about any service personnel on this of all days.
Cheers,
Henry.
Saturday 10 November 2018
Tuesday 30 October 2018
Weapons Control... Not Just Guns
Greetings,
The subject of gun control is not one I usually post about simply because it does not seem to be a subject which it is possible to have a calm discussion about as people become too emotional about it. Before I begin the core of this discussion I will note some important biases which will colour my opinions with regard to this matter. I have a family history with regard to firearms. My father was a part-time gunsmith, both my parents were licensed shooters. I fired my first rifle at the age of 8 years old and was taught my first lessons about firearm safety at the age of 7. I am also a Life Member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA). With all of these details noted, we move on.
The first thing that needs to be noted is the subject of terminology, we are not talking about guns, we are talking about firearms. Firearm is the term knowledgeable people use when discussing this particular subject, gun is the generic term. Firearm is also the one which appears in the Weapons Act.
With regards to our Weapons Acts, as we have one for each state and territory of Australia. Almost every time there is some sort of mass shooting in the United States or elsewhere, people get up in arms about tightening our weapons laws. Why? Did it happen in Australia? How will tightening our weapons laws prevent something from happening in another country? Further, it should be noted that the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia, primarily in 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, and then in 2014 after the Lindt Cafe siege, some 18 years apart. Incidences such as these are used as "evidence" for the need for tighter weapons laws. In both instances the weapons were illegally obtained, thus obtained outside the law so tighter weapons laws would not have stopped them anyway.
Likewise to compare the SSAA and the NRA is ludicrous. Both organisations have their similarities but they also have their stark differences. From my own personal point of view, I am proud to be a member of the SSAA, I would never become a member of the NRA. I personally think that what the NRA does is push the bounds of the reasonable way too far. Needless to say Australia does not have gun ownership enshrined in its constitution unlike the United States, and this aspect is what gives the gun lobby in the United States its power. The gun lobby in Australia is not such a fearsome beast.
What needs to be noted is that the legislation in each of the states and territories in Australia is a Weapons Act not a Firearms Act. What does this mean? What this means is that they do not just cover firearms but other weapons as well. Crossbows are legal in Queensland so long as you are licensed, in New South Wales they are prohibited, they are not firearms. Swords are fine to be carried in a normal bag and taken care of as any other piece of sporting equipment, and so long as you are not waving it around in public without a good reason you will not be hassled about it. In Victoria, they need to be locked away in a lockable container in a similar way to firearms. This goes for the blunt weapons we use for medieval and Renaissance recreation as well. At one point in time consideration was made toward legislating bows, but was considered too difficult to enforce.
Firearms may be the popular target when it comes to the Weapons Act, but it does not mean that government agencies are not looking to restrict other weapons. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that anyone who is involved with any sort of weapons whatsoever is careful and treats them with respect. All it needs is for someone to draw the wrong sort of attention and restrictions can be brought against other weapons not just firearms.
When you consider your support for tougher firearms laws, or weapons laws as the case truly is consider what you are really asking for. Consider what you are asking the politicians to do. Consider that they may decide that the weapons which belong with your medieval and Renaissance hobby are too dangerous and you should not be able to use them anymore, or not without severe restriction. When we take action for a cause we should always consider what sort of flow-on effect this may have with other aspects which are related to that cause, things are more connected than you realise. It also means that we should all take care to ensure that we do not perform any action which may draw any unwanted attention our way. There is always someone willing to get annoyed with any excuse with what we are doing.
Cheers,
Henry.
The subject of gun control is not one I usually post about simply because it does not seem to be a subject which it is possible to have a calm discussion about as people become too emotional about it. Before I begin the core of this discussion I will note some important biases which will colour my opinions with regard to this matter. I have a family history with regard to firearms. My father was a part-time gunsmith, both my parents were licensed shooters. I fired my first rifle at the age of 8 years old and was taught my first lessons about firearm safety at the age of 7. I am also a Life Member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA). With all of these details noted, we move on.
The first thing that needs to be noted is the subject of terminology, we are not talking about guns, we are talking about firearms. Firearm is the term knowledgeable people use when discussing this particular subject, gun is the generic term. Firearm is also the one which appears in the Weapons Act.
With regards to our Weapons Acts, as we have one for each state and territory of Australia. Almost every time there is some sort of mass shooting in the United States or elsewhere, people get up in arms about tightening our weapons laws. Why? Did it happen in Australia? How will tightening our weapons laws prevent something from happening in another country? Further, it should be noted that the last time we had a mass shooting in Australia, primarily in 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, and then in 2014 after the Lindt Cafe siege, some 18 years apart. Incidences such as these are used as "evidence" for the need for tighter weapons laws. In both instances the weapons were illegally obtained, thus obtained outside the law so tighter weapons laws would not have stopped them anyway.
Likewise to compare the SSAA and the NRA is ludicrous. Both organisations have their similarities but they also have their stark differences. From my own personal point of view, I am proud to be a member of the SSAA, I would never become a member of the NRA. I personally think that what the NRA does is push the bounds of the reasonable way too far. Needless to say Australia does not have gun ownership enshrined in its constitution unlike the United States, and this aspect is what gives the gun lobby in the United States its power. The gun lobby in Australia is not such a fearsome beast.
What needs to be noted is that the legislation in each of the states and territories in Australia is a Weapons Act not a Firearms Act. What does this mean? What this means is that they do not just cover firearms but other weapons as well. Crossbows are legal in Queensland so long as you are licensed, in New South Wales they are prohibited, they are not firearms. Swords are fine to be carried in a normal bag and taken care of as any other piece of sporting equipment, and so long as you are not waving it around in public without a good reason you will not be hassled about it. In Victoria, they need to be locked away in a lockable container in a similar way to firearms. This goes for the blunt weapons we use for medieval and Renaissance recreation as well. At one point in time consideration was made toward legislating bows, but was considered too difficult to enforce.
Firearms may be the popular target when it comes to the Weapons Act, but it does not mean that government agencies are not looking to restrict other weapons. This is one of the reasons why it is vital that anyone who is involved with any sort of weapons whatsoever is careful and treats them with respect. All it needs is for someone to draw the wrong sort of attention and restrictions can be brought against other weapons not just firearms.
When you consider your support for tougher firearms laws, or weapons laws as the case truly is consider what you are really asking for. Consider what you are asking the politicians to do. Consider that they may decide that the weapons which belong with your medieval and Renaissance hobby are too dangerous and you should not be able to use them anymore, or not without severe restriction. When we take action for a cause we should always consider what sort of flow-on effect this may have with other aspects which are related to that cause, things are more connected than you realise. It also means that we should all take care to ensure that we do not perform any action which may draw any unwanted attention our way. There is always someone willing to get annoyed with any excuse with what we are doing.
Cheers,
Henry.
Tuesday 11 September 2018
Fit, Healthy... and Thin?
Greetings,
Weight-loss seems to be a big topic no matter where we go these days. I can understand the urge to get fit and also the urge to get healthy, the urge to get thin, on the other hand, I don't understand. Being fit and healthy extends and improves your life simply because your body is able to work better. Simply as a result of getting fit and healthy there will be an aspect of weight-loss, but the obsession with weight-loss is not so great. Sure it is advertised for our the female counter-part as fashionable and necessary to be fashionable, but is it really healthy?
In general, the upper scales of fitness require some level of muscle, and muscle is heavy. One of the issues that every person who embarks upon weight-loss in the traditional manner encounters is that they change their diet and exercise and actually put on weight rather than take it off to begin with. This is because muscle is more dense, and thus heavier than fat, as you exercise you build muscle, which is going to make you heavier, but is necessary to burn fat. It is also necessary to move your limbs and other parts of your body. If you do not have some muscle mass you cannot be counted as fit.
Further can you be counted as healthy if your body is not getting the necessary nutrition that it requires? Fad diets and pills do not teach you how to eat properly. They may get you to lose weight, and lose weight fast, but what happens once you are off them? Will the same eating habits return? Yes, changes in diet are often necessary, but this must be combined with exercise, and the exercise must have somewhere to draw its fuel from. This means eating healthy. Often we must train ourselves to eat healthy and then stick to the training, this is a harder and longer process, but it is far more effective in the long run.
What needs to be noted is that we are not all meant to be shaped like super-athletes or supermodels. This is a good thing. There is variety in body shape, and people are not all the same shape, nor will they ever be. Aiming for these images and becoming obsessed with these shapes results in depression and obsession. The most important thing is loving the skin that you are in. This is in two ways, it is accepting what your body-shape is, and also treating it right.
There are ways of measuring what shape we should be and many graphs including the Body Mass Index, or BMI, the question is whether these graphs take into account all body-shapes and peculiarities. It is known that the BMI does not take into account bodies which are carrying large amounts of muscle. So, it is important that your shape is measured properly to get the correct measurements.
Are you happy with your current state of fitness? Are you happy with your current state of health? If you want to do something about these two then you really should. Focussing on aspects like simply losing weight is too focussed as it does not take into account the bigger picture. Losing weight must accompany a bigger picture for it to be a healthy process with a healthy end. Give yourself a realistic goal, give yourself a real reason and it is more likely that you will make it.
Remember, dieting yourself to thinness is not necessarily dieting yourself to health. Thinness is not health. Health is health.
Cheers,
Henry.
Weight-loss seems to be a big topic no matter where we go these days. I can understand the urge to get fit and also the urge to get healthy, the urge to get thin, on the other hand, I don't understand. Being fit and healthy extends and improves your life simply because your body is able to work better. Simply as a result of getting fit and healthy there will be an aspect of weight-loss, but the obsession with weight-loss is not so great. Sure it is advertised for our the female counter-part as fashionable and necessary to be fashionable, but is it really healthy?
In general, the upper scales of fitness require some level of muscle, and muscle is heavy. One of the issues that every person who embarks upon weight-loss in the traditional manner encounters is that they change their diet and exercise and actually put on weight rather than take it off to begin with. This is because muscle is more dense, and thus heavier than fat, as you exercise you build muscle, which is going to make you heavier, but is necessary to burn fat. It is also necessary to move your limbs and other parts of your body. If you do not have some muscle mass you cannot be counted as fit.
Further can you be counted as healthy if your body is not getting the necessary nutrition that it requires? Fad diets and pills do not teach you how to eat properly. They may get you to lose weight, and lose weight fast, but what happens once you are off them? Will the same eating habits return? Yes, changes in diet are often necessary, but this must be combined with exercise, and the exercise must have somewhere to draw its fuel from. This means eating healthy. Often we must train ourselves to eat healthy and then stick to the training, this is a harder and longer process, but it is far more effective in the long run.
What needs to be noted is that we are not all meant to be shaped like super-athletes or supermodels. This is a good thing. There is variety in body shape, and people are not all the same shape, nor will they ever be. Aiming for these images and becoming obsessed with these shapes results in depression and obsession. The most important thing is loving the skin that you are in. This is in two ways, it is accepting what your body-shape is, and also treating it right.
There are ways of measuring what shape we should be and many graphs including the Body Mass Index, or BMI, the question is whether these graphs take into account all body-shapes and peculiarities. It is known that the BMI does not take into account bodies which are carrying large amounts of muscle. So, it is important that your shape is measured properly to get the correct measurements.
Are you happy with your current state of fitness? Are you happy with your current state of health? If you want to do something about these two then you really should. Focussing on aspects like simply losing weight is too focussed as it does not take into account the bigger picture. Losing weight must accompany a bigger picture for it to be a healthy process with a healthy end. Give yourself a realistic goal, give yourself a real reason and it is more likely that you will make it.
Remember, dieting yourself to thinness is not necessarily dieting yourself to health. Thinness is not health. Health is health.
Cheers,
Henry.
Saturday 18 August 2018
Vietnam Veterans: Denied Again
Greetings,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Vietnam veterans have been denied the right to march through their state capital as was reported on the local news (https://www.msn.com/en-au/video/sport/vietnam-veterans-denied-permission-to-march-in-brisbane/vp-BBM52OZ). So once again, these men who went to fight in a war because their government told them to. To fight in a war which was unpopular almost across the globe. To fight in a war that many of them still suffer from. The acknowledgement of their service by the public in Brisbane is being denied.
While the march may cause some traffic issues for some and thus be an inconvenience. It may also cost some tax-payer money to close the roads and have the extra police involved to close these roads and ensure that the crowds are controlled. Do these men and women who went to war because they were told to and did their jobs, and served their country not deserve it? They have already paid their dues in blood and anguish, in lost friends and family, and this is not to mention those who would march in the place of someone who did not come back. All of their service should be honoured.
The Vietnam War, or the Vietnam Conflict as some would like us to call it, was one of the most divisive wars in our history. It divided nations between those who supported the act of going to war against communism, against those who opposed the war fighting for another country. We see much of this war from the point of view of the United States and we see much of the division which happened within that country. What we do not see much of is what happened in Australia at the same time. We do not often see or hear of what the Australians did in Vietnam. Is this the reason why our veterans are so easily forgotten? Is this the reason why their march is so easily denied? Because they have not made documentaries and movies to rival their American counterparts? All veterans of all wars should be honoured, regardless of which side they fought on. Their service should be honoured.
How can it be so that such a march can be so easily denied? How many other marches have been denied? How many of the people in the marches which have been given permission have been veterans? Yes, it does make a difference if they are veterans or not. They have served their country and their service needs to be honoured. It is not the glorification of war as some might accuse, it is the acknowledgement of the service. It is the honouring of men and women who did a service to their country. These are men and women who we should be standing up and being proud of. These are men and women who we should be making every effort to ensure that their march goes ahead without a hitch rather than denying them permission. This is about showing respect to these veterans.
The Brisbane City Council simply needs to make sure that this march can happen. It needs to happen. It needs to happen to give due honour to these veterans and respect the service that they have done for this country.
Cheers,
Henry.
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Vietnam veterans have been denied the right to march through their state capital as was reported on the local news (https://www.msn.com/en-au/video/sport/vietnam-veterans-denied-permission-to-march-in-brisbane/vp-BBM52OZ). So once again, these men who went to fight in a war because their government told them to. To fight in a war which was unpopular almost across the globe. To fight in a war that many of them still suffer from. The acknowledgement of their service by the public in Brisbane is being denied.
While the march may cause some traffic issues for some and thus be an inconvenience. It may also cost some tax-payer money to close the roads and have the extra police involved to close these roads and ensure that the crowds are controlled. Do these men and women who went to war because they were told to and did their jobs, and served their country not deserve it? They have already paid their dues in blood and anguish, in lost friends and family, and this is not to mention those who would march in the place of someone who did not come back. All of their service should be honoured.
The Vietnam War, or the Vietnam Conflict as some would like us to call it, was one of the most divisive wars in our history. It divided nations between those who supported the act of going to war against communism, against those who opposed the war fighting for another country. We see much of this war from the point of view of the United States and we see much of the division which happened within that country. What we do not see much of is what happened in Australia at the same time. We do not often see or hear of what the Australians did in Vietnam. Is this the reason why our veterans are so easily forgotten? Is this the reason why their march is so easily denied? Because they have not made documentaries and movies to rival their American counterparts? All veterans of all wars should be honoured, regardless of which side they fought on. Their service should be honoured.
How can it be so that such a march can be so easily denied? How many other marches have been denied? How many of the people in the marches which have been given permission have been veterans? Yes, it does make a difference if they are veterans or not. They have served their country and their service needs to be honoured. It is not the glorification of war as some might accuse, it is the acknowledgement of the service. It is the honouring of men and women who did a service to their country. These are men and women who we should be standing up and being proud of. These are men and women who we should be making every effort to ensure that their march goes ahead without a hitch rather than denying them permission. This is about showing respect to these veterans.
The Brisbane City Council simply needs to make sure that this march can happen. It needs to happen. It needs to happen to give due honour to these veterans and respect the service that they have done for this country.
Cheers,
Henry.
Tuesday 14 August 2018
The Smoker: A Dying Breed
Greetings,
The following is something that I wrote after having an experience and a chat with some people while in the centre of Brisbane, Queensland. I am not advocating anyone taking up smoking at all, just asking you to have a look at the situation from a different perspective. I have tried to be as objective as possible with regard to this post, but it is a little difficult.
A further note, I sent this to the editor of the Courier Mail for one of the Letters to the Editor not long after I wrote it with no response. Obviously policy does not allow an even-handed or even counter-argument view on a subject as divisive as smoking.
Cheers,
Henry.
The following is something that I wrote after having an experience and a chat with some people while in the centre of Brisbane, Queensland. I am not advocating anyone taking up smoking at all, just asking you to have a look at the situation from a different perspective. I have tried to be as objective as possible with regard to this post, but it is a little difficult.
A further note, I sent this to the editor of the Courier Mail for one of the Letters to the Editor not long after I wrote it with no response. Obviously policy does not allow an even-handed or even counter-argument view on a subject as divisive as smoking.
The Smoker: A Dying Breed
The smoker is a breed of human which is dying out, in both
senses of the word. They are subject to the threats of cancer, emphysema and
other life-threatening diseases and infections. But they are also subject to
other hazards, social disgust, legal ramification, and taxation. Likely, while
the former are good reasons to “kick the habit”, as has been coined in modern
speech; the latter are also likely to force the smoker out of his
ever-dwindling breed.
While quitting smoking has been seen, and is, the healthiest
alternative, a new breed of smoker has emerged, “the vaper”. These individuals
suck on vapours produced from different flavoured fluids. The studies show that
this is a healthier alternative, but is it only time until society turns
against these individuals as well?
Amongst the smoking breed there are those who take their
habit as some sort of stand, often against some authority. Like a quiet form of
protest they smoke as a stand for their habit, forgetting the original reason
they started. These are what could be called the “hard-core” smokers who will
defend their habit as any other might theirs.
The considerate smoker is one who will ensure that they are
away from non-smokers, or are in the company of other smokers. They will do
their best to ensure that their habit has the least effect on those around
them. If in mixed company, they will do their best to ensure their smoke is
blown away from non-smokers. They will always ensure that their butts are extinguished
properly and also disposed of properly. Yet they are lumped in with those with
no consideration.
The inconsiderate smoker lights up where they feel like
regardless of the company and regardless of the feelings of others. They have
no consideration for the effect their smoke may have on others. They may even
be offended if their inconsiderate smoking is pointed out to them and thus will
react angrily and with no remorse.
Smokers have been banned from playgrounds, which is sensible
so they do not have an effect on the young lungs of children. Smokers have also
been banned from bus stops, public transport, public buildings and most covered
areas. The considerate smoker would absent themselves from most of these
without legislation in place; yet they are chased away and threatened with
legal action.
The result of these bans is that we see smokers clustered
together like social outcasts. Areas have been designated for smokers and
smokers congregate in these areas to smoke. Ironically, some non-smokers will
approach these spaces and complain about the smoke. Just as with any group of
people, there are also the “radical non-smokers”.
The true bane of the smokers’ existence is both the “radical
non-smoker” and the “radical ex-smoker”. Like evangelicals they feel it is
their purpose in life to convert or persecute smokers wherever they may be
found. They are mortally offended if they can smell smoke on a breeze and will
expect the smoker to move regardless of the situation. They will quote evidence
of the damage and cost of smoking, even though this is now evident, often in
graphic detail, on every pack which is bought. What they do not realise is that
they harm their cause taking such a stance.
Nicotine is a drug, pure and simple, and an addictive one at
that. Alcohol is also a drug, and a poison, yet smoking products are taxed and
legislated against far more strongly, even though it could be proven that the
damage caused by alcohol is far more costly.
What is also not known is that some of those smokers are
doing it for their health. For some it is a simple and relatively quick form of
pain relief when access to other drugs and pain relief are not available. For
others it provides a measure of stress relief in situations where other methods
are not possible.
Smokers are a dying breed, and they know it. They know the
risks of their habit. They are not all the same and they do not all smoke for
the same reasons. Unless you have been in the smoker’s shoes you do not know as
much as you think. Have some consideration before you speak out against their
habit, our “nanny state” may decide that your habit or hobby is too dangerous
and anti-social next.
Cheers,
Henry.
Respect not Glorification An Answer to: "What Does Glorifying The ANZAC Myth Say About Our Attitudes To Violent Men Today?"
Greetings,
I am getting a real distaste for the modern historian and their revisionist view of the world and how they want to find fault with everything, especially if some group of people want to find good in it. More to the point how they want to do something that I was told never to do and make emotional pleas to the audience. The subject is also one which strikes a little close to my heart, having servicemen and women in my family, and having a long and endearing respect for all of them.
So, the original article which I am arguing against can be found here: http://junkee.com/what-does-glorifying-the-anzac-myth-say-about-our-attitudes-to-violent-men-today/76563, entitled "What Does Glorifying The ANZAC Myth Say About Our Attitudes To Violent Men Today?" It came up on my Facebook feed and I read it and I just could not stay silent about it. I apologise to those of my friends who have different views with regard to this subject but this is something I feel rather strongly about.
Horrible things happen in wars, on both sides, and by both sides. To take a revisionist approach to history and to vilify those who took part does not assist anyone. The amount of civilians killed in wars is tragic, as is the amount of lives lost in general. More to the point, often when a soldier, as a part of a unit, commits these acts they are on the orders of someone who never sees them, but expects the job to get done nonetheless. Most of the men who do follow the orders are ordinary men in extra-ordindary situations. To pick and choose incidents which inflame the emotions to one way or another is not using logic but emotional reasoning, and is bad history.
The author claims, "the violence required of men in war is airbrushed our of the story of ANZAC," a feat I would claim is near impossible considering it is a war and surrounded by violence. I would think that no one would have any delusions that ANZACs performed acts of violence, as has been stated before, they were soldiers and this was their job. To talk about war and not include violence or even consider it would be foolish in the extreme.
The men who came back from the First World War came back changed. The experiences that they had could have done nothing more than change them. For some, it was a change for the better, for some it was not. There are indeed reports of those who came back and who could not deal with living in a civilian situation, and some of these no doubt were involved in domestic violence. To paint all of the veterans with the same brush is a gross generalisation.
The article asks whether or not the glorification of the ANZAC Myth normalizes violence in our society by holding up the perpetrators of violence to glory. In response to such statements it can be said that the world has been at war, in one way or another, almost constantly since the Second World War, and that even now is in an undeclared, in some instances, state of war. Violence can be found when a person turns on their television, looks on the Internet, reads a book or in many other places. It was not the ANZAC Myth which has "normalized violence" at all. Violence is pervasive throughout modern media and it is this which promotes it more. If all that can be seen in the ANZAC Myth is the promotion of violence of any kind, then the true source of inspiration which keeps the services going every year, which honours the veterans, rather than glorifying war, has not been found by the author.
The ANZAC Myth has less to do with the glorification of violence and more about the honouring of service. There are key elements which are to be found, which are more important than violence and its glorification. Go talk to a veteran, ask them about their experiences, and it doesn't even have to be a WWII or earlier one either. Ask them about their friends they have lost, what they did, and how it changed them, and decide for yourself whether or not it is glorification when you pay your respects on ANZAC Day or Remembrance Day.
Cheers,
Henry,
I am getting a real distaste for the modern historian and their revisionist view of the world and how they want to find fault with everything, especially if some group of people want to find good in it. More to the point how they want to do something that I was told never to do and make emotional pleas to the audience. The subject is also one which strikes a little close to my heart, having servicemen and women in my family, and having a long and endearing respect for all of them.
So, the original article which I am arguing against can be found here: http://junkee.com/what-does-glorifying-the-anzac-myth-say-about-our-attitudes-to-violent-men-today/76563, entitled "What Does Glorifying The ANZAC Myth Say About Our Attitudes To Violent Men Today?" It came up on my Facebook feed and I read it and I just could not stay silent about it. I apologise to those of my friends who have different views with regard to this subject but this is something I feel rather strongly about.
Australians at War
During the First World War, the Australian Imperial Forces went and fought in Gallipoli, Palestine and France, among other places, as a part of our "Imperial duty". Our troops did much the same thing in the Second when they went to the Middle East and beyond. This means, in essence, they went to fight and support someone else due to a feeling of familiar bonds. Those who went to Papua New Guinea and fought along the Kakoda Trail were literally fighting to prevent the Japanese invasion of Australia. I am proud to say that members of my family from both sides served in both World Wars, and I will not be beaten back for having this pride.Wars are Horrible
The soldier in war commits acts of violence which are not normal in society, then again wars are not a normal state of affairs. Soldiers are trained to kill their opponents, trained to survive on the battlefield, and trained to follow orders. This is what a soldier does, this is his job, and there is no other job like it. In normal circumstances the soldier would be locked up for committing the acts that they do during war, but during war it is what they are expected to do.Horrible things happen in wars, on both sides, and by both sides. To take a revisionist approach to history and to vilify those who took part does not assist anyone. The amount of civilians killed in wars is tragic, as is the amount of lives lost in general. More to the point, often when a soldier, as a part of a unit, commits these acts they are on the orders of someone who never sees them, but expects the job to get done nonetheless. Most of the men who do follow the orders are ordinary men in extra-ordindary situations. To pick and choose incidents which inflame the emotions to one way or another is not using logic but emotional reasoning, and is bad history.
The author claims, "the violence required of men in war is airbrushed our of the story of ANZAC," a feat I would claim is near impossible considering it is a war and surrounded by violence. I would think that no one would have any delusions that ANZACs performed acts of violence, as has been stated before, they were soldiers and this was their job. To talk about war and not include violence or even consider it would be foolish in the extreme.
Domestic Violence has a Long History
Domestic violence is a horrible thing, but to attempt to try to link it to the commemoration and service of those who served a nation is wrong. Go have a look up "the rule of thumb" and the date on when this was legal to beat your wife. So beating your wife as a part of law had been around since at least the late 1700's. So what we call domestic violence has been around much longer than when the veterans came back from the First World War and to try and blame it on them is to deny all the previous history of it.The men who came back from the First World War came back changed. The experiences that they had could have done nothing more than change them. For some, it was a change for the better, for some it was not. There are indeed reports of those who came back and who could not deal with living in a civilian situation, and some of these no doubt were involved in domestic violence. To paint all of the veterans with the same brush is a gross generalisation.
"Glorification" of the ANZAC Myth
The article talks about "glorifying" the ANZAC Myth, it is not about glorification, it is about honouring those who served. Unless you have served in the military forces in a time of war you have no idea what goes on. There is violence in war, this is undoubted, and the men who have seen war bear the scars of war both physically and also mentally.The article asks whether or not the glorification of the ANZAC Myth normalizes violence in our society by holding up the perpetrators of violence to glory. In response to such statements it can be said that the world has been at war, in one way or another, almost constantly since the Second World War, and that even now is in an undeclared, in some instances, state of war. Violence can be found when a person turns on their television, looks on the Internet, reads a book or in many other places. It was not the ANZAC Myth which has "normalized violence" at all. Violence is pervasive throughout modern media and it is this which promotes it more. If all that can be seen in the ANZAC Myth is the promotion of violence of any kind, then the true source of inspiration which keeps the services going every year, which honours the veterans, rather than glorifying war, has not been found by the author.
The ANZAC Myth has less to do with the glorification of violence and more about the honouring of service. There are key elements which are to be found, which are more important than violence and its glorification. Go talk to a veteran, ask them about their experiences, and it doesn't even have to be a WWII or earlier one either. Ask them about their friends they have lost, what they did, and how it changed them, and decide for yourself whether or not it is glorification when you pay your respects on ANZAC Day or Remembrance Day.
Cheers,
Henry,
The Value of Volunteering: A Response to: "Volunteering doesn't make the world a better place"
Greetings,
I was trolling through Facebook when I came across an article which was posted by a friend of mine. The link to the article is in the Bibliography which you will find at the end of this. The following will address some of the assertions of the author of the article which were made, but will also address and underlying issue which seems to come up again and again, and that is the meaning of "value". I will admit that this article did hit a rather raw nerve because I have done quite a bit of volunteering over my years, but it shows just how much the focus must be toward a fiscal end in every pursuit.
Ms Walsh starts of with addressing her audience with the idea of using their New Year's resolutions to not volunteer. Pointing that volunteering is merely a mechanism for people to make themselves feel good about themselves. Then she questions whether or not it helps at all. In this she points out a simple fact that people who are using volunteering as a mechanism to get some method to feel good about themselves, as "good citizens" or otherwise are not "volunteering" at all but are obligating themselves. This is a theme which flows through the article. When you volunteer, it must be on your own terms because you are interested in doing it not because you expect something out of it.
Of course then Ms Walsh follows this up with the classic feminist argument, and it fits perfectly into her profile of volunteer work. Who she does not take into account is all of the retirees, male and female, who also do volunteer work, and also the unemployed who are often forced to do it on "work for the dole" schemes. They are not all "people who do care work at home," a lot of them do this work for social reasons. This part of the argument raises the "home work" value argument and uses it to reinforce the idea of volunteer work being done by women and thus needing to be paid work, thus to be valued.
Volunteer work is useful. For the volunteer most people think it merely provides resume packing. For people who really volunteer (rather being guilted, or forced into it) it provides self-worth. For the people who benefit from the organization in the cases of social welfare organizations, the measure is difficult to calculate. Yet this article would want to change these organizations to ones in which the employees were paid. In most instances, the regular clientele of the services simply could not afford the services.
The biggest problem here is the concept of "value", why does it always have to be attached to the all-mighty dollar? Why is unpaid work under-valued? There are many recreational organizations in which people give their time voluntarily without pay, expecting not to be paid, quite happily, I might add, because it gives them joy to do so. Does not the joy which they get from this work have some "value"? Does not the joy that they give others through doing this work also give "value"? In many cases if these organizations were set up on a commercial basis they could not exist because of the costs of the work put in on a volunteer basis by the people who do the work.
Not all work should be evaluated on the basis of what dollar value is attributed to it. It should be valued on the basis of the joy or "value" of the benefit of the people and what they gain from it. We need to seriously look at what "value" really is in our current world and no longer put a dollar value to it to really understand the "value" of things and especially volunteer work.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/volunteering-doesnt-make-the-world-a-better-place-20180104-h0dd25.html
I was trolling through Facebook when I came across an article which was posted by a friend of mine. The link to the article is in the Bibliography which you will find at the end of this. The following will address some of the assertions of the author of the article which were made, but will also address and underlying issue which seems to come up again and again, and that is the meaning of "value". I will admit that this article did hit a rather raw nerve because I have done quite a bit of volunteering over my years, but it shows just how much the focus must be toward a fiscal end in every pursuit.
Ms Walsh starts of with addressing her audience with the idea of using their New Year's resolutions to not volunteer. Pointing that volunteering is merely a mechanism for people to make themselves feel good about themselves. Then she questions whether or not it helps at all. In this she points out a simple fact that people who are using volunteering as a mechanism to get some method to feel good about themselves, as "good citizens" or otherwise are not "volunteering" at all but are obligating themselves. This is a theme which flows through the article. When you volunteer, it must be on your own terms because you are interested in doing it not because you expect something out of it.
"A lot of volunteering we do is inefficient. Schools ask that parents bake cakes to be sold to the children of other parents who have baked cakes. Most school events involve sausages on white bread and fizzy drinks, which is not recommended as a healthy diet. ..." (Walsh, 2018)Many of the "classic" volunteering activities are inefficient and pave the way for other problems which do crop up in the future. This is an argument which will be conceded to the author, however, these are not the only volunteering activities which are out there, they are just the most visible. Volunteering encapsulates many more activities than most people realize, and many people are actually doing unofficial-volunteer or more accurately unrecognized-volunteer work without even realizing it. Coach your children's sports team? Volunteer work. Are you a scout leader? Volunteer work. Officer of a recreational group? Volunteer work.
"Volunteering is not valued. If volunteering was valued we would have a separate resume for it, at parties would ask each other about their volunteering, and hours worked would contribute to superannuation. Volunteering is expected of people who are regarded as having the time to do it, that is, people who do care work at home, looking after their families, primarily women. Because women do care work their labour is not valued. If a job is valued it is rewarded with pay." (Walsh, 2018)Volunteering work is valued, especially by the organizations who use volunteers, and also by the volunteers themselves, something which will be discussed shortly. Why would it appear on a separate resume? It is work done, so it goes on a normal resume, to put on a separate one is a self-fulfilling argument. At parties people do discuss their volunteer work, most often they do not realize that they are talking about it. In some cases it is deliberately talked about (I sure as hell do). If it contributed to superannuation then it would not be volunteer work, it would defeat the purpose of it. It would simply be work.
Of course then Ms Walsh follows this up with the classic feminist argument, and it fits perfectly into her profile of volunteer work. Who she does not take into account is all of the retirees, male and female, who also do volunteer work, and also the unemployed who are often forced to do it on "work for the dole" schemes. They are not all "people who do care work at home," a lot of them do this work for social reasons. This part of the argument raises the "home work" value argument and uses it to reinforce the idea of volunteer work being done by women and thus needing to be paid work, thus to be valued.
"The volunteering that has greatest impact is done upstream and has a measurable outcome. Volunteering works when the aim is to change a broken system, to change a law or policy. This law or policy would be one that sees a requirement for volunteers, fundraising and charities abandoned, so there will be no expectation that the next generation will keep inefficient systems." (Walsh, 2018)Clearly the idea of the article is to get people to use the system that we have by paying taxes and writing to politicians. Or if they must volunteer, do so for organizations with political aims of some description, not that this would be surprising considering her previous remarks with regard to the "who volunteers" subject. In her opinion efficient and effective volunteering is the kind that makes changes in the world, but one that is efficient and effective in its volunteering so that the organization which comes behind does not have to clean up the mess behind. Again, this does not take into account other organizations which have volunteers and the reasons why they join.
Volunteer work is useful. For the volunteer most people think it merely provides resume packing. For people who really volunteer (rather being guilted, or forced into it) it provides self-worth. For the people who benefit from the organization in the cases of social welfare organizations, the measure is difficult to calculate. Yet this article would want to change these organizations to ones in which the employees were paid. In most instances, the regular clientele of the services simply could not afford the services.
The biggest problem here is the concept of "value", why does it always have to be attached to the all-mighty dollar? Why is unpaid work under-valued? There are many recreational organizations in which people give their time voluntarily without pay, expecting not to be paid, quite happily, I might add, because it gives them joy to do so. Does not the joy which they get from this work have some "value"? Does not the joy that they give others through doing this work also give "value"? In many cases if these organizations were set up on a commercial basis they could not exist because of the costs of the work put in on a volunteer basis by the people who do the work.
Not all work should be evaluated on the basis of what dollar value is attributed to it. It should be valued on the basis of the joy or "value" of the benefit of the people and what they gain from it. We need to seriously look at what "value" really is in our current world and no longer put a dollar value to it to really understand the "value" of things and especially volunteer work.
Bibliography
Walsh, C. (2018) "Volunteering doesn't make the world a better place", Sydney Morning Herald,http://www.smh.com.au/comment/volunteering-doesnt-make-the-world-a-better-place-20180104-h0dd25.html
Rights and Responsibilities
Introduction
This post is one that I think needs to be written as it highlights something which needs to be stated and needs to be noted by many people as many people talk about Rights but few of the same people talk about Responsibilities, the other side of those Rights that they claim. I will start very simply with this discussion and then move on to deeper and more significant matters to present arguments which must be made and highlight elements which must be brought to light for all of us to act as real humans and real adults."Out on the Town"
So, a group of friends decide to go out and have a night on the town, have a few drinks and generally have a good time. This is their Right as adults. Unless they all decide that they will travel home by public transport this means that one of them will have to be the "designated driver". This is a Responsibility which goes hand in had with the Right which everyone is enjoying. Likewise if they decide to go home by public transport there is planning that needs to be done, that is also a Responsibility that one or all of the members must be involved in. Thus Rights and Responsibilities are interwoven here.Universal Declaration of Human Rights
So now we will go to the other end of the scale of things and have a look at a very important document which states what Rights every person on the planet should have. This document can be found here: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. This is a most interesting document as within some of the Rights which are stated there are also Responsibilities also present.The Responsibilities within this document actually start within the Preamble, "that human rights should be protected by the rule of law". Thus within the beginnings of the document it requires as a Responsibility of signatory nations that these Rights are protected by the rule of law. This Responsibility to uphold this document goes even further than that in that it states,
"Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,"Thus the Preamble reminds the Member States of the United Nations that they have pledged themselves, i.e. promised, to co-operate with the UN to promote these human rights, thus again Responsible for doing so.
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."Article 1, unedited. everyone is Responsible to act toward everyon else in a spirit of brotherhood. It would seem that this Responsibility has gone by the way-side in many situations. This is the first one, admittedly the Responsibility is only implied, but it is present.
Several of the following Articles within the document place a heavy Responsibility upon Member States within the UN with regard to laws made and upholding these laws to ensure that their people are treated fairly. No doubt their are violations which could be cited in several places in several countries. Even several "respectable" nations could be creeping a little close due to Article 9, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." when considering the current detainment conditions under various terror laws, but this is not the aim of this exercise.
Needless to say, it is a very involved document, where, if looked at closely there are all sorts of Rights detailed, and lots of State Responsibilities implied. However, there are few individual Responsibilities implied or stated within this document, which is a little cause of concern as there must be a balance. It is the lack of this balance, which causes issues
Rights Without Responsibilities
When people are given Rights but not Responsibilities there is an issue as they are given things but not expected to do anything in return for it. This can be seen in many different places. Many of our youths these days are given Rights but not Responsibilities and this leads them to flout their Rights all over the place and cause issues. This can be seen where adults have no power to discipline children or youths in any real fashion.We often see that an individual will do something wrong but is never expected to take Responsibility for their actions as their are loop-holes through which they can slip. In many instances this is not just children and youths, but adults as well. Taking Responsibility for ones actions is how we grow and learn from our mistakes so that we do not make the same mistake over again.
There are issues which need to be tackled. There are real mental and social issues which impair groups and place them in a position where they will cause problems, but placing them back in the same situation cannot be the way out. Blanket legislation of "youths" or "criminal activity" is also not the way as it places vulnerable individuals in situations where they will not learn, or will only learn how to be more effective at doing the wrong thing. Here, again, is a failure of the teaching of Rights and Responsibilities.
One of the Responsibilities that most needs to be taught is Responsibilities for choices made and the consequences of those choices which go along with them. So often we hear complaints about situations where a person is in a situation where if they had made a different choice they would be in a better situation. More to the point the same person is blaming everyone else for their problems. This is a person cannot take Responsibility for their own choices. It needs to be taught and taught well, along with this is planning ahead to deal with the consequences of the choices made.
Trickle Down Effects
Legislation is devised by politicians to supposedly solve an issue when examined from their position. It is placed into law and then it does not work, no surprise. It is because they do not understand what is happening at the level where their legislation effects. They have the Right to make legislation which affects which ever part of the nation they govern, but they also have the Responsibility to make sure that it is the right legislation so that it will be for the advantage of their constituents.The budget is too far in deficit, so the politicians use their Right to legislate a cut in spending. Where do they cut the spending? At the top? No, at the bottom. Social welfare programs get attacked. Pensions get attacked. Hospital funding gets attacked. Schools get attacked. Then they wonder why unemployment and crime increases. They also wonder why they all of a sudden become unpopular. It is because they have not been Responsible to all the people who they govern.
Conclusion
The whole thing may sound like the ramblings of some cranky old guy who dreams of a "better past when I was a lad", but there must be some balance between the Rights we give and the Responsibilities we expect of people otherwise things will simply be out of kilter. Responsibilities need to be taught just as the Rights do, and with the same emphasis. Both are important.I have given a simple example of Rights and Responsibilites with the group going out on the town for a night, and I have given a much more complex example in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What needs to be noted here is that both elements are present in both. What followed are examples of what happens when people forget about their Responsibilities, both to themselves and to others. The effects can be devastating. More to the point, not taking into account to consequences of a choice is also an effect which needs to be noted. Remember, you are Responsible for your choices and the consequences which come with them.
Cheers,
Henry.
Internet Connection: Cloak of Anonymity
Greetings,
All of us have read comments on the internet with regard to many different postings and topics which have taken us aback. The sort of comment when you read it where you wonder if the same thing would be said by the same person if the author and listener were face-to-face. I am talking about short abusive or long tirades about subjects where the thought of using courteous language has gone out the window. It is my greatest suspicion that it is due to the cloak of anonymity, or degrees of it which allow people to do this.
Online many people do not use their real names, in some way this makes them feel that they can divorce themselves from comments made and insults given. Even in some circumstances where the person is using their own name the same can be said. It is my belief that this is due to the simple fact that the two people in the conversation (author and reader) are not in direct contact so the ideas of the use of language and what should and should not be broadcast are left aside. What we say face-to-face, or even in a printed form in many cases, is quite different as compared to the high-speed, high-volume which is found on the internet.
What is most interesting is that there can be a complete change of character and personality of a person when comparing their electronic communications as to speaking to them face-to-face. For the most part the face-to-face contact with the person is quite a bit more personable than the electronic. I would state that this has something to do with consequences, a slip of a word or insult in an electronic medium has less consequence than the same if it was face-to-face. Some would claim that this is an advance in the freedom of speech, I would say that it is a reduction in courtesy and consideration for the audience who may be subject to such communications.
Many people have not met face-to-face, while they have conversed for periods of time across the electronic medium. Meeting face-to-face in many instances actually changes the relationship between the individuals quite a bit. The classic instance of this is the internet love affair where the pair in the relationship finally meet face-to-face and find out the truth. It does not always work, as we all well know. The reverse is also true having met a person in person and then contacting them across an electronic medium is different to having contact with a person whom you have never met in person. In many ways it is because the person is more "real". The voice on the end of a phone/microphone or words on a screen just do not have the same impact.
While I will admit that I have been guilty of some faceless tirades, often I will go back and read the same and wonder why I did it and where all of that came from. Remember, the written word lasts a lot longer than you might suspect, and can be used later on. Many public figures have been caught with regard to this. I would suggest that in such communications if a person sat back, examined the situation from a more neutral standpoint, there might be quite a change as to what was written and the resulting furore which may result. When posting, consider your audience, consider the impression of yourself you are creating, and consider whether you would say the same to the same person face-to-face if you were to ever meet them.
Cheers,
Henry.
All of us have read comments on the internet with regard to many different postings and topics which have taken us aback. The sort of comment when you read it where you wonder if the same thing would be said by the same person if the author and listener were face-to-face. I am talking about short abusive or long tirades about subjects where the thought of using courteous language has gone out the window. It is my greatest suspicion that it is due to the cloak of anonymity, or degrees of it which allow people to do this.
Online many people do not use their real names, in some way this makes them feel that they can divorce themselves from comments made and insults given. Even in some circumstances where the person is using their own name the same can be said. It is my belief that this is due to the simple fact that the two people in the conversation (author and reader) are not in direct contact so the ideas of the use of language and what should and should not be broadcast are left aside. What we say face-to-face, or even in a printed form in many cases, is quite different as compared to the high-speed, high-volume which is found on the internet.
What is most interesting is that there can be a complete change of character and personality of a person when comparing their electronic communications as to speaking to them face-to-face. For the most part the face-to-face contact with the person is quite a bit more personable than the electronic. I would state that this has something to do with consequences, a slip of a word or insult in an electronic medium has less consequence than the same if it was face-to-face. Some would claim that this is an advance in the freedom of speech, I would say that it is a reduction in courtesy and consideration for the audience who may be subject to such communications.
Many people have not met face-to-face, while they have conversed for periods of time across the electronic medium. Meeting face-to-face in many instances actually changes the relationship between the individuals quite a bit. The classic instance of this is the internet love affair where the pair in the relationship finally meet face-to-face and find out the truth. It does not always work, as we all well know. The reverse is also true having met a person in person and then contacting them across an electronic medium is different to having contact with a person whom you have never met in person. In many ways it is because the person is more "real". The voice on the end of a phone/microphone or words on a screen just do not have the same impact.
While I will admit that I have been guilty of some faceless tirades, often I will go back and read the same and wonder why I did it and where all of that came from. Remember, the written word lasts a lot longer than you might suspect, and can be used later on. Many public figures have been caught with regard to this. I would suggest that in such communications if a person sat back, examined the situation from a more neutral standpoint, there might be quite a change as to what was written and the resulting furore which may result. When posting, consider your audience, consider the impression of yourself you are creating, and consider whether you would say the same to the same person face-to-face if you were to ever meet them.
Cheers,
Henry.
An Open Letter to Politicians
Greetings,
The message which follows is not the usual thing that I put up on my blog here. This is one which has something to do with fibromyalgia in a slanted sort of way, but more directly this is a small political statement which I think I need to get out of my system. I will return you all to your usual reading shortly. What follows is an open letter to all politicians be they local, state or national parliamentarians.
"A man of the people, for the people."
Dear Politicians,
When you give your great election speeches you claim that you are talking about serving the members of your various electorates. You claim that you are serving our country in our best interests. You claim that you are looking out for the people that you represent. I would challenge you all with regard to this one and now truly stand up for the people of your electorates.
The only person who votes whether or not you get a pay rise is you and your fellow politicians. I as a member of an electorate, and the people in general do not get a say as to whether you allow this to happen. The only way that we can make an impact upon these decisions is to approach you en mass in some form or another to make our grievances known. The only time that your positions are threatened by anything that you may or may not have done is once every four years.
I challenge you that next time the question of a pay rise comes up in your parliamentary discussions that you stand against this. Ask yourself whether you really need this pay rise, or whether there could be a place where this money could go which would truly benefit the members of your electorates. There are people out there who are in dire straits due to their financial situations and a boost at this troubled time for them would be a great boost to them. This is your chance for you to truly be "a man of the people, for the people" as your position would indicate that you are.
Yours sincerely,
Henry Walker.
The message which follows is not the usual thing that I put up on my blog here. This is one which has something to do with fibromyalgia in a slanted sort of way, but more directly this is a small political statement which I think I need to get out of my system. I will return you all to your usual reading shortly. What follows is an open letter to all politicians be they local, state or national parliamentarians.
"A man of the people, for the people."
Dear Politicians,
When you give your great election speeches you claim that you are talking about serving the members of your various electorates. You claim that you are serving our country in our best interests. You claim that you are looking out for the people that you represent. I would challenge you all with regard to this one and now truly stand up for the people of your electorates.
The only person who votes whether or not you get a pay rise is you and your fellow politicians. I as a member of an electorate, and the people in general do not get a say as to whether you allow this to happen. The only way that we can make an impact upon these decisions is to approach you en mass in some form or another to make our grievances known. The only time that your positions are threatened by anything that you may or may not have done is once every four years.
I challenge you that next time the question of a pay rise comes up in your parliamentary discussions that you stand against this. Ask yourself whether you really need this pay rise, or whether there could be a place where this money could go which would truly benefit the members of your electorates. There are people out there who are in dire straits due to their financial situations and a boost at this troubled time for them would be a great boost to them. This is your chance for you to truly be "a man of the people, for the people" as your position would indicate that you are.
Yours sincerely,
Henry Walker.
Making the First Move
Greetings,
Well, with a title like that, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that I was talking about a boardgame. I will let you know right now that I am not. I am talking about a different subject which will affect anyone who has friends, and especially friends who do not live close. This blog is about the consideration of others and many reasons why contact may or may not have happened recently.
People make contact with one another, find similar interests, likes and dislikes and through this friendships are sometimes formed. The most important thing to realise at the beginning is that friendships require effort on the part of both people involved in the relationship, and this is not even discussing a love interest. What this also means is that it requires contact from both people in the friendship not just one. This is an important point that should be emphasised.
Say you have a friend that you have not spoken to in quite a while. You may get concerned as to whether they are your friend or not. This may be because they have not contacted you in a while. My question in this particular situation is, have you contacted them? This, once again, comes back to realising that a friendship requires effort on the parts of both people involved. You should not expect your friend to call you, unless you have called them, and then not even then. It is foolish to let a friendship die just because you are too silly or stubborn not to pick up the phone or send an e-mail.
Next we move on to reasons and considerations. Being ignored is not great, but it is something that a person can live with if they have to. Is this reasoning because you have not been contacted? The question in this particular situation is are you really being ignored? There are endless reasons for a person not to contact you, including that you have not contacted them. The big question in this particular situation is, what have you done about it? Have you made an effort? Once again it is a two-way street. If the friend has not contacted you and you are concerned you should go to the effort of contacting them yourself. The feeling of ignorance could be the same on the part of your friend.
Well, this has been a couple of short points that people should consider. I have written it from my own point of view. It is important that you should remember that a friendship is a two-way thing and it is expected that there will be effort on both parts of the involved people. If you have not heard from a friend, contact them, have a chat, see how they are going. You never know you might re-kindle a friendship.
Cheers,
...Henry.
Well, with a title like that, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that I was talking about a boardgame. I will let you know right now that I am not. I am talking about a different subject which will affect anyone who has friends, and especially friends who do not live close. This blog is about the consideration of others and many reasons why contact may or may not have happened recently.
People make contact with one another, find similar interests, likes and dislikes and through this friendships are sometimes formed. The most important thing to realise at the beginning is that friendships require effort on the part of both people involved in the relationship, and this is not even discussing a love interest. What this also means is that it requires contact from both people in the friendship not just one. This is an important point that should be emphasised.
Say you have a friend that you have not spoken to in quite a while. You may get concerned as to whether they are your friend or not. This may be because they have not contacted you in a while. My question in this particular situation is, have you contacted them? This, once again, comes back to realising that a friendship requires effort on the parts of both people involved. You should not expect your friend to call you, unless you have called them, and then not even then. It is foolish to let a friendship die just because you are too silly or stubborn not to pick up the phone or send an e-mail.
Next we move on to reasons and considerations. Being ignored is not great, but it is something that a person can live with if they have to. Is this reasoning because you have not been contacted? The question in this particular situation is are you really being ignored? There are endless reasons for a person not to contact you, including that you have not contacted them. The big question in this particular situation is, what have you done about it? Have you made an effort? Once again it is a two-way street. If the friend has not contacted you and you are concerned you should go to the effort of contacting them yourself. The feeling of ignorance could be the same on the part of your friend.
Well, this has been a couple of short points that people should consider. I have written it from my own point of view. It is important that you should remember that a friendship is a two-way thing and it is expected that there will be effort on both parts of the involved people. If you have not heard from a friend, contact them, have a chat, see how they are going. You never know you might re-kindle a friendship.
Cheers,
...Henry.
A Problem of the Modern Man
Greetings,
With a title like this you could almost be forgiven for thinking that I was going to talk about things like global warming, nuclear weapons and other such issues. Actually, I am going to be aiming somewhat smaller than these larger topics. The aim of this blog is to address some of those issues of being of the male gender in the modern world.
For starters lets get down to some specifics about who I am talking about. First, it must be made clear that any groups or individuals not included in this description should in no way get the idea that these problems only exist for the nominated. Second, it must be made clear that this is my own personal point of view and in no way claims to be speaking for any group of individuals or any singular individual aside from myself. So, the modern man I am speaking about is; of the male gender, of the heterosexual tendency, of the opinion that some of the old customs should be brought back, and is of a generally generous nature.
To be more specific about the problems of which I speak, I do not wish to address wider problems such as those already spoken about, nor do I wish to speak of everyday living issues as each individual should be able to solve these for themselves. The problems which I wish to speak about are with reference to the interaction with other individuals in society, more specifically I wish to talk about the social interactions between those of the male gender and those of the female gender.
In previous ages it was reasonably simple to follow a simple set of guidelines in order to survive interactions with those of the opposite gender. In the modern world things are not so simple for the man. Certain expectations used to be placed on the man and he was expected to live up to these expectations or be shunned by certain members of society. Some of these rules still apply others have been removed and others have been legislated. For the modern man things have increased in complexity.
Sexual harassment is a subject which comes up again and again with regard to the interaction between the male and the female genders. The modern man has really been placed between a rock and a hard place with regard to this particular issue. Sexual harassment is decreed by the victim of the sexual harassment, which is understandable, but there are no clear lines where this applies to a particular gesture. The rules are flexible as associated with the situation in which the individuals find themselves in. It is this flexibility which causes the modern man much consternation. The same action in one instance is perfectly fine whereas in another it is considered to be sexual harassment, or even dependent on the individual involved. This leaves the modern man in a situation where if he makes a move he could be considered to be harassing, yet if he makes no move, then he could be considered to be being shy or lacking in some fashion. This leaves the modern man in a veritable catch-22.
Continuing on a similar line, the modern man faces another problem which is not as evident as it might be to some. The question of the appreciation of the female form. The human brain is programmed to seek those of the opposite gender who are attractive to them ostensibly for the purposes of procreation. The only way for this to happen is for the individual to observe and do evaluations. In one particular instance a male observing a female could be seen as not being a problem, and yet in another, such observation could be seen as "ogling" or even sexual harassment. Still in another situation the second action described could be seen as a firm appreciation of the individual and welcomed. Once again leaving the modern man confused as to his approach. Yet from a different point of view, the same observation by the female of the male is often considered fine. Thus often having different rules for the genders.
The concept of feminism brought the female in to a situation where according to all its tenets she was equal to he and vice versa. As a concept for allowing the female gender the pursuit of equal rights it should be applauded. However, this particular concept has caused issues for the male gender and indeed for a specific group within the gender being the gentleman. The previous habits of the gentleman were seen as being simply good manners, now in some instances they are considered demeaning and cause issues. The same could be said for old-fashioned courtesy, this is a concept which has been damaged by over-politicisation and over-emphasis of feminism.
Previously, it was considered to be simply good manners for a man to open a door for a woman. In the modern age such an action can attract negative attention to it. It does not always, but a man puts himself at risk of negative attention every time he does it. However, in the same situation the same man who did not open the door could also be considered inconsiderate. Thus this leaves the man in a bind about his actions. Indeed many of those actions which were considered to be common courtesy and expected by any well-bred man have been turned into potentially negative actions.
For the modern man, there are many different issues that abound. The focus of this blog has been those in association with gender relations. This is not designed so that the man can claim he has it hard or anything of the kind more to present these problems to a wider audience, and bring some recognition to them. In my particular instance, I will continue to do those things which I consider to be polite. This is what I feel is right.
Cheers,
...Henry.
With a title like this you could almost be forgiven for thinking that I was going to talk about things like global warming, nuclear weapons and other such issues. Actually, I am going to be aiming somewhat smaller than these larger topics. The aim of this blog is to address some of those issues of being of the male gender in the modern world.
For starters lets get down to some specifics about who I am talking about. First, it must be made clear that any groups or individuals not included in this description should in no way get the idea that these problems only exist for the nominated. Second, it must be made clear that this is my own personal point of view and in no way claims to be speaking for any group of individuals or any singular individual aside from myself. So, the modern man I am speaking about is; of the male gender, of the heterosexual tendency, of the opinion that some of the old customs should be brought back, and is of a generally generous nature.
To be more specific about the problems of which I speak, I do not wish to address wider problems such as those already spoken about, nor do I wish to speak of everyday living issues as each individual should be able to solve these for themselves. The problems which I wish to speak about are with reference to the interaction with other individuals in society, more specifically I wish to talk about the social interactions between those of the male gender and those of the female gender.
In previous ages it was reasonably simple to follow a simple set of guidelines in order to survive interactions with those of the opposite gender. In the modern world things are not so simple for the man. Certain expectations used to be placed on the man and he was expected to live up to these expectations or be shunned by certain members of society. Some of these rules still apply others have been removed and others have been legislated. For the modern man things have increased in complexity.
Sexual harassment is a subject which comes up again and again with regard to the interaction between the male and the female genders. The modern man has really been placed between a rock and a hard place with regard to this particular issue. Sexual harassment is decreed by the victim of the sexual harassment, which is understandable, but there are no clear lines where this applies to a particular gesture. The rules are flexible as associated with the situation in which the individuals find themselves in. It is this flexibility which causes the modern man much consternation. The same action in one instance is perfectly fine whereas in another it is considered to be sexual harassment, or even dependent on the individual involved. This leaves the modern man in a situation where if he makes a move he could be considered to be harassing, yet if he makes no move, then he could be considered to be being shy or lacking in some fashion. This leaves the modern man in a veritable catch-22.
Continuing on a similar line, the modern man faces another problem which is not as evident as it might be to some. The question of the appreciation of the female form. The human brain is programmed to seek those of the opposite gender who are attractive to them ostensibly for the purposes of procreation. The only way for this to happen is for the individual to observe and do evaluations. In one particular instance a male observing a female could be seen as not being a problem, and yet in another, such observation could be seen as "ogling" or even sexual harassment. Still in another situation the second action described could be seen as a firm appreciation of the individual and welcomed. Once again leaving the modern man confused as to his approach. Yet from a different point of view, the same observation by the female of the male is often considered fine. Thus often having different rules for the genders.
The concept of feminism brought the female in to a situation where according to all its tenets she was equal to he and vice versa. As a concept for allowing the female gender the pursuit of equal rights it should be applauded. However, this particular concept has caused issues for the male gender and indeed for a specific group within the gender being the gentleman. The previous habits of the gentleman were seen as being simply good manners, now in some instances they are considered demeaning and cause issues. The same could be said for old-fashioned courtesy, this is a concept which has been damaged by over-politicisation and over-emphasis of feminism.
Previously, it was considered to be simply good manners for a man to open a door for a woman. In the modern age such an action can attract negative attention to it. It does not always, but a man puts himself at risk of negative attention every time he does it. However, in the same situation the same man who did not open the door could also be considered inconsiderate. Thus this leaves the man in a bind about his actions. Indeed many of those actions which were considered to be common courtesy and expected by any well-bred man have been turned into potentially negative actions.
For the modern man, there are many different issues that abound. The focus of this blog has been those in association with gender relations. This is not designed so that the man can claim he has it hard or anything of the kind more to present these problems to a wider audience, and bring some recognition to them. In my particular instance, I will continue to do those things which I consider to be polite. This is what I feel is right.
Cheers,
...Henry.
"Duke Nukem: Forever" - A Game Review from a Player Who Got What he Wanted
Greetings,
I will give you fair warning that this is going to be a little bit of a rant in places and lots of "thought-writing" also. I today read a review of the recently released game "Duke Nukem Forever" in a gaming magazine and there are some things which I feel just need to be said. Hold on for a bit of a rough ride, but I do promise that I will try to get to the point.
"Duke Nukem Forever" has been one of the most anticipated games of the past decade and a half. When it was first proposed some 14 years ago it was greeted with excitement and jubilation. In the in-between years there have been various break-ups, breakdowns and extensions on the project to the point that at some point in time it was even suggested that it would end up as "vapourware", never to be actually seen only talked about in hushed circles. Well, after 14 years the game finally hit the shelves all over the world to interesting receptions from all over the place.
There was a great deal expected from this game, to be expected after such a long development period and doses of hype especially over the past six months or so. The hype built the game into some legendary thing that would re-ignite the passions of Duke fans of old, propelling him into the new age of new consoles and excitements abound. Well, for some reviewers it seems that the game has missed the mark. I personally think that these reviewers have missed the point of Duke Nukem and his way altogether.
I will not be saying anything about graphics or the actual sound of the game as I have nothing to do with the production of either and thus my opinion is therefore not as valid. I will be talking about storyline, gameplay, attitude, feeling and other elements that I feel that I do have a right to talk about as I am a gamer who actuall bought the game and has actually played it. So prefaced with these details I will get to examining the game.
The first thing that should be noted is that "Duke Nukem Forever" deserves every single bit of its MA15+ game classification. This is not one for the kids parents, or at least not until they are at least 15. It has violence, it has swearing (some of which would make a trucker blush), it has nudity, toilet humour, elements of horror, and lots of gore. With no surprise whatsoever it is most of these things that has attracted the gamers to this game in the first place.
The comedy of the game is something that you would have expected from a bad 80's action movie and thus suits the game very well. Yes, go get in your way-back machine and expect some really bad and dirty humour along with great piles of one-liners that you would only expect in an action movie. This does, however, all suit the nature of the game and the character being played down to the ground, and if you expected anything different from this game, then you are playing the wrong one. It is a great homage to the Duke of old.
Next we move on to storyline to which I must quote a review... "Duke's plight against the aliens has all the depth of an 80's action movie reel run over by a steamroller." Excuse me, but I expected nothing more actually. I was not expecting plot-turns, twists or anything of the kind. I was expecting the aliens to arrive and for Duke to go out, once again, and save Earth from the aliens in his usual style... essentially beating, kicking and blasting his way all the way from the first to the last and putting in his bad humour all the way through. Sorry folks but if you want an indepth storyline then Duke is not for you. However, it is exactly what I expected and exactly what I wanted so I could not be happier.
Now we move on to sound, I am not going to go into quality or form of the sound, just some general feelings. The ever-present sound of Duke's voice popping off one-liners and slagging off at other games was exactly what I expected and I often have to pause the game until I can stop laughing. What does this mean, well the fact that the game is an ego ride for Duke means that the other characters are two-dimensional and their voices are annoying, some much the better for enjoying Duke himself. The other characters in the game are simply filler and do their job admirably. Once again if you want more than one character to get attached to, then you are playing the wrong game, this is Duke's story so he is the absolute focus.
Well, one thing that no one can complain about is the length of the single-player campaign, going by all the reviews it is about 12 hours, which for a first-person shooter with no role-playing element is quite frankly, an epic. So does this mean that you will get bored through this process, I will pretty much guarantee frustrated when you get foiled, but not bored. There are those parts which are what we expect, kill lots of aliens, but there are also puzzles, but not the old ones. These are more the "how the hell do I get there" type puzzles which I enjoy. In some ways achieving these goals is as satisfying as dealing with an onslaught of enemies.
So, after all the ranting and raving that I have done what can I say but I am a gamer who got exactly what he wanted from "Duke Nukem Forever". I wanted fun, I got it. I wanted lots of slaying, I got it. I wanted the old Duke revived with no polish whatsoever, I got it. It was all the enjoyment of an action flick with a first-person involvement portion that only a game can provide. So, friends count me as extremely happy, and expect me to be playing a lot of this game for some time to come.
Cheers,
Henry.
I will give you fair warning that this is going to be a little bit of a rant in places and lots of "thought-writing" also. I today read a review of the recently released game "Duke Nukem Forever" in a gaming magazine and there are some things which I feel just need to be said. Hold on for a bit of a rough ride, but I do promise that I will try to get to the point.
"Duke Nukem Forever" has been one of the most anticipated games of the past decade and a half. When it was first proposed some 14 years ago it was greeted with excitement and jubilation. In the in-between years there have been various break-ups, breakdowns and extensions on the project to the point that at some point in time it was even suggested that it would end up as "vapourware", never to be actually seen only talked about in hushed circles. Well, after 14 years the game finally hit the shelves all over the world to interesting receptions from all over the place.
There was a great deal expected from this game, to be expected after such a long development period and doses of hype especially over the past six months or so. The hype built the game into some legendary thing that would re-ignite the passions of Duke fans of old, propelling him into the new age of new consoles and excitements abound. Well, for some reviewers it seems that the game has missed the mark. I personally think that these reviewers have missed the point of Duke Nukem and his way altogether.
I will not be saying anything about graphics or the actual sound of the game as I have nothing to do with the production of either and thus my opinion is therefore not as valid. I will be talking about storyline, gameplay, attitude, feeling and other elements that I feel that I do have a right to talk about as I am a gamer who actuall bought the game and has actually played it. So prefaced with these details I will get to examining the game.
The first thing that should be noted is that "Duke Nukem Forever" deserves every single bit of its MA15+ game classification. This is not one for the kids parents, or at least not until they are at least 15. It has violence, it has swearing (some of which would make a trucker blush), it has nudity, toilet humour, elements of horror, and lots of gore. With no surprise whatsoever it is most of these things that has attracted the gamers to this game in the first place.
The comedy of the game is something that you would have expected from a bad 80's action movie and thus suits the game very well. Yes, go get in your way-back machine and expect some really bad and dirty humour along with great piles of one-liners that you would only expect in an action movie. This does, however, all suit the nature of the game and the character being played down to the ground, and if you expected anything different from this game, then you are playing the wrong one. It is a great homage to the Duke of old.
Next we move on to storyline to which I must quote a review... "Duke's plight against the aliens has all the depth of an 80's action movie reel run over by a steamroller." Excuse me, but I expected nothing more actually. I was not expecting plot-turns, twists or anything of the kind. I was expecting the aliens to arrive and for Duke to go out, once again, and save Earth from the aliens in his usual style... essentially beating, kicking and blasting his way all the way from the first to the last and putting in his bad humour all the way through. Sorry folks but if you want an indepth storyline then Duke is not for you. However, it is exactly what I expected and exactly what I wanted so I could not be happier.
Now we move on to sound, I am not going to go into quality or form of the sound, just some general feelings. The ever-present sound of Duke's voice popping off one-liners and slagging off at other games was exactly what I expected and I often have to pause the game until I can stop laughing. What does this mean, well the fact that the game is an ego ride for Duke means that the other characters are two-dimensional and their voices are annoying, some much the better for enjoying Duke himself. The other characters in the game are simply filler and do their job admirably. Once again if you want more than one character to get attached to, then you are playing the wrong game, this is Duke's story so he is the absolute focus.
Well, one thing that no one can complain about is the length of the single-player campaign, going by all the reviews it is about 12 hours, which for a first-person shooter with no role-playing element is quite frankly, an epic. So does this mean that you will get bored through this process, I will pretty much guarantee frustrated when you get foiled, but not bored. There are those parts which are what we expect, kill lots of aliens, but there are also puzzles, but not the old ones. These are more the "how the hell do I get there" type puzzles which I enjoy. In some ways achieving these goals is as satisfying as dealing with an onslaught of enemies.
So, after all the ranting and raving that I have done what can I say but I am a gamer who got exactly what he wanted from "Duke Nukem Forever". I wanted fun, I got it. I wanted lots of slaying, I got it. I wanted the old Duke revived with no polish whatsoever, I got it. It was all the enjoyment of an action flick with a first-person involvement portion that only a game can provide. So, friends count me as extremely happy, and expect me to be playing a lot of this game for some time to come.
Cheers,
Henry.
Noli Nothis Permittere to Terere.
Greetings,
The statement for the title of this blog is in latin and it says, "Don't let the bastards wear you down." So, this will be a discussion about people who annoy us and what to do about them. In many ways it will be more about attitudes toward things and how to deal with those inevitable nuisances which we all run into in our lives. There will be some aspects of dealing with people in those situations, but for the most part it will be focussed on the attitude a person takes to the situation.
Have a look again at the Latin statement and you will see two words which will look familiar and similar to words in English. "Nothis" looks like "nothing" and "permittere" looks like "permit", and this is where the realisation should start. The only real way that a person can really get under our skin and annoy us and get us down is if we permit them to do so. By permitting them nothing we take control ourselves we gain control of the situation. You are in control of how you are going to think and react to something use this power to your benefit. This is where your attitude to the situation becomes more important than anything else.
It is pretty much guaranteed that we will all run into those people who will annoy us or who we just simply will not get along with. Some of these people it will seem just feel like they are trying to annoy us and get in the way of what we want to do. The important thing here is that they can only annoy us and prevent us from doing what we want if we allow them to do so. There is always another path to what we want to do, it may take longer, but it will be there. For the most part the best solution is to ignore these people who annoy us and just leave them behind. Give them no credit and they will not have the power to annoy us.
Especially is the case where you are doing something that you love and there is an individual or even some individuals who are annoying you or making the thing less enjoyable because of their presence. This is one of those situations where you need to take a good hard look at things stand up and say to yourself, "I am not going to permit this so and so, this butthead, this bastard to ruin my fun." If you love something enough and enjoy something enough their presence should not hamper your enjoyment. Do not allow them to ruin something that you enjoy. The only person who has any control over that is you.
All in all the best defence against the bastards of our lives is a good attitude and some grit. Knuckle down do what you love and don't let anyone get in your way.
Cheers,
Henry.
The statement for the title of this blog is in latin and it says, "Don't let the bastards wear you down." So, this will be a discussion about people who annoy us and what to do about them. In many ways it will be more about attitudes toward things and how to deal with those inevitable nuisances which we all run into in our lives. There will be some aspects of dealing with people in those situations, but for the most part it will be focussed on the attitude a person takes to the situation.
Have a look again at the Latin statement and you will see two words which will look familiar and similar to words in English. "Nothis" looks like "nothing" and "permittere" looks like "permit", and this is where the realisation should start. The only real way that a person can really get under our skin and annoy us and get us down is if we permit them to do so. By permitting them nothing we take control ourselves we gain control of the situation. You are in control of how you are going to think and react to something use this power to your benefit. This is where your attitude to the situation becomes more important than anything else.
It is pretty much guaranteed that we will all run into those people who will annoy us or who we just simply will not get along with. Some of these people it will seem just feel like they are trying to annoy us and get in the way of what we want to do. The important thing here is that they can only annoy us and prevent us from doing what we want if we allow them to do so. There is always another path to what we want to do, it may take longer, but it will be there. For the most part the best solution is to ignore these people who annoy us and just leave them behind. Give them no credit and they will not have the power to annoy us.
Especially is the case where you are doing something that you love and there is an individual or even some individuals who are annoying you or making the thing less enjoyable because of their presence. This is one of those situations where you need to take a good hard look at things stand up and say to yourself, "I am not going to permit this so and so, this butthead, this bastard to ruin my fun." If you love something enough and enjoy something enough their presence should not hamper your enjoyment. Do not allow them to ruin something that you enjoy. The only person who has any control over that is you.
All in all the best defence against the bastards of our lives is a good attitude and some grit. Knuckle down do what you love and don't let anyone get in your way.
Cheers,
Henry.
Online Gaming and Sportsmanship
Greetings,
Online gaming is a part of the modern world and is becoming more and more prevalent. Online you will find gamers who are new to the idea and also those which would call themselves "hardcore". Of course you will find all sorts of grades in between. This allows for a great mix and allows for a wide variety of ability and gameplay in the games concerned. What will be addressed in this discussion is the subject of sportsmanship in these online games. While my particular focus will be those games which attempt to simulate warfare, the same subjects here will also apply in part to other games of a more role-playing nature.
To begin with I will explain myself and where I am coming from. I will give a little bit of my own online history and some other more personal details. For starters, I play games for the enjoyment of the game, or to put it more simply I play for fun. This means that I will never be rated as one of those "hardcore" players and I have no problems with this, to a point it actually makes me smile. I have other things to occupy my time besides these games.
The first time I played online it was on my old computer playing Battlefield 1942 (BF1942) a simulation of the conflict of World War II. I will admit I had no expectations of what it would be like and what to expect of my own playing ability. Now, I have been playing first-person shooters since Wolfenstein 3-D was first released to give you some of my vintage, and thought I was pretty average in my performance ability. So I went online with BF1942 and had a lot of fun games with people, I won some and lost some, playing with other human players was quite and experience and I quite enjoyed it for a while. What happened? Some players decided to "bunk" the system so to speak. The game that sealed my fate online in this one was when one person decided that it would be a good idea to stand on the other side of the map and perform artillery strikes on our spawn point.
For the uneducated in these games. A spawn point is where your character becomes "alive" so to speak, where you start from. So what this resulted in is my character spawning and then dying almost instantly to be spawned again in the same spot and to die again and again. This is called "spawn killing". Needless to say I left the game and did not come back. I decided a break was in order.
My next experience playing online was playing Battlefield 2 (BF2). I had played single-player for a while and had a lot of fun and then decided it was time to venture back online again to see what it was going to be like and see if the same problems would result. With no surprise certain things had improved, more spawn points cut down the "spawn-killing". It did not eliminate it, but it helped. Then I ran into another problem "team-kill", where a "friendly" player decides to target members of their own team. In some instances it was simply because they wanted the vehicle that was being used by another. Now, I will admit I have been guilty of "team-kills" by accident, it happens and can be expected from time to time, but when a player does it deliberately, that is different. Combined with some of the runners of certain servers determining that certain rules should be imposed extra on the game, this pretty much sealed the fate of me playing this one.
It would be sometime before I would venture online again, indeed it would have to wait until I had been introduced to the Xbox console and its follower the Xbox 360. My girlfriend (now wife) can be blamed for my change from PC (personal computer) to console games. In fact I will say it now that she is the best co-op player I have ever played with and I have enjoyed hours of fun with her doing this.
Anyway back to the story, we bought Halo: Reach (Reach), new with all the extras. This means it also came with a limited pass for Xbox Live. We had also acquired another from another game as well. We looked at one another and decided we would have a go at playing on-line. Well due to the truly random spawn points for this game there was a lack of "spawn-killing", and due to the console and not PC, no rules imposed by some random server owner. However, "team-killing" seemed to be still a problem along with a new one that I had not noticed until now "hunting". This is the hunting of a newer player by an older more experienced on for the easy kill. This was only made worse when it was two picking on the same player. Needless to say my time online with Reach was cut short quite quickly.
Now to much more recent times. I went out and bought both Battlefield 3 (BF3) and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (MW3) when they were brand new, once again with all the box and dice so to speak and decided that I would have a go at the online game again. Now between the two, I actually found that BF3 was a more satisfying game online than MW3, but this had nothing to do with the players, more the gameplay. BF3 is truly more team orientated, and in many scenarios more objective-orientated as well which felt better to me. The larger maps in BF3 and the attention to detail in the weapons also helped. I am a nut for military technology.
Xbox Live and it would seem that I had a problem with sportsmanship. I was blown away. How was my playing different from anyone else? I used the tools the game presented to me and used them. Needless to say it was this and the resulting reoccurring issues which have prompted me to write this blog and see the end of my online multiplayer for quite a while. I may venture back online with some known friends for some co-op games, but standard multiplayer is off the list. For me the fun was lost.
So what does sportsmanship in online gaming mean? How should it be rated? What should the basis of this be? These are the questions which need to be asked and answered. No doubt there will be some wild and wonderful theories about this. If it simply means using the tools given to you and going after an objective regardless of the method, then much of what I have said is mute. In my impression it should mean having regard for other players in your pursuit of victory. Interestingly the former is more like real war and the second is more like a game. No surprise. In fact a comparison to real war is needed in order to put this in perspective.
War is killing for a collective purpose, to quote the war historian John Keegan. In real war a man will do anything he can in order to kill his opponent and this is expected as the stakes are high. Unlike the game he has only one life to expend and no chance of "spawning" for another shot at it. In war the leash is let of the animal and the warrior goes to work to achieve his objective any way that he can. It is true that rules have been attempted to be placed on the methods and weapons used in war, with some success in some places. We have all heard of the Geneva Convention, but we have also seen the results of wars where these rules seem to be absent.
Should online warfare maybe have a Geneva Convention imposed upon it or some equivalent? Is it needed? Should rules be imposed in order to curtail some of the unsporting behaviour online? More to the point will it work at all? True there are programs to stop people hacking games "Punk-buster" and their equivalents, but this does not control what the players can do within the programming. Maybe a list should be put out along with the gaming manual for the game of what is expected online with the games, of course this still requires people to follow these rules. True people have been banned from games and servers, however, this does not seem to be as effective as it could be. With rules comes enforcement and the methods of and here lies another problem. Essentially it still comes up to the individual player to "behave" while playing online.
Now for the subject of breaches. These are things which I personally think breach any code of sportsmanship for these games. After all every player is playing the game in order to have fun, and these things hamper the fun of the players involved.
The first and to my mind the most irritating is "spawn killing". Now the player does not necessarily have to be targeting the actual spawn point itself and killing the player just as they spawn. Sitting just out of the spawn point and knocking off players as they just leave the spawn point is the same thing in my mind. This does not allow a player to become involved in the game and hampers their fun.
Second is "team-killing". Sure, friendly fire is a real thing and it does happen. I defy any player to claim that they have never accidentally killed a player on their own team. However when it is some person who is deliberately killing a friendly player in order to use a vehicle or a weapon this is not the same thing. In some instances the same happens just because they can or because the other player is present. This does not inspire the sort of team feelings that should be part and parcel of these sorts of games. In fact, just as irritating, if not more so, is when friendly-fire is not on and a person targets another with their weapon because they are there or doing something that they don't want them to. "Team-killing" drags the game down and reduces the enjoyment of the gameplay.
Three, what I will refer to as "hunting". This is the deliberate hunting of another player, usually a more experienced one one on a less experienced one. Sure, spawning can result in some players running into one another repeatedly, however when one player deliberately goes out of his way to kill another again and again, this is different.
The fourth is something which most often happens with PC games where servers are set up by players. This is extra rules imposed. Such things as only "owners" can drive vehicles, or use emplaced weapons or some such. These are artificial to the game and simply should not be present in the game. If there is an agreement or a particular server for a particular weapon-set, this is different, and people should abide by the agreed rules. However, where it is absent, the game should be left as it is.
There will be "lone-wolves" in every game online regardless of the rules imposed. These players will be out there to achieve what they can by themselves. There is not much that can be done about this. Even imposing structures such as squads will still not prevent this. However, where a group of players chooses to work together they simply should work together, supporting one another. In the consideration of this people should realise that mics and headsets are not as prevalent as they might be considered to be. Players should also realise that in the thick of combat a person might not see an icon requesting ammo, health or something similar. Be considerate of your teammates and realise that everyone is human.
To some the subject which has been raised here will be ignored as something which does not matter. However, what they do not realise is that keeping the game fun is the only way that they will attract new players and retain them and also older players. For the most part the reason which I have most heard for players leaving online games is because they are not fun anymore and usually due to the actions of the other players involved. These games online rely on other players continuing to play them. Many online games have no online presence anymore because they have no players. How much of this is because of the game, how much of this is because a newer version is out, and how much of this is because of the actions of other players is a question that needs to be asked and answered. The last one comes down to the playing of the players and hence sportsmanship.
Cheers,
Henry.
Online gaming is a part of the modern world and is becoming more and more prevalent. Online you will find gamers who are new to the idea and also those which would call themselves "hardcore". Of course you will find all sorts of grades in between. This allows for a great mix and allows for a wide variety of ability and gameplay in the games concerned. What will be addressed in this discussion is the subject of sportsmanship in these online games. While my particular focus will be those games which attempt to simulate warfare, the same subjects here will also apply in part to other games of a more role-playing nature.
To begin with I will explain myself and where I am coming from. I will give a little bit of my own online history and some other more personal details. For starters, I play games for the enjoyment of the game, or to put it more simply I play for fun. This means that I will never be rated as one of those "hardcore" players and I have no problems with this, to a point it actually makes me smile. I have other things to occupy my time besides these games.
The first time I played online it was on my old computer playing Battlefield 1942 (BF1942) a simulation of the conflict of World War II. I will admit I had no expectations of what it would be like and what to expect of my own playing ability. Now, I have been playing first-person shooters since Wolfenstein 3-D was first released to give you some of my vintage, and thought I was pretty average in my performance ability. So I went online with BF1942 and had a lot of fun games with people, I won some and lost some, playing with other human players was quite and experience and I quite enjoyed it for a while. What happened? Some players decided to "bunk" the system so to speak. The game that sealed my fate online in this one was when one person decided that it would be a good idea to stand on the other side of the map and perform artillery strikes on our spawn point.
For the uneducated in these games. A spawn point is where your character becomes "alive" so to speak, where you start from. So what this resulted in is my character spawning and then dying almost instantly to be spawned again in the same spot and to die again and again. This is called "spawn killing". Needless to say I left the game and did not come back. I decided a break was in order.
My next experience playing online was playing Battlefield 2 (BF2). I had played single-player for a while and had a lot of fun and then decided it was time to venture back online again to see what it was going to be like and see if the same problems would result. With no surprise certain things had improved, more spawn points cut down the "spawn-killing". It did not eliminate it, but it helped. Then I ran into another problem "team-kill", where a "friendly" player decides to target members of their own team. In some instances it was simply because they wanted the vehicle that was being used by another. Now, I will admit I have been guilty of "team-kills" by accident, it happens and can be expected from time to time, but when a player does it deliberately, that is different. Combined with some of the runners of certain servers determining that certain rules should be imposed extra on the game, this pretty much sealed the fate of me playing this one.
It would be sometime before I would venture online again, indeed it would have to wait until I had been introduced to the Xbox console and its follower the Xbox 360. My girlfriend (now wife) can be blamed for my change from PC (personal computer) to console games. In fact I will say it now that she is the best co-op player I have ever played with and I have enjoyed hours of fun with her doing this.
Anyway back to the story, we bought Halo: Reach (Reach), new with all the extras. This means it also came with a limited pass for Xbox Live. We had also acquired another from another game as well. We looked at one another and decided we would have a go at playing on-line. Well due to the truly random spawn points for this game there was a lack of "spawn-killing", and due to the console and not PC, no rules imposed by some random server owner. However, "team-killing" seemed to be still a problem along with a new one that I had not noticed until now "hunting". This is the hunting of a newer player by an older more experienced on for the easy kill. This was only made worse when it was two picking on the same player. Needless to say my time online with Reach was cut short quite quickly.
Now to much more recent times. I went out and bought both Battlefield 3 (BF3) and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (MW3) when they were brand new, once again with all the box and dice so to speak and decided that I would have a go at the online game again. Now between the two, I actually found that BF3 was a more satisfying game online than MW3, but this had nothing to do with the players, more the gameplay. BF3 is truly more team orientated, and in many scenarios more objective-orientated as well which felt better to me. The larger maps in BF3 and the attention to detail in the weapons also helped. I am a nut for military technology.
Xbox Live and it would seem that I had a problem with sportsmanship. I was blown away. How was my playing different from anyone else? I used the tools the game presented to me and used them. Needless to say it was this and the resulting reoccurring issues which have prompted me to write this blog and see the end of my online multiplayer for quite a while. I may venture back online with some known friends for some co-op games, but standard multiplayer is off the list. For me the fun was lost.
So what does sportsmanship in online gaming mean? How should it be rated? What should the basis of this be? These are the questions which need to be asked and answered. No doubt there will be some wild and wonderful theories about this. If it simply means using the tools given to you and going after an objective regardless of the method, then much of what I have said is mute. In my impression it should mean having regard for other players in your pursuit of victory. Interestingly the former is more like real war and the second is more like a game. No surprise. In fact a comparison to real war is needed in order to put this in perspective.
War is killing for a collective purpose, to quote the war historian John Keegan. In real war a man will do anything he can in order to kill his opponent and this is expected as the stakes are high. Unlike the game he has only one life to expend and no chance of "spawning" for another shot at it. In war the leash is let of the animal and the warrior goes to work to achieve his objective any way that he can. It is true that rules have been attempted to be placed on the methods and weapons used in war, with some success in some places. We have all heard of the Geneva Convention, but we have also seen the results of wars where these rules seem to be absent.
Should online warfare maybe have a Geneva Convention imposed upon it or some equivalent? Is it needed? Should rules be imposed in order to curtail some of the unsporting behaviour online? More to the point will it work at all? True there are programs to stop people hacking games "Punk-buster" and their equivalents, but this does not control what the players can do within the programming. Maybe a list should be put out along with the gaming manual for the game of what is expected online with the games, of course this still requires people to follow these rules. True people have been banned from games and servers, however, this does not seem to be as effective as it could be. With rules comes enforcement and the methods of and here lies another problem. Essentially it still comes up to the individual player to "behave" while playing online.
Now for the subject of breaches. These are things which I personally think breach any code of sportsmanship for these games. After all every player is playing the game in order to have fun, and these things hamper the fun of the players involved.
The first and to my mind the most irritating is "spawn killing". Now the player does not necessarily have to be targeting the actual spawn point itself and killing the player just as they spawn. Sitting just out of the spawn point and knocking off players as they just leave the spawn point is the same thing in my mind. This does not allow a player to become involved in the game and hampers their fun.
Second is "team-killing". Sure, friendly fire is a real thing and it does happen. I defy any player to claim that they have never accidentally killed a player on their own team. However when it is some person who is deliberately killing a friendly player in order to use a vehicle or a weapon this is not the same thing. In some instances the same happens just because they can or because the other player is present. This does not inspire the sort of team feelings that should be part and parcel of these sorts of games. In fact, just as irritating, if not more so, is when friendly-fire is not on and a person targets another with their weapon because they are there or doing something that they don't want them to. "Team-killing" drags the game down and reduces the enjoyment of the gameplay.
Three, what I will refer to as "hunting". This is the deliberate hunting of another player, usually a more experienced one one on a less experienced one. Sure, spawning can result in some players running into one another repeatedly, however when one player deliberately goes out of his way to kill another again and again, this is different.
The fourth is something which most often happens with PC games where servers are set up by players. This is extra rules imposed. Such things as only "owners" can drive vehicles, or use emplaced weapons or some such. These are artificial to the game and simply should not be present in the game. If there is an agreement or a particular server for a particular weapon-set, this is different, and people should abide by the agreed rules. However, where it is absent, the game should be left as it is.
There will be "lone-wolves" in every game online regardless of the rules imposed. These players will be out there to achieve what they can by themselves. There is not much that can be done about this. Even imposing structures such as squads will still not prevent this. However, where a group of players chooses to work together they simply should work together, supporting one another. In the consideration of this people should realise that mics and headsets are not as prevalent as they might be considered to be. Players should also realise that in the thick of combat a person might not see an icon requesting ammo, health or something similar. Be considerate of your teammates and realise that everyone is human.
To some the subject which has been raised here will be ignored as something which does not matter. However, what they do not realise is that keeping the game fun is the only way that they will attract new players and retain them and also older players. For the most part the reason which I have most heard for players leaving online games is because they are not fun anymore and usually due to the actions of the other players involved. These games online rely on other players continuing to play them. Many online games have no online presence anymore because they have no players. How much of this is because of the game, how much of this is because a newer version is out, and how much of this is because of the actions of other players is a question that needs to be asked and answered. The last one comes down to the playing of the players and hence sportsmanship.
Cheers,
Henry.
Expectations of Body Shape: Early Images
Greetings,
This is an entry which I have been putting off and putting off and putting off. I will admit that this is going to be a little bit rantish but it is something which I think needs to be addressed. This goes to the heart of what children are going to grow up thinking is "normal" and "healthy". More to the point it goes to what they are going to look at as ideal for body shape.
Children, well those with any sort of access to a television, on average have no problems sitting down for hours watching cartoons and other animated productions. I know this one for myself as I used to sit down and watch all the Saturday morning cartoons and as many as I could during the afternoon. This blog actually came about as I managed to catch about five minutes of a cartoon and noticed the shape of the female heroine. I was taken aback I can tell you, she was not an athletic looking sort of lead that you would expect, no, she was a thin body shape with pretty much impossible shaping. I got to thinking, if little girls and boys are sitting down watching this, are they going to think that her shape is normal? I hope not.
So, we all know about the BMI (Body Mass Index). We understand that there is a particular number, or range of numbers, which corresponds to the "ideal" weight for our height. Importantly this does not take into account various body effects which can change our overall weight. So we have a number, do you actually know what this would look like? I sure as hell did not until I found a chart.
This is an entry which I have been putting off and putting off and putting off. I will admit that this is going to be a little bit rantish but it is something which I think needs to be addressed. This goes to the heart of what children are going to grow up thinking is "normal" and "healthy". More to the point it goes to what they are going to look at as ideal for body shape.
Children, well those with any sort of access to a television, on average have no problems sitting down for hours watching cartoons and other animated productions. I know this one for myself as I used to sit down and watch all the Saturday morning cartoons and as many as I could during the afternoon. This blog actually came about as I managed to catch about five minutes of a cartoon and noticed the shape of the female heroine. I was taken aback I can tell you, she was not an athletic looking sort of lead that you would expect, no, she was a thin body shape with pretty much impossible shaping. I got to thinking, if little girls and boys are sitting down watching this, are they going to think that her shape is normal? I hope not.
So, we all know about the BMI (Body Mass Index). We understand that there is a particular number, or range of numbers, which corresponds to the "ideal" weight for our height. Importantly this does not take into account various body effects which can change our overall weight. So we have a number, do you actually know what this would look like? I sure as hell did not until I found a chart.
As you can see this is for a woman of 5'5" (165-cm) and it clearly demonstrates what the BMI chart means by the "normal" weight range. I am going to ignore the numbers and look at the shape of the women which are presented here. Now going by all that is rational we should be aiming for the "Normal Weight" range. She is shaped like a woman with curves where they should be and so forth. So why, I ask, are so many modern cartoon heroines based on the figure in red? The one which is underweight? Let me demonstrate what I mean.
One of my favourite cartoons growing up was the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (TMNT). They had sass, they had comedy, and the whole doing good thing thrown in. Of course they had the violence that any teenage male craves in such a show. Aside from the mutant animals and crazy villains, and some of the heroes they also had the required heroine in this case April O'Neil. In the old series she was a well-shaped woman, not unlike the yellow one above.
As you can see she has a generous figure, with a decent bust and hips, with muscular legs and thinner arms as would be expected. This is the female figure that my eyes were presented with on a regular basis and as can be seen, she would fit within the "Normal" range in the BMI chart above. What is of concern is that they released a new animated movie of the TMNT relatively recently, and I can tell you April does not have this figure anymore.
Compare the two shapes of April. The hips have pretty much disappeared, the legs have gotten a lot thinner, the bust has shrunk, and the body has been squeezed . She is much thinner than she was in her previous incarnation. Now, if you compare this shape to the BMI char you will find that this April will fall under the "Underweight" range. Is this what we want our children to think is normal? Think about what sort of impact this will have on their image of others. If this is now "normal" the old April would be seen as overweight, think about that for a second, and be afraid. I can say that ladies such as Marilyn Monroe would be turning in her grave.
As a final word I think I need to clear something up. I believe in a healthy body image. I also believe in taking people for who they are and as they are. Sure diet and exercise should be an important part of life and being healthy should be the aim of this. But, to aim for the modern April as normal is just plain unhealthy. People need to be proportional to their height and we need to imprint this image on our children. We should encourage them to aim for a healthy weight range, not some outlandish, ridiculous ideal.
Cheers,
Henry.
Democracy or Oligarchy?
Greetings,
Is Australia a democracy or an oligarchy? It is a question which must be asked when we look at how our country is run. There seems to be a lot of top-down thought being used, with the people at the bottom often being forgotten in favour of the people at the top.
A democracy is a system in which each person has a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. This is regardless of gender and with the only restrictions in our system being that you need to be an Australian citizen, and of legal age. This allows you to vote once every four years on average. The system also has no barring to political office based on class or financial status, or so it says, or so it is supposed to be.
An oligarchy is a system in which only the top echelons of society have a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. There is a system to ensure that only the upper echelons of society have any say in what is happening in the system and most other people sit below and have to put up with the decisions made by the top echelons.
With these pseudo-definitions in place I can point out a couple of things with regard to the system in Australia. Examine firstly how often we actually get a say as voters, this is really only every four years or so when we make our selection of the individuals who happen to be running for office at that time. This is the same at local, state and federal levels. These people who we pick and chose from are the people who actually run the system. Sure we can send messages in different forms to our local members to have our problems looked at. But what are the results? Who's opinions really get heard? Sure if we don't like it we can run for office, but then there are the chances of actually getting in.
This is where the system begins to feel a little oligarchic in nature. First part of this is the question of who really gets heard. Businesses get heard. So-called interest groups get heard. And if enough "normal" people get together (usually requiring thousands) they get heard. The first two groups mentioned get heard because they have an effect on the economy, they have power, they are part of the upper echelons. So the upper echelons get heard more than the "normal" people.
For a person to run for office they need to make themselves known. Indeed they need to make themselves known before they start to run for office, before the next election is due. Examine our politicians, see how many of them are known leaders of the community, be that community leaders, people in business, or people who help the less fortunate, or in some instances sporting stars. These people are known in their community because they do things. Often these things take money and bring a lot of media attention. How does the average Joe compete with that level of publicity? Media campaigns take money. Getting to be known takes money. The wider that you want to be known the more money this will take. Quite frankly in the end the one who makes the bigger noise is more likely to be heard, and elected. Without some sort of financial backing you are quite frankly bought out of the race. Sound familiar? Restriction of access to politics to the upper levels? As I have said oligarchic in nature.
Interestingly even the cradle of democracy did not have true democracy. In Athens everyone was equal? Nope. In order to stand and be heard you needed to be male of the age of majority, and a free-man. Still even in this system the loudest was still heard. You talk loud, you get most attention, more people listen to you, your point of view is more likely to be heard. The idea of the political campaign is nothing new. So even the original system was somewhat limited.
This is not an attempt to change the way that things are. For the most part the system actually works and things get done, so long as the politicians get rid of the personal crap. I am not advocating some sort of rebellion. I am advocating that we open our eyes and see how the system really works, to see what can be done with our voice, and for pity's sake vote how you believe.
Cheers,
Henry.
Is Australia a democracy or an oligarchy? It is a question which must be asked when we look at how our country is run. There seems to be a lot of top-down thought being used, with the people at the bottom often being forgotten in favour of the people at the top.
A democracy is a system in which each person has a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. This is regardless of gender and with the only restrictions in our system being that you need to be an Australian citizen, and of legal age. This allows you to vote once every four years on average. The system also has no barring to political office based on class or financial status, or so it says, or so it is supposed to be.
An oligarchy is a system in which only the top echelons of society have a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. There is a system to ensure that only the upper echelons of society have any say in what is happening in the system and most other people sit below and have to put up with the decisions made by the top echelons.
With these pseudo-definitions in place I can point out a couple of things with regard to the system in Australia. Examine firstly how often we actually get a say as voters, this is really only every four years or so when we make our selection of the individuals who happen to be running for office at that time. This is the same at local, state and federal levels. These people who we pick and chose from are the people who actually run the system. Sure we can send messages in different forms to our local members to have our problems looked at. But what are the results? Who's opinions really get heard? Sure if we don't like it we can run for office, but then there are the chances of actually getting in.
This is where the system begins to feel a little oligarchic in nature. First part of this is the question of who really gets heard. Businesses get heard. So-called interest groups get heard. And if enough "normal" people get together (usually requiring thousands) they get heard. The first two groups mentioned get heard because they have an effect on the economy, they have power, they are part of the upper echelons. So the upper echelons get heard more than the "normal" people.
For a person to run for office they need to make themselves known. Indeed they need to make themselves known before they start to run for office, before the next election is due. Examine our politicians, see how many of them are known leaders of the community, be that community leaders, people in business, or people who help the less fortunate, or in some instances sporting stars. These people are known in their community because they do things. Often these things take money and bring a lot of media attention. How does the average Joe compete with that level of publicity? Media campaigns take money. Getting to be known takes money. The wider that you want to be known the more money this will take. Quite frankly in the end the one who makes the bigger noise is more likely to be heard, and elected. Without some sort of financial backing you are quite frankly bought out of the race. Sound familiar? Restriction of access to politics to the upper levels? As I have said oligarchic in nature.
Interestingly even the cradle of democracy did not have true democracy. In Athens everyone was equal? Nope. In order to stand and be heard you needed to be male of the age of majority, and a free-man. Still even in this system the loudest was still heard. You talk loud, you get most attention, more people listen to you, your point of view is more likely to be heard. The idea of the political campaign is nothing new. So even the original system was somewhat limited.
This is not an attempt to change the way that things are. For the most part the system actually works and things get done, so long as the politicians get rid of the personal crap. I am not advocating some sort of rebellion. I am advocating that we open our eyes and see how the system really works, to see what can be done with our voice, and for pity's sake vote how you believe.
Cheers,
Henry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)