I'm with the Sex Pistols

As most know, the queen is quickly passing her heyday. Sooner or later after she abdicates, we will be having a new monarch in Prince Charles. This is because Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy. This means that while we elect our leader, the Prime Minister, we also must follow the rule of the ‘Motherland’, England. Unless there are some very radical changes to Australian Law, the Head of State will always be a blood relative of Queen Elizabeth II.

Now you are looking at someone who thinks: Why the hell not have some radical changes? Why shouldn’t Australia be a republic nation? I mean yes, I know we get into a big spiffs when ol’ nanna never visits us. But hey, but what’s the big fuss about? Since post World War one, Queenie hasn’t necessary exercised much influence over us. The Queen is our current Head of State technically, although our own constitution limits her powers. As a whole, I believe Australia has already been a pseudo republic for decades.

So why does everyone find it so hard to move forward as a nation? Well let’s just say that Australia has a mentality that is comparable to the old analogy of “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.”

Most monarchists who are conveniently white Australians, believe that our country's history and with it, our identity, traces back is the relationship the country has with its motherland when the migrants and convicts from the UK discovered (more like, INVADED) the land.  Most white Australians claim that this makes them the initial tie with the country so they have more of a ‘birth rights” to the country.

But realistically, as the generations go by, more and more migrants of other races create our diverse nation. The argument is easily counteracted with the fact that a substantial portion of our country do not come from England anymore, so how is it fair that we don’t honour the birthplace of all these other people?

 I understand that yes, logistically, becoming a republic would cost a huge amount of money and time to put into practice. Currency would need to change, laws would need to be amended and everything from the voting system to our constitution would need to revaluated. It is something which would undoubtedly take years to complete. Most wonder: “is it worth the hard work?”

If you’re argument against doing something because the amount of effort is too large and the change would be too overwhelming, then you should go get an attitude readjustment. Things wouldn’t change much. We would still have strong relations with the UK, the USA and most of Asia and our position in the United Nations will not change. People would be more patriotic knowing that our island nation is capable of standing on its own two feet.
There are many positives to becoming a republic and I’m sure those that tore down Berlin Wall for their freedoms were driven by the pursuit of their ideals, not slouching around wondering how much energy they had to exert to move a couple of bricks. They fought for their rights and came out so much better from it!

Australia doesn’t have to bow down to a dying monarch from the middle ages. We should have the right to rule out of merit, not birthright. Children of Australia deserve to have bigger aspirations than “I want to be a Prime Minister and get baby sat by the Governor General” they should be able to boldly proclaim that “I want to be the president!”

For those who are familiar with Professor Umbridge in the Harry Potter novel series, you would’ve remembered her infamous quote that left Harry and his friends’ blood burning: “Progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged.” This remark echoes like the remarks of the old monarchists who think “if it’s not broke, why fix it?”

If we carried out this colonial day attitude, then we would still be hunting natives, executing  homosexuals and women would still have no rights outside the kitchen. Progress is a gift and it’s about time Australia accept it.

Oh yeah, and if you haven’t listened to the song: “God save the Queen,” give yourself an educated laugh. Those guys with the safety pins in their ears have the right idea of change.                        

Build a bridge and get over it.

Dear Timmy,

I’m sorry I made fun of the dandruff on your head.

I’m sorry I always made fun of your smelly baloney sandwich.

I’m sorry that I made everyone aware of the hole in your shoes.

I’m sorry I did this for years.

I’m sorry that I didn’t even bother to learn your last name.

And most of all, I’m sorry I did not applaud you when you finally stood up for yourself. It was admirable, it was right, and you certainly put me in my place. And I thank you for it.

I thank you for acknowledging that I had my own insecurities.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity of owning up to my own actions.

I thank you for allowing me to release my anger on other endorphin releasing activities that didn’t include victimizing you.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to grow the hell up.

I guess we both learnt something important about ourselves. Strength to stand up to other people and strength to acknowledge one’s wrongdoing.

I hope you are well.

Sincerely,

Wendy P

As the school yard bully, I can certainly condone with people that have been bullied in the past. It is neither nice or necessary. But it happens.

It is not to say that I would not understand what it would be like in the victim’s shoes. I think at one point, EVERYONE was bullied in one way or another, and it really is up to the individual to deal with it personally. It is comparable to human evolution; it is man’s way of doing things: in order to get past an obstacle, we “grow” from it.

Bullying is part of our biology. Take example of a hungry caveman, it realizes that meat is a food source that is necessary to develop strength; it realizes that the food source itself is capable of pulverizing him. He develops tools tools and hunting tactics to make the hunt more = he gets the meat and is happily nourished.

It is fair however, to argue that school yard bullying, with time, has changed the method of bullying. Children are now being bullied in cyberspace on online forums like Facebook or Myspace. To me, quite frankly, doesn’t this make it easier for them?  With bullying no longer being face to face encounters, there is no physical confrontation. Is it possibly that hard to press the delete button when you receive a negative comment? To acknowledge that your bully can is so pathetic as to type you obscenities rather than confront you?

Generation Y is getting very pathetic. There is too much babysitting from parents and teachers in the playground. Helene Guldberg, associate lecturer in child development at the Open University, says “fretting 'over the supposedly terrible dangers of bullying in the playground, can do more harm than good'.

It denies children 'the experiences they need to develop', such as being able to resolve their own disputes, as well as stunting their development and harming their social interaction with others.

Children need to learn that if something bad happens, you can learn to do two things:

1.    Stand up for yourself: give as good as you get

2.    Be the bigger person: ignore and move on

In a recent study, researchers compared children who reciprocated a fellow pupil's dislike with those who tried to ignore or placate their enemy.
Those with the highest "antipathy" marks - repaying hostility with hostility - seemed the most mature.

Girls who gave as good as they got scored significantly higher on teachers' ratings of social competence. They were more popular in class and often admired throughout the school. Boys who stood up for themselves were judged to be better behaved in the classroom than those who suffered in silence.

So there you have it. I think like physical strength, one can mentally mould themselves into stronger people. These mental “workouts” include blocking out negativity as if it were white noise; ignore people that are bringing you down, draw strength from the idea that this person has no better things to do than obsessing over you and knowing that you can get through this experience as the better person.

Bullies can learn that bullying does not make them feel any better about themselves, in fact, feel remorse and acknowledge that they must take ownership of their personal issues.

The snippet above suggests that in the long run, bullying can be beneficial in its form of character building for both the victim AND the bully. Technology and new age thinking is suppose to make life easier. KIDS THESE DAYS NEED TO STOP BEING SUCH PANSIES.

A "Girl" Look

*NOTE: As a PR practioner, I have decided that I will not be “for” this argument. I will abide with PRIA’s code of ethics and only write in what I believe is right.*


Australian Federal Government


Seeking Governor for Western Australia


JOB DETAILS


CEO of State


Responsible for running the state of government


In charge of the national guard


Enforcing state laws and legislation


Creating new policies


Effect votes


Build relationships within the international/national states to enhance the lives of Australians through crime prevention and law enforcement.


THE ‘IDEAL’ Governor


We are looking for applicants who;


• enjoy a varied and challenging career


• are fit and healthy


• have life experience and maturity


• accept responsibility and make decisions


• show initiative while accepting the scrutiny and accountability of working in a disciplined organisation


• have good communication skills


PREREQUISITES


Applicants must meet the following essential criteria:


1. be at least 18 years of age at commencement of training


2. be physically fit and healthy


3. declare any criminal history


4. demonstrate general computer skills


5. pass all medical tests


To find out more about your ‘Career with a Cause’ contact the recruit Australian Federal Government office on 1800 005 099 or email pfesrecruitment@pfes.nt.gov.au


SINCE WHEN DID “FEMALE” BECOME A JOB PREQUESITE?!


Generation Y is being told that they can do whatever they want and be whomever they want to be. And I truly embrace this new mindset. Being a bit of a feminist myself, I truly believe that women, can do an equally good job at whatever is proposed of them when compared to their male counterparts. But recently, Australians have really amped up their “revolutionary” opinions to a comical and (in my opinion, offensive) degree. It’s become somewhat of a spectacle and for those women who rave on about “needing” a new female governor for no reason or argument other than their sex; to these so called “feminists” I shake my head in disappointment.


I understand that this is a new era and with a new era comes a hype revolutionary thinking “outside the box.” When did this hype of thinking outside the norm become such a trend? When Halle Berry, the first African American woman won best actress at the Oscars? When Obama became the first black president? When Julia Gillard became the first Prime Minister of Australia? It just really makes me question just what was the 60’s feminist movement was about.


Was it about fighting for equal opportunity and equality or was it just about females being the “dominant” in the world? WHAT WAS THE BRA BURNING ABOUT?


What truly left me baffled was a quote by Equal Opportunity Commissioner, Yvonne Henderson:


"There's no lack of good candidates and I hope the Government does go ahead and appoint a woman," "Just to send a message that women are as competent and are able to do all the same sorts of jobs that men do."

I found it a hugely patronizing remark. Just to send a message that women are as competent and are able to do all the same sorts of jobs that men do suggests that women should be appointed for roles not on skills, experience or merit, but just to prove a point is certainly ironic for the equal opportunities commission no less.

To me, I find it a reverse sexism and we are not “Moving Forward” but taking decades of steps back.


It upsets balance of equality when a role needs to be interpreted as one that is performed traditionally and the same role that is done by a woman. It points out that there is a standard that is of the norm and a women’s standard (which is viewed as inferior.)


Margaret Thatcher, ironically the Former FEMALE British Prime Minister, had more insightful words to say as an advocate of equal opportunity and “feminism”:

“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. “


What she is saying here is that women trying to showcase their position as savvy, worthy, powerful authority figures, should prove it through their unspoken actions, not through using not using their sex as a base of comparison.


Ever heard of the term to have a “boy look”? An infamous notion that when a boy is told to look for something, he will just half heartedly “skim” through without looking more thoroughly? That is what we, Australia as a nation, are doing. We lose our logic in amidst the notions of creating a female empowered society.


I believe that Australia should step back from this current media circus influence and focus on what the role is about and not for whom it should go to. It is more important to choose the correct person for the job than to go along with the trends.

I'd certainly hope that they pick the person who best fits the requirements; best suited, and will give the most to the position. Age, background, and gender should not dictate or restrict candidates. We shouldn’t base our choice on picking a man as the governor because the role has historically been giving to a man, neither should we pick a woman simply because a woman has never assigned the role before. Candidates should be considered by the Government and society, not because of the gender.

In choosing the next Governor of our state, I hope that Australia has more of a “girl” look. Women are merited for being more thorough and insightful and that should how we are when it comes to choosing who should govern our country and in essence, our lives.