The Duchess isn't the only person being stalked

Catherine Middleton was snapped (from afar) sunbathing topless by a French Magazine. Once again, it has caused a massive publicity circus to erupt over the whole debacle The Royal family had expressed their moral outrage over the invasion of privacy. What is becoming increasingly disturbing is not so much the occurrence of this one particular event but the increasing rate at which many people's personal lives are being followed by rather unwelcome people, be it lousy paparazzi for celebrities or governments and corporations for others.

People need to begin complaining regularly, often and loud enough to get the message through to these weird people. Having a stalker who will not leave you alone at all measures is absolutely terrifying, disgusting, but more importantly, it is against the law. If found guilty, these perverts who stalked the Princess may risk losing their jobs for a breach of protocol and may face further charges. It is not ironic they caught her topless. Whoever took the photo was standing roadside for that million dollar shot for quite a while. Be very wary of this stalker movement. Although celebrities are often on the receiving end in gossip magazines (which women foolishly fondle over), these scandals never used to occur often, or so regularly. Eli Wallach used to speak fondly of his great relationships with journalists and photographers in his early acting career, making friends with many of them.

High ranked politicians, judges and lawyers are currently working together, seeking to impose ways of monitoring the population more effectively. London has already partly achieved it by installing thousands of CCTV video cameras to monitor people's every move. Rather than admit it, the useless Tories and the Blair creature prefer to dismiss it as a means of protecting the people. Only a few independent minds are able to see through such half baked reasons (such as the brilliant Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens), for what it really is. Being able to track and monitor people. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

The examples about  ways in which Americans are being monitored have already been mentioned in previous posts. George Bush was eager to play a "for safety's sake" card in allowing himself access to phone tap land lines of all his citizens making overseas calls; luckily for many Americans, it was met with disapproval. Last year President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, a movement to relax the current laws against surveillance on private citizens. Keep a watch on this movement; if it does get brought in, it will be so gradual (almost lethargic), many will only realise when it's too late what has happened. http://www.infowars.com/surveillance-domestic-spying-and-invasion-of-privacy-in-post-sept-11-america/

Fight for freedom, fight for liberty. Take George Orwell's message about Big Brother  very seriously; don't let it seep into society. Ignore the people who give excuses for invading your privacy in the name of national security. Its a lie, much like everything else they say. 

Resist the Smartphone cult while you still can

Smartphones are becoming a part of modern culture. These revolutionary touchscreen gadgets are quickly developing a massive following, with many people joining the bandwagon, signing onto having one. Samsung, alongside Sony have begun competing with Apple in this very lucrative market. With more benefits, features and applications available than ever, what exactly is to cheer about these smartphones? Now that  a cult has been built around them, the dark sides have gone from being small cracks, to vast crevasses. People are more anti-social, rude, impolite, and cold in social situations than ever before. Nothing is wrong with having such a device. It's the manner in which people are using them. Pretty soon, no other phone options will exist, so resist this obsessive cult of the smartphone while it's still possible.

You have just met up with someone for coffee. The conversation is going great. The flat white swims down gratuitously, the baked food tasted great. Everything's going well, until this person whips out their smartphone. Never mind its brand or make, along with such an unexpected move. Mere boredom surely can't have brought about such a contemptible action. Abject, moronic excuses are often given to recipients of such rudeness but there is no excuse for lacking common etiquette. "Oh just give me a second" they say, pushing many buttons, as if the person in front of them lacks everything possible. More and more people are becoming infatuated with the idea about a smartphone being everything imaginable, completing a desire for happiness. Apple recently unveiled its IPhone 5, to rapturous applause. What's to cheer? More interrupted face to face conversations. Increasing masses who cannot resist the urge to whip out these blocks of metal every five seconds. Being told life is not complete without such a product. No, the modern movement of smartphones has become an evil mixing pot for anti-social behavior .

The people who possess habits like texting during conversations or in s social setting are not weirdos and may not ever be anti-social in many situations. Being so uncoourteous though is definietely a weirdo habit to have. What matters more? The right to give someone who is in front of you your undivided attention? Or childishly play around with your smart phone? Nobody wants to be ignored when in a real life scenario. Nothing is more humiliating than someone giving a piece of metal attention than a living, real and emotional human. It reduces the value the person places on the meeting with that person, preferring to stray away from interaction, instead choosing to be deliberately rude. What used to be taking a phone call has now become a text message bombardment, flicking through facebook, surfing the net, scanning around a photo gallery.

How degrading can it get when you're having a good conversation with someone and you have to stop because the person with you is not paying attention to you. If someone is having a face to face conversation, then suddenly turns their head to briefly chat with someone else, it'd be seen as an extreme lack of manners. Yet as this is done in bite size form, it doesn't seem to be so bothersome. The frightening thing is that people are becoming more indifferent towards people playing with smartphones in conversation. It's beginning to be seen as a normal thing to do. Is everyone a king, a president, an ambassador for their country? Is every text message, every facebook status update, every bloody email so important that it must be replied to in the middle of a conversation. A real life conversation is a commitment to the person in front of you; they've made sacrifices to be available to converse with you, the very least which can be done in return is demonstrating to that person you care enough to listen to whatever it is they have to say, without playing around on that stupid piece of metal every minute, second, hour of the talk.

Smartphones are the smart way to be anti-social. Catch people out who hold their head high and give excuses for being anti-social and rude. There is no excuse for bad manners and no reason why playing with a piece of metal should be seen as normal, alongside people being indifferent towards it. Try leaving the phone behind next time. You might find the conversation is a lot more enjoyable then being part of a cult which encourages weirdo behaviour.

Keep it at 18 so we can continue abusing it

It is fascinating how infatuated young people are about keeping the drinking age at 18, yet many other age groups would like to see the age limit put back to 20. Many would be abusing alcohol regardless of the age limit, irrespective of the bans on RTD's with more than 5% alcohol, against the wishes of people around them. Young New Zealanders are shining examples of a generation which is almost completely incapable of drinking in moderation. 'Keep the drinking age low so we can continue to show you how irresponsible we are,' seems to be their motto.Increasing the drinking age will not alleviate New Zealand of its drinking problems. Far from it, the problems will likely get worse in the University category, even though the stupid drinking games are well above sea level as it is. Raising the age will do something. Strip an eighteen or nineteen year old from buying booze for high school parties. Where does the problem with alcohol abuse begin the most? It begins with young high school students willfully picking up the habit by attending high school parties.

Leaving it at that, what are your views on the situation? Keep it at 18? Raise it to 20? Have a split purchasing age? What do you think the main problem is with New Zealands drinking culture? How would you go about solving the problem? Can it be fixed in the next year, decade, quarter century? What will it take to get the young generation drinking in moderation?

Euthanasia

Yes, here again lies a contentious topic, so here again, you the readers will get the chance to share your opinion on the view. Going to one hard sided opinion is possible, although it'll mean debating against people who love venturing off topic and using ad hominem arguments. So today, it comes to Euthanasia, in which a for argument will be given and then rebutted by the position against. If people want to share their one sided arguments against posts here, fear not, there will be upcoming posts. Some crude blogger too sly to reveal their identity wrote in the homosexual marriage comments "Perhaps in future, you may be interested in delving into greater detail, rather than making bold, but unbacked statements of position." To avoid receiving flimsy arguments from this person again, there will be a fair discussion from both sides outlining why people would want it to be legal and why there is a reason to keep it illegal.


Euthanasia should be legalised

Legalising Euthansia is ultimately down to a matter of choice. People have the right to decide when they should take their own life. It is a matter of personal choice. When someone is suffering immense amounts of pain or in a vegetable state of mind, that individual should be free to exercise freedom of choice to take their own life.

Why allow the pain to continue? Why continue to live in misery when one can "die with dignity." Maryan Street of the Labour party, who has advocated Euthanasia be legalised had the following to say. "For people who have been vibrant, self determined individuals throughout their life, seem to be lacking in compassion determining the end of their life." A lot of support has been drawn from this position that nobody should be coerced into the situation of being pressured into ending their life by anyone, but people who have the moral choice to end their lives do not want to have an impediment of legal prosecution being a threat to any doctor willingly executing such judgement.

Street further continues "it should be about compassion and it should be about dignity. It should be about people choosing to have their moment of exit." Why should people not be able to determine this outcome? After all, it is their life, one's own health, their well being, one's future, their struggle. Everything which promotes freedom to make personal choices should be done to help those who cannot physically look after themselves anymore should have the chance to end their lives.

Euthanasia should be kept illegal

Are people really becoming so soft in the mind that they lack the determination to follow through and battle on? Ms. Street does not actually realise how damaging the bill would be. It will become more widespread in use, more accepted as appropriate. Alex Schadenberg, who debated against Ms. Street, mentions a report which took place in Europe which discovered nearly one third of people who were euthanised had it done against their wishes.

A recent statistics poll was released, detailing the list of people who had committed suicide. An inquiry into why rates among teenagers was so high, led to a conclusion of not enough being done to prevent it from occurring. A strong urge from families who have lost loved ones as a result of suicide, plead that any sort of encouragement for suicide should be repelled. Euthanasia is a fancy word for voluntary suicide or submissive murder. Giving someone the permission to take your life in exchange for dying a painless death.

Many people feel the the social concern should be the main point of address. Don't allow people to voluntarily kill themselves but offer caring love and support through the difficult times. What if it is legalised? It will probably become more widespread like abortion. Young people who see their grandparents consent to being killed, will use it as a justifiable reason to end their own life painlessly. The repercussions are scarily predictable and according to those against the idea, should be kept illegal for that very reason.

People should have known a long time ago politicians only serve themselves

After a recent trip to the Manurewa area, it could not be clearer that Louisa Wall is not a voice for her voters. Of the fifty people which were asked whether her marriage amendment bill was representative of what her voters believed in, thirty seven said no. Had it not been for her high placement within the Labour Party during the 2011 election, that huffing piglet Maryan Street would not even be in Parliament, yet she wants to push forth a Bill on Euthanasia, with a biting intolerance towards anyone who questions it, even those who vote for her. Russell Norman and Meteria Turei want to legalise drugs which destroy minds and ruin peoples' lives. Is there any politician who speaks for the people? Winston Peters was thought to have been that person, until he got found out for lying to the public about private donations made to his party by wealthy businessman Owen Glenn.

What people want is a public servant who can tell the truth for a start. Mr. Slippery is a famed expert at talking about everything except the question put to him. People want somebody they feel will give them a voice. Politicians these days lack in this area severely. Isn't their main job to be a public servant? To speak for the people within their respective electorate should be the most important task seen to. Most politicians pretend to be concerned about the problems people have. Much time has passed since New Zealand has had an honest, reliable, consistent, passionate MP who speaks for their voters. No, politicians today are all in it for themselves.

Or has someone flown in under the radar?

Neil Armstrong is one small man, who leaves behind a legacy of exploration

“That’s one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.” Ever since he used that expression to describe the achievement. Neil Armstrong has become immortalised as one of the most iconic figures in modern history. Lauded as an All American hero, he remained unusually solitary and remote, rarely giving interviews focusing instead on his career and work. Armstrong’s recent passing once again brought back (with a burning flame) moon landing conspiracy theorists to once again come forth with venom to dismiss the moon landing as a hoax. For all the claims these people make, Armstrong denies it being a staged hoax. In the interviews given, his answers were too lucidly detailed, honesty too forthright, with the stories he told about travelling through space too honest and truthful to raise any suspicion. Dismissing Armstrong as a liar or fraud is merely tall poppy syndrome. He remains an iconic figure and deservedly so.

During a speech to Congress in 1961, United States President John F. Kennedy said one goal to achieve before the end of the decade is “To put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth before the end of the 1960s.” http://www.space.com/11774-jfk-speech-moon-exploration-kennedy-congress-50years.html With fierce competition in space exploration coming from Cold War rivals United Soviet Socialist Republic, the pressure was on the Nation Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop infrastructure, ground control and refine the Apollo Spaceship technology enough to successfully ensure a safe trip to the moon. NASA largely recruited Astronauts from the Defence Forces, inviting pilots, senior officers, as well as anyone willing enough to put their name forth. From the men who signed along the dotted line was a test pilot, Neil Alden Armstrong. After ten Apollo space voyages to determine all the technical aspects required from ground control alongside the working astronauts in Space, Apollo 11 was finally ready to be established. On July 16, 1969, Neil Armstrong, alongside Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, and Michael Collins piloted man’s first official trip to the moon.

After speaking those famous words, Neil Armstrong, alongside Buzz Aldrin walked around on the moon, jumped up and down in elation, drove a lunar vehicle around in addition to collecting samples of moon rocks. A pity for the cheese lovers though, who received nothing for their unwavering devotion. Those rock samples are a major dent to the conspiracy theorists. All collected samples were tested and confirmed to have been ‘non-earthly’ to put it plainly. The astronauts were welcomed back as heroes, with each man’s life forever changed by their achievement. Media outlets were raring to get interviews from each man, so that millions of interested people could know what exactly it felt like to be on the moon. “How did it feel?” “What was it like being so far away from earth?” “Were you scared?” People vicariously began to experience the sensations of being a moon walker themselves through the masterful story telling from Armstrong. Do not think that all the fame and glamour of being a national hero turned Armstrong into a gregarious go getter. “I am, and always will be, a white socks, pocket-protector nerdy engineer,” he says.
To farewell the first man on the moon is indeed very sad. Armstrong spoke with passion and conviction. He was not someone who minced his words, always giving an account which was accurately detailed, yet simple enough for everyone to relate to. He became a reluctant hero yet carried it with a grace and elegance many people could not handle. In the Defence Forces they tell you that two the two cardinal sins in the military are putting yourself ahead of your unit and lying. Armstrong was no liar. What did he stand to gain from repeatedly lying to the American public about the moon landing? To this day, every myth put forth by conspiracy theorists has been discredited or proven false. A more prominent testing of moon landing hoax theories have been conducted by Mythbusters Adam Savage and Jamie Heinemann. In conjunction with NASA, they disproved the theories of the flapping flag, the alleged fake pictures, and the clear footprints left by Armstrong and Aldrin. A recent photo has also been released by NASA shown below confirms that the material left behind still rests safely.

Neil Armstrong was an asset to the world, an honest man brave enough to venture into the unknown to help further man’s understanding of the solar system and universe. He went on to achieve many more great things in his life but will always be remembered as the first man to walk on the moon. Goodbye Mr. Armstrong and thank you for inspiring a generation of people to challenge their own boundaries, to pursue their dreams. Above all, thank you for creating a general interest in space exploration, which is now extending out to the other planets in the solar system.

The best thing about blogs, they just keep going

The best thing about blogs, they just keep going