The Geelong Times just ran an article with this title last week. It was pretty interesting and at the same time sad. Here are some of the main concepts presented....
"parental intolerance is slowly emerging as a social threat to parenting and could act as a deterrent to future generations to make the choice to have children and add to the emerging lack of understanding of those who value the ideology and rewards of parenting."
"The reality of "no children" signs at hotels and restaurants in up-market seaside towns and affluent metro suburbs is confronting for any parent, but are becoming more frequent and more accepted"
"If the World Childfree Association (WCFA) - an incorporated body in Australia since May 2003- gathers enough signatures and support to form a political party, "no children" signs may not be restricted to dining venues and could become as common in the future as a no smoking sign."
The association, which needs to gain 500 signatures before it can from a political party, is pushing for the introduction of a child tax as opposed to child allowance and proposes that for every newborn an increasing levy should be paid, with a user-pays toll on roads leading to primary schools and playgrounds."
"The WCFA believes "the childfree should not have to pay for the other peoples' hobby, that is having a child, and there should be non-parental leave introduced to co-exist with parental leave, so the childfree could spend more time on their hobbies."
"The association does not address the reality of an aging population, consequences of fewer tax payers in the future and the many positive benefits, including happiness and the unique perspective that "hobbies" do not provide, but children do offer those who love them."
"The WCFA also fails to acknowledge that parents are making a vital contribution to Australia, a factor any government, right or left would support. However its beliefs and claims do help explain one of the reasons being a parent is becoming more challenging in the 21st Century."
This article was written by Alison Martin
if you are interested in reading up on these crazy people here is their site
I am watching US news right now. They are talking about all the illegal immigrant problems right now. Australia doesn't really have that problem, probably due to the fact that we share no borders. This guy is saying that the possible new laws will hurt the US and immigrants. I think this is a crock. We need to protect our borders. If people want to live here fine but you have to register and pay taxes, them are the rules. This sneaking over our borders is silly.
It is interesting to hear what people think about the US. There are many hear that hate the US for some reason, many I think are a little weak, but some that are valid.
Here are some of the main complaints...
1. The US has its hands in too many countries - this also goes with the Iraq war
2. The US is very wasteful and if they didn't consume so much others around the world would be living better.
3. The US has no population control
4. I guess many hate our foreign policies period
One last thing...I promised a review of the Magic Oven. It was a little mom and pop place. The decor wasn't great but that was ok. I think if we would have ordered the pizza it would have been better. I had the veal and it was pretty tough. Brandon had the carbanaro pasta. I think they named it that because everything in had a high amount of carbs, bacon, eggs, noodles, and sauce.
that is all for now,
Meg
7 comments:
These thoughts might help your dealings with "complaints" concerning the U.S.:
1. The U.S. would not have its hands in any countries if some people from some countries, harbored and supported by other countries, and financed and encouraged by other countries hadn't killed over 3,000 Americans sitting at their desks minding their own business.
And...isn't it a bit ironic that while some complain about America being in "too many countries" we hear nothing but what is America going to do about Iranian nukes, Tsumani victims, slaughter in Rwanda or Kosovo, poverty everywhere, global warming (or cooling), the price of wing-wangs in Bongo-bongo land and a plethora of other world problems largely the result of natural disaster of human stupidity.
2. We sure do consume a lot, but that's because we are actually doing something! I will have to admit that we do consume a lot more energy than a mango farmer in Sri Lanka. But let's compare the productivity of the mango farmer with let's say one guy who plants, fertilizes, cultivates, and harvests hundreds of acres of wheat in Kansas or corn in Illinois. The mango guy plowing with the oxen sure doesn't consume much energy, but he barely feeds his family. The Kansas farmer with diesel machinery and chemicals feeds not only himself, his family, his state and nation as well as the mango farmer. So, if the mango farmer had a choice between slogging behind the oxen for a few acres of mangos or sitting atop a $200,000 combine which do you think he would choose? By the way how much of the world's corn, soybeans, pork, wheat, barley, oats, rice, etc do all those Aussies export to the world markets? That's what I thought.
Consumption does not mean there is less for others. The world economy is growing at a rate unseen in history - for libs that means that the pie is getting bigger all the time. I once read about a Roosevelt administration official during the Depression lament that he thought that we had reached the limits of growth and that no new technologies would likely be developed. He said that in the 1930's! Instead of whinning, let's get out there and see how big we can make that pie!
3. Your right, the U.S. had no population control....so, what's your point? Hong Kong has one of the highest pop. densities in the world yet has managed to create one of the wealthiest economies in the world. Hmmmm, I wonder if they did that with people. Perhaps people are a good thing - the more, the merryier - that's one reason why your family had 8 children Meggie!
4. Who cares if they "hate our foreign policies". When they...create the world's largest economy, feed a large portion of the world, march to a world capital and remove a murderous tyrant in 2 weeks, simultaneously fight and win a war in Europe against fascism and a war in the Pacific against Japanese whack-o's, define liberty and lead the advance of liberty throughout the globe, bring down the Soviet "evil empire" without firing a shot, rule the world's oceans with its navy, wage war on drug lords and international terrorism, pay 1/4 of the budget of the U.N.,win many of the Nobel prizes each year, and create films, music, literature, and culture that is the envy of the world; when they have done even any of these things then maybe we will pay a bit of attention to their sniping at our foreign policy.
All that ought to give you something to chew on Meggie.
I hope my comments in the blog about the US were not mistaken for my own. I don't agree with much of what is said. Granted I think some poeple at home could not waste so much but that is just one small thing.
I talked to a Aussie who said that he thought the US should let the UN have more control or all control. He felt the world was overpopulated and was giving props to the Chinese for their one child rule. I mentioned that the downside to that was all the extra kids had to be hidden or aborted. He then said that our own country has plenty of abortions so that doesn't matter. I said it does. It is wrong to have an abortion no matter what and it is even worse when your own government is forcing you to do it. He didn't seem to like that comment.
I didn't even say anything about the UN, except all the side projects that it supports that are not morally right (i.e. population control leading to abortions). I like their slogan "Welcome to the UN, it's your world"....well actually its not I think it belongs to God, perhaps the Creator.
Meg
Oh and Dad I like what you said...I should print it out and give it to that guy for some reading.
Meg
to answer Chris' point about "social justice," I would just caution any Christian to make sure he or she is EDUCATED on the type of people, funding, and general practices and beliefs of ANY organization they would link up with before they do so. Reason being is that a MAJORITY of "social justice" programs these days are funded and organized by those who really wish to do Christians harm, mainly the Int'l Socialist Organization, Revolutionary Communist Party, World Worker's Party, and the like. These folks, although they spout great propaganda much like their predecessors about how "everyone will live in harmony" and that "you can choose to go to church or not," are full of it. They truly wish to undermine the current system of government we have in the nation (free republic government) and install their version of "right" which includes absolutely NO incentive to DO ANYTHING, no work, no productivity, no energy, no consumption, equals depression, equals everyone dying, equals third world economics. This shall not stand. Not as long as I'm alive.
I'd encourage folks to check out www.protestwarrior.com in case you want to learn more about some of these groups and their sick agendas against the US and against Christians in general. Also check out www.discoverthenetwork.org to understand who funds and finances these operations.
Sure, the Peace Corps is great, but let's make sure that the people running it are at least considering if not following Christian principles in their actions, and not excluding any particular groups in an attempt to "highlight" the perceived sufferings of a "minority." (i.e. how "Christians" in the US are "not letting non-christians do what they want" or whatever...etc.
Just as always, like Jesus said, be careful; be shrewd as snakes and innocent like doves. Let's work on changing the world one person at a time through Christ.
We did NOT go to war on "false pretenses." We went to war to depose an evil dictator who may have had (and the audio tapes recently discovered lend credence to the fact that he DID have) WMDs that he put in Syria before we got there. if the WMDs are found in Syria (and that will definitely be a challenge to obtain those), did we go to war on "false pretenses?" how "false" of a "pretense" is the death of thousands of Kurds in the northern regions of Iraq under Saddam's regime? Would the world and Israel be better off if Saddam were still in power, three years later, with Ahmadinejad next door, spouting hatred for Israel in one breath, and enriching uranium on the side? Would one consider Russian MiGs buried in the sand in the middle of the Iraqi desert, found along the way to Baghdad, a WMD? They were illegal for Saddam to have, according to the UN. And just how long was the world supposed to wait to bring Saddam to justice, after he ignored, blatantly IGNORED, 16 UN resolutions inquiring about his practices? Have you watched his trial lately? Does he look like the type of leader you'd like to have over any nation, much less one in the hotbed of the Middle East?
If it was such a "false pretense" to go to war in Iraq, why then did thousands upon thousands of Iraqi servicemen give themselves up at the Kuwaiti border before we even came over there? Why did more and more wave the white flag to us? Could it be that they were "conscripted," either psychologically or otherwise, into something they didn't support from the get-go?
Regardless of your opinions we must still be a UNITED states, and we must still RESPECT the office of the President. But I encourage anyone to answer these questions for me.
*sigh.
In reference to Iraq, I would recommend the new book Disinformation...sorry I forgot the author. Anyway, we have found WMDs in Iraq, Saddam did have WMD programs, there was a link between Saddam and internatl terrorism and our intervention there has saved thousands of lives. Also, our intervention has attracted terrorists to Iraq and that is a good thing. The strength of terrorist orgs is that they can float from country to country forming cells and murdering then leaving - no country, no fingerprints, no accountablility. But they made a serious mistake in Afghanistan and Iraq by stepping on geography where they can be captured and killed. Today the Taliban are eating cold beans in caves and our troops in Iraq are attracting them so they can be killed. If I were them I would avoid concentrating on a specific country - spread out, coordinate attacks in many countries esp in countries allied to the free world. The last thing I would do is concentrate efforts in a place occupied by 150,000 Marines with the freedom to blast away.
Also, Jen and Chris you might want to pick up a copy of Thomas Barnett's book The Pentagon's New Map. You would probably like it better than Huntington's book The Clash of Civilizations. It offers a more hopeful view of the future than Huntington and a completely different view of the role of the U.S. and China (as partners!), India, and Europe. Personally I hope Barnett is right but I have a sneaking suspicion that Huntington is more on target because he sees religion as the basis of civilization and religious differences cannot be reconciled. Maybe the bad guys are trying to provoke a clash of civs and maybe if we play our cards right (which I think the Bush administration is trying to do-have you noticed how they have really gone out of their way to avoid civilizational language?) the Barnett plan may keep us from falling into the pit, that is until the Lord comes.
Dad, I bought all three. :) You gave the Federalist Papers to me back around when Brandon and Meg got married so I know you suggest on-topic, good stuff. Thanks :)
Post a Comment