Prior to the 2013 election Australian politics was filled with instability. In 2010 Julia Gillard successfully ousted then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd from the top job. Then in 2013 another leadership spill took place and Rudd regained the top job until the September election. At the September election, Tony Abbott was elected Prime Minister and Labor was ousted.
Before the 2013 election, the Liberals were unstable having been through two leaders - Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull before the caucus elected Tony Abbott for the party leadership.
The media is now having a field day with undemocratic commentary.
People vote in elections. Elections are held every three years. If you're not happy with the Prime Minister THAT is when you are able to voice your frustrations and THAT is when you can vote out any Prime Minister you do not like.
If people didn't want Tony Abbott to be Prime Minister then simply, that was what they should have voted against on September 14 in 2014. Election Day is when people have their say on how the country is run. Or during the political term by joining a political party. It is not midway through a term and it is not the months before an election.
If people didn't truly want a Liberal Government and aren't happy with policies they're introducing they shouldn't have voted Liberal. They should have actively engaged more.
If there is a leadership spill then it undermines the entire democratic process. It says "hey, we don't care what you voted for on Election Day" and worse, it makes us a dictatorship.
A leadership spill mid term does not give people the chance to say whether or not they are happy with the Government and a leadership spill does not constitute democracy. Why have elections if we're just going to have in party fighting?
If people can't understand why we have elections and can't understand the democratic process which Tony Abbott was elected under then as a nation we have major issues getting people engaged and we need to look more at political participation.
It is not up to the mainstream media to try and create political divisions and undermine democracy. Do we here in Australia really want to be like the Eastern countries we condemn for not allowing democracy? What's to say the public don't like Tony Abbott? I've spoken to people and the majority of them are unimpressed with the media.
How hard is it to wait another 18 months for the next election to have your say? That is why we have elections, so that if you're not happy you can make a difference. If you're not happy with what the Government is doing then write to your local MP or a Minister. It's what I do when I'm not happy (but that's because I can't yet vote as I've discussed in previous blogs).
How are we supposed to be taken seriously on the world stage when the media are trying to undermine democracy? We have elections. It's time people remembered what elections are for! Once every three years people have their say, not once ever 10 months.
According to polls Abbott isn't popular but remember, he was elected fairly and legally on election day. Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop were not elected as Prime Minister. Tony Abbott was.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Saturday, January 24, 2015
What happens when you don't have a mobile phone?
Last year I dropped my iPhone 5 at Town Hall Station in Sydney. It was okay because although the screen was cracked the phone itself still worked and I was still able to use it normally. I also had the 4S as back up should anything go wrong with it. The 4S had one or two issues but I was able to get those repaired as they were minor.
Last night however I was at the gym when a dumb bell fell on
my iPhone 6 Plus and the screen not only shattered, some of the LCD leaked and
the volume controls on the side bent out of shape. In other words, the phone is unusable this
time. I wanted to take a photo of it,
but I couldn’t because I didn’t have my phone to do so.
I marched down to Apple first thing in the morning to see
how much it would cost for a replacement.
It was $409. This was different
to the website, but I forgot about the fine print saying, “prices are in US
dollars”, so the $329 I thought, was significantly higher.
I have savings for emergencies but normally it takes three
days to access those savings. I was on
the phone to the bank several times and finally I was able to access the
money. I went back down to the Apple
store and was told it was a two hour wait so I had a quick look online and saw
that sometimes you can jump the queue, if you’re lucky. So that’s what I did. I purchased my new replacement phone.
Although the charge was higher than I thought it would be, the cool thing is, it was only a third of the price of what it cost new because of the limited warranty. The limited warranty does not cover accidents such as the one described. That's the bad news. The good news is that Apple do actually replace phones for a fraction of the cost of the original handset. All it takes is arranging an appointment with an Apple Genius and then going in and showing them the problem. Apple is great. They'll give you a replacement phone ON THE SPOT. Too easy.
Although the charge was higher than I thought it would be, the cool thing is, it was only a third of the price of what it cost new because of the limited warranty. The limited warranty does not cover accidents such as the one described. That's the bad news. The good news is that Apple do actually replace phones for a fraction of the cost of the original handset. All it takes is arranging an appointment with an Apple Genius and then going in and showing them the problem. Apple is great. They'll give you a replacement phone ON THE SPOT. Too easy.
I think a while ago I was going to blog about the cloud and didn't. Well now is the perfect time to do so. Basically the cloud is this magical place online which stores all your iPhone's data and I cannot emphasise enough, BACK UP your data and music. When you have to change devices it will make life so so so much easier. Did you know that when you restore from back up it even remembers your passwords? When we have a password for everything this is very very handy. I think I have about 10 passwords I use regularly.
So what was it like not having a phone for one whole day? It was torture. The only functions I could use, ironically, were the phone and iPod feature. You may recall previous blogs where I've talked about how in the past I was so anti the iPhone when it was first announced by the late Steve Jobs. I believe my exact phrase was, "why would you need an iPhone? Why would you need a pocket browser?" and "what if something goes wrong with the device?".
The phone still physically worked but the LCD had leaked so a third of the screen was gone and rendered useless.
I realised at that moment just how reliant I was on my phone when I couldn't do simple things like:
The phone still physically worked but the LCD had leaked so a third of the screen was gone and rendered useless.
I realised at that moment just how reliant I was on my phone when I couldn't do simple things like:
- Listen to the radio
- Send a text message
- Set the alarm
- Use the calculator
- Check the weather
- Do my banking
- Take a photo
- Record my workouts
- Check my email
- Check the news and browse the internet.
- Use social media.
- Use Skype which is cheaper for international calls. I was able to make phone calls but it was very hard to get the number entered because of just how much of the screen was destroyed.
- Check the time.
- Blog about not having a phone on my lunch break because I didn't have a phone to blog on.
And this is why you should always have a back up phone, just sitting there, just for emergencies. And I have my back up phone coming in the mail in a few weeks time.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Australian media's priorities
Given two Australians, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran face the death penalty in Indonesia for drug trafficking I would have thought Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's response on dealing with the Indonesian Foreign Minister would be the most important item on the agenda for journalists.
Clearly journalists do not realise the seriousness of what we're dealing with here and would rather focus on more superficial crap than the human lives of Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan.
Then there is the way the media is fawning over interviews with the Martin Place terrorism survivors. Instead of focusing on the most important aspect - the risk the first escapees took, they've gone down their usual route of using sex and emotion to sell rather than the true seriousness of homegrown terrorism and immigration.
According to Hockey we'll live to 150
Australia's Treasurer Joe Hockey expects us to live to 150. He says this is why we need to start paying for our healthcare and other expenses.
If this is true then we need to work as long as we're capable. Maybe it's time to abolish state super. If you're capable of working then you should, otherwise it's unemployment, not retirement.
Having a birthday doesn't make you magically incapable of working and it's time people realised this.
Of course some industries require a person to be young and physically capable but office jobs can cater for older people. People could shift into management or other supervisoy positions.
It's alarming that people aren't planning for their retirement too. Are people really in poverty or are they just making poor financial decisions? It sounds like the latter to me.
Either way, I hope Hockey is right about living to 150.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Queensland Election - Newman's Liberals vs Annastacia Palaszczuk's Labor
Queensland Liberal Premier Campbell Newman called the state election for the 31st of January so as you can imagine, he and his Liberal colleagues along with Palaszczuk and her Labor colleagues have been battling it out for votes. The decision of which will be made in 13 days (not including tonight or election day).
Labor has campaigned on....not a lot really, other than saying the Newman government shouldn't sell assets. Meanwhile the Newman Government says the economy is their priority and they want to get the state out of debt.
Depending on what you believe, Liberals say that if Labor gets in the state will go bankrupt. Given Labor is typically anti mining and thousands of mining jobs were created in Queensland in the last quarter this is entirely possible.
Palaszczuk has given numerous press conferences where she has said the Newman Government shouldn't sell assets. What she fails to take into consideration is that the state debt must be paid down because not only is it gaining interest, having debt and no savings makes it very difficult if a rainy day should happen and the state needs some reserves to fall back on.
She also ignores that just because you sell one asset doesn't mean you can't buy new assets or reinvest some of the capital gained. It's like if you buy shares, once you get to a certain level you can either sell and reinvest in shares or use the money elsewhere.
Labor never really states why assets shouldn't be sold, and they don't think of things long term, only short term.
If people want a strong state then in the Queensland election at the end of the month they will vote Liberal and not risk economic growth on airy fairy statements from Palaszczuk.
Newman is the only leader who can be trusted to rule the state for another three years.
Labor has campaigned on....not a lot really, other than saying the Newman government shouldn't sell assets. Meanwhile the Newman Government says the economy is their priority and they want to get the state out of debt.
Depending on what you believe, Liberals say that if Labor gets in the state will go bankrupt. Given Labor is typically anti mining and thousands of mining jobs were created in Queensland in the last quarter this is entirely possible.
Palaszczuk has given numerous press conferences where she has said the Newman Government shouldn't sell assets. What she fails to take into consideration is that the state debt must be paid down because not only is it gaining interest, having debt and no savings makes it very difficult if a rainy day should happen and the state needs some reserves to fall back on.
She also ignores that just because you sell one asset doesn't mean you can't buy new assets or reinvest some of the capital gained. It's like if you buy shares, once you get to a certain level you can either sell and reinvest in shares or use the money elsewhere.
Labor never really states why assets shouldn't be sold, and they don't think of things long term, only short term.
If people want a strong state then in the Queensland election at the end of the month they will vote Liberal and not risk economic growth on airy fairy statements from Palaszczuk.
Newman is the only leader who can be trusted to rule the state for another three years.
Indonesia must not execute Chan & Sukumaran - the Australian Government must stop their executions
It's been a while since I've written a blog involving Indonesia and asylum seekers. There hasn't been much activity in either until recently.
Today in Manus Island some detainees have sown their lips together and are on a hunger strike because they don't agree with the Liberal Government's policy on NEVER resettling them in Australia. The bleeding heart lefties like Senator Sarah Hanson Young as you can imagine are waxing lyrical about how it's inhumane and they must be released into the community in Australia.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has made it very clear that will NEVER happen and that the Government's policy position has not changed.
Surely we would have learned our lesson on allowing Man Haron Monis into the country where he held Martin Place's Lindt Cafe staff and customers hostage on the 15th of December, eventuating in the death of two well loved and successful people, Tori Johnston and Katrina Dawson. He claimed he was a refugee, yet it later emerged he had sucked in Amnesty International and the Government. We must be choosy about who we let into the country or this will happen again. We already have allowed others into the country. Today it came to light that there are more young "Australian" (inverted commas because of the treason involved in betraying Australian values) Jihadists are fighting in Syria. Often these "men" are the children of immigrant parents.
When you agree to become an Australian citizen you agree to uphold Australian values. Going to Syria to murder people and behead them is NOT what an Australian citizen would do and contradicts Australian values. So were these people lying when they took the citizenship pledge?
Some say that drug smugglers should receive the same punishment as those who commit treason do. I raise this point because two Australians, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran are facing the firing squad in Indonesia later this year. As it stands Andrew Chan is awaiting his clemency bid and he, and Sukamaran will be executed together.
The Indonesian government has said they will not grant clemency. One has to wonder two things. Are they doing this because of Australia's hard line approach on asylum seekers? And why did they grant Schapelle Corby not only clemency, but parole? Was it because she was a woman? Did gender favouritism come into the equation? I would hope not.
Some say that when people do the crime they must serve the time, and that's absolutely the case, but they've more than done that. They've repented. They've contributed to art works and they have helped the prison population with rehabilitation. Surely those good deeds negate the mistake they made.
It's one thing to kill people because they commit an act of terrorism, but that isn't what Chan and Sukumaran did. They made the bad decision of trying to smuggle drugs into the country. The two aren't comparable. Incidentally Indonesia didn't come down as hard on the Bali nightclub bombers, so why the Australians? Is it because they're foreigners? Or is it an attack on Australia?
In an ideal outcome the Australian government would come to an agreement with the Indonesian government where either the Indonesian Government agrees to deport the men and they serve the rest of their natural lives in an Australian prison or they give Chan and Sukumaran back under the Prisoner Exchange Agreement (where Indonesia would also get back some of its citizens).
Whatever happens, the Australian Government must stop the execution of Chan and Sukumaran. The crime does not warrant the punishment. The Indonesian Government must also consider the effect on fellow inmates and how many future inmates may suffer without Chan and Sukumaran.
Today in Manus Island some detainees have sown their lips together and are on a hunger strike because they don't agree with the Liberal Government's policy on NEVER resettling them in Australia. The bleeding heart lefties like Senator Sarah Hanson Young as you can imagine are waxing lyrical about how it's inhumane and they must be released into the community in Australia.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has made it very clear that will NEVER happen and that the Government's policy position has not changed.
Surely we would have learned our lesson on allowing Man Haron Monis into the country where he held Martin Place's Lindt Cafe staff and customers hostage on the 15th of December, eventuating in the death of two well loved and successful people, Tori Johnston and Katrina Dawson. He claimed he was a refugee, yet it later emerged he had sucked in Amnesty International and the Government. We must be choosy about who we let into the country or this will happen again. We already have allowed others into the country. Today it came to light that there are more young "Australian" (inverted commas because of the treason involved in betraying Australian values) Jihadists are fighting in Syria. Often these "men" are the children of immigrant parents.
When you agree to become an Australian citizen you agree to uphold Australian values. Going to Syria to murder people and behead them is NOT what an Australian citizen would do and contradicts Australian values. So were these people lying when they took the citizenship pledge?
Some say that drug smugglers should receive the same punishment as those who commit treason do. I raise this point because two Australians, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran are facing the firing squad in Indonesia later this year. As it stands Andrew Chan is awaiting his clemency bid and he, and Sukamaran will be executed together.
The Indonesian government has said they will not grant clemency. One has to wonder two things. Are they doing this because of Australia's hard line approach on asylum seekers? And why did they grant Schapelle Corby not only clemency, but parole? Was it because she was a woman? Did gender favouritism come into the equation? I would hope not.
Some say that when people do the crime they must serve the time, and that's absolutely the case, but they've more than done that. They've repented. They've contributed to art works and they have helped the prison population with rehabilitation. Surely those good deeds negate the mistake they made.
It's one thing to kill people because they commit an act of terrorism, but that isn't what Chan and Sukumaran did. They made the bad decision of trying to smuggle drugs into the country. The two aren't comparable. Incidentally Indonesia didn't come down as hard on the Bali nightclub bombers, so why the Australians? Is it because they're foreigners? Or is it an attack on Australia?
In an ideal outcome the Australian government would come to an agreement with the Indonesian government where either the Indonesian Government agrees to deport the men and they serve the rest of their natural lives in an Australian prison or they give Chan and Sukumaran back under the Prisoner Exchange Agreement (where Indonesia would also get back some of its citizens).
Whatever happens, the Australian Government must stop the execution of Chan and Sukumaran. The crime does not warrant the punishment. The Indonesian Government must also consider the effect on fellow inmates and how many future inmates may suffer without Chan and Sukumaran.
An updated review on Opal - It is still a scam.
I want to revisit Opal tonight.
There are still pushes for people to switch from paper tickets to MyMulti with the NSW Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian saying people will save.
I did some calculations today as I'd moved from where I was the last time I wrote a post about Opal and although I would save $6.22 a week if I moved from MyMulti to Opal that assumes a couple of things. It assumes that I only use the card to get to and from work and the gym seven days a week. It assumes that I travel limited trips.
At the moment, MyMulti entitles me to unlimited travel for $48 per week, which equates to $6.85 per day.
You may have heard that Opal charges are inconsistent and people are having issues with fare calculations Assuming I used the Opal equivalent of $15 a day for unlimited travel my transport costs would increase by $8.15 per day. That would be a total of $105 per week.
It's clear the Transport Minister wants people to switch to Opal so she can increase the cost of travel sneakily and without explicitly stating that.
Until the fares come down and there is consistency I won't be switching to Opal a second before I have to. Why would people choose to pay more than they already are? Why would people choose to lose flexibility that they presently have? Currently I can travel as much as I like for only $6.85 a day. I'm not going to voluntarily pay double.
I just can't believe some people have been sucked into using Opal already when there are still alternatives. The longer is is before people switch from paper tickets to Opal the longer the Minister will have to keep them.
There are still pushes for people to switch from paper tickets to MyMulti with the NSW Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian saying people will save.
I did some calculations today as I'd moved from where I was the last time I wrote a post about Opal and although I would save $6.22 a week if I moved from MyMulti to Opal that assumes a couple of things. It assumes that I only use the card to get to and from work and the gym seven days a week. It assumes that I travel limited trips.
At the moment, MyMulti entitles me to unlimited travel for $48 per week, which equates to $6.85 per day.
You may have heard that Opal charges are inconsistent and people are having issues with fare calculations Assuming I used the Opal equivalent of $15 a day for unlimited travel my transport costs would increase by $8.15 per day. That would be a total of $105 per week.
It's clear the Transport Minister wants people to switch to Opal so she can increase the cost of travel sneakily and without explicitly stating that.
Until the fares come down and there is consistency I won't be switching to Opal a second before I have to. Why would people choose to pay more than they already are? Why would people choose to lose flexibility that they presently have? Currently I can travel as much as I like for only $6.85 a day. I'm not going to voluntarily pay double.
I just can't believe some people have been sucked into using Opal already when there are still alternatives. The longer is is before people switch from paper tickets to Opal the longer the Minister will have to keep them.
Opinions on the Australian economy and jobs data
I'm sure you'll all criticise me for this blog post. Basically I always like to go against the grain and say what nobody else is willing to. It doesn't matter what the topic, generally I have an opposing view.
Right now that opposing view is about the Australian economy.
Media commentators and economists have been spreading stories of doom and gloom for the last few months, well actually, if we include the GFC then it has been the last few years. But talking more recently the Australian media has been saying:
According to commentators people cannot find jobs and the economy is suffering. If you're a Gen Yer or worse, a Gen Zer, forget about working, you'll be relying on good will and have to go to the Hunter or Tasmania to pick fruit. That's according to Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz. He, like Prime Minister Tony Abbott say people can't be choosy and need to take whatever job there is available. Then get this, the Daily Telegraph this week published a story that backpackers were working in the Hunter picking fruit. So tell me, why are these jobs so below Australians? According to this article they can make upwards of $250 a day, the same amount they'd make a week on New Start. Seems that people are just being picky. Anecdotal evidence suggests also that there are jobs. At one point last year I had three jobs. Yes, they were all casual, but on good weeks between the three I was able to work upwards of 40 hours a week, or a full time week, on bad weeks...yeah let's not talk about those.
Instead I want to talk though about how people are picky. At any given time, depending on where you live there are jobs available. People just aren't willing to do them. I could have worked full time last year had I wanted to but I was dead set on getting a permanent full time job in my field in a company with the right cultural fit and getting experience in media. It was a tough year financially but that was a choice I made. I have to question, how many others are doing the same thing? The difference is I wasn't relying on the taxpayer like many unemployed are.
Jobs data was released this week which actually shows that unemployment has fallen from 6.3% to 6.1%. The majority of the 37,000 jobs were created in Queensland despite the state Labor leader, Annastacia Palaszczuk, saying that Premier Campbell Newman is eroding jobs and hurting the economy. The data certainly suggests otherwise.
The sharemarket has crashed. Okay this one is actually true. Most shares are actually down on a daily basis. However before spreading doom and gloom economists need to take into consideration that it is January and people might have overspent over Christmas and therefore can't afford to buy shares. You also have to take into consideration that most people don't understand how the sharemarket works and don't seem to realise that now is actually the time to buy. It's a lot like the financial advice you read about how you should only invest in the sharemarket if you can invest a few thousand at one time. I disagree with this advice because it is much better to save any amount of money, and if you invest in shares, the money isn't immediately available, so you have to really think things through if you decide to sell shares for living expenses or something else. While you may lose $20 for every $500+ trade, imagine if you hadn't saved at all! In this case the amount you're saving for a rainy day and hopefully growing actually justifies the fee.
The dollar is week and mining is suffering. I've joined these two together because with uncertainty and economists speaking negatively, that is likely to overflow into investments as I previously mentioned. People tend to believe what they read in the news. Sure, maybe the Chinese market is slowing but why not look for new opportunities? When people invest in the sharemarket the first thing they're told is to diversify so why aren't companies and governments applying this to how they conduct business? Why is there this over reliance on China? What about India and other nations? What about other industries? What about diversifying? This could also help with job creation.
In short, given that job growth is up and the sharemarket is down, now is the perfect time to invest and to grow the economy. It's much more constructive to invest in business than property. Property is a dormant asset which just sits there and doesn't actually grow the economy.
Right now that opposing view is about the Australian economy.
Media commentators and economists have been spreading stories of doom and gloom for the last few months, well actually, if we include the GFC then it has been the last few years. But talking more recently the Australian media has been saying:
- There are no jobs.
- The sharemarket has crashed.
- The dollar is weak.
- Mining is suffering.
According to commentators people cannot find jobs and the economy is suffering. If you're a Gen Yer or worse, a Gen Zer, forget about working, you'll be relying on good will and have to go to the Hunter or Tasmania to pick fruit. That's according to Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz. He, like Prime Minister Tony Abbott say people can't be choosy and need to take whatever job there is available. Then get this, the Daily Telegraph this week published a story that backpackers were working in the Hunter picking fruit. So tell me, why are these jobs so below Australians? According to this article they can make upwards of $250 a day, the same amount they'd make a week on New Start. Seems that people are just being picky. Anecdotal evidence suggests also that there are jobs. At one point last year I had three jobs. Yes, they were all casual, but on good weeks between the three I was able to work upwards of 40 hours a week, or a full time week, on bad weeks...yeah let's not talk about those.
Instead I want to talk though about how people are picky. At any given time, depending on where you live there are jobs available. People just aren't willing to do them. I could have worked full time last year had I wanted to but I was dead set on getting a permanent full time job in my field in a company with the right cultural fit and getting experience in media. It was a tough year financially but that was a choice I made. I have to question, how many others are doing the same thing? The difference is I wasn't relying on the taxpayer like many unemployed are.
Jobs data was released this week which actually shows that unemployment has fallen from 6.3% to 6.1%. The majority of the 37,000 jobs were created in Queensland despite the state Labor leader, Annastacia Palaszczuk, saying that Premier Campbell Newman is eroding jobs and hurting the economy. The data certainly suggests otherwise.
The sharemarket has crashed. Okay this one is actually true. Most shares are actually down on a daily basis. However before spreading doom and gloom economists need to take into consideration that it is January and people might have overspent over Christmas and therefore can't afford to buy shares. You also have to take into consideration that most people don't understand how the sharemarket works and don't seem to realise that now is actually the time to buy. It's a lot like the financial advice you read about how you should only invest in the sharemarket if you can invest a few thousand at one time. I disagree with this advice because it is much better to save any amount of money, and if you invest in shares, the money isn't immediately available, so you have to really think things through if you decide to sell shares for living expenses or something else. While you may lose $20 for every $500+ trade, imagine if you hadn't saved at all! In this case the amount you're saving for a rainy day and hopefully growing actually justifies the fee.
The dollar is week and mining is suffering. I've joined these two together because with uncertainty and economists speaking negatively, that is likely to overflow into investments as I previously mentioned. People tend to believe what they read in the news. Sure, maybe the Chinese market is slowing but why not look for new opportunities? When people invest in the sharemarket the first thing they're told is to diversify so why aren't companies and governments applying this to how they conduct business? Why is there this over reliance on China? What about India and other nations? What about other industries? What about diversifying? This could also help with job creation.
In short, given that job growth is up and the sharemarket is down, now is the perfect time to invest and to grow the economy. It's much more constructive to invest in business than property. Property is a dormant asset which just sits there and doesn't actually grow the economy.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The time for peace is over. It's time we made Islam illegal in the west.
If you support Islam or you don't value free speech please stop reading now. For 15 years I've ignored Islam. For 15 years I've said who cares? For 15 years I haven't wanted to get into this confrontational religious war. For 15 years I've turned a blind eye to Islam. For 15 years I've said nothing because nothing I would have to say would be nice.
Like many others I've reached my limit.
I work 300 metres from the Lindt cafe in Martin Place Sydney where a Jihadist took hostage 17 innocent people, killing two in the process, cafe manager Tori Johnson and barrister Katrina Dawson. After the Martin Place siege I grew less tolerant of Islam though it had been building for a few months when there were reports that Australian born citizens were choosing Jihad and Islam over Australia where we have freedoms nobody in Muslim countries has.
This week, a French magazine, Charlie Hedbo was the site of a massacre in which two Muslims stormed the paper and killed 12 innocent people. That was bad enough, but then a Kosher deli was taken hostage and four Jews were killed.
The last time Jews were targeted was when Hitler controlled Germany and two thirds of the Jews living in Europe were killed during the holocaust leaving only three million. Jews have bore the brunt of religious warfare for decades now, and it looks like they are once again being targeted. Already some are leaving France because they no longer feel safe.
The time for peace is over. The time for accepting Islam has passed.
Islam is the ONLY religion that actually rewards murder and the only religion where beheading people is considered acceptable. It is the only religion where murdering people is considered admirable. Other religions, Christianity in particular teach that "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shall respect thy neighbour". Other religions also try to convert people, sure, but they don't kill the non believers. Instead they pray that people will find Christ. That is peaceful. What is Islam's problem that it thinks that murder is acceptable?
It isn't just this that Islam has wrong. And it's disturbing to think that 23.4% of the world's population observe this barbaric religion.
The disgusting traits of Islam do not end there.
According to Islam women are men's property. That's right sisters. According to Islam we are property. Possessions. We're not allowed to have opinions. We're not allowed to be educated and we must submit to our husbands. According to Islam if we don't then we must be beaten and raped and pillaged. That is what the Qaran says. It also says that we are only there for men's sexual pleasure and that sex is purely for reproduction according to the man's will. Get this, the Qaran says that men may have multiple wives and divorce when they want but that the woman must not. It also says that a woman must wear the burqa so as to not tempt a man. I'm sorry I didn't realise that we were to blame for your inability to keep your sexual urges at bay. I didn't realise that we were to blame for your decision to rape and beat us.
Some Muslims say the burqa is a choice but it's not really. There are two alternatives - wear the burqa and be ignored by men or don't wear it and be raped. That isn't a choice. That is being forced into doing something because otherwise you will pay the price of rape.
What type of "peaceful" religion would dare blame the victim for their decision to commit an indecent act?
Women in the west have fought for gender equality for decades now and we still have a long way to go. The last thing we need is Islam taking over the west. It won't be the men who suffer. it will be the women. The women will be beaten, raped, pillaged and treated as men's sex slaves unless we do something now.
The time for acceptance is over.
It is instead time that we said NO! And outlawed Islam in the west. Islam and western values cannot co-exist. Islam hates freedom. Freedom goes against Sharia Law and if we don't do something now we will see the west have violence and wars on the streets like Syria and other parts of the middle east do.
It's time we outlawed this religion as it is violent, damaging and dangerous to all that we hold dear. If we don't, we will lose our freedoms.
Like many others I've reached my limit.
I work 300 metres from the Lindt cafe in Martin Place Sydney where a Jihadist took hostage 17 innocent people, killing two in the process, cafe manager Tori Johnson and barrister Katrina Dawson. After the Martin Place siege I grew less tolerant of Islam though it had been building for a few months when there were reports that Australian born citizens were choosing Jihad and Islam over Australia where we have freedoms nobody in Muslim countries has.
This week, a French magazine, Charlie Hedbo was the site of a massacre in which two Muslims stormed the paper and killed 12 innocent people. That was bad enough, but then a Kosher deli was taken hostage and four Jews were killed.
The last time Jews were targeted was when Hitler controlled Germany and two thirds of the Jews living in Europe were killed during the holocaust leaving only three million. Jews have bore the brunt of religious warfare for decades now, and it looks like they are once again being targeted. Already some are leaving France because they no longer feel safe.
The time for peace is over. The time for accepting Islam has passed.
Islam is the ONLY religion that actually rewards murder and the only religion where beheading people is considered acceptable. It is the only religion where murdering people is considered admirable. Other religions, Christianity in particular teach that "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shall respect thy neighbour". Other religions also try to convert people, sure, but they don't kill the non believers. Instead they pray that people will find Christ. That is peaceful. What is Islam's problem that it thinks that murder is acceptable?
It isn't just this that Islam has wrong. And it's disturbing to think that 23.4% of the world's population observe this barbaric religion.
The disgusting traits of Islam do not end there.
According to Islam women are men's property. That's right sisters. According to Islam we are property. Possessions. We're not allowed to have opinions. We're not allowed to be educated and we must submit to our husbands. According to Islam if we don't then we must be beaten and raped and pillaged. That is what the Qaran says. It also says that we are only there for men's sexual pleasure and that sex is purely for reproduction according to the man's will. Get this, the Qaran says that men may have multiple wives and divorce when they want but that the woman must not. It also says that a woman must wear the burqa so as to not tempt a man. I'm sorry I didn't realise that we were to blame for your inability to keep your sexual urges at bay. I didn't realise that we were to blame for your decision to rape and beat us.
Some Muslims say the burqa is a choice but it's not really. There are two alternatives - wear the burqa and be ignored by men or don't wear it and be raped. That isn't a choice. That is being forced into doing something because otherwise you will pay the price of rape.
What type of "peaceful" religion would dare blame the victim for their decision to commit an indecent act?
Women in the west have fought for gender equality for decades now and we still have a long way to go. The last thing we need is Islam taking over the west. It won't be the men who suffer. it will be the women. The women will be beaten, raped, pillaged and treated as men's sex slaves unless we do something now.
The time for acceptance is over.
It is instead time that we said NO! And outlawed Islam in the west. Islam and western values cannot co-exist. Islam hates freedom. Freedom goes against Sharia Law and if we don't do something now we will see the west have violence and wars on the streets like Syria and other parts of the middle east do.
It's time we outlawed this religion as it is violent, damaging and dangerous to all that we hold dear. If we don't, we will lose our freedoms.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Why is it that women aren't equal when we make up 50% of the population?
There is always some political cause I'm fighting for. If it's not Australia's immigration legislation then it's gender equality and how we need to get out of the 1950s and progress to the current age.
I gather my news from a range of sources including the Sydney Morning Herald. I read an article yesterday written by columnist Alexandra Cain. The basic gist of it was that men don't actually need to work over the Christmas and new year break like women do, and that they simply work because, well there's no nice way to put it, according to Alexandra Cain, men simply don't want to have to deal with children. They find work much easier than dealing with brats. This isn't a scientific study. Alexandra only had a couple of her friends' opinions to go on.
I don't know how true it is, but according to one of my friends who shall remain nameless (journalistic integrity of protecting sources) men aren't as good with children as women and are better at making money. In addition to this the friend says that social engineering plays a part. Stay with me here. Conservative politicians make policies which essentially "force" women to stay at home with children. Instead of working on childcare subsidies they introduce silly policies like paid parental leave and then women become an employment liability. Women therefore, because we earn less than men and because the cost of childcare is absurd (as per previous blogs, it's around $20,000 a year per child), stay home with kids and the gender pay gap never closes. I have confidence the gap will close but it won't be in my lifetime.
Getting back to the opinion piece I read in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, Alexandra Cain wrote that men don't want to spend time with children and that work is easier. It makes you wonder why people would bother to have kids if they don't actually want to spend time with them. Why should women be lumped with the responsibility of raising children while men go out to work and earn money? Why shouldn't there be gender equality? Why shouldn't parents share the responsibility 50/50? Attitudes are however changing. Men are starting to take time off work when children are born, but only a couple of weeks. Why aren't men taking the same amount of leave as women? Why aren't employers more flexible with both genders? Though ideally neither men, nor women would take time off to have children. And what about those who don't have kids? Those who do have kids end up basically getting paid a few grand extra a year to have children. Shouldn't those who don't have children get some kind of bonus for being consistent with their employment & constantly available?
This is the thing though, employers and governments always forget people who don't have kids. It's like if you don't have kids you're forgotten by governments and you don't exist.
It isn't just in childcare that sexism still exists. It exists in religion. Now in the west fewer people are religious than in the east. Despite that, some sexist values still remain because of those religious values. You don't have to be religious to hold conservative values.
Even so, when we think about the Charlie Hedbo massacre which left 12 people dead in the name of Islam earlier this week one thing is very clear. Sexism occurred in that attack. Stay with me here. It has been reported that one of the gunmen said he wouldn't kill the woman because she was a woman. Obviously it goes without saying that nobody should have been killed, but gender equality extends to the bad. It extends to an equal right to fight on the frontline in war and that does mean that if men are going to be killed because they hold western values, women should be too. Again I want to emphasise the massacre wasn't justified, but gender equality extends to the bad, otherwise it's sexism towards men.
Getting back to wages though and employment, some women don't want careers and these women are just as bad as the men who think that women should stay at home and raise children and do nothing other than cook and clean. If mothers don't have careers then they are setting their children up for a tougher life growing up than if they did. If both parents work then the children are more likely to work themselves. If both parents work then if something goes wrong there is back up.
In addition if both parents work they are more equal. If you don't have money you don't have power. And if a man is bringing in the money without the wife contributing, not only will she miss out on money for her superannuation fund, she will also miss out on earning opportunities and the man will hold control. That means that if there are tough times in the marriage the woman is less likely to have the ability to leave because she simply doesn't have the money to do so, and then we have a situation where abusive relationships are more likely.
It's amazing that neither side of politics is interested in true gender equality. True gender equality would mean that like in Scandinavian countries the men and women have equal time off work, or the ability to work from home (which some Australian employers do offer due to technological changes). It doesn't mean women stay at home to raise children while men go out to work and get involved in politics. This may not occur to political leaders but women make up 50% of the population yet if you look at any political rally, it is predominantly men participating. In what world have we allowed this to happen? In what world do women not want to have a say on political decisions which affect them? Before you ask why I'm not involved in a political party - I legally am not entitled to be. Only Australian citizens can join, so despite my Australian ancestry which dates back to the early 1800s and despite being interested and having extensive knowledge I can't participate in the democratic process until I am a citizen (which I'm not sure of when that will be).
We can't have political change without women participating in politics. Apathy is actually hurting the advancement of women, and more women need to speak up and get involved in politics because we make up 50% of the population. Equality means taking the good with the bad.
I gather my news from a range of sources including the Sydney Morning Herald. I read an article yesterday written by columnist Alexandra Cain. The basic gist of it was that men don't actually need to work over the Christmas and new year break like women do, and that they simply work because, well there's no nice way to put it, according to Alexandra Cain, men simply don't want to have to deal with children. They find work much easier than dealing with brats. This isn't a scientific study. Alexandra only had a couple of her friends' opinions to go on.
I don't know how true it is, but according to one of my friends who shall remain nameless (journalistic integrity of protecting sources) men aren't as good with children as women and are better at making money. In addition to this the friend says that social engineering plays a part. Stay with me here. Conservative politicians make policies which essentially "force" women to stay at home with children. Instead of working on childcare subsidies they introduce silly policies like paid parental leave and then women become an employment liability. Women therefore, because we earn less than men and because the cost of childcare is absurd (as per previous blogs, it's around $20,000 a year per child), stay home with kids and the gender pay gap never closes. I have confidence the gap will close but it won't be in my lifetime.
Getting back to the opinion piece I read in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, Alexandra Cain wrote that men don't want to spend time with children and that work is easier. It makes you wonder why people would bother to have kids if they don't actually want to spend time with them. Why should women be lumped with the responsibility of raising children while men go out to work and earn money? Why shouldn't there be gender equality? Why shouldn't parents share the responsibility 50/50? Attitudes are however changing. Men are starting to take time off work when children are born, but only a couple of weeks. Why aren't men taking the same amount of leave as women? Why aren't employers more flexible with both genders? Though ideally neither men, nor women would take time off to have children. And what about those who don't have kids? Those who do have kids end up basically getting paid a few grand extra a year to have children. Shouldn't those who don't have children get some kind of bonus for being consistent with their employment & constantly available?
This is the thing though, employers and governments always forget people who don't have kids. It's like if you don't have kids you're forgotten by governments and you don't exist.
It isn't just in childcare that sexism still exists. It exists in religion. Now in the west fewer people are religious than in the east. Despite that, some sexist values still remain because of those religious values. You don't have to be religious to hold conservative values.
Even so, when we think about the Charlie Hedbo massacre which left 12 people dead in the name of Islam earlier this week one thing is very clear. Sexism occurred in that attack. Stay with me here. It has been reported that one of the gunmen said he wouldn't kill the woman because she was a woman. Obviously it goes without saying that nobody should have been killed, but gender equality extends to the bad. It extends to an equal right to fight on the frontline in war and that does mean that if men are going to be killed because they hold western values, women should be too. Again I want to emphasise the massacre wasn't justified, but gender equality extends to the bad, otherwise it's sexism towards men.
Getting back to wages though and employment, some women don't want careers and these women are just as bad as the men who think that women should stay at home and raise children and do nothing other than cook and clean. If mothers don't have careers then they are setting their children up for a tougher life growing up than if they did. If both parents work then the children are more likely to work themselves. If both parents work then if something goes wrong there is back up.
In addition if both parents work they are more equal. If you don't have money you don't have power. And if a man is bringing in the money without the wife contributing, not only will she miss out on money for her superannuation fund, she will also miss out on earning opportunities and the man will hold control. That means that if there are tough times in the marriage the woman is less likely to have the ability to leave because she simply doesn't have the money to do so, and then we have a situation where abusive relationships are more likely.
It's amazing that neither side of politics is interested in true gender equality. True gender equality would mean that like in Scandinavian countries the men and women have equal time off work, or the ability to work from home (which some Australian employers do offer due to technological changes). It doesn't mean women stay at home to raise children while men go out to work and get involved in politics. This may not occur to political leaders but women make up 50% of the population yet if you look at any political rally, it is predominantly men participating. In what world have we allowed this to happen? In what world do women not want to have a say on political decisions which affect them? Before you ask why I'm not involved in a political party - I legally am not entitled to be. Only Australian citizens can join, so despite my Australian ancestry which dates back to the early 1800s and despite being interested and having extensive knowledge I can't participate in the democratic process until I am a citizen (which I'm not sure of when that will be).
We can't have political change without women participating in politics. Apathy is actually hurting the advancement of women, and more women need to speak up and get involved in politics because we make up 50% of the population. Equality means taking the good with the bad.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Media Subscription Fees
It is becoming more common for news to be hidden behind a paywall. The standard consumer papers like the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph charge between $4 - $10 per week to access special stories. The Australian charges a little bit more, but then if you want to subscribe to the Australian Financial Review they want you to pay $59 per month. That's $14.75 per week.
I'm not saying news should be free, because let's face it, the days of getting free online content are well and truly behind us, however $14.75 for possibly one or two articles a week that interest you is a little excessive. If the Australian Financial Review wants people to subscribe they need to lower their price, even if it was only $10 as an initial payment for the first four weeks and then $20 for the second and third months, then up to $40 a month. That would be much fairer.
Or the major newspapers and news services could do what subscription TV does, and introduce a pay per view rate of say $1 per article, with billing done in 5-10 story increments.
It's annoying because by not offering alternatives the media organisations are alienating their audiences, some of whom are willing to pay for the news but not the fees they want to charge. People used to get the news for free online so they need to ease us into paying rather than going for the high amount straight away.
What do you think? Let me know on Twitter.
I'm not saying news should be free, because let's face it, the days of getting free online content are well and truly behind us, however $14.75 for possibly one or two articles a week that interest you is a little excessive. If the Australian Financial Review wants people to subscribe they need to lower their price, even if it was only $10 as an initial payment for the first four weeks and then $20 for the second and third months, then up to $40 a month. That would be much fairer.
Or the major newspapers and news services could do what subscription TV does, and introduce a pay per view rate of say $1 per article, with billing done in 5-10 story increments.
It's annoying because by not offering alternatives the media organisations are alienating their audiences, some of whom are willing to pay for the news but not the fees they want to charge. People used to get the news for free online so they need to ease us into paying rather than going for the high amount straight away.
What do you think? Let me know on Twitter.
New Year's Eve Review.
Today is the 1st of January 2015 which means that last night millions, possibly even billions of people either went to new year's eve celebrations or streamed different places like Sydney or New York ringing in the new year on their lap tops or iPads.
There was a common theme I noticed on both Facebook and Twitter prior to the commencement of the celebrations. People kept on posting that they were glad to see the back of 2014 and that they had horrible years. The chances are your year wasn't perfect. I doubt that anybody's year actually was perfect, but instead of being glad to see the back of the year and focusing on the negative why not focus on the positive and what you did achieve in 2014? I'm sure the year wasn't a total bust for everyone and that there are some things you are thankful for that happened in 2014.
My 2014 wasn't perfect but it was a damn sight better than 2013. That was one year I was glad to see the back of. You see, once you've had a truly awful year nothing can actually compare to that. The years following on from that will always seem better and there will be things that you achieved. Even though 2013 was a bad year for me I still achieved some things. Moving back to Sydney was one of those. Reaching a career goal, even though it didn't look how I thought it would is another.
I didn't attend the Sydney fireworks this year because I was too late to organise things with friends and that's okay. It's okay to have a quiet new year's eve once in a while. I know that next year's new year's eve will be a lot better and I'll be planning something a couple of months in advance to ensure it's not like this year. I'm already thinking that Milson's Point might be a cool place to watch the fireworks from with the backdrop of the Sydney skyline, the opera house and the harbour bridge in the distance.
Anyway, most of the articles I read after new year's said that it was a total bust and a disappointment. I think that new years is only as good as you make it and thinking that it's a total bust is wrong. Sure, you may have felt that way but shouldn't you be asking WHY you were disappointed with new year's? Was is that you didn't spend it where or with whom you wanted to? Was it that you focused on what you didn't achieve in 2014? Or was it that you focused on what you lost in 2014? There's always a reason to be disappointed with the overall new year's celebrations but the celebrations aren't to blame for you feeling that way. You are.
As I watched the build up to the New York ball dropping earlier today I noticed one distinct theme. The majority of people questioned by the presenters said they weren't happy with 2014 and things hadn't panned out the way they wanted. What actions did those people take to get what they truly wanted though? What steps did they take to progress in their lives? Did they just expect things to happen out of the blue without them taking any action? Life doesn't just happen by sitting back. You actually have to go after what you want.
The New York coverage had depressing music like Imagine and other music with depressing lyrics. I'm not saying people have to be happy all the time. As some people have said to me, that would be fake, but why not focus on the positive and changing what you can change? It just seemed rather silly to have these new year's celebrations with depressing music and a focus on the negative rather than the positive.
In 2015 everyone should make one resolution and one resolution only, to make the best of your circumstances and if you don't like them to work towards improving them and changing what you don't like about your life. And I know that come December 31 2015 I'm going to ring in 2016 like never before.
There was a common theme I noticed on both Facebook and Twitter prior to the commencement of the celebrations. People kept on posting that they were glad to see the back of 2014 and that they had horrible years. The chances are your year wasn't perfect. I doubt that anybody's year actually was perfect, but instead of being glad to see the back of the year and focusing on the negative why not focus on the positive and what you did achieve in 2014? I'm sure the year wasn't a total bust for everyone and that there are some things you are thankful for that happened in 2014.
My 2014 wasn't perfect but it was a damn sight better than 2013. That was one year I was glad to see the back of. You see, once you've had a truly awful year nothing can actually compare to that. The years following on from that will always seem better and there will be things that you achieved. Even though 2013 was a bad year for me I still achieved some things. Moving back to Sydney was one of those. Reaching a career goal, even though it didn't look how I thought it would is another.
I didn't attend the Sydney fireworks this year because I was too late to organise things with friends and that's okay. It's okay to have a quiet new year's eve once in a while. I know that next year's new year's eve will be a lot better and I'll be planning something a couple of months in advance to ensure it's not like this year. I'm already thinking that Milson's Point might be a cool place to watch the fireworks from with the backdrop of the Sydney skyline, the opera house and the harbour bridge in the distance.
Anyway, most of the articles I read after new year's said that it was a total bust and a disappointment. I think that new years is only as good as you make it and thinking that it's a total bust is wrong. Sure, you may have felt that way but shouldn't you be asking WHY you were disappointed with new year's? Was is that you didn't spend it where or with whom you wanted to? Was it that you focused on what you didn't achieve in 2014? Or was it that you focused on what you lost in 2014? There's always a reason to be disappointed with the overall new year's celebrations but the celebrations aren't to blame for you feeling that way. You are.
As I watched the build up to the New York ball dropping earlier today I noticed one distinct theme. The majority of people questioned by the presenters said they weren't happy with 2014 and things hadn't panned out the way they wanted. What actions did those people take to get what they truly wanted though? What steps did they take to progress in their lives? Did they just expect things to happen out of the blue without them taking any action? Life doesn't just happen by sitting back. You actually have to go after what you want.
The New York coverage had depressing music like Imagine and other music with depressing lyrics. I'm not saying people have to be happy all the time. As some people have said to me, that would be fake, but why not focus on the positive and changing what you can change? It just seemed rather silly to have these new year's celebrations with depressing music and a focus on the negative rather than the positive.
In 2015 everyone should make one resolution and one resolution only, to make the best of your circumstances and if you don't like them to work towards improving them and changing what you don't like about your life. And I know that come December 31 2015 I'm going to ring in 2016 like never before.
Gripes about Public Transport Users
A while ago I blogged about what annoys me about the public transport service providers. Today however I'd like to look at another aspect of public transport, and that is the types of passengers that annoy me. I'm sure that if they annoy me they annoy other users too.
7 - Those who leave litter on the bus or train. This is more of a train issue. Sure, there aren't bins on trains but there are at train stations, please take your rubbish with you as you disembark from the train and show some consideration to your fellow passengers who are also paying for the service. It's just basic manners.
6 - People who don't realise that people have multiple senses and one of these is smell. Yes, Sydney can get very hot at times but please have the courtesy to use some body spray so you don't smell or to have a shower. It's just basic hygiene and grown adults should know how to exercise good hygiene and be considerate to other passengers.
5 - Couples who think that PDAs are appropriate on buses and trains. Look, we get it that you're happily in love and don't care about showing the world that. You're lucky that you found that special someone, but please show some respect and keep it decent on trains and buses. We don't want to see your public displays. I don't care if you're straight, gay or bisexual. There is a time and a place and the bus or train is not it. Save it for the back row of a cinema, a bar or just the privacy of your own home.
4 - Seat hogs. A few days ago I was on a bus which was full. I took what was one of the last seats and then someone got on the bus at the next stop and squashed me in. It was one of those sideways seats with the panels on one side so I ended up being pressed up against it with absolutely no room. I understand you want a seat and I like to have a seat too but that does not give you the right to push me out of the seat I rightfully got before you.
3 - Those who steal seats. This happened to me on another bus. I was bussing back to the city from Bondi Beach when this guy took the seat that I'd been eying up. The bus was full and that was the last seat so I gave the guy the evils. A few minutes later a seat opened up. It was lucky I'd paid attention because I smugly took that seat and did a little mental dance and was like "suck on that!" Okay so the guy who I stole the seat from probably hated me but hey, you snooze, you lose.
2 - Speaking of snoozing, sure, everyone gets tired and needs some rest but please oh please do not sleep next to me on the bus or train. If you're tired drink coffee or wait until you get home. The bus is not your bedroom.
1 - The bus is also not your bedroom. I don't want to feel your hair in my foot area. People on buses and trains need to learn what personal space is, and stay in theirs and out of mine. Even if the bus or train is full, please try to be considerate.
These are just a few of the things that annoy me about other public transport users. If you are a public transport user please consider the other passengers also using the service and don't do any of these. Nobody particularly wants to use public transport but some of us have to so please make it a more enjoyable experience by showing us basic manners and considerations. If you have any public transport grips feel free to tweet them to me.
7 - Those who leave litter on the bus or train. This is more of a train issue. Sure, there aren't bins on trains but there are at train stations, please take your rubbish with you as you disembark from the train and show some consideration to your fellow passengers who are also paying for the service. It's just basic manners.
6 - People who don't realise that people have multiple senses and one of these is smell. Yes, Sydney can get very hot at times but please have the courtesy to use some body spray so you don't smell or to have a shower. It's just basic hygiene and grown adults should know how to exercise good hygiene and be considerate to other passengers.
5 - Couples who think that PDAs are appropriate on buses and trains. Look, we get it that you're happily in love and don't care about showing the world that. You're lucky that you found that special someone, but please show some respect and keep it decent on trains and buses. We don't want to see your public displays. I don't care if you're straight, gay or bisexual. There is a time and a place and the bus or train is not it. Save it for the back row of a cinema, a bar or just the privacy of your own home.
4 - Seat hogs. A few days ago I was on a bus which was full. I took what was one of the last seats and then someone got on the bus at the next stop and squashed me in. It was one of those sideways seats with the panels on one side so I ended up being pressed up against it with absolutely no room. I understand you want a seat and I like to have a seat too but that does not give you the right to push me out of the seat I rightfully got before you.
3 - Those who steal seats. This happened to me on another bus. I was bussing back to the city from Bondi Beach when this guy took the seat that I'd been eying up. The bus was full and that was the last seat so I gave the guy the evils. A few minutes later a seat opened up. It was lucky I'd paid attention because I smugly took that seat and did a little mental dance and was like "suck on that!" Okay so the guy who I stole the seat from probably hated me but hey, you snooze, you lose.
2 - Speaking of snoozing, sure, everyone gets tired and needs some rest but please oh please do not sleep next to me on the bus or train. If you're tired drink coffee or wait until you get home. The bus is not your bedroom.
1 - The bus is also not your bedroom. I don't want to feel your hair in my foot area. People on buses and trains need to learn what personal space is, and stay in theirs and out of mine. Even if the bus or train is full, please try to be considerate.
These are just a few of the things that annoy me about other public transport users. If you are a public transport user please consider the other passengers also using the service and don't do any of these. Nobody particularly wants to use public transport but some of us have to so please make it a more enjoyable experience by showing us basic manners and considerations. If you have any public transport grips feel free to tweet them to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)