So I was just speaking to my dear friend Katherine and we got to talking about the lack-of-blogging pit that we have both been sucked into. Ok, so we weren't really discussing it. She blogged about her dilemma and re-commitment to blogging on a daily basis, and I agreed with her and told her so in the comment I left her. It is sort of like communication, isn't it? That's what communicating is. She talks, then I talk, then she talks and the conversations pretty much goes on like that for a little while....and then you say goodbye. Well bloggunication is exactly the same. Katherine posts, then I post, then she comments on my post and I will comment on her post and we are bloggunicating while still keeping up with our hectic lives. A beat is not missed and the friendship continues...
So what was I going to tell you about anyway? Oh, that's right our little chat. So Katherine has bloggunicated that she will commit to
posting blogging on a daily basis. Wow, now that is one hell of a grand statement for someone with the social calendar of a mini celebrity status like Katherine. I am totally only kidding. She is the social butterfly that I was in my younger years while now I just dream about recluse status. I have a dream that I will one day be sitting in my study reading, writing and communicating with the chosen few via the internet. Ok, maybe just the reading and writing part will suffice for now.
Now back to our conversation...so we were talking about blogging. I, then had a brainwave that we should start our own exclusive club for other fellow non-bloggers, or non-frequent bloggers. Then the club names started to come to me....'We'll blog when we wanna blog' club or the 'What the blog is going on' club or maybe even the 'Dead Bloggers Society'.
'What the Blog is going on' club sounds good to me as it really says it all, don't you think? Obviously, if I am not posting something it usually means that nothing exciting is going on so why blog? On the other hand, most often I have much to say but no time to write about it as I am too busy working or studying to write about it, or I am have too much fun living life to make time to write about it. Now the last one that is right down my alley is the 'Dead Bloggers Society' - it really makes sense in those times when you are going through that grieving process when the right word is just no where to be found. Yes, I seem to have many of those days, though it appears that today is not one of them?
So go ahead. Blog someone today and tell them you love them! (I guess this joke will be lost on those people living in America but this was the catch phrase in an old australian commercial encouraging people to use the telephone to 'phone home'. Ok, so it is crazy the dumbarse things that I can remember and I working ever so hard to remember everything I need to for my Psych midterm that is coming up on Tuesday. Ok, so this is my cue to hit the books.
Every Friday Joel and I hit our favorite little Mexican joint, Jalisco, and every Friday I have the same old same old meal - Chicken Fajitas and a Midori Margarita. Now it might appear the same old meal every week but I swear that it is oh so good that there is really no reason for me to sample other items on the menu. I could even have a Burritto like the one in this photograph but there is no way on hell that I could consume a Burritto the size of a baby! On the other hand, maybe this is just a really, really tiny baby? Just a thought.
By now you might be thinking that you can go to a Jalisco anywhere in Seattle and they are all the same. Well, you my friend would sadly mistaken in your assumption. We have gotten to know Max, the Owner and Operator of Jalisco in Ravenna. He has done a great job in the couple of years since taking over the business from his Uncle and with a little help from the rest of the family who all help out at the restaurant. We have been returning to this place almost weekly for a couple of years now. I admit that there are other Jalisco's around Seattle and we have frequented a couple of them. Though the food is good the staff seem to be lacking that certain something that we have found here in Ravenna. So if you are in the mood for one awesome Margarita and maybe even a meal pop on down.
* Thanks must go to Seattle PI for the great photo
So maybe I should change the header as I really don't want to hear from Volvo drivers - after reading this post you will understand why. I can see the hate mail coming in already. Though it may be beneficial for this trivial study if I hear from the people who cause
all some of my frustration.
This quarter I am taking a class in Psychology and I am finding it thoroughly interesting BUT it is also causing me to ask more questions. Now this is not a bad thing, actually it is great except when I cannot find the answers to those questions. Maybe there are answers out there but I am unware of some of them. I guess the reason behind this post is the hope that someone else in the blogosphere may enlighten me, or even just agree with me?
So "what possesses a certain type of individual to purchase a volvo, and unfortunately choose to drive that car in heavily populated areas - risking the lives and the mental calm of myself and other non volvo drivers?"
Ok, so maybe I exagerated a little with the whole 'risking lives comment' but they certainly do dispel my inner calm if I have to drive behind, in front or even next to them. So what is it with Volvo drivers? Now I am not posting this because of one incident with a volvo
maniac driver, that would be ludicrous - how could I blame the ills of volvo handling on one driver. Unfortunately, I have been driving for twenty something years in both Austraila and America and the stereotype volvo drivers are the same in both countries, whether I am driving in Sydney, Perth, Melbourne or Seattle or Boston. Why, why, why!
Ok, so you want specifics. Of course you do! It would be unfair of me to clump a group of people together and speak ill of them without telling you why I feel the way I do. Some characteristics that I have noticed is that these drivers tend to be nervous types who are definitely not confident behind the wheel of a car. The also try to multitask but are absolutely horrible at it. They have the children screaming in the back seat, which is why the woman (yes, I have to admit that most of these annoying people are women) at the wheel keeps turning around to yell at them. Coffee in one hand, cell phone in the other. Dog in the back, yes, they usually drive the station wagon models, and the dog is often a yellow labrador or a red retriever with little obediance training which is obvious by the commotion going on in the back of the vehicle.
They have absolutely no idea how to use an indicator (AKA as a turn signal here in Seattle) which is why they turn and anyone driving near them has no idea what they are doing, and must brake suddenly to prevent from rear ending them. Of course, this indicator issue seems to be a Seattle thing so I shouldn't hold that against Volvo drivers. I was even going to suggest that car companies stop wasting consumer dollars by putting what appears to be useless little non-essentials in cars here, as there really is no point - but that is another pet peave that I will post about on another day.
So back to the dreaded Volvo driver. They also tend to drive really slow - totally erractic - but really, really, slow which I admit is better than if they were speeding, but at least they could get far away from me. At the moment if I see a volvo I will either try to get around them, basically as far away as possible from them, and if they are behind me I am constantly worried that they will be so focused on the cell phone conversation; the coffee spilling; the kids; or the dog, that they will end up hitting me.
Now the only feasible explanation I have for a person buying a volvo is that they are fearful of crashing which is why they bought a volvo in the first place. You know they have that reputation for being one of the safest, if not THE safest car on the road and have have to assume that someone who wants a car that safe must have had their fair share of accidents. Of course, this is just my personal opinion - hey this whole theory is only my personal opinion!
Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.
P.S Just to be fair I must state that I have known one person who happened to own a volvo and a soccer-mum van and she was/is an awesome driver. So please if there are any more exceptional volvo drivers out there I want to hear from you - and if your not I want to know what is going on in your head?
Nepotism means favoring relatives or personal friends because of their relationship rather than because of their abilities. The word is generally used in a derogatory sense.
For example, if a manager employed or promoted a relative rather than a more qualified non-relative, that manager would be guilty of nepotism. Some biologists have suggested that a tendency towards nepotism is instinctual, a form of kin selection.
The word nepotism comes from the Latin word 'nepos', meaning "nephew". In the Middle Ages, some Catholic popes and bishops, who had taken vows of chastity, raised their illegitimate sons as "nephews" and gave them preferences. Several popes are known to have elevated nephews and other relatives to the cardinalate. Often, such appointments were used as a means of continuing a papal "dynasty". For instance, Pope Callixtus III, of the Borgia family, made two of his nephews Cardinals; one of them, Rodrigo, later used his position as a Cardinal as a stepping stone to the papacy, becoming Pope Alexander VI. Coincidentally, Alexander—one of the most corrupt popes—elevated Alessandro Farnese, his mistress's brother, to the cardinalate; Farnese would later go on to become Pope Paul III. Paul also engaged in nepotism, appointing, for instance, two nephews (aged fourteen and sixteen) Cardinals. The practice was finally ended when Pope Innocent XII issued a bull in 1692. The papal bull prohibited popes in all times from bestowing estates, offices, or revenues on any relative, with the exception that one qualified relative (at most) could be made a Cardinal.
Nepotism is a common accusation in politics when the relative of a powerful figure ascends to similar power seemingly without appropriate qualifications. For example, when U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski, was elected Governor of Alaska, he appointed his daughter, State Representative Lisa Murkowski, to fill the remaining two years of his seat and was accused of nepotism. (Murkowski won reelection on her own in 2004.) John F. Kennedy was accused of nepotism by some for his appointment of his brother Robert Kennedy as Attorney General. Families elsewhere have also dominated politics of their homeland, such as Tun Abdul Razak, the second Prime Minister of Malaysia, and his son, Najib Tun Razak, the current Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, who recently succeeded Goh Chok Tong as Prime Minister of Singapore. Many countries in Asia have this tilt towards dynastic rule. In India, the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has been ruling India for most part since Independence while other people in India have always given preference to their kith and kin in various states in India. Similarly, Syria is supposedly a republic, but has been for intents and purposes an absolute monarchy since Hafez Al-Assad came to power, appointing his son Bashar al-Assad as his heir.
In Romania nepotism is very commonly used as a word describing a 'connection' (relationship) that allows a person to obtain a certain job. 'Nepot' in Romanian means "nephew". During communist rule, nepotism was often the only way of getting a good, well-paid job
According to Wikipedia Domestic violence occurs when a family member, partner or ex-partner attempts to physically or psychologically dominate or harm the other. The term "intimate partner violence" (IPV) is often used synonymously, other terms have included "wife beating", "wife battering", "relationship violence", "domestic abuse", "spousal abuse", and "family violence" with some legal jurisdictions having specific definitions.
Recent attention to domestic violence began in the women's movement as concern about wives being beaten by their husbands, and has remained a major focus of modern feminism, particularly in terms of "violence against women".
Estimates are that only about a third of cases of domestic violence are actually reported in the US and UK. In other places where there has been less attention and less support, reported cases would be still lower.
Domestic violence occurs in all cultures, people of all races, ethnicities, and religions can be perpetrators of domestic violence. Domestic violence is perpetrated by, and on, both men and women, and occurs in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.
Awareness and documentation of domestic violence differs from country to country. According to the Centers for Disease Control domestic violence is a serious, preventable public health problem affecting more than 32 million Americans, that is more than 10% of the U.S. population (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000).
Domestic violence has many forms, including physical violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, economic deprivation or threats of violence. There are a number of dimensions:
Popular emphasis has tended to be on women as the victims of domestic violence although with the rise of the men's movement, and particularly men's rights, there is now some advocacy for men as victims, although the statistics concerning the number of male victims given by them are strongly contested by many groups active in research on or working in the field of domestic violence.
The means used to measure domestic violence strongly influence the results found, for example, studies of reported domestic violence and extrapolations of those studies show women preponderantly as victims and men to be more violent, whereas the survey based Conflict Tactics Scale, tends to show men and women equally violent.
The majority of studies investigated male on female domestic violence, thus information on female-on-male (or female-on-female) violence tends to be less available.
-In opposition to the provocation law in Australia -
It's disingenuous for David Neal to characterise the community horror at the manslaughter verdict against James Ramage as being driven by the 'punitiveness of the shock-jocks'. No amount of name calling will alter the fact that the law of provocation, as used by men who kill women, has effectively extinguished a woman's right to leave a relationship. Only last month Neal was up in arms about increased police powers, which he argued would compromise our civil liberties. Yet, when provocation compromises the rights of a woman, Neal switches sides. Why are the same men who express moral outrage at the Howard government's refugee policy and it's 'children overboard' lies so stone hearted when a woman is murdered in these circumstances?
It's astounding that Neal thinks the actions of a patriarchal man like James Ramage are the same as those of a 'temporarily insane' woman who kills her child. And on the basis of this spurious argument he thinks we should partially excuse wife killing. If Ramage was insane, he was insane about his loss of power over his wife. If he was depressed it was because he no longer had control of his wife in the marital bed. His answer was to avenge his honour and reassert his power. How can that ever be compared with clinical post natal depression? It's a bit like saying we should be compassionate to Adolf Hitler because his hatred of Jews was so deep seated and chronic he couldn't act otherwise.
Like all defenders of provocation, David Neal refuses to address specific cases such as R v Ramage. He has no trouble finding cases which allegedly support the retention of the law of provocation, but ask him about Ramage and he'll say he 'hasn't read the transcript.' In at least two of the cases he cites, the victim of the homicide has been responsible for incredible acts of brutality and/or violence and sexual degradation. Provocation defences where men kill women and are found guilty of manslaughter have nothing in common with these cases. Invariably, nothing more than a woman leaving a relationship and refusing to return is the reason for the killing. The most provocative thing the woman has done is say 'I'm not coming back.'
The chilling facts, as provided by Neal, are that more than two thirds of men who kill women and plead provocation are found not guilty of murder. If James Ramage is an example of the kind of man found not guilty, is this something to skite about? In the overwhelming majority of occasions when women kill men, it follows years of violence or sexual abuse at the hands of the man. That's why the ten women in Neal's sample were found not guilty of murder. It's amazing that Neal still doesn't understand the flawed conclusions of the 1991 Law Reform Commission Report. He was the chair after all. Does he seriously believe he was right in 1991 and Marcia Neave and everyone associated with this year's report is so wrong?
Funnily enough, I agree with Neal, for very different reasons, when he says the defence should be retained. If it's abolished there is the very real danger the assumptions that drive his arguments will be incorporated in sentencing. In other words, Judges will sentence according to the old patriarchal beliefs. If we tighten provocation so that a separation can never be the reason per se for using provocation, judges will be forced to affirm a woman's rights, and violent men such as Ramage will feel the full force of the law.
It's time David Neal seriously sought to address, via the law, the institutionalised barbarism refected in cases such as R v Ramage. If he thinks the defence should be 're-moulded into a partial defence of extreme emotional disturbance' where would he draw the line? If he thinks that James Ramage was entitled to a provocation defence he should say so.
To understand how discriminatory the current application of the law of provocation is, we need only ask what a woman should do to avoid provoking her death. Julie Ramage wrote a lovely letter to her husband after she left him. She didn't fight him over property or flaunt her new boyfriend in his face. She went to the house alone to look at his renovations. For all that he bashed and strangled her.
If she hadn't left, he probably would never have killed her. Maybe that's the moral of the story. Stay and be told what nail polish and clothes to wear and when to roll over for sex. It's time David Neal accepted that the game's over and that most modern women will no longer suffer this form of control. The real challenge for men is to stop their sisters, daughters and mothers getting killed. That's more important than changing the law.
Another great article by Phil Cleary