2:18pm, 29/9/01
Inspired by the articles I have read, The end of the World (as we know it), by Richard Eckersley, I've drawn the conclusion that as we begin this new millenium, we enter a new and as yet unknown age. If people come to their senses, as I hope they shall, and realise the disastrous effects of their short-term capitalistic greed, then the world will grow to be a better place, mankind will retrieve their selflessness and charity, and we'll continue to grow, equally and fairly. However, IF the new technological developments, which cause even faster rates of consumption, exploitation and degeneration of morality, are supported and continued, I fear we will be entering a new "Dark Age". The recent attacks on America has revealed a new low for decency and the nature of man. We have certainly been progressively drifting off the track of our one true goal, the supposed Western or American ideals of democracy, freedom, liberty, equality, and rich and comfortable future; yet we seem on the brink of a complete and horrific derailment. War has been declared on Terrorism; the irony of terror for terror is frightening, but what can be done? What would the world say if America did nothing? And then, how would those who attack them react, if what they do has no apparent retaliatory impact? Certainly, at first, they'd be dumbfounded and confused. Will they resort to harder arms, nuclear/biological warfare? When I first considered this thought, I thought yes; but as I write, I answer no. IF the free world can be strong and resist the urge to fight back, perhaps it will be a magnification of the old bully system, when, if a child does not react angrily or hurt to a bully or annoying elder brother, then they soon lose interest and stop trying.
But are we strong enough to resist? To survive a merciless onslaught till the antagonist loses interest? Surely as we are being attacked, we will firstly have many casualties – catastrophic deaths or slow degenerations by radiation and disease; we will be deserted by many who, for their own lives, will choose to step back from the fray. How many of us would willingly volunteer to be attacked by atrocities we have yet not seen, for the sake of a doubtful passive resistance campaign? Certainly it was successful for Mahatma Ghandi, and India; but they opposed a "civilised" society, the British who, as suggested by The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, value life. What can be done against those who breed martyrs?
2:21pm, 11/10/01
So it's one month on from the great tragedy, and the United Stated are systematically bombing military bases in Afghanistan, and have claimed "air supremacy". The whistle on the wind is that they will send ground-troops. In the meantime, financial assets are being frozen; picture of a hundred wanted terrorists in Australia have been released; other wanted posters for the top men involved in bin Laden's network have been released to the world's secret services. Countering this are the multitude of food drops given to the Afghan people, in a struggle for, what the media call, something-or-other propaganda, to persuade the people that the Americans are not against the people but the terrorists.
Is this enough? Is this right? On Beauty and the Beast today, a viewer suggested that all US and international funds currently spent on military exercises against terrorists should be spent instead on providing aid, food, shelter, education. Perhaps it is not so simplistic a suggestion after all. In bombing Afghanistan, no matter what food supplies one gives, the people will be perplexed by the Americans; bin Laden as one who allegedly speaks for their race and their religion, will no doubt have the stronger voice for them.
On the other hand, in giving, and not in bombing, the terrorists have no grounds on which to wage their propaganda. They cannot exaggerate the number of civilians the bombs of struck, because there are no bombs; they cannot claim the Western world is at war with Islam when there is no war; they cannot say, we want to eliminate the Afghan people when they are offered food, water, and other basic needs.
Yes, I acknowledge, the families of the victims of the World Trade Centre attacks want some response, some revenge for the loss of six THOUSAND innocent lives; but to bomb Afghanistan would create yet another generation of people, who have only known unrest and death from the West.
11:30pm, 6/11/99
Pro-independents fight against tyranny and oppression - that's fine. Anti-independents fight against nothing - How does their life change for the worse? Civil wars over independence are pathetic. (and yes, I'm aware that this was rather a naïve statement but I also believe that if the world went back to basics, things would be a hell of a lot better). 
7:30, 8/11/99 Why is Foreign Aid (namely Military Aid) such an admirable thing? Outsiders come in and fight a war about it, fight for a people's right to live where they want to (E.g. Kosovo). Help refugees come back. Ah well... it's time to fight another war to help the civvie Serb refugees from being driven from their homes.
8:30pm 9/12/99 Capital Punishment. No! No! No! No! No!
No?
No! Capital punishment does not deter crime. Crims don't consider the pros and cons of their actions before they commit a crime. Crims are crims because of some psychological brainwarp. Anyway, why would you want to kill them? wouldn't you like them to suffer the whole of their lives in a five by four metre prison cell? They die, they feel nothing!
8:30pm 9/12/99 Safe Injecting Rooms. Hmmm. Druggos? Yes. Evil? No. Brainwarped? Definitely. Figure out why they're twisted rather than nurturing the twist.
8:30pm 9/12/99 A politician as our Head of State: why the bloody hell not?! We don't want a blob like the Governor General who nobody knows! Ask foreigners who Johnnie Howard is and you'll get a response; ask who Sir William Dean is and they'll say "Sir William Whatsaface"? Politicians are the most well-known people around the world... they are the people foreigners naturally associate with a country, not some blob!
10:00am 6/2/00 Nuclear warfare. I think not. (and now i have to find out some actual proof for that one =)
7:10pm 16/2/00 Here's just another little nidge in Australian politics today. (nidge ah well...) People are outraged that Little Johnnie Howard is overthrowing a decision and helping this company (as you can see i don't know the details much)and going as far to suggest corruption... I'm not going to say whether i reckon it's right or wrong.... but no matter whether there is corruption or not, once he makes a decision that could appear to help someone close to him, there shall always be the suggestion that it WAS corruption. So does that mean that every time he's faced with such a decision, he HAS to oppose it, just to make it SEEM uncorrupted?