Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Jamoz's corner - by jamoz

There was a story in “Woman’s Day” that I was reading online regarding a twelve-year-old girl who recently gave birth. A preteen, most likely a prepubescent child has become a mother way before she is ready.

Let’s just cut to the chase, shall we? This kind of story aggravates the hell out of me, not just because of the girls’ situation, but also the comments that readers made on the matter. First, there is no-one, no-one, to blame but the parents for this. You see, it’s all good and well to ask for more sex education in schools, but education begins at home, not in a classroom.


Believe it or not, parenting is a full time job, not part time or a casual thing that can be chosen to be done once in a while. It is a parent’s job to make sure that their children learn about life, whether it is something as mundane as learning how to swing a bat properly, or teaching some serious life issues such as drugs, alcohol or sex. Why would a parent leave those kinds of issues to people who are virtual strangers and who may or may not share the same old fashioned notion of values?

Having children growing up to be responsible adults begins with responsible parents. Parents need to stop abdicating their responsibilities and expecting schools and teachers to pick up a job that her parents should have done in the first place and clearly these irresponsible adults didn’t. If one of the comments on the page is true, the boyfriend lived in the home! This story is clearly about parental responsibility. Whatever happened to the line “Do you know where your children are?”

If it were up to me, the parents need to be arrested, charged and taken to court and either fined or jailed for child neglect and endangerment. Shame on the parents for helping to create this situation and shame on those who try to absolve them of their responsibility.

34
Vote
   


When good religion goes bad

November 18th 2009 03:35
Christianity takes a lot of flak for a lot of things, most of it, in my opinion unjust. However, there are times that Christianity takes a beating for exactly what it deserves. Now don't get me wrong, Christianity isn't all bad based on what sometimes comes out of the church or from religious circles.

The intents of the church are good, and for the most part it has done alot of good in this world, maybe not enough and admittedly it has fallen well short of it's mandate. We were called to love one another, yet we fail to even come close to that. It seems we've gone in the opposite direction of selfishness and greed. It's now all about "me" and what "I" can get from a situation. Instead of giving and not needing to get anything in return, we now expect to get something back.

The problem is that people take what is written in the Bible and twist it to suit themselves. It isn't a new situation. Humans have used the Bible to condone extreme acts of opression and violence throughout history and the best examples of that are slavery and a women's role in the church.

Now, it has taken on a more ominous role. There is a new push from the extreme "christian" right (not mainstream Christianity mind you but the kooks who are the hardcore fundamentalist hatemongering kind of "christian") who is now supposedly using one line from the 109th book of Psalms to oppose the President of the USA. This line is taken from Psalm 109 v 8 which reads "May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership". It sounds innocuous when read, but when you take a closer look it actually speaks of asking God to take him out of office.

Verse 8 certainly is vague on how God to do this, and depending on how far right someone is on the spectrum would depend on how long they want him to be in office. Now reading one line in the book doesn't give the reader the full context of what the intent is. Reading v 9 says "May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." The intent is now clear. He should die by the hand of God. Not to serve one term and demit office and live a peaceful, quiet life away from politics. All it takes is a wrong minded, fuzzy headed, extremist to read these two lines and decide to play "god" to make a point. It just takes one.

Once again, the extreme "christian" right has hijacked an entire religion, and holds it to ransom for it's own political means and ends, and once again gives the entire religion a very bad name. Hatred and intolerance is not what Christianity is supposed to be about, and this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated, or let alone supported by anyone, especially a believer.
19
Vote
   


What's wrong with nudity on television?

November 17th 2009 03:07
On the Sci-Fi channel recently there was one of those c-grade sci-fi movies (what else do they show these mostly days?) that had the warning at the start that the movie included nudity and graphic violence. I was wondering how far the station would go per the nudity and how graphic the violence would get.

Well, they were right about the graphic violence. I saw plenty of blood, and a man get caught in a trap and skewered in his neck with a spear. Not pretty. In terms of the nudity, the closest we came was when the evil female emerged from a hole, nude, and from what could be seen was all pretty much a blur.

So what gives? In a country that has a billion $ industry that bases itself on nudity and hardcore sex, as well as a filling the internet with 15% or more of nudity and sex, there is a huge problem with nudity on free to air television. Let’s forget about the porn and the sex because that’s understandable, but let’s go with nudity. Janet Jackson popped a nipple at the halftime show at the 38th Super bowl, and it cost CBS a cool $550,000. Just for a nipple that had on a nipple shield that was seen for less than ten seconds. Slightly harsh. Slightly.

We come into this world unclothed, we go out without clothes (in a spiritual sense). However, when it comes to violence, it seems that people are more comfortable watching people get chopped up, shot, mutilated and die in other gruesome ways than to see a woman (much less a male) nude. I would rather watch a nude female than watch someone die a horrible death.

The one thing we all have in common underneath our clothes and it isn’t tolerated on free to air television in the country that promotes freedom and tolerance. If you look at other first world, industrialized countries such as Australia or England, as well as most of the other countries on the continent of Europe they have no problem with nudity on television or in life in general for that matter. Don’t believe me go to an Australian or European beach during summer. None of these countries seem to have an exaggerated population of oversexed, perverted men who are always on the prowl for women to rape, but the US has a line of thinking that if people don’t see it, and if it’s hidden away, it keeps the mind cleaner.

The major problem with that theory is the mind is extremely curious, and if something can’t be seen, then we want all the more to see it. It’s only natural to want to see what’s beneath. Think of a wrapped gift sitting under the tree. You have a natural curiosity to want to take off the wrapping and peek inside (peeking and playing are two different things mind you).

The issue here is that people in charge believe that nudity and sex are synonymous. Which as we all know, nudity doesn’t have to be sexual. To prove my point, watch National Geographic long enough and you’ll see naked indigenous people from somewhere in the world and to top it off some of them might actually be underage! Shock! Gasp! An underage African girl doing a tribal dance! Whereas sexting is illegal in the great USA, people can still watch young natives hunt and dance naked. Do you see the hypocrisy in that? Where’s the difference of a nude African female and a nude woman walking out of a hole in a movie?

People like to talk about how offensive nudity is and usually it comes from the religious conservatives. Where are all the atheists to defend nudity on television? I would think that atheists and the new moral order would be natural bedfellows, wouldn’t you? Come on, atheists get your act together to defend others rights to be free, not only from religion but from clothes on television as well.
20
Vote
   


Why I choose not to be atheist

November 17th 2009 00:00
Some months ago a fellow blogger wrote a piece defending her right to be an atheist. I can completely understand her position, as I was once atheist too. I have no problem with anybody choosing to believe whatever they want to believe in . If you want to worship the same God that I worship, fine. If you wish to pray to the plant in your backyard every morning before smoking its leaves in a belief that it will give you deeper meaning to life, that is up to you. If you choose to believe in no God at all, where evolution reigns, there is no heaven, no hell, no life after death and we do everything in our own strength, then I am all for you to do that.

Why I am now a believer? You see, when you take a good look at it, and even many of the world’s greatest scientists have to admit this - that there has to be a creator behind many of natures many phenomena. This isn’t just a matter of “believing” without any thought behind it. There has to be a rationale behind my belief


[ Click here to read more ]
31
Vote
   


Ahhh...summer is almost here and you can almost smell what the summer has to offer. Barbeques, suntan lotion, linseed oil, red leather. Summer has always been my favourite time of year, especially where cricket is concerned. As the summers go by, I sometimes reminisce about past seasons and past players.

Quite often there is a list that pops up somewhere that picks either the best or the worst teams or players that Australia has had to offer over the past few decades. Usually there is heated discussion on who is the best and who's the worst with names flyig everywhere and reasons as to why they should either be included or dropped from the list


[ Click here to read more ]
25
Vote
   


In case you haven’t noticed a lot of the citizens of the U.S.A (especially the younger set) aren’t doing too well when it comes to the whole notion of thinking rationally. Now, hold on there, I’m not saying these particular US citizens are stupid, just consider them as a knife and they’re slightly more blunt than some of the other “knives” in the drawer. It wasn’t so long ago that I saw a show on tv (and I kid you not) the host was on the streets of one major US city and the question was “When did 9/11 happen?” People couldn’t give the correct answer. They either gave the wrong month, date or year or plain “I don’t know!”
How can a nation actually succeed when you have teachers and principals (now I pick on the education system here because you’re all supposed to know better. A nation’s foundation rests with how it’s education system functions) who are actually going to ask students to pay up to get better grades. That’s right…fork over $20 and your failing grade can become a barely passing mark. The problem with this scenario is that if a kid doesn’t have the money to hand over, then we have a case of discrimination against the poor. If the poor kid is desperate enough, what’s he going to do? Go rob someone else in an attempt to get a good grade! This is what happens when you let the fools run the place.

[ Click here to read more ]
20
Vote
   


Water from the moon

November 15th 2009 00:48

Does anybody remember the Celine Dion song “Water from the moon”? The chorus went something like “Oh what have I got to do, do I gotta get water from the moon, to make you love me?” Well those of you who believed it was impossible are now actually one step closer to the impossibility of having that unrequited love actually return your feelings. Stay with me here kids as I explain how…

[ Click here to read more ]
10
Vote
   


Lest we forget loyalty

May 9th 2009 21:43
There was an interesting poll on ninemsn recently asking if Australian cricketers would choose money (ie 20/20 cricket) over an Ashes series. iMost people attacked Paul Collingwood for his comments that international cricketers need to get paid closer to what the IPL players get otherwise cricketers will choose to play 20/20 more than for their country. This argument is nothing new and we should stop pretending that Aussies are all about loyalty to country when cricket history tells us otherwise.

How quickly Aussies forget that over 30 years ago Australia's best cricketers chose cash over loyalty in the form of World Series Cricket and again in the mid 1980's (twice) when players turned their backs on the board by becoming rebels and going to an isolated South Africa. Why attack Collingwood over what is a simple matter of truth and of history? History has shown that not only Australian players have chosen the cash so have the English, Sri Lankans and West Indians


[ Click here to read more ]
25
Vote
   


When was the last time you sat down and tried to fit a jigsaw puzzle together? You find that sometimes the pieces just seem to fall into place or they seem to follow a pattern. Let me see if you can work this out. If a guy makes a racist joke one time about African-Americans not usually being in a certain area, you might be able to forgive him, right? I mean look at Michael Richards. His racist rant went on for a good couple of minutes and we've forgiven him, right? Right?

Imagine then that Brad Garrett who according to TMZ " a photog from the FAME photo agency questioned the "Everybody Loves Raymond" star about a joke he made about black people earlier in the week. According to several witnesses and FAME, last month Brad noticed a black photog taking his picture, and in Kramer-esque fashion quipped, "I didn't know there were black people in Malibu. Go back to where you came from


[ Click here to read more ]
30
Vote
   


Clay Balls

April 17th 2009 00:05
I, just like everyone else, am swept up in the emotion over the lady from Scotland who took on audience condescension and won. I got an email from a friend a few days ago before Susan hit our hearts that I have reproduced down below. It relates very much to how we treat others.

I have found people to be so caught up in appearances instead of who we are. The looks on the faces of the audience before she sang summed us all up as society. We all lack tolerance for those who look or act differently by means of colour, class, weight, age or looks except for when they then turn out to have some amazing talent like Susan does. Right up until last week, kids teased her and people mocked her for what she looks like and the life she lives. I'm quite sure some of them knew she could sing and sing well


[ Click here to read more ]
21
Vote
   


More Posts
7 Posts
1 Posts
2 Posts
127 Posts dating from October 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

jamoz's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by jamoz
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]