Israeli air strikes and whatnots...

...i laze for a few days and suddenly Israel is attacking Palestine.
Even though i'm not there, even if i have nothing there, it really disturbs me. like war should.
It would be greatly appreaciated if someone told me how it became this way, i'm still in a daze...
thank you

p.s. happy new year's eve AC members!

The AC partay the only way they know how

#1 lesson learned 2008: Don't send out invitations to a party a mere 48 hours before you plan to hold it.

This is lesson was learned in a painful manner as the (diminished) AC crew consisting of me, Romana, Elsie, Helena and Jo walked in to Taste of Korea and asked for the 7.30 karaoke reservation.

"I thought you said 20 people were coming," glowered the waitress, obviously expecting a huge party of adults buying hundreds of dollars worth of alcoholic beverages, instead of the five measly underage patrons she saw before her.

"They're coming!" we insisted, slightly desperately.

And they did, sort of. Julia, Ellen and Eloise showed up later on, and eventually out of desperation for more people (I was paranoid that the waitress thought I was a deluded, unpopular loser who thought I had more friends than I really did), I forced my boyfriend to join us. Which brought our tally up to 9, which wasn't really enough for the ginormous room we were given:

The neon decorations were totally worth the exorbitant cost. And despite our small numbers, by jove, we rocked the house.

The night of karaoke (which means "empty orchestra" in Japanese, isn't that hauntingly beautiful?) began with the immortal Anastasia classic, "Once Upon a December", then by possibly the worst rendition of "Born in the USA" ever, sung my Romana and myself. Bruce Springsteen would be literally be rolling in his grave if he heard it (and were dead). Nevertheless, the Viet Cong references pleased the history nerds no end.

Next, the talented team of Elsie and Julia sang "Californication", with backing vocals from Helena and Eloise:

What a gorgeous bunch of ladies! (I'm serious. And I'm sorry for the photo. But I had to share.)

Meanwhile, the shyer people lurked in the background:

And Jo (dressed as her blogging alter-ego HeadSurgeon) basked in the glorious ambience of our surroundings:

After that, the whole group joined in what must be the most powerful rendition of "My Heart Will Go On" since 1997:

They joined in too. Romana's just being SILLY.

Then came my long awaited (by me) performance of Prince's immortal epic, "Purple Rain". I don't have a photo, but it went a little like this:

It seems that 5-minute guitary solos don't really translate well to karaoke.

Then a variety of fun and engaging group singalongs occured.

"All the Small Things" by blink182:

"Going Under" by Evanescence:

Other performances included "Holiday", "Our Time is Running Out", "Thriller" and a (reportedly) epic rap of "Gangsters Paradise" that I sadly missed out on by going to the toilet.

We finished the evening off with a totally rocking performance of "Anarchy in the UK". Some epic headbanging action ensued:

Then our precious two hours of karaoke time ran out. To end the evening, I announced some awards for contribution to the AC:

Julia, for her work organising food and drink and fundraising for the Oxjam while busy with debating and exams, as well as organising our banner-holdings.

Jo, for her amazing illustrations on the first edition of our zine (coming out soon!) and for the amazing amount of smart, thought-provoking posts she has written for her blog.

Ellen and Helena, for being the AC's most enthusiastic members.

Romana, for best excuse for not turning up to a meeting: "I have to cook waffles at lunchtime."

Elsie, for looking the most annoyed that she hadn't got an award yet.

Harry, for being the AC's only male member (sort of).

Eloise, for being cool.

Of course, I would have had many, many more awards to give out to the AC, because each member has contributed to the group in their own way. But I only had five chocolate bars.

Thanks to everyone who showed up, I had a fantastic time and I hope you did too!

Thanks to everyone who RSVP'd, even if they couldn't make it.

Thanks to everyone who didn't RSVP too, because if I invited you it means that you're in the AC and I love you anyway!

That's all for the year, have a safe and relaxing holiday, a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Ka kite!

Happy sexagesimal birthday UDHR!

Okay, so, apparently, in NZ, it is 4:04 am on the 10th of December.  Wake up my pretties! Today is the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On the 10th december, 1948, the UDHR was adopted and proclaimed by the UN general assembly.  Since then, it has set the Guiness World Record for the most translated document, having been translated into over 300 languages worldwide.

On this tremendous occasion, I thought you might like to familiarize yourself with the contents of the UDHR.    To read it in English, click here.  

(please do, or the UN might get me)(also, knowledge is power, and knowing your rights is very powerful)

But here are some of the awesomest articles:

Article 1:  All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 4:  No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 18:  Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19:  Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 24:   Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 26 i:  Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Happy reading, and hugs and kisses from New York.

Hi!
I'm the HeadSurgeon, today I'm taking a break from cutting up people and is here to help you understand le financial crisis and effects with this simple-as-a-pimple guide. edit: whoops actually...its not understandable gabble...
To answer Ellen; yes! they are linked of course- you'll see why hopefully at the end of this, and i just have to add, we can all be a bit relieved as New Zealand seems to be comming out of the recession.

first we need to know some key words! Then its all KOOL from thereon, hopefully.
subprime mortgages: basically, during the years 2006-2007 or so, houses in the U.S were "subprime"- this means that the buyer only needed a small amount or none downpayment to buy a house. Thus, those who did not have the money for a house or income to actually pay the house back- were allowed a house!
Mortgage backed security: to first get into this, we have to get into asset backed security. Asset backed security is a way of debt security (which is BANK NOTES, therefore cash!) that is based on a set of assets(the assets which in this case are houses!). So, guessing you are confused- think a cashflow, and asset backed security enables more new cash to enter this flow [the flow and the stuff in the flow is debt security stuff then].
so were does mortgage backed security fit in?well- it is the asset! It is where they source the money to get into the flow! Because mortgage back securities gets the cash cause, ya know, people have to pay their mortgages, and the people earn money from interest ect, so it contributes to the cashflow, and therefore the cashflow is dependent on the mortgage payments for the cash! So, companies can invest in these mortgages to get cash from interest/from the people who brought the house but can't actually afford it for their own cashflow. In short, it is a financial product to produce money. phew. hope i didn't confuse anyone.

err, i think thats about what ya need to know, now, here's how it fits with the Financial crisis as i understand it...

so in the past few years, with the majority of houses being brought were issued with mortgages that were "subprime". People who had bad credit history/unstable income/not enough money annually to actually afford a house/you get what i mean- were encouraged to take on hefty mortgages because of the seemingly continuing rise in price houses so- "before it gets real expensive- we'll get it at the ok-expensive price right now!!" and also because...no needed or little down payment!...but then.... interest rate (i'm sure you all know what this is) increased...and the price of houses decreased. So "Oh no!" for the people who already had low credit already, and had taken on these mortgages were in trouble- since they have to pay more now with increase in interest rate, which is rather unhelpful and unthoughtful as they are already tight on cash. Also..."oh no" for those who invested- okay lets go a lil off tangent and talk about the investors.

okay...so...le financial products- the mortgage backed securities allowed many people and companies to invest in the american housemarket. Say, there is a company called "Tomworks Inc.", the company had initially borrowed money from a finance company to expand their business. When the company saw other companies investing in subprime mortgages and all the wonderful possibilities of money, the company decides to take a nice dig too to make more money by investing in some assets/subprime mortgages[property]. So, all is good and stuff, they thought they could get away...but then interest rates go up...and the house prices went down! ..and it wasn't changing...Oh noes! The price of the Companie's assets are now worth less, and on top of that...the people who brought their assets can't pay them back so they have to take the houses away/they go in foreclosure! So the company have all these houses, that are worth considerably less(and empty) and doing nothing. Not earning them money anymore. This became a big problem in the US because many companies and major banks invested in them greatly...

Also, addressing Ellen- most sub-prime mortgages are widely owned by financial companies! ;) thats why alot have closed down, their prime business is money and subprime mortgages looked like easy money- it spread like a "nasty rumour"! and remember cashflow guys! (so finance companies lending out money it loans from the bank/subprime mortgages, and the company paying the bank back with subprime mortgage money and the lenders interest from the money they borrow). Mortgage delinquincy increased (which is home-owners being delinquints and not paying their mortgage installments on time!)- and thus this ended up in foreclosure- the houses were seized :(...a-lot of houses actually, a million or so.

Right, so with this happening- as i said before many companies and major banks invested in them, they were bound to be financially in trouble. So...since this is a decline in capital (Wealth in the form of money or property owned by a person or business in this context) this put a strain on credit, especially as these companies and banks- as well as, lets not forget, the people who owned a house with a subprime mortgage-own banks(other banks for the banks...@_@, like the Central banks) money as well. This places a strain because the banks are therefore getting peanuts back (so yeh, finance companies around the world and ALOT of small businesses are closing down because banks are weary of lending money to help out these business refinance themselves back into production/ people who wish to start businesses or wish to appply for a finance will find it a hard time to since the banks are weary, and they would have set the "standards" a bit higher- those who have less money would most definately have a hard problem borrowing. And the people, who would've lost trust in the companies who have fallen (this also include people who have invested in stocks- how people buy a certain percentage of a company [to support it, as well as reap the rewards if the company begins succesful]. remember Forrest Gump investing stocks on "Apple" and he got stinkin' rich? Well vice versa that if a company actually went under. So- this also made a big hoo-ha on wall street as we know, people not wanting to buy stocks/invest (therefore companies finding it harder to support themselves as well as young companies taking off) ritey, back on track...uhm..right trust. Yeh. And then there was recession...but i'm sure you guys can see where recession fits in ;) and the government bailout plan for the big finance companies!

Summary:The financial crises came from greedy lil people who seduced buyers who could not afford houses, and then when they had to pay bigger mortgages they could not pay, and this became a problem for the greedy people since housing prices went down and thus their assets worth less. When the greedy peoples assets went into foreclosure it is exactly like "you are screwed" who would give them the money back for the assets? they were worth less and they could not turn these assets into money! So therefore, they could not pay back the banks and stuff money they owned for buying the assets. Banks not getting money back were unhappy, as were the banks who had invested in the subprime mortgages, getting no cash here and left with empty houses. So banks doesn't want to borrow money out, as they have less of it. And ect.

man. I'm really @_@. I hope this was understandable and brain friendly....even i can't bring myself to read it. Maybe i'll continue this with an effects, but i think its a tad obvious really.

In addition...

In addition to Romanas blog etc here is visual something to help you under stand the fanancial crisis. I am still very confused. I understand how it has began (sort of) but what are the effects? In my opinion it is effecting us everywhere from propety delvelopments to small scale bisnesses. Of course fanancial companies have failed. They are all linked yes? Would somebody like to publish a blog on the EFFECTS of the crisis? Because we all know historical event happens through cause and effect. We have the cause down which is furthur enforced by this flow chart.

http://flowingdata.com/2008/11/25/visual-guide-to-the-financial-crisis/

Arrr....Pirating!

I don't think any of us can honestly cross our hearts and hope to die that you have not downloaded music before, ever ever ever, illegally[maybe with the exception of ms Judge...hmmm]. I sure have. Still do. I'll get to that later.

With the economic crisis and "credit crunch" this is generating, the music industry [especially that of CD stores ect.] will be effected greatly, not that it hasn't already because of illegal downloading. Of course, a "cure" to this is the holding of live concerts and of such, which is one of the best ways for bands/artists to generate revenue, and of course, you can now also very handily buy songs seperately or the whole album online to ease ye self of guilt.

Of course, the main thing about buying cd's is that we don't really need to, because we can hop on limewire or browse torrent sites where you can download an ENTIRE bands discography easily (easily, given you have broadband). So with the economic crisis, buying cd's and such is something that is not a necessary commodity when we can get it for "free", and thus, with this thinking, the artists who produce these cd's will be for the poorer times 10 during these times.

I always feel guilty when i download albums, and i know having the actual tangible album in thee hands feels great. When i download albums I have this little room in my mind of this scene:

Abandmember: Let's have noodles again, tonight.
Bbandmember: Yeh.
Cbandmember: I thought i could make a living with music
Abandmember: thats what we all thought. I didn't think i could live of noodles, but hey...
Cbandmember: Actually, i got a part-time job this week- at the convenience store
Bbandmember: Ah, i just went for an job interview at Farmers...and don't you think that writing songs that will "sell" is so stressful?
A,B & C: ....
Dbandmember: Alright lets place our activities on "Hiatus" then.
A,B & C: Alrighty

and we all know Hiatus is a euphemism for "disbanding"!!!*cough*malice mizer*cough*...

So, i try my best to buy albums. I spent Yen350,00 or so, give or take on albums and concert dvds when i was in Japan. Right now...I'm horrible. But i'm planning on buying what i have downloaded, and loved intensely from this particular site that gives free shipping :D as the main reason i don't buy cd's is because the cd's i want to buy can only be brought online and i have to change them to NZ dollars and pay for shipping...but...excuses!

However, upsides of downloading is that is is absolutely universal and no matter where you are given you have have a port or wi-fi near you, music from all the spaces within this world can reach you. Music now has fingertips to extend and touch many, which is undeniably good for an artist. I mean visual kei is crazy popular in Europe. This was only possible through downloads and, strangely, all these spanish blog sites that have entire discography of some bands uploaded onto megaupload and mediashare ect. This made is able for these visual bands to actually have europe tours.

Also, iPod's/mp3's have entirely revolutionised the music industry- as it made it more uneccesary to buy CD's but also a way which makes way for buying songs online...hmmm...

my take: buy what you love. If you listen to a certain artist alot, instead of downloading more of their albums, go and see whats avaliable at the Cd store.

"my take" redux for us poorer students who may not actually afford to pay $35 for 1 cd(!): ??umm...send fanmail to make up for your lack of financial support?

well we just have to make sure we arn't pirates all the time...or...communists!!

I'll Keep This Short...ish.

We are a couple of days late, but it was white ribbon day on the 25th. Hope y'all wore a ribbon!

In case y'all didnt know (though im sure you did) the white ones are for supporting the 16 days of Activisim against gender violence (which started on Tuesday 25th). And since we at the Active Collective are all about activism...BUY A RIBBON!!! if you haven't already got one... and wear it for at least the next 14 days because even thought they tell you to only wear it on the 25th, there are 15 days of activism left afterwards and how are people going to know that you're active if you dont show them, yes? i hope theyr still selling...or this would be totally pointless.

the reason i'm telling you this is because the statistics showing violence against women are really scary. Go on, look them up!

Now...i should really go and study for chemistry...

Good luck for the rest of exams!

In deep procrastination,

(>_<)~Noodles

PS: Some other dates you might find interesting:

1st December - World Aids Day

5th December - International Volunteers Day

10 December - International Human Rights Day (go 4th form social studies!)

 

on girly magazines

magazines such as "cosmopolitan" and "girlfriend"- basically the whole yadda- we know they all breed insecurity within females- especially pubescence girls. However, you could argue that such editorials do have their points- undeniably they offer often very important advice to girls, which i believe is true- it is easier to confide in anonymity, and refer to a "non" living thing about certain problems than it is to another "real" person.
However, i often see editorials in these magazines about "10 ways to tell if a guy could be a rapist"- or something as ridiculous as thereof, and: "how to become a natural beauty", "How to get your Perfect Guy" and ecetera.
I get a bit lopsided with this; what are you trying to imply? You can't slip the actions of guys into 10 definitive attributes that can indicate possible rapist- it also incites a kind of fear within the person. In the article "how to become a natural beauty" - of course its fine wanting to look beautiful which would make you happy, but i dont ever really see things that outrightly states "you can be happy without liking how you look" and the way it is placed, it makes one identify as "not being pretty"- which although may not be meant, of course if you end up reading it, you obviously identify yourself with it.

Anyways, i think, magazines can be good for advice and all- but really just certain things placed in the magazines are not acceptable or healthy towards the development of pubescent girls. And yes, i know, Cosmo is not a little girl's mag- but they had the "how to tell if a guy is a rapist" thing. Btw, i HATE with a fervor gossip mags such as NW, HELLO! or whatever crap else. They should burn and turn into carbon atoms and be absorbed into the depths of the sea and be used by phytoplankton to be never reborn as paper again. They exploit the lives of others for money.

p.s. I however, know a very GOOD "magazine" for us all- the Active Collective Zine!

p.s.s. remember to read romana's post, economic crises is very important.

p.s.s.s. i'm sorry for my horrendous grammar, honestly, i can't be bothered.

Romana's take on the global economy sucking

(I have never taken economics. I have struggled to get this far. If I got anything wrong, please tell me, so that I can either correct this post, or delete it before I die of shame)

So, the economy sucks, huh? As far as I can tell, this a result of those wheeler dealers on wall street, and two, large, U.S. government backed corporations by the names of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Both overseen by Congress, Fannie Mae underwrote mortgages on "affordable homes". This was intended to make home loans more accessible for lower-income Americans. Freddie Mac then sold them on to the private sector, as assets. Fannie and Freddie guaranteed most of the mortgages in the U.S.A, and had combined assets of almost $5 trillion. The government backing meant that they were able to take on massive larger amounts of debt than other companies, and in return for this, they were supposed to finance more affordable mortgages.

Around 1999, Fannie Mae started underwriting bad loans - to people without high enough incomes, or without the sufficient capital to normally get a loan. These bad loans were on sold to private companies, who assumed that, as Fannie and Freddie were government affiliated, their debt securities were back by the U.S. treasury. Instead, brokers were just making massive proftis by onselling these loans.The onselling of these loans created massive profits for brokers and the like. Private companies began compiling massive numbers of these loans (assuming that they came with little risk) and putting them in a huge pile, if you like, and just sat there, waitng, as themortgage checks came rolling in each month. As the housing bubble started to collapse, and properties lost their value, mortgage owners began defaulting on their payments. Private Companies, who had taken on massive amounts of debt, began to fail. The U.S. Government decided to bail Fannie and Freddie(and Bear Sterans, and A.I.G.) out, in an attempt to stop the economy fully melting. the companies that didn't get bailed out, who now had massive amounts of debt on their hands, began to fail.

So what? I don't work for one of those failing companies, like the Lehman brothers. heck, I don't even live in the same country. The failing of these corporations is causing a rippling effect. Financial firms are going to be less quick to lend money, and growth of economies everwhere will slow down. Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs, predicts that the U.S. economy's G.D.P. will be down 2% in '08 and '09. Consumers, unable to access credit, and fearful of the loomng crisis, are stopping their spending. Retailers and manufacturers are starting to fail - the Big # of car manufacturing, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler recently flew from Detroit to Washington to beg for a government handout. Jobs will be lost. More mortgage payments will fail to be payed. And people bought these mortgages all over the world - Hungary, Singapore, Brazil. In New Zealand, we're mostly going to be okay, because our banks aren't investment ones, who bought these mortgages - our debt isn't likely to be called in. But the Global economy will slow, and things like exporting, and tourism, some of our biggest earners, will slow. People will lose their jobs, even here, and nobody seems to have come up with the silver bullet that will fix, or at least slow, the meltdown.

(I was going to put a bit of opinion here, but I can't be bothered. Form your own opininon, and tell me in the commets. Am off to study now. Man, this was an ace way to procrastinate.)

Censorship and the AC Blog

There's been quite a lot of talk lately amongst the AC, this time, not about issues around the world but issues within our own blog. Issues about censorship. And I think it's great that these talks are happening because for this blog to be a success we constantly need to self-examine and critically analyse what's going on. Especially if only one person (me) has the privelege on here to determine what does and does not go on this very page.

So I would like to address some of these concerns.

First of all, our school website webpage. Yes, the link to our blog has been taken down. Yes, it was in response to Julia's infamous limerick about Stephen Franks. Yes, it is a shame and we have a right to be annoyed about it. But before everyone gets up in arms about it and starts hurtling abuse towards the WEGC staff, let's take a look back to consider the school's position in this. In response to Helena's blog post, Ms Judge (who helped create the school website and is one of the content administrators) made this position fairly clear.

She said,

"My stance is that I'm proud of what you say on here, but that it is obviously very left-wing and it is a fair point that certain peoples may be offended by your anti-National talk, and it may be seen as a stance of the school, rather than just you expressing your own very articulate and well-reasoned view-points. In theory 50% of the population like National and could be offended by dog-loving-limericks mocking certain politicians from their party. Though, he really brought that on himself.

So for the sake of freedom of speech, rather than ask you to censor what you write on the blog, we reluctantly agreed to take down the link when requested. I personally would much rather take down a link to your blog than request that you edit out or tone down certain things. I think that goes against the spirit of your blog. It certainly caused debate amongst us on a philosophical level. I guess there is always debate around whether a school should visibly connect itself to any kind of politics or views that may offend."

Ms Judge has been a huge supporter of our blog since the early pale-green days, and I know she was very reluctant to do this. We are very lucky to have such a great page on the website, especially one that is placed so prominently. Remember, this blog is aimed at promoting awareness of issues among youths. Our target demographic is the students of WEGC, not their parents. There are plenty of different things we can do next year to make people aware of the blog at school, (posters, business cards, whatever) with no need for consideration of the school's image.

I understand it's still frustrating. But as a left-wing, youth-based activist group with some potentially provocative issues and concerns to bring up, we may have to face instances of censorship like this often. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't be doing our job right.

Now, a response to Jessie's very eloquent blog post about censorship, which you can read just below. Jessie brought up some excellent points about publications censoring swear words. Namely, that deleting words like 'crap' is less about protecting young people than protecting that publication's image. And she is probably entirely right. If it were about protection, they would have given up a long time ago. By the time I was ten, I had heard pretty much the whole spectrum of swear words (and was using the word 'crap' by the time I was about eight.)

Yes, it is all about image, and this applies even to this blog. The policy on this blog for swearing is about the same as a show like The Simpsons. My stance is basically, on the spectrum of swear words (pretty much on a scale of from 'gosh' to 'c***'), you can do pretty much up to a-hole. I've even been pretty lax about enforcing this. I've let a sh*t and a tw*t go past. I understand that sometimes you need to use swear words. However, I have to draw the line somewhere.

The reason for this is that we want to reach the widest audience possible. Though we are an independent group and proud of it, our goal is to get as many young people as we can reading this blog and get them thinking about all sorts of issues and ideas. To do this, we need to provide a welcoming environment where people can read about ideas that may be controversial or different from our own, but presented in a way that doesn't make them offended or upset.

We need to keep in mind that the people who read or who will be reading this blog won't necessarily have the same beliefs or values as the people who write this blog, and may be a different age, gender, ethnicity or religion. While we all might think it's totally acceptable to have lots of swearing on this blog, the Active Collective is made up of pretty much exclusively 16 and 17 year old left-wing women, with fairly similar values. A year 9 girl, for example, might not feel comfortable with reading a blog post full of swearing, and neither might a youth leader interested in finding out more about our group. You never know. I give people this blog's address all the time, to a huge range of people. Last night I gave someone the address half-drunk at a karaoke party. You never know who's going to be reading this, or who we could alienate by the use of swear words.

I'm not asking you to censor your argument or the content of your post for these people, just how you present it. And I know each and every single contributor of this blog is very capable of getting her point across without using swear words. The Simpsons managed to be one of the most biting satires of the 90s (now, not so much), on pretty much the same swearing policy we have. You can do it. I have trust in you.

Onto the final issue. I have just deleted a post (with the author's sort-of permission), for the first time since starting this blog. Now, in fairness to the author and as an example of when censorship WILL be used on this blog, I'll explain why.

The post dealt with, interestingly enough, Stephen Franks, who seems to be turning into a sort of anti-patron saint of the Active Collective. And it was very similar in content to Julia's infamous limerick that led to the removal of the blog link from the school webpage (scroll down to beneath Helen Clark's face to read it). So why did I delete this particular post and not Julia's?

Well, I have to admit that Julia's post was definitely toeing the line of acceptibility. No matter how much we all hate Stephen Franks for his disgusting homophobia and simply being a member of the National Party, calling him a bigot and suggesting a bestialic (?) relationship with his dog is probably not the nicest or eloquent argument Julia could have made (I'm aware it was done very much tongue in cheek). However, it was pretty funny and Julia had obviously put time and thought into writing it so I left it up and thought no more. However, when it was clear the WEGC administration took issue with it and I had a choice whether to take it down or not, I left it up more or less as a symbol of our refusal to submit to the censorship of our content to please the masses. (Gee, I'm starting to look like a really big hypocrite now.)

As I said, the deleted blog post in question was very similar to Julia's in content and in tone. However, it went a step farther in terms of acceptibility. It's one thing to call Stephen Franks a 'bigot' and another thing to call him a 'bigoted, facist d*ckwad'. This directly relates to the swearing and perjorative policy I discussed above. This post wasn't lending at all to this blog's welcoming atmosphere and probably quite a few people would have been offended by this statement, no matter who it was directed at. It made me feel uncomfortable, I have to admit. And boy do I loathe Stephen Franks.

In other circumstances I probably would have asked the author in question to edit out this statement. However, the post was very short and once you took that out there wasn't really much else to it, apart from a reference to the censorship of the blog link and an apology for the content. I thought since both topics (Stephen Franks, blog link), with the same argument, had already been brought up in separate blog posts that there would be nothing new to add to the discussion and decided to delete it entirely. It wasn't a decision I took likely and I hope I don't have to do it again anytime soon. The author in question is an extremely talented writer so I know that she will do a brilliant post sometime soon.

If you have any questions or objections, comment! In the meantime, I'll leave you with a quote from Ms Judge (who possibly quoted it from somewhere else).

"Censorship is a backhanded compliment that acknowledges the potential danger and thus importance of the text."

Censorship and what Dumbledore taught us...

I thought I'd just raise this issue, as not only is it relevant to the issue whether we should have a link on the school page (sort of),  but I have recently been censored by the ministry of education.

I submitted a story to a secondary schools' journal of writing, and it was selected.  However, the Ministry has objected to a particular word I used.  'What word?' I hear you say, intrigued 'It must be really bad.  Was it s***?  Or f***? Or even, shock horror, c***?'  Well, actually, it was a four letter word starting with C, but not the word you're thinking of.  It was, in fact, merely 'crap'.    

This got me a-thinking.

Why can't I use the word crap in my story?  Are the ministry scared that I will sully innocent young minds?  But this journal is a publication of works by teenagers, for teenagers.  Teenagers use words a lot stronger than crap, on a regular basis.   To replace it with 'oh dear' or 'oh no' or even 'blimey' would remove any sense of realism in my story.  I, and I think most of you, would be unable to relate to anyone who said 'blimey' .  We already know that crap things happen in the world, and we don't need to be protected from it. Replacing a word that we already know well and use often with a more innocent word is patronizing.

But I know, and so do you, that the real reason the Ministry cannot allow me to use that particular word is nothing to to with protecting us, and is really the same reason the school doesn't want to be associated with our blog.  It's because it's bad for their image.  People aren't supposed to use those words, much less teenagers, and the Ministry of Education can't be seen to be supporting teenage rebellion.

And then I thought, why does the world persist in hiding from unpleasant words?  Some words I understand - derogatory terms for groups of people, for instance.  But certain words are merely words, and there seems no plausible reason to shy away from them.  In the words of our revered Albus Dumbledore, "fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself".  (pg 216, The Philosopher's Stone) (oh yeah, I am that nerdy) Okay, so I'm not saying that people are scared of swearwords, exactly, but it is only the fact that certain words are considered not polite or obscene which makes them so. There is nothing inherently offensive about and an F or a U or a C or a K by themselves, and really, the word itself is just a (somewhat irreverent) word for the creation of life.   It is our reluctance to use certain words that gives them power.  (Ooer, I like that word.  Power.  You know, I would make such a good evil dictator, far better than that John Key.)  

It just seems kind of pointless to me that words which are often the best at summing up how we feel about the world are considered so bad.  However, I know that this may not be the most important issue surrounding censorship.  I haven't even mentioned freedom of speech.... So, in an effort to gain some relevance, I would just like to say that I would far rather that the school ceased to openly acknowledge our blog then asked us to moderate our language and our ideas.  Censorship smells.  Can we swear properly now Lily?

just pointing this out....

far be it from me to say anything
but um
maybe someone has noticed and just not said anything
but our blog link has GONE!
from the school website
but
if this was just over julias poem? i think a little unfair
free speech people come on!
so what if julia thinks that of stephen franks
yes it may be inaccurate but we're not exactly a media outlet are we?
julia should be able to express her views
as should we all
and people should be able to see what we think
so this post can be deleted if anyone gets annoyed by it
im sorry
but i was just letting people know

The Other Side

Do you, active-collectivite, often feel alienated during discussions? Are you a free market capitalist, with a Sarah Palin pin, who begged their parents to vote for Roger Douglas? Think the U.S. should be drilling for oil, anywhere and everywhere? Well, do I have some day-brighteners for you!

The passage of Proposition 8 has been blamed on:

• Black People
• Old People
• Barack Obama
  

and

• Gay People
  

So when someone says 'Those damn Mormons' you can retaliate, in a really, really statistically* correct fashion.

Can we blame it on minorities? Yes we can!


(Oh, and , here, have some links.)


(Okay, just so everyone knows, about 10% of Voters in California are black. 7 in 10 voted for prop 8, bringing the total black contribution to 7%of the vote. Of the other 9o% of votes, Latino votes (roughly 3x that of African Americans) were about 53% for, and both Asian Americans and uhh...white people? at 49%)

Friday Freaky Sexist Vintage Ads Time

While I was surfing the web on my intended 5-minute-that-somehow-turned-into-30 break from studying, I came across this on http://www.feministing.com/:


Cos' there ain't nothing worse for a lady to have her man be "bored" at dinner! Only Heinz soup for you now, Harry!

Click here for a larger image. And for the truly non-squemish, check out these ads, for Lysol, a brand of um, a vaginal douche, owch (from the 50s so don't worry, no graphic pictures here).

Are they real? Are they fake? Whatever, they made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

PS Once more I would like to plug http://www.racialicious.com/, this time for their though-provoking opinion pieces on the passing of Prop 8 and its relationship to communities of colour in California.

Helen, We Hardly Knew Ye

Props to our former Prime Minister, a cool lady who lead us through the last nine years, making many mistakes but leaving us relatively unscathed by the end of it. Something tells me she'll be missed a great deal.

It's not all bad!

There once was a party of cranks
and their biggest bigot was Franks
he said "gays can't snog
but it's great with my dog"
so he went down in Wellington, thanks!

Proposition 8 Passes

Once again, congratulations to the 'Bama for Baracking the Vote!

The majority of the American public were able to look past Obama's race to give him a landslide electoral vote. (Interestingly, he only won about 50% of the vote compared with 47% for McCain. Funny how the American voting system works, eh?)

However, this same public has gone a step back for another minority group: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Unfortunately, Proposition 8 has passed in the state of California. This means that the California Constitution will be amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman, once again making same-sex marriage illegal. Prop 8 passed mainly because of the huge amounts of money poured into anti-gay advertising by the Mormon and Roman-Catholic church. Despite donations and campaigning from such people such as Brad Pitt and Ellen Degeneres, anti-Prop 8 groups such as the Human Rights Campaign simply couldn't compete with that money and power.

This is a huge setback for the gay rights movement, especially considering three other states passed anti-gay measures, including gay marriage bans in Arizona and Florida, and a measure that bans unmarried couples (ie LGBT couples) from adopting or fostering children in Florida. 30 US states have already banned gay marriage, and it is only legal in Connecticut and Massachusetts (maybe they only support gay marriage in states with really long and hard to spell names?).

America proclaims to be a country that values equality. But they've got a long way to go. In American society, coloured people are not equal to whites, women are not equal to men, and LGBT people are certainly not equal to straight people. Electing Obama is certainly a step in the right direction, but the American people need to do more to show us that they can live up to the statement in the Declaration of Independence which says, "All men are created equal."

[On a happier note regarding human rights, here's news from scoop.co.nz: "South Dakota rejected ( for the second time) a proposition to ban abortion - a proposal that had been designed to trigger a subsequent challenge to Roe vs Wade in the US Supreme Court. Thanks to South Dakotans and to the three Supreme Court appointments that President Obama will make during his first term in office, the old theocratic dream of overturning Roe vs Wade is now dead."]

THE OBAMA FOR THE WIN!!!

Thank freakin' fanasmica.

sayonara palin!

Election Erection

Sorry, I had to use that title once. And sorry, all lovely and discerning teacher/parents that have travelled here from our much more decent school website page, for my unheralded vulgarity.

BUT TODAY IS THE DAY! As of 9.26pm NZ time it is 4.26am in New York. Soon, voters will be heading to the polls.

I'm too tired to post any information or opinions (though of course McCain/Palin = epic fail), so I'll point you again in the direction of Gordon Campbell's fantabulous election blog on Scoop. In this post he gives a rundown of what order the results will come in and what states will have the deciding vote.

I'm hoping someone will bring a tv or something to share in the common room... Unfortunately that probably won't be the case. By the time we get back from school it will be 11pm the previous day in NY, so we may find out the winner by then. In any case, ye must watch The Daily Show's election coverage on C4 tomorrow night at 10.30. JON STEWART IS MY HUSBAND!

All we can do now is watch and wait. May the swing states be with you, Barack.

BTW: Photo stolen from http://punditkitchen.com/. Thanks for the link, Maddy C!

on Cultural Pricetag

so...i hear the distant echoes of one bemoaning the use of the Haka (Ka Mate) by foreigners. Even though its quite late news, it just entered the station of registration. So there is some american movie about an- of course- american rugby team (called forever strong), who happens to perform the haka before they play. At first, i was thinking "American...New Zealand Haka...wha...why? I don't really sense a connection..." of course, maybe it is used for its symbolic representations- fearlessness, i will defeat yo'... ect.
Right, and of course, early on this century, there was a maori tribe (Ngati Toa(?) that, thankfully, unsuccesfully tried to TRADEMARK the haka (the man who wrote it was from their tribe). And again, they're trying to place dibs on ownership (They also re-applied for a hearing so they could trademark it recently again...).
I'm actually not too sure what to think on the Americans using the Haka, because apparantly the team was based off a team that actually existed and did the haka at games a long while back, and its kinda like an exspansion of kiwiana in the world...albeit by americans...so...@_@ maybe they should have asked? I'm not too settled on it. But what i think is that is ridiculous that anyone would attempt (and again!) to trademark the haka in which they could reap 1.5 million for its use (like from the all blacks). I mean, what the heck man, the Haka belongs to all New Zealanders, it is a mark, a part of every new zealanders heritage- especially to maoris who does not belong to that iwi. Spokesperson from the tribe said: "All we ask for is some fairness, even a koha or scholarships or something that will come back feasibly to the iwi."
also...that "Maori should be able to use intellectual property rights to protect their culture so they don't have to endure the further bastardisation of their culture. "
IMHO. it makes the people in this iwi come off as greedy people. How can it be "It's just only between us, but if they want it, they can- if they talk to us and give us some money- it'd be fine". I don't think a koha should be given to the iwi of the man who wrote this, cause he's also a "New Zealander".
p.s. also, i don't think the tribe will go anywhere with their trademarking, cause apparantly intellectual copyright expires 50 years after death, and cause its pretty much ridiculous. i think there was also some robbie william thing over how he had some maori tattoo art done, and some Maoris were a bit angry over it...

WEBSITE EXCITEMENT!

Tell me that the Active Collective page on the new school website is not the coolest thing in the entire world. I particularly like how it has my name in in huge lettering at the top ;)

Thanks so much to Ms Judge and the web crew for all their hard work on the website, which looks fantastic!

I want to vote!

That pretty much sums it up...


I want the chance to vote... its just a shame that the poltically aware people can't vote...
I know people who know more about the parties and polices than some adults...
Heck I certainly know a lot more than some adults and yet they decide whats happening to this country which we will run in the future...
Shouldn't we being the youth have a say in shaping the future NZ?

I'm talking about teens(16-17 not 14) that are poltically aware and are worried about our countrys future...

its a bit unfair...



I WANT TO VOTE!!!

Love kermit_2.0

ok just remembered that jo did a blog on this.... sorry guys.... totally spaced

Anti-National Banner Pics Finally Here! (Thanks Elsie!)

These pictures are from our anti-National banner holdings at the basin on the 16th and 21st of October. Of course, The AC is a totally non-partisan group... But, as everyone sane knows, NATIONAL SUCKS!

If you are keen to do anymore banner holdings, you can visit http://www.botheyesopen.org.nz/ or talk to Julia for more info.

Hope you are all having a fantabulous holiday weekend, and don't forget to read Jo's great blog post below me, whose space I have entirely swallowed up (sowee!)

What is it?

So i've been wanting to address this, but i've been to busy doing illegal med procedures (a.k.a. bout of lazyness).

Skin Whitening. You can bleach your skin, choose from an amazingly silly range of creams, face wash...ect.ect.

So, is it racial?

As i'm sure you know, i am a parasol tottering person who most of the times smack my face in this mineral foundation that makes my face paler per usual (btw, the foundation is called "geisha" and i like the geisha look). Half of that is for medical reasons, i carry a parasol because:
1) exposure to strong uv rays/sunlight causes me to break out really badly with MILIA, as my dermatologist has said to me "you have underdeveloped eye glands", so sadly, my milia does not disappear like it should, and there is no cure for it but a nice sharp needle to push under my skin and get those tiny cysts. And it really hurts.
2)i can't use sunscreen or any cream that has alot of chemicals or oil in it because it will cause me to break out.

Now, there are such products as "Ponds Flawless white" a 7 day regime to make you "achieve the desirable whiter/fairer and visibly clearer skin" or a money back guarantee- is this racism in disguise?
In India, it is acknowledged, the more fairer you are, the more "beautiful" you are. And skin bleaching is done, even to kids. This thinking has been ingrained through the ages- so is that alright? Or is it still "wrong" in terms of being racially correct? There was an ad in india where a
dark-skinned girl used whitening skin creams to make her father happy because she got a well-paid job as a flight attendant. (huh??!)

So the markets are flooded with skin whitening products- especially in Asia. In my magazines i brought back from japan, in the face cleansing section they happen to have, its all flooded with "super photo white c gel cream", "super photo white c mask", "camu camu whitening lotion", "UVC's white plus", "Pond's double white", "labo+labo moisture white", "fancl white essence"....I mean, when did the world get so obsessed with being "fairer"? as blogger Nikki has said "Is it some form of self-loathing so much that people think they will be deemed more attractive if they have a lighter shade, or different color? It sounds like a clear statement about how we perceive our racial image or class image. Is it racism? Or are we merely a victim of beauty companies cashing in on society’s desire for white skin?"

when did white skin get equated with social acceptance, and seen as a "higher" form of beauty?(in asian countries)

There are people whom i know who like their fair skin, so alls fair (no pun intended) and well- they like their fair skin, and they don't mind other skin colours, but its their preference.

But of course, there are skin bronzers out there, which is quite the western craze...and...it seems alright- it doesn't provoke the same kind of response "skin whitening" does...but, i think, most of them, they're it both doing for the same reason- they think it makes them look more attractive. So how does this all ad up?

p.s. i'm sorry for the disjointedness, my eyes feel funny in a bad way.

Friday Fun Time! (All teachers avert your eyes!)

GOREBAMA. YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE.

Friday... The best day ever. School's over and we have THREE whole days of no school ahead of us (unless you're like me and have to go into school to do your sucky folio).

Anyway... To celebrate, let's watch some fun but socially concious videos!

• First up, awesome spoken word artist Kelly Zen-Yie Tsai has made a video called Black White Whatever drawing attention to the way the presidential election campaigns target only black and white voters, ignoring other races and relagating them to "whatever". It's really cool. If you're not familiar with spoken word poetry (like me, is that even what it's called?), then you might think it's a bit weird, but very entertaining and thought-provoking at the same time. You can see Kelly's other work at yellowgurl.com.


• On a related note, vlogger Adrian Luis takes on John McCain for his use of that the phrase "that one" when referring to Barack Obama in the second presidential debate. Hip-hop activism? Me likes! (BTW thanks to the AWESOMELY WONDERFUL Latoya Peterson at racialicious.com for the links)


• Rose Petal Cottage... Epicly sexist commercial? Jessica Valenti at Feministing.com thinks so. Agree?


• This made me nearly cry... Adorably useless at presidential campaigning Senator Bob Dole falls down during a really in '96 in this video... He is possibly my favourite Republican everrrrrr (apart from Clint Eastwood).

Happy weekend everyone!

P.S. Re: The picture. I do not wish to suggest there is anything "unmanly" (though what's wrong about men wearing dresses?) about Obama, it's just the only slashy picture I could find of him and Al Gore.

The Week in the US Presidential Election

What a busy week it's been for the US Presidential Elections:

• Former US Secretary of State and registered Republican Colin Powell has made news by publicly endorsing Democratic Presidential candidate Baracak Obama. This is a huge bonus for Obama's campaign and a big blow for McCain's, as Powell is a hugely respected politician. It's not a huge surprise, as Powell is a fairly moderate Republican, and has often supported liberal and centrist causes such as gun control and is even pro-choice. Read more about his endorsement here.
• On a related note, well known Republican satirist (he wrote Thank You For Smoking!), author and columnist Christopher Buckley has also endorsed Obama, leading to his resignation at Republican magazine National Review, the very publication his own father William F. Buckley Jr. founded. Read Buckley's endorsement here and his explanation of his resignation here. (He's a great writer, I would recommend reading them.)
• Sarah Palin appeared on Saturday Night Live. Cynical move to win votes or a good-natured poking fun of herself? You can decide by watching it here, I couldn't bring myself to.
• The Third Presidential Debate was on Tuesday, read the transcript here (or you can watch it on youtube.) There were some pretty excruciating moments from McCain, asked why Sarah Palin would make a better running-mate than Joe Biden, one of his reasons was "Her husband's a pretty tough guy". I kid you not. He also thinks it's okay to use airquotes when referring to women's health. Can you believe this guy used to be pro-choice? It's nice to know though that Obama supports women's reproductive rights, even though he's in favour of late-term abortions except for when the mother's health is in danger (late-term abortions are also carried out when the fetus is not viable outside the womb). They discussed a lot of other issues, of course, but that's something I feel passionate about.

There's plenty more news where that came from! To keep up on the US Presidential Elections, I strongly urge you to watch The Daily Show, on at 10.30 Tuesday-Friday on C4. Okay, so it's a comedy show, but it's more reliable than CNN, Fox or even TV3. Plus Jon Stewart is a total hottie! Don't agree with me? Okay, I'll shut up now.

I know I should write something about the NZ elections... But it's too depressing. Get your news from scoop.co.nz instead.

BTW, I am completely addicted to The Living Room Candidate, which has an archive of pretty much all the presidential campaign commercials from 1952 to the present. Why don't presidential campaigns have jingles anymore?

Also, I have made some changes to the layout of the blog. Feedback please! I want to make it look as good as possible but I'm not sure what good looks like.

I'm totally an original Maori.

Yes. I am aware of the fact that i sound like a broken record...and one day you are going to hit me with something very hard...like a large book. and it will hurt. but Racism is something very dear to my heart, especially since...i was born with plenty of dominant melanin chromosomes. (YES! there are 10 chromosomes that are responsible for your skin colour! betcha didn't see that coming!)

So when you think of racism, you think of BCR movement and the nazis and such, right? (All you history nerds...). Now, you are all seriously smart people...smart enough to know all this, but does anyone else ever realise that discrimination against certain races and people was taking place WAY before the black civil rights movement and the apartheid and the nazis?

Oh yes. I'm talking stereotyping. I hate stereotypes to the core. let me explain.

Are all Indians curry-munchers? Are all muslims evil suicide bombers? Are all asians bad drivers? What if you had never met me before? Would it surprise you to know that i am all three? Does that really make me a curry-muncher who has a secret agenda as a suicide bomber with bad driving habits? (You cant even munch a curry...WTF....)

But that's not really the end of the story, is it?  New Zealand gets its fair share of harsh racism too. Stereotyping is just the mere crust of the pie. Its one thing to say that NZ is awesome because we have so many different cultures...but of course there is more to it. Gangs are just as racist. The Bludz (is that spelt right?) bash the crips because they arent bludz and vice versa. Isn't that racism, too?

I guess im being hypocritical. I judge people too. Maybe not to the stereotyping and bashing extent...because the term curry-muncher is just pathetic. But yet, i judge people. And so does everyone else. It took me x amount of words to realise that there is no real point to my blog except that i was cheesed off with racist people and i wanted to write something semi-intelligent on the AC blog. So sue me.

I really really appreciate the fact that the people i hang out with (and school in general... with a couple of exceptions) are not racist. it would totally make me cry if they were.

~noodles

PS: sorry if i broke any of the "guidelines"!

At 16 years
decide whether yes or no on abortion
already licensed to drive
if you want to have a-sexxy time
go to jail from a crime you committed

but not to vote
and i'll be darned if it was not true that deciding on abortion is harder and bigger.

Both Eyes Open Banner at the Basin

Julia will probably post something like this later, but.....

All Active Collective members-and everyone else who thinks National is to New Zealand what Highlander 2 was to fantasy films-who can make it, convene down by St Marks @ 8:00am, Thrursday Morn.

There were shall wave the Banners that several of our members painstakingly painted, and try not to get arrested/Suspended/cause a major car pile up.

Whether or not to wear uniform is Debateable, given Haughtons opinion on uniform at such events....perhaps a jacket to wear over the Jersey?Oh, but that would violate "Perfect Uniform".

Bring whatever then.

That sould be another subject of debate-should we be allowed to protest in School Uniform? Perhaps.

-Lsie

Hilary Duff... Gay rights activist?

I totally grabbed your attention with that one, eh? Well, it's true. Hilary Duff stars in a new Public Service Announcement (click on the first video on the page) in the US that encourages teens to stop saying "that's so gay" when really they mean "that's so sucky/lame/stupid".

And you know what? She has a point. Using gay as a pejorative term reinforces homophobia, whether you mean it or not. The website thinkb4youspeak.com says it best:

"Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) teens in the U.S. experience homophobic remarks and harassment throughout the school day, creating an atmosphere where they feel disrespected, unwanted and unsafe. GLSEN�s 2007 National School Climate Survey found that three-quarters of LGBT teens hear slurs such as ''faggot" or "dyke" frequently or often at school, and nine in ten report hearing anti-LGBT language frequently or often. Homophobic remarks such as "that's so gay" are the most commonly heard type of biased remarks at school. Research shows that these slurs are often unintentional and are a part of teens' vernacular. Most do not recognize the consequences, but the casual use of this language often carries over into more overt harassment.

Studies indicate that students who regularly experience verbal and non-verbal forms of harassment suffer from emotional turmoil, low self-esteem, loneliness, depression, poor academic achievement and high rates of absenteeism. Research also shows that many of the bystanders to acts of harassment experience feelings of helplessness and powerlessness, and develop poor coping and problem-solving skills."

Now, many of my good friends use the word "gay" to describe something sucky. Heck, I've even used it myself a couple of times. But I hate it. Every time I hear someone use it I cringe inside. But I've never, ever told someone to "knock it off". How demoralising is that, not even being as brave Hilary Duff to confront someone when they say something so offensively homophobic, whether they intend to or not?

So now I'll say it: I hate people using the word "gay" as an insult, and if I ever catch anyone using it, you're getting a lecture, or at least an eye roll. Because, as cheesy as those PSAs are, they are right: it's not okay to use who someone is as an insult. Period.

So I encourage, you, Active Collective members (and lurkers) to take the pledge to not say "gay" in a derogatory by Saying Something Original and suggesting an alternative to "gay" (as an insult. Not to, you know, actually describe someone's sexuality). Okay, you can't really because it's only designed for teens in the US, so instead write your own suggestions in the comments section.

Here's some of my favourites that have been suggested so far:

That's so Raven

That's so notsome

That's so Epic Fail (classic)

That's so not the bomb diggity!

That's so gosh darn Joe Six-Pack

That's so mavericky

That's so free market capitalist

That's so Unbelievably Super Epic Fail

That's so obsequious

That's so your GPA

I'm sure you guys can do better than the oodles of "fierce" and "fetch" on the list.

twilight and feminsim

okay so i thought id contribte something useful to this blog
rather than my random ramblings about stuff
so (i kinda stole this off lilly im sorry!! if lilly wants to do a better version she can! in fact i think she should.. this is just my opinion/take on it....and lillys will probably be more...sophisticated and informed) i havent got a very strong argument on this. its just my thoughts
i present to you
feminism in twilight

so i wouldnt consider myself a feminist....or particularly aware of feminsim in todays society...
but all of you ladies out there who have read twilight will probably agree that bella is kind of anti-feminist..

i mean she leaves edward to save her..many a time. shes portrayed pretty much helpless (except for the end of eclipse and even then she gets told off for trying to help)
and she does the housekeeping for her father
i have talked to other people about this and what came up is that (im not having a bash at SM's religion here) but SM is a mormon. she stays at home, minds the kids, does the cleaning and cooking while her husband goes out and works (mind you now her book is a worldwide bestseller she probably earns more than he does but thats not my point)
and this is pretty much reflected in bella. like she is a bit of a clumsy soul and shes always looking for the big strong (hunky vampire) to come save her

so yeah...i havent got more to say...thats was probably pretty pointless anyway
please lilly..write a better one!!

i found this somewhere...okay it was under the FAQs for breaking dawn on Stephenie Meyers website
Its SM's response to people who think bella is anti-feminist...

Is Bella an anti-feminist heroine?

When I hear or read theories about Bella being an anti-feminist character, those theories are usually predicated on her choices. In the beginning, she chooses romantic love over everything else. Eventually, she chooses to marry at an early age and then chooses to keep an unexpected and dangerous baby. I never meant for her fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices. Bella chooses things differently than how I would do it if I were in her shoes, because she is a very different type of person than I am. Also, she's in a situation that none of us has ever been in, because she lives in a fantasy world. But do her choices make her a negative example of empowerment? For myself personally, I don't think so.

In my own opinion (key word), the foundation of feminism is this: being able to choose. The core of anti-feminism is, conversely, telling a woman she can't do something solely because she's a woman—taking any choice away from her specifically because of her gender. "You can't be an astronaut, because you're a woman. You can't be president because you're a woman. You can't run a company because you're a woman." All of those oppressive "can't"s.

One of the weird things about modern feminism is that some feminists seem to be putting their own limits on women's choices. That feels backward to me. It's as if you can't choose a family on your own terms and still be considered a strong woman. How is that empowering? Are there rules about if, when, and how we love or marry and if, when, and how we have kids? Are there jobs we can and can't have in order to be a "real" feminist? To me, those limitations seem anti-feminist in basic principle.

Do I think eighteen is a good age at which to get married? Personally—as in, for the person I was at eighteen—no. However, Bella is constrained by fantastic circumstances that I never had to deal with. The person she loves is physically seventeen, and he's not going to change. If she and he are going to be on a healthy relationship footing, she can't age too far beyond him. Also, marriage is really an insignificant commitment compared to giving up your mortality, so it's funny to me that some people are hung up on one and not the other. Is eighteen too young to give up your mortality? For me, any age is too young for that. For Bella, it was what she really wanted for her life, and it wasn't a phase she was going to grow out of. So I don't have issues with her choice. She's a strong person who goes after what she wants with persistence and determination.

The Ultimate Guide to Blogging at the AC Blog... Don't panic!

Hello Active Collective members (and lurkers),

WOW! Over 25 blog posts in the last month, ranging from topics from HIV to the economic downturn to bottled water to aspartame... Can I just say you guys are awesome??

However, as we head into the new term and the opportunities for more people (outside the AC) to become bloggers increases, I think it's time to have a set of guidelines for writing posts. I want to keep the blog as uncensored as possible, and you can help me by sticking to these guidelines.

Just to set your mind at ease, none of these things have been a problem so far at all, it's more of a reference just in case.

1. Don't be mean- We've got enough of that in the world already. Be kind to each other and respect each other's opinions, even if they differ from your own. On that note, no trolling. It's lame. I am the moderator, and I WILL delete if necessary.
2. Try to keep it relevant- Though you can blog about any topic in the world that you like, remember this is a blog for an activist group. If you do a topic which does not directly relate to current events or issues, or activism, try to make it thought provoking in some way, relating to the society we live in or have lived in. For example, a post about misogyny in Gossip Girl would be appropriate, while a post pondering the relative hotness of Dan vs. Nate would not be.
3. Keep it (relatively) clean- In other words, don't put anything on here you wouldn't want Ms Haughton reading knowing you wrote it. We want to maintain a vaguely respectful air. So no f-bombs, a-holes, c--suckers or anything of that kind.
4. This isn't bebo, folks- While a community spirit is essential for a grass-roots organisation like ours, discussions about your weekend and so on are best saved for those social-networking sites, not the comments section.
5. Remember, anyone can access this blog- It's open to the public at large for anyone to see, so I would advise being fairly private about your details in your posts. I'm sure you knew this one already!
6. Don't take it too seriously- To paraphrase Nora Ephron, if you work longer than one hour on a post, it's not blogging, it's writing an article. You won't get a Pulitzer Prize for your work here. As long as you get the message across, people won't care whether you crafted that perfect sentence or not. However...
7. NO TEXT LANGUAGE ALLOWED- i dnt cer f u cnt spl or wtvr, thts fyn. bt i RLY h8 txt lnge.
8. Substance over style- If you want to decorate your post with pictures, videos, fonts or colours, that's great! But remember, the actual content of your article is the most important part.

Think those are fair guidelines? Have suggestions for more? Leave your opinions in the comments section!

Happy blogging!

World financial crisis

so congress passed the bill, and financers heaved a sigh. Hmmm...thats going to cost taxpayers quite alot of ching, so some people will become unhappy with the government, and then they start to rebel which ends in a revolution, and USA becomes a communist country with a staple ration of beef jerky and fries. No burgers cause all their cows are mad and NZ doesn't negotiate with Communists(from then on). Ah, and the British Government has funded the banks by $140b to "stabilize" the financial system. So what say you the chances of the economy drowning? The 700b package seems like one of those thing were USA thinks it's going to be okay and that they will recover- albeit slowly- with time, and everyone will be ho-ha again, but of course, within a few years a magical loop hole is uncovered (like always) and will plunge the economy in absolute utter chaos, and they shall only eat bread. Unleavened. and drink milk. Unpasteurised.

p.s.almost 100 sleeps before george W. bush is ta-ta! in almost 120 years, it was the first time a man became president, who didn't have the most votes. cooolllective siiigh.

Human Rights!

Lily finally added me as a contributor.  Yay!  

So today, boys and girls, I'm going to talk to y'all about human rights. I know you're excited.

This year, me and Romana attended the national Model United Nations (something you should all do next year).   The theme of the conference was Human Rights, as this year is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   As Guinea-Bissau and Cambodia, me and Romana were not the world's biggest advocates of human rights.  However, as people, we were both very interested in the topic and learnt some interesting things - most importantly, that the issue of human rights is not as simple as it seems.

You are probably all familiar with the UDHR to some degree, as we all would have studied it in yr 10 Social Studies. However, I'll recap.   The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations on December 10th, 1948.  It sets forth 30 fundamental Human Rights to which everybody is entitled to, without distinction of any kind,  whether it be 'race, colour, sex, langauge, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status'.  These rights include the right to freedom from slavery, the right to a fair trial, the right to education and many other things.  Furthermore, all governments have a responsibility to promote and protect these rights.

However, although it is 60 years since this these rights were declared, they are still not available to everybody.   Throughout the world human rights abuses occur all too regularly.   The question is, how do we stop it?  

The United Nations works hard to make sure human rights are protected by the law, however, any action taken by the United Nations must pass a vote, and may of those voting do not want to protect human rights.  And so we come to the first interesting point I discovered.   Human Rights are bad for governments.  Human Rights make things a lot more difficult for those in power, and not just the corrupt and power mad Robert Mugabes of the world, but also the Helen Clarks.   Human Rights protect individuals: they stop us from being held prisoner without a reason, they protect our privacy, they give us the right to seek asylum in another country.  Even a government with the best interests of its people at heart can find all these rights a nuisance - it is hard to protect the country from terrrorists, for example, if you cannot search people for bombs. Democratic and developed nations usually have better human rights records, as people vote for those who will protect their civil liberties.  However, as we learn in history, when countries feel threatened internal suppression increases.  So, in a post 9/11 world, we increasingly see developed nations, who usually have very good human rights records, taking actions which put the security of the country above individual human rights.  Most will be aware that the UK recently increased the amount of time you can be held without charge to 28 days and are considering increasing it to 42 days.  As for the USA, well, Guantanamo Bay just speaks for itself. 

Despite this, most governments of developed nations still support UN resolutions that aim to protect human rights.   But many of the UN members do not.  You can see the problem - in the United Nations every state has an equal vote, regardless of their human rights record.  They can, and many do, vote against the protection of Human Rights, fearing threats to their personal and national security.  This means that it is very hard to get resolutions passed which aim to counteract human rights abuses.  The United Nations is flawed, in the sense that it gives an equal vote to those who seem to working against what it stands for.  

Because of this flaw, many western political scientists have come up with an idea for an alternative to the United Nations, a "liberty league" or a "league of democracies".  They call for the foundation of a new international organisation, separate from the UN,  made up of western democratic nations.  Together they would be able to help those suffering from human rights abuses and take action to solve other problems, for which the presence of less principled and more corrupt nations has led to stalemate in the UN.   Sounds good doesn't it?

Maybe not.   As me and Romana discovered (in an excellent talk by Vic lecturer Robbie Shilliam), to solve human rights issues we may need to steer away from a victim and saviour model.  I'll elaborate.  In the west, we tend to see the development of human rights in a certain way, known as the 'Grand Western Narrative of Human Rights'.  It goes something like this:

The idea of human rights was first thought of by the ancient Greeks when they came up with the concept of democracy.  The idea continues to develop slowly with a few key events through out Europe - the Magna Carta is one, I have to admit I've forgotten the rest - until the French revolution in 1789.  Liberty, Equality and Fraternity!  Then there is the abolition of slavery, the fight against fascism, and a few other things.  

The point is, they are all examples of western nations saving themselves and others from being victims of human rights.  This narrative leaves out some key historical events.  One of these is the Haitian Slave Rebellion of 1791.  Inspired by the events in France,  the slaves of Haiti rose up against their white masters and took control of the island.  They wrote their own constitution, which not only abolished slavery, but gave universal rights to all Haitians.   The French declaration made no mention of slavery and only declared freedom and equality for all French men.  Futhermore, the narrative ignores the fact that many of the most advanced developments and ideas on human rights of the last century have come from the non-western world in response to western actions.  Mahatma Ghandi developed the idea of non-violent protest in order to fight British oppression in India, and his idea were adapted by Martin Luther King Jr. to fight for black civil rights in the USA.  Today their tactics are considered the most effective methods of protest.

The western human rights narrative suggests that we in the west came up with the concept of human rights and spread it to less developed nations; that the west has a duty to save the rest of the world from human rights abuses, and that those who suffer are merely powerless victims. However, perhaps what people who are suffering need most is not, in fact to be saved, but to be supported as they try to save themselves.   If we just simplify the problem into one of victims and saviours, we may prevent ourselves from hearing the contributions of those who we are trying to save. 

The idea of a 'Liberty League' does just that.  By saying that countries who have poor human rights records cannot take part in human rights discussions, we deny them the opportunity to do something about it themselves, and perpetuate the western image of ourselves as the saviors. Furthermore, (and this is where it gets complicated) it raises some interesting questions about the UDHR and who has the authority to decide what is and what isn't a fundamental human right.  The reasons that human rights abuses take place in some parts of the world has nothing to do with totalitarianism or even national security.  Many have more to do with tradition and religion than anything else.  Now, I'm not suggesting that we should just sit back and allow people to explain away mistreatment of others simply due to religion or culture, but we need to be aware that the UDHR contains very western ideas about what are human rights, which people in other countries may disagree with.  We cannot simply decide that we in the western world know better than everybody else, that we are more developed and so we alone can make decisions about what is right and what is wrong. That would be bad.  However, to me, and I'm sure to you, human rights abuses that are justified on the grounds of religion or culture do simply seem wrong.  So what do we do?  This is a question for which I do not have the answer, though it seems that we cannot force human rights on people who do not want them.  I guess we can only encourage others to claim their own rights, and offer them all our support when they do.

Read the UDHR here