Random Thought of The Day - Monkeys

Question: What's the difference between a group of 14-year-old Japanese students and a pack of monkeys?

Answer: Not much!

This afternoon at school was crazy, but a lot of fun!  I had the entire contents of my pencil case raided and examined by some very excited and curious English students.  I hope I got everything back!

Aussie Word of the Day

Welcome to today's edition of AWOTD.  I have decided to include a few related words in this one post.

bush n. Aust. 1 natural vegetation; tract of land covered in this; uncultivated land. 2 rural as opposed to urban life; the country as opposed to town or city.  

bushfire n. fire burning (often extensive) areas of natural vegetation.

bushman n. Aust. person skilled in travelling and surviving in bush; person who lives in the bush.

And finally:

bushranger n. Aust. hist. person engaging in armed robbery, esp. living in bush as outlaw.

The most famous bushranger in history was, no doubt, Ned Kelly who was known particularly for the iron mask he wore.  He was captured and executed in 1880 at the Old Melbourne Gaol at about age 25.

All definitions taken from the Australian Oxford Mini Dictionary (4th Edition, 2011).

Aussie Word Of The Day

Welcome to a new sub-series of my blog.  It is called "Aussie Word Of The Day"!  Today I was reminded of the many great Australian words in the English language that are unique to our culture and country, and felt that since the rest of the world is so deprived of such amazingness, that I would be kind and share our jewels of lingual greatness for all to enjoy.  

So I shall be posting an Australian English word with it's uniquely Australian meaning as a regular segment from now on.  All definitions will be from the Australian Oxford Mini Dictionary (4th Edition, 2011).

And so here it is: the first Australian Word Of The Day (or AWOTD for short):

Aussie colloq. n. Australia, Australian person.  adj. Australian.  

Don't worry, they will get much more wild and exciting than that ;)

Book Club - Jane Eyre

I have heard the name "Jane Eyre" so many times, but had never read the book.  In fact, I really knew nothing about the story, except it was about a woman called Jane Eyre.  A couple of months ago I decided it was time to find out for myself.

I must say I was pleasantly surprised.  As much as Charlotte Bronte probably tires of being compared to her sister, Emily,  I'll admit I was perhaps expecting another Wuthering Heights.  But this book was far from it.  

Having said that, there were a few things which would have been handy to know before I commenced reading the book.  Firstly, I was a bit shocked at the very beginning at being confronted by the emotional and somewhat physical abuse of a child.  I have to say, it was rather horrible!  But after getting past those initial chapters, things ease up a little.  

I also realised that a comprehensive study of the French language would have been a handy prerequisite to this book.  There is a character who comes from France and actually speaks in French quite a lot, which Bronte soon ceases to translate.  Basically I have no idea what she said in most of the book.  But all I could really do was trust that what she said could not have been too consequential to the storyline, as that would otherwise be a little unfair!  I will probably never know.  

Those two things aside though, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, which does have a few twists and turns in it.  Jane Eyre is indeed a woman who shows great strength and moral integrity through considerable trials and difficulties.  She strongly values the marriage institution (anyone seeing a contrast to Wuthering Heights yet?) and refuses to give in to related temptations.

Funnily, this probably isn't one of those books where you will fall in love with the male lead character - at least I didn't!  I kind of wondered what she really saw in him a lot of the time, but hey - the book is about Jane and not me, and it was always clear that she had deep feelings of affection for him.

While there is a love-story in this book (but much more than just that), it was not entirely predictable.  It was interesting to contemplate after, how if things had gone "smoothly" without the suffering and trials of endurance in the middle, they would not have ended up as happy and as well suited as they did.  It suggests that sometimes (or often) the hard way is actually the best way.  When we take the easy road we sometimes compromise things of greater importance.

Jane Eyre was a great book to read, because it was much more than just a love-story and  presents so much for contemplation.  It shows growth and strength of character, and I also like it because Jane holds to moral standards, but also stays true to her heart's desire.  It demonstrates that having standards does not mean having to compromise true love.  You can indeed have both.

Random Thought of the Day - Dreams

Have you ever had a dream that someone you know did something terrible, then you woke up and realised they didn't really do it...but you're still mad at them?  (I'm glad I could find this Garfield comic, because it demonstrates it perfectly!)

Well, I'm experiencing that right now! Haha.  They are usually so nice and lovely, and last night in my dream they turned so evil!  It was so real and so awful!  Hopefully it will fade away soon and I'll remember they never actually did anything and are completely innocent...for now... ;)

The original - uncut

I recently had another letter to the editor published in my local newspaper back home, where I voiced some concerns on recently proposed legislation.  I may seem like a quiet person with not much to say, but get me on the right topic and I've got plenty.  This is one of those topics.  

I've sent in a couple of other letters before which were also published, on the topics of prostitution, and legalising "soft" drugs.  I'm basically always writing about politics and law.

Well in reading the version of this most recent letter that was printed in the paper, I found  that it was edited a fair bit.  So here is my original version - uncut!

So our premier, Lara Giddings, has pledged Tasmanian tax-payers’ money to a fight to legalise same-sex marriage in Tasmania.  What this means is redefining the definition of marriage from what it currently and legally is to include same sex couples.

The noticeable fly in the ointment here is that The Australian Marriage Act 1961 clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman only.  This is the Australian Federal Law. 

This means that despite our premier’s fight to change this definition in Tasmania, such marriages will still not be recognised according to Australian Federal law, as they will contradict what is written in the Marriage Act, under the Australian Constitution.

As some people may not be aware, in Tasmania there is already a legal provision for same-sex couples, in that they can register their relationship with Births, Deaths, and Marriages and receive a Deed of Relationship certificate.  (I’m sure no one would object to them holding a ceremony and celebration at this time either.)  This document functions much the same as a marriage certificate in proving and allowing rights in areas such as wills, property division, guardianship, health care, statutory compensation schemes, state taxes, fees and licences, and state superannuation and pension schemes.  It even gives them the legal provision to change their name, as does a marriage certificate.

So what rights exactly does Lara Giddings need to fight for here, with money that is much needed elsewhere? 

If she is serious about going all the way, this will lead to an inevitable (and very expensive) High Court battle to essentially separate Tasmania’s marriage laws from this definition under the Australian Constitution. 

Now, I know we like to joke about Tasmania being its own country sometimes, but do we really want to start separating ourselves from the protection of the Constitution? 

If Lara Giddings is successful in such a separation, where will that leave Tasmania?  Probably drifting down Bass Strait without a paddle…