Brad Pitt, Religion, and Gay Marriage...

I like Brad Pitt. I think that he is a good actor and the man speaks his mind. Besides he is married to Angelina Jolie and raising a whole bunch of kids. So, what's not to like? Well, perhaps if you are not so into a liberal agenda that questions religion and those who practice a religion trampling on the rights of others, someone who is an open supporter of gay marriage, and who is pro-marijuana, then Brad Pitt is probably not your cup of tea.

Pitt did a spot on Bill Maher's show the other day (video at the bottom), and prior to that gave a lengthy interview to Parade magazine where he also laid out some of his ideas on a range of subjects.

It seems that the main beef is that those with an active and practicing religion are often at the forefront of arguing that some people should not be afforded certain rights because of their beliefs. The Pitt philosophy is that the same freedoms that those practicing religion enjoy must be enjoyed by those with different beliefs.

This is a valid point. I have always argued that if you want to believe in a religion and you think it makes you a better person then go for it. However, if your beliefs impact on my rights not to believe in the same religion then there is likely to be a problem; a respect problem. I respect you and expect in return that you respect me. Simple really.

Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, there are a couple of realities to be confronted. The first would be that if you truly believe in God and you believe that God disapproves of gay marriage then God will at the appropriate time make those disapprovals known to the parties concerned. Second, don't people have a right to happiness? And, who then has a right to take that happiness away?

It was interesting to see that Pitt calls himself a joint-rolling artist, but has given up the wacky weed since becoming a father because he needs to be alert. I understand the alert part with kids running around, but every one might need to relax now and then, even Mr. Pitt.

The Right to Vote -- "Golput"

There is a lot of talk at the moment in Indonesia in the lead up to the next election of "golput". Golput is the abbreviation of "golongan putih" or the white group. In this context it is a group that will exercise their democratic right not to vote and therefore remain white or unstained by the process.

The idea of not voting, at least for me, undervalues the point of the democratic process. In the Indonesian context it is disrespectful to the many people who fought and died for the right to live free in a functioning democracy. Even if you vote and the people you vote for do not win, at least you have stood up, you have been counted, and you have expressed your will. Not voting for me ensures that the status quo remains and that the system never changes. I see little honour in being able to sit back and say, "it's not my fault because I did not vote for that person as a matter of fact I did not vote at all!"

With 34 political parties running in the 2009 election (at the present time, this may change -- different post for later) there surely must be one person that you could vote for who is most likely to be your voice in parliament. They might not win but, once again, at least you expressed your principles through your vote.

This piece is not a lecture or sermon to the masses, but rather personal musings on why I vote and the reasons that I see voting to be important. It is also a chance for me to express some exasperation at why people do not vote. It has always amused me that the Gettysburg Address talks about "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" yet Americans en masse tend not to turn out to vote. It is bizarre to me that Presidents can be elected to the most powerful position in the US with the support of less than 50% of those who are of voting age. I guess you get what you vote for or more importantly what you don't vote for.

Hence my basic problem with the idea of golput. If you are not going to engage in the democratic process of elections then why complain when you end up with the status quo. I think that if you want to complain then you need to have taken the time to get to a polling station and express your hopes and desires for the future of your country. Golput strikes me as a back seat driver without a license telling the driver how to drive.

Truth be told this post was just going to be the following quote, but as usual I have gotten carried away in my little moment. Nevertheless, this is something that is worth reflecting on:

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

-- John Quincy Adams

Map Jack -- Roving Cameras

For any one that is not familiar with Google's Street View technology, then this is likely to scare you even more! Google has a service know as Street View, which is essentially small hatchback cars with a camera attached to the roof that then cruises the streets taking happy snappies of generally unsuspecting people. This strikes me as kind of like unscripted reality television at its worst. Not surprisingly a few civil libertarians and people snapped were a little upset at the invasion of their privacy.

To Google's credit they have developed automatic face-blurring technology that prevents easy identification. However, if the person viewing the picture knows who you are then face blurring technology might not save you any embarrassment.

But back to Map Jack. Map Jack offers a similar service and the template used is the Google Street View template. However, there are several additional navigation features that make it fun and the pictures are of a high resolution.

The service so far has photographed six cities that it has since uploaded to its site. Of the six, four are US cities and there are the Thai cities of Chiang Mai and Pattaya.

Without a doubt there will be some privacy concerns here, particularly as the resolution of the imagery is high. However, if for example you have been snapped on a public street coming out of a "massage" parlour, then the obvious question is has your privacy been invaded and how so, if you feel that it has?