One thing I have realized with religious people is very few of those religious people have actually taken the time to read their religious script from cover to cover.They simply do not know large parts of what is in their religious script. To help people better understand the words of religious scripts from bronze age religions I have put together these 10 verses to help woman understand clearly where they and their family fit into Christianity. I chose Christianity because I live in a Christian country, but this same exercise can be applied to any of the bronze age religions.
*Disclaimer. These verses are quote mined and should also be read in context. The idea of this is to get people thinking about if the Bible (written by man) is really the absolute word of God. Or is it perhaps bronze age man's best understanding of God?
1 Corinthians 11:5-7
5 but every wife[a] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.7 For a man ought not to cover his head, sincehe is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts,12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Deuteronomy 23:2
2 No one born of a forbidden marriage[a] nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
1 Timothy 2:12
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found,21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Leviticus 12:5
5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Matthew 10:35-38
35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Exodus 21:7-11
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.
17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. 18 Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children.
I know a lot of Christians will be upset about the amount of Old Testament verses that I have quoted from. In a way they have a point. Where the New Testament God was more about loving and caring, the Old Testament God was all about smiting, rape, pillage and destruction. In early Christian society there was massive theological arguments about if the two Gods were compatible.
However, to those that complain that I quote too much from the Old Testament, I would like you to listen to what Jesus of Nazareth had to say.
Luke 16:17
17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
South Africa has some very strong anti-competitive advertising laws. This is actually a bad deal for South Africa and one of the echo's of Apartheid... but every now and again... a company braves our archaic media laws and takes a fun little swipe at another company.
Hats off to both Nando's and Santam for this fun advertising war. Both companies played well, but Sanlam just rocked the show.
This is the original Santam advert
The is Nando's cheeky rip off of the Santam advert
This is the brilliant response by Santam to the cheeky Nando's advert
I wrote this blog post so that other people who have frustrating issues with a Dell PowerEdge T110 II server and its rather picky network card issues.
So this is how my day went. At 8:15AM I am called into our boardroom for a meeting. One of our clients has had a server crash on them and they want a new server solution. The sales team sell the client a nice large Dell PowerEdge T110 II server.
The hardware is handed to me and I take it to my office. First thing I notice is that someone has snaked my install CD for ClearOS. A little annoyed I grab a blank CD and hunt for the ISO image. I remember that my ClearOS ISO is on my linux partition and I am currently booted into Windows.
Using a special tool I extract the ISO from my Linux partition and get ready to burn it. Only to realize that my CD ROM/burner is not working. Oh well. I copy the ISO onto a network share and ask one of my colleagues to burn the ISO to a CD for me. He does and I get the bootable ClearOS CD.
I am about to put the CD in and start the installation when I notice that is only one onboard network card (NIC) in the Dell server. Since the client wants to use this server as a gateway server it would require two NICs.
So I head over to our supply department and ask for an additional NIC. They give me another NIC and I head back to my office. I open up the Dell server and look inside to see that they Dell server only handles PCI-Express NICs. Oh dear, so I mission back to the sales guys and ask them for PCI Express NIC.
This takes a little while because it turns out that the PCI-Express NIC is the last one they have in stock. What a bit of luck I think.
I take the NIC back to my office, place it in the open Dell, close up the machine and sit down at my chair. Finally!, I think. I can start installing the operating system.
I boot up off my ClearOS CD and go through the first part of the install configuration. I eventually get to the bit where it asks me for my PPPOE and other network settings and I quickly input the data.
Bang. Error. “Unable to configure network interface”. Eh? Wtf? I have done hundreds of these installs and never had this error.
I drop down to the very complicated Dell BIOS and try to see what's happening. I see the Dell has some type of cool remote management system built into the BIOS that works off the network card. The PCI-Express NIC that I have I have used the same make on many of the HP server installs I have done , so I think that perhaps the reason why we are unable to configure the NIC’s is because of this fancy Dell network management.
Perhaps if I disable it and install a second PCI-Express NIC I will not have a problem. So I disable the onboard NIC and head back to the sales guys only to find out that we have no more PCI-Express NIC`s in stock :( So I get our salespeople to contact our suppliers and I organize another card. Only problem here is I have to get in my car and mission over to our suppliers to pick up the NIC. No problem. 40 minutes later I am back in my office with another PCI-Express NIC and I install it.
Once again I boot up off the CD, and once again I get the same error about not being able to configure the network interface. Now I am really confused. I know these NIC`s work in Linux as I have used them before. The only thing I am unfamiliar with in this whole setup is the Dell server. I normally just use HP servers and have never had a problem before.
To be sure, I take the PCI-Express NIC’s that I had put in the Dell and put them into a spare HP server I have lying around. Bang. That Ubuntu Linux install identifies the NIC`s right away and I am able to configure them.
A little confused I think perhaps there is a problem with the kernel on ClearOS. Highly unlikely, but I can not understand why the NIC`s are not showing up on the Dell. To make sure its not the operating system that is having issues I put the two NIC’s back into the Dell server and boot up off an Ubuntu CD. Nope. Not even Ubuntu is able to pick up the NIC’s
It has to be the fancy BIOS I think. If the HP can see them, there should be no reason why the Dell can not see them. Right now I feel really stupid as I think that perhaps since I have no experience with Dell servers I am unqualified to understand how their specific BIOS works.
I reboot the Dell and login to the BIOS. Wow... now one thing I will say about Dell. Their BIOS is next to amazing. Its is very complete... and very complicated. I had to research several of the terms used under the more advanced settings as I had never seen them before. Not only that the BIOS is divided into three sections. There is a section that deals with managing the remote access through to the BIOS through a network management port. There is the normal BIOS settings that we all know and love, and there is some type of advanced BIOS system (that has a full mouse supported color GUI) called “System services”.
After spending two hours going through every possible setting I could find (as well as learning several new technologies along the way). I give up in frustration. Bah. Nothing in those BIOS settings seemed to explain why the Dell server would not pick up the two PCI-Express NIC’s.
Now I am stressed. The client (who has a network of 50 computers) has being down the whole day. Which means their company has almost being shut down in non-productivity. The time frame that I had given my client as to when the server will be ready had long since gone. I had let them and myself down.
In frustration I decide bugger this. For now I will just ditch the Dell and get my client up and running in the meantime. I head back to our sales guys and ask them for an HP server that I can loan to our client until I sort out the Dell issue. No problem. They have a spare HP for me and I sign it out and once again head back to my office.
Finally! A system I am familiar with and a solution that I know works. I open up the Dell server, pull out the NIC’s, I then open up the HP and place the NIC’s in the HP server.
I then place the ClearOS CD in the CD tray and switch on the server. It does not boot up. I get a POST error sound and a blank screen. Wtf.
After a deep sigh I stand up and open up the HP again. Yup, one of the techie blighters in the workshop seem to have nicked the RAM module from the server. Sigh. So I open up my test HP server (the one I tested the NIC’s with earlier), pull out the RAM module from there and place it in the loan HP server.
Once again I push the on button and voila! It boots. Progress eventually! This time when the operating system install gets to the network configuration it works without any problems. Finally. It looks like I am finally getting somewhere.. until about 80% into the operating system install where I get an error saying XYZ file can not be opened. The CD appears to be corrupted. Sigh.
So I get another CD and I ask my colleague to burn the ClearOS ISO again as I thought perhaps the copy had been done too fast and the corruption occurred while we were burning the CD or because there was a small error on the CD media.
So we burn another CD and again I start the process. I go through the initial configuration again (for about the 15th time this day), and again the install fails at exactly the same point as the original disk. It appears my ClearOS ISO is corrupt. Sigh.
So I download the ISO again from the ClearOS website. Get my collegue to burn the ISO to yet another CD and I am finally able to complete the install. It is 4pm now and something that should have taken me 2 hours has taken me 7 hours.
I bet you are wondering why the Dell did not work with the PCI-Express cards? Well after searching the Internet for about an hour I finally found the reason why. The Dell server only works with specific types of PCI-Express NIC’s.
Apparently the Realtek chipset I was using is not supported by the Dell server. I found this out by reading many threads on the same issue on their support forums. The most common answer from Dell Support was, “Sorry, that is a 3rd party piece of hardware. We do not offer support for it”.
For the record (and from what I have figured out), the Dell PowerEdge T110 II server only likes to use Dell NIC’s, though according to the forums you may have luck with Broadcom, Intel and Giga-Byte network interface cards. The Dell server I have does NOT work with NIC’s with the Realtek chipset in it.
...should we do penance for the things that people claim, believe, allege or assume we said or did, irrespective of the facts? Politics is full of people who create “pseudo issues” to provoke “pseudo outrage”. They then demand a “genuine apology”, in order to legitimise the outrage they provoked.
Should we play along with this cynical game?
The obvious answer is no. But nothing is obvious in politics. Perversions of the truth soon become perceptions of the truth which then become indistinguishable from the truth. When this happens, there is no point in drawing attention to the truth itself. This simply provides an opportunity for a new round of pseudo outrage.
It reminded me about (what I believed) was the misuse of the word, "genocide" by a right wing minority to describe violent crime on rural farms. I honestly feel that calling violent crime our farms are experiencing an organized racially motivated genocide campaign to be a pseudo-issue obstructing many of us from understanding and dealing with the real cause of rural homicides.
So I decided to tweet Helen Zille to get her opinion on the issue. Twitter is a terrible medium to try get across complex ideas and thoughts and I think that I did not communicate clearly enough to Helen about what I was thinking.
@helenzilleRead your post about pseudo issues. I feel that calling farm attacks, "genocide" is also a pseudo issue. What do you think? Helen shortly responded with: @safrikaanMurder takes the debate into another realm. Not even one single murder can ever be described as a "pseudo issue".
I think due to the limitations of Twitter I was unable to convery my point clearly enough. I was not saying that murder is a pseudo-issue, every murder is a serious issue. I was saying that trying to label farm homocides as genocide is a pseudo issue.
To get my points and view across I have written this extended blog post to better understand my perspective.
I think I need to clarify that the farm attacks in South Africa are at seriously dangerous levels. As with most countries around the world, working on a farm is up there as one of the most dangerous occupations with high fatality rates. The remote nature of farms make farmers particularly vulnerable. Farm attacks are a serious issue South Africa has to resolve, and calling them "genocide" is not the way do it.
Calling the farm attacks "genocide" is a misuse of the word. I believe the use of the word is politically motivated to promote polarization and keeps us distracted from focusing on the real root causes of the attacks.
Oxford Dictionary defines genocide as, "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group". That is a pretty wide definition and even by that broad definition the farm attacks do not accurately fit the definition of genocide.
When you hear the farm attacks called genocide, the perception that is created is that there are systematic attacks focused on taking out white Afrikaans farmers. This is a false perception on a serious issue.
According to some farmer organizations the number of people killed in farm attacks since the ANC took control is around 3000 people. The South African Police Service (SAPS) puts the amount killed at around 2500. I trust the credibility of farmers organizations on keeping track of the numbers killed in farm attacks more than I trust SAPS. So I give the benefit of the doubt here to the farmers.
So now you have the perception that 3000 white Afrikaans farmers have been killed over 18 years. Well, it's a false perception. Of the 3000 farm attacks victims, 61% of those that were killed were white farmers. The list includes the deaths of both farmers and farm workers from farm attacks.
If the attacks are focused on white Afrikaans farmers why is there such a high percentage of non-white deaths? Why do those that give the figures of over 3000 people killed forget to mention the high number of black farm workers killed in those same attacks.
Since the end of Apartheid, South Africa has become a welfare state. While many right wing fiscal conservatives (and libertarians) like to misrepresent South Africa`s transition into a welfare state as communist agenda designed to lead us on the road to ruin, the reality of the issue is that well-managed welfare countries are the best (best as in happiest, most educated, most equal, safest, most economically free, etc) countries in the world.
There is a small but constant incorrect perception that only wealthy countries can afford to become welfare countries. This is not the truth.Countries become welfare states to grow their middle class. A large majority of the the most successful welfare states in existence today went welfare in their economically darkest hours. Welfare countries like France and Germany went welfare after World War 2. Both Germany and France had their industrial economies decimated by two world wars and France had record an unemployment of over 36% (much higher than South Africa's unemployment figures) pre-welfare. Today Germany is one of the strongest economies in the world and France`s unemployment rate has dropped to 9.8%. When Sweden went welfare, it did so because of food riots and the failure of state- and church-organized charities to sufficiently deal with poverty and unemployment. Many countries like Finland went welfare after their economies were decimated by Soviet occupation.
So if South Africa is a welfare state, why are the crime and poverty rates dropping more quickly? One aspect we need to consider is that change takes time. France, Germany and Sweden did not drop their poverty and unemployment levels overnight. However, the single-most important reason why we have not had better results is the single biggest relevant criticism against a welfare state: Welfare states are complex and difficult to manage, and if they are managed badly, mistakes can cost us a lot (as the PIGS welfare countries recently found out).
South Africa is listed by CitiBank as the most mineral-rich country in the world. We have the resources and ability to manage constructive welfare programs to develop South Africa at a higher rate. Unfortunately, the culture of corruption in the ruling ANC party has created a hostile environment for the essential ingredients for a successful welfare state -- competency, transparency and accountability.
So why are some right wing white South Africans incorrectly saying that the farm attacks are organized genocide? They are creating and blowing out of context the real reasons for the farm attacks in an attempt to polarize population groups into supporting their ideology. The easiest way to control people is through fear. By creating an artificial perception of genocide they are polarizing people into being more receptive to their extremist ideologies and wacky racial beliefs.
It is the same fear that the Apartheid government used to polarize white communities during Apartheid. Swaart Gevaar (Afrikaans for "black danger"). The manipulation of fear is not just exploited by white people on the far right. Fear is just as easily exploited by ANC representatives on the far left for their own corrupt political agenda as we saw with Julius Malema and his singing of the, "Kill the Boer" song.
Both the far left and far right represent tiny but very vocal minorities in South Africa. Most South Africans of all color want to live and work together and build a better South Africa.
If we want to reduce the farm attacks we need to reduce South Africa`s level of financial and social inequality. We do this by replacing the current corrupt ANC with a more competent, transparent and accountable government. We build more and increase the quality of our public schools and universities and we make sure there is a strong social healthcare service to protect the weakest in our community. A strong focus on education and health and creating the opportunities for business to grow will result in positive future prospects for our
country.
We need to focus on the real causes of violent crime in South Africa. High levels of corruption, poverty and unemployment and low levels of quality education, health and other essential services.
Lastly. If you did not get bored of my rambling and want to look at more information and empirical evidence about why becoming becoming a welfare country is the best solution we have come up with so far. Please read this article on American Scientist : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state
1) Download Cygwin
2) Make sure to install OpenSSH with Cygwin
3) Run SSH Command to create SSH tunnel and local socks proxy
3.1) # ssh -D 1080 username@yourdomain.co.za
4) Configure Firefox settings to use local proxy.
5) Browse Hulu :)
Over the last decade or so I have watched Argentina grow as a country. It is a beautiful country with much fertile land. I love Argentina in the game of rugby as well. They are one of those tough South American teams that play some excellent rugby. What I don't like about Argentina is it irrational and nationalistic claim to have rights controlling the Falkland Islands.
To any Argentinian reading this, I apologize now if what I said caused you offensive but please allow me to explain to you why what you are doing is irrational and negative.
When looking at Argentina's claims to be the rightful owner of the Falklands you have to take everything into perspective. You have to consider the history of the area, the geography of the area and most importantly, the people of the area.
Lets start with the historical claim.
Does Argentina have a historical claim to the Falkland Islands?
There is no evidence of any of pre-Columbian buildings or structures. While a canoes and some arrowheads belonging to the Yaghan people were found on the island it is ambiguous as if they pre-date European settlers as there were Yaghan people at Patagonian Missionary Society mission station on Keppel Island in 1856 and these artefacts may be from them.
Needless to say, Europeans had settled and were settled on the Falkland Islands before anyone else. The Falkland Islands seems to have crept onto European Maps by early Spanish explorers, however it was John Davis (blown off course) who was the first one to mark the islands accurately on a map on 9 August 1592. The islands were later confirmed by English commander Richard Hawkins in 1594.
The islands underwent many name changes through the years as different European nations discovered and named them, but it English Captain John Strong who named them the Falkland Sounds after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty (and whom had financed his journey).
The first settlement on the islands came from France. France established a colony on one the Falkland Sounds in 1764 at Port St. Louis. The British aware of this put their own colony on one of the other islands and claimed the territory in 1765. These events were nearly the cause of a war between Britain and Spain and both countries sent forces to the area. France withdrew from their colony in 1766 and gave control of their island over to the Spanish who took control of the island in 1767.
Due to the costly American War of Independence and the lack of ability for the British Empire to defend the islands (and many of its other colonies) they were evacuated on 20th of May 1776. The British commander who evacuated from the island left behind a plaque confirming British sovereignty over the islands. Spain then ruled the Islands from Buenos Aires until 1811.
Before Europeans came there were no indigenous people, settlements or even tree`s. With the arrival of European settlements on the Islands, the European settlers planted the tree`s and raised settlements and introduced the domestic animals.
Historically it is clear that the people of Argentina have no historical claim to the Falkland Islands. They did not discover them, they were not part of the first settlements... and in fact, Argentina was not even a country while this was all happening.
The Independence of Argentina was only declared on July 9, 1816. I am not sure if this is the official birth date of Argentina but it is the one I am using. The area that we call Argentina has being controlled my many colonizers over the centuries and the Inca colonizers had long since pushed out most of the local
indigenous people out of the area. The Spanish colonizers conquered the area from the Inca colonizers and there were a lot of fights for who controlled that area of the world. So I take the time of its birth of Argentina when the people of Argentina decided on their own self determination.
Does Argentina have geographical claims to the Falkland Islands?
To put it simply. No they do not. Not by any reasonable measure. Before I go into detail as to why they have no geographical claims to the Falkland Islands let me speak of my own country. If you go and look at a map of South Africa you will notice there is a hole in the middle of it. That is the country of Lesotho and we have another country called Swaziland that exists mostly within our borders. So I speak from a country where we gave people`s within our borders the right to self determination.
This is important to note this because it highlights the silliness of the claim that the Falklands belongs to Argentina because the Falkland Islands closest neighbour is Argentina. International maritime law is pretty clear about this.
According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the territorial waters around a country are clearly defined as 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi). The Falkland Islands are clearly beyond any real geographical territorial claims of any country. Around countries you also get something called an "Exclusive Economic Zone". This extends 200 nautical miles from the coast line. Even if one had to use that as a geographical premiss for a claim for sovereignty over the islands the Falkland Islands would still not belong to Argentina.
The Falklands exists 250 nautical miles (460 km; 290 mi) off the coat of mainland South America. Thats a huge distance. You could put several European countries in between the Falkland Islands and Argentina if you could rearrange the world like a giant jigsaw puzzle.
The single most important deciding factor
This completely trumps historical and geographical claims to the Falkland Islands and is the single most important factor to consider when deciding who has
sovereignty over the islands. What do the people who live there say? What is their opinion? What do they want?
TAKING advantage of the presence of UK and foreign press in the Falkland Islands, many Stanley residents formed a convoy of vehicles displaying Falkland Islands and UK flags, and drove in a convoy along the Stanley Bypass Road late this afternoon. In a demonstration that supported the policy of self-determination for Falkland Islanders, the peaceful rally was photographed by Argentine and British press including The Sun newspaper.
That is it. Issue resolved. Things are very simple and clear cut to any reasonable human. Historically Argentina has very little claim to the islands. Geographically Argentina does not have any claims to the islands and last but not least, the people who live there want the right to self determination. That completely trumps any of the weak claims that Argentina has to the Falkland Islands. Argentina simply do not have the right to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
Just as you the people of Argentina have the right to self determination you must allow that same freedom to other peoples. If you wish to have access to the resources recently discovered off the Falkland Islands you need to work together with the people of the Falklands to harvest those resources. There is only one way Argentina can get closer to the Falkland Islanders. Be friendly with them! Instead of invading and threatening them... become their friends.
Please note, the following is a rough translation to Spanish of everything that is written above:
Durante la última década más o menos he visto a Argentina crecer como país. Es un país hermoso con mucha tierra fértil. Me encanta Argentina en el juego del rugby también. Se trata de uno de los equipos fuertes de América del Sur que juegan un excelente rugby. Lo que no me gusta de Argentina es que reclamo irracional y nacionalistas de tener derechos de control de las Islas Malvinas.
Para cualquier lectura argentino esto, pido disculpas ahora si lo que dije le causó ofensiva, pero permítanme explicarles por qué lo que está haciendo es irracional y negativo.
Al examinar alegaciones de la Argentina de ser el legítimo propietario de las Malvinas hay que tener todo en perspectiva. Usted tiene que considerar la historia de la zona, la geografía de la zona y lo más importante, la gente de la zona.
Vamos a empezar con la reivindicación histórica.
¿Tiene la Argentina tienen un reclamo histórico de las Islas Malvinas?
No hay evidencia de cualquiera de los pre-colombinos edificios o estructuras. Mientras que unos canoas y puntas de flecha algunos que pertenecen al pueblo yagán se encontraron en la isla, es ambigua, como si antes de la fecha de los colonos europeos, como había gente yaganes en la Patagonia estación de la misión de la Sociedad Misionera de Keppel Island en 1856 y estos artefactos puede ser de ellos .
No es necesario decir, los europeos se habían establecido y se asentaron en las Islas Malvinas antes que nadie. Las Islas Malvinas parece haberse deslizado en los mapas de Europa por los primeros exploradores españoles, sin embargo, fue John Davis (desviado de su trayectoria), que fue el primero en marcar las islas con precisión en un mapa, el 9 de agosto de 1592. Las islas fueron posteriormente confirmadas por el comandante Inglés Richard Hawkins en 1594.
Las islas sufrió muchos cambios de nombres a través de los años, diferentes países europeos descubrió que estaba acusado, pero el capitán John Strong Inglés que los nombró el Malvinas Suena después de que Anthony Cary, quinto vizconde Falkland, que como comisionado del Almirantazgo (y al que había financiado su viaje).
El primer asentamiento en las islas procedían de Francia. Francia estableció una colonia en una de las Malvinas Sounds en 1764 en el Puerto de San Luis. El conocimiento de esta británica puso su propia colonia en una de las otras islas y reclamó el territorio en 1765. Estos eventos fueron casi la causa de una guerra entre Gran Bretaña y España y ambos países enviaron fuerzas a la zona. Francia se retiró de su colonia en 1766 y le dio el control de su isla a los españoles que tomaron el control de la isla en 1767.
Debido a la costosa guerra de la Independencia estadounidense y la falta de capacidad para que el Imperio británico para defender las islas (y muchas de sus otras colonias) que fueron evacuados el 20 de mayo de 1776. El comandante británico que evacuados de la isla dejaron una placa que confirma la soberanía británica sobre las islas. España, entonces gobernado las islas desde Buenos Aires hasta 1811.
Antes de llegada de los europeos no había pueblos indígenas, los asentamientos o incluso árboles `s. Con la llegada de los asentamientos europeos en las Islas, los colonos europeos plantaron el árbol `s y los asentamientos planteados y presentó a los animales domésticos.
Históricamente, es evidente que la gente de Argentina no tienen ningún derecho histórico a las Islas Malvinas. Ellos no los descubren, no formaban parte de los primeros asentamientos ... y, de hecho, la Argentina no era ni siquiera un país, mientras que el que todo estaba sucediendo.
La Independencia de la Argentina fue declarada sólo el 9 de julio de 1816. No estoy seguro si esta es la fecha oficial de nacimiento de la Argentina, pero es el que estoy usando. El área que llamamos la Argentina está controlando mis muchos colonizadores durante siglos y los colonizadores Inca hacía tiempo que había expulsado la mayor parte de los pueblos indígenas locales fuera de la zona. Los colonizadores españoles conquistaron la zona de los colonizadores Inca y había un montón de peleas para los que controlaban esa zona del mundo. Así que me tomo el tiempo de su nacimiento de la Argentina, cuando el pueblo de la Argentina decidieron por su propia autodeterminación.
¿Tiene la Argentina tienen reclamos geográficas a las Islas Malvinas?
Para decirlo de manera simple. No, no lo hacen. No por cualquier medida razonable. Antes de entrar en detalle en cuanto a por qué no tienen derecho geográficas a las Islas Malvinas déjame hablar a mí de mi propio país. Si usted va y mira un mapa de Sudáfrica se dará cuenta de que hay un agujero en el centro de la misma. Ese es el país de Lesotho y tenemos otro país llamado Suazilandia que existe sobre todo dentro de nuestras fronteras. Así que hablar de un país donde se dio a la gente `s dentro de nuestras fronteras del derecho a la autodeterminación.
Esto es importante tener en cuenta esto, porque pone de relieve la estupidez de la afirmación de que las Malvinas pertenecen a Argentina por vecino más cercano de las Islas Malvinas es Argentina. Derecho marítimo internacional es bastante claro al respecto.
De acuerdo con la Convención de 1982 de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar, las aguas territoriales en torno a un país se definen claramente como 12 millas náuticas (22 km, 14 km). Las Islas Malvinas son claramente más allá de las reales demandas geográficas territoriales de cualquier país. Alrededor de los países también se algo que se llama una "Zona Económica Exclusiva". Esto se extiende 200 millas náuticas desde la línea de costa. Incluso si uno tenía que usar eso como una premisa geográfica para una reclamación de soberanía sobre las islas de las Islas Malvinas no pertenecen todavía a la Argentina.
Las Malvinas existe 250 millas náuticas (460 km, 290 millas) fuera de la capa de la parte continental de América del Sur. Eso es una enorme distancia. Usted podría poner varios países europeos entre las Islas Malvinas y Argentina si se pudiera cambiar el mundo como un rompecabezas gigante.
El factor más importante para decidir
Esta completamente triunfa reclamaciones históricas y geográficas a las Islas Malvinas y es el factor más importante a considerar al momento de decidir quién tiene la soberanía sobre las islas. ¿Qué significan las personas que viven allí dicen? ¿Cuál es su opinión? ¿Qué quieren?
Este es un tema que no se confundan acerca. Permítanme citar el Penguin News, el periódico oficial en las Islas Malvinas:
Aprovechando la presencia de Reino Unido y la prensa extranjera en las Islas Malvinas, muchos residentes de Stanley formó un convoy de vehículos con las Islas Malvinas y las banderas del Reino Unido, y se dirigió en un convoy a lo largo de la carretera de circunvalación de Stanley esta tarde.
En una demostración de que apoyaba la política de la autodeterminación de las islas Malvinas, la manifestación pacífica fue fotografiado por la prensa argentina y británica incluyendo el periódico The Sun.
Eso es todo. Problema resuelto. Las cosas son muy simples y clara a cualquier ser humano razonable. Históricamente, Argentina tiene muy poca demanda de las islas. Geográficamente la Argentina no tiene ningún tipo de reclamaciones a las islas y por último pero no menos importante, las personas que viven allí quieren tener el derecho a la autodeterminación. Esto echa por tierra cualquier completamente de las reclamaciones débiles que Argentina tiene para las Islas Malvinas. Argentina simplemente no tienen el derecho a la soberanía de las Islas Malvinas.
Del mismo modo que la gente de la Argentina tiene el derecho a la autodeterminación debe permitir que esa misma libertad a otros pueblos. Si usted desea tener acceso a los recursos recientemente descubiertos frente a las Islas Malvinas que tienen que trabajar juntos con el pueblo de las Islas Malvinas para cosechar esos recursos. Sólo hay una manera de la Argentina puede estar más cerca de los isleños. Sé amable con ellos! En vez de invadir y amenazar a ellos ... se convierten en sus amigos.
Enlaces de interés:
Penguin News - Diario de las Islas Malvinas: http://www.penguin-news.com/
For a long time now my family and I have been using 1time airlines. We were strong supporters of them as they serviced our city and as far as I know started up in our part of the world. The one time (pun no intended) I did have a problem with 1time.. the CEO contacted me and made an effort to help us. We were all really impressed and a bad situation was turned into a good situation by good management.
Our family have many businesses in East London and we often use 1time. Not just for their flights, but we use them for accommodation and car rental as well. We often purchase the complete travel packages from 1time.
I do not know what has happened recently but things have gone downhill. I think I can safely say that it feels that 1time believes it is above South African law and they are more interested in your money than they are interested in you.
My wife recently purchased tickets to fly from East London to Pretoria. My wife is studying to be a doctor in South Africa and she has to work with the HPCSA (whom are a little less than useful). Anyways. My wife was scheduled to write her exams in April, but this got changed to October.
So we contacted 1time airlines, fully intending to cancel our tickets now and purchase them again when we know the exact date of the next exam (which is only told to us later in the year).
My wife phones 1time and is informed by their call center that they do not do refunds? What?!? I said! The Consumer Protection Act from 2008 clearly states in Section 17 that a consumer is entitled to a refund. Especially when services have not yet being rendered. You can read up on the Consumer Protection Act here: http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=99961
So by now I am spitting feathers. Who the heck are 1time. I made a complaint on HelloPeter.com only to be told by 1time again that their terms and conditions state that we are not allowed a refund.
So I am upset now. 1time are starting to give me the perception as a predatory "fuck-the-public" type business. This is not something I expected from an airline that my family have been supporting for such a long time.
So I phone the 1time and try tell the woman who answers that what 1time are doing is against the law. The the Consumer Protection Act has more authority than their terms and conditions. The woman flat out ignores this and we have some words. Eventually she says she is going to pass the call onto the consumer complaints divisions and I am then passed onto someone called, "Daniella" (or something along the lines).
She again uses the same line that the call center woman used about their consumers. So again I highlight the Consumer Protection Act protects me from their predatory business model.
The woman says that the Consumer Protection Act allows me to cancel my flight FOR A REASONABLE FEE. Daniella then goes on to tell me that the "Reasonable fee" is 100% of the ticket price. On what planet is 100% of the ticket price considered a "reasonable fee"?
This is an incredibly disgusting business practice and one which I feel needs to be talked about. People need to know with whom theyre doing business and how far these people will bend the law to screw you out of money.
From my side. I am issuing my own terms and conditions to 1time.
1.1 I will never be flying with your airline ever again
1.2 I will be informing all my family, friends, business collegues and business assosciates about your predatory business practices.
2.1 I will email every single consumer advocate agency I know and be informing everyone about your predatory business practices
2.2 I will be making a long blog post (this one) about your predatory business practices.
2.3 I will be making a website (perhaps something along the lines of 1lasttime.co.za. I run an Internet Service Provider so have servers and web development skills).
3. I will be taking you to the NCC for screwing your customers over.
I cant believe how 1time are willing to lose a customer for life with such dodgy business practices. Have they no common sense? Do they not understand that by hurting your customers they hurt themselves?
I am highly pissed off and rightfully so. I hope they are able to resolve this, but I do not think so.
.jpg/200px-JohnDavis_(sailor).jpg)
