Infomercial beer goggles

It is amazing what people will believe. I watch these infomercials late at night, I start to believe them. I don't know what the hour is, there is an hour, that I'm watching, and I start thinking "you know, I don't think I could cut through a shoe with any of my knives. That does look pretty good". There is nothing about my life that I could tell you, that is more embarrassing than the fact that I have actually spoken the words "I would like to order the Ginsu knife". I wish I was making all this up. I actually own the Ginsu knife.
-- Jerry Seinfeld

Never, never fall asleep in front of the TV!!

(OK. I didn't actually order the CDs. But for reasons I can barely fathom, I really, really wanted to.)

Read More

Could this be the worst ever argument against same-sex marriage?

Maggie Gallagher, who heads the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, says opponents of gay marriage will be treated like racists if it is declared a civil right. She predicted that churches will be tempted to "mute" their marriage theology to stay out of trouble.

Or is it this?

The president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty says churches and Christian schools that oppose gay marriage will face government pressure if it's legalized.

Anthony Picarello says they could be barred from firing employees with same-sex spouses, forced to give them marital benefits, or lose charitable and property tax exemptions if they refuse.

1. This isn't Christianity. This is Phariseeism.

2. It is not clear to me why a religious organisation should be granted exemptions from tax law or employment law. If a racist boss can't fire an employee with a non-white spouse, a religious employer shouldn't be allowed to fire employees with same-sex spouses.

Having said that, homosexuality has been legal for years, and church-run organisations and schools are still allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

3. When we talk about legalising same-sex marriage, we're actually talking about state-sponsored marriage. Churches will not be legally required to make any sort of alteration whatsoever to their own marriage ceremonies. Gallagher is obviously concerned that one of the effects of legalising gay marriage is that it will increasingly come to be seen as normal by a significant percentage of the population, and the churches will be increasingly isolated. My message to Gallagher is this: tough.

Read More

Whiteness Studies?

AMHERST, Mass. -- Naomi Cairns was among the leaders in the privilege walk, and she wasn't happy about it.

The exercise, which recently involved Cairns and her classmates in a course at the University of Massachusetts, had two simple rules: When the moderator read a statement that applied to you, you stepped forward; if it didn't, you stepped back. After the moderator asked if you were certain you could get a bank loan whenever you wanted, Cairns thought, "Oh my God, here we go again," and took yet another step forward.

"You looked behind you and became really uncomfortable," said Cairns, a 24-year-old junior who stood at the front of the classroom with other white students. Asian and black students she admired were near the back. "We all started together," she said, "and now were so separated."

The privilege walk was part of a course in whiteness studies, a controversial and relatively new academic field that seeks to change how white people think about race. The field is based on a left-leaning interpretation of history by scholars who say the concept of race was created by a rich white European and American elite, and has been used to deny property, power and status to nonwhite groups for two centuries.

I first encountered "whiteness studies" in an Aboriginal Education lecture (where a very similar experiment to that described above was conducted), and while it is presented here as innovative, it appears to have much in common with postcolonialism, which has been around for decades. Indeed, where postcolonialism critically examines how nonwhites have historically been positioned as objects of knowledge (or entertainment) for white colonial powers, in whiteness studies the object of knowledge is "whiteness" itself. As University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee English professor Gregory Jay explains:

"Whiteness Studies" is not an attack on people, whatever their skin color. Instead, "Whiteness Studies" is an attempt to think critically about how white skin preference has operated systematically, structurally, and sometimes unconsciously as a dominant force in American—and indeed in global—society and culture."

"Whiteness," Jay maintains, is a political, legal and ideological fiction (drawing upon biological critiques of race). It is rooted historically in the institutionalising of "white supremacy," beginning in the sixteenth century, where skin colour emerges as a determining factor in citizenship, whether or not one can vote, whom one may or may not marry, and where one may or may not worship. While conventional wisdom holds that the institutionalisation of white privilege came to an end in the civil rights era, Jay contends that

the power of the fiction of "whiteness" continues to the present day, distorting our laws and culture in ways we still fail to recognize. Most whites continue to vehemently deny that they benefit from their skin color. Where once “white supremacy” was a routinely publicized, accepted, and legitimated norm of socio-political and cultural discourse, it is today a silenced reality, a truth that dare not speak its name.The purpose of Whiteness Studies is to expose this silence and this fiction, to make visible the history and practices of white supremacy as found in social life, the law, literature, music, politics, and every other realm of "civilization."

Further reading:
Whiteness Studies: Deconstructing (the) Race
RACE--the Power of an Illusion. (PBS)
"What Does It Mean to be White?" (Powerpoint)

Read More

More brainless BB blogging

But this time from the brainy former housemate Tim Brunero.

Read More

A Teenage Bill of Trites

Whenever I feel a hankering for being knocked over with a feather, or striking the ground with my lower jaw, I like to check out the latest from the Wonderful World of Right-Wing Christianity. And I'm never disappointed.

Today we turn the spotlight on US evangelical youth ministry BattleCry, and in particular, its "Teenage Bill of Rights:"

We, as young Americans, assert our right to determine our future and the future of our great nation. We hold these truths as our God-given rights, and we embrace them with our hearts and our lives:

We recognize that God, our Creator, is the source of all truth.

We will live with honor, always striving to do the right thing, even when it is unpopular. We will be honest and truthful in matters large and small, regardless of the consequences.

We will take responsibility for our actions, and not point to governments, schools, celebrities, parents, or friends to justify our wrong decisions.

We recognize that we are responsible for our mistakes. We will pursue purity throughout our lives.

We will not be seduced by a fabricated idea of sex and love.

We will save our bodies and hearts for our future spouses, and once married we commit to pursue faithful and enduring relationships.

We will see through the lies of drugs and alcohol and refuse to let any chemical influence our thinking or destroy our lives.

We will respect the authorities placed in our lives, even though some may not live as honorably as they should.

We will honor our parents, teachers, and other leaders.

We will reach out with compassion to the hurting and less fortunate, both in our society and around the world.

We refuse to be absorbed with our own comforts and desires.

We recognize the value of each life, whether born or unborn, and we seek to protect those who are unable to protect themselves.

We will do our best to represent and communicate our Creator to our peers, leaders, and society as a whole.

We will work to see that every person has the opportunity to see and hear about the true nature of our God.

Um . . . this isn't a "Bill of Rights"--it's a mission statement. Thanks to the real Bill of Rights, and the "wall of separation" that these people keep insisting doesn't exist, fundlings across America are free to observe as many of the principles enumerated above as they wish. And yet they call this list of platitudes a "Bill of Rights--as if they are in some way "persecuted" by the current constitutional arrangements in that country. Yep: they're so persecuted that they're allowed to set up websites, recruit soldiers for "God's Army," and hold gun-toting quasi-fascist rallies across the country (hat-tip to Pharyngula).

(Of course, fundlings will object that the current constitutional arrangements in the US don't permit them to proselytise in public schools or force students to pray. It's called "secular liberal democracy," people. Don't like it? Go set up a theocracy somewhere, then. And don't forget the kool-aid.)

UPDATE: Truthdig has a series of articles on this movement.

Read More

Brainless BB Blogging . . .

A few weeks ago I expounded a pet theory of mine regarding the selection of housemates for Big Brother seasons subsequent to "A Certain Primetime Incident:" that a "token lefty" would be always be thrown into the mix in order to . . . you know . . . stir shit up. I wondered who this season's Tim Brunero would be, and came up with Michael as the most likely candidate, based on his "bio."

Well, I was wrong. There is no token lefty this year. Michael has turned out to be a preening, arrogant fuckwit (in a house full of preening arrogant fuckwits) who only resembles previous token-lefties in his propensity to throw Merlinesque tantrums. And the most "left-wing" utterance to have appeared on the show thus far has come from the mouth of David, who in his spare time votes for the National Party. So there goes my theory. (It was, admittedly, a pretty silly theory, given BB's main demographic: politics just ain't their bag.)

So here's another one. I remember reading somewhere that BB seasons generally follow a certain formula: first the "bitches" go, then the "bastards" go, leaving the nice-but-boring housemates to duke it out for the main prize. (Case in point: last year's two finalists.) My theory is that the show's producers have decided to nip this trend in the bud by selecting housemates based upon their propensity to combine the worst character traits of the two nastiest housemates from 2005: Dean and Christie. A houseful of self-obsessed eye-candy with "big" personalities that range from obnoxious to repellent. It all makes for very watchable TV, especially since this season the producers appear to have decided to turn the psychological screws on the inmates--and a more deserving bunch I could not think of.

Except, perhaps, for Jade. Watching Jade trying to fumble her way into conversation in the house is like watching David Brent in The Office. It's excruciating and hilarious in equal measure: you can't look away, even though you desperately want to. And yet, her awkwardness is perfectly understandable given the awkward situation in which she finds herself: surrounded by insecure narcissistic Barbie and Ken Dolls who spend half their time bellyaching about each other, and the other half pointing out to all who would listen how "unattractive" she is. In short, she's back in high school being teased for being "fat and ugly." She's a drop of normalcy in a sea of silicone, and she's reacting to that situation in the same way that any of us mere mortals would. Of course, I could be wrong. And she did, after all, choose to be there. And it is just a TV show.

Read More

Of eye-kissing and making eye-babies . . .

In 2001, the Taliban were removed from power in Afghanistan. They promptly set up shop in Pensacola, Florida:

Rules at PCC are similar to those of other fundamentalist Christian colleges; the college maintains that "Attendance at PCC is a privilege not a right." The college has four levels of punishment; students can be socialed, campused, shadowed, or expelled. Students who have been socialed are not permitted to speak or interact with members of the opposite sex for two weeks. Campused students are not permitted to leave the campus grounds or speak with any other student being disciplined for two weeks. Individuals who are shadowed are assigned to a floor leader (a fellow student who is paid by PCC to enforce campus discipline) and must attend that person's classes, sleep in their room, and cannot speak with anyone else for the duration. The final form of punishment is expulsion from the college. Shadowing is often used in conjunction with expulsion, while a student is awaiting arrangements for him to leave campus. In certain circumstances, students have been made to leave campus within the 24 hour period after expulsion without arrangements being made.

Regulations govern all aspects of student life, including clothing, hairstyles, dorm room cleanliness, types of outside employment, borrowing, magazines, and music (only classical and traditional Christian music are permitted). It is currently being petitioned for the genre of country music to be allowed at the college, on the account "Southern" and "Christian" feel. In the past, PCC has only permitted students to listen to classical music or limited, traditional Christian music. Mixed-gender interaction has the strictest rules. Stairwells and elevators are segregated by gender, members of the opposite sex are not permitted to touch in any way (even shaking hands is against the rules), mixed-gender meetings (even off-campus) are forbidden unless a PCC chaperon is present, and staring into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex, called "eye kissing", "optical intercourse", or "making eye babies", is discouraged by the administration..

More at The Voice of Today's Apathetic Youth. Here are some of the school rules:

You may not allow the end of your belt to hang down from the belt-loops resembling a phallus.

After bed-time ("lights out:" 11:00 every day, including weekends) you may receive demerits for talking, taking your contacts out, having your feet on the floor (or possibly suspended a few inches from the floor), being in the bathroom, or basically doing anything but lying in bed.

No local calls over 30 minutes.

You may not put up a picture of unmarried people in physical contact unless they are "little kids." (these are sold in the bookstore).

You may not sing "too loud" during prayer group.

You may not wipe "boogers" on the wall.

As stated in the Student Handbook, leaving campus is a "privilege;" one which the administration will revoke as they see fit.

Males and Females are to use separate public beaches and may not go to the popular Pensacola Beach or to the nearby Boardwalk.

You may not go to a public library.

Siblings of the opposite sex should not interact in unchaperoned areas to abstain from the "appearance of evil."

No sleeping in church.

No automotive repair on campus.

Read More

"Academic Freedom" redux

On History News Network, the University of Georgia's Jim Cobb writes:

After 34 years of college teaching, I thought I had heard just about every imaginable student complaint. Last week, however, a freshman in my 300-seat US History Since 1865 course came in to discuss her exam with one of the graders and proceeded to work herself into a semi-hissy over the fact that we had spent four class periods(one of them consisting of a visit from Taylor Branch) discussing the civil rights movement.

"I don't know where he's getting all of this," she complained, "we never discussed any of this in high school." One might have let the matter rest here as simply an example of a high school history teacher's sins of omission being visited on the hapless old history prof. had the student not informed the TA in an indignant postcript, "I'm not a Democrat! I don't think I should have to listen to this stuff!"

Given the current student and,in some places, administrative, pressures to put absolutely everything-- notes, study guides, all potential exam questions and answers, etc.-- on the Web, I can envision the day when the Web pages for our classes might read: " In order to insure that the professor's lectures will not offend your political sensibilities or challenge any of your other beliefs and perceptions in any way, please indicate by clicking the appropriate box below whether you prefer the Republican or Democratic version of this course."

Via The Poor Man's Institute and Pharyngula.

"And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
--Stephen Colbert

Read More

Is this me?

The most common variants of Ideologue are conservative and liberal. Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits, and he is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness. Troglodyte is the natural ally of conservative Ideologue, and for liberal Ideologue it is Weenie. Ideologue is a fierce, but very predictable Warrior..

From Flame Warriors, one of the funniest websites I have encountered in a long time.

Which Flame Warrior are you?

(UPDATE: This site's always worth revisiting, also.)

Read More

Homophobia cubed.

I think I've found a wingnut who might actually be nuttier than the creationists. Meet Paul Cameron. He's a US psychologist who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association on ethical grounds in the early 80s. You see, Cameron is a homophobe. And a really nasty one, too. Generally when people think "nasty homophobe" they think of Fred Phelps, the Baptist preacher who likes to picket the funerals of homosexuals--but even the Religious Right distance themselves from his antics. Cameron, on the other hand--whose views on homosexuality are just as warped as Phelps'--is one of their own. He's the founder of the Family Research Council, one of America's major conservative think-tanks, and his . . . um . . . "research" is cited ad nauseam by just about anyone who believes those "homos" are getting too uppity. At Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton remarks: "There may not have been a less credible "scholar" in the last century. If he said the sky was blue, I'd double check his findings." Via the same, the Southern Poverty Law Centre has published a report on Cameron that has to be seen to be believed. Here's a sample:

Parsley heaped praise on Gov. Perry for "protecting the children of Texas from the gay agenda." Then he rattled off a series of shocking statistics: "Gay sex is a veritable breeding ground for disease," he said. "Only 1% of the homosexual population in America will die of old age. The average life expectancy for a homosexual in the United States of America is 43 years of age. A lesbian can only expect to live to be 45 years of age. Homosexuals represent 2% of the population, yet today they're carrying 60% of the known cases of syphilis."

The televangelist did not reveal where he got those numbers. He stated them starkly as facts to be accepted on blind faith. But they are not facts. They are gross distortions lifted straight from the pages of pseudo-scientific studies by Dr. Paul Cameron, a crackpot psychologist and champion of the anti-gay crusade.

Cameron also compares homosexuality to "the dog that gets a taste for blood after killing its first victim and desires to get more victims thereafter with a ravenous hunger." He has described homosexuality as a "crime against humanity," and once campaigned (successfully) against a gay and lesbian civil rights ordinance in Omaha, Nebraska by spreading the false meme that "a local 4-year old boy had recently been dragged into a shopping mall bathroom and castrated by a homosexual." He claims that homosexuals are "10-20 times more likely than heterosexuals to molest children," and duing the 80s AIDS crisis he called for the establishment of concentration camps for "sexually active homosexuals." One of his "studies" also claimed that 17% of homosexuals eat human faeces.

This is homophobia taken to Phelpsian extremes, but the most worrying thing about Cameron are not his views, the SPLC argues, but the fact that those views "are repeated ad nauseam by lawmakers, radio talk show hosts, preachers and anti-gay activists across the country," and that he has a greater social impact than all but a few genuine researchers.

************************************************************************************

On a slightly different tangent, here's something you don't see on prime-time commercial television everyday. Big Brother housemate David Graham, who was a victim of a brutal gay bashing in January, held forth on the topic of gay marriage on last night's episode:

In the outside world, I don't have the right to get married. I don't have a lot of rights. Rob and I are both in a situation where we live in a Western democracy, and we're second class citizens and no-one at this table knows what that's like. Except homosexuals, 'cause we're the only ones in this country that are barred from so many rights that you just take for granted. [. . .] I came in here on a mission to change that.

David obviously hasn't received the memo from John Heard--the man with his finger on the pulse of GLBTI opinion in Australia--which clearly states that most GLBTI people in Australia have no intention of getting married. (Heard wields this survey finding as an argument against legalising same-sex marriage--which it so clearly is not. It's not surprising that many GLBTIs aren't interesting in getting married, given that marriage is not an option currently open to them!! The finding indicates absolutely nothing about what majority GLBTI opinion might be on the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legally recognised.) Obviously David is one of those "homoactivists" Heard talks about, right out on the fringe of the gay community; and as for the housemates who unanimously applauded him--what a bunch of radical feminist socialist anarchists! Big Brother: yet another forum stacked against John Heard.

Read More

On THAT "Insight" programme

I've blogged about the issue of same sex marriage before, so I don't have too much to add here. Tuesday's Insight (SBS) programme canvassed the topic of same-sex marriage, and featured among its guests the self-styled "gay conservative Catholic" John Heard. Heard reminds me so much of a character named joxy, with whom I used to joust on this very issue on The Tolkien Forum--both oppose same-sex marriage but support same-sex civil unions, both are gay conservative Catholics, both run the "only a minority of gays and lesbians support same-sex marriage so they shouldn't get it" line, and both also run the "I'm in touch with many gays via my website and they all agree with me so I can confidently claim to represent majority gay opinion on this one" line--that I wonder if they aren't the same individual. (Except Heard's Australian; joxy's from the UK, as far as know.)

Anyway, the consensus seems to be that Heard's behaviour on the show was absolutely atrocious, and to that I must add my wholehearted assent. So convinced was he of the absolute infallibility of his opinions on this issue that he would constantly interrupt and shout over other speakers, even to the point of receiving a reprimand by host Jenny Brockie. So convinced does he remain of the absolute infallibility of his opinions on this issue that, so he complains on his blog, the fact that very few others in the room shared them suggests to him that "the audience was, probably understandably, stacked." How pathetic is that?

Enough from me: there are great posts on the Insight show at Today's Apathetic Youth, Queer Penguin, Larvatus Prodeo and Anonymous Lefty.

Read More

Well, I'll be a monkey's . . .

OK: I'll leave the "Bubbles" jokes to breakfast radio morning crews and get right to it: we already know that we share 99.4% of our DNA with chimpanzees, but it now appears that the relationship between our two species might be far more intimate than we thought. Science writer Carl Zimmer explains:

The Broad Institute scientists lined up millions of bases of DNA in humans and chimps and measured their differences. Humans and chimpanzees both inherited each segment of DNA from a common ancestor. Over time, the copies of that ancestral segment picked up mutations. The differences between them can offer clues to how long they've been evolving along separate paths. It turns out that the ancestors for some of those segments are much older than others. The only way to make sense of these results, according to the scientists, is to conclude that hominids and the ancestors of chimpanzees were interbreeding--to some extent at least--for four million years.

Talk about food for thought on a Thursday! Zimmer's post canvasses the implications this news might have on current debates regarding the ethics of "chimeric experimentation" (that's experimentation in human-animal hybrids to laypersons like you and me). That it will doubtless ruffle the feathers of not a few creationists (of whatever shade) almost goes without saying--even if it isn't really far removed from the notion that our species share a common ancestor. Once again, we are nudged just a little bit farther away from being the centre of the universe.

I can see why science frightens some people.

See also: Nature and New Scientist.

Read More

Talk amongst yourselves

I have a very busy few weeks ahead of me which will put something of a dent in my posting regularity. Amuse yourselves with the following:

Greek Piss Christ: a Greek art curator was found not guilty of "offending the Orthodox Church and public decency" by including an Athens art exhibition a painting depiciting an erect penis ejaculating over a crucifix. How very death-metal! (Via Morons.org)

Neo-conservatism and neo-creationism: Ed Brayton explores the complicated romance between US neo-cons and intelligent design in a thoughtful post.

Right wing PC: Brayton again, this time on that curious irony of the culture wars whereby the right, through its "use of group identity and victimization as a 'get out of trouble free' card and the use of contrived outrage that is the hallmark of PC thinking," has become precisely what it purports to decry. (See also my previous post re: "Academic Bill of Rights")

Happy Mother's Day!: Pinko Feminist Hellcat reminds us of the origins of Mother's Day--and they may surprise you.

Read More

The Academic Bill of Rights

You might have noticed a little "stoush" brewing betwixt SB and myself regarding the "Academic Bill of Rights," a document purporting to rectify so-called "left-wing bias" on US college campuses. You can read the Wikipedia entry here, an apologia by David Horowitz (the author of the Bill) here, and the American Association of University Professors' position here. Though SB claims that "the striking thing is how scared the left are of entrenching basic rights in academia," the Bill has also been attacked by science educators, biology professors and libertarians (see also The New Republic). Science educators fear legal action from creationist students who might claim that their preferred "theory" isn't getting equal time in the classroom; while libertarians rightly lampoon the Bill as "right-wing political correctness." Others fear that the demand that "Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate" will see Holocaust deniers demanding equal time in the classroom. Indeed, the Bill could well see the content of university curricula decided by lawyers rather than scholars--and precisely how this would advance the cause of academic freedom is beyond me.

This last point is for me the most significant. At least since the Enlightenment, the history of prevailing intellectual cultures in institutes of higher education in the West has been allowed to take its own course. At certain times and places, Hegel was in vogue; at other times and places, Kant; at still others, maybe the Utilitarians. The various systems of thought grouped under the label "postmodernism" largely emerged in response to and as a critique of Freudo-Marxism and Sartre, and are but the most recent heirs to the tradition of Continental Philosophy. At no time did a Kantian cry: "Hey! This professor has a Hegelian bias! We need a Bill of Rights to force him to pay significant attention to our theories!" Many philosophy departments are dominated by the Analytic tradition, but I've never heard of those of the Continental persuasion running to their legislators complaining that this constitutes a breach of their academic freedom. The ABOR represents the first time that I can think of--in the West at any rate--that ideas have demanded legislative backing and the threat of possible future legal action to help them hold their own in the marketplace of ideas that has hitherto been the hallmark of academia.

How quaint.

UPDATE: Bruce has a brilliant post on this topic.

Read More

An independent Speaker?

As SB has pointed out in another thread, one of John Howard's many broken promises was his undertaking, prior to winning office, to institute:

"a Westminster‑ type Speaker, somebody who's genuinely independent. For that to be fully realised you'd need the cooperation of the Labor party and agreement about not contesting whoever's chosen by us as Speaker. I think that would do a lot to enhance the authority of Parliament".

According to Crikey columnist and former Coalition staffer Justin Meyer, the first Howard Government Speaker Bob Halverson was "well-liked, authoritative and firm," and did endeavour to make the Speakership more impartial. But the Government refused to play ball, and "Halverson, (taking) the hint, resigned from the Speakership in 1998, and was made Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See." After a brief stint by former Fraser Minister and National Party leader Ian Sinclair, the Chair became occupied in 1998 by Neil Andrew--a man whom Meyer claims "endeavoured to be fair," but who in my opinion (and this is many hours of listening to Newsradio Parliamentary Question Time broadcasts speaking here) made such an absolute mockery of the role of Speaker that he may as well have been given his own Ministerial portfolio. This is what Question Time looked like during Andrew's tenure:

“Dorothy Dixers” are staged to extol the wonders of the Government or the deplorable policies of the Opposition. Ejections and suspensions of members for rowdiness or unparliamentary language are usually not meted out against Ministers, despite the fact that they are often amongst the worst offenders. . . . (And) Some House of Representatives Ministers ramble on for far too long.

Under Andrew's successor David Hawker, things haven't improved.

The issue of whether the Speaker should be independent is a no-brainer, really. The real question is: how do we guarantee a truly independent Speaker? Meyer's formula looks like this:

For the Speakership to be made truly independent – and it needs to be - let there be a free vote of all 150 Members of the House of Representatives. Everyone should be entitled to stand. The public should see the candidates. Voters might even be given some real input by nominating a MP to be the Speaker. Candidates should be free to canvass and state their beliefs - which would inject some real democracy.

It isn't clear to me, however, exactly how this will guarantee the Speaker's independence. Another idea, floated by the Labor Party in 2002, is to have a rotating Speaker. Or perhaps the Speakership should go to a public servant rather than an elected politician (a Harry Evans-type of figure, I mean)--though this would be the least democratic of the three options, even if it does offer the greatest possibility of non-partisanship.

Thoughts?

Read More

"Exactly what are you a doctor of, Mr Venkman?"

The UK is currently experiencing a creationist invasion, so perhaps it isn't surprising that one of their institutes of higher learning is introducing a course that treads a fine line between fringe science and pseudoscience. As part of their Masters of Science in parapsychology, students at Coventry University will be investigating the existence of ghosts:

For instance, some will investigate haunted houses, looking at statistics on which parts of buildings provide the most sightings.

Extra-sensory perception - where two people seem to communicate without using sound, vision, touch or smell - will also be looked at.

Dr Lawrence said: "We've got to look at what people are experiencing.

"No one has bothered to look, so people's view of the world has been divided into two components: the secular and humanist, and the religious.

"We've got to look at the middle ground, otherwise all you have is Richard Dawkins (professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University) or the Pope."

I don't believe in the existence of ghosts in the same capacity that I don't believe in God, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy. Nevertheless, I have had a mild fascination with most things paranormal, ever since school camp in Year Five when we stayed at the Old York Hospital, but particularly with "true ghost stories." It's a harmless vice--and one that takes me back to childhood days when I took such matters more seriously. (And this book is compulsory toilet reading material in my house!) According to the Skeptic's Dictionary:

A ghost is an alleged disembodied spirit of a dead persons. Ghosts are often depicted as inhabiting haunted houses, especially houses where murders have occurred. Why some murder victims would stick around for eternity to haunt a place while others seem to evaporate is one of the great mysteries of existence.

Many people report physical changes in haunted places, especially a feeling of a presence accompanied by temperature drop and hearing unaccountable sounds. They are not imagining things. Most hauntings occur in old buildings, which tend to be drafty. Scientists who have investigated haunted places account for both the temperature changes and the sounds by finding sources of the drafts, such as empty spaces behind walls or currents set in motion by low frequency sound waves produced by such mundane objects as extraction fans.

Some ghost experiences are attributed to sleep paralysis.

But we don't need to be such spoil-sports. If you have a "true ghost story" to share, feel free . . .

Read More

And Jen, this one's for you!

Okay; let’s get practical. How do we submit? You don’t have to wait until the next seriously important decision arises to allow your husband to lead. Submission is a lifestyle. I’ll share with you some of the ways I have found to be effective. “I wanted to check with you first” or “Would it be okay if…” are phrases I often use with my husband. As mothers and wives we have households to run and many decisions to make daily. Of course, there are many things we must decide on our own, but this does not give us license to disregard our husband’s leadership. The woman in Proverbs 31 whose price is above rubies brings honor to her husband. When you make plans that will impact the family, run it by your husband first, instead of charging ahead. If he disagrees, this is not the time to rant and rave or give him the silent treatment.

My children know that daddy is in charge. In my husband’s presence I tell my children that Daddy answers to God for all of us. Believe it or not, it doesn’t make me feel less of a person when my four-year-old goes around saying, ”God’s the boss of Daddy and Daddy’s the boss of Mommy.”

From the organisation Above Rubies, which encourages women to submit to their menfolk.

UPDATE: "Wifely submission" from the other side.

Read More

Pace Iain, another post about gay issues . . .

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, a US high school has banned a Gay/Straight Alliance club to raucous applause, after lobbying by professional hatemongers Operation Save America.

So declareth said hatemongers in a media release:

GLSEN so frames the argument that it appears that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender identity will become the next great human rights and civil rights campaign. This is a lie from the pit of hell! A moral wrong must never become a civil “right.”

God, I love these US fundie types. They're such pleasant, accommodating, wonderful folk. Salt of the earth! I hope our fundies become more like their fundies. (Seriously, though: what is so dangerous about an organisation that promotes acceptance of nonstraights among the student body that school authorities must go the extent of banning it?)

Read More

Virginity pledges don't work

So-called "virginity pledges" are all the rage in the US, where "abstinence education" programmes receive millions of dollars in Bush administration funding. And it appears all of that money which is not being channelled into health might as well have been flushed down the toilet:

Virginity pledges, in which young people vow to abstain from sex until marriage, have little staying power among those who take them, a Harvard study has found.

In fact, more than half the adolescents who make such signed, public promises give up on their pledges within a year, according to the study released this week.

I prefer the "abstinence education" provided the Catholic high school I attended. You got the whole kit-and-caboodle of a normal sex-ed course, with a remark from the teacher that the Church frowns on pre-marital sex tacked onto the end. A far more reality-based approach, in my view.

Via Morons.org, which proposes an alternative pledge:

I, ______________, do solemnly promise to educate myself about sexual safety and hygiene. I promise to choose a willing, compatible partner, to discuss sex openly with that partner at an appropriate time in our relationship, and to have wild, hot sex with that partner, when the time and place are right for us. I promise to get sweaty, sticky and lubricated, possibly mildly scratched or bruised. Lastly, I promise never to let Janice Crouse or any of her right-wing religious extremist friends or business partners tell me when I should have sex or with whom I should have it... because not only do they not run my life, they have no idea what they're talking about.

And here's the local wingnut position on abstinence education.

Read More

"You have to ask yourself what is the function of an English course?"

You have to ask yourself what is the function of an English course? I would argue it is to teach a good functional grasp of the language not some form of Leftist social engineering to inculcate some academic's vision of what people should think about issues such as Homosexuality. My children will grow up knowing that some people bat for the other team and that is OK but They will learn that because I believe that to be the case, not because some teacher thinks that they have the right to impose that vision on every child that is in their class.

Because it infuriates me on several levels, I thought I'd give this comment from Iain Hall a thread of its own.

On the idea that teaching kids that "being gay is OK" is the exclusive province of parents, I think Iain's completely wrong, of course. Schools have a duty of care towards their students--which means students have a right to expect a safe, secure and nurturing learning environment. Schools therefore have not just the right but the responsibility to convey the message that "batting for the other team" is OK, just as they have the responsibility to convey the message that "being female is OK," "being black or Asian is OK" and "being Jewish/Muslim/Catholic is OK"--especially given the fact that a lot of schoolyard bullying involves persecuting individuals because of their perceived deviation from a norm, and I would say the bulk of male-male bullying incidents involves some degree of homophobia. Educational institutions that don't institute inclusivist policies to combat bullying, or anything else which detracts from the safe, secure and nurturing environment students deserve, are simply not giving taxpayers or fee-payers their money's worth.

I also find it interesting that Iain has repeatedly expressed tolerance towards those who "bat for the other team," and presumably intends to pass on these sentiments to his children--but if they were to hear the same message in a classroom, it would amount to "Leftist social engineering." When a teacher says it, it's "Leftist social engineering;" when Iain says it, it's not. Right.

Finally, I'd like to address the ridiculous dichotomy Iain sets up between "functional English," on the one hand, and "some form of Leftist social engineering to inculcate some academic's vision of what people should think about issues such as Homosexuality" on the other. Somehow, if students aren't learning the one in an English class, they're learning the other--a sentiment direct from the Op Ed sheets of the Australian which I find perplexing, to say the least. Not to mention--speaking as someone who is training to be an English teacher--a complete misrepresentation.

The question--"What is the function of an English course?"--is a valid one, however. One of its roles, I agree, is to teach functional literacy, but that can't be the whole story--and if it were, it would make for extremely dry and monotonous lessons. Kevin Donnelly might argue otherwise, but I don't see much learning happening in such an environment. Critical literacy is just as important--insofar as the ability to attend to the texts and messages we encounter in everyday life with critical distance is a vital skill for anyone to possess in a liberal democracy. And I think a good measure of cultural literacy--including both "high" and "popular" culture--especially given the fact that pop. cult. texts (including, say, advertisements, political speeches, and so forth) as readily quote from "the Canon" as they do from each other. There's still a place, in other words, for Shakespeare.

Over to you.

Read More

Weekend round-up (updated)

Dispatches from the Culture Wars on the Spanish-language US national anthem controversy:

Then it comes out that, during his campaign for the presidency in 2000, Bush actively campaigned among Hispanic groups and sang the national anthem himself in Spanish many times and that at his inauguration in 2000, he had singer Jon Secada sing "America the Beautiful" in Spanish. And where did they get the words for that scurrilous attempt to destroy our "national soul" by daring to sing the national anthem in Spanish? Maybe from the US State Department website.

Sammy Jankis on the skanky ho's . . . erm . . . "contribution" to the Australian citizenship test controversy:

OK, so if these are the values we're talking about, and an immigrant can recite these in a test situation, how does this guarantee that they’ll be a good citizen? Anyone can rattle off these sorts of ideas while actually holding conflicting beliefs.

Pandagon on the monumental failure that has been "abstinence education" in the US:

Virginity pledges are useless. Teenagers are eager to sign them because teenagers are eager to be normal. And they are eager to discard them because teenagers are horny and because generally what was abnormal one year of high school becomes normal the next, especially with regards to how common sexual activity is. So the only thing that abstinence-only is good at is amplifying the sense that contraception is abnormal.

And finally, Morons.org on how it is possible to take the whole "Jason and Nan from Little Britain" thing too far:

A 33-year-old man in northern Malaysia has married a 104-year-old woman, saying mutual respect and friendship had turned to love, a news report said Tuesday.

UPDATE: Dispatches from the Culture Wars on a recent pay-TV countdown of the "40 Greatest Metal Songs":

For the most part, I thought the list was pretty good. It was relatively free of the mostly horrid big hair quasi-metal bands of the mid to late 80s. There were a couple of exceptions, like I Wanna Rock by Twisted Sister, but I'll even give them Quiet Riot's Metal Health. There was no Poison, Warrant, Winger, Cindarella and the various other clones of one another that infested the top 20 for years. That relative absence wins some points from me. But there were still some choices I didn't like and a few songs they definitely should not have left off the list . . .

Enjoy the weekend!

Read More

What kind of Atheist Am I?

The Ardent Atheist The results are in, and it appears that you have scored 65%...

You are an atheist, pure and simple. You think God is just one big lie, and consider religious people to be both annoying and beneath you. Ardent atheists will argue tooth and claw for their position, and have no truck with people that won't listen. You think being an atheist is the only way to lead an honest life, and see no reason to accept the pleas of faith. Ardent atheists are the backbone of atheism. Be proud.

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 38% on pentagrams

Link: The Atheist Test written by chi_the_cynic on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Via The Atheist Jew.

As a matter of fact, like (I suspect) most atheists I am an atheist only in the "weak" or "negative" sense of the term. And in that sense of the term, "atheism" signifies a lack of belief in a god (or gods), rather than a positive affirmation that no gods exist. As the nineteenth-century feminist and secularist (and, as it turns out, theosophist) Anne Besant put it:

If my interlocutor desires to convince me that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence in support of his contention. The burden of proof evidently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God's existence to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden of proof lies on him.

On the lighter side of things, here's an Atheist Test devised by the creationist fuck-knuckle Ray Comfort.

Read More

Homophobia 101

In Australia, moaning and bitching about "leftist indoctrination in our schools" with monotonous regularity has become a national pastime.

In Alabama, they actually do something about it.

Via Morons.org.

UPDATE: More homophobic wingnuttery here.

Read More

I've put this off for long enough

Accent? Strine.

Beverage of choice? Lambrusco.

Chore I hate? Removing the carcasses of local fauna unfortunate enough to have blundered into the path of my cat.

Dog or Cat? See previous response. (I prefer cats because cats are low-maintenance.)

Essential Electronics? Sony Walkman.

Favorite perfume/cologne? Polo Sport. (I'll even take the "Classic Match" replica if I can get it.)

Gold or Silver? Gold. (I'll even take plated if I can get it.)

Hometown? Perth, Australia.

Insomnia?

I can't sleep, something's all over me,
Greasy, insomnia please release me,
And let me dream about making mad love on the heath,
Tearing off tights with my teeth.

Job Title? Sales Assistant (and student teacher).

Kids? Never.

Living arrangement? 1 Girlfriend, 1 cat. Have never considered taking advantage of a "First Homebuyers Grant." Will therefore avoid some of the more unfortunate consequences of the coming interest rate rises.

Most Admired Trait? Spelling.

Number of countries visited? Rottnest doesn't count, does it?

Overnight Hospital Stays? The standard.

Phobia? Public speaking.

Quote? "Not every end is a goal. The end of a melody is not its goal; however, if the melody has not reached its end, it would also not have reached its goal. A parable." Friedrich Nietzsche.

Religion? Ixnay. (Ex-Roman Catholic.)

Siblings? Three sisters.

Time I wake up? About 5. Then I reset the alarm for 6.

Unusual talent or skill? "You know I always wanted to pretend that I was an architect!"

Vegetable I refuse to eat? Cauliflower.

Worst Habit? What I'm doing now. Procrastinating.

X-rays? Somewhere back at my parents house there might still exist an image of an elbow I fractured falling off my bike when I was ten.

Yummy foods I make? Mexican Lasagne. Mulligatawny Soup. Chocolate Silk Cheesecake. Anything containing Anna's Pasta Sauce.

Zodiac sign? Scorpio.

Read More

Is Bob Brown a Nazi?

A couple of years ago, Liberal Senator George Brandis made a right dickhead of himself on Lateline trying to defend his thesis that Bob Brown and the Greens "are Nazis influenced by Nazism."

Now that SB has resurrected the "Leftists are Nazis" and "Leftists are anti-Semitic" memes in previous comment threads, I'd like to know what others think.

My own take is that contemporary leftism is by and large libertarian leftism, and is an outgrowth of both the social democracy that flourished in the post-war period (including the New Deal and the rise of the welfare state), and the so-called "New Left" discourses that emerged in the Sixties. Contemporary leftists advocate an economy and a polity that is based upon fairness and the principle of "equality of opportunity"--a principle all but abandoned by many on the right as they have become more and more authoritarian in their outlook, particularly after Sept. 11. (Another trend we notice is that those on the authoritarian left and the libertarian right are increasingly marginalised in conventional politics.) What this means, I submit, is that the majority of those on the left--being libertarian leftists--couldn't be further removed from Nazism, which is based on the fundamental principle of inequality (which it counts as a virtue).

What's your take? Is leftism authoritarian by nature, as SB suggests? Or can one simultaneously be economically left-leaning and socially libertarian?

Read More