Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Steve's post on this topic offers some very sound ideas about how the government might financially reward good teachers, if it is indeed more interested in improving education than it appears to be in cheap populism.

See also: The Road to Surfdom

Monday, February 26, 2007

If aspiring young reporters want to get a sense of what it must be like to be a journalist in a theocracy or a banana-republic, they should look no further than the case of a high school principal in Woodlan, Indiana, who is threatening to fire a journalism teacher over a student editorial in the school newspaper calling for GASP!! SHOCK!! HORROR!! tolerance towards gays and lesbians. The tinpot dictator principal is also demanding that all future stories be vetted by himself personally, and has issued a written warning to the teacher in charge "for exposing students to inappropriate material".

The full editorial is available via the previous link, but here's the gist of it:

The editorial in question was Chase’s first-person appeal for tolerance and equal protections for gays and lesbians. She said she was inspired by a friend who told her he was gay.

“Would it be so hard to just accept (gays and lesbians) as human beings who have feelings just like everyone else?” she wrote. “Being homosexual doesn’t make a person inhuman, it makes them just a little bit different than the rest of the world. And for living in a society that tells you to always be yourself, it’s a hard price to pay.”

A sobering reality-check, one would think, for all those doe-eyed and naive students who were under the impression that their country still values a free press.

(Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

UPDATE: The war on TEH GAYS continues closer to home in small-town Tasmania, where a gay couple have become the subject of a hate-mail campaign because of their plans to open a residential development in the town of Penguin. Evidently the pamphlets were of the COVER YOUR ARSES AND LOCK UP YOUR 15-YEAR OLD SONS!!!!!!! kind that Western Australians endured a few years back prior to the Gallop Labor government's gay law reforms.

Rodney Croome, who played a leading role in the push to reform Tasmanian law regarding homosexuality in the late 1990s, takes the fact that the mayor of Penguin almost immediately condemned the hate mail campaign as a sign that things are improving:
Beyond a dramatic shift in laws and attitudes, Tasmania has witnessed a demographic transformation with hundreds of same-sex couples moving to the state's regional and rural areas from interstate and overseas. Many of these couples have started small tourism and food production businesses, established strong links to their adopted districts and profoundly impacted on local attitudes to same-sex relationships.

Sometimes there is a backlash to this impact. But just as often gay immigrants are embraced. Indeed the intensity of both responses often match. Of this, there is no better example than Penguin.

In short then, Penguin lies on the fault line in Tasmanian identity. Whenever the tectonic plates we call the old and new Tasmania shift Penguin quakes.
Read his full post here.

Sunday, February 25, 2007


You may be aware that the Howard Government is pushing for a system of performance pay for teachers--one in which parents and students will be given a say in both the evaluation of teachers' performance and the determination of what they should be paid. True to the Lib/Nat's authoritarian-Right bully-boy form, Education Minister Julie Bishop has stated that while she will discuss the initiative with her State counterparts, if they don't fall into line she will make it a condition of funding. Ninglun has been covering this issue in some depth of late, and those of you who are elitist enough to listen to Radio National might have caught the Background Briefing programme on performance pay this morning.

I'm new to the teaching myself, and as I remarked at Ninglun's, I think this is a disgraceful proposal--even if it might end up being little more than rabble-rousing rhetoric on the part of a Government that is getting nervous about its own performance in the polls. In a nutshell, I think it is unfair and unjust to have teachers' performance--not to mention their pay--evaluated by those who lack qualifications and expertise as teachers. Bishop insists that by having parents and students appraise teachers the latter are being treated as professionals. But can you recall the last time you had any input in what your doctor or dentist earns? Having unqualified individuals with zero teacher training determine what teachers get paid will only undermine their status as professionals. Even the spotty kid who cleans the fry vats at McDonalds has the benefit of having the quality of his work adjudicated by someone who with a modicum of retail experience and training--at least more than he possesses.

Allow me to summarise the Howard Government's attitude towards education thus: Any idiot can walk into a classroom and be a teacher; the actual teachers are just those who are stupid and desperate enough to do it. Why shouldn't we shit all over them?

Other objections:

1. Students in higher socio-economic areas tend to do better than those in lower socio-economic areas. If teacher performance is to be measured in terms of student performance, those who teach in schools located in wealthier suburbs will have an unfair advantage over those who do not.
2. Prove to me that a method exists for measuring all dimensions of what a teacher is expected to do that is objective, mathematically-sound, and able to be translated into a dollar figure? (Or is it all down to how students perform on standardised tests?)
3. A curriculum that emphasises standardised testing as its chief mode of assessment = a dumbed-down curriculum. (e.g. Teaching to the test, etc.)
4. As Ninglun suggests--and as experience in the US reveals (according to Background Briefing)--paying teachers according to standardised test results will give some teachers a greater incentive to fudge their students' results.

Evidently the Libs believe that teacher-bashing wins votes, but I foresee an accelerated exodus from the profession if this ridiculous scheme ever sees the light of day.

A thoroughgoing analysis of this topic is provided by Jim Belshaw. (Via Ninglun)

Friday, February 23, 2007

Paul of Fishers, Surfers and Casters fame has tagged me on the topic of "Five reasons why I do/do not respond to memes." (I had to read that twice--take out the "do/do not" qualification and you have something reminscent of the liar paradox on your hands.)

1. Because little Kimberley Anne is dying of a horrible disease.
2. Because I have tried this twice -- the first time I made about $1,200, and the second earned me just over $2,000!
3. Because I will experience great sex within four days of receiving this meme, provided I send it on!
4. Because Carlo Caditt, an office employee, received the meme. He forgot it and a few days later he lost his job. He found the meme and sentit to 20 people. Five days later he got an even better job. Dolon Fairchild received the meme and not believing it, threw it away. Nine days later he died..
5. Because every meme I answer releases a soul from Purgatory.

I, in turn, tag yepthatsgold.

Thursday, February 22, 2007


The week in fundie . . .


*Conservapedia: the Right's response to Wikipedia's "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American" bias. What's their evidence for such bias, I hear you ask? Wikipedia uses CE and BCE instead of AD and BC, the Christ-o-phobes. Via Pharyngula.

*Via Dispatches we also hear tell of an article in the respected conservative news site World Net Daily, regarding the singing of angels being captured on tape.

*The day a non-theist is elected to politics in the United States will be the day Satan turns to one of his henchmen and remarks: "Did it just get cold in here?" That doesn't stop Jim Wallis from making the absurd claim that the Democrats are "running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves." (Via Attempts and Pharyngula)

*Introducing the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice the Religious Freedom Task Force. (Via Seeing the Forest)

*Oh, yeah. Did I mention that Jesus is back? (Pharyngula)

UPDATE: Jon Swift posts a selection of extracts from Conservapedia entries. For example:

Kangaroo: "Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the
Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern
kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great
Flood."

Scopes Trial: "Hollywood has little regard for the truth. Its movie version Inherit the Wind changed everyone's name, thereby preventing libel suits, and changed the facts in order to ridicule religious belief. Thanks to Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial, Tennessee voters have been educated without oppressive evolution theory for 75 years. Free from the liberal indoctrination, Tennessee voted against native son Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election - probably the only time a candidate has lost the Presidency due to losing his home state. If Tennessee had a high level of belief in evolution comparable to that of East Germany, then you can bet Gore would have won his state and the Presidency."

Theory of Relativity: "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity.…'All things are relative' became popular as atheists and others used relativity to attack Christian values. There remains enormous political support for the theory of relativity that has nothing to do with physics, and Congress continues to spend billions of dollars unsuccessfully searching for particles predicted by the theory of relativity."


One of the commenters at Thoughts From Kansas has decided to take advantage of the open nature of Wiki software to create a Conservapedia page on "Nucular weapons," but I can't imagine it will survive for long. A week or so, maybe. (The very un-fundie, and therefore un-Conservapedia entry on "Atheism"--where atheism is defined as "part of a scientific worldview which is based upon observable evidence rather than dogmatic insistence upon the veracity of superstitious claims which are unsupported by evidence," and where it is also pointed out that when it comes to morality "most Christians actually rely on their own innate philanthropic sense (which has evolved as a necessary element of communal living over millions of years) to cherry pick the pleasant parts of the Bible and ignore the rest"--is still up also). 

Saturday, February 17, 2007

BeepBeep! has tagged me for my five favourite quotes:

Hitler got the fascists sexually aroused. Flags, nations, armies, banks get a lot of people aroused (Gilles Deleuze)

There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual. (Nietzsche again)

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment. (Immanuel Kant)

The strategic adversary is fascism... the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us. (Michel Foucault)

I, in turn, tag LucyMikeyJacob and Simmo.

Friday, February 16, 2007


There is a push among some members of the Australian Muslim community, chiefly former chair of the Prime Minister's Muslim reference group Ameer Ali, for the Australian flag to be flown outside mosques as a sign of Muslims' "loyalty" to Australia.

Given that god-worship and flag-worship are both manifestations of magical thinking, the proposal to fly the national flag outside mosques is hardly surprising. Indeed, it is probably more remarkable--given the obvious parallels between these two forms of irrationalism--that the practice of flying the Australian flag outside places of worship isn't replicated more regularly and more widely among other religions in this country.

So there is something a tad sinister about this flag-waving initiative . . . though perhaps "sad" would be a more appropriate description. I'm sure there are more than a few Christian churches with a flagpole installed at the front door, but nobody expects them to have one, and nobody would question the patriotism of Australian Christians if they didn't. And the same applies--I would suggest--to other religious communities (e.g. Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) in Australia also.

So why is this necessary? Why does the mere fact of being Muslim automatically cast doubt upon one's "Australianness," such that certain Muslim leaders feel the need to overcompensate for this default assumption of Australian Muslims' "disloyalty" by sticking a flagpole--as if it were a bogan's car aerial--outside their place of worship?

At least Tom Zreika, president of the Lebanese Muslim Association which supports the iniative, and who has called upon the Federal Government to provide the flags and flagpoles, is being consistent when argues:
It's no use having a flag outside of the mosque and down the road outside the synagogue there's no flag.
UPDATE: BrokenLeftLeg makes an excellent point in the comments:
But of course Muslims flying the aussie flag takes away the symbol of those nasty cronulla folk.
it says, "hey whitey, we are muslims, and we are australians too".
kind of like the wogs from "wogs out of work" hijacking a term of abuse.
I think they should fly it, solely to piss hanson off.
I hadn't thought of it like that when I posted, but he's right.

Fight dem back! has run several stories recently highlighting why some Australian Muslims might feel obliged to "Aussi-fy" their places of worship:
Psycho racists abuse Perth woman
NSW-Pol email scandal takes a racist twist
Racism goes both ways


Thursday, February 15, 2007

After being sent into bat, Australia have posted a paltry total, 148 off 49.3 overs, in the first of three Chappell-Hadlee limited overs matches in Wellington. Captain Mike Hussey top-scored with 42, while the Black Caps' Shane Bond finished with a sensational 5/23, wrapping up the Australian tail with the wicket of Brad Hogg (20).

Now, as I post this the Kiwis have yet to commence their innings, and I have been known to err somewhat on the side of pessimism. Rain prior to the match generally favours the bowling side, and maybe in such conditions 148 is a defendable total (chortle). And to be fair to the Aussies, they have been depleted by injuries to Lee and Clarke, and Ponting, Gilchrist and Symonds are sitting out the New Zealand tour.

(BTW: please don't be fooled into thinking I have the faintest clue what I'm talking about.)

Nevertheless--and unless the Aussies are able to pull a rabbit out of a hat in the New Zealand innings--their performance today and in the past few matches is . . . well . . . worrying. In stark contrast to their Ashes campaign, the Australian team of late February 2007 looks brittle and easily-rattled. After the third Chappell-Hadlee encounter the Aussies have about three weeks before their first World Cup encounter, and a week-and-a-half on top of that before they face their first real test of the tournament in the guise of South Africa.

What do you think? Can they pull off a third successive World Cup win?


Can Australia win a third successive World Cup?
Yea
Nay
pollcode.com free polls


UPDATEPathetic, boys. Pathetic.
Biologist and regular Panda's Thumb contributor Ian Musgrave fisks the editorial in Wednesday's Australian.
The week in fundie . . .

*How many conspiracy theories can you wedge into the cashew-sized brain of your average Texan Republican State Congressman? Pharyngula has the answer. (More at Bartholomew's Notes on Religion)
*This can't be legit. Read the Minnesota House Bill HO224. (Via Pharyngula)
*Ann Coulter and World Net Daily breach Godwin's Law.
*Catch the Fire's Danny Nalliah claims to have raised the dead. (Brian's Blog, 15 Feb '07)
*A Georgian couple are facing murder charges after exacting corporal punishment on their 8-year old son which resulted in his death. The couple belong to the Remnant Fellowship Church, which preaches strict disciplinarianism and fad dieting, and when their son would not join them in praying during an online church service, they locked him in a small wicker box and secured it fast with electrical cord. The boy died from asphyxiation . . . and we are all left to muse on the wonders of magical thinking. (Via Morons.org)

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Watch an atheist absolutely demolish the arguments of two fundies hounding him on the street.

Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock


ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?

(Via God is for Suckers! and Pharyngula)

UPDATE: Never fear--the fundies have fought back. According to that paper of record the World Net Daily, a Kentucky student has scientifically proven the existence of God. According to Samuel Hunt, pre-physical therapy and dietetics student at Western Kentucky University:
There are no real particles or matter in the universe. Although we can see substance, and observe certain aspects of their phenomenon, this does not allow us to understand Reality, and has lead to the untold deaths of millions, even at present, because we ‘create new substances’ based on presently accepted science, and it is actually the disruptor of, and dissonant to Reality. This dissonance is the cause of all proliferation of ‘disease’ and ‘death’ in the universe.
So we've finally cleared that up.

(Via Dispatches From The Culture Wars)

Adblock


Courtesy of Simmo.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Blogger onegoodmove has CNN's follow-up interview with Richard Dawkins, who does a brilliant job. There is also a somewhat less edifying panel discussion involving Ellen Johnson, who took over the leadership of American Atheists after the death of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, pushing the "We are a Christian Nation" line, and Air America's Rachel Maddow (affiliation unknown).

But hats off to CNN for rectifying the abysmal segment that aired a few days ago.

I was watching an old episode of Seinfeld the other day ("The Truth")--having just finished viewing An Inconvenient Truth and a few episodes of The Awful Truth--and I proceeded to ask myself: What is truth? Andre Gide once opined: "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." On the other hand, Blaise Pascal observed that "We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart." Then again, Pascal held that "There are truths on this side of the Pyrenees, which are falsehoods on the other." (I shit you not.)

"Always tell the truth," Mark Twain advised. "That way, you don't have to remember what you said." "Truth," David Hume believed, "springs from argument amongst friends." Edward R. Murrow felt that "Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit." George Eliot agreed: "Falsehood is easy, truth so difficult." Another George--Orwell--put it even more bluntly: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." Hence Noam Chomsky's contention that "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies."

Truth to tell, it's not all bad news. Max Planck once declared that "It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him." For Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Truth is our element." "The truth is always exciting," said Pearl S. Buck. "Speak it, then. Life is dull without it."

I'll leave the last word to Gloria Steinem: "The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off."

(Via The Uncredible Hallq)

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock

This is a remix of the CNN "panel discussion" about atheism (the one that included no atheists), answering some of the idiotic talking points raised by the panelists.

Richard Dawkins will appear on the same programme today.
Not quite the week in fundie, but I couldn't let these pass . . .

*Two Florida teenagers are convicted of child pornography . . . for taking private pictures of themselves. (Rational Rant)
*Rush Limbaugh has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize by the Landmark Legal Foundation, which describes him as "the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today." Irony-meters worldwide have gone into meltdown. (Via Morons.org)

Saturday, February 10, 2007

In response to the following nugget of wisdom featured on Fundies Say the Darndest Things . . .
"Morals exist, a moral Law Giver is necessary to explain this, this Moral Law Giver is God. Therefore, God exists."
. . . one Matty the Red had this to offer:
ok fine, let me try that logic

God is infinite forgiveness
In order to forgive he must first pity
Folly is universal we are all fools
Mr. T pities all fools
Therefore, Mr. T is god
Gold.
Since I'm banned from commenting further on this post at Joe the Troll's (which I pretty much consider a permanent ban--I don't have a lot of time for censorious bloggers), I'll share my thoughts here on his post concerning a Snickers commercial that was pulled from its scheduled broadcast during the SuperBowl.

Since the Ridley Scott-directed Apple Macintosh ad premiered during the 1984 SuperBowl, the NFL championship has been a showcase for creative and/or expensive advertising campaigns. This year's broadcast was to feature a Snickers ad, in which two mechanics, sharing a Snickers bar by consuming it from each end, accidentally "kiss" when their lips meet at the middle. They're both taken aback, and one of them cries: "Quick, let's do something manly!"--whereupon they proceed to rip out clumps of their own chest hair. Several versions of the ad were in fact produced with "alternate endings:" one in which another man enters the garage and enquires "Is there room for three on this Love Boat?;" a second in which the mechanics drink motor oil and anti-freeze; and a third in which one of the mechanics swings an over-sized wrench into the stomach of his colleague, who reciprocates by slamming his head with the car hood.

The four different versions were posted on the Snickers website, asking visitors to vote on their favourite, with the winning version to air during the Daytona 500 (how apt :) ). (The ads have since vanished from the site.) Snickers also featured the reactions of some of the players who squared off in the recent SuperBowl (these too have vanished--though you can still see some of them on YouTube here and here), ranging from amusement to obvious discomfort and disgust.

The Snickers campaign was immediately condemned by several gay rights organisations, including GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, for sending "a dangerous message to the public condoning violence against gay Americans." Another group expressing outrage at the ads is the Matthew Shepard Foundation, named after a Wyoming student victim of a brutal gay bashing which saw him robbed, beaten, tied to a fence and left to die. The Foundation's executive director Judy Shepard (Matthew's mother) declared: "This campaign encourages the same type of hate that led to the death of my son Matthew. It essentially gives 'permission' to our society to verbally or physically harass individuals who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual." According to Masterfoods (the Mars subsidiary that made the decision to pull the ad), market research had revealed that the ad's target audience was not responding well either--though they did not specify whether this was because the audience shared the position of GLAAD, et al., or because it disapproved of the suggestive depiction of male homoeroticism on a TV commercial.

What do I think of the Snickers campaign? Well, I agree with Joe that the reactions of GLAAD et. al and of those members of the public surveyed by Masterfoods were a tad over-the-top. I think the ad is laughing at the insecurities of the mechanics more than it is inciting violence and harrassment against GLBTIs--if they were truly comfortable with their sexual identity, they wouldn't need to "prove" themselves via cartoonish and excessive displays of manliness. I don't see it as an anti-gay ad necessarily, although I can see where those who do have objections to it are coming from, and I guess this is where Joe and I part ways.

Joe's position, essentially, is that organisations such as GLAAD undermine the whole enterprise of gay and lesbian equality by giving attention to what he sees is a trivial issue such as an ad for Snickers at the Superbowl:
Is not wanting to be gay when you’re not gay suddenly an act of prejudicial hatred? Is it “anti-gay” of me, as a straight man, to not want to kiss another man? And exactly how does this commercial foster violence against gays? The only “violence” in the commercial was self-inflicted.
This passage highlights a couple of problems I have with Joe's position. First, leaving aside the question of how it is possible to "be gay when you're not gay," it isn't simply the fact that the men depicted in the ad might not want to kiss other men; rather it is the fact that they react so violently (whether towards themselves or towards each other), and that they see male intimacy as something so beyond the pale of "normal" masculinity that they must engage in cartoonishly hypermasculine behaviour in order to reassure each other of their "manliness," that GLAAD & co. object to. Second, in remarking that "the only violence in the commercial was self-inflicted," Joe demonstrates an unwillingness to read the ad on anything more than a superficial, literal level. (Not that I think the ad actually promotes violence, but that's beside the point here.) Either the ad wears it's anti-gay sentiments on its sleeve--flashing GOD HATES FAGS!! across the screen in neon--or no such anti-gay messages exist. That's a false dichotomy.

Other differences with Joe stem from his view that organisations such as GLAAD have to choose their battles, and in this case, "picking the wrong battles can be a great loss to your cause." That may be so, but why would combating what they perceive to be negative representations of homosexuality--or even incitements to homophobia-- in the mass-media be the wrong battle for gay rights organisations to fight? This whole line of argument reminds me of the famous "NABA defence:" for every wrong for which someone is seeking redress, there is always a more egregious wrong transpiring somewhere else which that person could be paying more attention to instead of focusing on the present wrong. The assumption is that the gay rights movement is only capable of fighting one battle at a time, which is patently ridiculous.

Finally, Joe declares that he fully opposes "ANY organization in their quest to take away anyone’s right of free speech to assuage their tender feelings," and emphasises that "The US Constitution does not guarantee the right to go through life unoffended to ANYONE." Again, I think he's talking nonsense. The only entity that could conceivably take away the right to free speech is the government, and nobody's right to free speech is diminished just because some groups and individuals complain about an ad. Masterfoods made a corporate decision in pulling the Snickers ads--there were no lawyers or police involved--and were probably influenced by more than one demographic (i.e. concerned Christian consumers as well as concerned homosexual consumers of their product--as the reactions of the NFL players suggest). And while it is certainly the case that nobody has the right not to be offended, this does not mean that nobody has the right to be offended and to say so when they are (a point which Joe later conceded). This simply isn't a freedom of speech issue.

I'll leave the last word to Nicklas Johnson from Morons.org:
Picture this: you're watching the Superbowl and an ad comes on. Two redneck men are going through a buffet line. One of them loads up his plate with fried chicken. The other looks at him, then the plate, and they both jump back. The other exclaims, "quick, do something white!" and they don KKK outfits and set a cross on fire. Horrific and racist, right? Even if the guys were meant to be dumb?

Thursday, February 8, 2007


ABC Grandstand has been reading these out on air, and while there are Vin Diesel, Chuck Norris and Mr T versions available elsewhere, they're still piss-funny.

* When Mike Hussey goes swimming he doesn't get wet, the water gets Mike Husseyed .
* When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Mike Hussey.
* Mike Hussey counted to infinity - twice.
* Mike Hussey invented every colour. Except pink. Tom Cruise invented pink.
* When Mike Hussey does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.
* Mike Hussey hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
* Mike Hussey gave Mona Lisa that smile.
* Mike Hussey can slam a revolving door.
* Some kids piss their name in the snow. Mike Hussey can piss his name into concrete.
* Mike Hussey once visited the Virgin Islands. They are now The Islands.
* Mike Hussey's calendar goes straight from March 31st to April 2nd; no one fools Mike Hussey. * Mike Hussey can speak Braille.
* Mike Hussey's tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried. Ever.
* Superman owns a pair of Mike Hussey pyjamas.
* Mike Hussey owns the greatest Poker Face of all-time. It helped him win the 1983 World Series of Poker despite him holding just a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoly card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game Uno.
* Mike Hussey sleeps with a night light. Not because Mike Hussey is afraid of the dark, but the dark is afraid of Mike Hussey.
* Mike Hussey doesn't pop his collar, his shirts just get erections when they touch his body.
* Once a cobra bit Mike Hussey's leg. After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died.
* Mike Hussey divides by zero.
* Mike Hussey is always on top during s*x because Mike Hussey never f***s up.
* When Mike Hussey exercises, the machine gets stronger.
* Mike Hussey doesn't use pickup lines, he simply says, "Now."
* Mike Hussey sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled cricketing ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Mike slog swept the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
* Mike Hussey can kill two stones with one bird.
* Mike Hussey once had an erection while lying face down. He struck oil.
* Mike Hussey once devoured a whole wheel-barrow full of clay to prove to a friend that the expression "Sh***ing bricks" wasn't just a figure of speech.
* The only time Mike Hussey was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake.

Wednesday, February 7, 2007


You just can't win with the theocrats. You can water down civil union legislation as much as you like. You can bend over backwards to placate fundy sensibilities--despite this supposedly being a secular liberal democracy. The Federal Government will still knock it on its head, arguing that any legislation proposing the faintest trace of formal recognition of gay partnerships "undermines the institution of marriage." As if happily-married heterosexuals will abandon their marriages in droves and embrace buggery before the ink on the Bill is even dry.

Oh, well. The medievalists have to get kicked out eventually.

(For a decisive smackdown of the notion that allowing gays to be married "undermines marriage", see this post by The Language Guy)
We know atheists are America's most despised and distrusted minority. We know it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for an atheist to be elected to office in the US.

But this has to be seen to be believed.

Via Pharyngula

UPDATE: Austin Cline (atheism.about.com) reviews the CNN piece, and in another post provides an overview of other reactions in the Blogosphere. According to various commenters on Digg, if you attempt to make your feelings known to CNN about the story, you'll receive the following response:
Dear I-Reporter,

On behalf of CNN, please accept our sincere thanks for your I-Report submission during our memorial coverage of the tragic death of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin. Thanks to the many submissions from our viewers, our coverage carried the personal touch that came from his vast and personal outreach to his many fans. Our programming effort was a huge success, and you are part of the reason for that.

Again, we sincerely thank you and hope you will continue to send relevant submissions to us at http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/

Best wishes,

CNN Public Information

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

" Whadda I got to, whadda I got to do to wake ya up?"

Rage Against The Machine, who so criminally went AWOL on a Bush America that desperately needed them, will reunite for the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in April.
The movie ran through me
The glamour subdue me
The tabloid untie me
I'm empty please fill me
Mister anchor assure me
That Baghdad is burning
Your voice it is so soothing
That cunning mantra of killing
I need you my witness
To dress this up so bloodless
To numb me and purge me now
Of thoughts of blaming you
Yes the car is our wheelchair
My witness your coughing
Oily silence mocks the legless
Now traveling in coffins
But on the corner
The jury's sleepless
We found your weakness
And it's right outside our door

Now testify
Via Dispatches From the Culture Wars

Monday, February 5, 2007

Tonight on SBS at 8.30:
The story of Atheist leader Madalyn Murray O’Hair, for 30 notorious years, successfully challenged God in America and then in the summer of 1995 suddenly disappeared. The film uncovers the outrageous life of “The Most Hated Woman in America” and looks at her mysterious disappearance and death.

This documentary examines the struggle of the American Atheists group to be heard at a time when their President declares he is directed by God, and begins each day by leading his cabinet in prayer. They claim there are 30 million non-believers in the USA and they are determined to fight against the rising tide of fundamentalism.

Despite the clamour of Christian conservatives, veteran to young atheists in this film, show they are determined to fight back against what they see as the current power of religious importance in every area of public life.
A biography of O'Hair is available here. Her son William is a born-again Christian leader.

Sunday, February 4, 2007

Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock
Adblock


According to the Rational Response Squad's Brian Sapient, Nightline--unlike certain other media outlets--portrays the group and its "Blasphemy Challenge" fairly. (There is a transcript available also.)

Even so, some of the questions put to Sapient hail directly from the atheist-bashing playbook. For example, "What's wrong with God?" (a variant on the usual "Why do you hate God?"):
"What's wrong with the Tooth Fairy?" asks Brian. "There's nothing wrong with something that most likely doesn't exist."
And cop this exchange:
Nightline: Do you worry about going to Hell?
Rational Response Squad: [Laughing at what has to be one of the most inane questions one could ever put to an atheist] No. No, not at all.
NL: Is that because you think Hell's gonna be fun if you do go there?
Rational Response Squad: [More laughter, perhaps partly out of surprise that, as dumb as the previous question was, this guy has managed to top it with the current question] No, because there's no reason to believe that Hell exists.
To be fair to the interviewer, given the religious demographics of the United States, he was probably obliged to play the "Fundies' Advocate" and couch the odd question in Believer-ese. But what happens when God's spokespersons themselves chime in? Firstly, you get the strawman:
"I think how sad it is that someone would be rejecting hope essentially," says the Reverend Kathleen Liles, an Episcopalian minister
Followed by ad baculum reasoning:
"I think if people are courting blasphemy, going out of their way to cross that line, that is just dangerous," says Paul de Vries, the president of the non-denominational New York Divinity School which provides ministry training. "They might get themselves in eternal trouble."
(Nice bit of editing there by the Nightline crew, by the way: with religion, you get hope and the fear of eternal damnation.) Back to Rev. Liles for a spot of projection:
"I can't say I'm really surprised by it. We live in a very difficult time. I think people have a lot of anger, people have a lot of anxiety. If you want to challenge something: if you're young and you feel like kicking out windows, saying something like this about God is one way to exercise that."
And finally, circular reasoning:
"Faith is a gift, it is a mystery, as so many other gifts from God are,'" she says. "And when we open our hearts to God, then God will give us the faith to believe."
In order to believe in God, first you must believe in God. Got that?

UPDATE
: From the Nightline forum:
It is very obvious that all Atheist are the low life part of of society. Atheist lack moral values, they lack academic education and they lack all forms of consciouness. I feel sorry and pitty all the pathetic Atheist who try to use their so called knowledge to over throw christians. Surely Atheist can not articulate any meaningful sentence structures to describe their trailer trash ways. It is true God gave all men free will to call him a savior or to call him a liar. To bad Atheist choose to be ignorant filthy mental midget creatures who believe they know it all. To bad the God of the bible knows more then them. To bad my dog knows more then them. To bad hell is real and all atheist are going to hell. Atheist have no hope even God calls them fools.I laugh at all Atheist and their small minded uneducated monkey ways. Atheist are afraid to to take my challenge because they are not real atheist they are toilet paper. (Big laugh.) (Big Smile)


UPDATE II
: I have been in fairly regular correspondence the past couple of days with the owner of this blog.



Saturday, February 3, 2007

The movie itself is ordinary (at least by comparison with its predecessor) but the kung-fu sequence from Wayne's World 2* featuring Mike Myers and James Wong ("Seinfeld? Four?") is pure gold.

(*I'll be buggered if I can figure out how to embed it in this post, however.)

Friday, February 2, 2007

Remember the story of David Paszkiewicz, the public high school history teacher who chose to proselytize about his religion to his students during class time (that historical document known as the Constitution be damned), lied about it when one of those students complained, and then played victim when said student produced a tape recording of Paskiewicz's preaching as evidence?

Well, the story does have a happy ending. The school district in which these events transpired has now taken decisive steps to ensure that something like this never happens again. It has decided to ban tape recorders from the classroom.

Via Pharyngula.