The Idiot's Guide to Being a "Conservative Intellectual"

Gerard "Luvvies" Henderson in The Age, June 28th 2005:

If the left is to successfully challenge the dominant non-left intellectual ascendancy it must first understand that conservatives are not necessarily evil or ignorant. To defeat a political opponent requires knowledge - not base prejudice.

Gerard "Luvvies" Henderson on Lateline, February 24th, 2006:

But I think it's fair to say that a lot of opposition, too, has been quite psychotic. I mean, have a look at what goes on in much of the humanities departments. A lot of the opposition to John Howard, alleging that he runs a fascist state or a police state by well-educated people who should know better is simply psychotic and I think he basically listens to that.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Memo to ABC Radio National: if you must include the odd token rightie in your line-up in the interests of "balance," could you at least get a commentator who actually has something interesting and topical to talk about, and who won't simply engage in an oft-recycled rant about his (ill-defined) ideological enemies? Hendo's little tete-a-tetes with Fran on Friday mornings are nothing short of a waste of valuable air time.

Read More

Is Little Britain Series 3 any good? Computer says "no."

Episode One of the the third series of Little Britain screened on Wednesday night on ABCTV. And I can't remember being this disappointed about a hitherto eagerly-awaited piece of pop culture since Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels or Return of the King (though I seem to be on my own on that one).

I came to the Little Britain phenomenon late--via Very Little Britain (a truncated version of the TV series that aired on ABCTV last year) and snippets of the radio show on Radio National--before Santa was kind enough to drop the Series One and Two DVDs in my lap. The verdict? Two words: comedy gold. By turns clever, outrageous, ludicrous and disgusting, with a repertoire of characters (nearly all of whom are played by series creators Matt Lucas and David Walliams, who have an incredible talent for portraying women convincingly; the deliberately unconvincing transvestite Emily Howard notwithstanding) and set-pieces that are completely original yet instantly recognisable--and not since Seinfeld has a comedy series been able to produce so many memorable catchphrases. ("Yyyyyyeeeessssss!" is particularly popular in my house.) Series Two retains many of the more popular Series One characters such as Daffyd and Vicki Pollard, while new characters such as Bubbles de Vere and the "Computer says 'No'" woman are just as successful. Though it ups the ante somewhat in the bad-taste department ("Be quick, Mr Hutton. I have a colonic at three."), it still manages to be very funny.

See, the great thing about the first two series is that the creators were able to recognise that, as funny as the characters and ideas can be, they do have a use-by date. In Series Three, that rule of thumb seems to have been thrown out the window. To be replaced by a new rule: take one popular character--say, Bubbles de Vere--multiply that character by two, and the sketch will be twice as funny. Wrong. Even if the clone is wearing a black fat suit instead of a white fat suit. (As a matter of fact, they instituted this rule in Series Two by giving Emily Howard a sidekick--and those sketches were probably among the weakest of that series.)

Onto Lou and Andy. There are basically two varieties of "Andy": "Faker Andy" (who gets up out his wheelchair and stretches his legs/dives into a swimming pool/leaps astride a horse and gallops off into the distance whemever his helper Lou's back is turned) and "Fickle Andy" (who, having deliberated at length at some earlier point in time on the benefits of option A, stubbornly and inexplicably settles on option B, only to change his mind again at the point of no return). "Fickle Andy" has far more comedic potential than "Faker Andy," for obvious reasons (i.e. he's not disabled; we get it)--so why do we get a double-dose of the latter in the Series Three opener? The Vicki and Daffyd sequences are fairly pedestrian, too.

And the new characters are certainly nothing to write home about. What's with the Thai mail-order bride? Is she really meant to be from Thailand, or is she putting it on? The latter option might have rendered her sketch mildly amusing; as it is, it's just crass. The "Old And Putrid" urinating woman shows some potential--but even she's just a variation on territory the show has covered before (namely the projectile-vomiting elderly lady from the second series).

Well, you may be thinking, it's only the first episode. Fair enough--it might pick up from here. Lucas and Walliams admitted that in putting the first two series together they would include the best material in the first few episodes. The DVDs each contain more than an episode's worth of deleted material--much of which is still very funnyin my view. But if they've continued that trend with the third series, things look pretty ominous.

Read More

I.D./H.D.

David Heidelberg and Shaun Cronin (as well as just about every other blogger around, probably) have beaten me to the punch on David Irving's conviction for Holocaust denial, but for what it's worth . . .

I think we can identify here some pretty neat parallels between Holocaust denial and evolution denial (yes, that old chestnut). First, the advocacy of either tends to go hand-in-iron-glove with even broader and nastier agendas: Christian theocracy and American radical conservatism in the case of the latter; neo-Nazism and Muslim theocracy in the case of the former.

Second, and far more importantly, the evidence for both evolution and the Holocaust is overwhelming. To the point that denying either is--aside from being offensive--just plain ridiculous. Obviously, then, I think Holocaust-denial has no place in the history classroom (except, perhaps, as an object-lesson in how not to do history) in the same way that I think evolution-denial has no place in the science classroom. I don't so much fear the possibility of kids morphing into wingnuts or Nazis if they're exposed to this stuff, as I fear that giving an air of credibility to ideas that are unsupported by the facts would do students a grave pedagogical disservice.

But as much as we strive to keep ridiculous ideas out of science and history classrooms, we don't throw people into prison for holding ridiculous opinions. That should apply as much in David Irving's case as it does in the case of intelligent-design-creationists. His punishment is disproportionate to his "crime" (inasmuch as stupidity is criminal) and it misses the point entirely. The Austrian decision basically translates as: "David Irving's opinions on the Holocaust anger me. Clap him in irons!" Its message should have been, rather: "David Irving's opinions on the Holocaust are ill-founded and idiotic. Let me explain why. (And then we can all laugh at him)."

David Heidelberg wonders

if the same people who defended and published the Mohammed cartoons on the basis that doing so represented free speech, will similarly defend David Irving's right to free speech?

Well, they should. As do I. Acknowledging the Danish newspaper's right to publish the cartoons in no way implies that one approves of their publication. Acknowledging David Irving's right to the free expression of his stupidity in no way implies that one shares his opinions.

Read More

Resistance is futile

On Saturday, socialist youth organisation Resistance issued the following press release:

Resistance as part of its campaign to support freedom of expression and civil liberties is offering flag burning kits during O-Week activities and beyond.

The kit is inspired by Resistance member Azlan McLennan's recent artwork "Proudly un-Australian", which was censored by police when it was removed illegally from its Footscray gallery.

The Flag Burning kit displays the sentiment that many young people today feel, given the Australian government's racist refugee policy; its treatment of Indigenous people; its use of violence against protesters; its support of US foreign policy; and its oppressive military role in the Asia-Pacific.

The kit contains:
1 x Australian Flag
1 x Lighter
1 x Fire Lighting Cube
1 x Resistance Material

The current debate in the media surrounding the burning of the flag seeks to vilify those who utilise their rights to freedom of speech, expression and association. The right to political dissent is an inherent human right, and the burning of the Australian flag symbolises that freedom.

Nationalism makes even less sense to me than religion. And I've never invested an ounce of emotion in what is, when all is said and done, a piece of fabric. But there are a lot of useful idiots in this country who do. So I think Resistance's gesture--however much I concur with the sentiment behind it--is counterproductive. It alienates those who otherwise might echo Resistance's concerns about Australian foreign policy, the treatment of refugees and indigenous peoples, civil liberties, and so on--but who at the same time maintain an irrational attachment to a piece of cloth. Furthermore, to burn a flag is simply to buy-in to the very jingoistic nationalism one purports to be attacking: flag-burning is a corollary of flag-worship, otherwise it makes no sense (so the Federal Government, having inculcated US-style flag worship in Australia and having so closely identified Australian nationalism with its own ideology and values, has only itself to blame when people respond in this fashion). So while I do see myself picking up a flag-burning kit on O-Day as an interesting souvenir of the current zeitgeist, I don't see myself using it. "Rationalism, not Nationalism"--that's my jingoistic slogan.

(It should be noted that nobody who graces his or her blog with the slogan "I Support Denmark In Its Struggle For The Freedom Of Speech" will have any reason to complain about Resistance's activities.)

Read More

The Howard Years

March 2006 will see the release of a Howard hagiography, The Howard Factor, edited by The Australian senior editorial executive Nick Cater, and featuring chapters penned by a "who's who" of Cater's stablemates: Paul Kelly, Steve Lewis, Glenn Milne, George Megalogenis, Christopher Pearson, Matt Price, Dennis Shanahan, Greg Sheridan, Mike Steketee, Alan Wood and cartoonist Bill Leak. The publicity material tells us what we can expect:

John Howard's victory over Paul Keating in 1996 was the start of a quiet revolution that changed Australia forever.

His critics told us he was a white-picket-fence conservative, Little Johnnie, Lazarus with a triple bypass. Instead, Howard has driven a decade of reform, reinventing conservative politics and redefining the national debate.

In this long-overdue assessment of the Howard years, some of The Australian's leading commentators chart the seismic shift in politics, society, workplaces, culture, the economy, trade and foreign affairs. They describe how Howard has redrawn the political map, turning the conservatives into reformers and forcing the progressives to defend the status quo.

That word: reform. A dead giveaway to potential readers of The Howard Factor that nary an ounce of criticism or circumspection with regard to the current Prime Minister's tenure is likely to be found within. One thing's for certain: fawning admiration and arselicking doesn't make for compelling reading--and if the fact, that the only newsworthy tidbit of information the media can divine from its pages is the earth-shattering revelation that Howard is critical of extremist Muslims (well, isn't everyone?), is any indication, Cater hardly has a page-turner on his hands. (And the target audience would probably just as soon be reading Ice Station or something.)

Meanwhile, in the Fairfax press, Tony Stephens gives an analysis of "the Howard years" that is pretty spot-on. He cites a poll indicating that a majority of Australians believe that the country has become a meaner place under Howard (was it ever likely to be any different?), but this has not translated into a voter backlash against the Government because:

Australians feel that the economy matters most. Society has almost become the economy. Eighty-three per cent of those who identified the economy as the most important issue believe Howard's Government has handled it very well or quite well. Most Australians are financially better off than they have ever been. There have been 14 years of strong growth, including five under Labor.

Far more importantly, I would argue, most Australians perceive that they are financially better off (whether or not it is actually the case)--and they take as the signs of their improved circumstances the home theatre systems that grace their living rooms. Or the "SUVs" (they used to call them 4WDs) that grace their carports. The frenzied accumulation of luxury goods has become a national pastime under Howard; indeed it is one of the secrets of his success. Take the celebrated "battler" (Labor's traditional base), add a credit card or two and a mortgage, and voila! Instant "aspirational Australian," completely divorced from the reality of his or her financial circumstances (whether those circumstances are good or bad), for whom debt is a virtue, not a curse, and who spends money like it grows on trees. (The retail and building sectors depend upon this false economy absolutely.) Fertile territory for a Coalition government that has worked long and hard to have selfishness replace egalitarianism as the defining national characteristic.

Stephens' piece opens with an observation that should strike a chord with anyone who is sick to death of the American-style jingoistic nationalism that has become fashionable round these here parts over the past decade (but especially since September 11):

YOU can sometimes see a whole nation changing on a sporting field. Cricket supporters saw Australia changing last month at the SCG. Before the traditional New Year's Test, this time against South Africa, players filed on to the "hallowed turf", past the national flag and sang the national anthem. At least one player placed a hand over his heart, in the American way.

Sheesh! These days, you don't even have to go to a cricket match. Take a five-minute walk around the streets of your neighbourhood, and count the flags and flagpoles you see on the front lawns of people's houses. I call this activity "Spot the Liberal Voter."

Read More

The tortured logic of Abu Ghraib apologists

The Guardian Newsblog asks whether the recently-published Abu Ghraib photos are newsworthy or gratuitous. Really--this is a no-brainer, unless one is of the opinion that everything that has transpired up to and including yesterday that shows "our side" in a bad light should be erased from the historical record (the John Howard approach to newsworthiness). There is of course the question of unfinished business regarding the prosecution of those responsible for the abuses; the abuses themselves, therefore, are always worth revisiting. Furthermore, the images force us to take a more circumspect view of the meme that "we" are so much better than "them." If the publication of these photos lead to anti-American sentiment and attacks upon Coalition troops, as the Pentagon fears--then the blame lies with the military and intelligence cultures that made the abuses possible in the first place. Not SBS.

Many of the Newsblog commenters concur; but at least two contributors have an Orwellian take on the scandal that simply beggars belief. "Pete Knolls" opines:

All these pictures show me is what happens when you crash two planes into the WTC and incinerate 3000 people. People do not know that it is wrong to harm others unless they themselves know what it is like to suffer. These pictures depict people who are being both punished by and taught about suffering. As one prisoner supposedly put it "I now know why it is bad to harm other beings. I myself do not like to suffer so I now know others do not as well."

Further down the page, "JackNelson"--who later informs us that his father "was responsible for the deaths of more than 200,000 Muslims during the late 60s and early 70s and yet was able to look me in the eye and tell me 'I felt no hatred or anger toward a single Muslim'"--offers his thoughts:

The American troops are torturing the Muslim captives with the intention to show them that suffering is bad and that when they make others suffer they are engaging in negative behavior.

What. The. Fuck??? "Yes, Your Honour, I raped her: but only in order to show her that rape is bad . . . " This is the "Chicken Lover" defence.

The last word must go to "Dave" . . .

Alright let's recap the arguments:

(1) The press is guilty of cowardice for not re-publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed because it is afraid of Muslim retaliation.

(2) The press is guilty of provoking Muslim retaliation by publishing photos of Abu Ghraib in the midst of a controversy surrounding cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

Brilliant.

Read More

A contrarian being all "contrary" (commonsense notwithstanding)

In The Australian Mark Steyn declares:

I salute Danna Vale. You don't have to agree with her argument that Australia's aborting itself out of recognition and that therefore Islam will inherit by default to think it's worth asking a couple of questions:

* Is abortion in society's interest?

* Can a society become more Muslim in its demographic character without also becoming more Muslim in its political and civil character?

Is abortion in society's interest?

Let us ignore for the moment the fact that a word like "society" is so vague that it renders questions like these virtually meaningless (like the term "family" in "family values"). I'm going to assume that when Steyn says "society" he means "liberal democratic society"--in which case I'd have to answer in the affirmative. Yes: it is in the interests of a society based upon the principle of individual soveriegnty that individuals be granted sovereignty over their own bodies, regardless of their gender.

Here's Steyn's response to his own question:

One can understand that 17-year-old Glenys working the late shift at Burger King and knocked up by some bloke who scrammed 10 minutes after conception may believe it's in her interest to exercise "a woman's right to choose", but the state has absolutely no interest in encouraging women in general to exercise that choice.

(Righties just love to rag on their own political base, don't they?)

Anyway, leaving aside the logical fallacy that a thing is encouraged simply by virtue of the fact that it is permitted, let's see what happens when we rework's Steyn's scenario ever-so-slightly:

One can understand that 17-year-old Glenys working the late shift at Burger King and raped by some bloke who scrammed 10 minutes after conception may believe it's in her interest to exercise "a woman's right to choose", but the state has absolutely no interest in encouraging women in general to exercise that choice.

Get it? Steyn's generalist argument against a woman's right to choose applies in equal measure to rape victims as it does to women he doesn't like (i.e. irresponsible white-trash whores who'll no doubt end up as burdens on the welfare system and pursued across a car park by this dickhead). Abortion is abortion, after all. Shorter Steyn: a female rape victim who falls pregnant and who claims the right to exercise more sovereignty over her own body than either Steyn or the rapist wants to grant her is not operating in society's interest (i.e. in the interests of keeping the White Anglo-Celtic birth rate up).

Danna Vale might as well have argued that Australia was liberal democracy-ing itself out of existence.

Can a society become more Muslim in its demographic character without also becoming more Muslim in its political and civil character?

It may depend the society in question. In Australia--no. Emphatically, no. Australian Muslims, as a rule, love democracy, love capitalism, love the 'burbs as fervently as Michael Duffy does--and I daresay a sizeable number of them even look favourably upon John Howard and the Coalition. I confidently predict that their embrace of Australian liberal democracy will continue, regardless of the abortion rate in the non-Muslim community, and regardless of what percentage of the Australian population happens to be Muslim in 50 years time.

Of course, the Islamophobia doesn't help, Mark.

Read More

Save us from a Donnelly-based science curriculum

Kevin Donnelly loves bitching about outcomes-based education even more than The West Australian does (so it's not surprising that in the pages of the latter he's regular presented as the "guru" on the subject). In his latest missive he argues that the debate over whether intelligent design should be taught in schools is largely inconsequential, given that:

as a result of Australia's adoption of outcomes-based education, which includes such fads as whole language, where children are taught to look and guess, and fuzzy maths, where memorising tables and mental arithmetic go out the window, . . . Australia's science curriculum is already unscientific.

He may well be right--and when I start my Dip. Ed. in a few weeks I'll be interested in looking into the matter--but his piece doesn't really tell us anything about how an outcomes-based approach is actually influencing what gets taught as science in Australian science classrooms. Nor, in spite of his quote-mining of curriculum documents, is he able to come up with any evidence that the Kansas experience is being replicated here--that science teaching in our schools is moving away from the principle that science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. Indeed, what the controversy over the prospect of teaching ID in Australian science classrooms demonstrates is that methodological naturalism still very holds sway over science education (in public schools) in this country. (The 100 or so schools in Australia that have rejected methodological naturalism are private religious institutions.) That could change, of course, under an outcomes-based regime; but it could just as easily have changed under the older "teacher-centred" paradigm, or Brendan Nelson's "It-should-be-taught-if-parents-want-it-taught" approach.

The main problem for Donnelly is that his dire prognostications about the future of science education in Australia are undermined by the fact that he really doesn't understand science, if he thinks that:

the more traditional view of science is based on the belief that there are some absolutes that can be empirically tested - water boils at a certain temperature, the air we breathe is constituted a particular way . . .

Absolutes? The boiling point of water is not an "absolute" or an article of faith--otherwise, there would be no point in testing it empirically. Things like the boiling point of water or the composition of air are never "absolutely" taken for granted--that's why scientists conduct experiments. Or does he think students should cast away the bunsen burners and the protective glasses, and simply rote-learn lists of "absolutes" for twelve years?

What a gift to the ID/creationists that would be.

Read More

Overheard . . .

. . . in Lakeside Joondalup Target:

"Excuse me . . . do you sell Mary-Kate and Ashley trackie-dacks?"

(With apologies to Toxic Purity)

Read More

Western Civilisation at its finest . . .

AUSTRALIAN television tonight broadcast previously unpublished graphic images of the alleged physical abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. SBS television's Dateline program tonight screened video and still images of the wounds allegedly inflicted on the Iraqis by their American captors.

They included photographs of blood-soaked Iraqi prisoners who had been tortured or shot dead, footage of a prisoner repeatedly slamming his head into a metal door, and a film of naked male prisoners being forced to masturbate in front of the camera.

The Bush administration is reportedly attempting to prevent release of the images in the US, arguing that their publication could provoke antagonism towards the US.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been granted access to the images under Freedom of Information, but the US government is appealing the decision.

George Negus, host of tonight's Dateline program, told SBS viewers it was important to televise the images to make the public aware of what taken place at Abu Ghraib prison.

"Despite the currently overheated international climate, we're showing them because they show the extent of the horror that occurred at Abu Ghraib," Negus said.

The program reported that some prisoners at Abu Ghraib were killed when US soldiers ran out of rubber bullets trying to quell a riot at the jail and resorted to using live rounds.

ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh told Dateline the images were evidence of "systemic and widespread abuse" of prisoners by US soldiers. (news.com.au)

DOCTOR (Translation): You were at Abu Ghraib, right? Did anything specific happen to you there?

HAJ ALI (Translation): Anyone who had an injury or handicap, it was used in interrogations to pressure them. He told me to put my hand on the floor and he stood on it and twisted his boot. I fainted.

DOCTOR (Translation): So you put your hand down and they crushed it? (SBS Dateline, November 9, 2005)

ABU MAAN (Translation): If they came and found me asleep they'd piss in a bottle and either pour it on me or tie me up and make me drink it. What has information got to do with making you drink urine? (SBS Dateline, November 9, 2005)

HAJ ALI (Translation): We've seen none of the Titan Corp or CACI interrogators who'd rape a man in front of his wife, and a woman in front of her husband and a girl in front of her family. We haven't seen any of them being charged. This company hides behind its billions. A month after Abu Ghraib, its contract was renewed. (SBS Dateline, November 9, 2005)

Images courtesy of Daily Kos.
UPDATE (17/2/06):

Salon has obtained files and other electronic documents from an internal Army investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal. The material, which includes more than 1,000 photographs, videos and supporting documents from the Army's probe, may represent all of the photographic and video evidence that pertains to that investigation.

The files, from the Army's Criminal Investigation Command (CID), include hundreds of images that have never been publicly released. Along with the unpublished material, the material obtained by Salon also appears to include all of the famous photographs published after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April 2004, as well as the photographs and videos published Wednesday by the Australian television news show "Dateline."

The source who gave the CID material to Salon is someone who spent time at Abu Ghraib as a uniformed member of the military and is familiar with the CID investigation. . . .

Read More

Could this be the ugliest word in the English language?

"When you can align your IT with business goals you can be assured of the commitment of the entire company, including senior management. They understand the criticality of a Quality Assurance department in development, and that having all software developed thoroughly tested, improves application quality and ultimately customer satisfaction and controls costs."

That's not a Bushism (nor indeed a Vale-ism). That's David Jones stuffed-shirt Gareth Maiden, waxing lyrical about the virtues of software developed by Mercury, on the latter's website. And it's a pity Mr Maiden failed to understand the "criticality" of being able to string a sentence together without making his audience wince.

Criticality. (Shudder.) Only a corporate lackey could dream up a word like that. Try reading aloud the passage above, doing your best impersonation of David Brent, and you'll see what I mean. H. W. Fowler (of Fowler's Modern English Usage fame) would have called it a "nonce-word:"

A 'nonce-word' (and the use might be extended to 'nonce-phrase' and 'nonce-sense'—the latter not necessarily, though it may be sometimes, equivalent to nonsense) is one that is constructed to serve a need of the moment. The writer is not seriously putting forward his word as one that is for the future to have an independent existence; he merely has a fancy to it for this once. The motive may be laziness, avoidance of the obvious, love of precision, or desire for a brevity or pregnancy that the language as at present constituted does not seem to him to admit of. The first two are bad motives, the third a good, and the last a mixed one. But in all cases it may be said that a writer should not indulge in these unless he is quite sure he is a good writer.

Now, neither Mr Maiden, nor the individual responsible for the Mercury "Customer Success Story" in which his utterance appears, are good writers--and, of course, they don't have to be. (They're salesmen, for fuck's sake!) Nevertheless, like yourself I'm racking my brain, trying to imagine the scenario that could have given birth to a nonce-word like criticality. Maybe the bran muffin and mugaccino Mr Maiden had for breakfast that morning reached a critical point in his digestive tract (the "event horizon," if you will) at that stage of the interview. Maybe the Mercury guy was typing at gunpoint, with a voluptuous blonde performing fellatio on him beneath the desk. (Ever seen Swordfish?) Maybe it was the fruit of a desperate attempt to get a Triple Word Score in Scrabble.

Criticulous.

(N.B. In fact, criticality is a real word: it comes to us from the discourses of physics and nuclear technology (in the latter case it is synonymous with "critical mass"). It even has it's own Wiki entry. Within these contexts, it's a "working word." Outside these contexts, it's a travesty.)

Read More

Another own goal by the Coalition of the Willing

We know that Coalition troops in Iraq have been liberating the living shit out of the natives for nigh on three years now, but the latest is just plain embarrassing:

The Ministry of Defence has launched an investigation into a video which allegedly shows British soldiers brutally beating a group of young Iraqis.

The film, which was reported in a Sunday newspaper, shows the troops repeatedly kicking, punching and striking civilians with batons.

The newspaper said the footage was filmed during street riots in Basra in 2004 by a corporal who can be heard laughing and encouraging his colleagues in a running commentary.

(Winston Churchill was at one time in favour of using poison gas against the "uncivilised tribes" of the Middle East, so I suppose this is something of a step up.) But seriously, if you want an insight as to why the "Arab Street" is in such an uproar over the Danish cartoons (as well as an ironic take on the "Clash of Civilisations" thesis, to boot), look no further.

The British Ministry of Defence is investigating the incident. I suggest that in the course of the investigation the Ministry takes a good hard look at the kind of military culture that allows something like this to transpire in the first place.

Anyway, you can see the neocon porn for yourself on the News of the World website. As the saying goes: here's a gun, there's your foot.

Read More

Letter to the Editor from "Gerard" of Sydney . . .

Gerard Henderson on Radio National this morning (Re: the RU486 debate):

Well, you take Senator Kerry Nettle, for example, who went around the Parliament with a t-shirt on Wednesday saying: "Mr Abbott: Get Your Rosaries (as in the Catholic prayer) Off My Ovaries." Now, would Senator Nettle do that with a reference to the Koran, on issues where she is in disagreement with the teachings of Islam on homosexuality, for example? Of course she wouldn't! I mean, Catholics are for Senator Nettle a soft target--she wouldn't take on Muslims like that.

Ummm . . . last time I checked, the Health Minister isn't a Muslim (he is, however, a hardline Catholic who wears his religious opinions on his sleeve--then plaintively whines "Help! Help! I'm being persecuted!" when he is called out for it), nor do Islamic teachings on homosexuality have any influence whatsoever on government policy in Australia. (And the Senate was debating RU486 on Wednesday, not homosexuality.)

Arseclown.

Read More

Dispatches From The War On Free Speech

In Tasmania:

A SEXUALLY explicit artwork depicting a gay Jesus has been slammed as shameful, foul, sacriligious and grossly offensive by a Tasmanian Liberal MP.

Member for Denison Michael Hodgman said the highly-offensive work, by prominent Tasmanian artist Shaun McGowan, should be immediately removed from display at the Red Wall Gallery at North Hobart's Republic Bar.

He believed a significant proportion of the community would be shocked and offended by the work, Imitation of Christ, which shows an image of Jesus Christ surrounded by gay men performing sexual acts.

"Most members of the Tasmanian community are prepared to accept a degree of comment, but this particular abomination falls well outside proper bounds and is grossly offensive," Mr Hodgman said.

"Events of recent days around the world show that whilst we should respect the freedom of expression, we must also recognise that certain religious and cultural elements have particular personal and religious importance to members of our society."

Meanwhile, at the Cole Inquiry:

A COMEDY team's stunt outside the AWB inquiry has fallen flat, with the commission to refer it to police.

A crew from ABC satire The Chaser confronted AWB executive Charles Stott outside the building where the inquiry is being conducted in Sydney, presenting him with a cheque made out to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and asking him to sign it.

"My client was completely shaken," said Mr Stott's lawyer Paul Lacava, SC.

Mr Cole said he would arrange for solicitors to provides statements and refer the matter to police. "I will have steps taken … to retain that film" for investigative purposes, he said.

And in Belgium:

A town in Belgium has banned an artwork of Saddam Hussein for fear that it will put off tourists and offend Muslims.

The piece, called Saddam Hussein Shark, shows the handcuffed ex-Iraqi ruler suspended in liquid and wearing nothing more than underpants.

The mayor of Middelkerke, Michel Landuyt, said the work could "shock people", including Muslims.

He said he decided to ban Czech artist David Cerny's sculpture before the row over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

The Saddam piece, which echoes British artist Damien Hirst's famous shark suspended in formaldehyde, was first shown in Prague last September.

Read More

Chocolate Silk Cheesecake

Over at Anonymous Lefty's blog:

MIKE JERICHO: You know, when you and I finally meet, I think you'll be altogether less talkative. By the way, I note you took down the fake picture of the male model you represented as yourself on your pink site.

Good idea, because I figure he had to have looked like even more of a faggot than you do.

DAVID HEIDELBERG: Was that a threat Mike?

MIKE JERICHO: Let's call it a prediction.

I think what we all need instead is a nice hot cup of tea and a slice of my "Chocolate Silk Cheesecake." It isn't really mine--I borrowed it from this site and made a few alterations (upping the fat content and substituting milk chocolate for dark chocolate, and Woolies Home Brand cocoa for "Dutch Process"--whatever that might be):

2/3 cup reduced-calorie chocolate wafer crumbs (about 20 cookies)
2 tablespoons sugar
1 tablespoon stick margarine, melted
1 tablespoon water
Cooking spray
3 ounces milk chocolate, chopped
2 tablespoons skim milk
1 1/4 cups sugar
4 (250g) blocks fat-free cream cheese
1 tablespoon vanilla extract
1/4 teaspoon salt
4 large egg whites
1/2 cup cocoa
1/2 cup hot fudge topping
1 cup low-fat sour cream

Preheat oven to 200C.

Process first 4 ingredients. Press crumb mixture into the bottom of a 9-inch springform pan coated with cooking spray. Bake at
200C for 8 minutes. Cool crust on a wire rack. Increase oven temperature to 250C.

Combine chocolate and milk in a bowl; microwave at high 45 seconds or until chocolate melts, stirring after 30 seconds. Cool.

Combine 1 1/4 cups sugar, cheeses, vanilla, and salt in a food processor, and process just until smooth. Add egg whites, and process until blended. Add chocolate mixture, cocoa, fudge topping, and sour cream, and process until blended.


Spoon batter into prepared pan. Bake at 250C for 7 minutes. Reduce oven temperature to 120C, and bake
25 minutes or until almost set. Cheesecake is done when the center barely moves when the pan is touched. Remove cheesecake from oven; run a knife around outside edge, and cool to room temperature. Cover and chill at least 8 hours.

Feel the love!

Read More

On the other hand, we all have our sacred cows . . .

. . . which probably explains the mystifying events that transpired in an art gallery in Footscray two weeks ago:

About a fortnight ago, a senior constable from Footscray police embarked on an intricate rescue mission, climbing through the window of a cafe and into the Trocadero Art Space next door to remove a burnt and damaged Australian flag displayed on a billboard outside the gallery. The work, titled Proudly Un-Australian, was by artist Azlan McLennan. He has yet to be charged. He has not been told what offence, if any, he committed, and his flag has not been returned.

Elements of the Right in Australia--who, I'm certain, would be firmly on the side of free speech in the Damish newspaper case--have again called for a legal ban on flag-burning. (Surprise, surprise.)

HEATHER EWART: Azlan McLennan still hasn't been told what he'll be charged with. But for Federal Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop, his case is a very timely one. She's planning to introduce a private members' bill into the Parliament this session to ban Australian flag-burning and can sympathise with the Footscray police action.

BRONWYN BISHOP: I'd say a lot of Australians, including me, would be pleased that the police took some action. But the problem is at the present time it's not an offence, it's not a crime.

So . . . when the object of criticism or mockery is Muslim, it's free speech. When the object of criticism or mockery is Australian (in particular, something dear to the hearts of conservatives), it's a criminal offence (or should be). Got it.

Read More

My 2 cents worth on the Mohammed cartoons . . .

Did the newspapers have the right to publish the cartoons?
-- Absolutely

Was it silly of them to do so?
-- Silly at best. At worst, malicious.

Does that mean that this is justified?
-- Of course not. (Duh)

Some maintain that we should bear in mind the context in which the cartoons were originally published. What do you say to that?
--That this whole exercise is simply an innocent exploration of the limits of the freedom of the press I seriously doubt. The intent was to provoke outrage among Muslims--and in particular, to provoke extremist reactions of the kind we're seeing in Syria and Lebanon--just so the anti-Muslim/anti-immigration Right can say: "See? Told you." (I can't prove this, of course.) And it has paid off brilliantly: a neocon Danish newspaper publishes images that are bound to (indeed, are designed to) offend Muslims, and ordinary Muslims everywhere are asked to apologise for the consequences. (Sheesh! They're not even allowed to be offended!)

Anything else to add?
Yeah. Fundies--of whatever religious stripe--go to hell! (Ed Brayton has a great post about the doctrine of religious exceptionalism as regards free speech.)

Read More

Why I don't watch TV (much)

1. The Time Machine. (The 2002 version.) In the future, the human race is divided into subterranean Orcs and over-acting Elf-Hobbits. The hero, Guy Pearce, demonstrates effectively why the differing trajectories of his and Russell Crowe's Hollywood careers post-L.A. Confidential are thoroughly deserved. (That's not to say I haven't enjoyed some of Pearce's other films--e.g. Memento--but I don't think he's a good actor. Apparently he redeems himself in The Proposition, which I have yet to see.) As for Jeremy Irons' bad guy: "slimy albino" is an unusual look for a supervillain (but hey!--it worked for Satan in The Passion of the Christ).

Woeful.

2. An ABC doco on C. S. Lewis. I must admit that the Narnia tales sit unread on my bookshelf, and I don't know a lot about C. S. Lewis other than that he is generally considered the Yoda of Christian apologists. Here he is presented as an atheist who converts to Christianity--a cautionary tale familiar to us atheists ("If little Johnny/Lee Strobel/Anthony Flew can believe in God, why can't you?)--though his own account of the conversion reveals him never to have been an atheist in the first place (despite his assertions to the contrary). The actor playing Lewis declares "I gave in, and admitted that God was God ... perhaps that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England"--and I turn a deeper shade of unimpressed.

Read More