First casualty of the ABC's new "Fair and Balanced" editorial policy?

A board stacked with Authoritarian-Right culture-warriors, a Brave New Fair and Balanced Editorial Policy, allegations by a Liberal Senator* that Corinne Grant is "the new face of the ACTU," and the announced creation of the position of "chief censor" . . . and hey presto!

The Glasshouse has been axed.

Comedian Corinne Grant says she and co-hosts Wil Anderson and Dave Hughes have known about the decision for a number of weeks

"Obviously we're devastated ... it's very upsetting, but it's not an overnight shock to us. We have known about it for a while now. But we don't understand the decision at all," Grant said.

She says when the ABC broke the news no "good" explanation was given.

Lesna Thomas from ABC TV Publicity today confirmed the show has not been renewed for 2007.

She says it has had five years on air and that the national broadcaster has decided to go in a new direction.

Grant says that is ridiculous.

"Only the ABC would cancel a show that is at the height of its ratings success and say it is time to move on. That would be like Pat Cash winning Wimbledon and going 'oh, it's time to move on'," she said.

"We just won an AFI award, we're nominated for another one, we just got nominated this year for the Most Popular Light Entertainment Program for the first time in the Logies - why would you cancel a show when it's at the height of its popularity?"

Grant says suggestions that the show may have been axed because of regular segments poking fun at Prime Minister John Howard or US President George W Bush are speculative.

"If that was the case, and certainly the ABC have not said that at all, but if that was the case that would be extremely concerning," she said.

"That would be a national broadcaster being dictated to by the incumbent government about its content. Which is the kind of thing you see in North Korea, not Australia."

Indeed.

Compared with some of the great ABC comedy shows--The Big Gig, The Late Show, Live and Sweaty, Frontline--The Glasshouse could be a little hit-and-miss. But it certainly wasn't afraid to poke fun at the Authoritarian-Right-dominated Howard government. The Authoritarian-Right doesn't tolerate/can't handle dissent. The Authoritarian-Right controls the ABC board. The Glasshouse gets the chop. QED.

*The Senator in question is Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, and when she's not helping to bring about the death of political satire in Australia, she's accusing SBS of "peddling porn" and "going soft on terrorism." Never heard of her? Neither had I until today--but she's famous enough to have her own Wikipedia entry. (The entry appears to have been hacked: fortunately I've been able to screen-capture it before Wikipedia repairs or removes the page.)

More commentary at BrokenLeftLeg and Today's Apathetic Youth.

UPDATE: Bob Brown's 2 cents' worth:

"The Howard government has shown that it lacks that most Australian of values - a self-deprecating sense of humour"

Read More

Seeking a coherent argument against gay and lesbian equality II

Some conservatives are so dogmatically opposed to GBLT equality that they end up missing the point of their own arguments. A commenter at Smogblot links approvingly to an article by Thomas Brewton in The Conservative Voice, in which the author critiques the following line in a New York Times editorial:

"The New Jersey Supreme Court brought the United States a little closer to the ideal of equality yesterday when it ruled that the state’s Constitution requires that committed same-sex couples be accorded the same rights as married heterosexual couples."

For Brewton:

The Times editorial implicitly presumes that the "ideal of equality" means entitlement to actual equality in all respects. Same-sex marriage is just the latest in a long list of socialist intellectuals' demands that judicial pronouncement, if not statute law, mandate equality of condition, rather than equality of opportunity.

The editorial presumes no such thing, but we'll get to that in a minute. Let's have a closer look at the distinction Brewton draws between "equality of condition" and "equality of opportunity." On the one hand, the distinction is valid: the government can provide universal health care, but it can't prevent you from getting sick; and the government can provide free or affordable education, but it can't guarantee that you will one day become a billionaire or win the Booker Prize. On the other hand, the distinction between "equality of condition" and "equality of opportunity is pure conservative cant, since many of those measures undertaken by governments and other entities--such as safety nets, public education, universal health care, affirmative action, progressive taxation, etc.--that Brewton would decry as "mandating equality of condition," are actually intended to maximise equality of opportunity.

Brewton, however, is talking specifically about same-sex marriage; and he argues that those who advocate it (we'll pass over the "socialist intellectual" ad hom. in silence) are trying to get the law to "mandate equality of condition"--by which I suppose means "equality of condition between same-sex and heterosexual marriages." In other words, advocates of same-sex marriage are--as he sees it--trying to get the law to make it so that same-sex and heterosexual marriages are the same thing. And on the face of it, this is ridiculous. Of course same-sex and hetero marriages are not the same thing--the one involves a same-sex couple, the other involves a coupe made up of different sexes--and no same-sex marriage advocate is suggesting otherwise. To be fair to Brewton, however, I imagine he would maintain that the differences between same-sex and heterosexual marriages go much further than that--so much so that they warrant a continuing legal ban on same-sex marriages.

Do they? Brewton never makes the case that they do (and it must be stated that on the conservative side of this debate the case is rarely ever made: it is only asserted). Instead, he draws a second distinction, and this is where he runs into trouble:

Our nation was founded on a completely different understanding of equality. [. . .] English political traditions brought to North America in the early 17th century remained the founding traditions of the United States in the 18th century, when the Constitution was written. In that framework, equality meant only that everyone was entitled to equal treatment under the law, that the ruler, as well as the ruled, was subject to a higher law of God-given morality.

Leaving aside the theocratic nonsense about "God-given morality," it is precisely upon the notion that everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law that the argument in favour of legalising same-sex marriage is based. It is precisely according to the notion that everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law that sodomy laws have been repealed. It is precisely this notion of equality that the New York Times editorial is idealising when it celebrates the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court to award same-sex and heterosexual couples the same rights. What else could it be? The New Jersey Supreme Court decision won't guarantee that people will always treat non-heterosexuals fairly and justly, but it does ensure that the law will.

Hence, if the notion of equality as equal treatment under the law is the only notion of equality Brewton believes judges and legislators in a liberal democracy should be upholding, then he really has no case against the New Jersey decision. In the interests of logical consistency, he should back it. That he does not back it--nor any other measures aimed at ending discrimination against non-heterosexuals--and instead dishonestly portrays supporters of such measures as "socialist intellectuals mandating equality of condition," suggests that he only supports the concept of equality under the law to the extent that some people are more equal than others.

To demonstrate the force of this last point, have another look at Brewton's piece, and decide for yourself whether his argument would shift all that much if you were to replace "same sex marriage" with "interracial marriage," or "women's suffrage," or "desegregation," or "the abolition of slavery."

Read More

This guy has got to be taking the piss . . .

. . . so he goes straight into the "Humour" section of my sidebar.

im a regular joe like most good americans. i work hard and try to be a good honest person. i even vote like were supposed to because good people need tos tand up and be counted. fortunately i live in kansas and we got good people here in power. sam brownback and jim ryun are good examples of godly men who love jesus and honor america. anyway im not married so if any ladies out their are interested email me. i love music, mostly country. i hunt and fish and like to watch the races when i can. i never was in the military but regret that because i think all men should serve their country. i think the draft should come back because to many young men take their freedom from granite. [. . .]

i make no secret that i hate liberal atheist traitors. i think all people should take a loyalty test to see if they are loyal to america. i also think anyone not christian should be kept from opening their mouths. i dont know if i think they should be kicked out of the country, but just because this is a free country don't mean we have to listen to there bullshit. [. . .]

look at what liberal activist judges have done over the years. they let criminals go free because a cop didnt have time to give them a talking to about their rights. (right like when an arrest is going down a cop has the time to do this...and were talking about thugs here they dont deserve rights anyway) they signed off on the deaths of millions of children. they make porno a right. the make flag burning a right. the let fags marry. and they interfer with states when they can telling them they have to let black and whites marry even if it was a law on their books since the 1600s.

He's taking the mickey. He's gotta be. Right?

UPDATE: This guy, sad to say, is apparently not kidding. (Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Read More

Seeking a coherent argument against gay and lesbian equality

Allow me to preface this post by acknowledging that I don't have a lot of time for Daniel (of Seeking Utopia fame), and I think it's fairly safe to assume that the feeling is mutual. I don't like his kindergarten anti-intellectualism, nor his propensity to become abusive whenever the flaws in his reasoning are pointed out to him. Despite his claims to be all about "civility" and "integrity," he doesn't mind indulging in the odd pot-shot, veiled or otherwise, against yours truly and others, both on his own blog and elsewhere. I refrain from commenting on his blog, and if I wasn't so "shallow and lacking in integrity" I might avoid it altogether--but you know how these things are. Like a car wreck, you can't resist taking a peek, even though you know you shouldn't.

So I suppose that the fisking of a post he has written on homosexuality that follows is going to be interpreted by some--Daniel in particular--as an exercise in flaming. Whatever.

Daniel's post begins thus:

I admit to being somewhat confused by the whole gay issue as it permeates more and more into our mainstream heterosexual society.

When I was being brought up homosexuality was considered not only wrong but was a crime and most people were very clear in their attitude to it. Unfortunately, homosexuals were ridiculed and wrongful violence was carried out against them. But I guess the flip side of that was that there was no confusion in the minds of children as to what was then considered to be right and what was considered to be wrong.

Well, I don't know about you, but I have to admit to being somewhat confused by this paragraph. Daniel holds that (a) in the good ol' days, homosexuality was a crime, and (b) there was "no confusion in the minds of children" regarding right and wrong, suggesting that (c) the current moral malaise is in some way connected to the fact that homosexuality is no longer a crime (of course, the nature of the connection is left unexplained).

And yet, in this Golden Age of moral certainty, when homosexuality was--as Daniel points out--considered "wrong," some people, doubtless motivated by the righteous belief that homosexuality is wrong (nobody beats up a gay man because they approve of his sexuality), perpetrated violence and injustice against homosexuals. Wrongfully, as Daniel points out--and how is that possible in a world where everyone knows right from wrong? Perhaps things weren't so cut-and-dried in the world of Daniel's childhood as he imagines. Or perhaps there is something profoundly wrong with the calculus of values prevalent in the Edenic era of criminalised sodomy--if such a value system fosters violence and ridicule towards homosexuals. Either way, it doesn't seem to me to be a time we should be hearkening back to.

Gradually, over the years, the strenuous efforts of the gay lobby and string-pulling by gay people in high places has brought about great change. Homosexuality has been decriminalised and it has gained for itself a measure of acceptance in the community.

"Lobby." I love this word. As if it's illegitimate--in a liberal democracy--for disenfranchised groups to seek redress for perceived injustices. Notice also how, whenever the word "lobby" is used ("special interest group" is an alternative), it is invariably invoked to describe a group advocating a cause with which the writer or speaker disagrees. The green lobby. The feminist lobby. You rarely hear nineteenth-century Chartists described as "the plebeian lobby." Nor are you likely to hear those who fought against Jim Crow laws in the US referred to as "the black lobby."

But the gay lobby wants more and are now demanding that gays should be allowed to marry, to have or adopt children, that the age of consent for males should be lowered, etc.

Here's a newsflash. All that has been demanded, as far as the age of consent is concerned, is that it should be equal regardless of whether the sex is heterosexual and homosexual in nature. And guess what? That is precisely the situation in every Australian state and territory. That horse has well and truly bolted, my friend. Sorry.

I worry about the impact of all this radical social change on the minds of children growing up. I remember a nephew of mine in primary school saying to his father that, “Dad, I can marry another man. The teacher said so.” I was horrified. Given that genuine gays, sexually, are genetically attracted to their own gender, surely it is wrong to suggest to all young children that it’s alright to have sex with either gender let alone to suggest to them that same-sex marriage is right and proper!

Not that this anecdote sounds remotely believable, but heaven forfend that we should tell LITTLE CHILDREN that there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage!

Incidentally, the imputation that gay rights and children's rights are diametrically opposed, such that if you are in favour of same sex marriage or the right of same-sex couples to adopt you must be against THE CHILDREN! THE CHILDREN!, really must be one of the lowest cards in the homophobe's deck. Right above the slippery-slope nonsense (but more on that later).

Unfortunately, there exists a gag that effectively stifles freedom of speech as far as the gay lifestyle and its positive and negative effects on society is concerned. Instead of this important issue being discussed openly as it should, much of the time the issue is swept under the carpet and those who dare to question are labelled “homophobic” (much like those who criticise Israel are unfairly labelled as anti-Semitic).

If Daniel was the first individual--let alone the first blogger--to boldly go where no man has gone before and raise this topic; and if, as you read this, ASIO officers are kicking down his door and seizing his computer, he might have a point. As it is, all you need to do is Google "same sex marriage" or "homosexual agenda" to see that the notion that freedom of speech is "stifled" regarding these issues is nothing short of persecutionist cant.

I believe, perhaps incorrectly, that there exists a strong, unspoken, instinctive societal feeling which, though it might range from weak to strong in intensity, largely rejects or finds it hard to accept homosexuality as a legitimate or acceptable societal relationship similar to the predominately heterosexual one.

Yes--we call this homophobia: the notion that non-heterosexuals are categorically inferior to heterosexuals, and that the law should treat them as such.

We get this, by the way, from the same individual who but a few posts earlier responded to a commenter with the following:

You, Anony, are, generally speaking, the only one who largely promotes the status quo, that defends the indefensible. All the rest of us, in the main, want changes and challenge the popular right-wing, pro-religion, pro-capitalism views.

It is we who are the dissenters, not you! Cheers.

I guess some forms of dissent against the status quo are less acceptable than others.

I believe that most mature adults can happily accept the quiet living together of couples of the same gender and welcome them. Live and let live, I say. But some of the recent demands by the gay community, in an attempt to further legitimise themselves, may go too far.

Again: heaven forfend that the dirty disgusting homosexuals should seek to "legitimise" their perverted lifestyles!

The slippery-slope theory also worries me.When are we going to have other groups of people arguing that their behaviour should be sanctioned and legitimised because that's how they were born?

What a shock!! I so wasn't expecting that phrase to appear in a diatribe against homosexuality! Bolt, Ackerman and every garden-variety Religious-Right wingnut couldn't have put it better themselves.

Responding to Daniel's post, Don Quixote makes this observation:

I have no problem with gay marriage or gay parenting. If you're against either of those two things, I think the burden falls upon you to show how they will damage society.

Precisely. Arguments from ignorance, along the lines of "the jury is still out," or "the situation is perhaps too new for there to be any reliable, longterm studies," simply won't do.

Cross-posted at Punditocracy Watch.

UPDATE: See Ninglun's post on this topic, plus an excellent older post of his on the topic of the elusive "gay lobby." (Which is similar to the equally-elusive capital "H" Homosexual capital "A" Agenda.)

You should also check out Ed Brayton's site, which has a fantastic series of posts on Religious Right homophobia in the US. Not to mention this entry at The Huffington Post.

UPDATE II: OK--time to indulge in a bit of shameless flaming (think of me what you will). It appears, judging by the "Random Blogwatch" section of Daniel's sidebar, where I am described (obliquely, of course) as "a talentless, carping follower" (formerly just a "follower," but he appears to have recently updated this information), that my associate is developing quite an obsession with me. But Daniel--and I know you're watching--tell me something. Why all this coyness and innuendo? I know it can't all be in the interests of "civilising the blogosphere"--or whatever you want to call it--because your conduct demonstrates for all to see your insincerity regarding this noble aim. So if you must fire salvos at me, at least have the intestinal fortitude to name your target. I won't mind. Honestly. And I won't go running for the nearest solicitor, either. Because, Daniel, I think you're a cretin. But I would much prefer to think of you as an honest cretin than as a callow, hypocritical cretin.

Think about it.

Read More

Tagged: Metablogging

BeepBeep passed this one on . . .

1-Do you like the look and the contents of your blog?

Not particularly. But HTML-illiterate beggars can't be choosers. I love the contents of the sidebar, however :)

2-Does your family know about your blog?

My immediate family? No. But only because it wouldn't interest them. My girlfriend knows about it. It doesn't interest her, either.

3-Can you tell your friends about your blog? Do you consider it a private thing?

A couple of my friends know about it: one them actually introduced me to blogging in the first place. Do I consider it a private thing? On the one hand, it's on the internet, so how private can it be? On the other hand, I do use a nom-de-plume.

4-Do you just read the blogs of those who comment on your blog? or you try to discover new blogs?

I read other blogs far more than I post to my own: and the bloggers whose sites I frequent the most are also those with whom I have never exchanged correspondence (i.e. Pharyngula and Dispatches from the Culture Wars). At the same time, I like to discover good Australian blogs, and especially Perth blogs.

5-Did your blog positively affect your mind? Give an example.

I have developed an interest in critical thinking--particularly how it can be applied to education--since I started blogging. Bruce and others have been helpful in this regard. Discussions--some more heated than others--with various bloggers have helped me to clarify my own position re: atheism and religion.

6-What does the number of visitors to your blog mean? Do you use a traffic counter?

It means I have a small, respectable circle of readers.

7-Did you imagine how other bloggers look like?

It rarely crosses my mind, truth to tell.

8-Do you think blogging has any real benefit?

Absolutely. I know this sounds cliched, but I really do believe in the potential of blogs to assume the fourth-estate responsibilities that the traditional media is abandoning. Blogging has also, I would say, reconnected people with the art of good writing. Is it mere coincidence that Strunk and White's Elements of Style has become so popular in the age of blogging?

9-Do you think that the blogsphere is a stand alone community separated from the real world?

Some bloggers give you the impression that they haven't been acquainted with the real world in a very long time.

10-Do some political blogs scare you? Do you avoid them?

I stay away from those blogs where it is assumed that rants and ad hominems are substitutes for argument. They aren't.

You know the sort I'm talking about: authoritarian-righty types who brook absolutely no dissent, and are so scrupulously obsessive about this point that they scour the internet for the slightest hint of criticism or scorn, then send in the brownshirts when they locate it. They are the blogosphere's answer to happy-slappers and Werribee boys. Scum.

11-Do you think that criticizing your blog is useful?

As a student-teacher, I'm trained to believe that self-reflection is a virtue.

12-Have you ever thought about what would happen to your blog in case you died?

It would doubtless be eaten by spam.

13-Which blogger had the greatest impression on you?

A close tie between Ed Brayton and P Z Myers.

14-Which blogger do you think is the most similar to you?

A close tie between Sammy Jankis and Bruce Everett.

15-Name a song you want to listen to?

Pendulum vs Freestylers: "Fasten Your Seatbelt"

I, in turn, tag: Sammy Jankis, Tedalog Lite, and Bruce.

Read More

The Bill Muehlenberg Trophy: "anonymous" commenter at BeepBeepIt'sMe

"Buzz" "Aldrin" "walking" "on" "the" "moon."
Source: mypastortoldme

Time for a quick round of "Anticipate the logical fallacies . . ." (In which the fallacies may not be immediately obvious, but you can see them coming around the corner.)

How many instances of sloppy argumentation can you divine in the following contributions by an anonymous commenter at BeepBeep's?

You must show me why I should not believe what I believe. If not, than I claim that neither the United States nor anyone else has been to the moon, and I challenge anyone to disprove me. I also claim that the earth is not millions of years old, or even hundreds of thousands of years old. Prove me wrong on both accounts. [. . .]

Ok. For the sake of debate I will concede that the ‘burden of proof’ doesn’t rest with the naysayer. And I agree that science can’t prove anything. So please demonstrate that I could very possibly be wrong on both accounts.

Just to get you started . . .

(a) "Were you there?"
(b) "My cognitive faculties are not so developed as to allow me to conceive of the possibility that x has occurred. Therefore, x has not occurred."
(c) "My pastor/Fox News/The Weekly World News told me that x is wrong. Therefore, x is wrong."
(d) "My pastor told me that the scientific community, libraries, the edjumacation system and the media are all controlled by Satan. Therefore, anything you may possibly learn from these sources regarding the veracity of x is guaranteed to be a lie! A damn stinking lie!!!"

Bonus points if you can answer his questions. Well? Come on, virtue terrorists! Answer the questions!

Or is your evilsecularatheistevolutionistmarxistsocialisthomosexualagendasinglemother-
liberalacademicpostmodernistislamofascist house of cards crashing down around you?

(And no cheating, either. I said no cheating!!)

(P.S. The Bill Muehlenberg Trophy is inspired by, but is in no other way affiliated with the Robert O'Brien Trophy at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

Read More

This is your brain on dispensationalism #4

The week in fundie . . .

*Bill Muehlenberg: meet the man behind the Trophy via an extensive profile at Unbelief. (Via Beware of the God)

*Bush contra Bush on Iraq: stupidity or malice? You decide. (Leftwrites)

*The Republican Party versus the Religious Right: lovers' tiff, trial separation or messy divorce? (Though they do say that make-up sex is the best kind.)

*Did you know that, thanks to legislation passed earlier this year, it is illegal in the US state of Virginia for private companies to extend health insurance benefits to unmarried couples? (Via Dispatches From the Culture Wars) Did you also know that, in 2004, Rhea County in Tennessee tried to enact a law banning homosexuals from living there? (Via the Washington Post)

*UPDATE: "Killing gay men is OK," says complete fuckwit. (Via Dispatches From the Culture Wars)

Read More

The cold, hard slap of reality hates Australia

Was this inevitable, or was this inevitable?

Debt-ridden middle class cry poor

DEBT-stricken families with new homes, cars and plasma televisions in Sydney's sprawling housing estates are relying on charity handouts to buy food. Welfare agencies report a worrying increase in the number of middle-income families with big mortgages seeking help to pay grocery, electricity and gas bills.

Dubbed the "pay-later poor'' by St Vincent de Paul, they live in homes boasting cable television and the latest electrical goods and use credit cards to meet basic living costs.

Many of the families live in so-called McMansions.

(Paul Zanetti)

But . . . but Michael Duffy told me the McMansion lifestyle is the way to go. All the cool people are doing it.

Read More

A kindergarten notion of "balance."

Iain Hall on the ABC:

Michael Duffy is a conservative so he is the token righty then. And he has what fifty minutes a week compared to five times that allocated to Philip Adams…

Under the new guidelines, Iain, every conservative who appears on the ABC will be a "token righty" (since they'll only be there to fill the quota).

Read More

This is your brain on dispensationalism special: "Pete the anti-abortionist: Still Stupid"

I was thinking about an "Idiot of the Week" post I'd written a few months ago, about an anti-abortion crusading blogger named Pete who made an absolute gumnut of himself by berating the author of an article in The Onion for celebrating her abortion--completely oblivious to the fact that the article was satirical and the author was fictional. I thought I'd see how Pete was getting on these days:

In July I was attacked, & still am, by the liberal pro-abortion establishment for my so-called "stupidity" by writing an article about an article posted in the Onion, an online satire magazine. Not only do the liberals sign me up for every online sales racket that there is, they also order products in my name & companies are stupid enought to ship them without verification.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Regarding the initial post (NSFW) that, if only for a short while, turned Pete into the most famous blogger in the blogosphere, he was wise enough to disable comments* after a few days. Now he's playing the lowest card in the anti-abortionist's deck--the appeal to disgust--by posting a picture of an aborted fetus and crowing: "This is what you all are laughing at. This is what you are responsible for" (underneath which he links to his home page).

He's so "concerned" for the fetus that he turns it into pornography. The fundamentalist brain strikes again!

*UPDATE: Unfortunately for "Onion Pete," the comments still exist! More comments here.

Read More

"OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND"

Children in Detention

If you're a Perth blogger like me, or if you're going to be in Perth in October or November this year, you may want to take yourself down to KULCHA in Fremantle to check out the art of Adam Janali Ozala:

Ozala is a Hazara refugee from Afghanistan. For three and half years Ozala waited in detention centres for his claim for asylum to be approved. Unable to communicate to the outside world, he began painting and drawing political cartoons and caricatures to express his suffering. To commemorate Refugee Week, Ozala will exhibit a collection of these artworks at KULCHA. Don't miss this powerful insight into one man's struggle for freedom.

You can read Adam's story here, and meet him in the flesh on an opening night event at KULCHA on Thursday 26th October, 630pm. Visit Project Safecom for more details. (I'll be there, having met him in person myself on several occasions.)

-------------------------------------------------

On a completely different topic, Salon has a provocative interview with Richard Dawkins regarding his latest book, The God Delusion. For some reason--perhaps I had been swayed by the hype--I've always had Dawkins pegged as a strong or positive atheist, but his position is actually much closer to my own:

Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

I'm hoping the ABC will screen Dawkins' BBC series The Root of All Evil, but since the managing director acquiesced to the authoritarian-right-dominated board and implemented his conservative affirmative-action programme, I doubt we'll ever get to see it. (Unless they screen it after Songs of Praise.)

Read More

Why Dinesh D'Souza Hates America

On the subject of idiotic authoritarian-right thinking, you may recall an earlier post of mine in which I reported on a forthcoming tome by leading American conservative intellectual Dinesh D'Souza, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, in which he propounds the thesis that:

The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11. … In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage—some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.

D'Souza claims "that this is a strong charge, one that no one has made before." Wrong: Jerry Falwell (whose hagiography D'Souza penned in the 1980s) and Pat Robertson made precisely that claim not two days after the attacks, which should tell you something. What should it tell you? That here we have a core tenet of authoritarian right thinking: in order to preserve our liberty, we must relinquish it. Ed Brayton puts it thus:

D'Souza is a right wing appeaser. He claims that the terrorists hate us because we have the freedom to do things they morally disapprove of, and therefore we should do away with that freedom.

Or, as a commenter at Dispatches--tongue firmly planted in cheek--remarks:

Of course, if the cultural left has caused this hatred among the terrorists, then that can only mean the terrorists are against the cultural left; and if the cultural right in the US are also against the cultural left -- so much so that they publish books fanning the flames of cultural-left-hatred -- that means that they are aligned with the terrorists -- in an [finger quote] axis of evil [close finger quote], if you will. Thus, we see that the cultural right and the terrorists are one and the same.

So when will Dinesh D'Souza and the mullahs at the Hoover Institution be named unlawful enemy combatants and rounded up?

I raise this in order to point you in the direction (via Brayton) of a devastating review by Vanity Fair's James Woolcott, who has received an advance copy of D'Souza's book (due for release in January 2007). Michael Berube has a great blog on this topic also.

(Note the evocation of the Strict Father metaphor in the book's title: The Enemy Within. Perhaps George Lakoff has a point!)

Read More

The ABC of cognitive xenophobia

That the changes at the ABC are typical of the mentality of the authoritarian right goes without saying (see the excellent posts by MrLefty, BrokenLeftLeg and Ninglun on this topic). The more interesting question is: what does this development reveal to us about authoritarian right-wing thinking and in particular, its inability to countenance dissent?

The cognitive linguist George Lakoff, whose focus on the role played by metaphor in social and political reasoning has generated some fascinating insights into the shape of the contemporary political scene in the US (and arguably, by extension, Australia), suggests that we understand conservatism in terms of what he calls "The Strict Father Model."

Life is seen as fundamentally difficult and the world as fundamentally dangerous. Evil is conceptualized as a force in the world, and it is the father's job to support his family and protect it from evils -- both external and internal. External evils include enemies, hardships, and temptations. Internal evils come in the form of uncontrolled desires and are as threatening as external ones. The father embodies the values needed to make one's way in the world and to support a family: he is morally strong, self-disciplined, frugal, temperate, and restrained. He sets an example by holding himself to high standards. He insists on his moral authority, commands obedience, and when he doesn't get it, metes out retribution as fairly and justly as he knows how. It is his job to protect and support his family, and he believes that safety comes out of strength.

In addition to support and protection, the father's primary duty is tell his children what is right and wrong, punish them when they do wrong, and to bring them up to be self-disciplined and self-reliant. Through self-denial, the children can build strength against internal evils. In this way, he teaches his children to be self-disciplined, industrious, polite, trustworthy, and respectful of authority.

For Lakoff, the Strict Father Model helps to explain the many apparent contradictions in conservative thinking. Including, for our purposes, it's selective statism: by which I mean its tendency to favour maximum government intervention in certain domains in spite of its rhetorical commitment to limited government. So how does the ABC fit into this scenario? Perhaps, on the one hand, it constitutes an internal evil, threatening to lead the children astray. On the other hand, perhaps the ABC itself is the disobedient child. Either way: the ABC represents a threat to the Father's values--and more importantly, his authority--and must be silenced. Not reasoned with. Not engaged with in the "marketplace of ideas." (A Strict Father never reasons with a disobedient child, because by doing so he would have to relinquish his authority and meet with the child on its own terms.) Silenced--in this case by stacking the ABC board with the Howard faithful.

Then again, there is something rather infantile, is there not, about the way the authoritarian right responds to dissenting views. If you cast your mind back to my posts on the Queensland schoolgirl who refused to complete an assignment because the task involved contemplating sharing a planetoid with homosexuals, you'll recall a statement from her mother:

She was being challenged, but she should not be challenged like that at her age.

I remarked then that this sentiment represents the fundamentalist mindset in a nutshell. Insofar as members of the authoritarian right are ideological fundamentalists in their own way, the mother's statement is emblematic of their own disposition towards challenging ideas. (I call it "cognitive xenophobia.") And they only have two methods of dealing with ideas and opinions they find challenging: if they have limited control over the source, they cry "SHUT UP!" (in the style of Bill O'Reilly, or perhaps the Internet Squadristi that Bruce has talked about); if they have a greater degree of control over the source, as they do with the ABC, they muzzle it. Both methods, I submit, are infantile.

The mature way of dealing with perceived "bias" at the ABC--the only mature way--would have been to allow the ABC to operate with full editorial independence. If, as a consequence of that independence, the ABC leans to the left in its coverage of certain issues--then so be it. ("Tough," as a conservative would say.) That's not bias; that's independence. There are always going to be domains within a democracy in which those whose political views lean one way outnumber those whose political views lean the other way. As long as such disparities are not the result of artificial constraints--such as, say, discriminatory hiring policies--then the best thing that you can do is to just deal with it. But deal with it maturely--and I mean that in the Kantian sense--by the free exercise of your own reason. (That means that when you encounter an idea that challenges your worldvew, don't just try to silence it: enage with it.)

When you point out to conservatives their hypocrisy in highlighting left-wing bias at the ABC, but ignoring the right-wing bias of the commercial media, they respond with a stock answer: "The commercial media isn't funded by our taxes, and we don't want our taxes paying for left-wing views." Well, they aren't. What your taxes are paying for is an independent ABC--an ABC that is a public broadcaster as opposed to an official state broadcaster: and I can ony repeat that if, as a consequence of that independence, the ABC leans left more than it does right in its approach to certain topics, you just have accept that as part-and-parcel of the ABC's independence. Let me put it this way: part of the price you have to pay, for living in a liberal democracy in which journalists, broadcasters, writers, editors and artists can go about their business without living in fear of government retribution for saying the wrong thing, is that sometimes you will encounter views with which you disagree.

Which brings us back to the authoritarian right. The authoritarian right doesn't want to encounter dissenting views. Its notion of "free speech" is to bury itself in an echo chamber of rightwing chatter so that it never has to be troubled with ideas that challenge its own understanding of the world. Not only is that immature: it demonstrates an antipathy towards liberal democracy and pluralism. Given that these guys are in charge of the country right now, that's troubling.

UPDATE: More at Sarah's, Mikey Capital's, Tim Dunlop's and Barista.

Read More

This is your brain on dispensationalism #3

And we open with an absolutely jawdropper . . .

*Who would Jesus kiddie-rape? (Dispatches From the Culture Wars)
*In South Dakota, anti-abortion = pro-"choice" (Via Morons.org)
*Meet the "Elect Vessel" (New Zealand Herald)
*Yet another wingnut links The Big Bad Homosexual Agenda to Satan and September 11 (Via Political Cortex)

Read More

al-Sadr in Space

Fantastic article in Slate on references to the War in Iraq in Battlestar Galactica.

Read More

Grooming little fundies for a holy war

A while ago I posted about a Christian violent video game called Left Behind: Eternal Forces, based upon the series of novels by Christian Reconstructionist Tim LaHaye. There is a good post about the game on Political Cortex, which mentions that it has been described by some as "orientation software for the Christian militias of a coming religious war in America." The post also looks at the background of the game's developers, and questions to what extent the militaristic rhetoric of the game itself, as well as of the "Kids on Fire Summer Camp" that is the subject of the documentary Jesus Camp, should be taken literally.

Worth a read. And if you get bored, you can always convert some heathens yourself with "Billy Graham's Bible Blaster." Just follow this link, open drawer "F-H" and click on "Rod Flanders".

Read More

Rum, Sodomy and your 13-year old daughter: Bill Muehlenberg weighs into the education debate

Bill Muehlenberg has posted on the case of the Queensland schoolgirl which established once and for all that, in a so-called secular democracy, irrational bigotry will be defended--and even pandered to with stomach-turning obsequiousness--as long as the bigot uses "Christianity" as an excuse. (I wrote about it here.)

I had initially left my response at his site, but Bill has a comments policy that reads thus: "This site is meant to express my point of view. If you are looking for a soapbox to promote your own views, create your own website or blog site." That, friends, is code for "dissenting views will be deleted." (See Ninglun's thoughts on this.) So I doubt that my comment will remain for long. Here's what I had to say, and apologies if I am repeating myself:

The latest outrage concerns a 13-year-old school girl who was failed because she refused to write an assignment on life in a gay community.

The assignment asked students to imagine what it would be like to be a heterosexual living in a mainly gay colony on the Moon, in order to explore what it is like to be part of a minority. Try not to misrepresent the situation: it only makes you seem dishonest.

The stranglehold of political correctness, secular humanism and leftist ideology seems to grow by the day.

Utter hypocritical garbage, Bill. That the school was eventually forced to withdraw the assignment in order to placate one student’s bigotry is a clear-cut case of the right-wing political correctness that threatens to hold the education system–not to mention to ability of professional educators to do their jobs–to ransom. (If the Howard government gets its way, that is.)

I mean–what next? Shall we ban the use of Mississippi Burning or Rabbit-Proof Fence in schools, lest we offend some racists? Shall we proscribe all mention of the Holocaust in case the sensitivities of Nazi students are compromised? Shall we banish evolution from the science classroom, so that the same Queensland schoolgirl doesn’t have to find her beliefs “challenged” in biology? (Wait a minute–you want that, don’t you?)

This is just another glaring example of how brainwashing and indoctrination have increasingly replaced education in our school system. We seem not to be concerned about getting our kids to think, to read, to count, and to master basic concerpts. (sic) Instead, we seem to want our children to be PC zombies, all mouthing and living the same PC dictates.

Oh, the irony. What was it the girl’s mother said? Oh, that’s right:

“She was being challenged, but she should not be challenged like that at her age.”

We don’t want our children to be PC zombies. We want them to be Christian zombies. Got it.

And to make matters worse, the students in the class were warned not to tell their parents about the assignment. I wonder why.

Stupidity and cowardice on the part of the school. It had nothing to be ashamed of, and it had nothing to hide.

UPDATE: A commenter at Bill's has helpfully provided a link to the curriculum document in which this assignment appears. Plenty in there for fundies and homophobes to scream about, yes. But what is patently clear is that the assignment in question provides--or should have provided--a facility for students to reflect upon and articulate how their own values, attitudes and beliefs shape their response.

UPDATE II: Iain Hall has a post on this topic. I'd be careful, though. If he feels that the debate isn't going his way, he's likely to slap you with one of these:

New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator.

Read More

What's the point of going to uni?

Here is a philosophy of education that you are unlikely to encounter in current debates, particular from those in the Bishop camp. It's so old-school, it's so Dead Poet's Society and it's so spot-on!

A job is nice. So is political power, a fancy chariot, hangers-on. But you can have all these things and still not be happy or fulfilled. And, if your happiness depends on having such things, you're pretty vulnerable to sudden reversals.

So how can a human find fulfillment that isn't all about having lots of stuff, or a high-paying job, or a top-rated sit-com?

Well, what do you have that's really yours? What is the piece of your life that no one can take away?

You have your mind. You have the ability to think about things, to experience the world, to decide what matters to you and how you want to pursue it. You have your sense of curiousity and wonder when you encounter something new and unexpected, and your sense of satisfaction when you figure something out. You have the power to imagine ways the world could be different. You even have the ability (the responsibility?) to try to make the world different.

This is what I think a college education should give you: lots of hands-on experience using your mind so you know different ways you can think about things and you start to figure out what you care about.

The extent to which one can still acquire such an education in modern Australian universities is an open question. But curiousity, wonder, the ability to think, the power to imagine and effect change . . . can you really get all that "workin' up th' mines," or climbing through the ranks of retail management?

Read More

Remember Sammy Jankis?

I'd like to welcome back Sammy Jankis to the world of blogging, after a long hiatus. SJ's a close friend of mine and is the guy responsible for introducing me to the blogosphere. In his latest post he has a few things to say regarding Bill Muehlenberg's recent column on the schools debate. Check it out!

Read More

This is your brain on dispensationalism #2

The week in fundie . . .

* One of the most abject manifestations of the fundie mindset is the phenomenon of stoning that transpires in various parts of the Islamic world. That's where, as Ed Brayton describes it, you are "buried up to your chest with only your neck and head above ground and pelted with rocks (small ones so you don't die too quickly) until your flesh is ripped open and the pain is unbearable and you finally die." Forget The Handmaid's Tale, folks: this is Gilead turned up to 11. Drop by Ali Eteraz's blog for some suggestions on how you can combat this terrible practice. (Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

* At the latter blog you'll also learn something else about the fundie mindset, as Eteraz narrates his adventures at the Ann Coulter Chat Forum. (Hint: said adventures involved the famous Internet Squadristi.)

* Fred Phelps, leader of a Kansas church group that pickets the funerals of gays and US soldiers, has kindly agreed not to picket the funerals of the Amish school shooting victims, in return for free publicity on a right-wing talk show. (Via Morons.org)

* Wingnut Telethon: Liberty Sunday 2006. In a nationwide simulcast this Sunday, God-fearing Americans get the opportunity to whine about their diminishing right to discriminate against and otherwise persecute homosexuals. More information at Talk To Action.

*McVangelism. Failed actor Stephen Baldwin becomes a pimp daddy for Jesus. Cowabunga, dude! (Via Is America Burning?)

Read More

The daftest comment I've read all week . . .

In the comments section of Ninglun's blog:

Talking about appeal to ignorance, it has always amazed me that so many folk who ‘teach’ creative-writing have never had any fiction published. And many of those who teach English have never had anything published in the open market at all.

It’s like someone who has never played tennis, trying to teach tennis from a book (don’t do what I do but do what I say). (Emphasis added.)

Yeah . . . and I know a few SOSE teachers who haven't invaded Poland or eroded a shoreline.

Read More

Queensland schoolgirl nearly catches The Gay

Intellectual sodomy: here is your average Queensland Christian fundamentalist student being forced to acknowledge the existence of homosexuals, or to read Shakespeare from a feminist perspective, or to analyse Big Brother, etc.

In a victory for right-wing political correctness, a state school has been forced to withdraw an assignment because its references to homosexuality offended the religious sensibilities of one of its students.

Students in the grade nine class at a high school south of Brisbane were asked to imagine living as a heterosexual in a mainly gay colony on the moon. The assignment was aimed at teaching students what it is like being in the minority.

The assignment asked the students to consider ten points in writing their term paper, including the origins of homosexuality and what strategies they would use to exists in a mostly gay society.

The 13-year old refused, citing her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. When she did not turn in a paper she received a failing grade for the course.

In philosophical circles, this kind of activity is known as a thought experiment, and in the context of a high school classroom it can be a good way to stimulate critical thinking. Basically it involves the use of an imaginary or hypothetical situation in order to explore a particular problem or issue. Sadly, critical thinking--not to mention the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy--is anathema to those whining the loudest about the "travesty" perpetrated upon the poor little homophobic fundie. Take Queensland Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney:

The government "has created a system that tries to tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think," he said. "It is completely out of line for students to be graded on their moral beliefs. It's not the job of our schools to politicize our children. It is their function to provide our kids with the basics, like reading, writing and math."

Except that no-one was being "graded on their moral beliefs." The students were not being forced to adopt a particular stance towards homosexuality--they were merely being asked to complete an assignment requiring them to participate in a thought experiment. A fictive, unfamiliar situation that would enable them to better understand what it is like to be part of a minority. You do understand the difference between reality and fiction, don't you Jeff? Or do you really believe there are gay colonies up there on the Moon?

And how about this from the schoolgirl's mother?

She was being challenged, but she should not be challenged like that at her age.

There's the fundie mindset in a nutshell. Don't think outside the warm, safe, cozy little box in which you are being raised like a chicken's hatchling. Don't dare ask questions. Someone needs to remind this woman that we still live in a secular democracy. If she wants to raise her children in a protective Christian bubble, shut off from the evil sinful secular world until Rapture, she's more than welcome. Just don't expect the rest of society to re-organise itself just so your precious little angel can grow up to be a mindless fundie like you. Homosexuality is no longer illegal in Australia. Get used to it.

Of course, Julie Bishop had to weigh into the debate with the following:

"Parents need to know the content of school curriculum so they can be confident their children are receiving a high quality education that is also consistent with their values."

That's great, Julie. I suppose this is a foretaste of your "common sense curriculum"--one that is consistent with the values of parents? The educational value of the syllabus is secondary, of course: what really matters is that we don't trample all over the sensitivities of the poor oppressed Christian fundamentalists.

The great irony, of course, is that if the schoolgirl in the story above had been a Muslim, the tune from the Federal Government would have been very different. We would have been subjected to sermon after sermon, from Peter Costello on down, on how "the separation of church and state is good for society and should be embraced by the Muslim world," on how Australia is a tolerant and diverse society, and on how Muslims shouldn't presume to inflict their values and beliefs on the rest of us.

The message: It's bad when Muslims impose their beliefs on a secular society; but it's good when Christian fundamentalists do it.

Read More

Mathematics for dummies

These appear to be sample answers from mathematics exams, some of which you may have seen before as emails.

As funny as they are, they do remind me how much I suck at maths.

Via Pharyngula

Read More

An approach to education that comes straight from Comrade Stalin

"For You, Fatherland, Our Young Hearts Beat."

It appears that there's far too much antithetical thinking in Australian education, and we're finally going to get the national curriculum we had to have. Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop has declared that the responsibility for setting curricula should be stripped from state education authorities and placed in the hands of a national board. She accuses educators of teaching themes which come "straight from Chairman Mao," though she doesn't explain why, and moreover, she doesn't need to: all she needs to do is utter the words "Chairman Mao" and "education" in the same sentence, and we all fill in the gaps. That, my friends, is dogwhistle politics. (Or could it be considered psychomarketing?)

Why would a political party that traditionally (purports to) believe in small government be proposing something as obviously Big-Brotheresque as a national curriculum? I have a couple of suggestions. First, there is the strong authoritarian streak among conservatives (whatever they may say), who see themselves as Strict Fathers looking after the interests of us wayward children. As George Lakoff explains:

When translated into politics, the government metaphorically becomes the Strict Father. The citizens are children of two kinds: the mature, successfully disciplined, and self-reliant ones (read: wealthy businesses and individuals), whom the government should not meddle with; and the whining, undisciplined, dependent ones who must never be coddled. Just as in the family, the government must be an instrument of Moral Authority, upholding and extending policies that express Moral Strength.

We saw this kind of Strict-Fatherism emerging in the push to get more male "role models" into Australian classrooms through the attempted introduction of male-only teaching scholarships in 2004. Now, Julie Bishop claims, students are spending all their time "deconstructing Big Brother or interpreting Shakespeare from a feminist perspective," and as a consequence, "you've got first year law students at prestigious universities having to undertake remedial English" (again, she doesn't explain how B follows from A--but like I said, she doesn't have to. Dogwhistle.) Clearly: spare the rod, and spoil the child--especially when there is a danger that the children might speak out of turn and explore ideas with which the Government disagrees.

A second, and strangely contradictory explanation is the nascent anti-intellectualism--or what might more accurately be described as an "anti-expert" attitude--among the political Right, reflected in Bishop's attack on the educational experts involved in designing the "Maoist" curricula she is condemning. We've seen this kind of thing before as well--in US debates over the teaching of evolution in the classroom. There, conservatives rant and rave about the need for "balance" in science curricula--unhappy that scientific explanations of the world are being taught in the science classroom, to the exclusion of their own--and engage in populist diatribes about "thought police" and "the Darwinist Inquisition" to account for the fact that their own religious ideologies aren't getting more of a look-in.

Likewise, Bishop's current complaints about "educational fads" and "ideologically-hijacked syllabi" and her call for a "commonsense curriculum:" curriculum designers aren't producing a curriculum that is in tune with the Howard Government's view of the world, therefore they should be distrusted. We should distrust, in other words, the legitimate expertise of professional curriculum designers--and we should instead place our trust, unquestioningly, the conservatives demand, in the illegitimate authority of Howard Government ideologues.

UPDATE: Ninglun's view.

Read More

Nietzsche vs. Family Circus

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."

How cool is this site? Via Pharyngula

Read More

The Bill Muehlenberg Trophy (Honourable mention): Brian Rohrbough

The arc-welder has barely had time to cool, and already contenders for the next Muehlenberg are lining up. Honourable mention must go to Brian Rohrbough, whose son Daniel was killed in the 1999 Columbine school shootings, and who was given the opportunity to share his thoughts about the recent Amish school shootings on CBS Evening News:

This country is in a moral free-fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value.

We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children.

Come on, AV, I hear you cry. The guy lost his son. Well, that's no excuse for idiocy, and Rohrbough's reflections afford no better description. Ed Brayton from Dispatches from the Culture Wars absolutely nails it:

If the teaching of evolution and not having God "in the schools" really leads to this terribly immoral society where people kill each other randomly because life has no inherent value, then how does Rohrbough explain the fact that every other Western democracy has far lower rates of murder, rape, teen pregnancy, and things like school shootings while teaching evolution far more comprehensively than we do in the US, and in far more secular societies than we have?

Not to mention more liberal abortion laws, in many cases. I like this comment from a contributor at Pharyngula:

I blame school violence on teaching subtraction to our students. It is a ruthless game where bigger numbers devour smaller numbers without moral consequences. How can we expect our children not to try to subtract each other?

Read More

The Bill Muehlenberg Trophy

Following in the footsteps of (OK, make that blatantly copying from) Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars, it's time to inaugurate a new award in recognition of the recipient's services to stupidity in the fields of sophistry, polemic and rhetoric. And who better to be the namesake of this award than that figurehead of the Australian religious right, who as National Research Co-ordinator of Focus on the Family Australia in the late 1990s, so valiantly strove against the decline of this great Christian nation of ours into moral Armageddon at the hands (and other mentionable body parts) of Pamela Anderson and her Baywatch co-stars? Where--I ask you--where would we all be if Uncle Bill hadn't decided on behalf of all of us that we couldn't watch films like Ken Park and Baise Moi (and then lied about the alleged involvement in the porn industry of critics of mooted SA censorship laws)? How wayward would we wayward sheep have remained without Bill's guidance and leadership on issues such as contraception (they're all "abortifacients" and should be banned), corporal punishment (Bill recommends a "wooden dowel . . . it disassociates the punishment from the parent"), no-fault divorce (rescind it!) and the theory of evolution ("one of the great intellectual superstitions of modern times")?

And so, the inaugural Bill Muehlenberg Trophy is awarded to . . . Bill Muehlenberg. Our Bill, it seems, is a blogger. You see:

We live in an age where we see evidence of cultural decline, the erosion of values, the decline of civility, the denial of truth and the elevation of unreason. Many people are asking, “Where is our culture heading?”

Fortunately for us sinners:

This website is devoted to exploring the major cultural, social and political issues of the day. It offers reflection and commentary drawing upon the wealth of wisdom found in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It offers reflective and incisive commentary on a wide range of issues, helping to sort through the maze of competing opinions, worldviews, ideologies and value systems. It will discuss critically and soberly where our culture is heading.

Where our culture is heading? My money says: "hell in a handbasket." Anyway, while there's certainly no shortage of food for thought here for our Punditocracy Watchers (see, for example, this article in which he maintains, a quarter of a century on, that AIDS is a "gay disease" and that the name-change from "Gay Related Immunodeficiency Disease" very early on in its history remains an exercise in "political correctness") I get first dibs! And I would like to direct your attention to a post Bill published in 2005, in which he crows about "the Rise and Rise of Intelligent Design." Bill opens thus:

When an American President champions its cause, an Australian Education Minister says it should be looked into, and the cover of Time magazine treats it as a major story, all within the space of a week, then something must be up.

Yes, Bill, something must be up. In the case of the President, his buffoonery on this as on many other topics is a matter of public record. In the case of the (former) Australian Education Minister, we're hoping that he was merely paying lip-service to ID in order to shore up the Hillsong vote, and that he's not currently cramming his double-carport with non-perishables in anticipation of the Rapture. You'll notice, though, that none of these figures count as appropriate authorities on the scientific status of intelligent design.

Bill then goes boldly where countless garden-variety creationists have gone before him, and declares that "the whole edifice [of Darwinism] is now beginning to look a bit wobbly," before reciting a litany of creationist mantras that require but a few visits to Talk.Origins to eviscerate with embarrassing ease:

Mind you, there have always been major holes in the Darwinian structure: the sudden explosion of complex life forms at the beginning of the Cambrian period; the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record; the lack of nascent organs (new organs phasing in or being developed to meet changing, evolutionary conditions); the limits to change shown by breeding experiments, etc.

Enter Intelligent Design. "The new assault on Darwinism," Muehlenberg argues, "is really an old one." To wit: if it looks designed, it is designed. Brilliant!

The new revolution, known as the Intelligent Design movement (ID), is made up of scholars, scientists and writers who argue that the more we learn about the world, especially at the genetic and molecular levels, the more evidence for intelligent design is found. [. . .] These men, and others, have led the charge in undermining Darwinism by showing that much of the physical universe seems to exhibit unmistakable characteristics of design.

Except . . . they haven't done anything of the sort. They haven't shown how the physical universe exhibits evidence of design: all they have done, and all they ever do, is assert that it looks designed.

And the scientific evidence for ID is certainly compelling.

Boy, is it ever! Exhibit A:

Even the famous atheist Anthony Flew has recently renounced his atheism because of ID argumentation.

Did you hear that, atheists? Little Johnny used to be an atheist like you; then he went and got himself saved. Why can't you be more like little Johnny? Exhibit B:

The amount of information in a single cell of the human body is equivalent to three or four sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica – all thirty volumes. Where did all this information come from? Did it just arise by natural forces alone, or must we posit an intelligent agent, much as someone stumbling across Paley’s watch on a beach must posit a master craftsman, not some combination of wind and waves?

Cue thinking music . . .

What we are learning about DNA is that it contains information in a very complex and specified fashion. All of which leads to the conclusion that a ‘who’ and not a ‘what’ created this genetic language. Natural forces alone cannot seem to account for the high information content of DNA. Chance cannot account for it. Some intelligent mind must have made this information.

Once again: Muehlenberg can't imagine how natural forces could account for the high information content of DNA. And he's a smart man. Ergo, design. Um, Bill? Google "argument from incredulity." Exhibit C:

We are now learning that even the most simple structures of life demand a number of inter-locking components which needed to be present from day one in order to function. Indeed, the more we learn in biochemistry, the more we discover that even the simplest organisms capable of independent life are masterpieces of miniaturized complexity. In Darwin’s Black Box Michael Behe speaks of the irreducible complexity of even the most basic and simple of life forms: molecules. [. . .] Take a mousetrap. All the parts are needed for it to function. No mouse are caught if one bit is missing. But our most simple organisms are like that. How could they have evolved to that state? They wouldn’t have worked without all the components, just like mice would have escaped the incomplete mousetrap. “You can’t start with a platform, catch a few mice, add a spring, catch a few more mice, add a hammer, catch a few more mice, and so on. The whole system has to be put together at once or the mice get away.” (pp. 110, 111) All of which points to evidence of design.

In other words, "irreducible complexity" turns out to be just another way of saying: "I can't explain it in natural terms; ergo, it must be designed." Or, as Bill puts it:

Biology, then, at it most basic levels, displays an information-rich complexity which natural causes just do not seem to be able to explain. A better option is that an intelligent mind must be the cause.

And it's at this point that Bill really begins to engage the stupidity-drive:

It is not hard evidence that is keeping Darwinists away from God – it is their pre-commitment to naturalism, materialism, anti-supernaturalism.

No, Bill: it's the evidence. Yes, there is something of a methodological commitment to naturalism in evolutionary biology, as in all of the natural sciences. But all that means is that evolutionary biologists adopt the scientific method and observe the same rule of thumb that most science practicioners observe: namely, that natural phenomena have natural explanations--unless the latter can be absolutely ruled out-not just for today, but forever. Has anyone in the ID or in the wider creationist movement achieved this, Bill? Do let us know when they do. But all the same, it's the evidence that keeps people "committed" to evolution as an explanation, Bill, and all the weeping and gnashing of teeth of those in the ID movement who would have us believe that evolution was invented to help the Big Bad Atheists bolster their atheism isn't going to change that.

Nor does the fact that ID is widely criticised (and liberally lampooned) by the mainstream scientific community suggest that the ID movement "must be doing something right." I suppose, by the same token, Holocaust deniers "must be doing something right" as well?

The Intelligent Design movement has undermined many of the faulty towers of Darwinism. Of course given the fierce dogmatism and rugged faith placed in Darwinism, it may take more than a few well-aimed hits before the whole edifice collapses.

LOLOLOL! First tower to fall: Dover!! Good shot, old boy!

Read More

The Radical Heterosexual Agenda

Heterosexuality is becoming increasingly more difficult to ignore. It is being forced upon us through legislation, taught to our children in school and promoted in the powerful arts/entertainment complex. If it is true that heterosexuality has the destructive effects on the individual and society that many believe, then it behooves us to know our enemy and forestall any further advance of heterosexuality by understanding what it is, what the heterosexual community is up to, and how to answer their arguments in the open marketplace of ideas.

Boy howdy: those heterosexuals are some sick fucks! Check it out.

Via Dispatches From the Culture Wars

(And don't forget to drop by Pharyngula and check out the Unauthorised Biography of George W. Bush)

Read More

Psychomarketing . . . or psychobabble

If you glance at any of the Scienceblogs you're likely to come across a character by the name of SkookumPlanet peddling a thesis that is either brilliant in a paradigm-shifting kind of way, or a case study in the nuttiest flavour of conspiracy theory. SkookumPlanet holds that what he deems the far right's stranglehold over the political scene in the US boils down to its mastery of neuromarketing--or "psychomarketing," as he terms it.

This is how Americans are exposed to politics. Media content washes over people, wave after wave. Proximity soundbites like these get heard at breakfast, during commutes, in the background of family arriving for dinner, as someone moves through an airport. These two ideas are repeatedly associated in the media environment that America lives in. People come to believe the association. It's not something that gets reasoned out. The association becomes a fact of life that we accept as any other real-life association. I'm trained as a fiction writer, and proximity soundbites work just like fiction -- they become vicarious reality. Only there is no book to alert us that it's fiction.

During Democratic convention analysis on Charlie Rose, one guest said Kerry's acceptance speech was one of the best he'd ever heard. Charlie seemed surprised by the effusiveness.

His guest elaborated, "You need to understand the purpose of an acceptance speech these days. Most Americans will only hear Kerry as tiny soundbites in the media. Kerry's speech was superbly crafted so all his issues were there as compact, complete snippets that fully communicated after chopped into soundbites." This is the reality of public decision-making in America today. Our feelings about it are irrelevant. It's reality!

This type of technology is based on scientific understanding of how human beings process information. How we would like them to process information counts for little here. This is how Americans absorb media, media is how they learn about the world beyond their personal lives, and this is psychomarketing. It works. It usually overwhelms any other approach. It's past time we learned that.

The "we" to whom SkookumPlanet refers are liberals/leftists, who--clinging desperately to the outmoded belief that the old rules pertaining to the normal functioning of liberal democracies still hold--lose perennially because they fail to grasp the new political reality.

Consider this post a bleg of sorts (for info, not money). I've only just scratched the surface of this fascinating topic, but it appears that Skookum's ideas owe much to the work of Berkeley linguist George Lakoff, as well as to the rather less salubrious career of Republican pollster Frank Luntz (the Bush Administration's answer to Goebbels). (And perhaps whispers of Baudrillard thrown into the mix.) And it raises some interesting questions. If the "puppet-masters" have such a profound handle on how the brain processes information, can thinking voters outthink them--and if not, what does this mean for the agency of the individual? Might John Howard's success as a political strategist and manipulator of the truth owe something to the techniques of psychomarketing? Or does the very case of Howard's success suggest that psychomarketing is little more than re-heated Machiavellianism--something we've seen many times before?

Read More

This is your brain on dispensationalism #1

The week in fundie . . .

* Art teacher fired after students see nude sculpture at an art museum. No, I'm not talking about that episode of the Simpsons where Marge campaigns against Itchy and Scratchy: this really happened. (Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

* Adele Horin rightly points out the Federal Government's hypocrisy in waxing lyrical about the need for (Muslim) immigrants to adhere to "Australian values" on the one hand, and then leaping to the defence of that misogynistic, democracy-hating cult known as the Exclusive Brethren on the other. Nabob of NABA Andrew Bolt predictably cries: "Look! Over there! Muslims!" (Via Blisters and Weeds)

* Judge Jones talks about how an email death threat caused him to seek US Marshal protection after he ruled in favour of science in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case. (Via Bruce's Rave and Rant)

Read More